2010	----	THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES DARWIN From The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin By Charles Darwin Edited by his Son Francis Darwin [My father's autobiographical recollections, given in the present chapter, were written for his children,--and written without any thought that they would ever be published. To many this may seem an impossibility; but those who knew my father will understand how it was not only possible, but natural. The autobiography bears the heading, 'Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character,' and end with the following note:--"Aug. 3, 1876. This sketch of my life was begun about May 28th at Hopedene (Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey.), and since then I have written for nearly an hour on most afternoons." It will easily be understood that, in a narrative of a personal and intimate kind written for his wife and children, passages should occur which must here be omitted; and I have not thought it necessary to indicate where such omissions are made. It has been found necessary to make a few corrections of obvious verbal slips, but the number of such alterations has been kept down to the minimum.--F.D.] A German Editor having written to me for an account of the development of my mind and character with some sketch of my autobiography, I have thought that the attempt would amuse me, and might possibly interest my children or their children. I know that it would have interested me greatly to have read even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my grandfather, written by himself, and what he thought and did, and how he worked. I have attempted to write the following account of myself, as if I were a dead man in another world looking back at my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life is nearly over with me. I have taken no pains about my style of writing. I was born at Shrewsbury on February 12th, 1809, and my earliest recollection goes back only to when I was a few months over four years old, when we went to near Abergele for sea-bathing, and I recollect some events and places there with some little distinctness. My mother died in July 1817, when I was a little over eight years old, and it is odd that I can remember hardly anything about her except her death-bed, her black velvet gown, and her curiously constructed work-table. In the spring of this same year I was sent to a day-school in Shrewsbury, where I stayed a year. I have been told that I was much slower in learning than my younger sister Catherine, and I believe that I was in many ways a naughty boy. By the time I went to this day-school (Kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel in the High Street. Mrs. Darwin was a Unitarian and attended Mr. Case's chapel, and my father as a little boy went there with his elder sisters. But both he and his brother were christened and intended to belong to the Church of England; and after his early boyhood he seems usually to have gone to church and not to Mr. Case's. It appears ("St. James' Gazette", Dec. 15, 1883) that a mural tablet has been erected to his memory in the chapel, which is now known as the 'Free Christian Church.') my taste for natural history, and more especially for collecting, was well developed. I tried to make out the names of plants (Rev. W.A. Leighton, who was a schoolfellow of my father's at Mr. Case's school, remembers his bringing a flower to school and saying that his mother had taught him how by looking at the inside of the blossom the name of the plant could be discovered. Mr. Leighton goes on, "This greatly roused my attention and curiosity, and I enquired of him repeatedly how this could be done?"--but his lesson was naturally enough not transmissible.--F.D.), and collected all sorts of things, shells, seals, franks, coins, and minerals. The passion for collecting which leads a man to be a systematic naturalist, a virtuoso, or a miser, was very strong in me, and was clearly innate, as none of my sisters or brother ever had this taste. One little event during this year has fixed itself very firmly in my mind, and I hope that it has done so from my conscience having been afterwards sorely troubled by it; it is curious as showing that apparently I was interested at this early age in the variability of plants! I told another little boy (I believe it was Leighton, who afterwards became a well-known lichenologist and botanist), that I could produce variously coloured polyanthuses and primroses by watering them with certain coloured fluids, which was of course a monstrous fable, and had never been tried by me. I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father's trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of stolen fruit. I must have been a very simple little fellow when I first went to the school. A boy of the name of Garnett took me into a cake shop one day, and bought some cakes for which he did not pay, as the shopman trusted him. When we came out I asked him why he did not pay for them, and he instantly answered, "Why, do you not know that my uncle left a great sum of money to the town on condition that every tradesman should give whatever was wanted without payment to any one who wore his old hat and moved [it] in a particular manner?" and he then showed me how it was moved. He then went into another shop where he was trusted, and asked for some small article, moving his hat in the proper manner, and of course obtained it without payment. When we came out he said, "Now if you like to go by yourself into that cake-shop (how well I remember its exact position) I will lend you my hat, and you can get whatever you like if you move the hat on your head properly." I gladly accepted the generous offer, and went in and asked for some cakes, moved the old hat and was walking out of the shop, when the shopman made a rush at me, so I dropped the cakes and ran for dear life, and was astonished by being greeted with shouts of laughter by my false friend Garnett. I can say in my own favour that I was as a boy humane, but I owed this entirely to the instruction and example of my sisters. I doubt indeed whether humanity is a natural or innate quality. I was very fond of collecting eggs, but I never took more than a single egg out of a bird's nest, except on one single occasion, when I took all, not for their value, but from a sort of bravado. I had a strong taste for angling, and would sit for any number of hours on the bank of a river or pond watching the float; when at Maer (The house of his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood.) I was told that I could kill the worms with salt and water, and from that day I never spitted a living worm, though at the expense probably of some loss of success. Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters. I remember clearly only one other incident during this year whilst at Mr. Case's daily school,--namely, the burial of a dragoon soldier; and it is surprising how clearly I can still see the horse with the man's empty boots and carbine suspended to the saddle, and the firing over the grave. This scene deeply stirred whatever poetic fancy there was in me. In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler's great school in Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years still Midsummer 1825, when I was sixteen years old. I boarded at this school, so that I had the great advantage of living the life of a true schoolboy; but as the distance was hardly more than a mile to my home, I very often ran there in the longer intervals between the callings over and before locking up at night. This, I think, was in many ways advantageous to me by keeping up home affections and interests. I remember in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided. I have heard my father and elder sister say that I had, as a very young boy, a strong taste for long solitary walks; but what I thought about I know not. I often became quite absorbed, and once, whilst returning to school on the summit of the old fortifications round Shrewsbury, which had been converted into a public foot-path with no parapet on one side, I walked off and fell to the ground, but the height was only seven or eight feet. Nevertheless the number of thoughts which passed through my mind during this very short, but sudden and wholly unexpected fall, was astonishing, and seem hardly compatible with what physiologists have, I believe, proved about each thought requiring quite an appreciable amount of time. Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr. Butler's school, as it was strictly classical, nothing else being taught, except a little ancient geography and history. The school as a means of education to me was simply a blank. During my whole life I have been singularly incapable of mastering any language. Especial attention was paid to verse-making, and this I could never do well. I had many friends, and got together a good collection of old verses, which by patching together, sometimes aided by other boys, I could work into any subject. Much attention was paid to learning by heart the lessons of the previous day; this I could effect with great facility, learning forty or fifty lines of Virgil or Homer, whilst I was in morning chapel; but this exercise was utterly useless, for every verse was forgotten in forty-eight hours. I was not idle, and with the exception of versification, generally worked conscientiously at my classics, not using cribs. The sole pleasure I ever received from such studies, was from some of the odes of Horace, which I admired greatly. When I left the school I was for my age neither high nor low in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect. To my deep mortification my father once said to me, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family." But my father, who was the kindest man I ever knew and whose memory I love with all my heart, must have been angry and somewhat unjust when he used such words. Looking back as well as I can at my character during my school life, the only qualities which at this period promised well for the future, were, that I had strong and diversified tastes, much zeal for whatever interested me, and a keen pleasure in understanding any complex subject or thing. I was taught Euclid by a private tutor, and I distinctly remember the intense satisfaction which the clear geometrical proofs gave me. I remember, with equal distinctness, the delight which my uncle gave me (the father of Francis Galton) by explaining the principle of the vernier of a barometer with respect to diversified tastes, independently of science, I was fond of reading various books, and I used to sit for hours reading the historical plays of Shakespeare, generally in an old window in the thick walls of the school. I read also other poetry, such as Thomson's 'Seasons,' and the recently published poems of Byron and Scott. I mention this because later in life I wholly lost, to my great regret, all pleasure from poetry of any kind, including Shakespeare. In connection with pleasure from poetry, I may add that in 1822 a vivid delight in scenery was first awakened in my mind, during a riding tour on the borders of Wales, and this has lasted longer than any other aesthetic pleasure. Early in my school days a boy had a copy of the 'Wonders of the World,' which I often read, and disputed with other boys about the veracity of some of the statements; and I believe that this book first gave me a wish to travel in remote countries, which was ultimately fulfilled by the voyage of the "Beagle". In the latter part of my school life I became passionately fond of shooting; I do not believe that any one could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands. This taste long continued, and I became a very good shot. When at Cambridge I used to practise throwing up my gun to my shoulder before a looking-glass to see that I threw it up straight. Another and better plan was to get a friend to wave about a lighted candle, and then to fire at it with a cap on the nipple, and if the aim was accurate the little puff of air would blow out the candle. The explosion of the cap caused a sharp crack, and I was told that the tutor of the college remarked, "What an extraordinary thing it is, Mr. Darwin seems to spend hours in cracking a horse-whip in his room, for I often hear the crack when I pass under his windows." I had many friends amongst the schoolboys, whom I loved dearly, and I think that my disposition was then very affectionate. With respect to science, I continued collecting minerals with much zeal, but quite unscientifically--all that I cared about was a new-_named_ mineral, and I hardly attempted to classify them. I must have observed insects with some little care, for when ten years old (1819) I went for three weeks to Plas Edwards on the sea-coast in Wales, I was very much interested and surprised at seeing a large black and scarlet Hemipterous insect, many moths (Zygaena), and a Cicindela which are not found in Shropshire. I almost made up my mind to begin collecting all the insects which I could find dead, for on consulting my sister I concluded that it was not right to kill insects for the sake of making a collection. From reading White's 'Selborne,' I took much pleasure in watching the habits of birds, and even made notes on the subject. In my simplicity I remember wondering why every gentleman did not become an ornithologist. Towards the close of my school life, my brother worked hard at chemistry, and made a fair laboratory with proper apparatus in the tool-house in the garden, and I was allowed to aid him as a servant in most of his experiments. He made all the gases and many compounds, and I read with great care several books on chemistry, such as Henry and Parkes' 'Chemical Catechism.' The subject interested me greatly, and we often used to go on working till rather late at night. This was the best part of my education at school, for it showed me practically the meaning of experimental science. The fact that we worked at chemistry somehow got known at school, and as it was an unprecedented fact, I was nicknamed "Gas." I was also once publicly rebuked by the head-master, Dr. Butler, for thus wasting my time on such useless subjects; and he called me very unjustly a "poco curante," and as I did not understand what he meant, it seemed to me a fearful reproach. As I was doing no good at school, my father wisely took me away at a rather earlier age than usual, and sent me (Oct. 1825) to Edinburgh University with my brother, where I stayed for two years or sessions. My brother was completing his medical studies, though I do not believe he ever really intended to practise, and I was sent there to commence them. But soon after this period I became convinced from various small circumstances that my father would leave me property enough to subsist on with some comfort, though I never imagined that I should be so rich a man as I am; but my belief was sufficient to check any strenuous efforts to learn medicine. The instruction at Edinburgh was altogether by lectures, and these were intolerably dull, with the exception of those on chemistry by Hope; but to my mind there are no advantages and many disadvantages in lectures compared with reading. Dr. Duncan's lectures on Materia Medica at 8 o'clock on a winter's morning are something fearful to remember. Dr.---- made his lectures on human anatomy as dull as he was himself, and the subject disgusted me. It has proved one of the greatest evils in my life that I was not urged to practise dissection, for I should soon have got over my disgust; and the practice would have been invaluable for all my future work. This has been an irremediable evil, as well as my incapacity to draw. I also attended regularly the clinical wards in the hospital. Some of the cases distressed me a good deal, and I still have vivid pictures before me of some of them; but I was not so foolish as to allow this to lessen my attendance. I cannot understand why this part of my medical course did not interest me in a greater degree; for during the summer before coming to Edinburgh I began attending some of the poor people, chiefly children and women in Shrewsbury: I wrote down as full an account as I could of the case with all the symptoms, and read them aloud to my father, who suggested further inquiries and advised me what medicines to give, which I made up myself. At one time I had at least a dozen patients, and I felt a keen interest in the work. My father, who was by far the best judge of character whom I ever knew, declared that I should make a successful physician,--meaning by this one who would get many patients. He maintained that the chief element of success was exciting confidence; but what he saw in me which convinced him that I should create confidence I know not. I also attended on two occasions the operating theatre in the hospital at Edinburgh, and saw two very bad operations, one on a child, but I rushed away before they were completed. Nor did I ever attend again, for hardly any inducement would have been strong enough to make me do so; this being long before the blessed days of chloroform. The two cases fairly haunted me for many a long year. My brother stayed only one year at the University, so that during the second year I was left to my own resources; and this was an advantage, for I became well acquainted with several young men fond of natural science. One of these was Ainsworth, who afterwards published his travels in Assyria; he was a Wernerian geologist, and knew a little about many subjects. Dr. Coldstream was a very different young man, prim, formal, highly religious, and most kind-hearted; he afterwards published some good zoological articles. A third young man was Hardie, who would, I think, have made a good botanist, but died early in India. Lastly, Dr. Grant, my senior by several years, but how I became acquainted with him I cannot remember; he published some first-rate zoological papers, but after coming to London as Professor in University College, he did nothing more in science, a fact which has always been inexplicable to me. I knew him well; he was dry and formal in manner, with much enthusiasm beneath this outer crust. He one day, when we were walking together, burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge without any effect on my mind. I had previously read the 'Zoonomia' of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me. Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my 'Origin of Species.' At this time I admired greatly the 'Zoonomia;' but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given. Drs. Grant and Coldstream attended much to marine Zoology, and I often accompanied the former to collect animals in the tidal pools, which I dissected as well as I could. I also became friends with some of the Newhaven fishermen, and sometimes accompanied them when they trawled for oysters, and thus got many specimens. But from not having had any regular practice in dissection, and from possessing only a wretched microscope, my attempts were very poor. Nevertheless I made one interesting little discovery, and read, about the beginning of the year 1826, a short paper on the subject before the Plinian Society. This was that the so-called ova of Flustra had the power of independent movement by means of cilia, and were in fact larvae. In another short paper I showed that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the wormlike Pontobdella muricata. The Plinian Society was encouraged and, I believe, founded by Professor Jameson: it consisted of students and met in an underground room in the University for the sake of reading papers on natural science and discussing them. I used regularly to attend, and the meetings had a good effect on me in stimulating my zeal and giving me new congenial acquaintances. One evening a poor young man got up, and after stammering for a prodigious length of time, blushing crimson, he at last slowly got out the words, "Mr. President, I have forgotten what I was going to say." The poor fellow looked quite overwhelmed, and all the members were so surprised that no one could think of a word to say to cover his confusion. The papers which were read to our little society were not printed, so that I had not the satisfaction of seeing my paper in print; but I believe Dr. Grant noticed my small discovery in his excellent memoir on Flustra. I was also a member of the Royal Medical Society, and attended pretty regularly; but as the subjects were exclusively medical, I did not much care about them. Much rubbish was talked there, but there were some good speakers, of whom the best was the present Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. Dr. Grant took me occasionally to the meetings of the Wernerian Society, where various papers on natural history were read, discussed, and afterwards published in the 'Transactions.' I heard Audubon deliver there some interesting discourses on the habits of N. American birds, sneering somewhat unjustly at Waterton. By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. Mr. Leonard Horner also took me once to a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, where I saw Sir Walter Scott in the chair as President, and he apologised to the meeting as not feeling fitted for such a position. I looked at him and at the whole scene with some awe and reverence, and I think it was owing to this visit during my youth, and to my having attended the Royal Medical Society, that I felt the honour of being elected a few years ago an honorary member of both these Societies, more than any other similar honour. If I had been told at that time that I should one day have been thus honoured, I declare that I should have thought it as ridiculous and improbable, as if I had been told that I should be elected King of England. During my second year at Edinburgh I attended ----'s lectures on Geology and Zoology, but they were incredibly dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to read a book on Geology, or in any way to study the science. Yet I feel sure that I was prepared for a philosophical treatment of the subject; for an old Mr. Cotton in Shropshire, who knew a good deal about rocks, had pointed out to me two or three years previously a well-known large erratic boulder in the town of Shrewsbury, called the "bell-stone"; he told me that there was no rock of the same kind nearer than Cumberland or Scotland, and he solemnly assured me that the world would come to an end before any one would be able to explain how this stone came where it now lay. This produced a deep impression on me, and I meditated over this wonderful stone. So that I felt the keenest delight when I first read of the action of icebergs in transporting boulders, and I gloried in the progress of Geology. Equally striking is the fact that I, though now only sixty-seven years old, heard the Professor, in a field lecture at Salisbury Craigs, discoursing on a trapdyke, with amygdaloidal margins and the strata indurated on each side, with volcanic rocks all around us, say that it was a fissure filled with sediment from above, adding with a sneer that there were men who maintained that it had been injected from beneath in a molten condition. When I think of this lecture, I do not wonder that I determined never to attend to Geology. From attending ----'s lectures, I became acquainted with the curator of the museum, Mr. Macgillivray, who afterwards published a large and excellent book on the birds of Scotland. I had much interesting natural-history talk with him, and he was very kind to me. He gave me some rare shells, for I at that time collected marine mollusca, but with no great zeal. My summer vacations during these two years were wholly given up to amusements, though I always had some book in hand, which I read with interest. During the summer of 1826 I took a long walking tour with two friends with knapsacks on our backs through North wales. We walked thirty miles most days, including one day the ascent of Snowdon. I also went with my sister a riding tour in North Wales, a servant with saddle-bags carrying our clothes. The autumns were devoted to shooting chiefly at Mr. Owen's, at Woodhouse, and at my Uncle Jos's (Josiah Wedgwood, the son of the founder of the Etruria Works.) at Maer. My zeal was so great that I used to place my shooting-boots open by my bed-side when I went to bed, so as not to lose half a minute in putting them on in the morning; and on one occasion I reached a distant part of the Maer estate, on the 20th of August for black-game shooting, before I could see: I then toiled on with the game-keeper the whole day through thick heath and young Scotch firs. I kept an exact record of every bird which I shot throughout the whole season. One day when shooting at Woodhouse with Captain Owen, the eldest son, and Major Hill, his cousin, afterwards Lord Berwick, both of whom I liked very much, I thought myself shamefully used, for every time after I had fired and thought that I had killed a bird, one of the two acted as if loading his gun, and cried out, "You must not count that bird, for I fired at the same time," and the gamekeeper, perceiving the joke, backed them up. After some hours they told me the joke, but it was no joke to me, for I had shot a large number of birds, but did not know how many, and could not add them to my list, which I used to do by making a knot in a piece of string tied to a button-hole. This my wicked friends had perceived. How I did enjoy shooting! But I think that I must have been half-consciously ashamed of my zeal, for I tried to persuade myself that shooting was almost an intellectual employment; it required so much skill to judge where to find most game and to hunt the dogs well. One of my autumnal visits to Maer in 1827 was memorable from meeting there Sir J. Mackintosh, who was the best converser I ever listened to. I heard afterwards with a glow of pride that he had said, "There is something in that young man that interests me." This must have been chiefly due to his perceiving that I listened with much interest to everything which he said, for I was as ignorant as a pig about his subjects of history, politics, and moral philosophy. To hear of praise from an eminent person, though no doubt apt or certain to excite vanity, is, I think, good for a young man, as it helps to keep him in the right course. My visits to Maer during these two or three succeeding years were quite delightful, independently of the autumnal shooting. Life there was perfectly free; the country was very pleasant for walking or riding; and in the evening there was much very agreeable conversation, not so personal as it generally is in large family parties, together with music. In the summer the whole family used often to sit on the steps of the old portico, with the flower-garden in front, and with the steep wooded bank opposite the house reflected in the lake, with here and there a fish rising or a water-bird paddling about. Nothing has left a more vivid picture on my mind than these evenings at Maer. I was also attached to and greatly revered my Uncle Jos; he was silent and reserved, so as to be a rather awful man; but he sometimes talked openly with me. He was the very type of an upright man, with the clearest judgment. I do not believe that any power on earth could have made him swerve an inch from what he considered the right course. I used to apply to him in my mind the well-known ode of Horace, now forgotten by me, in which the words "nec vultus tyranni, etc.," come in. (Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium Non vultus instantis tyranni Mente quatit solida.) CAMBRIDGE 1828-1831. After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed,' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father's wish ever formerly given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the "Beagle" as naturalist. If the phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretaries of a German psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photograph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discussion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of reverence developed enough for ten priests. As it was decided that I should be a clergyman, it was necessary that I should go to one of the English universities and take a degree; but as I had never opened a classical book since leaving school, I found to my dismay, that in the two intervening years I had actually forgotten, incredible as it may appear, almost everything which I had learnt, even to some few of the Greek letters. I did not therefore proceed to Cambridge at the usual time in October, but worked with a private tutor in Shrewsbury, and went to Cambridge after the Christmas vacation, early in 1828. I soon recovered my school standard of knowledge, and could translate easy Greek books, such as Homer and the Greek Testament, with moderate facility. During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade. With respect to Classics I did nothing except attend a few compulsory college lectures, and the attendance was almost nominal. In my second year I had to work for a month or two to pass the Little-Go, which I did easily. Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up Paley's 'Evidences of Christianity,' and his 'Moral Philosophy.' This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may add, of his 'Natural Theology,' gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation. By answering well the examination questions in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably in Classics, I gained a good place among the oi polloi or crowd of men who do not go in for honours. Oddly enough, I cannot remember how high I stood, and my memory fluctuates between the fifth, tenth, or twelfth, name on the list. (Tenth in the list of January 1831.) Public lectures on several branches were given in the University, attendance being quite voluntary; but I was so sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend Sedgwick's eloquent and interesting lectures. Had I done so I should probably have become a geologist earlier than I did. I attended, however, Henslow's lectures on Botany, and liked them much for their extreme clearness, and the admirable illustrations; but I did not study botany. Henslow used to take his pupils, including several of the older members of the University, field excursions, on foot or in coaches, to distant places, or in a barge down the river, and lectured on the rarer plants and animals which were observed. These excursions were delightful. Although, as we shall presently see, there were some redeeming features in my life at Cambridge, my time was sadly wasted there, and worse than wasted. From my passion for shooting and for hunting, and, when this failed, for riding across country, I got into a sporting set, including some dissipated low-minded young men. We used often to dine together in the evening, though these dinners often included men of a higher stamp, and we sometimes drank too much, with jolly singing and playing at cards afterwards. I know that I ought to feel ashamed of days and evenings thus spent, but as some of my friends were very pleasant, and we were all in the highest spirits, I cannot help looking back to these times with much pleasure. But I am glad to think that I had many other friends of a widely different nature. I was very intimate with Whitley (Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy in Durham University.), who was afterwards Senior Wrangler, and we used continually to take long walks together. He inoculated me with a taste for pictures and good engravings, of which I bought some. I frequently went to the Fitzwilliam Gallery, and my taste must have been fairly good, for I certainly admired the best pictures, which I discussed with the old curator. I read also with much interest Sir Joshua Reynolds' book. This taste, though not natural to me, lasted for several years, and many of the pictures in the National Gallery in London gave me much pleasure; that of Sebastian del Piombo exciting in me a sense of sublimity. I also got into a musical set, I believe by means of my warm-hearted friend, Herbert (The late John Maurice Herbert, County Court Judge of Cardiff and the Monmouth Circuit.), who took a high wrangler's degree. From associating with these men, and hearing them play, I acquired a strong taste for music, and used very often to time my walks so as to hear on week days the anthem in King's College Chapel. This gave me intense pleasure, so that my backbone would sometimes shiver. I am sure that there was no affectation or mere imitation in this taste, for I used generally to go by myself to King's College, and I sometimes hired the chorister boys to sing in my rooms. Nevertheless I am so utterly destitute of an ear, that I cannot perceive a discord, or keep time and hum a tune correctly; and it is a mystery how I could possibly have derived pleasure from music. My musical friends soon perceived my state, and sometimes amused themselves by making me pass an examination, which consisted in ascertaining how many tunes I could recognise when they were played rather more quickly or slowly than usual. 'God save the King,' when thus played, was a sore puzzle. There was another man with almost as bad an ear as I had, and strange to say he played a little on the flute. Once I had the triumph of beating him in one of our musical examinations. But no pursuit at Cambridge was followed with nearly so much eagerness or gave me so much pleasure as collecting beetles. It was the mere passion for collecting, for I did not dissect them, and rarely compared their external characters with published descriptions, but got them named anyhow. I will give a proof of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! it ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one. I was very successful in collecting, and invented two new methods; I employed a labourer to scrape during the winter, moss off old trees and place it in a large bag, and likewise to collect the rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds are brought from the fens, and thus I got some very rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem published than I did at seeing, in Stephens' 'Illustrations of British Insects,' the magic words, "captured by C. Darwin, Esq." I was introduced to entomology by my second cousin W. Darwin Fox, a clever and most pleasant man, who was then at Christ's College, and with whom I became extremely intimate. Afterwards I became well acquainted, and went out collecting, with Albert Way of Trinity, who in after years became a well-known archaeologist; also with H. Thompson of the same College, afterwards a leading agriculturist, chairman of a great railway, and Member of Parliament. It seems therefore that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication of future success in life! I am surprised what an indelible impression many of the beetles which I caught at Cambridge have left on my mind. I can remember the exact appearance of certain posts, old trees and banks where I made a good capture. The pretty Panagaeus crux-major was a treasure in those days, and here at Down I saw a beetle running across a walk, and on picking it up instantly perceived that it differed slightly from P. crux-major, and it turned out to be P. quadripunctatus, which is only a variety or closely allied species, differing from it very slightly in outline. I had never seen in those old days Licinus alive, which to an uneducated eye hardly differs from many of the black Carabidous beetles; but my sons found here a specimen, and I instantly recognised that it was new to me; yet I had not looked at a British beetle for the last twenty years. I have not as yet mentioned a circumstance which influenced my whole career more than any other. This was my friendship with Professor Henslow. Before coming up to Cambridge, I had heard of him from my brother as a man who knew every branch of science, and I was accordingly prepared to reverence him. He kept open house once every week when all undergraduates, and some older members of the University, who were attached to science, used to meet in the evening. I soon got, through Fox, an invitation, and went there regularly. Before long I became well acquainted with Henslow, and during the latter half of my time at Cambridge took long walks with him on most days; so that I was called by some of the dons "the man who walks with Henslow;" and in the evening I was very often asked to join his family dinner. His knowledge was great in botany, entomology, chemistry, mineralogy, and geology. His strongest taste was to draw conclusions from long-continued minute observations. His judgment was excellent, and his whole mind well balanced; but I do not suppose that any one would say that he possessed much original genius. He was deeply religious, and so orthodox that he told me one day he should be grieved if a single word of the Thirty-nine Articles were altered. His moral qualities were in every way admirable. He was free from every tinge of vanity or other petty feeling; and I never saw a man who thought so little about himself or his own concerns. His temper was imperturbably good, with the most winning and courteous manners; yet, as I have seen, he could be roused by any bad action to the warmest indignation and prompt action. I once saw in his company in the streets of Cambridge almost as horrid a scene as could have been witnessed during the French Revolution. Two body-snatchers had been arrested, and whilst being taken to prison had been torn from the constable by a crowd of the roughest men, who dragged them by their legs along the muddy and stony road. They were covered from head to foot with mud, and their faces were bleeding either from having been kicked or from the stones; they looked like corpses, but the crowd was so dense that I got only a few momentary glimpses of the wretched creatures. Never in my life have I seen such wrath painted on a man's face as was shown by Henslow at this horrid scene. He tried repeatedly to penetrate the mob; but it was simply impossible. He then rushed away to the mayor, telling me not to follow him, but to get more policemen. I forget the issue, except that the two men were got into the prison without being killed. Henslow's benevolence was unbounded, as he proved by his many excellent schemes for his poor parishioners, when in after years he held the living of Hitcham. My intimacy with such a man ought to have been, and I hope was, an inestimable benefit. I cannot resist mentioning a trifling incident, which showed his kind consideration. Whilst examining some pollen-grains on a damp surface, I saw the tubes exserted, and instantly rushed off to communicate my surprising discovery to him. Now I do not suppose any other professor of botany could have helped laughing at my coming in such a hurry to make such a communication. But he agreed how interesting the phenomenon was, and explained its meaning, but made me clearly understand how well it was known; so I left him not in the least mortified, but well pleased at having discovered for myself so remarkable a fact, but determined not to be in such a hurry again to communicate my discoveries. Dr. Whewell was one of the older and distinguished men who sometimes visited Henslow, and on several occasions I walked home with him at night. Next to Sir J. Mackintosh he was the best converser on grave subjects to whom I ever listened. Leonard Jenyns (The well-known Soame Jenyns was cousin to Mr. Jenyns' father.), who afterwards published some good essays in Natural History (Mr. Jenyns (now Blomefield) described the fish for the Zoology of the "Beagle"; and is author of a long series of papers, chiefly Zoological.), often stayed with Henslow, who was his brother-in-law. I visited him at his parsonage on the borders of the Fens [Swaffham Bulbeck], and had many a good walk and talk with him about Natural History. I became also acquainted with several other men older than me, who did not care much about science, but were friends of Henslow. One was a Scotchman, brother of Sir Alexander Ramsay, and tutor of Jesus College: he was a delightful man, but did not live for many years. Another was Mr. Dawes, afterwards Dean of Hereford, and famous for his success in the education of the poor. These men and others of the same standing, together with Henslow, used sometimes to take distant excursions into the country, which I was allowed to join, and they were most agreeable. Looking back, I infer that there must have been something in me a little superior to the common run of youths, otherwise the above-mentioned men, so much older than me and higher in academical position, would never have allowed me to associate with them. Certainly I was not aware of any such superiority, and I remember one of my sporting friends, Turner, who saw me at work with my beetles, saying that I should some day be a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the notion seemed to me preposterous. During my last year at Cambridge, I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's 'Personal Narrative.' This work, and Sir J. Herschel's 'Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy,' stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two. I copied out from Humboldt long passages about Teneriffe, and read them aloud on one of the above-mentioned excursions, to (I think) Henslow, Ramsay, and Dawes, for on a previous occasion I had talked about the glories of Teneriffe, and some of the party declared they would endeavour to go there; but I think that they were only half in earnest. I was, however, quite in earnest, and got an introduction to a merchant in London to enquire about ships; but the scheme was, of course, knocked on the head by the voyage of the "Beagle". My summer vacations were given up to collecting beetles, to some reading, and short tours. In the autumn my whole time was devoted to shooting, chiefly at Woodhouse and Maer, and sometimes with young Eyton of Eyton. Upon the whole the three years which I spent at Cambridge were the most joyful in my happy life; for I was then in excellent health, and almost always in high spirits. As I had at first come up to Cambridge at Christmas, I was forced to keep two terms after passing my final examination, at the commencement of 1831; and Henslow then persuaded me to begin the study of geology. Therefore on my return to Shropshire I examined sections, and coloured a map of parts round Shrewsbury. Professor Sedgwick intended to visit North Wales in the beginning of August to pursue his famous geological investigations amongst the older rocks, and Henslow asked him to allow me to accompany him. (In connection with this tour my father used to tell a story about Sedgwick: they had started from their inn one morning, and had walked a mile or two, when Sedgwick suddenly stopped, and vowed that he would return, being certain "that damned scoundrel" (the waiter) had not given the chambermaid the sixpence intrusted to him for the purpose. He was ultimately persuaded to give up the project, seeing that there was no reason for suspecting the waiter of especial perfidy.--F.D.) Accordingly he came and slept at my father's house. A short conversation with him during this evening produced a strong impression on my mind. Whilst examining an old gravel-pit near Shrewsbury, a labourer told me that he had found in it a large worn tropical Volute shell, such as may be seen on the chimney-pieces of cottages; and as he would not sell the shell, I was convinced that he had really found it in the pit. I told Sedgwick of the fact, and he at once said (no doubt truly) that it must have been thrown away by some one into the pit; but then added, if really embedded there it would be the greatest misfortune to geology, as it would overthrow all that we know about the superficial deposits of the Midland Counties. These gravel-beds belong in fact to the glacial period, and in after years I found in them broken arctic shells. But I was then utterly astonished at Sedgwick not being delighted at so wonderful a fact as a tropical shell being found near the surface in the middle of England. Nothing before had ever made me thoroughly realise, though I had read various scientific books, that science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them. Next morning we started for Llangollen, Conway, Bangor, and Capel Curig. This tour was of decided use in teaching me a little how to make out the geology of a country. Sedgwick often sent me on a line parallel to his, telling me to bring back specimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map. I have little doubt that he did this for my good, as I was too ignorant to have aided him. On this tour I had a striking instance of how easy it is to overlook phenomena, however conspicuous, before they have been observed by any one. We spent many hours in Cwm Idwal, examining all the rocks with extreme care, as Sedgwick was anxious to find fossils in them; but neither of us saw a trace of the wonderful glacial phenomena all around us; we did not notice the plainly scored rocks, the perched boulders, the lateral and terminal moraines. Yet these phenomena are so conspicuous that, as I declared in a paper published many years afterwards in the 'Philosophical Magazine' ('Philosophical Magazine,' 1842.), a house burnt down by fire did not tell its story more plainly than did this valley. If it had still been filled by a glacier, the phenomena would have been less distinct than they now are. At Capel Curig I left Sedgwick and went in a straight line by compass and map across the mountains to Barmouth, never following any track unless it coincided with my course. I thus came on some strange wild places, and enjoyed much this manner of travelling. I visited Barmouth to see some Cambridge friends who were reading there, and thence returned to Shrewsbury and to Maer for shooting; for at that time I should have thought myself mad to give up the first days of partridge-shooting for geology or any other science. "VOYAGE OF THE 'BEAGLE' FROM DECEMBER 27, 1831, TO OCTOBER 2, 1836." On returning home from my short geological tour in North Wales, I found a letter from Henslow, informing me that Captain Fitz-Roy was willing to give up part of his own cabin to any young man who would volunteer to go with him without pay as naturalist to the Voyage of the "Beagle". I have given, as I believe, in my MS. Journal an account of all the circumstances which then occurred; I will here only say that I was instantly eager to accept the offer, but my father strongly objected, adding the words, fortunate for me, "If you can find any man of common sense who advises you to go I will give my consent." So I wrote that evening and refused the offer. On the next morning I went to Maer to be ready for September 1st, and, whilst out shooting, my uncle (Josiah Wedgwood.) sent for me, offering to drive me over to Shrewsbury and talk with my father, as my uncle thought it would be wise in me to accept the offer. My father always maintained that he was one of the most sensible men in the world, and he at once consented in the kindest manner. I had been rather extravagant at Cambridge, and to console my father, said, "that I should be deuced clever to spend more than my allowance whilst on board the 'Beagle';" but he answered with a smile, "But they tell me you are very clever." Next day I started for Cambridge to see Henslow, and thence to London to see Fitz-Roy, and all was soon arranged. Afterwards, on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy, I heard that I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected, on account of the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater, and was convinced that he could judge of a man's character by the outline of his features; and he doubted whether any one with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage. But I think he was afterwards well satisfied that my nose had spoken falsely. Fitz-Roy's character was a singular one, with very many noble features: he was devoted to his duty, generous to a fault, bold, determined, and indomitably energetic, and an ardent friend to all under his sway. He would undertake any sort of trouble to assist those whom he thought deserved assistance. He was a handsome man, strikingly like a gentleman, with highly courteous manners, which resembled those of his maternal uncle, the famous Lord Castlereagh, as I was told by the Minister at Rio. Nevertheless he must have inherited much in his appearance from Charles II., for Dr. Wallich gave me a collection of photographs which he had made, and I was struck with the resemblance of one to Fitz-Roy; and on looking at the name, I found it Ch. E. Sobieski Stuart, Count d'Albanie, a descendant of the same monarch. Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him. His character was in several respects one of the most noble which I have ever known. The voyage of the "Beagle" has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career; yet it depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle offering to drive me thirty miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose. I have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training or education of my mind; I was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history, and thus my powers of observation were improved, though they were always fairly developed. The investigation of the geology of all the places visited was far more important, as reasoning here comes into play. On first examining a new district nothing can appear more hopeless than the chaos of rocks; but by recording the stratification and nature of the rocks and fossils at many points, always reasoning and predicting what will be found elsewhere, light soon begins to dawn on the district, and the structure of the whole becomes more or less intelligible. I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell's 'Principles of Geology,' which I studied attentively; and the book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape de Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author, whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read. Another of my occupations was collecting animals of all classes, briefly describing and roughly dissecting many of the marine ones; but from not being able to draw, and from not having sufficient anatomical knowledge, a great pile of MS. which I made during the voyage has proved almost useless. I thus lost much time, with the exception of that spent in acquiring some knowledge of the Crustaceans, as this was of service when in after years I undertook a monograph of the Cirripedia. During some part of the day I wrote my Journal, and took much pains in describing carefully and vividly all that I had seen; and this was good practice. My Journal served also, in part, as letters to my home, and portions were sent to England whenever there was an opportunity. The above various special studies were, however, of no importance compared with the habit of energetic industry and of concentrated attention to whatever I was engaged in, which I then acquired. Everything about which I thought or read was made to bear directly on what I had seen or was likely to see; and this habit of mind was continued during the five years of the voyage. I feel sure that it was this training which has enabled me to do whatever I have done in science. Looking backwards, I can now perceive how my love for science gradually preponderated over every other taste. During the first two years my old passion for shooting survived in nearly full force, and I shot myself all the birds and animals for my collection; but gradually I gave up my gun more and more, and finally altogether, to my servant, as shooting interfered with my work, more especially with making out the geological structure of a country. I discovered, though unconsciously and insensibly, that the pleasure of observing and reasoning was a much higher one than that of skill and sport. That my mind became developed through my pursuits during the voyage is rendered probable by a remark made by my father, who was the most acute observer whom I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in phrenology; for on first seeing me after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters, and exclaimed, "Why, the shape of his head is quite altered." To return to the voyage. On September 11th (1831), I paid a flying visit with Fitz-Roy to the "Beagle" at Plymouth. Thence to Shrewsbury to wish my father and sisters a long farewell. On October 24th I took up my residence at Plymouth, and remained there until December 27th, when the "Beagle" finally left the shores of England for her circumnavigation of the world. We made two earlier attempts to sail, but were driven back each time by heavy gales. These two months at Plymouth were the most miserable which I ever spent, though I exerted myself in various ways. I was out of spirits at the thought of leaving all my family and friends for so long a time, and the weather seemed to me inexpressibly gloomy. I was also troubled with palpitation and pain about the heart, and like many a young ignorant man, especially one with a smattering of medical knowledge, was convinced that I had heart disease. I did not consult any doctor, as I fully expected to hear the verdict that I was not fit for the voyage, and I was resolved to go at all hazards. I need not here refer to the events of the voyage--where we went and what we did--as I have given a sufficiently full account in my published Journal. The glories of the vegetation of the Tropics rise before my mind at the present time more vividly than anything else; though the sense of sublimity, which the great deserts of Patagonia and the forest-clad mountains of Tierra del Fuego excited in me, has left an indelible impression on my mind. The sight of a naked savage in his native land is an event which can never be forgotten. Many of my excursions on horseback through wild countries, or in the boats, some of which lasted several weeks, were deeply interesting: their discomfort and some degree of danger were at that time hardly a drawback, and none at all afterwards. I also reflect with high satisfaction on some of my scientific work, such as solving the problem of coral islands, and making out the geological structure of certain islands, for instance, St. Helena. Nor must I pass over the discovery of the singular relations of the animals and plants inhabiting the several islands of the Galapagos archipelago, and of all of them to the inhabitants of South America. As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in Natural Science. But I was also ambitious to take a fair place among scientific men,--whether more ambitious or less so than most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion. The geology of St. Jago is very striking, yet simple: a stream of lava formerly flowed over the bed of the sea, formed of triturated recent shells and corals, which it has baked into a hard white rock. Since then the whole island has been upheaved. But the line of white rock revealed to me a new and important fact, namely, that there had been afterwards subsidence round the craters, which had since been in action, and had poured forth lava. It then first dawned on me that I might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight. That was a memorable hour to me, and how distinctly I can call to mind the low cliff of lava beneath which I rested, with the sun glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and with living corals in the tidal pools at my feet. Later in the voyage, Fitz-Roy asked me to read some of my Journal, and declared it would be worth publishing; so here was a second book in prospect! Towards the close of our voyage I received a letter whilst at Ascension, in which my sisters told me that Sedgwick had called on my father, and said that I should take a place among the leading scientific men. I could not at the time understand how he could have learnt anything of my proceedings, but I heard (I believe afterwards) that Henslow had read some of the letters which I wrote to him before the Philosophical Society of Cambridge (Read at the meeting held November 16, 1835, and printed in a pamphlet of 31 pages for distribution among the members of the Society.), and had printed them for private distribution. My collection of fossil bones, which had been sent to Henslow, also excited considerable attention amongst palaeontologists. After reading this letter, I clambered over the mountains of Ascension with a bounding step, and made the volcanic rocks resound under my geological hammer. All this shows how ambitious I was; but I think that I can say with truth that in after years, though I cared in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much about the general public. I do not mean to say that a favourable review or a large sale of my books did not please me greatly, but the pleasure was a fleeting one, and I am sure that I have never turned one inch out of my course to gain fame. FROM MY RETURN TO ENGLAND (OCTOBER 2, 1836) TO MY MARRIAGE (JANUARY 29, 1839.) These two years and three months were the most active ones which I ever spent, though I was occasionally unwell, and so lost some time. After going backwards and forwards several times between Shrewsbury, Maer, Cambridge, and London, I settled in lodgings at Cambridge (In Fitzwilliam Street.) on December 13th, where all my collections were under the care of Henslow. I stayed here three months, and got my minerals and rocks examined by the aid of Professor Miller. I began preparing my 'Journal of Travels,' which was not hard work, as my MS. Journal had been written with care, and my chief labour was making an abstract of my more interesting scientific results. I sent also, at the request of Lyell, a short account of my observations on the elevation of the coast of Chile to the Geological Society. ('Geolog. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pages 446-449.) On March 7th, 1837, I took lodgings in Great Marlborough Street in London, and remained there for nearly two years, until I was married. During these two years I finished my Journal, read several papers before the Geological Society, began preparing the MS. for my 'Geological Observations,' and arranged for the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle".' In July I opened my first note-book for facts in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years. During these two years I also went a little into society, and acted as one of the honorary secretaries of the Geological Society. I saw a great deal of Lyell. One of his chief characteristics was his sympathy with the work of others, and I was as much astonished as delighted at the interest which he showed when, on my return to England, I explained to him my views on coral reefs. This encouraged me greatly, and his advice and example had much influence on me. During this time I saw also a good deal of Robert Brown; I used often to call and sit with him during his breakfast on Sunday mornings, and he poured forth a rich treasure of curious observations and acute remarks, but they almost always related to minute points, and he never with me discussed large or general questions in science. During these two years I took several short excursions as a relaxation, and one longer one to the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, an account of which was published in the 'Philosophical Transactions.' (1839, pages 39-82.) This paper was a great failure, and I am ashamed of it. Having been deeply impressed with what I had seen of the elevation of the land of South America, I attributed the parallel lines to the action of the sea; but I had to give up this view when Agassiz propounded his glacier-lake theory. Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion. As I was not able to work all day at science, I read a good deal during these two years on various subjects, including some metaphysical books; but I was not well fitted for such studies. About this time I took much delight in Wordsworth's and Coleridge's poetry; and can boast that I read the 'Excursion' twice through. Formerly Milton's 'Paradise Lost' had been my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the voyage of the "Beagle", when I could take only a single volume, I always chose Milton. FROM MY MARRIAGE, JANUARY 29, 1839, AND RESIDENCE IN UPPER GOWER STREET, TO OUR LEAVING LONDON AND SETTLING AT DOWN, SEPTEMBER 14, 1842. (After speaking of his happy married life, and of his children, he continues:--) During the three years and eight months whilst we resided in London, I did less scientific work, though I worked as hard as I possibly could, than during any other equal length of time in my life. This was owing to frequently recurring unwellness, and to one long and serious illness. The greater part of my time, when I could do anything, was devoted to my work on 'Coral Reefs,' which I had begun before my marriage, and of which the last proof-sheet was corrected on May 6th, 1842. This book, though a small one, cost me twenty months of hard work, as I had to read every work on the islands of the Pacific and to consult many charts. It was thought highly of by scientific men, and the theory therein given is, I think, now well established. No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this, for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of South America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with denudation and the deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of corals. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls. Besides my work on coral-reefs, during my residence in London, I read before the Geological Society papers on the Erratic Boulders of South America ('Geolog. Soc. Proc.' iii. 1842.), on Earthquakes ('Geolog. Trans. v. 1840.), and on the Formation by the Agency of Earth-worms of Mould. ('Geolog. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838.) I also continued to superintend the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle".' Nor did I ever intermit collecting facts bearing on the origin of species; and I could sometimes do this when I could do nothing else from illness. In the summer of 1842 I was stronger than I had been for some time, and took a little tour by myself in North Wales, for the sake of observing the effects of the old glaciers which formerly filled all the larger valleys. I published a short account of what I saw in the 'Philosophical Magazine.' ('Philosophical Magazine,' 1842.) This excursion interested me greatly, and it was the last time I was ever strong enough to climb mountains or to take long walks such as are necessary for geological work. During the early part of our life in London, I was strong enough to go into general society, and saw a good deal of several scientific men, and other more or less distinguished men. I will give my impressions with respect to some of them, though I have little to say worth saying. I saw more of Lyell than of any other man, both before and after my marriage. His mind was characterised, as it appeared to me, by clearness, caution, sound judgment, and a good deal of originality. When I made any remark to him on Geology, he never rested until he saw the whole case clearly, and often made me see it more clearly than I had done before. He would advance all possible objections to my suggestion, and even after these were exhausted would long remain dubious. A second characteristic was his hearty sympathy with the work of other scientific men. (The slight repetition here observable is accounted for by the notes on Lyell, etc., having been added in April, 1881, a few years after the rest of the 'Recollections' were written.) On my return from the voyage of the "Beagle", I explained to him my views on coral-reefs, which differed from his, and I was greatly surprised and encouraged by the vivid interest which he showed. His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind. He was very kind-hearted, and thoroughly liberal in his religious beliefs, or rather disbeliefs; but he was a strong theist. His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, though he had gained much fame by opposing Lamarck's views, and this after he had grown old. He reminded me that I had many years before said to him, when discussing the opposition of the old school of geologists to his new views, "What a good thing it would be if every scientific man was to die when sixty years old, as afterwards he would be sure to oppose all new doctrines." But he hoped that now he might be allowed to live. The science of Geology is enormously indebted to Lyell--more so, as I believe, than to any other man who ever lived. When [I was] starting on the voyage of the "Beagle", the sagacious Henslow, who, like all other geologists, believed at that time in successive cataclysms, advised me to get and study the first volume of the 'Principles,' which had then just been published, but on no account to accept the views therein advocated. How differently would anyone now speak of the 'Principles'! I am proud to remember that the first place, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde archipelago, in which I geologised, convinced me of the infinite superiority of Lyell's views over those advocated in any other work known to me. The powerful effects of Lyell's works could formerly be plainly seen in the different progress of the science in France and England. The present total oblivion of Elie de Beaumont's wild hypotheses, such as his 'Craters of Elevation' and 'Lines of Elevation' (which latter hypothesis I heard Sedgwick at the Geological Society lauding to the skies), may be largely attributed to Lyell. I saw a good deal of Robert Brown, "facile Princeps Botanicorum," as he was called by Humboldt. He seemed to me to be chiefly remarkable for the minuteness of his observations, and their perfect accuracy. His knowledge was extraordinarily great, and much died with him, owing to his excessive fear of ever making a mistake. He poured out his knowledge to me in the most unreserved manner, yet was strangely jealous on some points. I called on him two or three times before the voyage of the "Beagle", and on one occasion he asked me to look through a microscope and describe what I saw. This I did, and believe now that it was the marvellous currents of protoplasm in some vegetable cell. I then asked him what I had seen; but he answered me, "That is my little secret." He was capable of the most generous actions. When old, much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him. This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific penuriousness or jealousy. I may here mention a few other eminent men, whom I have occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the Cape of Good Hope, and afterwards at his London house. I saw him, also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to. I once met at breakfast at Sir R. Murchison's house the illustrious Humboldt, who honoured me by expressing a wish to see me. I was a little disappointed with the great man, but my anticipations probably were too high. I can remember nothing distinctly about our interview, except that Humboldt was very cheerful and talked much. --reminds me of Buckle whom I once met at Hensleigh Wedgwood's. I was very glad to learn from him his system of collecting facts. He told me that he bought all the books which he read, and made a full index, to each, of the facts which he thought might prove serviceable to him, and that he could always remember in what book he had read anything, for his memory was wonderful. I asked him how at first he could judge what facts would be serviceable, and he answered that he did not know, but that a sort of instinct guided him. From this habit of making indices, he was enabled to give the astonishing number of references on all sorts of subjects, which may be found in his 'History of Civilisation.' This book I thought most interesting, and read it twice, but I doubt whether his generalisations are worth anything. Buckle was a great talker, and I listened to him saying hardly a word, nor indeed could I have done so for he left no gaps. When Mrs. Farrer began to sing, I jumped up and said that I must listen to her; after I had moved away he turned around to a friend and said (as was overheard by my brother), "Well, Mr. Darwin's books are much better than his conversation." Of other great literary men, I once met Sydney Smith at Dean Milman's house. There was something inexplicably amusing in every word which he uttered. Perhaps this was partly due to the expectation of being amused. He was talking about Lady Cork, who was then extremely old. This was the lady who, as he said, was once so much affected by one of his charity sermons, that she _borrowed_ a guinea from a friend to put in the plate. He now said "It is generally believed that my dear old friend Lady Cork has been overlooked," and he said this in such a manner that no one could for a moment doubt that he meant that his dear old friend had been overlooked by the devil. How he managed to express this I know not. I likewise once met Macaulay at Lord Stanhope's (the historian's) house, and as there was only one other man at dinner, I had a grand opportunity of hearing him converse, and he was very agreeable. He did not talk at all too much; nor indeed could such a man talk too much, as long as he allowed others to turn the stream of his conversation, and this he did allow. Lord Stanhope once gave me a curious little proof of the accuracy and fulness of Macaulay's memory: many historians used often to meet at Lord Stanhope's house, and in discussing various subjects they would sometimes differ from Macaulay, and formerly they often referred to some book to see who was right; but latterly, as Lord Stanhope noticed, no historian ever took this trouble, and whatever Macaulay said was final. On another occasion I met at Lord Stanhope's house, one of his parties of historians and other literary men, and amongst them were Motley and Grote. After luncheon I walked about Chevening Park for nearly an hour with Grote, and was much interested by his conversation and pleased by the simplicity and absence of all pretension in his manners. Long ago I dined occasionally with the old Earl, the father of the historian; he was a strange man, but what little I knew of him I liked much. He was frank, genial, and pleasant. He had strongly marked features, with a brown complexion, and his clothes, when I saw him, were all brown. He seemed to believe in everything which was to others utterly incredible. He said one day to me, "Why don't you give up your fiddle-faddle of geology and zoology, and turn to the occult sciences!" The historian, then Lord Mahon, seemed shocked at such a speech to me, and his charming wife much amused. The last man whom I will mention is Carlyle, seen by me several times at my brother's house, and two or three times at my own house. His talk was very racy and interesting, just like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother's, where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of silence. After dinner Babbage, in his grimmest manner, thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence. Carlyle sneered at almost every one: one day in my house he called Grote's 'History' "a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it." I always thought, until his 'Reminiscences' appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent yet benevolent man; and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real, though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and men--far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another question. He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained he could, of Goethe's views on light. He thought it a most ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research. Whilst living in London, I attended as regularly as I could the meetings of several scientific societies, and acted as secretary to the Geological Society. But such attendance, and ordinary society, suited my health so badly that we resolved to live in the country, which we both preferred and have never repented of. RESIDENCE AT DOWN FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1842, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1876. After several fruitless searches in Surrey and elsewhere, we found this house and purchased it. I was pleased with the diversified appearance of vegetation proper to a chalk district, and so unlike what I had been accustomed to in the Midland counties; and still more pleased with the extreme quietness and rusticity of the place. It is not, however, quite so retired a place as a writer in a German periodical makes it, who says that my house can be approached only by a mule-track! Our fixing ourselves here has answered admirably in one way, which we did not anticipate, namely, by being very convenient for frequent visits from our children. Few persons can have lived a more retired life than we have done. Besides short visits to the houses of relations, and occasionally to the seaside or elsewhere, we have gone nowhere. During the first part of our residence we went a little into society, and received a few friends here; but my health almost always suffered from the excitement, violent shivering and vomiting attacks being thus brought on. I have therefore been compelled for many years to give up all dinner-parties; and this has been somewhat of a deprivation to me, as such parties always put me into high spirits. From the same cause I have been able to invite here very few scientific acquaintances. My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort. I have therefore nothing to record during the rest of my life, except the publication of my several books. Perhaps a few details how they arose may be worth giving. MY SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS. In the early part of 1844, my observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of the "Beagle" were published. In 1845, I took much pains in correcting a new edition of my 'Journal of Researches,' which was originally published in 1839 as part of Fitz-Roy's work. The success of this, my first literary child, always tickles my vanity more than that of any of my other books. Even to this day it sells steadily in England and the United States, and has been translated for the second time into German, and into French and other languages. This success of a book of travels, especially of a scientific one, so many years after its first publication, is surprising. Ten thousand copies have been sold in England of the second edition. In 1846 my 'Geological Observations on South America' were published. I record in a little diary, which I have always kept, that my three geological books ('Coral Reefs' included) consumed four and a half years' steady work; "and now it is ten years since my return to England. How much time have I lost by illness?" I have nothing to say about these three books except that to my surprise new editions have lately been called for. ('Geological Observations,' 2nd Edit.1876. 'Coral Reefs,' 2nd Edit. 1874.) In October, 1846, I began to work on 'Cirripedia.' When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, which burrowed into the shells of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole reception. Lately an allied burrowing genus has been found on the shores of Portugal. To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms; and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group. I worked steadily on this subject for the next eight years, and ultimately published two thick volumes (Published by the Ray Society.), describing all the known living species, and two thin quartos on the extinct species. I do not doubt that Sir E. Lytton Bulwer had me in his mind when he introduced in one of his novels a Professor Long, who had written two huge volumes on limpets. Although I was employed during eight years on this work, yet I record in my diary that about two years out of this time was lost by illness. On this account I went in 1848 for some months to Malvern for hydropathic treatment, which did me much good, so that on my return home I was able to resume work. So much was I out of health that when my dear father died on November 13th, 1848, I was unable to attend his funeral or to act as one of his executors. My work on the Cirripedia possesses, I think, considerable value, as besides describing several new and remarkable forms, I made out the homologies of the various parts--I discovered the cementing apparatus, though I blundered dreadfully about the cement glands--and lastly I proved the existence in certain genera of minute males complemental to and parasitic on the hermaphrodites. This latter discovery has at last been fully confirmed; though at one time a German writer was pleased to attribute the whole account to my fertile imagination. The Cirripedes form a highly varying and difficult group of species to class; and my work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the 'Origin of Species' the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time. From September 1854 I devoted my whole time to arranging my huge pile of notes, to observing, and to experimenting in relation to the transmutation of species. During the voyage of the "Beagle" I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me. But it was equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor the will of the organisms (especially in the case of plants) could account for the innumerable cases in which organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of life--for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes. I had always been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have been modified. After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject. My first note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders and gardeners, and by extensive reading. When I see the list of books of all kinds which I read and abstracted, including whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at my industry. I soon perceived that selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of animals and plants. But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me. In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement 'Malthus on Population,' and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess. But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature. Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my 'Origin of Species;' yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had collected, and I got through about half the work on this scale. But my plans were overthrown, for early in the summer of 1858 Mr. Wallace, who was then in the Malay archipelago, sent me an essay "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type;" and this essay contained exactly the same theory as mine. Mr. Wallace expressed the wish that if I thought well of his essay, I should sent it to Lyell for perusal. The circumstances under which I consented at the request of Lyell and Hooker to allow of an abstract from my MS., together with a letter to Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857, to be published at the same time with Wallace's Essay, are given in the 'Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society,' 1858, page 45. I was at first very unwilling to consent, as I thought Mr. Wallace might consider my doing so unjustifiable, for I did not then know how generous and noble was his disposition. The extract from my MS. and the letter to Asa Gray had neither been intended for publication, and were badly written. Mr. Wallace's essay, on the other hand, was admirably expressed and quite clear. Nevertheless, our joint productions excited very little attention, and the only published notice of them which I can remember was by Professor Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old. This shows how necessary it is that any new view should be explained at considerable length in order to arouse public attention. In September 1858 I set to work by the strong advice of Lyell and Hooker to prepare a volume on the transmutation of species, but was often interrupted by ill-health, and short visits to Dr. Lane's delightful hydropathic establishment at Moor Park. I abstracted the MS. begun on a much larger scale in 1856, and completed the volume on the same reduced scale. It cost me thirteen months and ten days' hard labour. It was published under the title of the 'Origin of Species,' in November 1859. Though considerably added to and corrected in the later editions, it has remained substantially the same book. It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the first highly successful. The first small edition of 1250 copies was sold on the day of publication, and a second edition of 3000 copies soon afterwards. Sixteen thousand copies have now (1876) been sold in England; and considering how stiff a book it is, this is a large sale. It has been translated into almost every European tongue, even into such languages as Spanish, Bohemian, Polish, and Russian. It has also, according to Miss Bird, been translated into Japanese (Miss Bird is mistaken, as I learn from Prof. Mitsukuri.--F.D.), and is there much studied. Even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, showing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament! The reviews were very numerous; for some time I collected all that appeared on the 'Origin' and on my related books, and these amount (excluding newspaper reviews) to 265; but after a time I gave up the attempt in despair. Many separate essays and books on the subject have appeared; and in Germany a catalogue or bibliography on "Darwinismus" has appeared every year or two. The success of the 'Origin' may, I think, be attributed in large part to my having long before written two condensed sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I had, also, during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer. It has sometimes been said that the success of the 'Origin' proved "that the subject was in the air," or "that men's minds were prepared for it." I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species. Even Lyell and Hooker, though they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by Natural Selection, but signally failed. What I believe was strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were stored in the minds of naturalists ready to take their proper places as soon as any theory which would receive them was sufficiently explained. Another element in the success of the book was its moderate size; and this I owe to the appearance of Mr. Wallace's essay; had I published on the scale in which I began to write in 1856, the book would have been four or five times as large as the 'Origin,' and very few would have had the patience to read it. I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it, for I cared very little whether men attributed most originality to me or Wallace; and his essay no doubt aided in the reception of the theory. I was forestalled in only one important point, which my vanity has always made me regret, namely, the explanation by means of the Glacial period of the presence of the same species of plants and of some few animals on distant mountain summits and in the arctic regions. This view pleased me so much that I wrote it out in extenso, and I believe that it was read by Hooker some years before E. Forbes published his celebrated memoir ('Geolog. Survey Mem.,' 1846.) on the subject. In the very few points in which we differed, I still think that I was in the right. I have never, of course, alluded in print to my having independently worked out this view. Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the 'Origin,' as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class. No notice of this point was taken, as far as I remember, in the early reviews of the 'Origin,' and I recollect expressing my surprise on this head in a letter to Asa Gray. Within late years several reviewers have given the whole credit to Fritz Muller and Hackel, who undoubtedly have worked it out much more fully, and in some respects more correctly than I did. I had materials for a whole chapter on the subject, and I ought to have made the discussion longer; for it is clear that I failed to impress my readers; and he who succeeds in doing so deserves, in my opinion, all the credit. This leads me to remark that I have almost always been treated honestly by my reviewers, passing over those without scientific knowledge as not worthy of notice. My views have often been grossly misrepresented, bitterly opposed and ridiculed, but this has been generally done, as I believe, in good faith. On the whole I do not doubt that my works have been over and over again greatly overpraised. I rejoice that I have avoided controversies, and this I owe to Lyell, who many years ago, in reference to my geological works, strongly advised me never to get entangled in a controversy, as it rarely did any good and caused a miserable loss of time and temper. Whenever I have found out that I have blundered, or that my work has been imperfect, and when I have been contemptuously criticised, and even when I have been overpraised, so that I have felt mortified, it has been my greatest comfort to say hundreds of times to myself that "I have worked as hard and as well as I could, and no man can do more than this." I remember when in Good Success Bay, in Tierra del Fuego, thinking (and, I believe, that I wrote home to the effect) that I could not employ my life better than in adding a little to Natural Science. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like, but they cannot destroy this conviction. During the two last months of 1859 I was fully occupied in preparing a second edition of the 'Origin,' and by an enormous correspondence. On January 1st, 1860, I began arranging my notes for my work on the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication;' but it was not published until the beginning of 1868; the delay having been caused partly by frequent illnesses, one of which lasted seven months, and partly by being tempted to publish on other subjects which at the time interested me more. On May 15th, 1862, my little book on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' which cost me ten months' work, was published: most of the facts had been slowly accumulated during several previous years. During the summer of 1839, and, I believe, during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant. I attended to the subject more or less during every subsequent summer; and my interest in it was greatly enhanced by having procured and read in November 1841, through the advice of Robert Brown, a copy of C.K. Sprengel's wonderful book, 'Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur.' For some years before 1862 I had specially attended to the fertilisation of our British orchids; and it seemed to me the best plan to prepare as complete a treatise on this group of plants as well as I could, rather than to utilise the great mass of matter which I had slowly collected with respect to other plants. My resolve proved a wise one; for since the appearance of my book, a surprising number of papers and separate works on the fertilisation of all kinds of flowers have appeared: and these are far better done than I could possibly have effected. The merits of poor old Sprengel, so long overlooked, are now fully recognised many years after his death. During the same year I published in the 'Journal of the Linnean Society' a paper "On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition of Primula," and during the next five years, five other papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants. I had noticed in 1838 or 1839 the dimorphism of Linum flavum, and had at first thought that it was merely a case of unmeaning variability. But on examining the common species of Primula I found that the two forms were much too regular and constant to be thus viewed. I therefore became almost convinced that the common cowslip and primrose were on the high road to become dioecious;--that the short pistil in the one form, and the short stamens in the other form were tending towards abortion. The plants were therefore subjected under this point of view to trial; but as soon as the flowers with short pistils fertilised with pollen from the short stamens, were found to yield more seeds than any other of the four possible unions, the abortion-theory was knocked on the head. After some additional experiment, it became evident that the two forms, though both were perfect hermaphrodites, bore almost the same relation to one another as do the two sexes of an ordinary animal. With Lythrum we have the still more wonderful case of three forms standing in a similar relation to one another. I afterwards found that the offspring from the union of two plants belonging to the same forms presented a close and curious analogy with hybrids from the union of two distinct species. In the autumn of 1864 I finished a long paper on 'Climbing Plants,' and sent it to the Linnean Society. The writing of this paper cost me four months; but I was so unwell when I received the proof-sheets that I was forced to leave them very badly and often obscurely expressed. The paper was little noticed, but when in 1875 it was corrected and published as a separate book it sold well. I was led to take up this subject by reading a short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He sent me seeds, and on raising some plants I was so much fascinated and perplexed by the revolving movements of the tendrils and stems, which movements are really very simple, though appearing at first sight very complex, that I procured various other kinds of climbing plants, and studied the whole subject. I was all the more attracted to it, from not being at all satisfied with the explanation which Henslow gave us in his lectures, about twining plants, namely, that they had a natural tendency to grow up in a spire. This explanation proved quite erroneous. Some of the adaptations displayed by Climbing Plants are as beautiful as those of Orchids for ensuring cross-fertilisation. My 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication' was begun, as already stated, in the beginning of 1860, but was not published until the beginning of 1868. It was a big book, and cost me four years and two months' hard labour. It gives all my observations and an immense number of facts collected from various sources, about our domestic productions. In the second volume the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, etc., are discussed as far as our present state of knowledge permits. Towards the end of the work I give my well-abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value; but if anyone should hereafter be led to make observations by which some such hypothesis could be established, I shall have done good service, as an astonishing number of isolated facts can be thus connected together and rendered intelligible. In 1875 a second and largely corrected edition, which cost me a good deal of labour, was brought out. My 'Descent of Man' was published in February, 1871. As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in the 'Origin of Species' the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honourable man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that by the work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." It would have been useless and injurious to the success of the book to have paraded, without giving any evidence, my conviction with respect to his origin. But when I found that many naturalists fully accepted the doctrine of the evolution of species, it seemed to me advisable to work up such notes as I possessed, and to publish a special treatise on the origin of man. I was the more glad to do so, as it gave me an opportunity of fully discussing sexual selection--a subject which had always greatly interested me. This subject, and that of the variation of our domestic productions, together with the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, and the intercrossing of plants, are the sole subjects which I have been able to write about in full, so as to use all the materials which I have collected. The 'Descent of Man' took me three years to write, but then as usual some of this time was lost by ill health, and some was consumed by preparing new editions and other minor works. A second and largely corrected edition of the 'Descent' appeared in 1874. My book on the 'Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals' was published in the autumn of 1872. I had intended to give only a chapter on the subject in the 'Descent of Man,' but as soon as I began to put my notes together, I saw that it would require a separate treatise. My first child was born on December 27th, 1839, and I at once commenced to make notes on the first dawn of the various expressions which he exhibited, for I felt convinced, even at this early period, that the most complex and fine shades of expression must all have had a gradual and natural origin. During the summer of the following year, 1840, I read Sir C. Bell's admirable work on expression, and this greatly increased the interest which I felt in the subject, though I could not at all agree with his belief that various muscles had been specially created for the sake of expression. From this time forward I occasionally attended to the subject, both with respect to man and our domesticated animals. My book sold largely; 5267 copies having been disposed of on the day of publication. In the summer of 1860 I was idling and resting near Hartfield, where two species of Drosera abound; and I noticed that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I carried home some plants, and on giving them insects saw the movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it probable that the insects were caught for some special purpose. Fortunately a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing a large number of leaves in various nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous fluids of equal density; and as soon as I found that the former alone excited energetic movements, it was obvious that here was a fine new field for investigation. During subsequent years, whenever I had leisure, I pursued my experiments, and my book on 'Insectivorous Plants' was published in July 1875--that is, sixteen years after my first observations. The delay in this case, as with all my other books, has been a great advantage to me; for a man after a long interval can criticise his own work, almost as well as if it were that of another person. The fact that a plant should secrete, when properly excited, a fluid containing an acid and ferment, closely analogous to the digestive fluid of an animal, was certainly a remarkable discovery. During this autumn of 1876 I shall publish on the 'Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom.' This book will form a complement to that on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in which I showed how perfect were the means for cross-fertilisation, and here I shall show how important are the results. I was led to make, during eleven years, the numerous experiments recorded in this volume, by a mere accidental observation; and indeed it required the accident to be repeated before my attention was thoroughly aroused to the remarkable fact that seedlings of self-fertilised parentage are inferior, even in the first generation, in height and vigour to seedlings of cross-fertilised parentage. I hope also to republish a revised edition of my book on Orchids, and hereafter my papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants, together with some additional observations on allied points which I never have had time to arrange. My strength will then probably be exhausted, and I shall be ready to exclaim "Nunc dimittis." WRITTEN MAY 1ST, 1881. 'The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation' was published in the autumn of 1876; and the results there arrived at explain, as I believe, the endless and wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one plant to another of the same species. I now believe, however, chiefly from the observations of Hermann Muller, that I ought to have insisted more strongly than I did on the many adaptations for self-fertilisation; though I was well aware of many such adaptations. A much enlarged edition of my 'Fertilisation of Orchids' was published in 1877. In this same year 'The Different Forms of Flowers, etc.,' appeared, and in 1880 a second edition. This book consists chiefly of the several papers on Heterostyled flowers originally published by the Linnean Society, corrected, with much new matter added, together with observations on some other cases in which the same plant bears two kinds of flowers. As before remarked, no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers. The results of crossing such flowers in an illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as bearing on the sterility of hybrids; although these results have been noticed by only a few persons. In 1879, I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause's 'Life of Erasmus Darwin' published, and I added a sketch of his character and habits from material in my possession. Many persons have been much interested by this little life, and I am surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold. In 1880 I published, with [my son] Frank's assistance, our 'Power of Movement in Plants.' This was a tough piece of work. The book bears somewhat the same relation to my little book on 'Climbing Plants,' which 'Cross-Fertilisation' did to the 'Fertilisation of Orchids;' for in accordance with the principle of evolution it was impossible to account for climbing plants having been developed in so many widely different groups unless all kinds of plants possess some slight power of movement of an analogous kind. This I proved to be the case; and I was further led to a rather wide generalisation, viz. that the great and important classes of movements, excited by light, the attraction of gravity, etc., are all modified forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation. It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings; and I therefore felt an especial pleasure in showing how many and what admirably well adapted movements the tip of a root possesses. I have now (May 1, 1881) sent to the printers the MS. of a little book on 'The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms.' This is a subject of but small importance; and I know not whether it will interest any readers (Between November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies have been sold.), but it has interested me. It is the completion of a short paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and has revived old geological thoughts. I have now mentioned all the books which I have published, and these have been the milestones in my life, so that little remains to be said. I am not conscious of any change in my mind during the last thirty years, excepting in one point presently to be mentioned; nor, indeed, could any change have been expected unless one of general deterioration. But my father lived to his eighty-third year with his mind as lively as ever it was, and all his faculties undimmed; and I hope that I may die before my mind fails to a sensible extent. I think that I have become a little more skilful in guessing right explanations and in devising experimental tests; but this may probably be the result of mere practice, and of a larger store of knowledge. I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time; but it has had the compensating advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of others. There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mind leading me to put at first my statement or proposition in a wrong or awkward form. Formerly I used to think about my sentences before writing them down; but for several years I have found that it saves time to scribble in a vile hand whole pages as quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and then correct deliberately. Sentences thus scribbled down are often better ones than I could have written deliberately. Having said thus much about my manner of writing, I will add that with my large books I spend a good deal of time over the general arrangement of the matter. I first make the rudest outline in two or three pages, and then a larger one in several pages, a few words or one word standing for a whole discussion or series of facts. Each one of these headings is again enlarged and often transferred before I begin to write in extenso. As in several of my books facts observed by others have been very extensively used, and as I have always had several quite distinct subjects in hand at the same time, I may mention that I keep from thirty to forty large portfolios, in cabinets with labelled shelves, into which I can at once put a detached reference or memorandum. I have bought many books, and at their ends I make an index of all the facts that concern my work; or, if the book is not my own, write out a separate abstract, and of such abstracts I have a large drawer full. Before beginning on any subject I look to all the short indexes and make a general and classified index, and by taking the one or more proper portfolios I have all the information collected during my life ready for use. I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did. On the other hand, novels which are works of the imagination, though not of a very high order, have been for years a wonderful relief and pleasure to me, and I often bless all novelists. A surprising number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if moderately good, and if they do not end unhappily--against which a law ought to be passed. A novel, according to my taste, does not come into the first class unless it contains some person whom one can thoroughly love, and if a pretty woman all the better. This curious and lamentable loss of the higher aesthetic tastes is all the odder, as books on history, biographies, and travels (independently of any scientific facts which they may contain), and essays on all sorts of subjects interest me as much as ever they did. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better constituted than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature. My books have sold largely in England, have been translated into many languages, and passed through several editions in foreign countries. I have heard it said that the success of a work abroad is the best test of its enduring value. I doubt whether this is at all trustworthy; but judged by this standard my name ought to last for a few years. Therefore it may be worth while to try to analyse the mental qualities and the conditions on which my success has depended; though I am aware that no man can do this correctly. I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am therefore a poor critic: a paper or book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is only after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My power to follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited; and therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or mathematics. My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or read something opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing, or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I can generally recollect where to search for my authority. So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of poetry. Some of my critics have said, "Oh, he is a good observer, but he has no power of reasoning!" I do not think that this can be true, for the 'Origin of Species' is one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men. No one could have written it without having some power of reasoning. I have a fair share of invention, and of common sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or doctor must have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree. On the favourable side of the balance, I think that I am superior to the common run of men in noticing things which easily escape attention, and in observing them carefully. My industry has been nearly as great as it could have been in the observation and collection of facts. What is far more important, my love of natural science has been steady and ardent. This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have had the strongest desire to understand or explain whatever I observed,--that is, to group all facts under some general laws. These causes combined have given me the patience to reflect or ponder for any number of years over any unexplained problem. As far as I can judge, I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in this manner, for with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot remember a single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time to be given up or greatly modified. This has naturally led me to distrust greatly deductive reasoning in the mixed sciences. On the other hand, I am not very sceptical,--a frame of mind which I believe to be injurious to the progress of science. A good deal of scepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met with not a few men, who, I feel sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly serviceable. In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I have known. A gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good local botanist) wrote to me from the Eastern counties that the seed or beans of the common field-bean had this year everywhere grown on the wrong side of the pod. I wrote back, asking for further information, as I did not understand what was meant; but I did not receive any answer for a very long time. I then saw in two newspapers, one published in Kent and the other in Yorkshire, paragraphs stating that it was a most remarkable fact that "the beans this year had all grown on the wrong side." So I thought there must be some foundation for so general a statement. Accordingly, I went to my gardener, an old Kentish man, and asked him whether he had heard anything about it, and he answered, "Oh, no, sir, it must be a mistake, for the beans grow on the wrong side only on leap-year, and this is not leap-year." I then asked him how they grew in common years and how on leap-years, but soon found that he knew absolutely nothing of how they grew at any time, but he stuck to his belief. After a time I heard from my first informant, who, with many apologies, said that he should not have written to me had he not heard the statement from several intelligent farmers; but that he had since spoken again to every one of them, and not one knew in the least what he had himself meant. So that here a belief--if indeed a statement with no definite idea attached to it can be called a belief--had spread over almost the whole of England without any vestige of evidence. I have known in the course of my life only three intentionally falsified statements, and one of these may have been a hoax (and there have been several scientific hoaxes) which, however, took in an American Agricultural Journal. It related to the formation in Holland of a new breed of oxen by the crossing of distinct species of Bos (some of which I happen to know are sterile together), and the author had the impudence to state that he had corresponded with me, and that I had been deeply impressed with the importance of his result. The article was sent to me by the editor of an English Agricultural Journal, asking for my opinion before republishing it. A second case was an account of several varieties, raised by the author from several species of Primula, which had spontaneously yielded a full complement of seed, although the parent plants had been carefully protected from the access of insects. This account was published before I had discovered the meaning of heterostylism, and the whole statement must have been fraudulent, or there was neglect in excluding insects so gross as to be scarcely credible. The third case was more curious: Mr. Huth published in his book on 'Consanguineous Marriage' some long extracts from a Belgian author, who stated that he had interbred rabbits in the closest manner for very many generations, without the least injurious effects. The account was published in a most respectable Journal, that of the Royal Society of Belgium; but I could not avoid feeling doubts--I hardly know why, except that there were no accidents of any kind, and my experience in breeding animals made me think this very improbable. So with much hesitation I wrote to Professor Van Beneden, asking him whether the author was a trustworthy man. I soon heard in answer that the Society had been greatly shocked by discovering that the whole account was a fraud. (The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth relied has been pointed out by himself in a slip inserted in all the copies of his book which then remained unsold.) The writer had been publicly challenged in the Journal to say where he had resided and kept his large stock of rabbits while carrying on his experiments, which must have consumed several years, and no answer could be extracted from him. My habits are methodical, and this has been of not a little use for my particular line of work. Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement. Therefore my success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been--the love of science--unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject--industry in observing and collecting facts--and a fair share of invention as well as of common sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some important points. 
28380	----	Transcriber's note: In this e-text the letter e with a breve is represented by [)e]. Minor printer's errors have been corrected without note. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected and are listed at the end of the text. "Great Writers." Edited by Professor Eric S. Robertson, M.A., LIFE OF DARWIN. LIFE OF CHARLES DARWIN by G. T. BETTANY London Walter Scott 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row 1887 CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE Darwin's ancestry; his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, a successful physician, and author of "The Botanic Garden," "The Temple of Nature," &c.; his father, Robert Waring Darwin, also a successful physician; his maternal grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood, the celebrated potter; his mother's education and training; Charles Robert Darwin, born at Shrewsbury, Feb. 12, 1809; Mrs. Darwin dies in July, 1817; her eldest son, Erasmus, friend of the Carlyles; Charles Darwin's education by Mr. Case, and at Shrewsbury Grammar School; his character as a boy; is sent to Edinburgh University in 1825 11 CHAPTER II. Darwin a member of the Plinian Society, of Edinburgh; makes natural history excursions; his first scientific paper read March 27, 1827; friendship with Dr. Grant; Jameson's lectures on zoology; Darwin enters Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1828; his friendship with Prof. Henslow; his account of Henslow; Darwin at this time specially an entomologist; his excursions with Henslow; takes B.A. degree in 1831, M.A. in 1837; voyage of _Beagle_ proposed, and Darwin appointed as naturalist; the _Beagle_ sails on Dec. 27, 1831; Darwin's letters to Henslow published 1835; 1832, Darwin at Teneriffe, Cape de Verde Islands, St. Paul's Rocks, Bahia, Rio de Janeiro (April); excursions into interior and amusing adventures; his experiences and horror of slavery; at Monte Video, July; Maldonado, Rio Negro; visit to Tierra del Fuego, Dec. 1832--Jan. 1833; _rencontre_ with General Rosas; many extinct animals discovered; Buenos Ayres, Sept. 1833; excursion to Santa Fé; Port Desire, Dec. 1833; Port St. Julian, Jan. 1834; Valparaiso, July 1834; expeditions to the Andes, Santiago, &c.; Chiloe, Nov. 1834; the Chonos Archipelago, Dec. 1834; Valdivia, Feb. 1835; an earthquake experience; expedition across the Cordillera in March, 1835; voyage across the Pacific commenced in September; the Galapagos Archipelago and its interesting animals; Tahiti, Nov. 1835; Darwin's opinion of English products, and of the influence of Christian missionaries; New Zealand, Dec. 1835; Port Jackson, Jan. 1836; Tasmania, Feb.; the Keeling Islands, April; the homeward journey; Falmouth reached, Oct. 2, 1836; Capt. Fitzroy's opinion of Darwin; Darwin's first impression of savages 22 CHAPTER III. Darwin elected F.G.S.; Lyell's high opinion of him; secretary of the Geological Society, Feb. 1838-41; reads numerous papers before the Society; elected F.R.S., Jan. 24, 1839; marries his cousin, Miss Wedgwood, early in 1839; "Journal of Researches," published 1839, highly praised in _Quarterly Review_; publication of zoology of the _Beagle_ (1839-43); extraordinary animals described therein; other results of the voyage; plants described by Hooker and Berkeley; work on "Coral Reefs" published 1842; Darwin's new theory at once accepted; subsequent views of Semper, Dana, and Murray; second and third parts of Geology of _Beagle_ ("Volcanic Islands" and "South America"); other geological papers; Darwin settles at Down House, near Beckenham, 1842; appears at Oxford meeting of British Association, 1847; contributes chapter on Geology to Herschel's manual of Scientific Enquiry; publishes great works on recent and fossil cirripedia, 1851-4; receives Royal Medal of Royal Society, 1853, and Wollaston Medal of Geological Society, 1859 51 CHAPTER IV. Confusion in description of species; labours of Professors Owen and Huxley; Darwin's ideas on the origin of species germinated during the voyage of the _Beagle_; he collected facts, 1837-42; drew up a sketch, 1842; enlarged it in 1844; previous speculations on the subject; views of Erasmus Darwin, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and Lamarck; Darwin's opinion of Lamarck; influence of Lyell; influence of South American experience; reads Malthus on Population; "Vestiges of Creation "; Mr. Herbert Spencer and evolution; Lyell's letters; Sir Joseph Hooker on species; Mr. A. R. Wallace communicates his views to Darwin; Lyell and Hooker persuade Darwin to publish his views together with those of Wallace; introductory letter by Lyell and Hooker to Linnean Society, June 30, 1858; Darwin's and Wallace's papers, read July 1, 1858; Sir J. Hooker announces his adhesion to Darwin's views, 1859 64 CHAPTER V. Analysis of the "Origin of Species," published Nov. 1859; special notes of Darwin's personal experiences; remarkable growth of morphology and embryology since its publication; opposition to the new views; criticisms of leading journals and reviews; second edition of "Origin," called for in six weeks; third, in March 1861; historical sketch of progress of opinion prefixed; alterations in successive editions; sixth edition, 1872; foreign translations 79 CHAPTER VI. Darwin's physical appearance, habits, distinguished visitors; his kindliness; attachment of friends; his family; he reads important botanical papers before the Linnean Society; publishes the "Fertilisation of Orchids," 1862; analysis of the book; Darwin receives Copley Medal of Royal Society, 1864; "Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants," 1865; "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868; the hypothesis of pangenesis not favourably received 100 CHAPTER VII. "The Descent of Man," 1871; Darwin's varied use of personal experiences; his views on the differences between men and women; his views on happiness and its promotion in mankind; reception of the "Descent of Man"; _Punch_, the _Quarterlies_, _The Saturday Review_ 113 CHAPTER VIII. "Expression of the Emotions," 1872; Darwin's methods of studying the question; his personal experiences; studies of children; reminiscences of South American travel; studies of monkeys; his wide study of novels; his influence on mental science 126 CHAPTER IX. "Insectivorous Plants," 1875; how Darwin was led to study them; analysis of the book; "Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation," 1876; competitive germination and growth; "The Different Forms of Flowers," 1877; "The Power of Movement in Plants," 1880 136 CHAPTER X. Honours bestowed on Darwin; his reception at Cambridge in 1877; portraits by Richmond and Collier; Haeckel's and De Candolle's descriptions of visits to Darwin; "The Formation of Vegetable Mould by Earthworms," 1881; the long series of experiments on which it was based; obligations of archæologists to worms; gradual exhaustion in 1882; his death on April 19, 1882 146 CHAPTER XI. Darwin buried in Westminster Abbey, April 26, 1882; quotation from _The Times_; subscriptions to Darwin memorial; large number of subscriptions from Sweden; statue executed by Mr. Boehm, placed in Museum of Natural History, South Kensington, unveiled by Prince of Wales, June 9, 1885; remainder of fund handed to Royal Society to promote biological research; _The Saturday Review_ on Darwin; his geniality and humour; his influence on others; his lack of prejudice; extracts from his letters; letter on experiments on living animals; Darwin as an experimenter; his attitude towards Christianity and revelation; his literary style; his imagination; Prof. Huxley on Darwin; Dr. Masters on his influence on horticulture; Messrs. Sully and Winchell on his philosophy; conclusion 154 INDEX 171 * * * * * NOTE. Darwin revealed himself so largely in his books, that a vivid picture of much of his life can be extracted from them. Thus it has been found possible to combine much biographical interest with sketches of his most important works. Like other biographers of Darwin, I am much indebted to Mr. Woodall's valuable memoir, contributed to the Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological Society. But original authorities have been consulted throughout, and the first editions of Darwin's books quoted, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. I am greatly obliged to Messrs. F. Darwin and G. J. Romanes for kindly permitting me to quote from Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Romanes. I must also express my thanks to my friends, Mr. Romanes and Prof. D'Arcy W. Thompson, for doing me the great service of looking over the proof-sheets of this book. LIFE OF DARWIN. CHAPTER I. If ever a man's ancestors transmitted to him ability to succeed in a particular field, Charles Darwin's did. If ever early surroundings were calculated to call out inherited ability, Charles Darwin's were. If ever a man grew up when a ferment of thought was disturbing old convictions in the domain of knowledge for which he was adapted, Charles Darwin did. If ever a man was fitted by worldly position to undertake unbiassed and long-continued investigations, Charles Darwin was such a man. And he indisputably found realms waiting for a conqueror. Yet Darwin's achievements far transcend his advantages of ancestry, surroundings, previous suggestion, position. He stands magnificently conspicuous as a genius of rare simplicity of soul, of unwearied patience of observation, of striking fertility and ingenuity of method, of unflinching devotion to and belief in the efficacy of truth. He revolutionised not merely half-a-dozen sciences, but the whole current of thinking men's mental life. The Darwins were originally a Lincolnshire family of some position, and being royalists suffered heavy losses under the Commonwealth. The third William Darwin (born 1655), whose mother was a daughter of Erasmus Earle, serjeant-at-law,[1] married the heiress of Robert Waring, of Wilsford, Notts, who also inherited the manor of Elston, near Newark, in that county, which still remains in the family. Robert Darwin, second son of this William Darwin, succeeded to the Elston estate, and was described by Stukeley, the antiquary, as "a person of curiosity," an expression conveying high commendation. His eldest son, Robert Waring Darwin, studied botany closely, and published a "Principia Botanica," which reached a third edition; but his youngest son, Erasmus, born 1731, was destined to become the first really famous man of the family. Erasmus Darwin's personal characteristics, his medical talents, and his poetic writings were such as to overshadow, for his own generation, his scientific merit. We have not space here to describe his career and his works, which has been so well done by his grandson, and by Ernst Krause ("Erasmus Darwin," 1879). Horace Walpole regarded his description of creation in "The Botanic Garden" (part i., canto 1, lines 103-114) as the most sublime passage in any language he knew: and _The Edinburgh Review_ (vol. ii., 1803, p. 501) says of his "Temple of Nature": "If his fame be destined in anything to outlive the fluctuating fashion of the day, it is on his merit as a poet that it is likely to rest; and his reveries in science have probably no other chance of being saved from oblivion but by having been 'married to immortal verse.'" The present age regards it as next to impossible to write science in poetry; although few have succeeded better in the attempt than Erasmus Darwin. It is singular that he should have partially anticipated his illustrious grandson's theories, but without supporting them by experimental proof or by deep scientific knowledge. Suffice it to say now, that Erasmus contemplated to a great extent the same domain of science as Charles Darwin, having also a mechanical turn; and was educated at Edinburgh and Cambridge. His observations on Providence in 1754, when only twenty-three, in commenting on his father's death, are very interesting to compare with his grandson's attitude: "That there exists a superior Ens Entium, which formed these wonderful creatures, is a mathematical demonstration. That He influences things by a particular providence is not so evident. The probability, according to my notion, is against it, since general laws seem sufficient for that end.... The light of Nature affords us not a single argument for a future state: this is the only one, that it is possible with God, since He who made us out of nothing can surely re-create us; and that He will do this we humbly hope." He published an ode against atheism, with which he has strangely enough often been charged, beginning-- "Dull atheist, could a giddy dance Of atoms lawless hurl'd Construct so wonderful, so wise, So harmonised a world?" and his moral standpoint is shown by the declaration that "the sacred maxims of the author of Christianity, 'Do as you would be done by,' and 'Love your neighbour as yourself,' include all our duties of benevolence and morality; and if sincerely obeyed by all nations, would a thousandfold multiply the present happiness of mankind" ("Temple of Nature," 1803, p. 124). His principal poetical writings were "The Botanic Garden," in two parts; Part I. containing "The Economy of Vegetation," first published in 1790; and Part II., "The Loves of the Plants," in 1788, before the first part had appeared. "The Temple of Nature, or the Origin of Society," was published after his death, in 1803. His chief prose works are "Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life," in two volumes, 1794-6, the second volume being exclusively medical; and "Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening," 1800. All these books are in quarto, with plates. His views on species are referred to on pages 66 and 67. [Transcriber's Note: Footnote 6.] Robert Waring Darwin, third son of Erasmus by his first wife, Mary Howard, was born in 1766. As a boy he was brought much into association with the Wedgwoods of Stoke, Josiah Wedgwood being one of Erasmus Darwin's most intimate friends. In 1779 Robert, already destined to be a doctor, stayed at Etruria for some time, sharing with Wedgwood's children in Warltire's private chemical instruction; and Josiah Wedgwood wrote at this time: "The boys drink in knowledge like water, with great avidity." Before he was twenty Robert Darwin had taken his medical degree with distinction at Edinburgh, where he had the advantage of the lectures of Black, Cullen, and Gregory, and had also studied at Leyden, and travelled in Germany. In 1786 his father set him up in practice at Shrewsbury, leaving him with twenty pounds, which was afterwards supplemented by a similar sum from his uncle, John Darwin, Rector of Elston. On this slender capital he contrived to establish himself, in spite of severe competition; and his burly form and countenance, as he sat in his invariable yellow chaise, became well known to every man, woman, and child around Shrewsbury for many miles. Before long, no one thought of sending to Birmingham for a consultant, and Dr. Darwin was for many years the leading Shropshire physician, and accumulated an abundant fortune. According to his son Charles, Robert Darwin "did not inherit any aptitude for poetry or mechanics, nor did he possess, as I think, a scientific mind. He published, in vol. lxxvi. of the 'Philosophical Transactions,' a paper on Ocular Spectra, which Wheatstone told me was a remarkable production for the period; but I believe that he was largely aided in writing it by his father. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1788. I cannot tell why my father's mind did not appear to me fitted for advancing science, for he was fond of theorising, and was incomparably the most acute observer whom I ever knew. But his powers in this direction were exercised almost wholly in the practice of medicine and in the observation of human character. He intuitively recognised the disposition or character, and even read the thoughts, of those with whom he came into contact, with extraordinary astuteness. This skill partly accounts for his great success as a physician, for it impressed his patients with belief in him; and my father used to say that the art of gaining confidence was the chief element in a doctor's worldly success." Sensitive, sociable, a good talker, high-spirited and somewhat irascible, a man who admitted no one to his friendship whom he could not thoroughly respect, the friend of the poor, prescribing gratuitously to all who were needy, pre-eminent for sympathy, which for a time made him hate his profession for the constant suffering it brought before his eyes--such was Charles Darwin's father. Miss Meteyard, in her "Group of Englishmen," 1871, gives a vivid picture of the old doctor, his acknowledged supremacy in Shrewsbury, his untiring activity and ubiquity, his great dinner parties, his liberal and rather unpopular opinions, tolerated for the sake of his success in curing his patients. His face, powerful, unimpassioned, mild, and thoughtful, was always the same as he rolled through the streets and lanes, for he sat "as though carved in stone." His love of children was marked. "He would address them in his small, high-pitched falsetto voice, and if their answers pleased him he would reply; and occasionally, lifting them on to a chair or table, he would measure their heads with his broad hand, as though reading character, and mentally prognosticating their future fate." The successful doctor bought a piece of land near the Holyhead road, and built on it a large square house, of plain architecture, which from its charming position, a hundred feet above the Severn, received the name of "The Mount."[2] Having thus provided the nest, in 1796 he brought home his wife, Susannah Wedgwood, eldest daughter of the celebrated potter, to whom he was married at Marylebone Church on April 18th. The character and education of Charles Darwin's mother is a matter of considerable interest, notwithstanding that her death when he was only eight years old cut short her opportunities of influencing him. She was born at Burslem in January, 1765, and a year after her father describes her as a "fine, sprightly lass:" she became his best-beloved child. She was partly educated in London, under the eye of her father's partner, the accomplished Thomas Bentley, in whose heart she won as tender a place as in her father's. Later she continued her education at home with her brothers, under good tuition. Many visits were exchanged between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods, and old Erasmus Darwin became very fond of Miss Wedgwood. By the time of her marriage she was matured by much intercourse with notable people, as well as by extensive reading, and from her experience of London society and varied travel in England was well fitted to shine as the county doctor's wife. From her father, who died in 1795, she had doubtless inherited, in addition to a handsome fortune, many valuable faculties, and probably she transmitted more of them to her son Charles than she herself manifested. Josiah Wedgwood, over whose career it would be delightful to linger, is well described by Miss Meteyard in words which might be precisely applied to Charles Darwin, as "patient, stedfast, humble, simple, unconscious of half his own greatness, and yet by this very simplicity, patience, and stedfastness displaying the high quality of his moral and intellectual characteristics, even whilst insuring that each step was in the right direction, and firmly planted." A truly experimental genius in artistic manufacture, Wedgwood foreshadowed a far greater experimental genius in science. Before her famous son was born, however, Mrs. Darwin's health had begun to fail, and in 1807 she wrote to a friend: "Every one seems young but me." Her second son (four daughters having preceded him) was born at The Mount on February 12, 1809, and christened "Charles Robert," at St. Chad's Church, Shrewsbury, on November 17th following. No doubt her declining health emphasised her attachment to home pursuits, to quiet reading, to the luxuriant garden, and to her numerous domestic pets. The beauty, variety, and lameness of The Mount pigeons was well known in the town and far beyond. Mr. Woodall states that one of Darwin's schoolfellows, the Rev. W. A. Leighton, remembers him plucking a plant and recalling one of his mother's elementary lessons in botany. Too soon however the mother was taken from The Mount; she died in July, 1817, when Charles was between eight and nine years old. The eldest son of Dr. Robert Darwin, on whom the grandfather's name of Erasmus had been bestowed, is notable as the intimate friend of the Carlyles. "He had something of original and sarcastically ingenious in him," says Carlyle, in his "Reminiscences," "one of the sincerest, naturally truest, and most modest of men.... E. Darwin it was who named the late Whewell, seeing him sit, all ear (not all assent), at some of my lectures, 'The Harmonious Blacksmith.' My dear one had a great favour for this honest Darwin always; many a road to shops, and the like, he drove her in his cab, in those early days when even the charge of omnibuses was a consideration, and his sparse utterances, sardonic often, were a great amusement to her. 'A perfect gentleman,' she at once discerned him to be, and of sound worth and kindliness, in the most unaffected form." He died in 1881, aged 77, leaving no memorial to the public of his undoubtedly great abilities. Like his younger brother, he was a member of Christ's College, Cambridge, where he graduated M.B., in 1828. Early in 1817, the closing year of his mother's life, Charles Darwin was placed at school with the Rev. George Case, minister of the Shrewsbury Unitarian church, to which the Darwins were attached, in this resembling the Wedgwoods. At midsummer, 1818, however, the boy entered Shrewsbury Grammar School, then under Samuel Butler, afterwards Bishop of Lichfield. Classics, as ever, formed the staple of the instruction there afforded, and proved but little to the future naturalist's taste. Unfortunately for the repute of English schools, Charles Darwin was little benefited by his schooling; and Euclid, then an extra subject, constituted, to his mind, the only bit of real education Shrewsbury school gave him. Seventy years later, the study of mother earth and her teeming productions, which Darwin made so attractive, is still but scantily represented in the instruction afforded by our great schools. Thus out of sympathy with the prevalent studies, the youth showed no fondness for his schoolfellows' sports. He was reserved, frequently lost in thought, and fond of long solitary rambles, according to one schoolfellow, the Rev. W. A. Leighton; another, the Rev. John Yardley, Vicar of St. Chad's, Shrewsbury, remembers him as cheerful, good-tempered, and communicative. One of the recorded incidents of his boyish days is a fall from the old Shrewsbury wall, while walking in a "brown study." Even at this early period he was fond of collecting objects which many schoolboys delight in, such as shells and minerals, seals, franks, and coins; and the mechanical aptitude derived from both the Darwins and the Wedgwoods was manifested by keen interest in mechanism. One especially remembered youthful treat was when his uncle Josiah Wedgwood explained to him the principle of the vernier. No doubt the pigeons, the exotics, the shrubs and flowers of his father's grounds impressed themselves indelibly on the boy's mind and unconsciously prepared him for his future. Schooldays were for him fortunately not protracted, for in 1825, at the age of sixteen, he went to Edinburgh University, where his father and grandfather had likewise studied, with the idea of devoting himself to medicine. The youth of sixteen was well equipped with the results of long thinking and observing rather than with book-learning, and was prepared to play an independent part without noise and show, assimilating that which commended itself to his mind, and rejecting that which found no appropriate soil in him, in a manner characteristic of genuine originality. FOOTNOTES: [1: This is the Erasmus Earle who forms the subject of "A Lawyer's Love Letters," in _The National Review_, February, 1887. Letters of his are also printed in the Tenth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.] [2: "The house is seen," says Mr. Woodall, "from the line immediately beyond the low tower of St. George's Church. Visitors who make a pilgrimage there, after crossing the Welsh Bridge, follow the main street until St. George's Church is passed, and the continuous line of houses ceases. The next carriage drive, on the right, cutting in two a lofty side-walk, is the entrance to The Mount. A short street of new houses, near St. George's Church, has been called 'Darwin Street;' as yet the only public recognition in the town of the greatest of Salopians. A memorial of a more private character has been placed in the Unitarian Chapel, in the form of a tablet bearing the following inscription:--'To the memory of Charles Robert Darwin, author of "The Origin of Species," born in Shrewsbury, February 12th, 1809. In early life a member and constant worshipper in this church. Died April 19th, 1882.' Mrs. Darwin, we believe, was not strict in her adhesion to the communion in which she had been brought up, but often attended St. Chad's Church, where Charles and his brother were baptized."] CHAPTER II. When Charles Darwin went to Edinburgh, the university was not in one of its palmiest periods. The medical professors failed to attract him to their profession, and two years of Edinburgh satisfied him that medicine should not absorb him. With natural history the case was different. Its attractiveness for Darwin increased. He found congenial companionship in the Edinburgh Plinian Society, and Mr. W. F. Ainsworth relates (in _The Athenæum_, May 13, 1882) that Darwin and himself made frequent excursions on the shores of the Firth of Forth in pursuit of objects of natural history, sometimes visiting the coasts of Fifeshire, and sometimes the islands off the coast. On one occasion, accompanied by Dr. Greville, the botanist, they went to the Isle of May, and were both exceedingly amused at the effect produced upon the eminent author of the Scottish Cryptogamic Flora by the screeching of the kittiwakes and other water-fowl. He had actually to lie down on the greensward to enjoy his prolonged cachinnation. On another occasion the young naturalists were benighted on Inch Keith, but found refuge in the lighthouse. Darwin was now not merely a collector and exploring naturalist, but he observed biological facts of importance. On the 27th of March, 1827, he made a communication to the Plinian Society on the ova, or rather larvæ, of the Flustra or sea-mat, a member of the class Polyzoa, forming a continuous mat-like colony of thousands of organisms leading a joint-stock existence. He announced that he had discovered in these larvæ organs of locomotion, then so seldom, now so frequently, known to exist on such bodies. At the same time, he made known that the small black body which until that time had been mistaken for the young state of a species of seaweed, was in reality the egg of _Pontobdella muricata_, a sort of sea-leech. On the 3rd of April following, the discoverer exhibited specimens of the latter creature with eggs and young. In making these researches, Darwin was no doubt stimulated and aided by the teaching of Dr. Grant, afterwards Professor of Natural History at University College, London, who was then at Edinburgh, making discoveries in the structure of sponges. Professor Jameson, too, who was then forming his splendid museum of natural history, cannot fail to have influenced Darwin somewhat; and we find that the first lecture of the concluding portion of Jameson's zoological course, dealing with "The Philosophy of Zoology," had the suggestive title of "The Origin of the Species of Animals." Thus we must acknowledge that already at Edinburgh Darwin was fairly started in the paths of zoological inquiry, and the northern university must be admitted to share with Cambridge, the distinction of being the foster-parent of this giant-child. Medicine being distasteful, Edinburgh had no other distinctive charms to offer to young Darwin, and he was entered at Christ's College, Cambridge, early in 1828, with the idea of his becoming a clergyman of the Church of England. It might have been thought that there was scant stimulus for a biological student in the Cambridge of that period; but although the old literary and mathematical studies were still the only paths to a degree, there were men of original force and genius at work preparing the ground for a coming revolution. Sedgwick was teaching geology with the fire of a prophet, and Henslow as a botanist was showing that lessons of enthralling interest were to be learned from the humblest flower. Henslow especially attracted young Darwin, who never forgot his old teacher. In the preface to the journal of his voyage in the _Beagle_ he returns his most sincere thanks to Professor Henslow, "who," he says, "when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, was one chief means of giving me a taste for natural history; who, during my absence, took charge of the collections I sent home, and by his correspondence directed my endeavours--and who, since my return, has constantly rendered me every assistance which the kindest friend could offer." No better idea of Darwin's Cambridge days can be given than that which is derived from reading his account of Professor Henslow, contributed to the Rev. L. Jenyns's "Memoirs" of that accomplished man. There can be no doubt, also, that in thus pourtraying the character of another, he was at the same time, as Mr. Romanes puts it, "unconsciously giving a most accurate description of his own." "I went to Cambridge," wrote Darwin, "early in the year 1828, and soon became acquainted, through some of my brother entomologists,[3] with Professor Henslow, for all who cared for any branch of natural history were equally encouraged by him. Nothing could be more simple, cordial, and unpretending than the encouragement which he afforded to all young naturalists. I soon became intimate with him, for he had a remarkable power of making the young feel completely at ease with him; though we were all awe-struck with the amount of his knowledge. Before I saw him I heard one young man sum up his attainments by simply saying that he knew everything. When I reflect how immediately we felt at perfect ease with a man older and in every way so immensely our superior, I think it was as much owing to the transparent sincerity of his character, as to his kindness of heart, and, perhaps, even still more to a highly remarkable absence in him of all self-consciousness. One perceived at once that he never thought of his own varied knowledge or clear intellect, but solely on the subject in hand. Another charm, which must have struck every one, was that his manner to old and distinguished persons and to the youngest student was exactly the same: to all he showed the most winning courtesy. He would receive with interest the most trifling observation in any branch of natural history, and however absurd a blunder one might make, he pointed it out so clearly and kindly, that one left him in no way disheartened, but only determined to be more accurate the next time. In short, no man could be better formed to win the entire confidence of the young, and to encourage them in their pursuits. "His lectures on botany were universally popular, and as clear as daylight. So popular were they, that several of the older members of the university attended successive courses. Once every week he kept open house in the evening, and all who cared for natural history attended these parties, which, by thus favouring intercommunication, did the same good in Cambridge, in a very pleasant manner, as the scientific societies do in London. At these parties many of the most distinguished members of the university occasionally attended; and when only a few were present, I have listened to the great men of those days conversing on all sorts of subjects, with the most varied and brilliant powers. This was no small advantage to some of the younger men, as it stimulated their mental activity and ambition. Two or three times in each session he took excursions with his botanical class, either a long walk to the habitat of some rare plant, or in a barge down the river to the fens, or in coaches to some more distant place, as to Gamlingay, to see the wild lily-of-the-valley, and to catch on the heath the rare natter-jack. These excursions have left a delightful impression on my mind. He was, on such occasions, in as good spirits as a boy, and laughed as heartily as a boy at the misadventures of those who chased the splendid swallow-tail butterflies across the broken and treacherous fens. He used to pause every now and then and lecture on some plant or other object; and something he could tell us on every insect, shell, or fossil collected, for he had attended to every branch of natural history. After our day's work we used to dine at some inn or house, and most jovial we then were. I believe all who joined these excursions will agree with me that they have left an enduring impression of delight on our minds. "As time passed on at Cambridge I became very intimate with Professor Henslow, and his kindness was unbounded; he continually asked me to his house, and allowed me to accompany him in his walks. He talked on all subjects, including his deep sense of religion, and was entirely open. I owe more than I can express to this excellent man. His kindness was steady. When Captain Fitzroy offered to give up part of his own cabin to any naturalist who would join the expedition in H.M.S. _Beagle_, Professor Henslow recommended me as one who knew very little, but who, he thought, would work. I was strongly attached to natural history, and this attachment I owed in large part to him. During the five years' voyage he regularly corresponded with me, and guided my efforts; he received, opened, and took care of all the specimens sent home in many large boxes; but I firmly believe that, during these five years, it never once crossed his mind that he was acting towards me with unusual and generous kindness. "During the years when I associated so much with Professor Henslow I never once saw his temper even ruffled. He never took an ill-natured view of any one's character, though very far from blind to the foibles of others. It always struck me that his mind could not be even touched by any paltry feeling of vanity, envy, or jealousy. With all this equability of temper and remarkable benevolence, there was no insipidity of character. A man must have been blind not to have perceived that beneath this placid exterior there was a vigorous and determined will. When principle came into play no power on earth could have turned him one hair's breadth.... "In intellect, as far as I could judge, accurate powers of observation, sound sense, and cautious judgment seemed predominant. Nothing seemed to give him so much enjoyment as drawing conclusions from minute observations. But his admirable memoir on the geology of Anglesea shows his capacity for extended observations and broad views. Reflecting over his character with gratitude and reverence, his moral attributes rise, as they should do in the highest character, in pre-eminence over his intellect." The young man's modesty is conspicuous in the above narrative. He does not see how his own transparent candour, his desire to learn, his respect for those who were already masters of science, won upon the great men with whom he came in contact. It was by no means as "one who knew very little" that Henslow recommended Darwin to Captain Fitzroy, but as "a young man of promising ability, extremely fond of geology, and indeed all branches of natural history." "In consequence," says Fitzroy, "an offer was made to Mr. Darwin to be my guest on board, which he accepted conditionally. Permission was obtained for his embarkation, and an order given by the Admiralty that he should be borne on the ship's books for provisions. The conditions asked by Mr. Darwin were, that he should be at liberty to leave the _Beagle_ and retire from the expedition when he thought proper, and that he should pay a fair share of the expenses of my table." Darwin had taken an ordinary or "poll" degree in 1831 and was admitted a Master of Arts in 1837. In the interval he had become truly a Master of Science, which at that time was adequately recognised by no university in the British dominions. The memorable voyage of the _Beagle_, a little barque of 242 tons, was at first delayed by heavy gales which twice drove her back; but she finally sailed from Devonport on December 27, 1831. The object of the expedition was to complete the survey of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, to survey the shores of Chili, Peru, and some Pacific Islands, and to carry a chain of chronometrical measurements round the world. Professor Henslow's interest in his young pupil's progress is shown by the fact that in 1835 (December 1) he printed some extracts from his letters, for distribution among the members of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, in consequence of the notice excited by some geological observations they contained, which had been read before the society on the 16th of November previous. The following points having a personal reference to the traveller may be quoted. On August 15, 1832, Darwin wrote from Monte Video, "I might collect a far greater number of specimens of invertebrate animals if I took up less time over each: but I have come to the conclusion that two animals with their original colour and shape noted down will be more valuable to naturalists than six with only dates and place." Here we see the accuracy which was the source of much of his after-success. On November 24, 1832, he writes from the same place, "As for one little toad, I hope it may be new, that it may be christened 'Diabolicus.' Milton must allude to this very individual, when he talks of 'squat like a toad.'" In March, 1834, writing from East Falkland Island, he says, "The whole of the east coast of the southern part of South America has been elevated from the ocean since a period during which mussels have not lost their blue colour." Describing his examination of the central peaks of the Andes in Chili, he says, April 18, 1835, "I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed some of these views; it is worth coming from England, once to feel such intense delight. At an elevation of from ten to twelve thousand feet, there is a transparency in the air, and a confusion of distances, and a sort of stillness, which give the sensation of being in another world." Coming now to Darwin's Journal as first published in 1839, forming the third volume of Fitzroy's narrative, the 7th of January, 1832, on which the Peak of Teneriffe was seen suddenly illumined, while the lower parts were veiled in fleecy clouds, is noted as "the first of many delightful days never to be forgotten." On the 16th the Cape de Verde Islands were reached, and their volcanic geology was carefully explored. Darwin was already equipped with the first volume of Lyell's famous "Principles of Geology," published in 1830, the second following in 1832; and in the second edition of his journal, published in 1845, he acknowledges with grateful pleasure "that the chief part of whatever scientific merit this journal and the other works of the author may possess, has been derived from studying the well-known and admirable 'Principles of Geology.'" He was already noting the diffusion of minute organisms and impalpable dust by winds,[4] and was much surprised to find in some dust collected on a vessel 300 miles from land particles of stone more than a thousandth of an inch square. After this, he remarks, one need not be surprised at the diffusion of the far lighter and smaller sporules of cryptogamous plants. The volcanic island of St. Paul in the open Atlantic was touched at on February 16th, and it afforded the young naturalist a text for destroying the pretty ideas as to stately palms and birds taking possession of newly-formed oceanic land; at any rate, here were only two species of sea birds, no plants, and the fauna was completed by a number of insects and spiders of no very exalted habits. Fernando Noronha was passed on February 20th, and at last the South American continent was reached. On February 29th, at Bahia, Darwin describes his first day in a Brazilian forest, in a passage which is of special interest. "The day has passed delightfully. Delight itself, however, is a weak term to express the feelings of a naturalist who, for the first time, has wandered by himself in a Brazilian forest. The elegance of the grasses, the novelty of the parasitical plants, the beauty of the flowers, the glossy green of the foliage, but, above all, the general luxuriance of the vegetation, filled me with admiration. A most paradoxical mixture of sound and silence pervades the shady parts of the wood. The noise from the insects is so loud that it may be heard even in a vessel anchored several hundred yards from the shore; yet within the recesses of the forest a universal silence appears to reign. To a person fond of natural history, such a day as this brings with it a deeper pleasure than he can ever hope to experience again." Arriving at Rio de Janeiro early in April, Darwin made several excursions into the interior during the following three months. On these expeditions it was rarely indeed that decent accommodation could be procured at the inns. "On first arriving," he says, "it was our custom to unsaddle the horses and give them their Indian corn; then, with a low bow, to ask the senhor to do us the favour to give us something to eat. 'Anything you choose, sir,' was his usual answer. For the few first times, vainly I thanked Providence for having guided us to so good a man. The conversation proceeding, the case universally became deplorable. 'Any fish can you do us the favour of giving?' 'Oh, no, sir!' 'Any soup?' 'No, sir!' 'Any bread?' 'Oh, no, sir!' 'Any dried meat?' 'Oh, no, sir!' If we were lucky, by waiting a couple of hours, we obtained fowls, rice, and farinha. It not unfrequently happened that we were obliged to kill, with stones, the poultry for our own supper. When, thoroughly exhausted by fatigue and hunger, we timorously hinted that we should be glad of our meal, the pompous and (though true) most unsatisfactory answer was, 'It will be ready when it is ready!' If we had dared to remonstrate any further, we should have been told to proceed on our journey, as being too impertinent. The hosts are most ungracious and disagreeable in their manners; their houses and their persons are often filthily dirty; the want of the accommodation of forks, knives, and spoons is common; and I am sure no cottage or hovel in England could be found in a state so utterly destitute of every comfort." When we add to these discomforts on land the fact that the young traveller was a constant sufferer from sea-sickness and nausea, which became chronic, it becomes more surprising that he should not have withdrawn early from his adventurous course. But his energy and resolution were equal to any drafts upon them, and the delights of the study of nature outweighed all physical discomforts. Admiral J. Lort Stokes in a letter to _The Times_, after the death of his old friend and comrade in the _Beagle_, described how after perhaps an hour's work he would say, "Old fellow, I must take the horizontal for it." Then he would stretch himself on one side of the table, and obtain a brief relief from discomfort, after which he would resume work. Some remarks which Darwin makes upon slavery in South America are very forcible, and also illustrate his own sympathetic nature. Here is one incident which struck him more than any story of cruelty, as showing the degradation of slavery. "I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal." In one of the numerous additions to the second issue of the Journal in 1845, Darwin speaks thus eloquently from his heart: "On the 19th of August [1836], we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings when, passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child, even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye.... I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil.... Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter. What a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children--those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own--being torn from you, and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that His will be done on earth!" Such burning expressions are not yet superfluous, and it is wholesome to recall to a generation which scarcely realises the past miseries of slavery, and is too apt to rest content with what has been accomplished in diminishing the sufferings of slaves, white and black, the impression produced on a scientific man by what he saw. It is well, too, that it should be brought forcibly home to Englishmen that Darwin's heart was no less sympathetic than his intelligence was far-seeing, and that the testimony of friends of late years to his moral grandeur is corroborated by the personal records of his years of travel. The variety and interest of the observations made during his stay at Rio, when tropical nature was still a fresh and unexplored page to the young observer, are wonderful. Cabbage palms, liana creepers, luxuriant fern leaves--roads, bridges, and soil--planarian worms, frogs which climbed perpendicular sheets of glass, the light of fireflies, brilliant butterflies, fights between spiders and wasps, the victories of ants over difficulties, the habits of monkeys, the little Brazilian boys practising knife-throwing--all these came in turn under his watchful eyes and are vividly described. In July, 1832, Monte Video was reached, and the _Beagle_ was occupied in surveying the extreme southern and eastern coasts of America, south of La Plata, during the succeeding two years. During ten weeks at Maldonado an entertaining excursion to the River Polanco was made, and many a humorous remark appears in the Journal relating to it. "The greater number of the inhabitants [of European descent] had an indistinct idea that England, London, and North America were different names for the same place; but the better-informed well knew that London and North America were separate countries close together, and that England was a large town in London!" "Washing my face in the morning caused much speculation at the village of Las Minas; a superior tradesman closely cross-questioned me about so singular a practice." Among these rich descendants of Europeans Darwin felt as if he were among the inhabitants of Central Africa; so low can the proud superior race descend, that the distance between it and the negro appeared small indeed. The remarkable absence of trees in the country could not fail to provoke comment; but it is on the old-fashioned basis, and the young student does not get beyond the conclusion "that herbaceous plants, instead of trees, were created to occupy that wide area, which, within a period not very remote, has been raised above the waters of the sea." This appears in the first edition; but in 1845 these words were expunged, and the author says significantly "we must look to some other and unknown cause." At Maldonado within the distance of a morning's walk no fewer than eighty species of birds were collected, most of them exceedingly beautiful. Darwin's observations on the molothri (representatives of our cuckoos), the tyrant fly-catchers, and the carrion-feeding hawks are most attractive reading. Rio Negro, much further south, was next visited, and the fauna of a salt lake examined. The adaptation of creatures to live in and near brine struck him as wonderful. "Well may we affirm," says he, "that every part of the world is habitable! Whether lakes of brine, or those subterranean ones, hidden beneath volcanic mountains--warm mineral springs--the wide expanse and depths of the ocean--the upper regions of the atmosphere, and even the surface of perpetual snow--all support organic beings." Here he found reason to believe that all the great plains which he was surveying had been raised above the sea level in a modern geological period. Our naturalist started by land for Bahia Blanca and Buenos Ayres on August 11, 1833, and we have the record: "This was the first night which I had ever passed under the open sky, with the gear of the recado for my bed. There is high enjoyment in the independence of the Gaucho's life, to be able at any moment to pull up your horse, and say, 'Here we will pass the night.' The deathlike stillness of the plain, the dogs keeping watch, the gipsy group of Gauchos making their beds round the fire, have left in my mind a strongly-marked picture of this first night, which will not soon be forgotten." After an interesting _rencontre_ with General Rosas, Bahia Blanca was reached, and at Punta Alta were found many of the fossil bones which Owen subsequently described, this point being a perfect catacomb, as Darwin terms it, for monsters of extinct races. The remains of nine great kinds of quadrupeds chiefly allied to the sloths were found embedded on the beach within a space of about two hundred yards square; and these were associated with shells of molluscs of still existing species. Here was indeed a remarkable fact to germinate in the great naturalist's mind. It bore full fruit at a later date. An important theory then current, that large animals require a luxuriant vegetation, was overthrown at the same time, for there was every reason to believe that the sterility of the surrounding country was no new thing. The South American ostrich and many other animals here afforded material for important observations. On the way to Buenos Ayres, the rugged Sierra de la Ventana, a white quartz mountain, was ascended. Buenos Ayres was reached on September 20, 1833, and no time was lost in arranging for an expedition to Santa Fé, nearly 300 miles up the Parana. On October 3, Santa Fé was entered, and near it many more remains of large extinct mammals were found. The remains of a horse, in a similar fossil condition, greatly astonished our explorer, for it seemed indeed surprising that in South America a native horse should have co-existed with giant extinct forms, and should itself have become extinct, to be succeeded in modern times by the countless herds descended from the few horses introduced by the Spanish colonists. These and other strange facts in the distribution of mammalian animals in America led Darwin to make some pregnant comments. The enormous number of large bones embedded in the estuary deposits became continually more evident, until he came to the conclusion that the whole area of the Pampas was one wide sepulchre. Unfortunately ill-health compelled the explorer to return, and on October 12th he started for Buenos Ayres in a small vessel. During this journey he had an opportunity of examining the shifting and variable islands of the muddy Parana, on which the jaguar thrives. Arrived at Las Conchas, a revolution had broken out, and Darwin was detained to a certain extent under surveillance; but by the influence of General Rosas' name, he was allowed to pass the sentinels, leaving his guide and horses behind, and ultimately reached Buenos Ayres in safety. After a fortnight's delay, Monte Video was once more made for. Here it appeared that the _Beagle_ would remain sometime longer, so the restless inquirer started on another expedition, this time up the Uruguay and Rio Negro. One of the halts was at the house of a very large landed proprietor. A friend of the proprietor's, a runaway captain from Buenos Ayres, was very anxious to have the traveller's opinion on the beauty of the Buenos Ayres ladies, and on receiving satisfactory assurances, voluntarily gave up his bed to the stranger! During this journey amazing quantities of huge thistles were met with, the cardoon being as high as a horse's back, while the Pampas thistle rose above the rider's head. To leave the road for a yard was out of the question. Incidentally the writer describes fully the horsemanship of the Gauchos, and gives a vivid picture of the state of society in the towns. During this journey, too, a peculiar breed of small cattle, called niata, was observed, but full details were not given till the second edition of the Journal appeared. This breed is strangely at a disadvantage in droughts, compared with ordinary cattle; their lower jaws project beyond the upper, and their lips do not join, rendering them unable to browse on twigs. "This strikes me," says Darwin, "as a good illustration of how little we are able to judge from the ordinary habits of life, on what circumstances, occurring only at long intervals, the rarity or extinction of a species may be determined." By the time this appeared, however, in 1845, the author had embarked on his great investigation. The Rio Plata was quitted on December 6, 1833, and sail was made for Port Desire, on the coast of Patagonia. One evening, ten miles from the Bay of San Blas, myriads of butterflies filled the air, so that the seamen cried out that it was snowing butterflies. The flight seemed to be voluntary. On another occasion many beetles were found alive and swimming, seventeen miles from the nearest land. But these instances were insignificant compared with the alighting of a large grasshopper on the _Beagle_, when to windward of the Cape de Verde Islands, and when the nearest land, in a direction not opposed to the prevailing trade wind, was 370 miles distant. Marvellous appearances of spiders far from land were also noted. One day when the ship was sixty miles from land vast numbers of a small gossamer spider arrived. Its habits in fact were aëronautic; it would send forth a small thread, and suddenly letting go its hold, would sail away horizontally. The _Beagle_ arrived at Port Desire on December 23, 1833, but Patagonia afforded less of interest to the zoologist than the northern countries. The next halt was made at Port St. Julian, 110 miles further south, on January 9, 1834. Here the evidences of the modern elevation of Patagonia were powerfully reinforced, and further, from the nature of the animal remains arose the conviction that "existing animals have a close relation in form with extinct species," another of the germinal facts which bore fruit in the "Origin of Species." Darwin was led to speculate on the causes which could have extinguished so many great species, and he remarks most suggestively: "One is tempted to believe in such simple relations as variation of climate and food, or introduction of enemies, or the increased numbers of other species, as the cause of the succession of races." But he does not yet go farther. He ends his reflections by observing: "All that at present can be said with certainty is that, as with the individual, so with the species, the hour of life has run its course, and is spent." In the second edition of the Journal the philosopher showed signs of considerable advance (pp. 174-5). The effect of changed conditions is further developed. The checks to indefinite multiplication are insisted on, while the tendency of every species to increase geometrically is clearly pointed out. In the place of the former concluding sentence we find the following: "To admit that species generally become rare before they become extinct--to feel no surprise at the comparative rarity of one species with another, and yet to call in some extraordinary agent and to marvel greatly when a species ceases to exist, appears to me much the same as to admit that sickness in the individual is the prelude to death--to feel no surprise at sickness--but when the sick man dies, to wonder, and to believe that he died through violence." The continental regions of South America did not supply the sole food for the reflections of the young naturalist during this period. An intervening visit had been paid, in December, 1832, and January, 1833, to Tierra del Fuego, and the natives were most carefully observed. He was greatly struck by their low condition; "one can hardly make oneself believe they are fellow creatures, and inhabitants of the same world." Yet these abject people have been infinitely raised since that period by missionaries, and Darwin, hearing of this success, which he termed wonderful, sent a donation to the South American Missionary Society. The Falkland Islands were explored both in 1833 and 1834, and the Straits of Magellan were carefully examined, and many valuable geological facts recorded. The southern portion of the continent was at last quitted for Chili, Valparaiso being reached on July 23, 1834. After Tierra del Fuego this was a delightful change, and here Darwin found an old schoolfellow and friend, Mr. Richard Corfield, who entertained him hospitably during his stay in Chili. Various expeditions to the Andes, to Santiago, to gold mines and copper mines, supplied abundant objects of curiosity and science, as well as varied visions of beauty; but the fatigues undergone had to be paid for by a month's illness at Valparaiso, during which Mr. Corfield's kindness was unremitting. The large island of Chiloe was visited in November, and its climate even in summer proved wretched, reminding one of some parts of the Hebrides, a week without torrents of rain being wonderful. Castro, the almost deserted Spanish capital, could not furnish, even among hundreds of inhabitants, a pound of sugar or an ordinary knife. No one possessed either a watch or a clock, and the church bell was rung by guess by an old man who was supposed to have the best notion of time. In December the rugged Chonos Archipelago, still further south, was explored. Here a storm worthy of Tierra del Fuego was experienced. "White, massive clouds were piled up against a dark blue sky, and across them black, ragged sheets of vapour were rapidly driven. The successive mountain ranges appeared like dim shadows; and the setting sun cast on the woodland a yellow gleam, much like that produced by the flame of spirits of wine on a man's countenance. The water was white with the flying spray; and the wind lulled and roared again through the rigging. It was a most ominous, sublime scene." While near Tres Montes the year 1835 was ushered in, as Darwin says, "with the ceremonies proper to it in these regions. She lays out no false hopes; a heavy N.W. gale, with steady rain, bespeaks the rising year. Thank God, we are not destined here to see the end of it, but hope then to be in the Pacific, where a blue sky tells one there is a heaven--a something beyond the sky above our heads." Valdivia being reached in February, the _Beagle_ party were witnesses of a severe earthquake. Darwin was on shore, lying down in the wood to rest. The effect produced upon him by the motion he experienced was very marked: "There was no difficulty in standing upright, but the motion made me almost giddy. It was something like the movement of a vessel in a little cross ripple, or still more like that felt by a person skating over thin ice, which bends under the weight of his body. A bad earthquake at once destroys the oldest associations; the world, the very emblem of all that is solid, has moved beneath our feet like a crust over a fluid; one second of time has conveyed to the mind a strange idea of insecurity, which hours of reflection would never have created." By the same earthquake every house in Concepcion (afterwards visited) was thrown down, and a most impressive sight met the travellers. Arriving at Valparaiso again on March 11, 1835, after only an interval of two days the indefatigable explorer started to cross the Cordillera by the seldom traversed Portillo pass. Here geological observations were abundant. The roar of the mountain torrents spoke eloquently to the geologist. "The thousands and thousands of stones, which, striking against each other, make the one dull uniform sound, are all hurrying in one direction. It is like thinking of time, when the minute that now glides past is irrecoverable. So it is with these stones; the ocean is their eternity, and each note of that wild music tells of one other step towards their destiny." Who can fail to discern in such a passage the poetic instinct which Erasmus Darwin more fully manifested? Mendoza was reached on March 27th, and on the 29th the return journey by the northern or Uspallata pass was commenced. On the 10th of April Santiago was again arrived at, and Mr. Caldcleugh most hospitably welcomed the traveller, delighted with his expedition. "Never," he says, "did I more deeply enjoy an equal space of time." Various excursions in Northern Chili and Peru followed. Little was seen of Peru, owing to the troubled state of public affairs, and there was very little regret when the _Beagle_ started early in September on her journey across the Pacific. The Galapagos Islands, with their two thousand volcanic craters, their apparently leafless bushes and wretched weeds, their peculiar animals, so unsuspicious of man that they did not move when stones were thrown, were extremely interesting to the naturalist, and gave rise to numerous observations and suggestions in later works. The huge tortoises slowly carrying their great bodies about, appeared like strange antediluvian animals. The hideous large water-lizard (_Amblyrhynchus_), swimming with perfect ease, and capable of an hour's immersion in sea-water; and the land lizard of the same genus, so numerous that at James Island it was hardly possible to find a spot free from their burrows, the roofs of which constantly give way under the pedestrian, were equally strange denizens of this group of islands, where reptiles replace herbivorous mammals. With regard to the last-mentioned species we find a remark indicating the persistence of a belief in special creation up to this date. "It would appear as if this species had been created in the centre of the Archipelago, and thence had been dispersed only to a certain distance." During the years intervening between the first and second editions of the Journal, reflection intensified Darwin's perception of the singularity of the Galapagos fauna. "Considering the small size of these islands," he says, "we feel the more astonished at the number of their aboriginal beings, and at their confined range. Seeing every height crowned with its crater, and the boundaries of most of the lava streams still distinct, we are led to believe that within a period geologically recent the unbroken sea was here spread out. Hence, both in space and time, we seem to be brought somewhat nearer to that great fact--that mystery of mysteries--the first appearance of new beings on this earth." And he afterwards says, "One is astonished at the amount of creative force, if such an expression may be used, displayed on these small, barren, and rocky islands; and still more so at its diverse yet analogous action in points so near each other." The long voyage to Tahiti, 3,200 miles, begun on October 20, 1835, ending on November 15th, was succeeded by a most enjoyable stay. Darwin was as delighted as any traveller with the charms of the island and the islanders. His testimony to the quality of English products is worth noticing, if only as a piece of natural patriotism. He acknowledges that Tahitian pineapples are of excellent flavour, perhaps better than those cultivated in England, and this he believes to be the highest compliment which can be paid to a fruit, or indeed to anything else. He found reason to speak well of the influence of the Christian missionaries on the natives, and of the conscientiousness of the latter, in opposition to Kotzebue's narrative. On December 19th New Zealand was sighted. Our traveller's observations here are of much value, as relating to a late period before civilised government was effectively established. At Waimate he was delighted with the effects produced by the religious teacher. "The lesson of the missionary is the enchanter's wand," and he rejoiced as an Englishman at what his countrymen had effected. The remarkable absence of land mammals, the late enormous increase of the imported Norway rat, the dock spreading far and wide, its seeds having been sold as tobacco seeds by a rascally Englishman, the huge Kauri pines, were all full of import to the inquiring mind; but New Zealand proved on the whole less attractive, as seen by Darwin, than most other countries he had visited. December 30th saw the _Beagle_ on the way to Sydney, and Port Jackson was reached on January 12, 1836. An interesting excursion to the Blue Mountains and to Bathurst showed many aspects of colonial life, as well as the strange duckbill or platypus in its native haunts. Tasmania, with which island Darwin was greatly pleased, was visited in February. In April the Keeling Islands furnished much of the material for the future book on coral reefs, the essence of which is, however, included in the Journal. Mauritius, Cape Town, St. Helena, Ascension, Bahia, Pernambuco, Cape Verde, and the Azores were the successive stages of the homeward journey, and on October 2, 1836, anchor was cast at Falmouth, where the naturalist, equipped for his life work, was landed. The high opinion Captain Fitzroy formed of Darwin during this long voyage is shown by many passages in his own narrative, and by many other references. He paid him the marked compliment of naming no fewer than three important geographical localities after him, namely, Mount Darwin and Darwin Sound (Tierra del Fuego), and Port Darwin in North Australia, thus connecting his name for future generations with two lands whose inhabitants were subjects of Darwin's unceasing interest and investigation throughout life, and served in no small degree to elucidate the history and rise of mankind in Darwin's mind and for a world's instruction. Fitzroy complimented his friend markedly when himself receiving the medal of the Royal Geographical Society; and in one of his papers, speaking of him as a zealous volunteer in the cause of science, observed that his perseverance might be estimated from the fact that he never ceased to be a martyr to sea-sickness; while his interest in science and his public spirit were evident from his having presented his valuable collections to the public. The concluding pages of the Journal are both eloquent and instructive. Everywhere there had been fascinating visions, and attractive problems remained unsolved. Was it not significant of future studies that the contrast between barbarian and civilised man should have been so impressed upon the future author of "The Descent of Man"? He writes thus on this subject, "Of individual objects, perhaps no one is more certain to create astonishment than the first sight in his native haunt of a real barbarian, of man in his lowest and most savage state. One's mind hurries back over past centuries, and then asks, could our progenitors have been such as these? Men, whose very signs and expressions are less intelligible to us than those of the domesticated animals; men, who do not possess the instinct of those animals, nor yet appear to boast of human reason, or at least of arts consequent on that reason. I do not believe it is possible to describe or paint the difference between savage and civilised man. It is the difference between a wild and tame animal: and part of the interest in beholding a savage, is the same which would lead every one to desire to see the lion in his desert, the tiger tearing his prey in the jungle, the rhinoceros on the wide plain, or the hippopotamus wallowing in the mud of some African river." We have dwelt thus at length upon the history of this eventful voyage, not only because it filled an important space in Darwin's life, but also because it undoubtedly gave rise to the thoughts and speculations which impelled him to devote his life to the study of problems of evolution. It has been shown to some extent, how he saw, without pre-arrangement, just those phenomena which could stimulate his mind, already fit, to its highest flights. We have seen, too, how universal was Darwin's interest in nature, and how sympathetic a heart went with his scientific insight. He had yet to show how masterly was his patience, to work for yet twenty years, in order that he might not by premature publication of a crude theory risk defeat and throw science backward rather than forward. This long patient work was to be the triumph of his genius. FOOTNOTES: [3: This statement by Darwin disposes of Mr. Grant Allen's assertion that geology was Darwin's "first love" (p. 36). He reckoned himself an entomologist when he went to Cambridge, and certainly Mr. Ainsworth's statement shows that he was a naturalist in a wide sense while at Edinburgh. C. V. Riley, the well-known American entomologist, says (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, U.S., vol. i., 1882, p. 70) "I have the authority of my late associate editor of _The American Entomologist_, Benjamin Dann Walsh, who was a class-mate of Darwin's at Cambridge, that the latter's love of natural history was chiefly manifested, while there, in a fine collection of insects." Indeed, he was one of the original members of the Entomological Society of London, founded in 1833, and showed an active interest in its affairs throughout life, being elected a member of its council in 1838. As early as January 4, 1836, a memoir based on insects sent home by Darwin from Chiloe, was read before the Society by Charles Babington, now Professor of Botany at Cambridge.] [4: Mr. Grant Allen ("Darwin," p. 42) states that Darwin observed sixty-seven distinct organic forms in the fine dust which fell on deck. It was Ehrenberg who determined these organisms in dust sent to him by Darwin, and four out of five of the packets of dust sent to Ehrenberg were given to Darwin by Lyell (Darwin's Journal, second edition, p. 5).] CHAPTER III. On his return home, Darwin speedily placed himself in communication with the leaders of scientific progress, and, in consequence of the valuable results of his voyage, he soon found himself in a most advantageous position. On November 20, 1836, he was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society, and before the end of the year he had sent the manuscript of one of his early papers to Lyell, who writes to him (December 26, 1836): "I have read your paper with the greatest pleasure.... What a splendid field you have to write upon." He strongly advised the young man not to accept any official scientific place, but to devote himself to his own line of work. But Darwin was overpersuaded, and became a member of the Council of the Geological Society in the following February, and secretary in February, 1838. This office he held with success for three years. Lyell referred in considerable detail to the young traveller's views in his presidential address to the Society in 1837. Darwin's geological papers soon became numerous. In 1837 he discussed in succession the recent elevation of the coast of Chili, the deposits containing extinct mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata, the areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations, and the formation of mould (the precursor of a work he issued more than forty years later). Papers on the connection of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain chains, and other geological notes on South America, were read in 1838; the interesting Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, in Scotland, which he believed to be of marine origin, were described in 1839; the erratic (glacial) boulders of South America, in 1841; and coral reefs in 1842: a full record, one would imagine, of busy years, occupied also with secretarial work. Lyell, writing to Sir John Herschel (May 24, 1837), says: "I am very full of Darwin's new theory of coral islands, and have urged Whewell to make him read it at our next meeting. I must give up my volcanic crater theory for ever, though it costs me a pang at first." In March, 1838, Lyell describes the reception of the paper on volcanic phenomena at the Geological Society. "He opened upon De la Beche, Phillips, and others, his whole battery of the earthquakes and volcanoes of the Andes; and argued that spaces of a thousand miles long were simultaneously subject to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and that the elevation of the Pampas, Patagonia, &c., all depended upon a common cause." In fit acknowledgment of such services to science, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on January 24, 1839. Early in 1839 Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, daughter of his uncle Josiah Wedgwood: a union which, though consanguineous, proved in the highest degree congenial and fortunate. In succeeding years a numerous family of sons and daughters surrounded the happy parents. After considerable delays by the Admiralty, though it had long been ready, the Journal appeared, in 1839, as the third volume of Fitzroy's "Voyages of _The Adventure_ and _Beagle_." _The Quarterly Review_ (lxv. 224) said that there could be no two opinions of its merits. "We find ample materials for deep thinking; we have the vivid description that fills the mind's eye with brighter pictures than painter can present, and the charm arising from the freshness of heart which is thrown over these virgin pages of a strong intellectual man, and an acute and deep observer." Its merits, however, were somewhat slow to become known to the general public, owing to the original expensive form of publication; and it was not till 1845, when the second and enlarged edition appeared as "The Journal of Researches," that the popular ear was gained. Later, under the title, "A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World," the book has become very widely known and appreciated. The publication of "The Zoology of the Voyage of _The Beagle_," commenced in 1838, under Darwin's superintendence, gave a fuller view of the acquisitions to natural history which had been made than had previously been possible. The Treasury, acting on the representations of the presidents of the Linnean, Zoological, and Geological Societies, as well as of the naturalist himself, in 1837 made a grant of £1000 towards the expenses of publication of these memoirs. Owen's description of the fossil mammalia, completed in 1840; G. Waterhouse's of the living mammalia, in 1839; Gould's of the birds, in 1841; L. Jenyns's of the fish, in 1842; and Thomas Bell's of the reptiles, in 1843--all in quarto, with beautiful plates, were a solid testimony to a splendid success. Darwin furnished an introduction to each part, and the portions of the text referring to the habits and ranges of the living animals. Three species of mastodon and the gigantic megatherium were the only extinct mammalia known from South America previous to Darwin's voyage. To these were now added the _Mylodon Darwinii_, a giant sloth; the scelidotherium, a somewhat smaller form; the great camel-like, yet odd-toed, macrauchenia; and the toxodon, as large as a hippopotamus, yet having a strange resemblance to the little rodents. All these belonged to geological deposits not far anterior to the present age. The collections of living vertebrates were less profoundly interesting, but the number of new species was large; and the habits and localities being recorded by so good an observer, gave them additional value. The fossil mammals were given by the generous traveller to the London College of Surgeons, the mammals and birds to the Zoological Society, the reptiles to the British Museum, and the fishes to the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Nor was this all. The collections of insects, shells, and crustacea were described by many able specialists in scientific publications. The flowering plants were described by Hooker, and the non-flowering by Berkeley; and, altogether, no expedition ever yielded a more solid result to the scientific naturalist, while furnishing a delightful narrative to the general reader, and laying the foundation for generalisations of surpassing importance to all thinking minds. It was evident to many geologists that the greatest value would attach to the full record of the geological observations made by the gifted young secretary of the Geological Society. A year after the publication of the Journal the first portion of these observations, dealing with coral reefs, was almost ready, but the continued ill-health of the author delayed the publication till 1842. When it appeared, under the title of "The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs," its success was immediate and complete. Ever since their first description by voyagers, marvel had been expressed at the strange and beautiful phenomena presented by coral islands. Coral, as being built up by the tireless labours of innumerable so-called "insects," or "worms," had become associated with romantic ideas. It really consists of the internal skeletons of coral-polyps, allied to the sea anemone. Captain Basil Hall, in his "Voyage to Loo Choo," looking with the eyes of one ignorant of zoology, had credited the building of coral reefs to all kinds of creatures which lived on and near the coral after it had been made; and his erroneous views had been amplified and developed by James Montgomery, in his "Pelican Island," into the most fantastically incorrect description that ever versifier penned. Sad to relate, his lines were often quoted, as if correct, by scientific men in pre-Darwinian times. Nothing gives clearer evidence of the power of mind which Darwin had already attained when voyaging round the world than the originality of his views on coral reefs. The lagoon islands, or atolls, he describes as "vast rings of coral rock, often many leagues in diameter, here and there surmounted by a low verdant island, with dazzling white shores, bathed on the outside by the foaming breakers of the ocean; and, on the inside, surrounding a calm expanse of water which, from reflection, is of a bright, but pale, green colour." Keeling atoll, outside which, at less than a mile and a half distance, no bottom was found with a line 7,200 feet in length, having been fully described, and an account given of all other known atoll systems, the peculiarities of the great barrier reef of North-east Australia, and that of New Caledonia, were recounted. Off the latter, no bottom was found, at two ships' length from the reef, with a line 900 feet long. With these were linked the smaller reefs of Tahiti and others, where considerable islands are more or less completely surrounded by them. Next, the fringing or shore reefs, at first sight only a variety of barrier reefs, were clearly distinguished from them by the absence of an interior deep-water channel, and their not growing up from an immense, but from a moderate depth of water. The remarkable fact was pointed out by Darwin that all coral islands are within a little more than 30 degrees of the Equator, but that, at the same time, they are absent over certain larger areas within the tropical seas. There are none on the West Coast of South America, nor on the West Coast of Africa. In this portion of his work we have another significant sentence bearing on the struggle for existence. In discussing the apparently capricious distribution of coral reefs, he remarks that "the study of the terrestrial and better-known half of the world must convince every one that no station capable of supporting life is lost--nay more, that there is a struggle for each station between the different orders of nature." He describes the large fishes and the trepangs (_holothuriæ_) preying upon the coral-polyps, and shows how complex are the conditions which determine the formation of reefs on any shore. Perhaps no part of his work is more important than that in which he collects the evidence proving how rapidly coral masses grow, and that they for the most part cannot flourish in a greater depth of water than fifteen fathoms. Reasoning upon the facts observed by himself and others Darwin now proceeded to upset the received theory that atolls were based upon submarine volcanic craters, and to substitute for it the view that there has been a prolonged and gradual subsidence of the areas upon which the atolls are based, and a corresponding upward growth of the reef-building corals. Thus fringing-reefs in time become barrier-reefs; and barrier-reefs, when they encircle islands, are converted into atolls, or lagoon islands, as soon as the last pinnacle of land sinks beneath the surface of the ocean. The whole matter is summed up thus: "A magnificent and harmonious picture of the movements which the crust of the earth has within a late period undergone is presented to us. We see vast areas rising, with volcanic matter every now and then bursting forth through the vents or fissures with which they are traversed. We see other wide spaces slowly sinking without any volcanic outbursts; and we may feel sure that this sinking must have been immense in amount as well as in area, thus to have buried over the broad face of the ocean every one of these mountains above which atolls now stand like monuments, marking the place of their former existence." "No more admirable example of scientific method was ever given to the world," says Professor A. Geikie, "and even if he had written nothing else, this treatise alone would have placed Darwin in the very front of investigators of nature." After thirty-two years' interval, a second edition of "Coral Reefs" appeared, in a cheaper form, in 1874. It is rare indeed for a scientific treatise to attain at once and maintain so long a position of such undisputed authority. The eminent German naturalist, Semper, in 1863, criticised the general theory in consequence of his own careful examination of the Pelew Islands; but Darwin easily answered him by pointing to the cumulative evidence in favour of his own views. The only really important work on the subject, after Darwin's, was that of Professor J. D. Dana, the eminent American naturalist and geologist, on "Corals and Coral Islands," published in 1872. Darwin, in the preface to his second edition, candidly acknowledged that he had not previously laid sufficient weight on the mean temperature of the sea in determining the distribution of coral reefs; but this did not touch his main conception. In fact, he maintained his ground undisturbed, and at the same time admired greatly Dana's book, which was the result of personal examination of more coral formations than perhaps any one man had ever studied, and which accepted Darwin's fundamental proposition, that lagoon islands or atolls and barrier-reefs have been formed during periods of subsidence.[5] No such strikingly original theory is propounded in the second part of "The Geology of the _Beagle_" dealing chiefly with volcanic islands. St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde Islands; Fernando Noronha, Terceira, Tahiti, Mauritius, St. Paul's, Ascension, St. Helena, and the Galapagos are in turn more or less fully described, according to the opportunities the explorer had possessed. To some extent, as in the succeeding part, Darwin adapts his views on mountain elevation too closely to those enunciated by Elie de Beaumont. The third part of the geology of the _Beagle_, entitled "Geological Observations on South America," was not published till 1846. Even this did not exhaust the contributions to geology made from the _Beagle_ voyage, for it did not include the papers on the "Connection of certain Volcanic Phenomena in South America" (1838); on the "Distribution of Erratic Boulders" (1841); on the "Fine Dust which falls on Vessels" (1845); and on the "Geology of the Falkland Islands" (1846). A second edition of the two latter parts of "The Geology of the _Beagle_" was published in one volume in 1876. Meanwhile, after spending a few years of his early married life in London, during which he was often in ill-health, Darwin fixed his residence in 1842 at Down House, near Beckenham, Kent. The little village of Down, three or four miles from the Orpington railway station, was near enough to London for convenient access, yet greatly secluded and thoroughly rural. The traveller's roving days were over, and his infirmity of health prevented him from undertaking very fatiguing journeys. After the cessation of his active work for the Geological Society, Darwin's chief public appearance was when he spoke at the Oxford meeting of the British Association, in 1847, when, strange to say, Ruskin was secretary of the Geological Section. At Down then, situated some 400 feet above the sea level on a plateau of chalk, interrupted by wavy hollows with beech woods on the slopes, about forty years of Darwin's life were passed. Down House, one of the square red brick mansions of the last century, to which have been since added a gable-fronted wing on one side and a more squarely-built wing and pillared portico on the other, is shut in and almost hidden from the roadway by a high wall and belt of trees. On the south side a walled garden opens into a quiet meadow, bounded by underwood, through which is seen a delightful view of the narrow valley beyond, towards Westerham. One of the most admirable chapters of the well-known "Manual of Scientific Enquiry," published in 1849, for the use of the navy and travellers generally, and edited by Sir John Herschel, was Darwin's, on Geology. The explorer is here taught to make the most of his opportunities upon the soundest principles. The habits which the author had himself formed are inculcated upon the observer--copious collecting, accurate recording, much thinking. Nothing is omitted. Number-labels which can be read upside down must have a stop to indicate the right way up; every specimen should be ticketed on the day of collection; diagrams of all kinds should be made, as nearly as possible, to scale. "Acquire the habit of always seeking an explanation of every geological point met with." "No one can expect to solve the many difficulties which will be encountered, and which for a long time will remain to perplex geologists; _but a ray of light will occasionally be his reward, and the reward is ample_." Truly an ample reward awaited the observer who could thus speak of the value of "a ray of light;" he certainly did, to use the concluding words of the essay, "enjoy the high satisfaction of contributing to the perfection of the history of this wonderful world." Meanwhile Darwin had been carrying on a great research on the very peculiar order of crustacea, termed Cirripedia, better known as barnacles and acorn shells. He had originally only intended to describe a single abnormal member of the group, from South America, but was led, for the sake of comparison, to examine the internal parts of as many as possible. The British Museum collection was freely opened to him, and as the importance of studying the anatomy of many specimens became evident, the splendid collections of Messrs. Stutchbury, Cuming, and others were placed at his disposal, and he was permitted to open and to dissect unique specimens of great value. In fact, almost every naturalist of note who had any knowledge of the subject freely aided him, and the result was a masterly series of finely illustrated volumes; two on the living Cirripedia, issued by the Ray Society in 1851 and 1854; and two on the fossil Cirripedia of Great Britain, by the Palæontographical Society, published in the same years. There is evidence in these volumes that careful observations on the growth of these creatures had been made as far back as the visit to the Galapagos Islands in 1835. In many respects these works are as masterly as any the author ever wrote. Considering the previous obscurity of the subject, the difficulties attending the research, the almost entire lack at that time of any general microscopical knowledge of tissues, and especially of those of embryos, Darwin's success is marvellous. The details are too technical for statement here, but any one with a zoological training, who studies the strange complication of the reproductive systems, and the remarkable transformations which the young undergo, as told in these volumes, will appreciate more than ever the breadth and the solidity of the basis of patiently acquired knowledge which Charles Darwin had accumulated while his "Origin of Species" was taking shape. At the anniversary meeting of the Royal Society in November, 1853, a royal medal was presented to the author of "Coral Reefs" and the "Memoir on the Cirripedia," the president, the Earl of Rosse, eulogizing the former as one of the most important contributions to modern geology, and the latter as containing new facts and conclusions of first-rate interest. Finally, this chapter of Darwin's life may be closed with the tardy award of the Wollaston medal to him by the Geological Society, in February, 1859, when Professor John Phillips spoke of him as combining the rarest acquirements as a naturalist, with the qualifications of a first-class geologist, and as having by his admirable monograph on the fossil Cirripedia added much to a reputation already raised to the highest rank. Yet even such a reputation could not secure fair treatment and impartial judgment for the coming book, the subject of which might be supposed to require supreme gifts of the very kind Darwin possessed. FOOTNOTES: [5: Mr. John Murray's views, derived from the experience acquired in the voyage of the _Challenger_, and published in 1880, tend to modify Darwin's conclusions to some extent. Mr. Murray says that it is now shown that many submarine mountains exist, which are usually volcanic, and which, being built upon by various forms of shell-bearing animals, could be raised to such a level that ordinary corals could build upon them. He concludes that probably all atolls are seated on submarine volcanoes, and thus it is not necessary to suppose such extensive and long-continued subsidences as Darwin suggested. This view is also in harmony with Dana's views of the great antiquity and permanence of the great ocean basin. See "The Structure and Origin of Reefs and Islands." By John Murray; Proc. Roy. Soc., Edin., x. 505-18 (abstract); also _Nature_, xxii. 351-5.] CHAPTER IV. If no other record of Darwin's twenty-two years (1837-59) of life and thought after his return to England remained than the papers and books he published during that period, we should find enough to place him on a level with the most gifted biologists and geologists of his age. But all that time he was occupied with thoughts, researches, and experiments, of which the world at large perceived no fruits. Few persons suspected that a tremendous revolution in scientific thought was in preparation at the quiet country home at Down. New species of animals and plants were being described by naturalists at an alarming rate. The bulk of knowledge of specific characters and the necessity of specialisation bade fair to make every species-monger a dry and narrow pedant; and the pedants quarrelled about the characters and limits of their species. In the later years of this period some rays of improvement shone out. To end the reign of Owen's misleading types and imaginary archetypes, there arose a wielder of two potent words, "morphology" and "biology," the sciences of form and of life, who showed that differences of adult form grew out of likeness and simplicity in the young; and that the life of plants and animals was one science, their study one discipline. What Huxley had begun to proclaim from the housetop, Darwin was meditating in secret; and much more. Let us see how he states the case in the famous modest opening of the "Origin of Species" (1859): "When on board H.M.S. _Beagle_, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species--that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision." We learn also, independently, from the "Expression of the Emotions" (p. 19), that Darwin as early as 1838 was inclined to believe in the principle of evolution, or the derivation of species from other and lower forms. It is somewhat difficult to decide precisely what Darwin owed to his predecessors who believed in the mutability of species and doubted their separate creation; this is partly owing to his exceeding modesty. He was over-ready to acknowledge the value to himself of other people's ideas, and he under-estimated the strength of the illumination which his own mind threw upon those ideas, transforming them from guesses into probable hypotheses, confirming them by his vast and varied knowledge, and building a superstructure where they had laid but an uncertain foundation. The question was in the air; guessing replies of great interest were made by a few who doubted the received belief; but they were not satisfying answers and they did not effect a revolution. Goethe in Germany, Erasmus Darwin in England,[6] and Geoffroy Saint Hilaire in France, came independently to similar conclusions as to the mutability of species; and Lamarck followed with several well-known works in 1801-15, in which he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. As Darwin says, Lamarck first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. He saw the difficulty of distinguishing between species and varieties, the almost perfect gradation of form in some groups, and the great similarity of domestic breeds of animals to such species. He believed that some degree of change was produced by the physical conditions of life, the intercrossing of species, and by habits causing increased use or disuse of parts. Indeed he thought very many remarkable adaptations, such as that of the neck of the giraffe for browsing on trees, were the effect of habit. But he attributed, perhaps, more to a law of progressive development impressed on all forms of life, which thus would all in time gradually cease to be lowly, their place being taken by new forms continually or "spontaneously" generated. It does not appear that Lamarck would by any means have sufficed to convince Darwin, judging from his references to him in his Journal and the "Origin." Here is the passage in which in the second edition of his Journal he refers to the blindness of the Brazilian Tucutuco, or Ctenomys, a rodent or gnawing mammal with the habits of a mole: "Considering the strictly subterranean habits of the Tucutuco, the blindness, though so common, cannot be a very serious evil; yet it appears strange that any animal should possess an organ frequently subject to be injured. Lamarck would have been delighted with this fact had he known it when speculating (probably with more truth than usual with him) on the gradually _acquired_ blindness of the Aspalax, a gnawer living underground, and of the Proteus, a reptile living in dark caverns filled with water, in both of which animals the eye is in an almost rudimentary state, and is covered with a tendinous membrane and skin.... In the Tucutuco, which, I believe, never comes to the surface of the ground, the eye is rather larger (than in the mole), but often rendered blind and useless, though without apparently causing any inconvenience to the animal: no doubt Lamarck would have said that the Tucutuco is now passing into the state of the Aspalax and Proteus." Many years afterwards in the "Origin of Species" Darwin referred to the "erroneous views and grounds of opinion of Lamarck." No doubt some impulse to Darwin's views in this direction would be due to his intercourse with Dr. Grant at Edinburgh, whose celebrated paper on the fresh-water sponge concludes with a declaration of his belief that species are descended from other species, and that they become improved in the course of modification. But previous to the occurrences of his voyage, we can find no stronger influence tending to make Darwin an evolutionist, than Lyell's "Principles of Geology," which, by showing constant and gradual change as the law of the world's history now as in past periods, gave emphasis and point to all observations of change and succession in the living world. Indeed, in June, 1836, before Darwin's voyage was over, Lyell writes to Sir John Herschel: "In regard to the origination of new species, I am very glad to find that you think it probable that it may be carried on through the intervention of intermediate causes. I left this rather to be inferred, not thinking it worth while to offend a certain class of persons by embodying in words what would only be a speculation. But the German critics have attacked me vigorously, saying, that by the impugning of the doctrine of spontaneous generation, and substituting nothing in its place, I have left them nothing but the direct and miraculous intervention of the First Cause, as often as a new species is introduced, and hence I have overthrown my own doctrine of revolutions carried on by a regular system of secondary causes.... When I first came to the notion, which I never saw expressed elsewhere, though I have no doubt it had all been thought out before, of a succession of extinction of species, and creation of new ones going on perpetually now, and through an indefinite period of the past, and to continue for ages to come, all in accommodation to the changes which must continue in the inanimate and habitable earth, the idea struck me as the grandest which I had ever conceived, so far as regards the attributes of the Presiding Mind." In a succeeding paragraph, Lyell very remarkably foreshadows Darwin's "natural selection" and "struggle for existence." He speaks of a species being rendered more prolific in order to perpetuate its existence; "but this would perhaps make it press too hard upon other species at other times. Now if it be an insect it may be made in one of its transformations to resemble a dead stick, or a leaf, or a lichen, or a stone, so as to be somewhat less easily found by its enemies; or if this would make it too strong, an occasional variety of the species may have this advantage conferred on it; or if this would be still too much, one sex of a certain variety. _Probably there is scarcely a dash of colour on the wing or body of which the choice would be quite arbitrary, or which might not affect its duration for thousands of years._" The significance of the last sentence is immense, and when we reflect that this bold but cautious thinker was in constant intercourse with Darwin, we can readily comprehend why the second edition of the Journal was so enthusiastically dedicated to Lyell. On page 481 of the "Origin of Species," Darwin acknowledges that the belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable, as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration: which affords another proof how profoundly Lyell's views on the long duration of the past history of the globe, and its modification by the slow operation of existing causes, influenced Darwin, and led him to comprehend how species might be modified. We see Darwin, then, possessed of the idea that species are mutable, informed as to past and recent changes in the animal, plant, and physical world, seeking for causes which should suffice to produce modification of species by a continuous law. The next step in his progress was attention to domestic animals and cultivated plants. As he wrote in 1864 to Haeckel, one of his most brilliant followers: "In South America three classes of facts were brought strongly before my mind. Firstly, the manner in which closely-allied species replace species in going southward. Secondly, the close affinity of the species inhabiting the islands near South America to those proper to the continent. This struck me profoundly, especially the difference of the species in the adjoining islets in the Galapagos Archipelago. Thirdly, the relation of the living Edentata and Rodentia to the extinct species. I shall never forget my astonishment when I dug out a gigantic piece of armour like that of the living armadillo. "Having reflected much on the foregoing facts, it seemed to me probable that allied species were descended from a common ancestor. But during several years I could not conceive how each form could have been modified so as to become admirably adapted to its place in nature. I began, therefore, to study domesticated animals and cultivated plants,[7] and after a time perceived that man's power of selecting and breeding from certain individuals was the most powerful of all means in the production of new races. Having attended to the habits of animals, and their relations to the surrounding conditions, I was able to realise the severe struggle for existence to which all organisms are subjected; and my geological observations had allowed me to appreciate, to a certain extent, the duration of past geological periods. With my mind thus prepared, I fortunately happened to read Malthus's 'Essay on Population;' and the idea of natural selection through the struggle for existence at once occurred to me. Of all the subordinate points in the theory, the last which I understood was the cause of the tendency in the descendants from a common progenitor to diverge in character."[8] Malthus taught the inevitable tendency of all animal life to increase beyond the means of subsistence, and expounded the checks which begin to act when population increases too rapidly. But his book had lain unfruitful to naturalists since 1798, until Darwin read it, and with his special knowledge evolved from it the brilliant idea of the preservation of better-equipped races in the struggle for life, or, as Herbert Spencer put it, the survival of the fittest. At one bound the gloomy revelations of misery which the "Essay on Population" contained, were exchanged for the bright view of perpetual progress and improvement as being necessitated and brought about by the very struggle which ensued upon the natural increase of animal and plant life. Instead of struggle and pain, producing starvation and extinction merely, struggle and pain were seen as the conditions of development and improvement; the death of the lower, the life of the higher. It is less profitable here to attempt to sketch the history of ideas of evolution in general, because that history as now revealed by research, and as detailed by many writers, was not the path along which Darwin travelled. Indeed, many of these ideas were not disinterred, and certainly were not brought to Darwin's notice till after the publication of the "Origin of Species." True he read Robert Chambers's "Vestiges of Creation," which, with its "powerful and brilliant style," although displaying in its earlier editions "little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific caution," Darwin acknowledges to have done excellent service in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views. Herbert Spencer, in his Essay on the Development Hypothesis, first published in _The Leader_ in March, 1852, and republished in his "Essays" (first series, 1858), argued that species have been modified owing to change of circumstances, basing his argument upon the analogy of domestic animals and plants, the changes which the embryos of many species undergo, and the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties. But we need not here dwell on the works of these thinkers, important as they are to the general history of evolutionary thought, because Darwin's speculations had taken form long before, and he could be but slightly indebted to them. Far in advance of them he was at work collecting and testing the facts which alone could win general support for his views, and experimenting incessantly with the same object in view. Lyell and Hooker were in his confidence, and in Lyell's letters we meet with references such as the following, dated November 13, 1854: "You probably know about this (the remarkable orchid, Catasetum), which will figure in C. Darwin's book on 'Species,' with many other 'ugly facts,' as Hooker, clinging like me to the orthodox faith, calls these and other abnormal vagaries," showing at the same time how completely Darwin was the leader, while his friends, advanced as they were, hung back. Again (Lyell to Hooker, July 25, 1856): "Whether Darwin persuades you and me to renounce our faith in species (when geological epochs are considered) or not, I foresee that many will go over to the indefinite modifiability doctrine." Further light is thrown on the progress of ideas on species by Sir Joseph Hooker's admirably written Introductory Essay to the "Flora Novæ Zelandiæ," dated November, 1853, in which he discusses among other questions, "The Limits of Species; their Dispersion and Variation." While still adhering on the whole to the origin of species from single parents, or from one pair, and the permanence of specific characters, he insists that species vary more, and are more widely distributed, than is generally admitted, and that their distribution has been brought about by natural causes. In this essay he makes the following statements: "Mr. Darwin not only directed my earliest studies in the subjects of the distribution and variation of species, but has discussed with me all the arguments, and drawn my attention to many of the facts which I have endeavoured to illustrate in this essay. I know of no other way in which I can acknowledge the extent of my obligation to him, than by adding that I should never have taken up the subject in its present form but for the advantages I have derived from his friendship and encouragement." Appropriately enough, it was through Lyell and Hooker that the new theory was introduced to the public, and it was owing to them that Darwin did not obliterate his own claims to priority, and give them over to Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently come to similar conclusions. The letter, dated June 30, 1858, in which the announcement was conveyed to the Linnean Society, deserves quotation, as being the authoritative and accurate record of the circumstances which launched the "Origin of Species" upon the world: "The accompanying papers, which we have the honour of communicating to the Linnean Society, and which all relate to the same subject, viz., 'The Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species,' contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace. "These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. "Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of-- "1. Extracts from a MS. work on species, by Mr. Darwin, which was sketched in 1839, and copied in 1844, when the copy was read by Dr. Hooker, and its contents afterwards communicated to Sir Charles Lyell. The first part is devoted to 'The Variation of Organic Beings under Domestication and in their Natural State'; and the second chapter of that part, from which we propose to read to the Society the extracts referred to, is headed, 'On the Variation of Organic Beings in a State of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.' "2. An abstract of a private letter addressed to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston, U.S., in October, 1857, by Mr. Darwin, in which he repeats his views, and which shows that these remained unaltered from 1839 to 1857. "3. An essay by Mr. Wallace, entitled 'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type.' This was written at Ternate in February, 1858, for the perusal of his friend and correspondent, Mr. Darwin, and sent to him with the expressed wish that it should be forwarded to Sir Charles Lyell, if Mr. Darwin thought it sufficiently novel and interesting. So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace's consent to allow the essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of Mr. Wallace) the memoir which he had himself written on the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us been privy to for many years. On representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we thought proper of his memoir, &c.; and in adopting our present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of science generally; for we feel it to be desirable that views founded on a wide deduction from facts, and matured by years of reflection, should constitute at once a goal from which others may start, and that, while the scientific world is waiting for the appearance of Mr. Darwin's complete work, some of the leading results of his labours, as well as those of his able correspondent, should together be laid before the public." In these papers, read on July 1, 1858, Darwin's share amounts to little more than six pages, yet within this space he describes the geometrical rate of increase of animals, the checks that occur, the effects of changed conditions, the natural selection of the better equipped forms resulting from the struggle for existence, and the influence of sexual selection. Wallace insists on essentially the same view, which he calls that of progression and continued divergence. "This progression, by minute steps, in various directions, but always checked and balanced by the necessary conditions, subject to which alone existence can be preserved, may, it is believed, be followed out so as to agree with all the phenomena presented by organised beings, their extinction and succession in past ages, and all the extraordinary modifications of form, instinct, and habits which they exhibit." Those who read Wallace's original essay can best appreciate the extraordinary simplicity and nobility of character which inclined the elder naturalist, who had so long held the same views, to step aside in favour of the younger man, who from different researches was led to such similar conclusions. It may here be added that Hooker, in the Introductory Essay to the "Flora Tasmaniæ," dated November 4, 1859, before the publication of the "Origin of Species," but after seeing much of it in manuscript, accepted and advocated the view that species are derivative and mutable, and developed it as regards the geographical distribution of plants. FOOTNOTES: [6: It is worth while to reproduce here a few sentences from Erasmus Darwin's "Zoonomia," showing how acutely he guessed in the direction of evolution. "When we revolve in our minds, first, the great changes which we see naturally produced in animals after their nativity.... Secondly, when we think over the great changes introduced into various animals by artificial or accidental cultivation.... Thirdly, when we enumerate the great changes produced in the species of animals before their nativity.... Fourthly, when we revolve in our minds the great similarity of structure which obtains in all the warm-blooded animals.... Fifthly, from their first rudiment or primordium to the termination of their lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations, which are in part produced by their own exertions;... and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.... A great want of one part of the animal world has consisted in the desire of the exclusive possession of the female; and these have acquired weapons to combat each other for this purpose.... The final cause of this contest amongst the males seems to be that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved. Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals.... All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purpose required.... The third great want among animals is that of security, which seems much to have diversified the forms of their bodies and the colour of them.... The contrivances for the purposes of security extend even to vegetables.... Would it be too bold to imagine that in the great length of time since the earth began to exist ... all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the Great First Cause endued with animality;... possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!"] [7: In this study Darwin came into communication, as early as 1839, with the Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, and received from him a personal account of his experiments on hybrids. It was Herbert who, as early as 1822, in the fourth volume of the "Horticultural Transactions," and in his work on the Amaryllidaceæ, 1837, declared that horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only "a higher and more permanent class of varieties." He extended the same view to animals, and believed that single species of each genus were originally created in a highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by intercrossing, but also by variation, all our existing species.] [8: The first portion of this important letter is quoted from the English translation of Haeckel's "History of Creation," 1876; the second portion from O. Schmidt's "Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism," having been re-written by Darwin from the German text.] CHAPTER V. Darwin's great work "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," was published in November, 1859. It begins with the simplest narrative of the events leading to its publication, and an apology for the imperfection of "this abstract." The author is well aware, he says, that on most points he deals with, facts can be adduced which often apparently lead to conclusions directly opposite to his own. He states clearly the important truth that a mere belief in the origin of species by descent from other species is unsatisfactory until it can be shown _how_ species can have been modified so as to acquire their present remarkable perfection of structure and coadaptation. Consequently cases of observed modification of species are of the highest value, and precedence is given to the variation of animals and plants in a state of domestication. The individuals belonging to the same variety of any of our long-cultivated animals or plants differ much more from each other than the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. Darwin explains this by the changed conditions of their life, excess or changed quality of food, climate, changed habits, &c. Thus man has effected remarkable changes in many species by consciously or unconsciously selecting particular qualities in the animals or plants kept for use or beauty. Domestic productions seem in fact to have become plastic in man's hands, and the inheritance of acquired qualities by offspring is reckoned on as almost certain. The breeds of cattle, poultry, dogs, and pigeons, are striking examples. Darwin, as he tells us, kept every breed of domestic pigeons he could purchase or obtain, in order to study their variations. In this he was himself reverting to the associations of childhood, when the beauty, variety, and tameness of The Mount pigeons at Shrewsbury were well known. We can imagine the astonishment with which the "eminent fanciers" and members of the London Pigeon Clubs, whose acquaintance the great naturalist cultivated, received the simplicity, yet depth, of his inquiries, as he came among them day after day, utilising all their lore, and yet continually asking what they neither knew nor suspected the drift of. He began his study with a prepossession against the idea of the immense diversity of modern pigeons having originated from one common stock. Yet if such modification has taken place in any creature, pigeons may furnish an example, for they have been kept and bred for thousands of years, being recorded in Egypt about 3000 B.C., and Pliny relates that their pedigree and race could be reckoned by the Romans of his time. "We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases we know that this has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection; nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him." This is an undoubted fact, to which breeders and fanciers give far more emphatic testimony even than Darwin. As Lord Somerville said, speaking of what breeders have done for sheep, "It would seem as if they had chalked upon a wall a form perfect in itself, and then had given it existence." Side by side with conscious selection goes unconscious. Two breeders, breeding from similar stock, aiming at the same end, will get different results. Aiming at a particular result, they find that with it is associated some other of which they had not dreamed. Thus through long ages our cultivated vegetables and flowers have been produced, by always selecting the best variety, and sowing its seeds. The fact which Darwin notes, that our cultivated plants and domestic breeds date from so ancient a time that we know really nothing of their origin, has an important bearing on the great antiquity of man, then scarcely imagined, now generally accepted; seeing that all domestic development depends on a variability in living creatures, which man can not produce, but can only work upon. That variation of species occurs in a state of nature Darwin proves not only by recorded facts, but by a consideration of the chaotic condition of species-description, owing to the differences between authors as to what are species and what are varieties, one observer describing a dozen species where another reckons only one. If such divergence of opinion is possible between good observers, it is evident that there is no sufficiently clear rule for deciding what a species is, although for centuries naturalists have laboured to establish them. If species vary continually, and become modified, then this difficulty is explained. But what is there in nature to answer to the breeder's selection? Here comes in Darwin's remarkable application and amplification of Malthus's principle of population. "Nothing is easier," he says, "than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life, or more difficult--at least I have found it so--than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind. Yet unless it be thoroughly engrained in the mind, I am convinced that the whole economy of nature, with every fact on distribution, rarity, abundance, extinction, and variation will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood. We behold the face of nature bright with gladness; we often see superabundance of food; we do not see, or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters, or their eggs, or their nestlings are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey; we do not always bear in mind, that though food may be now superabundant, it is not so at all seasons of each recurring year." The proofs given of the enormous rate at which animals and plants tend to increase in numbers are very striking; even the elephant, the slowest breeder of all animals, would increase from one pair to fifteen millions in the fifth century, if no check existed. Thus every animal and plant may be said to struggle for existence with those with which it competes for space, food, light, air. The numbers are kept down by heavy destruction at various periods of life. Take the case of seedling plants. Darwin had a piece of ground three feet long and two feet wide dug and cleared, so that no grown plants existed to check the growth of seedlings of native plants as they came up. He counted and marked all that came up, and out of 357 no fewer than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects. So in a little plot of long-mown turf, allowed to grow freely, out of twenty species nine perished in the struggle. Many further personal observations of the author are given: such as that the winter of 1854-5 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in his own grounds; that he has sometimes failed to get a single seed from wheat or other plants in his garden. On the estate of a relative in Staffordshire the changes consequent on planting several hundred acres with Scotch fir were remarkable. In twenty-five years twelve species of conspicuous plants, and six different insectivorous birds had become settled and flourishing inhabitants in the plantations. The characteristic of the philosopher, who sees in the unconsidered trifles of others the material for his choicest discoveries, is well exemplified in his mode of observing the results of enclosure near Farnham, in Surrey. Here a multitude of self-sown firs sprang up in the enclosures, and Darwin went to examine into the cause of the strange phenomenon. Not a fir was in sight except some distant clumps. "But on looking closely between the stems of the heath, I found a multitude of seedlings and little trees, which had been perpetually browsed down by the cattle. In one square yard, at a point some hundred yards distant from one of the old clumps, I counted thirty-two little trees; and one of them, judging from the rings of growth, had during twenty-six years tried to raise its head above the stems of the heath, and had failed." The interdependence of animal upon animal, of animal upon plant, of plant upon animal, is enforced in many ways by Darwin. For instance, the visits of humble-bees are of special importance to the welfare of red clover; humble-bees are largely destroyed by field-mice; cats largely destroy field-mice near villages, and so favour humble-bees, and secondarily red clover. Every paragraph of the chapter on the struggle for existence is full of suggestion, and subversive of old imaginings. But Darwin's knowledge is to him slight, his ignorance profound. Yet, he says, notwithstanding our ignorance, "we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." The great chapter on Natural Selection, or the preservation of favourable and the rejection of injurious variations, is crowded with striking passages. One of these vividly contrasts man's selection with nature's. "Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; nature only for that of the being she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life.... Under nature, the slightest difference of structure or constitution may well turn the nicely-balanced scale in the struggle for life, and so be preserved. How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be, compared with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far 'truer' in character than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should _plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship_?" The words in italics certainly are a good answer to those who think Darwin had any tendency to depreciate the marvels of nature by bringing them under the law of natural selection. But we shall gain further light on this subject later on. The main argument may be summed up thus: if variations beneficial to any creature occur, which cannot be doubted, the individuals in whom they occur will have the best chance of surviving and transmitting their qualities to their offspring. This natural selection will tend to produce divergence of character among offspring, and to intensify differences until they equal those between species or even genera. The same tendency to improvement brings about the decay and ultimate extinction of many lower and unimproved forms of life. One of the best examples of Darwin's style is in the passage comparing all members of the same class of beings to a great tree. "I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have tried to overmaster other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear all the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few now have living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications." What may be the laws controlling or producing variation Darwin candidly tells us he does not know. Some authors, he says, believe it to be as much the function of the reproductive system to produce individual differences, or very slight deviations of structure, as to make the child like its parents. But we certainly do not know the precise effect of any change of conditions, or what changes may be entailed in other parts of an organism by given changes in one part.[9] Why, if species are continually being modified, do we not see multitudes of transitional forms around us? How can the elaborate structure and special habits of a bat have been formed by the modification of some animal of entirely different habits? How can the marvellous perfections of the human eye or that of one of the higher animals be supposed to have arisen through natural selection? These questions Darwin answers with powerful effect; but for the details we must refer the reader to the book itself. Incidentally he refers to objections urged against the view that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. He says plainly that if structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety, that is fatal to his theory. Yet he admits that many structures are of no direct use to their possessors; but they have been inherited from ancestors to whom they were of use, or they have arisen as correlated changes or in dependence on some other cause, where use and benefit have been primary. In dealing with Instinct, we see Darwin personally studying ants and bees in their social habits. The idea of ants making slaves is to him "odious," which we can well understand after his references to slavery in South America. For three years, during June and July, he watched for many hours several ants' nests in Surrey and Sussex to see whether the slaves ever left the nest. One day he witnessed a migration of ants from one nest to another, the masters carefully carrying their slaves in their jaws. Again, he saw a party attempting to carry off slaves, succeeding, however, only in carrying their corpses off for food to the nest. Darwin then dug up a small group of pupæ of the slave species from another nest, and put them down near the place of combat. They were eagerly seized and carried off by the tyrants, "who perhaps fancied that, after all, they had been victorious in their late combat." At the same time the slave-owners were able to distinguish instantly the pupæ of another species, showing much terror at sight of them; yet they ultimately took heart, and carried them off. The cell-making instinct of the hive-bee, "the most wonderful of all known instincts," as Darwin terms it, was closely studied. The comb, "so beautifully adapted to its end," he enthusiastically admired. Yet he finds gradation among bees, and can imagine a method by which this beautiful construction, has been gradually developed. His ideas were tested by setting bees to work on a solid piece of wax between two combs. The detailed account of these experiments is most instructive. It is quite charming to mentally follow the patient experimenter covering the edges of a single cell or the extreme margin of a growing comb with a thin layer of vermilion wax, and soon proving that many bees work in succession at a single cell by the rapid diffusion of the vermilion colouring as delicately as a painter could have done it, atoms of the coloured wax being removed and worked into the growing cells all round.[10] "It was really curious," Darwin says, "to note in cases of difficulty, as when two pieces of comb met at an angle, how often the bees would entirely pull down and rebuild in different ways the same cell, sometimes recurring to a shape which they had at first rejected." Here surely he was watching evolution in that slow, gradual process which appears to be the rule. The castes of neuter ants, constituting as they did "by far the most serious special difficulty" Darwin had encountered, were similarly studied; but, as expected, gradations were found connecting them, although the extremes differ markedly in shape and size. The case is most interesting, because these castes could only be developed if the variations which produced them were profitable to the community; "for no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly sterile members of a community could possibly have affected the structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave descendants." This fact Darwin considers to be demonstrative against Lamarck's doctrine. At the same time, he admits that instincts are not always perfect, and are liable to make mistakes; and that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals, but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others. It is to him "far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." And here Darwin strikes one of his truest and most helpful notes. It _is_ far more satisfactory to contemplate the rapine and war of nature as incidents which aid in working out a grand progress than as multitudinous cruelties, working no good, and in past ages of unknown length merely preluding the struggle and rapine through which man works out his rise or fall. If we agonise that we and our descendants may rise, life is worth living. We cannot follow in detail the profoundly suggestive chapters on Hybridism, on the Imperfection of the Geological Record, on the Geological Succession of Organic Beings, on the Geographical Distribution, and on the Mutual Affinity of Plants and Animals. The first of these is one of the most difficult portions of the subject, and yet remains as a stumbling-block of science by its apparently inexplicable phenomena. The author throws on the past history of life on the earth the glamour of a fairy record, as he contemplates the infinite number of generations, which the mind cannot grasp, which must have succeeded one another in the long roll of years, the limited extent to which at any time fossil remains have been preserved, the immense amount of destruction of such records which has taken place; and hence argues most powerfully how improbable it is that the transitional stages from species to species should have been handed down and also (another rare chance) have been laid open to us. The great array of facts about extinct animals and plants is shown to be consistent with, and to be largely explained by, descent with modification, and to be incomprehensible on any other view. The eccentric contrasts and parallelisms displayed in the geographical distribution of plants and animals, the striking effects of barriers such as mountains, deserts, and seas, the phenomena of dispersion of living creatures, the indications of old glacial periods in the present distribution of Alpine plants, the strange distribution of fresh-water animals and plants, the specialities of oceanic islands, and many other subjects of a like kind, are dealt with, all being turned to advantage, and shown to give strong support to Darwin's view. Classification and classifiers are all made to bear testimony in the same direction. Morphology, which, in the hands of Huxley, Haeckel, Gegenbaur, Ray Lankester, and Balfour has, since the first issue of the "Origin of Species," grown into a coherent science, based on embryology, was even then seen by Darwin to yield evidence for his views. Examining very young animals, he found that in very distinct races of dogs and horses the young had by no means acquired their adult differences. He compared pigeons of extremely various breeds twelve hours after being hatched, and found their differences incomparably less than in the full-grown birds. How immensely morphological science has progressed since Darwin directed investigation into this profitable line would need a separate treatise to show; but it is not too much to say that embryology alone, without other evidence, would now suffice to prove the doctrine of descent with adaptive modification. Rudimentary organs, again, strange appearances, like the presence of teeth in unborn whales and in the front of the upper jaws of unborn calves, the rudimentary wings of many insects, the rudimentary stamens or pistils of many flowers, are all swept into the Darwinian net. "Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight; yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together?" These phenomena are all explicable if descent with modification is true. Approaching the close of his work, the author expressed his doubts of being able to convert naturalists of long standing to his views; but based his main hopes on young and rising men approaching these questions without prejudices. He put some puzzling questions, however, to those who might oppose him. Did they really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain atoms had been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues? Were animals and plants created as eggs or seed or as full grown? At each act of creation was one individual or were many produced? For himself, he came to the conclusion that all organic beings had descended from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed. On this view Darwin predicted that a great increase of interest in many departments of natural history would arise. "When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which has had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same way as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting--I speak from experience--will the study of natural history become.... The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible to us, will hereafter be recognized as a mere fragment of time compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.... We may look forward with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." The concluding sentence of the "Origin of Species" has become one of our classical quotations. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." This is not the place to give a history of the criticisms and discussions which arose in regard to "The Origin of Species," especially as Darwin himself took no public part in them, except by the alterations made in successive editions. As indicating the tone of prominent critical organs, we may note that _The Athenæum_ (November 19, 1859) acknowledges there is something poetical in the theory. "If a monkey has become a man, what may not a man become?" Neither book, author, nor subject being ordinary, "the work deserves attention." _The Edinburgh Review_ considered that the author left the question very nearly where he found it. Failing to find original observations adequate even to give a colour to the hypothesis, the reviewer sought to find flaws in the author's mode of reasoning, and concluded that "we are called upon to accept a hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge." Defective information, vagueness, and incompleteness are charged upon the man whom we now delight to honour; "intellectual husks," we are told; are all that he offers. Professor Huxley, who lectured at the Royal Institution, on February 10, 1860, on "Species and Races and their Origin," and brought forward Darwin's investigations as exemplifying that application of science to which England owes her greatness, was told that it more truly paralleled "the abuse of science to which a neighbouring nation--some seventy years since--owed its temporary degradation." And the professor was accused of audaciously seeking to blind his audience. Samuel Wilberforce, then Bishop of Oxford, was equally denunciatory in _The Quarterly_. He hopes that "this flimsy speculation" will be completely put down. "It is a dishonouring view of nature.... Under such influences," says the courtly bishop, "a man soon goes back to the marvelling stare of childhood at the centaurs and hippogriffs of fancy; or, if he is of a philosophic turn, he comes, like Oken, to write a scheme of creation under a 'sort of inspiration,' but it is the frenzied inspiration of the inhaler of mephitic gas. The whole world of nature is laid for such a man under a fantastic law of glamour, and he becomes capable of believing anything; and he is able, with a continually growing neglect of all the facts around him, with equal confidence and equal delusion, to look back to any past and to look on to any future."[11] _The Saturday Review_ was much more moderate, by no means sharing the anxiety of those who regarded evolutionary theories as hostile to Christianity. The author is said to have encountered the difficulties of his theory "with admirable skill and ability," and though _The Saturday_ remained unconvinced of his general argument, yet it acknowledged itself "persuaded that natural selection must henceforward be admitted as the chief mode by which the structure of organised beings is modified in a state of nature;" and thought it very possible that, through its agency, considerable groups of nearly allied species might have been derived from a single progenitor: but there _The Saturday_ stopped, believing in limits to this power. The second edition of "The Origin of Species," which appeared in January, 1860, only six weeks after the first, contained but few alterations; the third, in March, 1861, had received extensive additions and corrections. The most important of these discussed the so-called tendency of organisation to advance, and explained the present coexistence of high and lowly organised forms. A valuable historical sketch of the modern progress of opinion on the subject, from Lamarck's time, was prefixed to the book. It was further enlarged in subsequent editions, as evidences accumulated that various thinkers had independently adopted the evolution theory, or the more special one of natural selection. Notable instances of anticipation were those of Dr. Wells, who, in a paper read before the Royal Society in 1813, but not published till 1818, had expressed the opinion that all animals tend to vary; that agriculturists improve breeds by selection; and that what they do by art "seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind." He then goes on to exemplify the survival of the fittest, though in other words. Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, published a work on "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," in which he expressed, in scattered passages, a view nearly resembling Darwin's. The fourth edition of "The Origin," in 1866, was longer, by fifty pages, than its predecessor. Among the additions may be mentioned a fuller treatment of the argument from embryology, which was made stronger by later investigations. The fifth edition (1869) was comparatively little increased in bulk, though altered in many details. In particular it contained a somewhat important change relating to the extent of the influence of natural selection. This is also referred to in "The Descent of Man" (first edition, vol. i. pp. 152-3), where the author says he had not formerly considered sufficiently the existence of many structures which appeared to be neither beneficial nor injurious, and had attributed too much to natural selection. "I was not able," he says, "to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely prevalent, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacitly assuming that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service.... If I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have, at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." The sixth edition (1872), in smaller type, was considerably revised and altered, and remains permanent. A glossary of scientific terms was added by Mr. W. S. Dallas. A new chapter was inserted after the sixth, and entitled "Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection." It was partly derived from modified portions of chapter iv. of former editions, but the latter and larger part was new, and relates chiefly to the supposed incompetency of natural selection to account for the very early stages of useful structures. Numerous cases, such as the development of the giraffe's neck, the baleen of the whale, the mammary glands, &c., are admirably discussed. Causes preventing the acquisition, through natural selection, of useful structures in many cases are dealt with, and reasons given for disbelieving in great and sudden modifications. In the concluding chapter Darwin further admits that he had formerly underrated the frequency and importance of use and disuse of parts, of the direct action of external conditions, and of variations which seem to us, in our ignorance, to arise spontaneously. He alludes to misrepresentations of his views, and calls attention to the fact that, in the first edition, at the close of the introduction, he stated his conviction that natural selection had been the main, _but not the exclusive_ means of modification. "This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that, fortunately, this power does not long endure." This is Darwin's almost sole allusion in his works to the persistence with which views not his had been attributed to him, or he had been calumniated for views he did hold. But in his own lifetime--nay, within fifteen years--he witnessed a sufficiently satisfying revolution. "I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent or expressed themselves so ambiguously, that it was not easy to understand their meaning. Now things are wholly changed, and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution" ("Origin," sixth edition, p. 424). At present the sale of the book in this country approaches forty thousand copies. Its sale in America has been very large; and numerous translations into German, French, Italian, Russian, Dutch, and Swedish, and even into Japanese and Hindustani, have been largely sold. It must always be one of the most valued of all English classics. FOOTNOTES: [9: Mr. Romanes, in his paper on "Physiological Selection" (Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, xix. 337-411), has entered upon a most important discussion of this question.] [10: The full text of a large part of Darwin's original chapter on Instinct, which was omitted from the "Origin of Species" for the sake of condensation, is published in Mr. Romanes' "Mental Evolution in Animals," 1883, which also contains many other observations by Darwin.] [11: The reader will thus be able to judge for himself how far Darwin's "Origin of Species" gained, "from the very first outset, universal respect and a fair hearing," as Mr. Grant Allen, with singular forgetfulness, states ("Darwin," p. 112). The violence of the attacks made upon Darwin by the majority of religious and orthodox journals is well known.] CHAPTER VI. We have already gathered much concerning Darwin's mental and moral fibre in our survey of his works. Let us make some further acquaintance with his personality as known to his friends. Outwardly he appeared a man of powerful physique, standing six feet high, with prominent forehead and over-arching brow, and keen, deep-set eyes in which resolute strength and piercing insight were indicated. Apart from his persistent infirmity, he was actively disposed, as indeed is evident from the laborious journeys he undertook during his travels. Field sports, including hunting, were among the recreations of his more active years. But through all his work or recreation the imperious conditions necessitated by his infirmity of stomach had to be considered, and nothing but the most rigorous care could possibly have enabled him to achieve what he did. On many days he could not work at all, and on many others two or three hours were his limit. And what but his own system, his own orderliness and perseverance could have accomplished his task? In preparing his books he had a special set of shelves for each, standing on or near his writing-table, one shelf for each chapter. The maxim, "Early to bed, and early to rise," was his essentially, and regularity kept all balanced. Rising at six, he took a cold plunge bath, breakfasted simply, and took a first walk, beginning work often at eight. "Later in the day," I quote from Mr. Woodall's pleasant pages, "he generally walked again, often in his own grounds, but sometimes further afield, and then generally by quiet footpaths rather than frequented roads. The walks at one time were varied by rides along the lanes on a favourite black cob, but some years before his death his four-footed friend fell, and died by the roadside, and from that day the habit of riding was given up. Part of the evening was devoted to his family and his friends, who delighted to gather round him to enjoy the charm of his bright intelligence, and his unrivalled stores of knowledge. To Down, occasionally, came distinguished men from many lands; and there in later years would sometimes be found the younger generation of scientific students, looking up to the great naturalist with the reverence of disciples, who had experienced his singular modesty, his patient readiness to listen to all opinions, and the winning grace with which he informed their ignorance and corrected their mistakes. In the midst of all the delights of home and the demands of study, Darwin kept an open mind for public affairs. He united the earnest politician with the patient student: a rare combination, which supplies another proof of his largeness of heart and sympathy with his fellow men. In the village of Down he was liked by everybody, old and young, and in his own household the same servants lived year after year under his roof. One of them, Margaret Evans, who assisted in nursing him in his last illness, had come to Down nearly forty years before, from Shrewsbury, where her uncle and aunt were in Dr. Darwin's service." At Down the family in time numbered nine children, two, however, not surviving childhood; one died in 1842, another in 1858. His five sons have already attained distinction or positions of influence. The eldest, William Erasmus, became a banker in Southampton; the second, George, was second Wrangler and Smith's Prizeman at Cambridge in 1868, became a Fellow of Trinity, and is now Plumian Professor of Astronomy at his university, having early gained the Fellowship of the Royal Society for his original papers bearing on the evolution of the universe and the solar system, and many other subjects of high mathematical and philosophical interest. His third son, Francis, gained first-class honours in the Cambridge Natural Science Tripos in 1870, and is likewise a Fellow of the Royal Society, in recognition of his original botanical investigations. The fourth, Leonard, an officer in the Royal Engineers, has done valuable astronomical work. The fifth, Horace, has devoted himself to mechanical science, and has largely aided in developing the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. The great thinker, fulfilling his duties as head of a family with singular success, charged with the burden of new thoughts and observations, slowly perfecting his life work, had neither time nor inclination for controversy. He set himself to publish facts, which by their accumulation tended to clench his arguments. Soon after the "Origin of Species" he had in course of publication several important botanical papers, on the two forms of flower in the Primrose genus (1862), and in the genus Linum (flax), 1863, on the forms of Loosestrife, 1864, all published in the Linnean Society's Journal. In 1862 he brought out his first botanical book, the "Fertilisation of Orchids," more fully entitled, "On the various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects." These most singular flowers had long attracted great attention owing to their peculiar shapes and often their great beauty, while their marked deviation from typical forms of flowers perplexed botanists extremely. The celebrated Robert Brown, in a well-known paper in the Linnean Society's Transactions, 1833, expressed the belief that insects are necessary for the fructification of most orchids; and as far back as 1793, Christian Sprengel (in "The Newly Discovered Secret of Nature") gave an excellent account of the action of the several parts in the genus Orchis, having discovered that insects were necessary to remove the pollen masses. But the _rationale_ of the process was not fully known until Darwin revealed it, and illuminated it by the light of natural selection. He had, in the "Origin of Species," given reasons for the belief that it is an almost universal law of nature that the higher organic beings require an occasional cross with another individual. He here emphasised that doctrine by a series of proofs from a peculiar and otherwise inexplicable order of plants, and showed that the arrangements by which orchids are fertilised have for their main object the fertilisation of the flowers with pollen brought by insects from a distinct plant. In the group to which our common orchids belong, remarkable adaptations for securing that the pollen masses brought from another flower solely through the visits of insects shall reach their precise destination, were brought to light. "A poet," says Darwin, "might imagine that whilst the pollinia were borne through the air from flower to flower, adhering to an insect's body, they voluntarily and eagerly placed themselves in that exact position in which alone they could hope to gain their wish and perpetuate their race." As he had examined all the British genera, Darwin's conclusions were indubitable. He had patiently watched for hours on the grass to notice insects' visits, had counted the fertilised flowers on many spikes, the fertilised spikes on many plants, had dissected and redissected the flowers till he saw how the fertilisation must absolutely be effected; and utilising the enthusiasm of orchid growers, had excited them to do the same, till his storehouse of facts was full. On examining the exotic forms of orchids, which are so conspicuous in our conservatories, still more striking facts presented themselves. In the great group of the Vandeæ, relative position of parts, friction, viscidity, elastic and hygrometric movements were all found to be nicely related to one end--the aid of insects in fertilisation. Without their aid not a plant in the various species of twenty-nine genera which Darwin examined would set a seed. In the majority of cases insects withdraw the pollen masses only when retreating from the flower, and, continuing their flower visits, effect a union between two flowers, generally on distinct plants. In many cases the pollen masses slowly change their position while adhering to the insects, and so assume a proper direction for striking the stigma of another flower, and the insects during this interval will almost certainly have flown from one plant to another. The family to which Catasetum belongs furnished the most remarkable examples. This plant possesses a special sensitiveness in certain parts, and when definite points of the flower are touched by an insect the pollen masses are shot forth like an arrow, the point being blunt and adhesive. The insect, disturbed by so sharp a blow, or having eaten its fill, flies sooner or later to a female plant, and whilst standing in the same position as before, the pollen-bearing end of the arrow is inserted into the stigmatic cavity, and a mass of pollen is left on its viscid surface. The strange structures of Cypripedium, or the Lady's Slipper, were then analysed, and the mode of fertilisation by small bees was discovered. The whole structure of orchids, as modified to secure insects' visits and cross fertilisation, was now expounded, and the benefits shown by cases where insects' visits were prevented, and no seed was set. The number of seeds in a capsule was reckoned, and thence it was found that the progeny of a single plant of the common orchis would suffice to cover the globe in the fourth generation. A single plant of another orchid might bear seventy-four millions of seeds: surely an ample provision for a struggle for existence, and selection and survival of the fittest. But, as Darwin remarks, profuse expenditure is nothing unusual in nature, and it appears to be more profitable for a plant to yield a few cross-fertilised than many self-fertilised seeds. Darwin impresses forcibly on his readers the endless diversity of structures, and the prodigality of resources displayed for gaining the same end, the fertilisation of one flower by pollen from another plant. "The more I study nature," he says, "the more I become impressed with ever-increasing force that the contrivances and beautiful adaptations slowly acquired through each part occasionally varying in a slight degree ... transcend in an incomparable manner the contrivances and adaptations which the most fertile imagination of man could invent." Finally he concludes: "It is hardly an exaggeration to say that nature tells us, in the most emphatic manner, that she abhors perpetual self-fertilisation"; and thus was announced a new doctrine in botany. A second much-improved edition of this book appeared in 1877. In 1864, in presenting the Copley medal of the Royal Society to the author of the "Origin of Species," Major-General Sabine, the President, entered into a full description of the merits of his works, "stamped throughout with the impress of the closest attention to minute details and accuracy of observation, combined with large powers of generalisation." The award, while highly eulogising the "Origin," was not however based upon it, but on the more recent botanical writings. "The Fertilisation of Orchids" was described as perhaps the most masterly treatise on any branch of vegetable physiology that had ever appeared; and the fact was justly emphasised that all Darwin's botanical discoveries had been obtained by the study of some of the most familiar and conspicuous of our native plants, and some of the best-known and easily-procured cultivated exotics. In 1865 appeared another work from the Darwinian treasury, but in this case it was at first restricted to the Journal of the Linnean Society (vol. ix.), and was not made generally available till the second edition was published separately in 1875. "The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants" described in the first place the twining of the hop plant, studied by night and day continuously, in a well-warmed room, to which the author was confined by illness. Again and again were different species of plants watched, and the periods in which their shoots revolved noted. The clematises, tropæolums, solanums, gloriosa lilies among leaf-climbing plants; the bignonias, cobæas, bryonies, vines, passion flowers, and other tendril-bearing plants; the ivy, and other root and hook climbers were carefully studied; and botanists for the first time realised fully the advantages which climbing plants possess in the struggle for existence. The climbing faculty depends on a sensitiveness to contact with any firm support, and a most interesting series of modifications has probably, as Darwin suggests, led to the present development of climbing organs, by the spontaneous movement of young shoots and other organs, and by unequal growth. In concluding, the author made some most profoundly suggestive remarks, which went far to revolutionise our conception of plants. "It has often been vaguely asserted that plants are distinguished from animals by not having the power of movement. It should rather be said that plants acquire and display this power only when it is of some advantage to them; this being of comparatively rare occurrence, as they are affixed to the ground, and food is brought to them by the air and rain. We see how high in the scale of organisation a plant may rise, when we look at one of the more perfect tendril-bearers. It first places its tendrils ready for action, as a polypus places its tentacula. If the tendril be displaced, it is acted on by the force of gravity, and rights itself. It is acted on by the light, and bends towards or from it, or disregards it, which ever may be most advantageous. During several days the tendrils, or internodes, or both, spontaneously revolve with a steady motion. The tendril strikes some object, and quickly curls round and firmly grasps it. In the course of some hours it contracts into a spire, dragging up the stem, and forming an excellent spring. All movements now cease. By growth the tissues soon become wonderfully strong and durable. The tendril has done its work, and has done it in an admirable manner." The labour of revising the successive editions of the "Origin of Species," together with prolonged ill-health, delayed the fulfilment of the promise given in that work, that the facts upon which it was based should be published. It was not till 1868 that the first instalment, "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," was given to the world, in two large volumes, with numerous illustrations. The author's design was to discuss in a second work the variability of organic beings in a state of nature, and the conversion of varieties into species, the struggle for existence and the operation of natural selection, and the principal objections to the theory, including questions of instinct and hybridisation. In a third work it was intended to test the principle of natural selection by the extent to which it explains the geological succession of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their mutual affinities and homologies. The two latter works were never completed, in consequence of ill-health, and the labour involved in dealing with objections to and new facts in support of the "Origin," and of the other works which at various times it became important to complete. But many portions of these subjects were admirably dealt with by disciples. In some cases Darwin's views led to the rapid growth of a new science, such as that of comparative embryology, and it would not have been possible for him to cope with and interpret the multitude of new and astonishing facts discovered, which changed the face of organic nature as viewed by biologists. By doing each day the work which seemed most necessary, and which he could best do, Darwin managed, in spite of his infirmity of constitution, to complete a larger body of original work, both in experiment and in thought, together with a greater quantity of bibliographical study and collation of observed facts, than any Englishman perhaps has ever done. The valuable book on "Variation" records and systematises a vast number of facts respecting all our principal domestic animals and cultivated plants. It gives evidence of wide reading, as well as great diligence in writing letters of inquiry to all living authorities who could give accurate information. Very many visits were paid to zoological gardens, breeders' establishments, nursery grounds, &c.; and the preparation of skulls, skins, &c., was a frequent occurrence in the Darwinian laboratory. To take the case of rabbits alone, which occupied but a fraction of the time devoted to pigeons: over twenty works are quoted for historical facts, skeletons of various rabbits were prepared and exhaustively compared, the effects of use and disuse of parts traced, most careful measurements are given, and a list of the modifications which domestic rabbits have undergone, with the probable causes, concludes the chapter. As to pigeons, no pigeon-fancier ought to be without the book, for never assuredly was a sporting topic treated by so great a thinker and so admirably. The numerous experiments in crossing different breeds, and the results obtained, make this one of the most instructive books for all breeders. It would seem desirable that this portion of the book should be issued in a separate form. Again, when we turn to the sections on plants we see how indefatigable Darwin was, for he tells us that he cultivated fifty-four varieties of gooseberries alone, and compared them throughout in flower and fruit. The chapters on Inheritance, and on Reversion to ancestral characters, or atavism, are profoundly suggestive. What can be more wonderful, the author asks, than that some trifling peculiarity should be transmitted through a long course of development, and ultimately reappear in the offspring when mature or even when old? Nevertheless, the real subject of surprise is not that a character should be inherited, but that any should ever fail to be inherited. Gradually leading up to the important hypothesis with which the work closes, he observes that to adequately explain the numerous characters that reappear after intervals of one or more generations, we must believe that a vast number of characters, capable of evolution, lie hidden in every organic being. "The fertilised germ of one of the higher animals, subjected as it is to so vast a series of changes from the germinal cell to old age--incessantly agitated by what Quatrefages well calls the _tourbillon vital_--is perhaps the most wonderful object in nature. It is probable that hardly a change of any kind affects either parent, without some mark being left on the germ. But on the doctrine of reversion the germ becomes a far more marvellous object, for, besides the visible changes to which it is subjected, we must believe that it is crowded with invisible characters, proper to both sexes, to both the right and left side of the body, and to a long line of male and female ancestors separated by hundreds or even thousands of generations from the present time; and these characters, like those written on paper with invisible ink, all lie ready to be evolved under certain known or unknown conditions." Through a further discussion of many deeply interesting facts, about the intercrossing of breeds and species, and about the causes of variability, we pass to the hypothesis of pangenesis, which, briefly stated, supposes that the cells or units of the body are perpetually throwing off minute granules or gemmules, which accumulate in the reproductive system, and may, instead of developing in the next generation, be transmitted in a dormant state through more than one generation and then be developed. Combination in various degrees between these gemmules is supposed to influence their appearance or non-appearance in the offspring at various stages. This hypothesis certainly gives a picture of a possible mode of accounting for many peculiarities shown by living organisms. Although not generally accepted, it has certainly not been disproved. Mr. Grant Allen's opinion that it is Darwin's "one conspicuous failure," and that it is "crude and essentially unphilosophic," must be discounted by his known devotion to Mr. Herbert Spencer's philosophy. If Darwin had been a specialist in modern physiology, he might, perhaps, have expressed his hypothesis in a more persuasive form; but Weismann's germ plasma theory is the only alternative one hitherto suggested in place of it. CHAPTER VII. Although the descent of man from animal ancestors was directly implied in the "Origin of Species," Darwin hesitated at the time of its publication to declare his views fully, believing that he would only thus augment and concentrate the prejudice with which his theory would be met. He had for many years held the views he afterwards expressed; but it was not until he had by his other works raised up a strong body of scientific opinion in favour of his great generalisation, that he fully presented his views on man to the public. The "Descent of Man" was studied as a special case of the application of his general principles, a test all the more severe because several classes of argument were necessarily cut off, such as the nature of the affinities which connect together whole groups of organisms, their geographical distribution, and their geological succession. But adopting the high antiquity of man as demonstrated, he considered in detail the evidence as to man's descent from some pre-existing form, the manner of his development, and the value of the differences between the so-called races of man. No originality is claimed for the theory or for the facts advanced; but it may safely be affirmed that the master's acuteness, his moderation, his candour, and his desire to state facts which tell against him, are as conspicuous in the "Descent of Man" as in any of his works. The "Descent of Man," which was published in 1871 in two volumes, with numerous illustrations, began, after a short introduction, with a suggestive series of questions, which to the evolutionist suffice to decide the question as to man's origin. As the answers to these questions are obvious, Darwin first concentrated his inquiry upon two points on which disputes must necessarily occur, namely, the traces which man shows, in his bodily structure, of descent from some lower form, and the mental powers of man as compared with those of lower animals. The facts of our bodily structure are inexplicable on any other view than our community of descent with the quadrumana, unless structure is but a snare to delude our reason. It is only our natural prejudice, says Darwin, and that arrogance which made our fathers declare that they were descended from demigods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion. The comparison of the mental powers of animals with those of man, proving, as Darwin contends, that they therein also show traces of community of descent, was certain to provoke much more debate, for the term "instinct" and the use made of it by naturalists and psychologists as signifying untaught, unlearnt ability, largely tended to obscure the question, and to create prejudices against believing that instincts could be built up by inherited experience, that instincts were really not absolute and fixed, but relative and variable, and that all instincts were not perfect or perfectly useful. The working out of the evolution theory as applied to animal minds, the study of the first beginnings of nerve action, and the analysis of instinct, all due largely to Darwin's prominent disciple, Romanes, together with the immensely fuller knowledge of molecular physics, of protoplasm, and of brain function, acquired in the years since Darwin wrote, have sufficed to place these questions on a much more secure basis. But the collection of facts made by him, and the suggestive remarks he everywhere makes, render his book of permanent value. His sympathy is obvious in such passages as this: "Every one has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life;" the "terrible" superstitions of the past, such as human sacrifices, trial by ordeal, &c., show us, he says, "what an indefinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason, to science, and our accumulated knowledge." We see the fruit of Darwin's repeated visits to the Zoological Gardens, especially in his study of the habits and mental powers of monkeys. We gain a definition from him of imagination, by which faculty man "unites, independently of the will, former images and ideas, and thus creates brilliant and novel results.... The value of the products of our imagination depends of course on the number, accuracy, and clearness of our impressions; on our judgment and taste in selecting or rejecting the involuntary combinations, and to a certain extent on our power of voluntarily combining them." As to religion, he says, "There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an omnipotent God." On the contrary, evidence proves that there are and have been numerous races without gods and without words to express the idea. The question, he says, is "wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived." The fact of races existing without a belief in a god is shown to be compatible with the origin of religious ideas from attempts to explain external phenomena and man's own existence, by attributing to other objects and agencies a similar spirit to that which his consciousness testifies to in himself. Man's social qualities, as well as those of animals, Darwin regards as having been developed for the general good of the community, which he defines as "the means by which the greatest possible number of individuals can be reared in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are exposed." This may be regarded as a more satisfactory expression of the idea underlying the phrase, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Sympathy for animals he notes as one of the later acquisitions of mankind, and remarks that he found the very idea of humanity a novelty to the Gauchos of the Pampas. "The highest stage in moral culture at which we can arrive is when we recognise that we ought to control our thoughts.... Whatever makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its performance so much the easier"--a significant expression for those who would compare the teachings of Darwinism with those of Christianity. Finally, he concludes that the difference in mind between man and the higher animals is one of degree, not of kind. "At what age does the new-born infant possess the power of abstraction, or become self-conscious and reflect on its own existence? We cannot answer; nor can we answer in regard to the ascending organic scale." Yet that man's mental and moral faculties may have been gradually evolved "ought not to be denied, when we daily see their development in every infant; and when we may trace a perfect gradation from the mind of an utter idiot, lower than that of the lowest animal, to the mind of a Newton." The action of natural selection on the variations known to occur in man, is next shown to be sufficient to account for his rise from a lowly condition. Perhaps it is in discussing the development of the intellectual and moral faculties that Darwin is least successful; more knowledge of psychology than he possessed is demanded for this discussion. He gives up the problem of the first advance of savages towards civilisation as "at present much too difficult to be solved." He, however, vigorously contests the idea that man was at first civilised and afterwards degenerated; and expresses the opinion that the "highest form of religion--the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness--was unknown during primeval times." Finally, after discussing the steps in the genealogy of man, he comes to the conclusion that from the old-world monkeys, at a remote period, proceeded man, "the wonder and glory of the universe." The early progenitors of man he believes to have been covered with hair, both sexes having had beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement; their bodies were provided with a tail, and the foot was probably prehensile. Our primitive ancestors lived chiefly in trees in some warm forest-clad land, and the males were provided with formidable weapons in the shape of great canine teeth. "Thus," says Darwin, "we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has been often remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man; and this, in one sense, is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognize our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiassed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties." In considering the formation and perpetuation of the races of mankind, Darwin was again and again baffled. He could not decide that any of the physical differences between the races are of direct and special service to him, thus giving opportunity to natural selection to work. Hence he was led to study in detail the effects of sexual selection, especially as applicable to man. The greater part of "The Descent of Man" is occupied with tracing out what may be called the history of courtship in man and animals. The great variety of interesting subjects dealt with cannot be detailed here. We must only notice a few points about mankind which are of special importance. Darwin concludes that man's predominance over woman in size, strength, courage, pugnacity, and even energy was acquired in primeval times, and that these advantages have been subsequently augmented chiefly through the contests between men for women. Even man's intellectual vigour and inventiveness are probably due to natural selection, combined with inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for their wives and offspring. Beards, beardlessness, voice, beauty are all related to sexual charm, and have been selectively developed. Early man, less licentious, not practising infanticide, was in several respects better calculated to carry out sexual selection than he is now; and thus we find the various races of men fully differentiated at the earliest date of historic records. Incidentally Darwin gives us his views on the mental differences between man and woman. Woman is more tender and less selfish than man, whose ambition "passes too easily into selfishness," which latter qualities "seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright." Woman's powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man. Yet the chief pre-eminence of man he considers to consist in attaining greater success in any given line than woman, by reason of greater energy, patience, &c. "In order that woman should reach the same standard as man, she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to energy and perseverance, and to have her reason and imagination exercised to the highest point, and then she would probably transmit these qualities chiefly to her adult daughters." Here we have a plan of women's higher education according to the great evolutionist, although he does not assert that it is the essential and desirable one; but given a certain object, here is the best method of securing it. "The whole body of women, however, could not be thus raised, unless during many generations the women who excelled in the above robust virtues were married, and produced offspring in larger numbers than other women." The doctrine that man is descended from some less highly organised form, Darwin asserts in his concluding chapter, rests on grounds which will never be shaken--namely, the similar structure and course of development of embryos of the higher animals, and vast numbers of facts of structure and constitution, rudimental structures, and abnormal reversions. The mental powers of the higher animals graduate into those of man. Language, and the use of tools, made man dominant. The brain then immensely developed, and morality sprang from the social instinct. Comparing and approving certain actions and disapproving others, remembering and looking back, he became conscientious and imaginative. Sympathy, arising in the desire to give aid to one's fellows, was strengthened by praise and blame, and conduces to happiness. "As happiness is an essential part of the general good, the greatest happiness principle indirectly serves as a nearly safe standard of right and wrong.... But with the less civilised nations reason often errs, and many bad customs and base superstitions come within the same scope, and consequently are esteemed as high virtues and their breach as heavy crimes." The belief in God, the author says, is not innate or intuitive in man, but only arises after long culture. As to the bearing of the evolution theory on the immortality of the soul, Darwin thinks few people will find cause for anxiety in the impossibility of determining at what period in the ascending scale man became an immortal being. "The birth, both of the species and of the individual, are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion." The bearing of the Darwinian doctrine on some important practical questions for society leads to the remark that, while man scans with scrupulous care the pedigree of his animals, when he comes to his own marriage he rarely or never takes any such care. Perhaps Darwin was somewhat in error here; and, also, he seems to have underrated the unconscious tendency to act according to natural law, which has no doubt influenced mankind largely. He lays down the principle that both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if markedly inferior in body or mind, or if they cannot avoid abject poverty for their children. When the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known, he says, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining, by an easy method, whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. But Darwin is by no means in favour of any restriction on man's natural rate of increase; for it is the greatest means of preventing indolence from causing the race to become stagnant or to degenerate. Only, there should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. In summing up on the entire subject, Darwin expresses himself with more than his wonted vigour and point. On the one hand, he endeavours to disarm opposition by quoting heroic monkeys as contrasted with degraded barbarians; on the other hand, he welcomes the elevation of man so far above his barbarous ancestors. Finally, he takes his stand upon truth, as against likes and dislikes. "The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind--such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint; their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and, like wild animals, lived on what they could catch. They had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs--as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. "Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason allows us to discover it. I have given the evidence to the best of my ability; and we must acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man, with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men, but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system--with all these exalted powers--Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." The reception accorded to "The Descent of Man" was more excited than that of "The Origin of Species." The first large edition was quickly exhausted, and discussion or ridicule of the book was the fashionable recreation. _Mr. Punch_, week after week, reflected passing opinion. One of his Darwinian ballads on our ancestors is worth quoting from:-- "They slept in a wood, Or wherever they could, For they didn't know how to make beds; They hadn't got huts, They dined upon nuts, Which they cracked upon each other's heads. They hadn't much scope For a comb, brush, or soap, Or towels, or kettle, or fire; They had no coats nor capes, For ne'er did these apes Invent what they didn't require. · · · · · From these though descended, Our manners are mended, Though still we can grin and backbite; We cut up each other, Be he friend or brother, And tails are the fashion--at night. This origination Is all speculation-- We gamble in various shapes; So Mr. Darwin May speculate in Our ancestors having been apes." _The Athenæum_ was unbelieving, but not denunciatory. _The Edinburgh Review_ declared the doctrine of natural selection hopelessly inadequate to explain the phenomena of man's body; although its truth and falsehood had no necessary connection with the general theory of evolution: some law as yet unknown being looked for. Darwin's attempt to explain the evolution of mind and the moral sense is regarded as failing in every point. "Never, perhaps, in the history of philosophy, have such wide generalisations been derived from such a small basis of fact." _The Quarterly Review_ now acknowledged that "the survival of the fittest" was a truth which readily presented itself to any one considering the subject, and that to Darwin was due the credit of having first brought it forward and demonstrated its truth, and asserted that the destruction of the least fit was recognised thousands of years ago. But, in regard to the descent of man, it fastens specially upon the author's theory of mental and moral evolution, and declares that he has utterly failed. _The Saturday Review_, however, admitted the high antiquity of man, and the nearness of his bodily structure to the apes, and went much further. In discussing the evolution of morals, the author's unexampled grasp of facts, with his power of correlation, is, according to _The Saturday_, seen at its highest, in an exquisite chain of philosophical deduction. The mode in which, at a remote period, the races of mankind became differentiated, is declared to be the weak point in the argument. CHAPTER VIII. "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" followed "The Descent of Man" in 1872. The motive which suggested it was the desire to explain the complexities of expression on evolution principles. But the study of emotional expression had evidently engaged Darwin's attention at least from the time when the Fuegians and the Gauchos had vividly roused his imaginative faculties; and his direct observations commenced as early as 1838; when he was already inclined to believe in evolution, and were continued at intervals ever after. The third edition of Sir Charles Bell's "Anatomy of Expression," published in 1844, while greatly admired by him, was unsatisfactory in being throughout based on the conviction that species came into existence in their present condition; and notwithstanding that Bain and Herbert Spencer had made considerable advances in a treatment of the subject based on physiology, an exhaustive book was wanted, which should throw on Expression the new and interesting light of Darwinism. What was Darwin's method? Observation, cleverly devised appeal to nature; observation over a wide field as to the varied races of man still existing, utilising the aid of travellers and residents in many lands; observation of domestic animals in familiar and in untried circumstances; observation of infants, especially his own, from a very early age; observation of the insane, who are liable to the strongest passions, and give them uncontrolled vent. It was in 1867 that Darwin circulated his group of questions designed to ascertain the mode of expressing every emotion, and their physical concomitants in every possible race. Sculpture, paintings, and engravings, afforded little evidence, because beauty is their main object, and "strongly contracted facial muscles destroy beauty." Information was specially sought as to natives who had had little communication with Europeans, and in whom imitation might not have destroyed ancestral and original expression. The result was to develop three principles which appeared, in combination, to account for most of the expressions and gestures involuntarily used by man and animals. The first was that of serviceable associated habits: certain complex actions being somehow serviceable in particular states of mind, to gratify and relieve certain sensations, desires, &c., whenever the same state of feeling is repeated, there is a tendency to the same movements or actions, though they may not then be of the least use. The second principle, that of antithesis, is the converse of the last; when an opposite state of mind is induced, there is an involuntary tendency to directly opposite movements, though of no use. The third principle, that of the direct action of the nervous system, is independent of the will and of habit; nerve force being generated in excess by strong emotions. In discussing all these principles we discover how every thought and every circumstance of the great naturalist seem to have been utilised in his life work. "I have noticed that persons in describing a horrid sight, often shut their eyes momentarily and firmly, or shake their heads as if not to see, or to drive away, something disagreeable; and I have caught myself, when thinking in the dark of a horrid spectacle, closing my eyes firmly." "I noticed a young lady earnestly trying to recollect a painter's name, and she first looked to one corner of the ceiling, and then to the opposite corner, arching the one eyebrow on that side, although of course there was nothing to be seen there." "Many years ago I laid a small wager with a dozen young men that they would not sneeze if they took snuff, although they all declared that they invariably did so; accordingly they all took a pinch, but from wishing much to succeed, not one sneezed, though their eyes watered, and all, without exception, had to pay me the wager." "I put my face close to the thick glass-plate in front of a puff-adder in the Zoological Gardens, with the firm determination of not starting back if the snake struck at me; but as soon as the blow was struck, my resolution went for nothing, and I jumped a yard or two backwards with astonishing rapidity. My will and reason were powerless against the imagination of a danger which had never been experienced." "I observed that though my infants started at sudden sounds, when under a fortnight old, they certainly did not always wink their eyes, and I believe never did so. The start of an older infant apparently represents a vague catching hold of something to prevent falling. I shook a pasteboard box close before the eyes of one of my infants, when 114 days old, and it did not in the least wink; but when I put a few comfits into the box, holding it in the same position as before, and rattled them, the child blinked its eyes violently every time, and started a little." The behaviour of dogs and horses under many circumstances was watched. Cats and monkeys were most carefully scrutinised. At all moments Darwin seized upon and recorded the passing emotion and its associated movements. "I remember once seeing a boy who had just shot his first snipe on the wing, and his hands trembled to such a degree from delight, that he could not for some time reload his gun;" an instance of an emotional movement being disadvantageous. Some of Darwin's descriptions of emotional outbursts are among the best portions of his writing; as when he speaks of a mother whose infant has been intentionally injured, "how she starts up with threatening aspect, how her eyes sparkle and her face reddens, how her bosom heaves, nostrils dilate, and heart beats." In describing a mourner when quiescent, he says: "The sufferer sits motionless, or gently rocks to and fro; the circulation becomes languid; respiration is almost forgotten, and deep sighs are drawn. All this reacts on the brain, and prostration soon follows with collapsed muscles and dulled eyes." One of the most striking features of this book is the evidence it affords of Darwin's acuteness and persistence in observation during his travels, and of the excellence of his memory. "I remember that my mules and dogs, brought from a lower and warmer country, after spending a night on the bleak Cordillera, had the hair all over their bodies as erect as under the greatest terror." He noted that Jemmy Button, the Fuegian, blushed when he was quizzed about the care which he took in polishing his shoes, and in otherwise adorning himself; and this fact long after is fitted into the theory of blushing. Guanacoes in South America, when not intending to bite, but merely to spit their offensive saliva from a distance at an intruder, yet retract their ears as a sign of their anger; and Darwin found the hides of several which he shot in Patagonia, deeply scored by teeth marks, in consequence of their battles with each other. A party of natives in Tierra del Fuego endeavoured to explain that their friend, the captain of a sealing vessel, was out of spirits, by pulling down their cheeks with both hands, so as to make their faces as long as possible; and the fact is treasured till it comes in to illustrate the lengthening of features under depression. As if he foreknew that he should want the fact forty years later, he inquired of Jemmy Button whether kissing was practised by his people, and learnt that it was unknown to them. "I remember," he says, "being struck whilst travelling in parts of South America, which were dangerous from the presence of Indians, how incessantly--yet as it appeared, unconsciously--the half-wild Gauchos closely scanned the whole horizon." "In Tierra del Fuego, a native touched with his finger some cold preserved meat which I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked savage, though his hands did not appear dirty." And this illustrates the primary meaning of disgust--anything offensive to the taste. In later years his own children, and his domestic pets, were incessantly watched, and suitable experiments were devised to bring out the real nature of their expressions. The period at which tears are formed and crying begins, the shape of the mouth in crying, the contraction of the muscles in shouting, the effects of steady gazing at objects, the various stages of smiling, the effects of shyness, shame, and fear, are all set before us, as thus observed. For instance, "I asked one of my boys to shout as loudly as he possibly could, and as soon as he began he firmly contracted his orbicular muscles (surrounding the eyes). I observed this repeatedly, and on asking him why he had every time so firmly closed his eyes, I found that he was quite unaware of the fact: he had acted instinctively or unconsciously." Some of his early observations were afterwards published by Darwin in _Mind_, vol. ii., under the title of "A Biographical Sketch of an Infant." Here is a carefully-worded and very suggestive experiment on animals: "Many years ago, in the Zoological Gardens, I placed a looking-glass on the floor before two young orangs, who, as far as it was known, had never before seen one. At first they gazed at their own images with the most steady surprise, and often changed their point of view. They then approached close, and protruded their lips towards the image, as if to kiss it, in exactly the same manner as they had previously done towards each other when first placed, a few days before, in the same room. They next made all sorts of grimaces, and put themselves in various attitudes before the mirror; they pressed and rubbed the surface; they placed their hands at different distances behind it; looked behind it; and finally seemed almost frightened, started a little, became cross, and refused to look any longer." So monkeys were tested with a dressed doll, a live turtle, and stuffed snakes, &c. The mode and purpose of erection of the hair, feathers, and dermal appendages of animals were the subject of much careful inquiry. Chimpanzees, monkeys, baboons, and many other creatures, were tested in the Zoological Gardens. A stuffed snake taken into the monkey-house caused several species to bristle. When Darwin showed the same to a peccary, the hair rose in a wonderful manner along its back. A cassowary erected its feathers at sight of an ant-eater. Every unexpected occurrence was pressed into service. Witness the following anecdote: "One day my horse was much frightened at a drilling machine, covered by a tarpaulin and lying on an open field. He raised his head so high that his neck became almost perpendicular; and this he did from habit, for the machine lay on a slope below, and could not have been seen with more distinctness through the raising of the head; nor if any sound had proceeded from it could the sound have been more distinctly heard. His eyes and ears were directed intently forwards; and I could feel through the saddle the palpitations of his heart. With red, dilated nostrils, he snorted violently, and whirling round, would have dashed off at full speed had I not prevented him." We see, too, in this book the results of Darwin's extensive reading. The novelists are laid considerably under contribution, their power of describing expressive signs of emotion being particularly appreciated. Dickens, Walter Scott, Mrs. Oliphant, and Mrs. Gaskell are among the novelists quoted; while the author of Job, Homer, Virgil, Seneca, Shakespeare, Lessing, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and many other deceased writers, illustrate the subject. The living authorities--scientific men, travellers, doctors--referred to for facts are exceedingly numerous, including Sir James Paget, Professor Huxley, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Sir J. Crichton Browne, Sir Samuel Baker, Sir Joseph Lister, Professors Cope and Asa Gray, and many others. One of the most interesting chapters in the book is that dealing with blushing. It is shown to depend on self-attention, excited almost exclusively by the opinion of others. "Every one feels blame more acutely than praise. Now, whenever we know, or suppose, that others are depreciating our personal appearance, our attention is strongly drawn towards ourselves, more especially to our faces." This excites the nerve centres receiving sensory nerve for the face, and in turn relaxes the blood capillaries, and fills them with blood. "We can understand why the young are much more affected than the old, and women more than men, and why the opposite sexes especially excite each others' blushes. It becomes obvious why personal remarks should be particularly liable to cause blushing, and why the most powerful of all the causes is shyness; for shyness relates to the presence and opinion of others, and the shy are always more or less self-conscious." One great result made clear by Darwin is that the muscles of expression have not been created or developed for the sake of expression only, and that every true or inherited movement of expression had some natural or independent origin. All the chief expressions are proved to be essentially the same throughout the world, which is an additional argument for man being descended from one stock. We cannot refrain from admiring the tone of the pages which close the book, describing as they do the probable expressions of our early ancestors, their utility, the value of differences of physiognomy, and the desirability or otherwise of repressing signs of emotion. The subject, says the author, "deserves still further attention, especially from any able physiologist;" and so simply ends a volume of surpassing human interest, a text-book for novelists and students of human nature, a landmark in man's progress in obedience to the behest "Know thyself." To fully measure the merit of one so far elevated above ordinary men is almost impossible; rather is it desirable to recognise the undeniable greatness of a great man, and learn all that is possible from him. An undoubted authority in mental science, however, has given a judgment on Darwin's services to that science, which it is right to quote: "To ourselves it almost seems one of the most wonderful of the many wonderful aspects of Mr. Darwin's varied work that by the sheer force of some exalted kind of common-sense, unassisted by any special acquaintance with psychological method, he should have been able to strike, as it were, straight down upon some of the most important truths which have ever been brought to light in the region of mental science."[12] These truths are specified as the influence of natural selection in the formation of instinct, in the "Origin of Species;" the evolution of mind and of morals, in the "Descent of Man," considered by the late Professor Clifford as containing the simplest and clearest and most profound philosophy that was ever written on the subject; and the evolution of expression in the book described in this chapter. Thus, says Mr. Romanes, in respect both of instincts and intelligence, the science of comparative psychology may be said to owe its foundation to Darwin. FOOTNOTES: [12: G. J. Romanes, in "Charles Darwin," memorial notices reprinted from _Nature_.] CHAPTER IX. In 1875 appeared another great work from the master's pen, "Insectivorous Plants," which was destined to place in a yet more striking light the many-sidedness and fertility of his mind. As usual Darwin tells us that this work dated from many years back. "During the summer of 1860," he says, "I was surprised by finding how large a number of insects were caught by the leaves of the common sun-dew (_Drosera rotundifolia_) on a heath in Sussex. I had heard that insects were thus caught, but knew nothing further on the subject. I gathered by chance a dozen plants, bearing fifty-six fully expanded leaves, and on thirty-one of these dead insects or remnants of them adhered." Here was the germ of something, the discoverer scarcely knew what. It was evident to him that the little sun-dew was excellently adapted for catching insects, and that the number of them thus slaughtered annually must be enormous. What bearing might this have upon the problem of the struggle for existence? A masterly series of experiments was forthwith set on foot, with the result of proving that sun-dews and a number of other plants obtain the bulk of their nourishment by catching, killing, and digesting insects. They may be called truly carnivorous plants. What an unexpected reversal this was of the order of things hitherto believed to prevail universally. Animals live on other animals or on plants. Here were plants living on animals, and keeping down their number. Moreover, without a nervous system, the action of the parts of a sun-dew leaf was proved to be as apparently purposive as the combined action of the limbs of an animal. Without a stomach, the sun-dew poured forth a digestive fluid as effective in extracting and fitting the nutritious matter of the insect for its own purposes as that of an animal. Without sensory nerve-endings, there was a percipient power in the sun-dew which recognised instinctively and at once the non-nutritious nature of various objects, and which responded to the most delicate chemical stimuli and to the minutest weights. We cannot describe the little sun-dew better than in Darwin's own words: "It bears from two or three to five or six leaves, generally extended more or less horizontally, but sometimes standing vertically upwards. The leaves are commonly a little broader than long. The whole upper surface is covered with gland-bearing filaments, or tentacles as I shall call them from their manner of acting. The glands were counted on thirty-one leaves, but many of these were of unusually large size, and the average number was 192; the greatest number being 260, and the least 130. The glands are each surrounded by large drops of extremely viscid secretion, which, glittering in the sun, have given rise to the plant's poetical name of the sun-dew." This secretion, when excited by nutritious matter, becomes distinctly acid, and contains a digestive ferment allied to the pepsin of the human stomach. So excited, it is found capable of dissolving boiled white of egg, muscle, fibrin, cartilage, gelatine, curd of milk, and many other substances. Further, various substances that animal gastric juice is unable to digest are not acted upon by the secretion of the sun-dew. These include all horny matter, starch, fat, and oil. It is not however prejudiced in favour of animal matter. The sun-dew can absorb nutriment from living seeds of plants, injuring or killing them, of course, in the process, while pollen and fresh green leaves yield to its influence. The action of salts of ammonia and other chemicals was even more wonderful. "It is an astonishing fact that so inconceivably minute a quantity as the one twenty-millionth of a grain of phosphate of ammonia should induce some change in a gland of Drosera sufficient to cause a motor impulse to be sent down the whole length of the tentacle; this impulse exciting movement often through an angle of above 180°. I know not whether to be most astonished at this fact, or that the pressure of a minute bit of hair, weighing only 1/78700 of a grain, and largely supported by the dense secretion, should quickly cause conspicuous movement." These are but specimens of a multitude of profoundly interesting facts brought out in this exhaustive investigation. If this single research were his only title to fame Darwin's name must rank high as an experimenter of rare ingenuity and success. But he concludes his summary of results by the utterly modest remark, "We see how little has been made out in comparison with what remains unexplained and unknown." The facts relating to Venus' fly-trap (_Dionæa muscipula_) and other members of the order to which the sun-dew belongs were better known, but Darwin elicited new truths by his ingenious and varied experiments. The rapidity with which the two lobes of the leaf of dionæa close together when anything touches the tiny spikes which stand up vertically from the upper surface of the lobes, is astonishing, and any insect which causes the closure is almost certain to be caught. Digestion is accomplished in the case of the dionæa by a separate agency, consisting of a large number of minute reddish glands covering the surface of the lobes. These secrete a digestive fluid when stimulated by the contact of any nitrogenous matter, and of course this takes place when any insect is caught. In fact, essentially the same process of digestion and absorption takes place as in the sun-dew. The insect is held firmly for days, until its juices have been absorbed, and then the leaf slowly reopens, not being able to close again for many subsequent days. It is interesting to note the extreme caution with which the great naturalist speculates upon the mode by which the varied members of the sun-dew order became modified from an ordinary plant-form to such a remarkable degree. The details are too special for quotation here. He suggests, but he does not in the slightest degree dogmatise. For many years to come Darwin's suggestions and comments must be the pregnant soil out of which fruitful research will spring, and his caution will remain the model, to depart from which will but sow hindrances in the path of scientific progress. The order to which the butterwort and the bladderworts belong also afforded valuable results. The leaf of the butterwort bears glandular hairs, and its margins curve inwards when excited by contact of various bodies, especially living insects, and, at the same time, these are caught in the viscid secretion of the glands, and their juices absorbed by the plant. The bladderworts are even more remarkably constructed, for they have a portion of their leaves developed into subaqueous bladders, with a narrow entrance beneath, defended by a complex valve, which facilitates the entrance of water insects or crustaceans, but prevents their exit. The whole interior of the bladder is lined with transparent four-branched protoplasmic hairs, but nevertheless the bladderwort is unlike the preceding plants in having no power of digesting its prey, however long it may remain in captivity. Yet there is no doubt that the imprisoned creatures do decay in their watery cell, and that the hairs just described absorb the products of their decay. Such is a brief account of Darwin's work on "Insectivorous Plants." With his characteristic expressions he acknowledges the valuable aid given him by Professor Burdon-Sanderson, and by his son, Mr. Francis Darwin. The former was enabled to give the first brief account of the process of digestion in these plants, as observed by Darwin, in a lecture before the Royal Institution, in June, 1874, and Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker called general public notice to the subject of Carnivorous Plants in his lecture before the British Association at Belfast in the same year: so that a thoroughly awakened attention was given to this new work from Darwin's pen. The public and the scientific world learnt to appreciate yet more keenly his varied talent, his long patience, his reserve of power; and thence dated very definitely a general appreciation of the fundamental unity of the animal and plant kingdoms, seeing that the salient faculties of digestion, of purposive locomotion, of rapid communication and consentaneous action were no longer restricted to animals, but were possessed in a high degree by plants also. Eager followers soon brought forward further proofs of unity of functions in the two kingdoms, and of reciprocal combinations between them, and now no one in the slightest degree acquainted with modern biology doubts that life is at bottom one phenomenon, shared equally and manifested in essentially the same modes by the living substance of plant and animal alike. Following "Insectivorous Plants" came "The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom," in 1876. Darwin had led the way in the study of this subject by his book on Orchids, and his lead had been excellently followed by Hildebrand, Hermann Müller, Sir John Lubbock, and others. The path having been indicated, it had appeared comparatively easy for botanists to follow it up. But there yet remained a region of experimental inquiry which it required Darwin's patience and ingenuity to master and to expound conclusively. Although it might be practically granted that natural selection developed a process because advantage was gained by it, was it possible to demonstrate that flowers cross-fertilised bear more and larger seeds, which produce healthier offspring than those fertilised from their own pollen? This Darwin set himself exhaustively to do. For more than a dozen years after his book on orchids appeared, unwearied experiments on plants were progressing, and nature was being questioned acutely, untiringly. Competitive germination was carried on. The two classes of seeds were placed on damp sand in a warm room. As often as a pair germinated at the same time, they were planted on opposite sides of the same pot, with a partition between. Besides these pairs of competitors, others were planted in beds, so that the descendants of the crossed and self-fertilised flowers might compete. The resulting seeds were carefully compared, and their produce again compared. Species were selected from widely distinct families, inhabiting various countries. From a large number of plants, when insects were quite excluded by a thin net covering the plant, few or no seeds were produced. The extent of transport of pollen by insects was unveiled, and the relation between the structure, odour, and conspicuousness of flowers, the visits of insects, and the advantages of cross-fertilisation was shown. "We certainly," says Darwin, "owe the beauty and odour of our flowers, and the storage of a large supply of honey, to the existence of insects." The multitude of facts gathered about insects could only have been discovered and rightly appreciated by one who was a true entomologist as well as a botanist. In the last chapter of the book the author discusses with remarkable power the causes of the phenomena he has discovered. He believes that the favourable effects of crossing are due to the parents having been subjected to diverse conditions; but what the precise benefit is, or how it can operate so as to render the offspring more healthy and vigorous, he cannot discern. "And so it is," he observes, "with many other facts, which are so obscure that we stand in awe before the mystery of life." So it is. The man who probably understood nature better than any man who has ever lived, who had not only asked her multitudinous questions, but to whom very many answers had been undoubtedly vouchsafed in response to his persevering, humble, diligent, acute questioning, acknowledges that he knows little; that much remains a mystery. But from all we know of him, from his books, his letters, his friends, his was the joy of a soul in sympathy with the master power of the universe. He marched continually on the confines of the unknown, and to him was granted the felicity of largely extending the boundaries of the known. Again, in 1877, a new work proceeded from Darwin's pen, "The Different Forms of Flowers in Plants of the same Species," dedicated to Professor Asa Gray. It gathered up the contents of numerous papers read before the Linnean Society, with later additions, and showed conclusively how many plants possess distinctive forms of flowers in the same species, adapted to, and in some cases absolutely necessitating, reciprocal fertilisation through the visits of insects. It gave evidence of all the well-known Darwinian characteristics of long-continued labour, thought, and experiment. In 1880 "The Power of Movement in Plants" was exemplified in a fresh volume, in which the veteran was materially assisted by his son, Mr. Francis Darwin. Its object was to describe and connect together several large classes of movements, common to almost all plants. The surprising fact was established, that all the parts or organs of plants, whilst they continue to grow, are continually revolving, or circumnutating as Darwin called it. This movement commences even before the young seedling has broken through the ground. The combination of this with the effects of gravity and light explains countless phenomena in the life of plants. The tip of the rootlet is thus enabled to penetrate the ground, and it is proved to be more sensitive than the most delicate tendril. Movement goes on through all stages of life. Every growing shoot of a great tree is continually describing small ellipses; the tip of every rootlet endeavours to do the same. The changes of position of leaves and of climbing plants, and the sleep of leaves are all brought under this great principle of circumnutation. It is impossible in reading the book not to be struck with the great resemblance between the movements of plants and many of the actions performed unconsciously by the lower animals. "With plants an astonishingly small stimulus suffices, and, even with allied plants, one may be highly sensitive to the slightest continued pressure, and another highly sensitive to a slight momentary touch. The habit of moving at certain periods is inherited both by plants and animals, and several other points of similitude have been specified. But the most striking resemblance is the localisation of their sensitiveness, and the transmission of an influence from the excited part to another which consequently moves. Yet plants do not of course possess nerves or a central nervous system; and we may infer that with animals such structures serve only for the more perfect transmission of impressions, and for the more complete intercommunication of the several parts." Here we see how much light may be thrown on animal structures and functions by vegetable physiology. We learn to limit our ideas of the superiority of animals by discovering how much of what we consider peculiar to them is found in plants. We appreciate the unity of biology, indivisible without injury to our knowledge of its parts. No structure in plants appears more wonderful, as Darwin describes it, than the tip of the rootlet of a seedling. It is impressed by and transmits influences of pressure, injury, moisture, light, and gravity to other parts, and determines the course pursued by the rootlet in penetrating the ground. "It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed, and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals;" and the brain of Charles Darwin, in working out this acquisition of knowledge for mankind, has added a new department to vegetable physiology and to biology. CHAPTER X. In his later years honours poured thick upon Darwin. In 1871 he received the Prussian order of knighthood "For Merit"; and was elected a corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1877 Cambridge University, making an exception to its custom of not conferring honorary degrees on its members, gave him the LL.D. and an ovation, when the kindly eyes of the venerable naturalist beamed upon the monkey-figure dangled by undergraduates before him from the galleries, in addition to a solitary link of a huge chain, no doubt representing "the missing link." In 1878 the honour, long withheld, and certainly unsought, of being elected a corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences in the section of Zoology, was his; and that tardy body recognised late the man whose supremacy in science it had done nothing either to foster or to approve. In 1879 the Baly Medal of the London College of Physicians was awarded to him. After the Cambridge celebration a subscription was raised to obtain a portrait of the veteran evolutionist, which was executed by Mr. W. B. Richmond, and now adorns the Philosophical Library of the New Museums at Cambridge. Later, yet another portrait--the finest in his own and many others' belief--was painted by Mr. John Collier, and presented to the Linnean Society, which will always be associated with the first announcement of Darwin's main theory, as well as with many others of his scientific discoveries. Professor Haeckel has given the following charming description of Darwin and his home surroundings in his later years: "In Darwin's own carriage, which he had thoughtfully sent for my convenience to the railway station, I drove, one sunny morning in October, through the graceful, hilly landscape of Kent, that with the chequered foliage of its woods, with its stretches of purple heath, yellow broom, and evergreen oaks, was arrayed in its fairest autumnal dress. As the carriage drew up in front of Darwin's pleasant country house, clad in a vesture of ivy and embowered in elms, there stepped out to meet me from the shady porch, overgrown with creeping plants, the great naturalist himself, a tall and venerable figure, with the broad shoulders of an Atlas supporting a world of thought, his Jupiter-like forehead highly and broadly arched, as in the case of Goethe, and deeply furrowed with the plough of mental labour; his kindly, mild eyes looking forth under the shadow of prominent brows; his amiable mouth surrounded by a copious silver-white beard. The cordial, prepossessing expression of the whole face, the gentle, mild voice, the slow, deliberate utterance, the natural and naive train of ideas which marked his conversation, captivated my whole heart in the first hour of our meeting, just as his great work had formerly, on my first reading it, taken my whole understanding by storm, I fancied a lofty world-sage out of Hellenic antiquity--a Socrates or Aristotle--stood before me." The well-known botanist, Alphonse de Candolle, thus describes a visit to Down: "I longed to converse once more with Darwin, whom I had seen in 1839, and with whom I kept up a most interesting correspondence. It was on a fine autumn morning in 1880 that I arrived at Orpington station, where my illustrious friend's break met me. I will not here speak of the kind reception given to me at Down, and of the pleasure I felt in chatting familiarly with Mr. and Mrs. Darwin and their son Francis. I note only that Darwin at seventy was more animated and appeared happier than when I had seen him forty-one years before. His eye was bright and his expression cheerful, whilst his photographs show rather the shape of his head, like that of an ancient philosopher. His varied, frank, gracious conversation, entirely that of a gentleman, reminded me of that of Oxford and Cambridge _savants_. The general tone was like his books, as is the case with sincere men, devoid of every trace of charlatanism. He expressed himself in English easily understood by a foreigner, more like that of Bulwer or Macaulay, than that of Dickens or Carlyle. I asked him for news of the committee, of which he was a member, for reforming English spelling, and when I said that moderate changes would be best received by the public, he laughingly said, 'As for myself, _of course_, I am for the most radical changes.' We were more in accord on another point, that a man of science, even up to advanced age, ought to take an interest in new ideas, and to accept them, if he finds them true. 'That was very strongly the opinion of my friend Lyell,' he said; 'but he pushed it so far as sometimes to yield to the first objection, and I was then obliged to defend him against himself.' Darwin had more firmness in his opinions, whether from temperament, or because he had published nothing without prolonged reflection. "Around the house no trace appeared to remain of the former labours of the owner. Darwin used simple means. He was not one who would have demanded to have palaces built in order to accommodate laboratories. I looked for the greenhouse in which such beautiful experiments on hybrid plants had been made. It contained only a vine. One thing struck me, although it is not rare in England, where animals are loved. A heifer and a colt were feeding close to us with the tranquillity which tells of good masters, and I heard the joyful barking of dogs. 'Truly,' I said to myself, 'the history of the variations of animals was written here, and observations must be going on, for Darwin is never idle.' I did not suspect that I was walking above the dwellings of those lowly beings called earthworms, the subject of his last work, in which Darwin showed once more how little causes in the long run produce great effects. He had been studying them for thirty years, but I did not know it. "Returning to the house, Darwin showed me his library, a large room on the ground floor, very convenient for a studious man; many books on the shelves; windows on two sides; a writing-table and another for apparatus for his experiments. Those on the movements of stems and roots were still in progress. The hours passed like minutes. I had to leave. Precious memories of that visit remain." Yet once more, in 1881, the famous publishing house of Murray issued a new work--his last--by the great illuminator of Nature. Its subject was one which no one save those who knew him could have expected. It dealt with "The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits," and in it the lowly earthworm was at last raised to its true rank as the genuine preparer and possessor of the soil. Both Gilbert White and Edward Jenner had been impressed with the work earthworms do in nature, but no one had written extensively on the subject till Darwin himself, in 1837, read a short paper on the "Formation of Mould" before the Geological Society of London (published in the fifth volume of the Society's Transactions), showing that small fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c., which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows, were found after a few years lying at the depth of some inches beneath the turf. It was suggested to him by his relative Mr. Wedgwood, of Maer Hall, in Staffordshire, that this was due to the quantity of fine earth continually brought up to the surface by worms in the form of castings. Observation and experiment were to settle the question in the usual Darwinian manner, and many a portion of soil was watched. One experiment lasted nearly thirty years, for a quantity of broken chalk and sifted coal cinders was spread on December 20, 1842, over distinct parts of a field near Down House, which had existed as pasture for a very long time. At the end of November, 1871, a trench was dug across this part of the field, and the nodules of chalk were found buried seven inches. A similar change took place in a field covered with flints, where in thirty years the turf was compact without any stones. A pathway formed of loose-set flagstones was similarly buried by worms, and became undistinguishable from the rest of the lawn. And these are but a few of the evidences of the wonderful action of worms, collected by the activity of Charles Darwin and his sons. Earthworms were not only scrutinised in their out-of-door work, but were kept in confinement and studied. It appears they swallow earth both to make their burrows and to extract all nutriment it may contain; they will eat almost anything they can get their skin over. From careful calculation it was shown that worms on an average pass ten tons of the soil on an acre of ground through their bodies every year. It is, then, but a truism to say that every bit of soil on the surface of the globe must have passed through their bodies many times. They were discovered to work mainly by night, when hundreds may with care be discerned, with tails fixed in their burrows, prowling round in circles, rapidly retreating into holes, and strongly resisting efforts to extract them. It was found by careful study that they have no sense of hearing, but a most remarkable sensitiveness to vibrations of the earth or even to contact with air in motion. No book Darwin wrote was fuller of interesting and undoubtedly correct observations. In concluding, the author enforces the claims of worms on the gratitude of archæologists, as they protect and preserve for an indefinitely long period every object not liable to decay which is dropped on the surface of the land, by burying it beneath their castings. It is thus that many tesselated pavements and other ancient remains have been preserved; but, on the other hand, worms have undermined many old massive walls and caused them to subside, and no building is in this respect safe unless the foundations are at least six or seven feet beneath the surface, below which depth worms cannot work. Worms also prepare the ground in an excellent manner for plant life, periodically exposing the mould to the air, sifting it so that no stones larger than the particles they can swallow are left in it, mingling the whole intimately together, burying all decaying objects within reach of the roots of the plants, allowing air to penetrate deeply into the earth. "When we behold a wide, turf-covered expanse, we should remember that its smoothness, on which so much of its beauty depends, is mainly due to all the inequalities having been slowly levelled by worms. It is a marvellous reflection that the whole of the superficial mould over any such expanse has passed, and will again pass, every few years through the bodies of worms. The plough is one of the most ancient and most valuable of man's inventions; but long before he existed the land was in fact regularly ploughed, and still continues to be thus ploughed by earthworms. It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organised creatures." After this last book Darwin felt much exhausted, and wrote: "I feel so worn out that I do not suppose I shall ever again give reviewers trouble." His brother Erasmus's death in the same year was the severance of a link with early days. Yet for some months he continued in a moderate degree of health, still working. For some weeks however in the following March and April he was slightly unwell, and the action of his heart became so weak that he was not allowed to mount the stairs. On Tuesday, April 18, he was in his study examining a plant which he had had brought to him, and he read the same evening before retiring. Till the day of his death he did not become seriously ill. On that day the heart, which had so long done its duty, failed, and about 4 p.m., on April 19, 1882, Charles Darwin breathed his last in peace, aged seventy-three years, two months, and seven days. CHAPTER XI. The death of Charles Darwin focussed, as it were, into one concentrated glow the feelings of admiration, and even reverence, which had been growing stronger and stronger in the years since the "Origin of Species" was published. It soon became evident that a public funeral in Westminster Abbey was very generally called for, and this being granted, a grave was chosen in the north aisle and north-east corner of the nave, north of and side by side with that of Sir John Herschel, and ten or twelve feet only from that of Sir Isaac Newton. On April 26, 1882, a great representative host of scientists, literary men, politicians, and theologians assembled for the final scene. The pallbearers were the Dukes of Devonshire and Argyll, the Earl of Derby, Mr. J. Russell Lowell (then American Minister in London), Mr. W. Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society), Sir Joseph Hooker, Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, Professor Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, and Canon Farrar. The Bishop of Carlisle, preaching at the Abbey on the following Sunday, admitted that Darwin had produced a greater change in the current of thought than any other man, and had done it by perfectly legitimate means. He had observed Nature with a strength of purpose, pertinacity, honesty, and ingenuity never surpassed. "The career of Charles Darwin," wrote _The Times_ on the day of his funeral, "eludes the grasp of personal curiosity as much as of personal enmity. He thought, and his thoughts have passed into the substance of facts of the universe. A grass plot, a plant in bloom, a human gesture, the entire circle of the doings and tendencies of nature, builds his monument and records his exploits.... The Abbey has its orators and ministers who have convinced senates and swayed nations. Not one of them all has wielded a power over men and their intelligences more complete than that which for the last twenty-three years has emanated from a simple country house in Kent. Memories of poets breathe about the mighty church. Science invokes the aid of imagination no less than poetry. Darwin as he searched, imagined. Every microscopic fact his patient eyes unearthed, his fancy caught up and set in its proper niche in a fabric as stately and grand as ever the creative company of Poets' Corner wove from sunbeams and rainbows." "Our century is Darwin's century," said the _Allgemeine Zeitung_. _The New York Herald_ described his life as "that of Socrates except its close." The _Neue Freie Presse_ said truly that his death caused lamentation as far as truth had penetrated, and wherever civilisation had made any impression. A movement was at once set on foot for securing a worthy public memorial of Darwin. Subscriptions flowed in abundantly, and came from all countries of Europe, the United States, the British Colonies, and Brazil. Sweden sent the astonishing number of 2296 subscriptions; persons of all ranks contributed, from a bishop to a seamstress. Over £4,000 in all was subscribed, and it was resolved, in the first place, to procure the best possible statue. This work was entrusted to Mr. Boehm, R.A., with admirable results. Permission was obtained to place it in the great hall of the British Museum of Natural History, South Kensington, and here it was unveiled on June 9, 1885, by the Prince of Wales, who accepted the statue on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum from Professor Huxley as representing the subscribers. It is agreed that the statue is excellent, the attitude easy and dignified, the expression natural and characteristic. The only defect is that the hands are unlike Darwin's. The balance, about £2,200, remaining over from the fund, was given to the Royal Society to be invested for the promotion of biological studies and researches. The conditions under which Darwin lived were just those in which, as _The Saturday Review_ put it, his sweet and gentle nature could blossom into perfection. "Arrogance, irritability, and envy, the faults that ordinarily beset men of genius, were not so much conquered as non-existent in a singularly simple and generous mind. It never occurred to him that it would be to his gain to show that he and not some one else was the author of a discovery. If he was appealed to for help by a fellow-worker, the thought never passed into his mind that he had secrets to divulge which would lessen his importance. It was science, not the fame of science, that he loved, and he helped science by the temper in which he approached it. He had to say things which were distasteful to a large portion of the public, but he won the ear even of his most adverse critics by the manifest absence of a mere desire to shine, by his modesty, and by his courtesy. He told honestly what he thought to be the truth, but he told it without a wish to triumph or to wound. There is an arrogance of unorthodoxy as well as an arrogance of orthodoxy, and if ideas that a quarter of a century ago were regarded with dread are now accepted without a pang, the rapidity of the change of opinion, if not the change itself, is largely due to the fact that the leading exponent of these ideas was the least arrogant of men." Geniality and genuine humour must be remembered as among the many delightful traits in Darwin's character. Mr. Edmund Yates, in his "Celebrities at Home" (second series), describes his as a laugh to remember, "a rich Homeric laugh, round and full, musical and jocund." "At a droll suggestion of Mr. Huxley's, or a humorous doubt insinuated in the musical tones of the President of the Royal Society (Sir Joseph Hooker), the eyes twinkle under the massive overhanging brows, the Socratic head, as Professor Tyndall loves to call it, is thrown back, and over the long white beard rolls out such a laugh as we have attempted to describe." Exceptionally good-hearted and sympathetic as a man, Darwin discovered his life-work, and did it, in spite of a most powerful hindrance, in the best possible manner, with the least possible waste of force. But, more than doing his work, he set others to work, incited them, suggested to them, aided them, scattered among them seeds which, finding fertile soil, sprang up and bore fruit a hundredfold. His greatness is as much in what be caused others to do as in what he did himself. Even in arousing antagonism, though by the gentlest means, he did a great work, for he secured examination and criticism in such bulk that the whole world was leavened by his doctrine; and in controversy no man has any disagreeable reminiscence of him. Many have cause to bless the day when they first came into communication with Darwin, to find him welcome them, encourage them, place his own vast stores of knowledge and thought at their disposal, and, best of all, make them love him naturally as a dear friend. Darwin's was one of those open and frank minds which are entrenched behind no rampart of isolating prejudice, and elevated on no platform of conscious superiority. It was equally natural to him to ask and to give information. No one ever was more accessible to all who genuinely sought his aid in their inquiries or their projects; no one ever more truly sought information from all quarters whence truth was attainable. Hence the mass of his letters to all kinds of persons is enormous, and only a small proportion, probably, will ever be published. His letters are like his conversation, free, frank, without a trace of _arrière pensée_, praising others where possible--and no man ever found it more possible to praise others more genuinely--depreciating himself and his work most unduly. "You so overestimate the value of what I do," he writes on one occasion, "that you make me feel ashamed of myself, and wish to be worthy of such praise." Again, "You have indeed passed a most magnificent eulogium on me, and I wonder that you were not afraid of hearing 'oh, oh,' or some other sign of disapprobation. Many persons think that what I have done in science has been much overrated, and I very often think so myself, but my comfort is that I have never consciously done anything to gain applause." Here we see the scientific man occupying the highest possible moral standpoint as a seeker after truth. His election as one of the honorary members of the Physiological Society was to him a "wholly unexpected honour," and a "mark of sympathy" which pleased him in a very high degree. "Work," he writes on another occasion, "is my sole pleasure in life." "It is so much more interesting to observe than to write." So long as he could devise experiments and mark the results he continued to do it, rather than prepare his voluminous notes on many subjects for publication. "Trollope, in one of his novels, gives as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker, 'It is dogged as does it,' and I have often and often," wrote Darwin, "thought this is a motto for every scientific worker." How faithfully he adopted it himself those who read through any one of his experimental books can appreciate. He habitually read or heard some good novel as a recreation, and took a by no means restricted interest in general literature. Considering how usual it is for leading thinkers to be drawn into controversy, even when most desirous of avoiding it, it is remarkable how little Darwin was mixed up with hotly-debated questions. "I hate controversy," he writes, "and it wastes much time, at least with a man who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day." One of the few occasions on which he appeared as a champion of a cause was on the question of vivisection, in which a chivalrous feeling led him to intervene with the following letter to Professor Holmgren, of Upsala University, which was published in _The Times_ of April 18, 1881. "I thought it fair," he wrote, "to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists." "DEAR SIR,--In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches--a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago, must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. "What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look, for instance, at Pasteur's results of modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will, in the first place, receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives, and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology. "Dear sir, yours faithfully, "CHARLES DARWIN." As an experimenter Darwin was by no means overconfident either in his methods or his power of obtaining results. He simply took the best means open to him, or that he could devise, applied them in the best way known to him, and calmly studied the result. "As far as my experience goes," he wrote, in reference to experimental work, "what one expects rarely happens." On another occasion, after working like a slave at a certain investigation, "with very poor success;" he remarks, "as usual, almost everything goes differently to what I had anticipated." How few investigators have the magnanimity which appears in this confession. But more than this, it is an indication of the rare patience with which he stuck at a subject till he knew all he could read or discover or develop in connection with it. It was "dogged" that did it; "awfully hard work" sometimes. In reference to an attempt of his to define intelligence, which he regarded as unsatisfactory, after remarking that he tried to observe what passed in his own mind when he did the work of a worm, he writes: "If I come across a professed metaphysician, I will ask him to give me a more technical definition with a few big words, about the abstract, the concrete, the absolute, and the infinite. But sincerely, I should be grateful for any suggestions; for it will hardly do to assume that every fool knows what 'intelligent' means." Inasmuch as it must necessarily be of great interest to know the attitude which so great a thinker as Darwin adopted towards Christianity, revelation, and other matters of theology, we give unabridged two letters which were written without a view to publication, and were published after his death without the authorisation of his representatives. Having been widely published, however, it is right that they should be given here. The first of these was sent in 1873 to N. D. Deedes, a Dutch gentleman, who wrote to ask Darwin his opinion on the existence of a God: "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; I am not sure that I could do so even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me our chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here, again, I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect, but man can do his duty." The second letter was addressed to Nicholas, Baron Mengden, a German University student, in whom the study of Darwin's books had raised religious doubts. It is dated June 5, 1879. The following is a re-translation of a German translation: "I am very busy, and am an old man in delicate health, and have not time to answer your questions fully, even assuming that they are capable of being answered at all. Science and Christ have nothing to do with each other, except in so far as the habit of scientific investigation makes a man cautious about accepting any proofs. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that any revelation has ever been made with regard to a future life; every one must draw his own conclusions from vague and contradictory probabilities." It should be added that he was greatly averse to every form of militant anti-religious controversy, and always deprecated it. He would have been the last to desire that his words should be quoted as of scientific authority, or as being more than the results of his own thought on questions which were not the subject of his life study. Let those who think that his having expressed these views is a regrettable blow to orthodox Christianity, set against it the enormous service Darwin did to reasonable natural theology by giving an intelligible key to the explanation of the universe. And let all men remember that genuine honesty such as Darwin's cannot possibly hinder the interests or the spread of truth. His declaration that "man can do his duty," implies his conviction that man may know what his duty is; and very many noble spirits besides Darwin have not found it possible to advance with certainty beyond this point. As to Darwin's place in literature, that is due supereminently to his thoughts. In his expression of them he had the saving quality of directness, and usually wrote with simplicity. Incisive he was not ordinarily; caution of his type harmonises ill with incisiveness. But what he lost thereby he gained in solidity and in permanence. Sometimes, as we have pointed out, his imagination carried him beyond his usual sober vein, and then he showed himself aglow with feeling or with sympathetic perception. But when we speak of his imagination we pass at once to the other side of his mind--if indeed any such patient inquiry as his could have been maintained except for the imaginative side of him. This lit up his path, buoyed him in difficulties and failures, suggested new expedients, experiments, and combinations. The use of imagination in science has never been more aptly illustrated nor more beneficial than in his case. Darwin, more than any other man perhaps, showed the value, if not the essentiality, of "working hypotheses"; and if any man now wants to progress in biology, he will be foolish if he does not seek such and use them freely, and abandon them readily if disproved. Darwin imagined grandly, and verified his imaginings as far as one man's life suffices; and no man can do more. And Darwin won, as far as a man can win, success during his lifetime. As Professor Huxley said, in lecturing on "The Coming of Age of 'The Origin of Species,'" "the foremost men of science in every country are either avowed champions of its leading doctrines, or at any rate abstain from opposing them." His prescience has in less than a generation been justified by the discovery of intermediate fossil forms of animals too numerous to be here recounted. The break between vertebrate and invertebrate animals, between flowering and non-flowering plants, between animal and plant, is now bridged over by discoveries in the life histories of animals and plants which exist to-day. Embryo animals and plants are now known to go through stages which repeat and condense the upward ascent of life; and they give us information of the greatest value as to lost stages in the path. We can, as it were, see the actual track through which evolution may have proceeded. "Thus," says Professor Huxley, "if the doctrine of evolution had not existed, palæontologists must have invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of the remains of the Tertiary mammalia which have been brought to light since 1859;" and again, "so far as the animal world is concerned, evolution is no longer a speculation, but a statement of historical fact." As to the limits of the truth of Darwin's theory, Professor Huxley, writing on "Evolution in Biology," in "The Encyclopædia Britannica," says: "How far natural selection suffices for the production of species remains to be seen. Few can doubt that, if not the whole cause, it is a very important factor in that operation; and that it must play a great part in the sorting out of varieties into those which are transitory, and those which are permanent. But the causes and conditions of variation have yet to be thoroughly explored; and the importance of natural selection will not be impaired, even if further inquiries should prove that variability is definite, and is determined in certain directions rather than in others, by conditions inherent in that which varies." We have not space to describe the importance of the work Darwin did in, or bearing on, entomology, changing its face and vastly elevating its importance. A volume might be compiled from his writings on this subject, as reference to Professor Riley's excellent summary (Darwin Memorial Meeting, Washington, 1882) will readily show. Nor can we recount his important work in other branches of biology further than has been already done in the foregoing pages. To do so would require much more than a volume of this size. One special department may perhaps claim notice on the ground of its supposed non-scientific character. Dr. Masters (_Gardeners' Chronicle_, April 22, 1882) says of Darwin's service to horticulture: "Let any one who knows what was the state of botany in this country even so recently as fifteen or twenty years ago, compare the feeling between botanists and horticulturists at that time with what it is now. What sympathy had the one for the pursuits of the other? The botanist looked down on the varieties, the races, and strains, raised with so much pride by the patient skill of the florist as on things unworthy of his notice and study. The horticulturist, on his side, knowing how very imperfectly plants could be studied from the mummified specimens in herbaria, which then constituted in most cases all the material that the botanist of this country considered necessary for the study of plants, naturally looked on the botanist somewhat in the light of a laborious trifler.... Darwin altered all this. He made the dry bones live; he invested plants and animals with a history, a biography, a genealogy, which at once conferred an interest and a dignity on them. Before, they were as the stuffed skin of a beast in the glass case of a museum; now they are living beings, each in their degree affected by the same circumstances that affect ourselves, and swayed, _mutatis mutandis_, by like feelings and like passions. If he had done nothing more than this we might still have claimed Darwin as a horticulturist; but as we shall see, he has more direct claims on our gratitude. The apparently trifling variations, the variations which it was once the fashion for botanists to overlook, have become, as it were, the keystone of a great theory." A valuable summary of Darwin's influence on general philosophic thought has been given by Mr. James Sully, in his article, "Evolution in Philosophy," in "The Encyclopædia Britannica," 9th ed., vol. viii. He, like many other thinkers, considers that Darwin has done much to banish old ideas as to the evidence of purpose in nature. Mr. Sully's views are not entirely shared, however, by Professor Winchell, an able American evolutionist ("Encyclopædia Americana," vol. ii.) who considers that the question of teleology, or of purpose in nature, is not really touched by the special principle of natural selection, nor by the general doctrine of evolution. The mechanical theorist may, consistently with these doctrines, maintain that every event takes place without a purpose; while the teleologist, or believer in purpose, may no less consistently maintain that the more orderly and uniform we find the succession of events, the more reason is there to presume that a purposeful intelligence is regulating them. It is certainly impossible to show that the whole system of evolution does not exist for a purpose. The ranks of the evolutionists, and even of the Darwinians, as a fact, embrace believers in the most diverse systems of philosophy, including many of those who accept Christ's teaching as an authoritative Divine revelation. May not this diversity among Darwinians itself teach hope? Darwinism is held with vital grip and will therefore not become a dead creed, a fossil formula. The belief that every generation is a step in progress to a higher and fuller life contains within it the promise of a glorious evolution which is no longer a faint hope, but a reasoned faith. "Man's thought is like Antæus, and must be Touched to the ground of Nature to regain Fresh force, new impulse, else it would remain Dead in the grip of strong Authority. But, once thereon reset, 'tis like a tree, Sap-swollen in spring-time: bonds may not restrain; Nor weight repress; its rootlets rend in twain Dead stones and walls and rocks resistlessly. Thine then it was to touch dead thoughts to earth, Till of old dreams sprang new philosophies, From visions systems, and beneath thy spell Swiftly uprose, like magic palaces,-- Thyself half-conscious only of thy worth-- Calm priest of a tremendous oracle."[13] Here let us leave Charles Darwin; a marvellously patient and successful revolutioniser of thought; a noble and beloved man. FOOTNOTES: [13: Round Table Series. "Charles Darwin" (1886), by J. T. Cunningham.] THE END. INDEX. A. Ainsworth, Mr. W. F., on Darwin at Edinburgh, 22 Allen, Mr. Grant, on Darwin, 25, 31, 95, 112 Ancestry of the Darwins, 11, 12, 14 Andes, 43, 45 Antiquity of man, 113 Ants, Observations on, 88, 89 Archæology and earthworms, 151, 152 _Athenæum_, The, 22, 94, 124 B. Bahia, 32 Bahia Blanca, 38 _Beagle_, H.M.S., 27, 29, 34, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 52-60, 65 Bees, Observations on, 88, 89 Bell, Sir C., "Anatomy of Expression," 126 Bentley, T., and Darwin's mother, 17 Blushing, 133 Bladderwort, The, 140 Botanical papers, 103 Botanical works, 103-108, 136-145 Brazil, 32-36 Breeds, Domestic, 80-82, 109-111 British Association, Darwin at, 60 Buenos Ayres, 39, 40 Burdon-Sanderson, Prof., 140 Butterwort, The, 140 Button, Jemmy, the Fuegian, 130 C. Caldcleugh, Mr., 45 Cambridge University, 24-29, 146 Candolle, A. de, 148-150 Carlisle, Bishop of, on Darwin, 154, 155 Carlyle, Thomas and Mrs., and Erasmus Darwin, 19 Character of Darwin, 155-160, 162-165 Chili, 43-45 Chiloe, 43 Chonos Archipelago, 43 Christianity and Darwin, 115-117, 121, 163-166, 169 Cirripedia, Books on, 61-63 Classification, 91 "Climbing Plants," 107 Copley medal, 106 Coral reefs, Book on, 55-59; observations on, 48, 52, 55 Corfield, Mr. R., 43 Cross-fertilisation of plants, 141-143 D. Dana, Prof. J. D., on Coral Reefs, 58 Darwin, Charles, and domestic animals, 71; and entomology, 25, 167; and Malthus, 72, 73; and novelists, 133; and Prof. Henslow, 24-30; and Sir C. Lyell, 31, 51, 52, 69, 70; and Sir J. Hooker, 54, 74, 75, 78; and slavery, 34, 35; and spelling reform, 148; as an experimenter, 162; at Cambridge, 24-29; at Edinburgh, 22-24; "Biographical Sketch of an Infant," 131; birth, 18; character of, 155-160, 162-165; "Climbing Plants," 107; contributions to mental science, 134, 135; death of, 153; "Descent of Man," 112-125; discovery of extinct mammals, 38, 39; elected F.G.S., 51; F.R.S., 52; experience of missionaries, 43, 47; experiments on children, 129, 131; "Expression of Emotions," 126-135; fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom, 141-143; "Fertilisation of Orchids," 103-106; first scientific paper, 23; "Formation of Mould," 150-152; forms of flowers, 143; funeral of, 154; "Geology of the _Beagle_," 55-60; history of "Origin of Species," 64-78; honours bestowed on, 146; "Insectivorous Plants," 136-139; "Journal of Researches," 52; modesty of, 28, 66; on blushing, 133; on Cirripedia, 61-63; on religion, 115-117, 121, 163-169; on vivisection, 160-162; "Origin of Species," 41, 42, 46, 64-78, 79-99; physical appearance and habits of, 100-102, 147, 148; places named after, 48; portraits of, 146; power of movement in plants, 143-145; school-days of, 19-21; secretary of Geological Society, 51; sons of, 102; statue of, 156; voyage in _Beagle_, 29-50 Darwin, Mrs. C., 53 Darwin, Erasmus, of Lichfield and Derby, 12-14, 66-67 Darwin, Erasmus, of London, 19, 153 Darwin, Mr. Francis, 140-144 Darwin, Mrs. R. W. (Susannah Wedgwood), 17-19 Darwin, R. W., of Elston, 12 Darwin, R. W., father of Charles, 14-18 Darwin Sound, 48 Death of Charles Darwin, 153 "Descent of Man," 112-125 Digestion by plants, 137, 138 Discovery of extinct mammals, 39 Down House, 60, 101, 102, 147-150 E. Earle, Erasmus, 12 Earthquake experience, 44 Earthworms, Darwin on, 150-152 _Edinburgh Review_, on "Descent of Man," 124; on Erasmus Darwin, 12, 13; on "Origin of Species," 94 Edinburgh University, 21-24 Ehrenberg, 31 Entomology, 25, 141-143 Evolution, History of, in Darwin's mind, 39, 40-42, 46, 47, 50, 64-78, 112 "Expression of Emotions," 126-135 F. Falkland Islands, 43, 60 Fertilisation, Cross and Self-, in the Vegetable Kingdom, 141-143 "Fertilisation of Orchids," 103-106 Fitzroy, Capt., 27, 29, 31, 48, 49 "Forms of Flowers," 143 Fuegians, 42, 43, 112 Funeral of Charles Darwin, 154 G. Galapagos Islands, 45-47 Gauchos, 38, 40, 116, 130 Geikie, Prof. A., on Darwin's "Coral Reefs," 58 Geographical distribution, 91 Geological observations by Darwin, 30, 38, 39 Geological papers by Darwin, 51, 52, 59, 60 Geological record, Imperfection of, 90, 91 Geological Society, 51, 52, 63 "Geology of the _Beagle_," 53, 55-60 Germination of plants, 142 Grant, Prof., 23, 69 Greville, Dr., 23 H. Haeckel, Prof., 71, 72, 147 Hall, Capt. Basil, and Coral Reefs, 55 Henslow, Prof., 24-30 Herbert, Dean, 71 Holmgren, Prof., Letter to, 160-162 Honours conferred on Darwin, 146 Hooker, Sir J., 54, 74, 78, 140 Huxley, Prof., 65, 91, 94, 165-167 I. Imagination, Definition of, 115 "Insectivorous Plants," 136-141 Insects, 88, 89, 102-106, 136-139 Instinct, 88-90, 114 Interdependence of species, 84 J. Jameson, Prof., 23 "Journal of Researches," 31, 34, 36, 42, 46, 53 K. Keeling Islands, 48, 56 L. Lamarck and Darwin, 67, 68 Linnean Society, 75-78, 107, 143, 147 Literary position of Darwin, 165 Lubbock, Sir J., 141 Lyell, Sir C., 31, 51, 52, 69, 70, 74 M. Magellan, Straits of, 43 Maldonado, 36, 37 Malthus on Population, 72, 73, 82 Mammals, Extinct, 38, 39, 54 Masters, Dr., on Darwin and Horticulture, 167 Matthew, Mr. P., and "Origin of Species," 97 Mental powers of man, 114-123 Mental science, Darwin and, 134, 135 Meteyard, Miss, on R. W. Darwin, 16; on Wedgwood, 18 Missionaries, 43, 47 Monkeys, 132 Monkeys and man, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122 Monte Video, 36, 40 Montgomery, James, "Pelican Island," 55 Morphology, 64, 91, 92 "Mould, Formation of," 152 Mount Darwin, 49 Mount, The, Shrewsbury, 17-20, 80 "Movement, Power of, in Plants," 143-145 Murray, Mr. J., on Coral Reefs, 59 _Mylodon Darwinii_, 54 N. "Naturalist's Voyage Round the World," 53 Natural Selection, 84, 85, 97-99, 108, 117 New Zealand, 47 Niata cattle, 40 Novelists, 133 O. "Orchids, Fertilisation of," 103-106 "Origin of Species," 41, 42, 46, 64-78, 79-99 Owen, Sir R., 53, 64 Oxford, Bishop of, (Wilberforce), on "Origin of Species," 95 P. Palæontographical Society, 62 Pampas thistles, 40 Pangenesis, Hypothesis of, 111 Patagonia, 41 Peru, 45 Phillips, Prof. J., 52, 63 Physiological Selection, 87 Physiological Society, 159 Plinian Society, Edinburgh, 22, 23 Port Darwin, 48 Portraits of Darwin, 146 _Punch_, 123, 124 Q. _Quarterly Review_ on Darwin's "Journal," 53; on "Descent of Man," 124, 125; on "Origin of Species," 95 R. Ray Society, 62 Religion, 115-117, 121 Religious views of Darwin, 163-166, 169 Reptiles of Galapagos, 46 Riley, Prof. C. V., on Darwin and Entomology, 25, 167 Rio Negro, 37, 40 Rio Plata, 41 Romanes, Mr., 87, 89, 115, 134, 135 Rosas, General, 38, 39 Royal medal, 62 Royal Society and Charles Darwin, 52, 62, 106 Rudimentary organs, 92 S. Santiago, 43, 45 _Saturday Review_ on Charles Darwin, 156, 157; on "Descent of Man," 125; on "Origin of Species," 95 Savage man described, 49, 122, 123 "Scientific Inquiry, Manual of," 61 Selection, Natural, 84, 85, 97-99 Selection, Physiological, 87 Semper, Prof., on Coral Reefs, 58 Shrewsbury, 15-20 Shrewsbury school, 20 Social qualities of man, 116 Social questions, 121 Sonnet on Darwin, 169 Spencer, Mr. Herbert, Views of, 73, 112 Statue of Darwin, 155-156 Stokes, Admiral, 33, 34 Structure of human body, 114 Struggle for existence, 72, 73, 82, 83 Sully, Mr. James, on Evolution and Design, 168 Sun-dew, 136-139 Sweden and Darwin, 156 Sydney, 48 T. Tahiti, 47 Tasmania, 48 Tierra del Fuego, 42, 43 _Times, The_, on Charles Darwin, 155 Tree of Life, 85-87 Tres Montes, 44 Tucutuco, Blindness of, 68 U. Unitarian Church, Shrewsbury, 17, 19 V. Valdivia, 44 Valparaiso, 43, 45 "Variation of Animals and Plants," 108-112 Variations of Species, 79, 85-87, 108-112 Verde, Cape de, 31, 41 "Vestiges of Creation," 73 Vivisection, Darwin on, 160-162 Volcanic islands, 59 W. Wallace, Mr. A. R., 75-78 Wedgwood, Josiah, 14 Wells, Dr., and Origin of Species, 96 Winchell, Prof., and evolution, 168-169 Wollaston medal, 63 Woman compared with man, 119, 120 Woodall, Mr. E., on Charles Darwin, 17, 101 Y. Yates, Mr. E., on "Darwin at Home," 157 Z. Zoological Gardens, 115, 128, 131, 132 "Zoology of the _Beagle_," 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY. BY JOHN P. ANDERSON (_British Museum_). * * * * * I. WORKS. II. MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. III. APPENDIX-- Biography, Criticism, etc. Magazine Articles. IV. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WORKS. * * * * * I. WORKS. Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the Southern Shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. [With appendices and addenda.] 3 vols. London, 1839, 8vo. Vol. iii. is the "Journal and Remarks, 1832-1836," by Charles Darwin. The appendix to vol. ii. has a distinct title-page and pagination. Some copies of this work were issued in 2 vols., the third being complete in itself, and sold separately with the title "Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the various countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, R.N., from 1832 to 1836. By Charles Darwin, Esq.," etc. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, R.N. Second edition, corrected, with additions. (_Murray's Colonial and Home Library._) London, 1845, 8vo. This has been reprinted with a new title-page reading, "A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World, etc." The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, under the command of Captain R. Fitzroy, during the years 1832-36. Edited and superintended by C. D. Part i., Fossil Mammalia, by R. Owen. (Part ii., Mammalia, described by G. R. Waterhouse, with a notice of their habits and ranges by C. D. Part iii., Birds, described by J. Gould, with a notice of their habits and ranges by C. D., with an anatomical appendix by T. C. Eyton. Part iv., Fish, described by L. Jenyns. Part v., Reptiles, described by T. Bell.) 5 parts. London, 1840-39-43, 4to. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the first part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, 1832 to 1836. London, 1842, 8vo. Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, together with some brief notices on the Geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Being the second part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, etc. London, 1844, 8vo. Geological Observations on South America. Being the third part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, etc. London, 1846, 8vo. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, by C. D. With three plates. Second edition, revised. London, 1874, 8vo. Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and parts of South America, visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, by C. D. Second edition, with maps and illustrations. London, 1876, 8vo. A Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidæ or Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. (_Palæontographical Society._) London, 1851, 4to. A Monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. (_Ray Society._) 2 vols. London, 1851-54, 8vo. A Monograph of the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain. (_Palæontographical Society._) London, 1854, 4to. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. By C. D. London, 1859, 8vo. ---- Fifth thousand. London, 1860, 8vo. ---- Third edition, with additions and corrections. London, 1861, 8vo. ---- Fourth edition, with additions and corrections. London, 1866, 8vo. ---- Fifth edition, with additions and corrections. London, 1869, 8vo. ---- Sixth edition, with additions and corrections. London, 1872, 8vo. On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are fertilised by Insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. By C. D. With illustrations. London, 1862, 8vo. ---- Second edition. With illustrations. London, 1877, 8vo. The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants. By C. D. [From the Journal of the Linnean Society.] London, 1865, 8vo. ---- Second edition, revised. With illustrations. London, 1875, 8vo. The Variation of Animals and Plants under domestication, by C. D. With illustrations. 2 vols. London, 1868, 8vo. ---- Second edition, revised. Fourth thousand. With illustrations. 2 vols. London, 1875, 8vo. ---- Second edition, revised. Fifth thousand. With illustrations. 2 vols. London, 1885, 8vo. The Descent of Man, and Selection in relation to Sex. By C. D. With illustrations. 2 vols. London, 1871, 8vo. ---- Second edition, revised and augmented. Tenth thousand. London, 1874, 8vo. ---- Second edition, revised and augmented. Seventeenth thousand. London, 1883, 8vo. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. By C. D. With photographic and other illustrations. London, 1872, 8vo. Insectivorous Plants. By C. D. With illustrations. London, 1875, 8vo. The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. By C. D. London, 1876, 8vo. The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species. By C. D. With illustrations. London, 1877, 8vo. The Power of Movement in Plants. By C. D., assisted by Francis Darwin. With illustrations. London, 1880, 8vo. The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with observations on their habits. By C. D. With illustrations. London, 1881, 8vo. ---- Fifth thousand (corrected). London, 1881, 8vo. ---- Sixth thousand (corrected). London, 1882, 8vo. II. MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. For private distribution. The following pages contain extracts from letters addressed to Professor Henslow by C. Darwin, Esq., printed for private distribution among the Members of the Cambridge Philosophical Society in consequence of the geological notices which they contain, etc. [Cambridge, 1835.] 8vo. Note sur la découverte de quelques Ossemens Fossiles dans l'Amérique du Sud. _Annal. Sci. Nat._ 2nd Ser. (Zoology). Tom. vii., 1837, pp. 319, 320. Notes upon the Rhea Americana. _Zool. Soc. Proc._, vol. v., 1837, pp. 35, 36. Remarks upon the Habits of the Genera Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis, and Certhidea of Gould. _Proc. Zool. Soc._, 1837, p. 49. Sur trois Espèces du Genre Felis. _L'Institut._ Tom. vi., 1838, No. 235, pp. 210, 211. On the formation of Mould (1837). _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. ii., 1838, pp. 574-576; _Geol. Soc. Trans._, vol. v., 1840, pp. 505-510; _Froriep, Notizen._ Bd. vi., 1838, col. 180-183. Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the Coast of Chili, made during the survey of H.M.S. "Beagle," commanded by Capt. Fitzroy (1837). _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol ii., 1838, pp. 446-449. A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata (1837). _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. ii., 1838, pp. 542-544; _Ann. Sci. Nat._ Tom. vii., (Zool.) 1837, pp. 319, 320. On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations (1837). _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. ii., 1838, pp. 552-554; _Froriep, Notizen._ Bd. iv., 1838, col. 100-103. Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in the years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835; with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza. _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. ii., 1838, pp. 210-212. Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt Lakes of Patagonia and La Plata. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. ii. (pt. 2), 1838, pp. 127, 128. On the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain chains, and the effects of continental elevations. _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. ii., 1838, pp. 654-660; _Geol. Soc. Trans._, vol. v., 1840, pp. 601-632; _Poggendorff, Annal._ Bd. lii., 1841, pp. 484-496. Monographia Chalciditum, by Francis Walker. (Vol. ii., Species collected by C. Darwin.) London, 1839, 8vo. Note on a rock seen on an iceberg in 16° South Latitude. _Geog. Soc. Jour._, vol. ix., 1839, pp. 528, 529. Ueber die Luftschifferei der Spinnen. _Froriep, N. Not._ Bd. lxxvii., No. 222, 1839, pp. 23, 24. Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin. _Phil. Trans._, 1839, pp. 39-82; _Edinb. New Phil. Jour._, vol. xxvii., 1839, pp. 395-403. On a remarkable bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the coast of Brazil. _Phil. Mag._, vol. xix., 1841, pp. 257-260. Notes on the effects produced by the ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by floating ice. _Edinb. New Phil. Jour._, vol. xxxiii., 1842, pp. 352, 353. On the distribution of the erratic boulders, and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America (1841). _Geol. Soc. Proc._, vol. iii., 1842, pp. 425-430; _Geol. Soc. Trans._, vol. vi., 1842, pp. 415-432. The structure and distribution of Coral Reefs. _Geog. Soc. Jour._, vol. xii., 1842, pp. 115-119; _Poggendorff, Annal._ Bd. lxiv., 1845, pp. 563-613; _Edinb. New Phil. Jour._, vol. xxxiv., 1843, pp. 47-50. Observations on the structure and propagation of the genus Sagitta. _Ann. Nat. Hist._ Tom. xiii., 1844, pp. 1-6; _Ann. Sc. Nat._ (Zool.) Tom. i., 1844, pp. 360-365; _Froriep, Notizen._ Bd. xxx., 1844, col. 1-6. Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariæ and of some remarkable Marine species, with an account of their habits. _Ann. Nat. Hist._, vol. xiv., 1844, pp. 241-251. An Account of the Fine Dust which often falls on vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. ii., 1846, pp. 26-30. On the Geology of the Falkland Islands. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. ii., 1846, pp. 267-274. On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher level. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. iv., 1848, pp. 315-323. A Manual of Scientific Inquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and travellers in general. Edited by Sir John F. W. Herschel. London, 1849, 8vo. This work, which has run through several editions, consists of a series of papers by various writers. Charles Darwin wrote "Geology," pp. 156-195. On British Fossil Lepadidæ. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. vi., 1850, pp. 439, 440. Analogy of the structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers. _Edinb. Royal Soc. Proc._ vol. ii., 1851, pp. 17, 18. On the power of icebergs to make rectilinear uniformly-directed grooves across a submarine undulatory surface. _Phil. Mag._, vol. x., 1855, pp. 96-98. On the action of Sea-water on the germination of Seeds (1856). _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. i., 1857 (Bot.), pp. 130-140. On the agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers, and on the crossing of Kidney Beans. _Ann. Nat. Hist._, vol. ii., 1858, pp. 459-465; _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1857, pp. 725, and 1858, pp. 824, 844. On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. By C. D. and Alfred Wallace. _Jour. Proc. Linn. Soc._, vol iii., 1859, pp. 45-62. On the variation of organic beings in a state of nature; on the natural means of selection; on the comparison of domestic races and true species. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol iii., 1859, (Zool.) pp. 46-53; _Halle, Zeitschr. Gesell. Nat._ Bd. xvi., 1860, pp. 425-459. Fertilisation of _Vincas_. _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1861, pp. 552, 831, 832. On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the species of Primula, and, on their remarkable Sexual Relations. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. vi., 1862 (Bot.), pp. 77-96. On the three remarkable sexual forms of Catasetum tridentatum, an Orchid in the possession of the Linnean Society. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. vi., 1862 (Bot.), pp. 151-157. Observations sur l'hétéromorphisme des fleurs et ses conséquences pour fécondation. _Annal. Sci. Nat._ Tom. xix., 1863, (Bot.) pp. 204-255. On the thickness of the Pampean formation, near Buenos Ayres. _Geol. Soc. Jour._, vol. xix., 1863, pp. 68-71. On the existence of two forms, and on their reciprocal sexual relation, in several species of the genus Linum. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. vii. (Bot.), 1863, pp. 69-83. On the so-called "Auditory sac" of Cirripedes. _Nat. Hist. Review_, 1863, pp. 115, 116. On the sexual relations of the three forms of Lythrum Salicaria (1864). _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. viii., 1865, (Bot.) pp. 169-196; _Archives Sci. Phys. Nat._ Tom. xxiii., 1865, pp. 69-72. On the movements and habits of Climbing Plants (1865). _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. ix., 1867, (Bot.) pp. 1-118; _Flora_, vol. xlix., 1866, pp. 241-252, 273-282, 321-325, 337-345, 375-378, 385-398. Queries about Expression for Anthropological Inquiry. _Report of Smithsonian Institution_ for 1867, p. 324. Note on the Common Broom (Cytisus Scoparius). _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol ix., 1867 (Bot.), p. 358. On the character and hybrid-like nature of the offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. x., 1869 (Bot.), pp. 393-437. On the specific difference between Primula veris, _Brit. Fl._ (_var._ officinalis, _Linn._), P. vulgaris, _Brit. Fl._ (_var._ acaulis, _Linn._) and P. elatior, _Jacq._ and on the hybrid nature of the common Oxlip. With supplementary remarks on naturally-produced hybrids in the genus Verbascum. _Linn. Soc. Jour._, vol. x., 1869 (Bot.), pp. 437-454. De la variation des animaux et des plantes sous l'action de la domestication. (_Transl._) _Archives Sci. Phys. Nat._ Tom. xxxiv., 1869, pp. 41-66. The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. _Nature_, vol. i., 1869, p. 85. Notes on the Fertilisation of Orchids. _Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._, vol. iv., 1869, pp. 141-159. Note on the habits of the Pampas Woodpecker: Colaptes campestris. _Zool. Soc. Proc._, 1870, pp. 705, 706. Pangenesis. _Nature_, vol. iii., 1871, pp. 502, 503. Fertilisation of _Leschenaultia_. _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1871, p. 1166. Origin of certain Instincts. _Nature_, vol. vii., 1873, pp. 417, 418. On the males and complemental males of certain Cirripedes, and on rudimentary structures. _Nature_, vol. viii., 1873, pp. 431-433. Perception in the lower animals. _Zoologist_, vol. viii., 1873, pp. 3488-3489; _Nature_, vol. vii., 1878, p. 360. Fertilisation of the Fumariaceæ. _Nature_, vol. ix., 1874, p. 460. Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by birds. _Nature_, vol. ix., 1874, p. 482; vol. x., p. 24. Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys. _Nature_, vol. xv., 1876, pp. 18, 19. Testimonial to Mr. Darwin. Evolution in the Netherlands. Letter of Mr. Darwin. _Nature_, vol. xv., 1877, pp. 410-412. A Biographical Sketch of an Infant. _Mind_, vol. ii. (No. 7, July 1877), pp. 285-294. Les Débuts de l'intelligence; Esquisse biographique d'un petit enfant, _Revue Scientifique_, tom. 13, 1877, pp. 25-29. The Contractile Filaments of the Teasel. _Nature_, vol. xvi., 1877, p. 339. Fritz Müller on Flowers and Insects. _Nature_, vol. xvii., 1877, p. 78. Note on Fertilisation of Plants. _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1877, p. 246. Transplantation of Shells. _Nature_, vol. xviii., 1878, p. 120. Flowers and their unbidden guests, from the German of Dr. A. Kerner. With a prefatory letter by C. D. London, 1878, 8vo. Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German by W. S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. London, 1879, 8vo. Originally appeared in "Kosmos." Charles Darwin wrote the life, pp. 1-127 for the English edition, which on the publication of the work in book form in Germany (1880) was translated and appears in that edition, pp. 1-72. A copy of this work in the Library of the British Museum contains MS. Notes by Samuel Butler. Fritz Müller on a Frog having Eggs on its back: on the Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis Flies, etc. _Nature_, vol. xix., 1879, pp. 462-464. Rats and Water Casks. _Nature_, vol. xix., 1879, p. 481. Fertility of Hybrids from the Common and Chinese Goose. _Nature_, vol. xxi., 1880, p. 207. The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies. _Nature_, vol. xxi., 1880, p. 237. The Omari Shell Mounds. _Nature_, vol. xxi., 1880, pp. 561, 562. Sir Wyville Thomson on Natural Selection. _Nature_, vol. xxiii., 1880, p. 32. Black Sheep. _Nature_, vol. xxiii., 1880, p. 103. Movements of Plants. _Nature_, vol. xxiii., 1881, p. 409. Mr. Darwin on Vivisection. _Nature_, vol. xxiii., 1881, p. 583. The Movements of Leaves. _Nature_, vol. xxiii., 1881, pp. 603, 604. Inheritance. _Nature_, vol. xxiv., 1881, p. 257. Leaves injured at night by free radiation. _Nature_, vol. xxiv., 1881, p. 459. On the Bodily and Mental Development of Infants. _Nature_, vol. xxiv., 1881, p. 565. Studies in the Theory of Descent, by August Weismann. Translated and edited by K. Meldola, with a prefatory notice by Charles Darwin. 3 pts., London, 1882, 8vo. The parasitic habits of Molothrus. _Nature_, vol. xxv., 1882, pp. 51, 52. The action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the roots of certain plants. _Linn. Soc. Jour._ (Bot.), vol. xix., 1882, pp. 239-261; abstract by Mr. Francis Darwin in _Nature_, vol. xxv., 1882, pp. 489-490. The action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll Bodies. _Linn. Soc. Jour._ (Bot.), vol. xix., 1882, pp. 262-284; abstract by Mr. Francis Darwin in _Nature_, vol. xxv., 1882, pp. 489, 490. On the dispersal of freshwater bivalves. _Nature_, vol. xxv., 1882, pp. 529, 530. On the Modification of a Race of Syrian Street Dogs by means of Sexual Selection. By Dr. Van Dyck. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. _Proc. of the Zool. Soc. of London_, 1882, pp. 367-370. Mental Evolution in Animals. By George John Romanes. With a posthumous essay on Instinct, by Charles Darwin. London, 1883, 8vo. Mémoire inédit sur l'instinct. _Revue Scientifique_, tom. vi., 1883, pp. 749, 750. The Fertilisation of Flowers. By Prof. Hermann Mueller. Translated and edited by D'Arcy W. Thompson. With a preface by Charles Darwin. London, 1883, 8vo. Notes on Parasites collected by C. D., by T. Spencer Cobbold. _Jour. Linn. Soc._ (Zoology), vol. xix., 1885, pp. 174-178. III.--APPENDIX. BIOGRAPHY, CRITICISM, ETC. The European Literature upon Charles Darwin and his Works is so extensive that it is only possible to give a selection. Adams, W. H. Davenport.--Master Minds in Art, Science, and Letters. London, 1886, 8vo. Charles Darwin, with portrait, pp. 251-276. Allen, Grant.--The Evolutionist at Large. [Reprinted from the _St. James's Gazette_.] London, 1881, 8vo. ---- English Worthies. Edited by Andrew Lang. Charles Darwin, by G. A. London, 1885, 8vo. Argyll, Duke of.--The Reign of Law. London, 1867, 8vo. References to Charles Darwin. ---- The Unity of Nature. London, 1884, 8vo. Numerous references to Charles Darwin. Armstrong, R. A.--Modern Sermons. No. 3. Charles Darwin, by the Rev. R. A. Armstrong. Manchester [1885], 8vo. Aveling, Edward B.--The Student's Darwin. (_International Library of Science and Freethought_, vol. ii.) London, 1881, 8vo. ---- Darwinism and Small Families. London, 1882, 8vo. ---- The Religious Views of Charles Darwin. London, 1883, 8vo. Baildon, Henry B.--The Spirit of Nature, being a series of interpretative essays on the history of matter from the atom to the flower. London, 1880, 8vo. Balfour, Francis M.--A Treatise on Comparative Embryology, 2 vols. London, 1880-1, 8vo. Bateman, Frederic.--Darwinism tested by language; with a preface by Edward Meyrick Goulburn, Dean of Norwich. London, 1877, 8vo. Bennett, A. W.--The Theory of Natural Selection from a mathematical point of view. (Read before section D of the British Association, at Liverpool, Sept. 20, 1870.) Bennett, D. M.--The World's Sages, Infidels, and Thinkers. New York, 1876, 8vo. Darwin, pp. 846-848. Benson, Lawrence S.--Philosophic Reviews. Darwin answered; or, Evolution a myth, etc. New York, 1875, 8vo. Bentham, George.--"Addresses of George Bentham, President, read at the meetings of the Linnean Society, 1862-1873." Berkeley, Hon. G. C. Grantley F.--Fact against Fiction. With some remarks on Darwin. 2 vols. London, 1874, 8vo. Bernardo, D. di.--Il Darwinismo e le specie animali. Siena, 1881, 8vo. Bianconi, J. Joseph.--La Théorie Darwinienne et la Création dite Indépendante. Bologne, 1874, 8vo. Biological Society of Washington.--Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. With the addresses read on the occasion of the Darwin Memorial Meeting, May 12, 1882. Washington, 1882, 8vo. With vol. xxv. of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. The addresses delivered on the occasion were-- Introductory by Theodore Gill; Biographical Sketch by William H. Dall; The Philosophic Bearings of Darwinism, by John W. Powell; Darwin's Investigations on the relation of Plants and Insects, by C. V. Riley; Darwin as a Botanist, by L. F. Ward; Darwin on Emotional Expression, by F. Baker; a Darwinian Bibliography, by F. W. True. Blind, Mathilde.--Shelley's View of Nature contrasted with Darwin's. London, 1886, 8vo. Only 25 copies of this lecture were printed for private distribution. Boase, Henry S.--A few words on Evolution and Creation, etc. London, 1832, 8vo. Braubach, W.--Religion, Moral, und Philosophie der Darwin'schen Artlehre. Neuwied, 1869, 8vo. Bree, C. R.--Species not Transmutable, nor the result of secondary causes. Being a critical examination of Mr. Darwin's work entitled "Origin and Variation of Species." London [1860], 8vo. ---- An Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin. London, 1872, 8vo. Büchner, Ludwig.--Sechs Vorlesungen über die Darwin'sche Theorie, etc. Leipzig, 1868, 8vo. ---- Conférences sur la Théorie Darwinienne de la Transmutation des Espèces, etc. Leipzig, 1869, 8vo. Butler, Samuel.--Evolution, old and new; or, the theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, as compared with that of Mr. Charles Darwin. London, 1879, 8vo. ---- Second edition. London, 1882, 8vo. ---- Unconscious Memory, etc. London, 1880, 8vo. ---- Luck or Cunning, as the main means of organic modification? An attempt to throw additional light upon the late Mr. Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. London, 1887, 8vo. Candolle, Alphonse de.--Histoire des Sciences et des Savants depuis deux Siècles, suivie d'autres études sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la Sélection dans l'Espèce Humaine. Genève, 1873, 8vo. ---- Darwin considéré au point de vue des causes de son succès et de l'importance de ses travaux. Deuxième édition. Genève, 1882, 8vo. Canestrini, Giovanni.--La Teoria dell' Evoluzione esposta ne' suoi fondamenti come introduzione alla lettura delle opere del Darwin e de' suoi seguaci. Torino, 1877, 8vo. Carlyle, Rev. Gavin.--The Battle of Unbelief. London, 1878, 8vo. Darwinianism and Man, pp. 149-173. Carneri, B.--Sittlichkeit und Darwinismus. Wien, 1871, 8vo. Cartoon Portraits.--Cartoon Portraits and Biographical Sketches of Men of the Day. London, 1873, 4to. C. R. Darwin, F.R.S., pp. 6 and 7. Cattell, Charles C.--Is Darwinism Atheistic? (_The Atheistic Platform_, No. viii.) London, 1884, 8vo. Celakovsky, Ladislav.--Uvahy Prirodov[)e]decké o Darwinov[)e] Theorii, etc. V Praze, 1877, 8vo. Cleland, John.--Evolution, Expression, and Sensation, etc. Glasgow, 1881, 8vo. Cobbe, Frances Power.--Darwinism in Morals, and other Essays. London, 1872, 8vo. Collins, Mortimer.--Pen Sketches by a Vanished Hand; from the papers of the late Mortimer Collins. 2 vols. London, 1879, 8vo. Darwinism, vol. ii., pp. 51-61. Conn, H. W.--Evolution of To-day, etc. New York, 1886, 8vo. Cook, Joseph.--Boston Monday Lectures. Heredity, etc. London, 1881, 8vo. Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis, pp. 59-79; Darwin on the Origin of Conscience, pp. 80-99. Cooper, Thomas.--Evolution, the Stone Book, and the Mosaic Record of Creation. London, 1878, 8vo. ---- Thoughts at fourscore, and earlier. A Medley. London, 1885, 8vo. Charles Darwin and the Fallacies of evolution, pp. 132-162; The Origin of Species, pp. 322-334. Cope, E. D.--Origin of the Fittest. London, 1887, 8vo. Cunningham, J. T.--The Round Table Series. (No. 5.) Charles Darwin, Naturalist. Edinburgh, 1886, 8vo. Curtis, George T.--Creation or Evolution? A Philosophical Inquiry. London, 1887, 8vo. Darwin, Charles R.--The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species examined by a Graduate of the University of Cambridge. Second edition. London, 1868, 8vo. ---- The Fall of Man: or, the Loves of the Gorillas. A popular scientific lecture upon the Darwinian Theory of Development by Sexual Selection. By a Learned Gorilla. Edited by the author of "The New Gospel of Peace." [Illustrated.] New York, 1871, 8vo. ---- Our Blood Relations; or, the Darwinian Theory. London, 1872, 8vo. ---- Stammen wir von den Affen ab? [Being a reply to Darwin's Origin of Species.] Dresden, 1872, 8vo. ---- The Fall of Man; an answer to Mr. Darwin's "Descent of Man," being a complete refutation, by common sense arguments, of the Theory of the Development of the human race by means of natural selection. London, 1873, 8vo. ---- The Darwinian Theory examined. London, 1878, 8vo. ---- Bondige uiteenzetting van het Darwinisme voor leeken in de natuurwetenschappen. Deventer, 1878, 8vo. ---- What Mr. Darwin saw in his voyage round the world in the ship "Beagle." [Illustrated.] New York [1879], 8vo. ---- Die Grundlehren der wahren Naturreligion nach Darwin und Haeckel. Berlin, 1881, 8vo. ---- Darwinism stated by Darwin himself. Characteristic passages from the writings of C. D., selected and arranged by N. Sheppard. New York, 1884, 8vo. Daubeny, Charles.--Remarks on the final causes of the Sexuality of Plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the Origin of Species. Oxford, 1860, 8vo. ---- Miscellanies: being a collection of Memoirs and Essays, etc. 2 vols. Oxford, 1867, 8vo. Remarks on the Final Causes of the Sexuality of Plants, etc., vol. ii., pp. 85-107. Davey, Samuel.--Darwin, Carlyle, and Dickens, with other essays. London [1876], 8vo. Davies, Charles M.--Mystic London; or, phases of occult life in the Metropolis. London, 1875, 8vo. "Darwinism on the Devil," pp. 179-197. Diman, Jeremiah Lewis.--The Theistic Argument as effected by recent theories. A course of lectures delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston. [Edited, with a preface, by G. P. Fisher.] Boston, 1881, 8vo. Dixon, Charles.--Evolution without Natural Selection; or, the Segregation of Species without the aid of the Darwinian Hypothesis. London, 1885, 8vo. Dodel, _afterwards_ Dodel-Port, Arnold. Die neuere Schöpfungsgeschichte nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Naturwissenschaften, etc. Leipzig, 1875, 8vo. Draper, Professor.--"On the Intellectual Development of Europe, considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin and others, that the Progression of Organisms is determined by Law." Paper read at the Oxford Meeting of the British Association, 1860, with discussion. (_Gardeners' Chronicle_, Aug. 6, 1860, pp. 713, 714.) Dreher, Eugen.--Der Darwinismus und seine Consequenzen in wissenschaftlicher und socialer Beziehung. Halle, 1882, 8vo. Drury, John B.--Veddes Lectures, 1883. Truths and Untruths of Evolution. New York [1884], 8vo. Dubois-Reymond, Emil.--Darwin _versus_ Galiani. Berlin, 1876, 8vo. ---- Friedrich II. in Englischen Urtheilen. Darwin und Kopernicus, etc. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. Ducasse, Félix.--Étude historique et critique sur le Transformisme, etc. Paris, 1876, 8vo. Dumont, Léon A.--Haeckel et la théorie de l'évolution en Allemagne. Paris, 1873, 8vo. Duval, Mathias.--Le Darwinisme. Paris, 1886, 8vo. Dykes, Rev. J. Oswald.--Problems of Faith, a contribution to present controversies, being a third series of Lectures to Young Men, etc. With a preface by the Rev. J. O. D. London, 1875, 8vo. ---- Disputed Questions of Belief; being Lectures to Young Men, etc. London, 1874, 8vo. Evolution: An Exposition and Critique by the Rev. H. S. Paterson, pp. 183-252. Elam, Charles.--Winds of Doctrine: being an examination of the modern theories of automatism and evolution. London, 1876, 8vo. Encyclopædia Americana.--The Encyclopædia Americana, etc. New York, 1885, 4to. Articles Darwin and Darwinism, vol. ii., pp. 542-555. Encyclopædia Britannica.--The Encyclopædia Britannica. Ninth edition. Vol 8. Edinburgh, 1877, 4to. The article _Evolution_ by Professor Huxley and James Sully. Ercolani, Luigi.--Darwinismo. Reggio, Calabria, 1882, 8vo. Essays.--English Essays. Hamburg, 1869, 12mo. Mr. Darwin's Theories, vol. ii., pp. 108-138. Reprinted from the _Westminster Review_, January 1869. Fawcett, Henry.--On the Method of Mr. Darwin in his Treatise on the Origin of Species. (_Report of the 31st Meeting of the British Association_, 1861, p. 141.) London, 1862, 8vo. Fée, A.--Le Darwinisme, ou Examen de la Théorie relative à l'origine des espèces. Paris, 1864, 8vo. Appeared originally in the _Gazette Hebdomadaire de Médecine et de Chirurgie_, 1864. Ferrière, Émile.--Le Darwinisme. Paris, 1872, 8vo. Ferris, Benjamin G.--A new theory of the Origin of Species. New York, 1883, 8vo. Fiske, John.--Darwinism, and other Essays. London, 1879, 8vo. ---- Another edition. Boston [U.S.], 1885, 8vo. ---- Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, based on the Doctrine of Evolution, etc. 2 vols. London, 1874, 8vo. Numerous references to Charles Darwin. ---- Excursions of an Evolutionist. London, 1884, 8vo. In memoriam: Charles Darwin, pp. 337-369. ---- The Destiny of Man viewed in the light of his Origin. Boston [U.S.], 1884, 8vo. ---- The Idea of God as affected by modern knowledge. London, 1885, 8vo. Flourens, M. J. P.--Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des espèces. Paris, 1864, 12mo. Flower, Professor W. H. On Palæontological Evidence of Gradual Modification of Animal Forms, read at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, April 25, 1873 (_Journal of the Royal Institution_). Force, M. F.--Pre-historic Man. Darwinism and Deity. The Mound Builders. Cincinnati, 1873, 8vo. Galton, Francis.--Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London, 1869, 8vo. References to C. D. ---- English Men of Science: their nature and nurture. London, 1874, 8vo. References to C. D. ---- Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London, 1883, 8vo. References to C. D. Geology.--Geology and its Teaching, especially as it relates to the Development Theory as propounded in "Vestiges of Creation" and Darwin's "Origin of Species." Reprinted from the "Leeds Express." London, 1861, 12mo. Gibson, Rev. Charles B.--Philosophy, Science, and Revelation. Second edition. London, 1874, 8vo. Goblet d'Alviella, Count Eugène.--The Contemporary Evolution of Religious Thought in England, America, and India. Translated by J. Moden. London, 1885, 8vo. Graham, William.--The Creed of Science, religious, moral, and social. London, 1881, 8vo. Gray, Asa.--Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology. A free examination of Darwin's Treatise on the Origin of Species and of its American Reviewers. London, 1861, 8vo. Appeared originally in the _Atlantic Monthly_ for July, August, and October, 1860. ---- Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews pertaining to Darwinism. New York, 1876, 8vo. Greaves, C. A.--The Science of Life; and Darwin's Hypothesis. Two lectures. London [1873], 8vo. Haeckel, Ernst H. P. A.--Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin, etc. 2 Bde. Berlin, 1866, 8vo. ---- Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, etc. Berlin, 1868, 8vo. ---- Die heutige Entwickelungslehre im Verhältnisse zur Gesammtwissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1877, 8vo. ---- Gesammelte populäre Vorträge aus dem Gebiete der Entwickelungslehre. Bonn, 1878-79, 8vo. ---- Anthropogenie, oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen, etc. Leipzig, 1874, 8vo. ---- The Evolution of Man, etc. From the German of E. H. [With plates.] 2 vols. London, 1879, 8vo. ---- Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwickelungsgeschichte. Jena, 1875, 8vo. ---- Die Naturanschauung von Darwin, Goethe, und Lamarck. Jena, 1882, 8vo. ---- The Pedigree of Man: and other Essays, by E. Haeckel. Translated from the German by Edward B. Aveling. (_International Library of Science and Freethought_, vol. 6.) London, 1883, 8vo. Hall, A. Wilford.--The Problem of Human Life,... with a review of Darwin, Huxley, etc. Revised edition. New York, 1880, 8vo. Hallier, Ernst.--Darwin's Lehre und die Specification. Hamburg, 1865, 8vo. Hartmann, C. R. E. von.--Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus. Berlin, 1875, 8vo. ---- Darwinismus und Thierproduction. München, 1876, 8vo. ---- Le Darwinisme, traduit de l'Allemand par Georges Guéroult. Paris, 1877, 8vo. Hartsen, F. A.--Darwin en de Godsdienst. Eene populaire uiteenzetting van het Darwinisme, etc. Leyden, 1869, 8vo. Heller, Karl B.--Darwin und der Darwinismus. Wien, 1869, 8vo. Henslow, George.--The Theory of Evolution of living things, and the application of the principles of evolution to religion considered as illustrative of the "Wisdom and Beneficence of the Almighty." London, 1873, 8vo. ---- The Fertilisation of Plants: a lecture [on D.'s Cross-and-Self-Fertilisation of Plants] delivered 8th March, 1877. (_Transactions of the Watford Nat. Hist. Soc._ Vol. i., 1878, pp. 201-210.) Hertwig, R.--Gedächtnissrede auf Charles Darwin. Königsberg, 1883, 4to. Hertzka, Theodor.--Die Urgeschichte der Erde und des Menschen, I. Vorlesung über die Darwin'sche Theorie, etc. Pest, 1871, 8vo. Hicks, L. E.--A Critique of Design-Arguments, etc. New York, 1883, 8vo. Darwinism and Design, pp. 308-330. Hodge, Charles.--What is Darwinism? London, 1874, 8vo. Hoffmann, Hermann.--Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung des Werthes von Species und Varietät, etc. Giessen, 1869, 8vo. Huber, Johannes.--Die Lehre Darwin's kritisch betrachtet von Dr. J. H. München, 1871, 8vo. Humiecki, M.--Darwinizm. Lwów, 1878, 8vo. Huxley, Thomas Henry.--Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. London, 1863, 8vo. ---- Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews. London, 1870, 8vo. The Origin of Species, pp. 280-327. Reprinted from the _Westminster Review_, April 1860; Criticisms on "The Origin of Species," pp. 328-350. Reprinted from the _Natural History Review_, 1864. ---- Critiques and Addresses. London, 1873, 8vo. Mr. Darwin's Critics, pp. 251-302. Reprinted from the _Contemporary Review_, 1871. ---- Science and Culture, and other Essays. London, 1881, 8vo. The Coming of Age of the "Origin of Species," pp. 310-324. Jacoby, Paul.--Études sur la Sélection dans ses rapports avec l'hérédité chez l'homme, etc. Paris, 1881, 8vo. Jaeger, Gustav.--Die Darwin'sche Theorie und ihre Stellung zu Moral und Religion. Stuttgart [1869], 8vo. ---- In Sachen Darwin's insbesondere contra Wigand. Stuttgart, 1874, 8vo. James, Constantin.--Du Darwinisme, ou l'homme-singe. Paris, 1877, 8vo. Johns, Rev. B. G.--Moses, _not_ Darwin: a sermon. London, 1871, 8vo. Kalischer, S.--Teleologie und Darwinismus. Berlin, 1878, 8vo. Kirby, W. F.--Evolution and Natural Theology. London, 1883, 8vo. Darwin and his Critics, pp. 50-68. Kirk, Rev. John.--The Doctrine of Creation according to Darwin, Agassiz and Moses. London, 1869, 8vo. Kleinenberg, Nicolaus.--Carlo Darwin e l'opera sua. Discorso commemorativo letto nell' aula della R. Università di Messina il 21 Maggio 1882. Messina, 1882, 8vo. Klönne, B. H.--Onze Voorouders volgens de Theorie van Darwin en het Darwinisme van Winkler. Met gravuren. 'S Hertogenbosch, 1869, 8vo. Kölliker, Albrecht.--Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen und der höheren Thiere, etc. Leipzig, 1861, 8vo. ---- Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1879, 8vo. Kramer, Paul.--Theorie und Erfahrung. Beiträge zur Beurtheilung des Darwinismus. Halle a/S., 1877. 8vo. Krause, Ernest.--Erasmus Darwin und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der Descendenz-Theorie. Mit seinem Lebens- und Charakterbilde von C. Darwin. Leipzig, 1880, 8vo. References to C. D.'s family. Originally appeared in _Kosmos_. The life by C. D. is a translation from the English edition (1879). ---- Erasmus Darwin.--Translated from the German by W. S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by C. Darwin. Portrait and woodcuts. London, 1879, 8vo. The Life by C. D. pp. 1-127. There is a copy of this work in the Library of the British Museum which contains MS. Notes by Samuel Butler. ---- Charles Darwin und sein Verhältnis zu Deutschland. (_Gesammelte Kleinere Schriften_, Bd., 1.) Leipzig, 1885, 8vo. Laing, F. H.--Essays on Religion and Literature. By various writers. Edited by Henry Edward, Archbishop of Westminster. Third Series. London, 1874, 8vo. Darwinism brought to Book, by the Rev. F. H. Laing, pp. 257-283. Laing, Sidney Herbert.--Darwinism Refuted. An Essay on Mr. Darwin's Theory of "The Descent of Man." London, 1871, 8vo. Lanessan, J. L. de.--Étude sur la Doctrine de Darwin. La lutte pour l'existence et l'association pour la lutte. Paris, 1881, 8vo. Lankester, Edwin Ray.--Degeneration: a chapter in Darwinism. (_Nature Series._) London, 1880, 8vo. Lecomte, A.--La Darwinisme et l'origine de l'homme. Paris, 1873, 12mo. Le Conte, Joseph.--Religion and Science: a series of Sunday Lectures on the relation of natural and revealed religion, etc. London, 1874, 8vo. Le Hon, H.--L'Homme Fossile en Europe, etc. (Appendice-Abrégé de la Théorie de Darwin ou Transformisme, traduit de l'Italien du Prof. Omboni). Deuxième édition. Bruxelles, 1868, 8vo. Lessona, Michele.--Carlo Darwin. Roma, 1883, 8vo. ---- Commemorazione di Carlo Darwin (_Atti della R. Accad. delle Scienze di Torino_, vol. xviii., 1882, pp. 709-718). Torino, 1882, 8vo. Lewes, George Henry.--Problems of Life and Mind. Three Series. London, 1874-79, 8vo. Lichthorn, C.--Die Erforschung der physiologischen Naturgesetze der menschlichen Geistestätigkeit auf der Grundlage der neuesten grossen Entdeckungen Dubois-Reymond's, Darwin's und Häckel's über die organische Natur, etc. Breslau, 1875, 8vo. Liddon, H. P.--The Recovery of St. Thomas: a sermon preached in St. Paul's Cathedral, April 23, 1882, with a prefatory note on the late Mr. Darwin. London, 1882, 8vo. Lindsay, William Lander.--Mind in the Lower Animals in health and disease. 2 vols. London, 1879, 8vo. Löwenthal, Eduard.--Herr Schleiden und der Darwin'sche Arten-Entstehungs-Humbug. Berlin, 1864, 8vo. Lyell, Sir Charles.--Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. Edited by his sister-in-law, Mrs. Lyell. 2 vols. London, 1881, 8vo. Contains a number of Letters to C. D. Lyon, W. P.--Homo _versus_ Darwin: a judicial examination of statements recently published by Mr. Darwin regarding "The Descent of Man." Second edition. London [1872], 8vo. ---- Third edition. London [1873], 8vo. M'Cann, Rev. James.--Anti-Darwinism: with Professor Huxley's reply. Glasgow, 1869, 8vo. McCarthy, Justin.--A History of Our Own Times. A new edition. 4 vols. London, 1882, 8vo. Charles Darwin, vol. iv., pp. 286-288. Maclaren, James.--A Critical Examination of some of the principal arguments for and against Darwinism. London, 1876, 8vo. ---- Natural Theology in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1878, 8vo. Mäklin, F. W.--Allmänna betraktelser öfver den Darwinska descendenslärens förhållande till ochmed de organiska formernas och isynnerhet djurens geografisk utbredning. Helsingfors, 1882, 8vo. Mantegazza, Paolo.--Commemorazione di Carlo Darwin. Discorso del Professor P. M. Firenze, 1882, 8vo. Martins, C.--La théorie de l'évolution en histoire naturelle. Paris, 1876, 8vo. Maschi, Luigi.--Confutazione delle Dottrine Transformistiche di Huxley, Darwin, etc. Parma, 1874, 8vo. Menza, Antonino.--Il Concetto Scientifico di Darwin sviluppato dalla Filosofia Positiva. Saggio critico di A. M. Catania, 1882, 8vo. Meteyard, Eliza.--A group of Englishmen (1795 to 1815), being records of the younger Wedgwoods and their friends. London, 1871, 8vo. Numerous references to the Darwin family. Meyer, A. B.--Charles Darwin und Alfred Russel Wallace. Ihre ersten Publicationen über die "Entstehung der Arten" nebst einer Skizze ihres Lebens und einem Verzeichniss ihrer Schriften. Erlangen, 1870, 8vo. Miall, L. C.--The Life and Works of Charles Darwin; a lecture delivered to the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, on February 6, 1883. Leeds, 1883, 8vo. Michelis, Fr.--Die Naturwissenschaftliche Unhaltbarkeit der Darwinschen Hypothese. Heidelberg, 1885, 8vo. Mivart, Saint George.--On the Genesis of Species. London, 1871, 8vo. ---- Men and Apes, an exposition of structural resemblances bearing upon questions of affinity and origin. London, 1873, 8vo. ---- Contemporary Evolution. An essay on some recent social changes. London, 1876, 8vo. ---- Nature and Thought; an introduction to a Natural Philosophy. London, 1882, 8vo. ---- Second edition. London, 1885, 8vo. Moleschott, Jacob.--Carlo Roberto Darwin. Commemorazione pronunziata a nome degli studenti dell' Università di Roma, 25 di Giugno, 1882. Torino, 1882, 8vo. ---- Karl Robert Darwin.--Denkrede gehalten im Collegio Romano im Namen der Studirenden der Hochschule zu Rom von Jacob Moleschott. Giessen, 1883, 8vo. Morris, Rev. F. O.--Difficulties of Darwinism. Read before the British Association at Norwich and Exeter, in 1868 and 1869, etc. London, 1869, 8vo. ---- All the Articles of the Darwin Faith. London [1882], 8vo. Moss, Arthur B.--Darwin against Moses. London [1885], 8vo. Müller, Aug.--Ueber die erste Entstehung organischer Wesen und deren Spaltung in Arten. Berlin, 1866, 8vo. Müller, F. Max.--Lectures on the Science of Language, etc. Two Series. London, 1861-64, 8vo. Several editions. ---- Chips from a German Workshop. 4 vols. London, 1867-75, 8vo. My reply to Mr. Darwin, vol. iv., pp. 433-472; reprinted from the Contemporary Review, Jan. 1875. ---- The Science of Thought. London, 1887, 8vo. Müller, Fritz.--Für Darwin. Leipzig, 1864, 8vo. ---- Facts and Arguments for Darwin. Translated from the German by W. S. Dallas. London, 1869, 8vo. Müller, Hermann.--Anwendung der Darwinschen Lehre auf Bienen. Berlin, 1872, 8vo. ---- Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider, etc. Leipzig, 1873, 8vo. ---- The Fertilisation of Flowers. Translated and edited by D'Arcy W. Thompson, with a preface by C. Darwin. With illustrations. London, 1883, 8vo. ---- Alpenblumen, ihre Befruchtung, durch Insekten und ihre Anpassungen an dieselben. Mit Abbildungen, etc. Leipzig, 1881, 8vo. Nature Series.--Charles Darwin. Memorial notices reprinted from "Nature." [With a portrait on steel by C. H. Jeens.] London, 1882, 8vo. Contents-- Introductory Notice, by T. H. Huxley; Life and Character, by G. J. Romanes; Work in Geology, by Archibald Geikie; Work in Botany, by W. T. T. Dyer; Work in Zoology, by G. J. Romanes; Work in Psychology, by G. J. Romanes. Neaves, Lord.--The Descent of Man. A continuation of an old Song. Air, "Greensleeves" (_Darwin loquitur_). (Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, vol. 109, 1871, pp. 517-519.) ---- Songs and Verses, social and scientific. Edinburgh, 1868, 8vo. The Origin of Species, pp. 1-4; The Darwinian Era of Farming, pp. 8, 9. Nicholson, H. Alleyne.--On the hearing of certain palæontological facts upon the Darwinian Theory of the Origin of Species, and on the general doctrine of Evolution. (_Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute_, vol. ix., 1876, pp. 207-231; Discussion on preceding, pp. 231-236.) O'Neill, T. Warren.--The Refutation of Darwinism; and the Converse Theory of Development. Philadelphia, 1880, 8vo. Ormathwaite, Lord.--Astronomy and Geology compared. London, 1872, 8vo. Remarks on the Theories of Mr. Darwin and Mr. Buckle, pp. 67-111. Page, David.--Strictures upon the lectures--on the subject, "Man--whence? where? whither?" and an exposure of the Darwinian Development Theory, etc. Edinburgh, 1867, 8vo. Parker, W. Kitchen.--On Mammalian Descent: the Hunterian Lectures for 1884. London, 1885, 8vo. Pascoe, Francis P.--Notes on Natural Selection and the Origin of Species. London, 1884, 8vo. Patané, Agostino.--Il Darwinismo (a proposito dell 'opera--Di Bernardo). Acireale, 1882, 8vo. Patterson, Robert.--The Errors of Evolution. An examination of the nebular theory, geological evolution, the origin of life, and Darwinism. London, 1885, 8vo. Pawlicki, Stefan.--Czlowiek i Malpa. Ostatnie Slowo Darwina. Lwów, 1872, 8vo. Peebles, J. M.--The Conflict between Darwinism and Spiritualism. Boston, 1876, 12mo. Pelzeln, August von.--Bemerkungen gegen Darwin's Theorie vom Ursprung der Spezies. Wien, 1861, 8vo. Perrier, Edmond.--La Philosophie Zoologique avant Darwin. Paris, 1884, 8vo. Pfaff, Friedrich.--Die Theorie Darwin's und die Thatsachen der Geologie. Frankfort, a.M., 1876, 8vo. Polo y Peyrolon, Manuel.--Parentesco entre el hombre y el Mono. Observaciones contra el Transformismo Darvinista en general y especialmente contra el orígen símio, etc. Madrid, 1878, 8vo. Portanova, Gennaro.--Errori e delirii del Darwinismo. Napoli, 1872, 8vo. Porter, J. L.--Science and Revelation: their destructive provinces. With a review of the theories of Tyndall, Huxley, Darwin, and Herbert Spencer. Belfast, 1874, 8vo. Powell, B. H. Baden.--Creation and its Records, etc. London, 1886, 8vo. Pratt, John H.--The Descent of Man, in connection with the Hypothesis of Development. A lecture, etc. London, 1871, 8vo. Prel, Karl F. du.--Der Kampf um's Dasein am Himmel. Die Darwin'sche Formel nachgewiesen in der Mechanik der Sternenwelt. Berlin, 1874, 8vo. Properzi, Geremia.--Un poco di buon senso, ovvero saggio di un esame critico popolare delle teorie pedagogiche di P. Siciliani e delle materialistiche dei Büchner, Darwin, etc. Genova, 1882, 8vo. Psychosis.--Our Modern Philosophers, Darwin, Bain, and Spencer, or the Descent of Man, Mind and Body. A rhyme [on C. R. Darwin's "Descent of Man," etc.], with reasons, essays, notes and quotations. By Psychosis. London, 1884, 8vo. Punch.--Punch. London, 1871, 1877, 1882, 4to. Our Family Tree (6 verses), vol. 60, 1871, p. 105; Darwin and Pickwick (3 verses), p. 145; The Development of Dress (6 verses), p. 197; A Darwinian Ballad (4 verses), p. 234; The Origin of Darwinism, vol. 61, p. 69; A Darwinian Development (6 verses), p. 110; Darwinian Spiritualism, p. 196; Punch to Dr. Darwin (8 verses), vol. 73, 1877, p. 241; Memorial Poem (6 lines), vol. 82, 1882, p. 203. Pusey, S. E. B. Bouverie.--Permanence and Evolution; an inquiry unto the supposed mutability of animal types. London, 1882, 8vo. Quadri, Achille.--Note alla Teoria Darwiniana. Bologna, 1869, 8vo. Quatrefages de Bréau, A. de.--Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français; étude sur le Transformisme. Paris, 1870, 8vo. R., G.--The Three Barriers: notes on Mr. Darwin's "Origin of Species." Edinburgh, 1861, 8vo. Rade, E.--Charles Darwin und seine Deutschen Anhänger im Jahre 1876. Strassburg, 1877, 8vo. Ragusa, C. F.--Saggio critico sul Darwinismo, etc. Napoli, 1878, 8vo. Renooz, C. M.--L'origine des animaux. Théorie réfutant celle de M. Darwin. Paris, 1883, 12mo. Reus y Bahamonde, Emilio.--Estudios sobre Filosofía de la Creacion, etc. Madrid, 1876, 8vo. Richardson, George.--On the spirit in which scientific studies should be pursued, with remarks on the Darwinian theory of Evolution. A lecture, etc. London, 1872, 8vo. Rolle, Friedrich.--Charles Darwin's Lehre von der Entstehung der Arten im Pflanzen- und Thierreich, etc. Frankfurt am Main, 1863, 8vo. ---- Der Mensch, seine Abstammung und Gesittung im Lichte der Darwin'schen Lehre, etc. Frankfurt am Main, 1866, 8vo. Romanes, George John.--Animal Intelligence. (_International Scientific Series_, vol. xli.) London, 1882, 8vo. ---- The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution. (_Nature Series._) London, 1882, 8vo. ---- Mental Evolution in Animals. With a posthumous essay on Instinct by Charles Darwin. London, 1883, 8vo. Numerous references to C. D. ---- Physiological Selection; an additional suggestion on the Origin of Species. (_Journal of the Linnean Society_, vol. 19, 1885, pp. 337-411.) Ross, James.--The Graft Theory of Disease, being an application of Mr. Darwin's Hypothesis of Pangenesis to the explanation of the phenomena of the Zymotic Diseases. London, 1872, 8vo. Rossi, D. C.--Le Darwinisme et les générations spontanées, ou réponse aux réfutations de MM. P. Flourens, de Quatrefages, etc. Paris, 1870, 12mo. Roux, Wilhelm.--Ueber die Leistungsfähigkeit der Principien der Descendenzlehre zur Erklärung der Zweckmässigkeiten des thierischen Organismus. Breslau, 1880, 8vo. ---- Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus, etc. Leipzig, 1881, 8vo. Royer, Clémence.--Darwinisme. (_Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des Sciences Médicales_, vol. xxv., pp. 698-767.) Paris, 1880, 8vo. Rütimeyer, L.--Die Grenzen der Thierwelt. Eine Betrachtung zu Darwin's Lehre. Basel, 1868, 8vo. St. Clair, George.--Darwinism and Design; or, Creation by Evolution. London, 1873, 8vo. Schleicher, August.--Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar, 1863, 8vo. ---- Darwinism tested by the Science of Language. Translated from the German, with preface and additional notes, by Dr. Alex. V. W. Bikkers. London, 1869, 8vo. Schmid, Rudolf.--Die Darwin'schen Theorien und ihre Stellung zur Philosophie, Religion und Moral. Stuttgart, 1876, 8vo. ---- The Theories of Darwin, and their relation to philosophy, religion, and morality. Translated from the German, by G. A. Zimmermann. With an introduction by the Duke of Argyll. Chicago, 1883, 8vo. Schmidt, Eduard Oscar.--Das Alter der Menschheit und das Paradies. Zwei Vorträge von O. S. und Franz Unger. Wien, 1866, 8vo. ---- Descendenzlehre und Darwinismus. Leipzig, 1873, 8vo. ---- The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism (_International Scientific Series_). London, 1875, 8vo. ---- Descendance et Darwinisme. Paris, 1875, 8vo. ---- Darwinismus und Socialdemocratie. Bonn, 1878, 8vo. Schneider, G. H.--Der thierische Wille, etc. Leipzig [1880], 8vo. Schultze, Fritz.--Kant und Darwin. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entwicklungslehre. Jena, 1875, 8vo. Schumann, Richard.--Darwinismus und Kirche. Potsdam, 1874, 8vo. Seidlitz, Georg.--Die Darwin'sche Theorie. Dorpat, 1871, 8vo. ---- Beiträge zur Descendenz-Theorie. Leipzig, 1876, 8vo. Semper, Carl.--The natural conditions of existence as they affect animal life. With maps and woodcuts. (_International Scientific Series_, vol. xxxi.) London, 1881, 8vo. Simon, Léon.--De l'Origine des Espèces, en particulier du système Darwin: conférences, etc. Paris, 1865, 8vo. Simonin, Amédée H.--Psychologie Humaine. Histoire de la Psychologie, etc. Paris, 1879, 8vo. Darwin et le Darwinisme, pp. 418-443. Spencer, Herbert.--First Principles. London, 1862, 8vo. ---- The Principles of Biology. 2 vols. London, 1864, 8vo. Spengel, J. W.--Die Darwinsche Theorie. Berlin, 1872, 8vo. ---- Die Fortschritte des Darwinismus. Cöln, 1874, 8vo. Stebbing, Thomas R. R.--Darwinism. A lecture delivered before the Torquay Natural History Society, February 1, 1869. London, 1869, 8vo. ---- Darwinism.--The Noachian Flood. A lecture delivered before the Torquay Natural History Society, January 31, 1870. London, 1870, 8vo. ---- Essays on Darwinism. London, 1871, 8vo. Stephen, Leslie.--Essays on Freethinking and Plain speaking. London, 1873, 8vo. Darwinism and Divinity, pp. 72-109. ---- Life of Henry Fawcett. London, 1885, 8vo. Charles Darwin, pp. 98-102 and 239. Strümpell, Ludwig.--Die Geisteskräfte der Menschen verglichen mit denen der Thiere. Ein Bedenken gegen Darwin's Ansicht über denselben Gegenstand. Leipzig, 1878, 8vo. Suckling, H.--Anti-Darwin: or some reasons for not accepting his hypothesis. By the author of "Ceylon, ancient and modern" [H. Suckling]. Twickenham, 1884, 16mo. Swift, Edmund.--Evolution and Natural Selection in the Light of the New Church, etc. London, 1879, 8vo. Tefft, Benjamin F.--Evolution and Christianity; or, an answer to the Development Infidelity of modern times. Boston [U.S.], 1885, 8vo. Thomson, George.--Evolution and Involution. London, 1880, 8vo. Traill, H. D.--The new Lucian, being a series of Dialogues of the Dead. London, 1884, 8vo. Lucretius, Paley, and Darwin, pp. 287-312. True, Frederick W.--A Darwinian Bibliography. (_Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections_, vol. xxv., 1883, pp. 92-101.) Twemlow, Maj.-Gen. George.--Facts and fossils adduced to prove the Deluge of Noah and mollify the transmutation system of Darwin, etc. London [1868], 8vo. Tyndall, John.--Fragments of Science. 2 vols. London, 1879, 8vo. Vadalà-Papale, G.--Darwinismo Naturale e Darwinismo Sociale. Torino, 1882, 8vo. Vianna De Lima, Arthur.--Exposé sommaire des Théories Transformistes de Lamarck, Darwin et Haeckel. Paris, 1885, 12mo. Virchow, Rudolph.--Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft im modernen Staat, etc. Berlin, 1877, 8vo. ---- The Freedom in Science in the Modern State. Translated from the German. London, 1878, 8vo. Wagner, A.--Zur Feststellung des Artbegriffes. München, 1861, 8vo. Wagner, Carl.--Stammt der Mensch vom Affen ab? Stuttgart, 1879, 8vo. Wagner, Moritz.--Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz der Organismen. Leipzig, 1868, 8vo. ---- The Darwinian Theory and the Law of the Migration of Organisms. Translated from the German of M. W. by James L. Laird. London, 1873, 8vo. Wainwright, Samuel.--Scientific Sophisms. A review of current theories concerning Atoms, Apes, and Men. London, 1881, 8vo. Walford, Edward.--Portraits of Men of Eminence in Literature, Science, and Art, etc. London, 1866, 8vo. Charles Robert Darwin, with portrait, vol. v., pp. 49-52. Wallace, Alfred Russel.--Natural Selection--Mr. Wallace's reply to Mr. Bennett. (_Nature_, vol. iii, 1870, pp. 49, 50.) ---- Contributions to the theory of Natural Selection. A series of essays. London, 1871, 8vo. Ward, Lester F.--Dynamic Sociology, or applied Social Science, etc. 2 vols. New York, 1883, 8vo. Weidenhammer, R.--Die landwirthschaftliche Thierzucht, als Argument der Darwin'schen Theorie. Stuttgart, 1864, 8vo. Weismann, August.--Über die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie. Leipzig, 1868, 8vo. ---- Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie. Leipzig, 1875, etc., 8vo. ---- Studies in the Theory of Descent. Translated and edited by R. Meldola, with a prefatory notice, by Charles Darwin. 3 pts. London, 1880-82, 8vo. Werner, Hermann.--Ueber Darwin's Theorie von der Entstehung der Arten und der Abstammung des Menschen. Elberfeld, 1876, 8vo. Weygoldt, G. P.--Darwinismus, Religion, Sittlichkeit, etc. Leiden, 1878, 8vo. Wieser, Johann.--Mensch und Thier ... mit Rücksicht auf die Darwin'sche Descendenzlehre. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1875, 8vo. Wiesner, Julius.--Das Bewegungsvermögen der Pflanzen. Eine kritische Studie über das gleichnamige Werk von Charles Darwin. ["On the movements and habits of Climbing Plants."] Wien, 1881, 8vo. Wigand, Albert.--Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers. 3 Bde. Braunschweig, 1874, 8vo. Wilberforce, Samuel.--Essays contributed to the Quarterly Review. 2 vols. London, 1874, 8vo. Darwin's Origin of Species (July 1860), vol. i., pp. 52-103. Wilson, Andrew.--Leisure-Time Studies, chiefly Biological. London, 1879, 8vo. References to Charles Darwin. ---- Chapters on Evolution. London, 1883, 8vo. Numerous references to Charles Darwin. ---- Studies in Life and Sense. With thirty-six illustrations. London, 1887, 8vo. Winn, J. M.--Darwin. Reprinted from The Journal of Psychological Medicine, vol. viii., part 2. London [1883], 8vo. ---- Modern Pseudo-Philosophy. London [1878], 8vo. Woodall, Edward.--Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological and Natural History Society. Vol. viii., 1885. Shrewsbury [1885], 8vo. Contains a paper on Charles Darwin, contributed by Edward Woodall, pp. 1-64, with a portrait and illustrations. ---- Charles Darwin. A paper contributed to the Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological Society. London [1884], 8vo. Worsley-Benison, H. W. S.--Charles Darwin. [Reprinted from the Journal of Microscopy and Natural Science.] Bath, 1886, 8vo. Wright, Chauncey.--Darwinism: being an examination of Mr. St. George Mivart's Genesis of Species. [Reprinted from the 'North American Review,' July 1871, with additions.] London, 1871, 8vo. Yates, E. H.--Celebrities at Home. Reprinted from "The World." London, 1877, 8vo. Mr. Darwin at Down. Second series, pp. 223-230. Yorke, J. F.--Notes on Evolution and Christianity. London, 1882, 8vo. Young, J. R.--Modern Scepticism, viewed in relation to Modern Science; more especially in reference to the doctrines of Colenso, Huxley, Lyell, and Darwin, etc. London, 1865, 8vo. Zacharias, Otto.--Zur Entwicklungstheorie. Jena, 1876, 8vo. ---- Charles R. Darwin und die culturhistorische Bedeutung seiner Theorie vom Ursprung der Arten. Berlin, 1882, 8vo. MAGAZINE ARTICLES. Darwin, Charles Robert. --Unsere Zeit, by J. Schönemann, Bd. 7, 1863, pp. 699-718. --Ergänzungsblätter zur Kenntniss der Gegenwart, by J. B. Carus, Bd. 3, 1868, pp. 46-48. --Every Saturday, with portrait, vol. 10, p. 347. --Eclectic Magazine, with portrait, vol. 13, N.S., 1871, pp. 757, 758. --Appleton's Journal of Literature, with portrait, vol. 3, 1870, pp. 439-441. --Penn Monthly Magazine, vol. 2, 1871, pp. 469-472. --Once a Week, with portrait, vol. 9, third series, 1872, pp. 520-523. --Popular Science Monthly, with portrait, vol. 2, 1873, pp. 497, 498. --Nature, with portrait, by Asa Gray, vol. 10, 1874, pp. 79-81; same article, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 5, 1874, pp. 475-480; American Naturalist, vol. 8, 1874, pp. 473-479. --Dublin University Magazine, with portrait, vol. 2, N.S., 1878, pp. 154-163. --Men of Mark, with portrait, third series, 1878. --Times, April 21, 1882. --American Journal of Science, by Asa Gray, vol. 24, 1882, pp. 453-463. --Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, by W. Spiers, vol. 105, 1882, pp. 488-494. --Saturday Review, April 22, 1882, pp. 481, 482. --Athenæum, April 29, 1882, pp. 541, 542, and May 13, pp. 604, 605. --Academy, by Grant Allen, April 29, 1882, pp. 306, 307. --Journal of Botany, by A. W. Bennett, vol. 11, N.S., 1882, pp. 165-168. --Atlantic Monthly, by John Fiske, vol. 49, 1882, pp. 835-845. --American Naturalist, vol. 16, 1882, pp. 487-490. --Dial, by David S. Jordan, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 2-4. --Zoologist, vol. 6, third series, 1882, pp. 193-196. --Unsere Zeit, by J. Victor Carus, Bd. 2, 1882, pp. 200-226. --Spectator, 1882, pp. 525, 526, 557, 558. --Inquirer, by W. Binns, May 6, 1882, pp. 297, 298. --Nature, vol. 26, 1882, pp. 49-51, 73-75, 97-100, 145-147, 169-171, reprinted in _Nature Series_, 1882. --Geological Magazine, vol. 9, N.S., 1882, pp. 239, 240. --Journal of Microscopy, by H. W. S. Worsley-Benison, vol. 5, 1886, pp. 69-92; reprinted same year. ---- _and Chemistry._ Christian Scientific Magazine, by Andrew Taylor, April 1887. ---- _and Copernicus._ Nature, by Du Bois Reymond, vol. 27, 1883, pp. 557, 558. ---- _and Evolution._ Church Quarterly Review, vol. 14, 1882, pp. 347-367. ---- _and Galiani._ Popular Science Monthly, by Prof. Emil du Bois-Reymond, vol. 14, 1879, pp. 409-425. ---- _and Haeckel._ Popular Science Monthly, by Professor Huxley, vol. 6, 1875, pp. 592-598. ---- _and his Teachings._ Quarterly Journal of Science, illustrated, vol. 3, 1866, pp. 151-176. ---- _and Pangenesis._ Scientific Opinion, vol. 2, 1869, pp. 365-367, 391-393, 407, 408. --Quarterly Journal of Science, vol. 5, 1868, pp. 295-313. ---- _Pangenesis as applied to the faculty of memory._ Journal of Anthropology, by Alfred Sanders, Oct. 1870, pp. 144-149. ---- _and Philosophy._ Contemporary Review, by Sir A. Grant, vol. 17, 1871, pp. 275-281; same article, Littell's Living Age, vol. 109, 1871, pp. 626-631. ---- _e la Filosofia del Secolo XIX._ Rivista Europea, by C. Bizzozero, vol. 29, 1882, pp. 5-34. ---- _and Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall._ Dickinson's Theological Annual, by George B. Cheever, 1875, pp. 418-441. ---- _Animals and Plants under Domestication._ Boston Review, by C. R. Bliss, vol. 9, 1869, pp. 453-462. --Student and Intellectual Observer, vol. 1, 1868, pp. 179-188. --Westminster Review, vol. 35, N.S., 1869, pp. 207-227. --Harper's New Monthly Magazine, vol. 36, 1867, pp. 58-63. --Nuova Antologia, by P. Mantegazza, tom. 8, 1868, pp. 70-98. --Das Ausland, No. 10, 1868, pp. 217-224; No. 11, pp. 246-251, and 281-286. ---- _Answered._ Penn Monthly Magazine, vol. 6, 1875, pp. 368-372. ---- _as a Botanist._ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, by Lester F. Ward, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 81-86. ---- _as a Horticulturist._ Gardeners' Chronicle, with portrait, March 6th, 1875, pp. 308, 309. ---- _before the French Academy._ Nature, vol. 2, 1870, pp. 261, 298, and 309. --Das Ausland, 1870, pp. 855-857. ---- _Biography of._ Biograph, vol. 6, 1881, pp. 525-529. --Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, by William H. Dall, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 56-59. ---- _Contributions to Philosophy._ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, by John W. Powell, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 60-70. ---- _Critics on._ Contemporary Review, by T. H. Huxley, vol. 18, 1871, pp. 443-476; reprinted in Critiques and Addresses, by Huxley, 1873. ---- _et ses Critiques._ Revue des Deux Mondes, by Auguste Laugel, tome 74, sêconde période, 1868, pp. 130-156. ---- _und seine Gegner._ Aus Ausland, 1871, pp. 88-91. ---- _Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom._ American Journal of Science, by Asa Gray, vol. 13, 3rd Series, 1877, pp. 125-141. --Nature, by W. T. Thiselton Dyer, vol. 15, 1877, pp. 329-332. ---- _Debt of Science to._ Illustrated. Century, by Alfred R. Wallace, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 420-432. ---- _Descent of Man._ Academy, by Alfred R. Wallace, vol. 2, 1871, pp. 177-183. --Athenæum, March 4, 1871, pp. 275-277. --Saturday Review, vol. 31, 1871, pp. 276, 277, and 315, 316. --All the Year Round, vol. 5, N.S., 1871, pp. 445-450. --Nature, by P. H. Pye-Smith, vol. 3, 1871, pp. 442-444, and 463-465. --Revue des Deux Mondes, by R. Radau, vol. 95, 1871, pp. 675-690. --Monthly Religious Magazine, vol. 45, p. 501. --Southern Review, vol. 9, 1871, pp. 733-738. --Lutheran Quarterly, by C. Thomas, vol. 2, pp. 213, etc., and 346, etc. --Nation, by B. G. Wilder, vol. 12, 1871, pp. 258-260. --Month, by A. Weld, vol. 15, 1871, pp. 71-101. --Old and New, vol. 3, 1871, pp. 594-600. --Quarterly Journal of Psychological Society, vol. 5, 1871, pp. 550-566. --British and Foreign Evangelical Review, by J. R. Leebody, vol. 21, 1872, pp. 1-35. --Edinburgh Review, vol. 134, 1871, pp. 195-235. --Quarterly Review, vol. 131, 1871, pp. 47-90; same article, Eclectic Magazine, vol. 14, N.S., pp. 385-404, 605-611; Littell's Living Age, vol. 23, 4th series, pp. 67-90. --Canadian Monthly, by H. Alleyne Nicholson, vol. 1, 1872, pp. 35-45. --Westminster Review, vol. 42, N.S., 1872, pp. 378-400. --Baptist Quarterly, by E. Nisbet, vol. 7, 1873, pp. 204-227. --Brownson's Quarterly Review, July, 1873, pp. 340-352. --Journal of Speculative Philosophy, by J. H. Pepper, vol. 10, 1876, pp. 134-141. --Charing Cross, by J. C. Hodgson, vol. 6 N.S., 1878, pp. 254-266. ---- _Doctrine of._ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, by Theodore Gill, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 47-55. ---- _Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals._ St. Paul's Magazine, by Henry Holbeach, vol. 12, 1873, pp. 190-211. --Edinburgh Review, vol. 137, 1873, pp. 492-528; same article, Littell's Living Age, vol. 118, 1873, pp. 3-23. --Academy, by Anton Dohrn, vol. 4, 1873, pp. 209-212. --Athenæum, Nov. 9 and 16, 1872, pp. 591 and 631, 632. --Saturday Review, vol. 34, 1872, pp. 633-635. --Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, by Frank Baker, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 87-92. --Revue Scientifique, by A. Bain, vol. 7, 1874, pp. 433-441. ---- _Facts and Fancies of._ Good Words, by David Brewster, 1862, pp. 3-9. ---- _His Biographers and his Traducer._ Journal of Science, vol. 5, 3rd series, 1883, pp. 203-210. ---- _His Mistake._ Catholic World, vol. 39, 1884, pp. 289-300. ---- _His Work in Entomology._ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 25, 1883, pp. 70-81. ---- _Hypotheses of._ Fortnightly Review, by G. H. Lewes, vol. 9, 1868, pp. 353-373, 611-628, and vol. 10, pp. 61-80, 492-509. ---- _Hypothesis and Design in Nature._ Dickinson's Theological Annual, by George F. White, 1877, pp. 404-419. ---- _Insectivorous Plants._ Nature, by Alfred W. Bennett, vol. 12, 1875, pp. 207-209, and 228-231. ---- _Life and Work._ Modern Review, by W. B. Carpenter, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 500-524. --Canadian Monthly, vol. 8, N.S., 1882, pp. 540-542. ---- _On a Future State._ Spectator, 1882, p. 1249. ---- _On Coral Reefs._ Nature, by James D. Dana, vol. 10, 1874, pp. 408-410. --Nature, by John Murray, vol. 22, 1880, pp. 351-354. --Proc. of the Royal Society, Edinb., by John Murray, vol. 10, pp. 505-518 [abstract]. ---- _On Earth Worms._ Fraser's Magazine, by F. A. Paley, vol. 25, N.S., 1882, pp. 46-53. --Nature, by George J. Romanes, vol. 24, 1881, pp. 563-556. --Academy, by H. N. Moseley, vol. 20, 1881, pp. 313, 314. --Athenæum, Oct. 15, 1881, pp. 499, 500. --Saturday Review, vol. 52, 1881, pp. 578, 579. ---- _On His Travels._ Penn Monthly, by R. E. Thompson, vol. 2, 1871, pp. 562-572. ---- _On Orchids._ --Weldon's Register, by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1862, pp. 38, 39. --Popular Science Review, vol. 1, N.S., 1877, pp. 174-180. --Edinburgh New Philosophical Magazine, vol. 16, N.S., 1862, pp. 277-285. --Das Ausland, No. 29, 1862, pp. 681-685. --Das Ausland, No. 13, 1865, pp. 294-297, and No. 14, pp. 319-322. ---- _Origin of Species._ --Saturday Review, vol. 8, 1859, pp. 775, 776. --Athenæum, Nov. 19, 1859, pp. 659, 660. --Quarterly Review, by S. Wilberforce, vol. 108, 1860, pp. 225-264. --Edinburgh Review, vol. 111, 1860, pp. 487-532. --Atlantic Monthly, by A. Gray, vol. 6, 1860, pp. 109-116, and 229-239. --Westminster Review, by T. H. Huxley, vol. 17, N.S., 1860, pp. 541-570. --American Journal of Science, reprinted in Lay Sermons, etc. 1860, by A. Gray, vol. 79, 1860, pp. 153-184. --National Review, vol. 10, 1860, pp. 188-214. --North British Review, vol. 32, 1860, pp. 455-486; vol. 46, 1867, pp. 277-318. --Christian Examiner, by J. A. Lowell, vol. 68, 1860, pp. 449-464. --British Quarterly Review, vol. 31, 1860, pp. 398-421; same article, Eclectic Magazine, vol. 50, pp. 331-345. --Eclectic Review, vol. 3, N.S., 1860, pp. 217-242. --Chambers's Journal, vol. 12, 1860, pp. 388-391. --London Review, vol. 14, pp. 281-308. --American Presbyterian Review, vol. 20, pp. 349, etc. --Macmillan's Magazine, by Henry Fawcett, vol. 3, 1860, pp. 81-92. --Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, vol. 2, N.S., 1860, pp. 280-289. --Revue des Deux Mondes, by A. Laugel, tom. 26, 1860, pp. 644-671. --Christian Observer, vol. 60, 1860, pp. 561-574. --Canadian Journal, vol. 5, N.S., pp. 367, etc. --Canadian Journal, by W. Hincks, vol. 8, N.S., pp. 390, etc. --American Journal of Science, vol. 80, by F. Bowen, 1860, pp. 226-239. --North American Review, vol. 90, 1860, pp. 474-506. --Register of Literature, Aug. 1860, pp. 1-7. --Das Ausland, No. 5, 1860, pp. 97-101, 135-140; No. 4, 1867, pp. 73-80; No. 3, 1870, pp. 59-62. --Revue Germanique, by E. Claperède, tom. 16, 1861, pp. 523-559, and tom. 17, pp. 232-263. --Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, by H. H. Higgins, No. 15, 1861, pp. 42-49, and pp. 135-140. --Methodist Quarterly Review, by W. C. Wilson, vol. 43, 1861, pp. 605-627. --American Quarterly Church Review, vol. 17, 1865, pp. 169-198. --Revue des Deux Mondes, by George Pouchet, tom. 85, 1870, pp. 691-703. --Revue des Deux Mondes, by A. de Quatrefages; vol. 78, 1868, pp. 832-860, _Les Précurseurs Français de Darwin_; vol. 79, pp. 208-240, _La Théorie de Darwin_; vol. 80, pp. 64-95 and 397-452, _Discussion des Théories Transformistes_; vol. 80, pp. 638-672, _Théories de la Transformation progressive et de la Transformation brusque_; _Origine Simienne de l'homme_. --Fortnightly Review, by G. H. Lewes, vol. 9, 1868, pp. 353-373, and 611-628. --Nation, by B. G. Wilder, vol. 12, 1871, pp. 199-201. --Month, by A. Weld, vol. 4, N.S., 1871, pp. 71-101. --Monthly Religious Magazine, vol. 50, pp. 496, etc. --Nature, by A. W. Bennett, vol. 5, 1872, pp. 318, 319. ---- ---- _Agassiz' Views of the Origin of Species._ Proceedings of Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, by C. Collingwood, No. 15, 1861, pp. 81-99. ---- ---- _A Characterisation of the Origin of Species._ Journal of Science, by Oswald Dawson, vol. 7, 3rd Ser., 1885, pp. 441-458. ---- ---- _Criticisms on the Origin of Species._ Natural History Review, by T. H. Huxley, vol. 4, 1864, pp. 566-580; reprinted in Lay Sermons, 1870. ---- ---- _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species._ Nature, by T. H. Huxley, vol. 22, 1880, pp. 1-4; same article, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 17, 1880, pp. 337-344. ---- _Philosophy of Language._ Fraser's Magazine, by Professor Max Müller, vol. 7, N.S., 1873, pp. 525-541 and 659-678, and vol. 8, N.S., pp. 1-24; same article, Eclectic Magazine, vol. 18, N.S., pp. 75-88, 148-163, and 257-275. ---- ---- _Max Müller on._ Proceedings of Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, No. 27, 1873, pp. xli-liii. ---- _Phrenological Delineation of._ Phrenological Magazine, with portrait, vol. 1, 1880, pp. 89-92. ---- _Power of Movement in Plants._ Saturday Review, vol. 51, 1881, pp. 57, 58. --Edinburgh Review, vol. 153, 1881, pp. 497-514. --Academy, by George Henslow, vol. 19, 1881, pp. 120-122. --Athenæum, Dec. 18, 1880, pp. 817, 818. --Journal of Botany, vol. 10, 1881, pp. 375-381. --Nation, by Asa Gray, Jan. 6 and 13, 1876; reprinted in Darwiniana, by Asa Gray, 1876. --Dial, by David S. Jordan, vol. 1, 1881, pp. 255-257. ---- _Reminiscence of._ Harper's New Monthly Magazine (portrait), by James D. Hague, vol. 69, 1884, pp. 759-763. ---- _Studies in._ American Church Review, by J. F. Garrison, vol. 27, 1875, pp. 197-218. ---- _Testimonial to, in the Netherlands._ American Naturalist, vol. 11, 1877, pp. 295-300. ---- _Theories of._ Dial, by A. L. Chapin, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 168, 169. ---- _Theory of Instinct._ Nineteenth Century, by G. F. Romanes, vol. 16, 1884, pp. 434-450. ---- _Works of._ Westminster Review, N.S., vol. 62, 1882, pp. 85-121. _Darwinian Eden._--Overland Monthly, by M. G. Upton, vol. 7, 1871, pp. 159-166. _Darwinian Idea._--Every Saturday, vol. 10, pp. 414, etc. _Darwinism._ --Christian Examiner, by J. A. Lowell, vol. 68, 1860, pp. 449-464. --Dublin Review, vol. 48, 1860, pp. 50-81. --Unitarian Review, by W. H. Furness, vol. 5, p. 291, etc. --Unitarian Review, by L. J. Livermore, vol. 3, p. 237, etc. --Morgenblatt, 1862, pp. 1-6, 31-36. --Unsere Zeit, by M. J. Schleiden, Jahr. 5, pp. 50-71, and 258-277. --Eclectic Review, vol. 4, N.S. 1863, pp. 337-345. --Gazette Hebdomadaire de Médecine et de Chirurgie, by Dr. Fée 1864, pp. 289-292, 321-323, 337-342, 353-357, 409-413, 427-432, 481-484. --Ergänzungsblätter zur Kenntniss der Gegenwart, Bd. 1. 1866, by G. Jaeger, pp. 291-294; Bd. 4, 1869, by J. Huber, pp. 607-615, 670-678, 728-739. --Atlantic Monthly, by C. J. Sprague, vol. 18, 1866, pp. 415-425. --New Englander, by W. N. Rice, vol. 26, 1867, pp. 603-635. --Student and Intellectual Observer, vol. 1, 1868, pp. 179-188. --Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists' Society, by Charles Jecks, vol. 3, N.S., pp, 107-113. --American Quarterly Church Review, vol. 21, 1870, pp. 524-536. --Das Ausland, by M. Wagner, 1871, pp. 289-293, 322-327, 343-347, 535-540, 559-564, 865-870, 891-894, 913-918, 946-948, 1057-1061, 1081-1085. --Bibliotheca Sacra, by F. Gardiner, vol. 29, 1872, pp. 240-289. --Transatlantic, vol. 1, 1872, pp. 139-146. --Catholic World, by F. Smith, vol. 17, 1873, pp. 641-655. --Southern Review, vol. 12, 1873, pp. 406-423. --Old and New, by George M. Kellogg, vol. 8, 1873, pp. 283-292. --Baptist Quarterly, by E. Nisbet, vol. 7, 1873, pp. 69-87, and 204-227. --Congregational Review, by S. Adams, vol. 11, pp. 233, etc., 338, etc. --New Englander, by L. T. Adams, vol. 33, 1874, pp. 741-769. --Old and New, by G. Axford, vol. 6, pp. 655-663. --Scribner's Monthly, by J. B. Drury, vol. 10, 1875, pp. 348-360. --Tinsleys' Magazine, by W. H. Penning, vol. 19, 1876, pp. 515-523. --Bibliotheca Sacra, by G. F. Wright, vol. 33, 1876, pp. 656-694. --Catholic World, by J. Bayne, vol. 26, 1878, pp. 496-511. --Atlantic Monthly, by William James, vol. 46, 1880, pp. 441-459. --Nature, by George J. Romanes, Feb, 1887, pp. 362-364. ---- _Analogies with Calvinism Bibliotheca Sacra_, by Geo. F. Wright, vol. 37, 1880, pp. 48-76. ---- _and Agassiz._ Popular Science Monthly, by John Fiske, vol. 3, 1873, pp. 692-705. ---- _and Chemistry._ Christian Science Magazine, by A. Taylor, April 1887. ---- _and Christianity._ Lakeside Monthly, by E. O. Haven, vol. 7, 1872, pp. 302-318. --Baptist Magazine, vol. 74, 1882, pp. 245-253. ---- _Man in, and in Christianity._ American Church Review, vol. 24, 1872, pp. 288-299. ---- _and Design, St. Clair on._ Dublin Review, vol. 23, N.S., 1874, pp. 232-240. ---- _and Divinity._ Fraser's Magazine, by Leslie Stephen, vol. 5, N.S., 1872, pp. 409-421; same article, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 1, 1872, pp. 188-202. ---- _and its Effects upon Religious Thought._ Jour. of the Trans. of the Victoria Institute, by C. R. Bree, vol. 7, 1874, pp. 253-570. ---- ---- Discussion on preceding, pp. 270-285. ---- _and Language._ North American Review, by W. D. Whitney, vol. 119, 1874, pp. 61-88. --Das Ausland, No. 17, 1864, pp. 397-399. ---- _and Language, Schleicher on._ Nature, by Max Müller, vol. 1, 1870, pp. 256-259. ---- _and Morality._ Canadian Monthly, by John Watson, vol. 10, 1876, pp. 319-326. --Spectator, 1867, pp. 1255, 1256. ---- _and National Life._ Nature, vol. 1, 1869, pp. 183, 184. ---- _and Religion._ Macmillan's Magazine, vol. 24, 1871, pp. 45-51; same article, Eclectic Magazine, vol. 14, N.S., 1871, pp. 25-31, and Littell's Living Age, vol. 109, 1871, pp. 621-626. ---- _and Schopenhauer._ Journal of Anthropology, by Dr. D. Asher, Jan. 1871, pp. 312-332. ---- _An Exegesis of, by Oswald Dawson._ Journal of Science, vol. 6, 3rd series, 1884, pp. 725-738. ---- _Application of, to Flowers and the Insects which visit them._ American Naturalist, by E. Muller, vol. 5, 1871, pp. 271-297. ---- _Attitude of Working Naturalists towards._ Nation, by Asa Gray, vol. 17, 1873, pp. 258-261; reprinted in Darwiniana, by Asa Gray, 1876. ---- _Bateman on._ Dublin Review, vol. 31, N.S., 1878, pp. 139-152. --Nation, by J. Fiske, vol. 27, 1878, pp. 367, 368. ---- _Credibility of._ Jour. of the Trans. of the Victoria Institute, by Geo. Warington, vol. 2, 1867, pp. 39-62. ---- ---- Reply to preceding Paper, by James Reddie, vol. 2, 1867, pp. 63-85. ---- ---- Discussion on same, pp. 85-125. ---- _Dangers of._ Popular Science Monthly, vol. 15, 1879, pp. 68-71. ---- _Deduction from._ Nature, by W. Stanley Jevons, vol. 1, 1870, pp. 231, 232. ---- _Development Theory in._ Das Ausland, No. 14, 1863, pp. 325-331. ---- _Difficulties of._ Quarterly Journal of Science, vol. 12, 1875, pp. 322-336. ---- _Ethical Aspect of._ Canadian Monthly, by J. Watson, vol. 11, 1878, pp. 638-644. ---- _Fallacies of, Dr. Bree on._ Dublin Review, vol. 23, N.S., 1874, pp. 240-246. --Nature, by Alfred R. Wallace, vol. 5, 1872, pp. 237-239. ---- _Fiske on._ Nature, vol. 20, 1879, pp. 575, 576. ---- _Frolic in Space._ Lakeside, by J. M. Binckley, vol. 8, pp. 446, etc. ---- _Gray's Darwiniana._ Nation, by H. W. Holland, vol. 23, 1876, pp. 358, 359. ---- _Great Difficulty of._ Nature, by L. S. Beale, vol. 5, 1872, pp. 63, 64. ---- _Haeckel's Reply to Virchow._ Nation, by H. T. Finck, vol. 28, 1879, pp. 320-322. ---- _Historic Development of._ Baptist Quarterly, by G. W. Samson, vol. 11, 1877, pp. 29-38. ---- _Infallibility in._ Dublin University Magazine, vol. 6, N.S., 1880, pp. 641-669. ---- _in Germany._ North American Review, by C. L. Brace, vol. 110, 1870, pp. 284-299. --Nation, by C. Wright, vol. 21, 1875, pp. 168-170. --Anthropological Review, vol. 6, 1868, pp. 21-26. ---- _in Morals._ Canadian Monthly, by J. A. Allen, vol. 11, 1878, pp. 490-501. --Theological Review, by F. P. Cobbe, vol. 8, 1871, pp. 167-192. ---- _Its Value as a Cosmological Theory._ Cape Monthly Magazine, by the Rev. J. Turnbull, vol. 11, N.S. 1875, pp. 184-188 and 212-225. ---- _Last Attack on._ Nature, by A. R. Wallace, vol. 6, 1872, pp. 237-239. ---- _Latest Development of._ London Quarterly Review, vol. 57, 1882, pp. 371-391. ---- _Missing Links in._ Gentleman's Magazine, by Andrew Wilson, 1879, pp. 298-320. ---- _Mivart on._ Dublin Review, vol. 16, N.S., 1871, pp. 482-486. ---- _My Cousin the Gorilla._ Tinsley's Magazine, vol. 8, 1871, pp. 395-399, and vol. 9, pp. 135-140. ---- _New York "Nation" on, in Germany._ Popular Science Monthly, vol. 8, 1876, pp. 235-240. ---- _Relation of, to other branches of Science._ Longman's Magazine, by Robert S. Bell, vol. 3, 1884, pp. 76-92. ---- _Ridiculous._ Lutheran Quarterly, by W. Streissguth, vol. 5, pp. 404, etc. ---- _Science against._ University Quarterly, by J. Moore, vol. 35, pp. 186, etc. ---- _Some Popular Misconceptions of._ Proc. of the Literary and Phil. Soc. of Liverpool, by S. Fletcher-Williams, No. 36, 1882, pp. 133-156. ---- _Strictures on._ Anthropological Journal, by H. H. Howorth, vol. 2, 1873, pp. 21-40; vol. 3, pp. 208-229; vol. 4, pp. 101-121. ---- _Studies in._ American Church Review, by J. F. Garrison, vol. 27, 1875, pp. 197-218. ---- _tested by recent researches in language._ Jour. of the Trans. of the Victoria Institute, by Fred. Bateman, vol. 7, 1874, pp. 73-95. ---- _Theological Import of._ Christian Observer, vol. 73, p. 623, etc. ---- _Triumph of._ North American Review, by J. Fiske, vol. 124, 1877, pp. 90-106. ---- _True and False in._ Journal of Speculative Philosophy, by E. von Hartmann, vol. 11, 1877, pp. 244-251, and 392-399; vol. 12, pp. 138-145; vol. 13, pp. 139-150. ---- versus _Philosophy_. Southern Review, vol. 13, 1873, pp. 253-273. ---- _What is?_ Nation, by A. Gray, vol. 18, 1874, pp. 348-351; reprinted in _Darwiniana_, by Asa Gray, 1876. IV.--CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WORKS. Journal of Researches 1839 Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs 1842 Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle 1844 Geological Observations on South America 1846 Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidæ 1851 Monograph of the Cirripedia 1851-54 Monograph of the Fossil Balanidæ 1854 On the Origin of Species 1859 On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised 1862 Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants 1865 The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication 1868 The Descent of Man 1871 The Expression of the Emotions 1872 Insectivorous Plants 1875 The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom 1876 The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species 1877 The Power of Movement in Plants 1880 The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms 1881 * * * * * The Canterbury Poets. Edited by William Sharp. WITH INTRODUCTORY NOTICES BY VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS In SHILLING Monthly Volumes, Square 8vo. Well printed on fine toned paper, with Red-line Border, and strongly bound in Cloth. Each Volume contains from 300 to 350 pages. _Cloth, Red Edges_ 1s. _Cloth, Uncut Edges_ 1s. _Red Roan, Gilt Edges_ 2s. 6d. _Pad. Morocco, Gilt Edges_ 5s. _THE FOLLOWING VOLUMES ARE NOW READY._ CHRISTIAN YEAR. By Rev. John Keble. COLERIDGE. Edited by J. Skipsey. LONGFELLOW. Edited by E. Hope. CAMPBELL. Edited by J. Hogben. SHELLEY. Edited by J. Skipsey. WORDSWORTH. Edited by A. J. Symington. BLAKE. Edited by Joseph Skipsey. WHITTIER. Edited by Eva Hope. POE. Edited by Joseph Skipsey. CHATTERTON. Edited by John Richmond. BURNS. Poems. BURNS. Songs. Edited by Joseph Skipsey. MARLOWE. Edited by P. E. Pinkerton. KEATS. Edited by John Hogben. HERBERT. Edited by Ernest Rhys. VICTOR HUGO. Translated by Dean Carrington. COWPER. Edited by Eva Hope. SHAKESPEARE. Songs, Poems, and Sonnets. Edited by William Sharp. EMERSON. Edited by W. Lewin. SONNETS of this CENTURY. Edited by William Sharp. WHITMAN. Edited by E. Rhys. SCOTT. Marmion, etc. SCOTT. Lady of the Lake, etc. Edited by William Sharp. PRAED. Edited by Fred. Cooper. HOGG. By his Daughter, Mrs. Garden. GOLDSMITH. Edited by W. Tirebuck. LOVE LETTERS OF A VIOLINIST. By Eric Mackay. SPENSER. Edited by Hon. R. Noel. CHILDREN OF THE POETS. Edited by Eric S. Robertson. BEN JONSON. Edited by J. A. Symonds. BYRON (2 Vols.) Edited by Mathilde Blind. THE SONNETS OF EUROPE. Edited by S. Waddington. RAMSAY. Edited by J. L. Robertson. SYDNEY DOBELL. Edited by Mrs. Dobell. DAYS OF THE YEAR. With Introduction by Wm. Sharp. POPE. Edited by John Hogben. HEINE. Edited by Mrs. Kroeker. BEAUMONT & FLETCHER. Edited by J. S. Fletcher. BOWLES, LAMB, &c. Edited by William Tirebuck. EARLY ENGLISH POETRY. Edited by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon. SEA MUSIC. Edited by Mrs. Sharp. HERRICK. Edited by Ernest Rhys. BALLADES AND RONDEAUS. Edited by J. Gleeson White. IRISH MINSTRELSY. Edited by H. Halliday Sparling. MILTON'S PARADISE LOST. Edited by J. Bradshaw, M.A., LL.D. JACOBITE BALLADS. Edited by G. S. Macquoid. AUSTRALIAN BALLADS. Edited by D. B. W. Sladen, B.A. MOORE. Edited by John Dorrian. BORDER BALLADS. Edited by Graham B. Tomson. SONG-TIDE. By P. B. Marston. ODES OF HORACE. Translated by Sir S. de Vere, Bt. OSSIAN. Edited by G. E. Todd. ELFIN MUSIC. Edited by Arthur Edward Waite. SOUTHEY. Edited by S. R. Thompson. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * _Monthly Shilling Volumes. Cloth, cut or uncut edges._ THE CAMELOT SERIES Edited by Ernest Rhys. _THE FOLLOWING VOLUMES ARE NOW READY._ ROMANCE OF KING ARTHUR. Edited by E. Rhys. THOREAU'S WALDEN. Edited by W. H. Dircks. CONFESSIONS OF AN ENGLISH OPIUM-EATER. Edited by William Sharp. LANDOR'S CONVERSATIONS. Edited by H. Ellis. PLUTARCH'S LIVES. Edited by B. J. Snell, M.A. SIR THOMAS BROWNE'S RELIGIO MEDICI, etc. Edited by J. Addington Symonds. SHELLEY'S LETTERS. Edited by Ernest Rhys. PROSE WRITINGS OF SWIFT. Edited by W. Lewin. MY STUDY WINDOWS. Edited by R. Garnett, LL.D. GREAT ENGLISH PAINTERS. Edited by W. Sharp. LORD BYRON'S LETTERS. Edited by M. Blind. ESSAYS BY LEIGH HUNT. Edited by A. Symons. LONGFELLOW'S PROSE. Edited by W. Tirebuck. GREAT MUSICAL COMPOSERS. Edited by E. Sharp. MARCUS AURELIUS. Edited by Alice Zimmern. SPECIMEN DAYS IN AMERICA. By Walt Whitman. WHITE'S NATURAL HISTORY of SELBORNE. Edited, with Introduction, by Richard Jefferies. DEFOE'S CAPTAIN SINGLETON. Edited, with Introduction, by H. Halliday Sparling. ESSAYS: Literary and Political. By Joseph Mazzini. Edited, with Introduction, by William Clarke. THE PROSE WRITINGS OF HEINRICH HEINE. Edited, with Introduction, by Havelock Ellis. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS' DISCOURSES. Edited, with Introduction, by Helen Zimmern. THE LOVER, and other Papers of Steele and Addison. Edited, with Introduction, by Walter Lewin. BURNS'S LETTERS. Edited by J. Logie Robertson, M.A. VOLSUNGA SAGA. Edited by H. H. Sparling. SARTOR RESARTUS. Edited by Ernest Rhys. WRITINGS OF EMERSON. Edited by Percival Chubb. SENECA'S MORALS. Edited by Walter Clode. DEMOCRATIC VISTAS. By Walt Whitman. LIFE OF LORD HERBERT. Edited by Will H. Dircks. ENGLISH PROSE. Edited by Arthur Galton. THE PILLARS OF SOCIETY, and other Plays. By Henrik Ibsen. Edited by Havelock Ellis. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * _Monthly Shilling Volumes. Cloth, cut or uncut edges._ GREAT WRITERS. EDITED BY PROFESSOR E. S. ROBERTSON. _THE FOLLOWING VOLUMES ARE NOW READY._ LIFE OF LONGFELLOW. By Professor Eric S. Robertson. "A most readable little work, brightened by fancy, and enriched by poetic feeling."--_Liverpool Mercury._ LIFE OF COLERIDGE. By Hall Caine. "Brief and vigorous, written throughout with spirit and great literary skill, often rising into eloquence."--_Scotsman._ LIFE OF DICKENS. By Frank T. Marzials. "We should, until we came across this volume, have been at a loss to recommend any popular life of England's most popular novelist as being really satisfactory."--_Athenæum._ LIFE OF DANTE GABRIEL ROSSETTI. By Joseph Knight. "Mr. Knight's picture of the great poet and painter is the fullest and best yet presented to the public."--_The Graphic._ LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON. By Colonel F. Grant. "Colonel Grant has performed his task with diligence, sound judgment, good taste, and accuracy."--_Illustrated London News._ LIFE OF DARWIN. By G. T. Bettany. "Mr. G. T. Bettany's _Life of Darwin_ is a sound and conscientious work."--_Saturday Review._ LIFE OF CHARLOTTE BRONTE. By Augustine Birrell. "Those who know much of Charlotte Brontë will learn more, and those who know nothing about her will find all that is best worth learning in Mr. Birrell's pleasant book."--_St. James' Gazette._ LIFE OF THOMAS CARLYLE. By Richard Garnett, LL.D. "This is an admirable book. Nothing could be more felicitous and fairer than the way in which he takes us through Carlyle's life and works."--_Pall Mall Gazette._ LIFE OF ADAM SMITH. By R. B. Haldane, M.P. "Written throughout with a perspicuity seldom exemplified when dealing with economic science."--_Scotsman._ LIFE OF KEATS. By W. M. Rossetti. "Valuable for the ample information which it contains and the sympathetic and authoritative criticism which it furnishes."--_Cambridge Independent._ LIFE OF SHELLEY. By William Sharp. "Another fit memorial of a beautiful soul ... it is a worthy addition, to be cherished for its own sake to our already rich collection of Shelley Literature."--_The Academy._ LIFE OF SMOLLETT. By David Hannay. "An exceptionally manly and capable record."--_Saturday Review._ LIFE OF GOLDSMITH. By Austin Dobson. LIFE OF SCOTT. By Professor Yonge. LIFE OF BURNS. By Professor Blackie. LIFE OF VICTOR HUGO. By Frank T. Marzials. LIFE OF EMERSON. By Richard Garnett, LL.D. LIFE OF GOETHE. By James Sime. LIFE OF CONGREVE. By Edmund Gosse. LIFE OF BUNYAN. By Canon Venables. [_Ready August 25th._ Complete Bibliography to each volume, by J. P. ANDERSON, British Museum. * * * * * LIBRARY EDITION OF "GREAT WRITERS." An Issue of all the Volumes in this Series will be published, printed on large paper of extra quality, in handsome binding, Demy 8vo, price 2s. 6d. per volume. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * VOLS. I. TO X. NOW READY. RE-ISSUE IN MONTHLY VOLUMES, PRICE ONE SHILLING EACH, STRONGLY BOUND IN CLOTH, Uniform in size and style with the Camelot Series, WILSON'S TALES OF THE BORDERS AND OF SCOTLAND: _HISTORICAL, TRADITIONARY, AND IMAGINATIVE._ REVISED BY ALEXANDER LEIGHTON. No collection of tales published in a serial form ever enjoyed so great a popularity as "THE TALES OF THE BORDERS;" and the secret of their success lies in the fact that they are stories in the truest sense of the word, illustrating in a graphic and natural style the manners and customs, trials and sorrows, sins and backslidings, of the men and women of whom they treat. The heroes and heroines of these admirable stories belong to every rank of life, from the king and noble to the humble peasant. "THE TALES OF THE BORDERS" have always been immensely popular with the young, and whether we view them in their moral aspect, or as vehicles for instruction and amusement, the collected series forms a repertory of healthy and interesting literature unrivalled in the language. The _Scotsman_ says:--"Those who have read the tales in the unwieldy tomes in which they are to be found in the libraries will welcome the publication of this neat, handy, and well-printed edition." The _Dundee Advertiser_ says:--"Considering how attractive are these tales, whether regarded as illustrating Scottish life, or as entertaining items of romance, there can be no doubt of their continued popularity. We last read them in volumes the size of a family Bible, and we are glad to have an opportunity to renew our acquaintance with them in a form so much more handy and elegant." EACH VOLUME WILL BE COMPLETE IN ITSELF. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * Windsor Series of Poetical Anthologies. _Printed on Antique Paper. Crown 8vo. Bound in Blue Cloth, each with suitable Emblematic Design on Cover, Price 3s. 6d. Also in various Calf and Morocco Bindings._ Women's Voices. An Anthology of the most Characteristic Poems by English, Scotch, and Irish Women. Edited by Mrs. William Sharp. Sonnets of this Century. With an Exhaustive and Critical Essay on the Sonnet. Edited by William Sharp. The Children of the Poets. An Anthology from English and American Writers of Three Centuries. Edited by Professor Eric S. Robertson. Sacred Song. A Volume of Religious Verse. Selected and arranged, with Notes, by Samuel Waddington. A Century of Australian Song. Selected and Edited by Douglas B. W. Sladen, B.A., Oxon. Jacobite Songs and Ballads. Selected and Edited, with Notes, by G. S. Macquoid. Irish Minstrelsy. Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by H. Halliday Sparling. The Sonnets of Europe. A Volume of Translations. Selected and arranged, with Notes, by Samuel Waddington. Early English and Scottish Poetry. Selected and Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon. Ballads of the North Countrie. Edited, with Introduction, by Graham R. Tomson. Songs and Poems of the Sea. An Anthology of Poems Descriptive of the Sea. Edited by Mrs. William Sharp. Songs and Poems of Fairyland. An Anthology of English Fairy Poetry, selected and arranged, with an Introduction, by Arthur Edward Waite. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * THE OXFORD LIBRARY. _Strongly Bound in Elegant Cloth Binding, Price 2s. each._ This Series of Popular Books comprises many original Novels by new Authors, as well as the most choice works of Dickens, Lytton, Smollett, Scott, Ferrier, etc. _The following are now ready, and will be followed by others shortly:_-- BABNABY RUDGE. ETHEL LINTON. OLD CURIOSITY SHOP. A MOUNTAIN DAISY. PICKWICK PAPERS. HAZEL; or, Perilpoint Lighthouse. NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. OLIVER TWIST. PRINCE of the HOUSE of DAVID. MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT. WIDE, WIDE WORLD. SKETCHES BY BOZ. VILLAGE TALES. RODERICK RANDOM. BEN-HUR. PEREGRINE PICKLE. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. IVAHHOE. ROBINSON CRUSOE. KENILWORTH. CHARLES O'MALLEY. JACOB FAITHFUL. MIDSHIPMAN EASY. PETER SIMPLE. BRIDE OF LAMMERMOOR. PAUL CLIFFORD. HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN. EUGENE ARAM. LAST OF THE BARONS. ERNEST MALTRAVERS. OLD MORTALITY. ALICE; or, the Mysteries. TOM CRINGLE'S LOG. RIENZI. CRUISE OF THE MIDGE. PELHAM. COLLEEN BAWN. LAST DAYS OF POMPEII. VALENTINE VOX. THE SCOTTISH CHIEFS. NIGHT AND MORNING. WILSON'S TALES. FOXE'S BOOK OF MARTYRS. THE INHERITANCE. BUNYAN'S PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * _THE NOVOCASTRIAN NOVELS._ Square 8vo. Price One Shilling each. JACK DUDLEY'S WIFE. By E. M. DAVY, Author of "A Prince of Como," &c. "Mrs. E. M. Davy's powerful and pathetic story, 'Jack Dudley's Wife,' has been published by Mr. Walter Scott, London, in a shilling volume. The tale is written with excellent skill, and succeeds in holding the interest well up from first to last."--_Scotsman._ * * * * * POLICE SERGEANT C. 21: THE STORY OF A CRIME. By REGINALD BARNETT. "The latest and most notable addition to the ranks of detective story-tellers is Mr. Reginald Barnett, whose 'Police Sergeant C. 21' (Walter Scott), although constructed on the familiar Gaborian system, is nevertheless a work of far higher merit than any of its English predecessors. Mr. Barnett has imagination and considerable graphic power. He has conceived a plot of singular complication, which he works out with much skill."--_Table._ * * * * * Oak-Bough and Wattle-Blossom _STORIES AND SKETCHES BY AUSTRALIANS IN ENGLAND._ Edited by A. PATCHETT MARTIN. * * * * * Vane's Invention: An Electrical Romance By R. J. CHARLETON. London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * 100th THOUSAND. _CROWN 8vo, 440 PAGES, PRICE ONE SHILLING_ THE WORLD OF CANT "_Daily Telegraph._"--"Decidedly a book with a purpose." "_Scotsman._"--"A vigorous, clever, and almost ferocious exposure, in the form of a story, of the numerous shams and injustices." "_Newcastle Weekly Chronicle._"--"Trenchant in sarcasm, warm in commendation of high purpose.... A somewhat _remarkable book_." "_London Figaro._"--"It cannot be said that the author is partial; clergymen and Nonconformist divines, Liberals and Conservatives, lawyers and tradesmen, all come under his lash.... The sketches are worth reading. Some of the characters are portrayed with considerable skill." "May the Lord deliver us from all Cant: may the Lord, whatever else He do or forbear, teach us to look facts honestly in the face, and to beware (with a kind of shudder) of smearing them over with our despicable and damnable palaver into irrecognisability, and so falsifying the Lord's own Gospels to His unhappy blockheads of Children, all staggering down to Gehenna and the everlasting Swine's-trough, for want of Gospels. "O Heaven! it is the most accursed sin of man: and done everywhere at present, on the streets and high places at noonday! Verily, seriously I say and pray as my chief orison, May the Lord deliver us from it."--_Letter from Carlyle to Emerson._ London: WALTER SCOTT, 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row. * * * * * Transcriber's note: Corrected typographical errors: Page | original word | correction --------+-----------------------------+------------------------ 172 | sketch | Sketch " | infant | Infant 174 | round | Round ii | 4° | 4to vii | pp. | p. ix | Selection | Sélection x | Hæckel | Haeckel xi | wissenchaftlicher | wissenschaftlicher xiii | Entwickelungs-geschichte | Entwickelungsgeschichte xiv | Universitá | Università " | Verhältniss | Verhältnis xvi | förtallande | förhållande " | 8v | 8vo. " | Unhaltbarkheit | Unhaltbarkeit xviii | Descent of of | Descent of xix | un | im " | {blank} 698-767 | pp. 698-767 xx | Especès | Espèces xxi | Wissenchaft | Wissenschaft xxiii | Kentniss | Kenntniss xxvi | pp. pp. | pp. xxvii | Francais | Français xxviii | Ergänzungsblatter | Ergänzungsblätter 
5273	----	DARWINIANA ESSAYS AND REVIEWS PERTAINING TO DARWINISM BY ASA GRAY FISHER PROFESSOR OF NATURAL HISTORY (BOTANY) IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY NEW YORK: 1876. CONTENTS DARWINIANA PREFACE ARTICLE I THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION Views and Definitions of Species--How Darwin's differs from that of Agassiz, and from the Common View--Variation, its Causes unknown.--Darwin's Genealogical Tree--Darwin and Agassiz agree in the Capital Facts--Embryology--Physical Connection of Species compatible with Intellectual Connection--How to prove Transmutation.--Known Extent of Variation--Cause of Likeness unknown--Artificial Selection.--Reversion--Interbreeding--Natural Selection.--Classification tentative.--What Darwin assumes.--Argument stated.--How Natural Selection works.--Where the Argument is weakest.--Objections--Morphology and Teleology harmonized.--Theory not atheistical.--Conceivable Modes of Relation of God to Nature ARTICLE II DESIGN VERSUS NECESSITY-- A DISCUSSION How Design in Nature can be shown--Design not inconsistent with Indirect Attainment ARTICLE III NATURAL SELECTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH NATURAL THEOLOGY PART I.--Premonitions of Darwinism.--A Proper Subject for Speculation.--Summary of Facts and Ideas suggestive of Hypotheses of Derivation Part II--Limitations of Theory conceded by Darwin.--What Darwinism explains.--Geological Argument strong in the Tertiary Period.-- Correspondence between Rank and Geological Succession--Difficulties in Classification.--Nature of Affinity.--No Absolute Distinction between Vegetable and Animal Kingdoms.--Individuality.--Gradation PART III.--Theories contrasted.--Early Arguments against Darwinism.--Philosophical and Theological Objections--Theory may be theistic.--Final Cause not excluded.--Cause of Variation unknown.--Three Views of Efficient Cause compatible with Theism.--Agassiz's Objections of a Philosophical Nature.--Minor Objections.--Conclusion ARTICLE IV SPECIES AS TO VARIATION, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, AND SUCCESSION Alphonse De Candolle's Study of the Oak Genus.--Variability of the Species.--Antiquity.--A Common Origin probable.--Dr. Falconer on the Common Origin of Elephants--Variation and Natural Selection distinguished.--Saporta on the Gradation between the Vegetable Forms of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary.--Hypothesis of Derivation more likely to be favored by Botanists than by Zoologists.--Views of Agassiz respecting the Origin, Dispersion, Variation, Characteristics, and Successive Creation of Species contrasted with those of De Candolle and others--Definition of Species--Whether its Essence is in the Likeness or in the Genealogical Connection of the Individuals composing a Species ARTICLE V SEQUOIA AND ITS HISTORY: THE RELATIONS OF NORTH AMERICAN TO NORTHEAST ASIAN AND TO TERTIARY VEGETATION Age and Size of Sequoia.--Isolation.--Decadence.--Related Genera.-- Former Distribution.--Similarity between the Flora of Japan and that of the United States, especially on the Atlantic Side.--Former Glaciation as explaining the Present Dispersion of Species.--This confirmed by the Arctic Fossil Flora of the Tertiary Period.--Tertiary Flora derived from the Preceding Cretaceous.--Order and Adaptation in Organic Nature likened to a Flow.--Order implies an Ordainer ARTICLE VI THE ATTITUDE OF WORKING NATURALISTS TOWARD DARWINISM General Tendency to Acceptance of the Derivative Hypothesis noted.--Lyell, Owen, Alphonse De Candolle, Bentham, Flower, Ailman.-- Dr. Dawson's "Story of the Earth and Man" examined.--Difference between Scientific Men and General Speculators or Amateurs in the Use of Hypotheses ARTICLE VII EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY Writings of Henslow, Hodges, and Le Conte examined.--Evolution and Design compatible.--The Admission of a System of Nature, with Fixed Laws, concedes in Principle all that the Doctrine of Evolution requires.--Hypotheses, Probabilities, and Surmises, not to be decried by Theologians, who use them, perhaps, more freely and loosely than Naturalists.--Theologians risk too much in the Defense of Untenable Outposts ARTICLE VIII "WHAT IS DARWINISM?" Dr. Hodges Book with this Title criticised.--He declares that Darwinism is Atheism, yet its Founder a Theist.--Darwinism founded, however, upon Orthodox Conceptions, and opposed, not to Theism, but only to Intervention in Nature, while the Key-note of Dr. Hedge's System is Interference.--Views and Writings of St. Clair, Winchell, and Kingsley adverted to ARTICLE IX CHARLES DARWIN: SKETCH ACCOMPANYING A PORTRAIT IN "NATURE" Darwin's Characteristics and Work as a Naturalist compared with those of Robert Brown.--His Illustration of the Principle that "Nature abhors Close Fertilization. "--His Impression upon Natural History exceeded only by Linnaeus.--His Service in restoring Teleology to Natural History ARTICLE X INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS Classification marks Distinctions where Nature exhibits Gradations.-- Recovery of Forgotten Knowledge and History of what was known of Dionzea, Drosera, and Sarracenia. ARTICLE XI INSECTIVOROUS AND CLIMBING PLANTS Review of Darwin's Two Works upon these Subjects--No Absolute Marks for distinguishing between Vegetables and Animals.--New observations upon the Sundews or Droseras.--Their Sensitiveness, Movements, Discernment of the Presence and Appropriation of Animal Matter.--Dionaea, and other Plants of the same Order.--Utricularia and Pinguicula.--Sarracenia and Nepenthes.--Climbing Plants; the Climbing effected through Sensitiveness or Response to External Impression and Automatic Movement.--Capacities inherent in Plants generally, and apparently of no Service to them, developed and utilized by those which climb.--Natural Selection not a Complete Explanation ARTICLE XII DURATION AND ORIGINATION OF RACE AND SPECIES PART I.--Do Varieties in Plants wear out, or tend to wear out?--The Question considered in the Light of Facts, and in that of the Darwinian Theory.--Conclusion that Races sexually propagated need not die of Old Age.--This Conclusion inferred from the Provisions and Arrangements in Nature to secure Cross-Fertilization of Individuals.-- Reference to Mr. Darwin's Development of this View PART II.--Do Species wear out, and, if not, why not?--Implication of the Darwinian Theory that Species are unlimited in Existence.--Examination of an Opposite Doctrine maintained by Naudin.--Evidence that Species may die out from Inherent Causes only indirect and inferential from Arrangements to secure Wide Breeding--Physiological Import of Sexes--Doubtful whether Sexual Reproduction with Wide Breeding is a Preventive or only a Palliative of Decrepitude in Species.-- Darwinian Hypothesis must suppose the Former ARTICLE XIII EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY The Opposition between Morphology and Teleology reconciled by Darwinism, and the Latter reinstated--Character of the New Teleology.--Purpose and Design distinguished--Man has no Monopoly of the Latter.--Inference of Design from Adaptation and Utility legitimate; also in Hume's Opinion irresistible--The Principle of Design, taken with Specific Creation, totally insufficient and largely inapplicable; but, taken with the Doctrine of the Evolution of Species in Nature, applicable, pertinent, and, moreover, necessary.--Illustrations from Abortive Organs, supposed Waste of Being, etc.--All Nature being of a Piece, Design must either pervade or be absent from the Whole.--Its Absence not to be inferred because the Events take place in Nature--Illustration of the Nature and Province of Natural Selection.--It picks out, but does not originate Variations; these not a Product of, but a Response to, the Environment; not physical, but physiological--Adaptations in Nature not explained by Natural Selection apart from Design or Final Cause--Absurdity of associating Design only with Miracle--What is meant by Nature.--The Tradition of the DIVINE in Nature, testified to by Aristotle, comes down to our Day with Undiminished Value PREFACE These papers are now collected at the request of friends and correspondents, who think that they may be useful; and two new essays are added. Most of the articles were written as occasion called for them within the past sixteen years, and contributed to various periodicals, with little thought of their forming a series, and none of ever bringing them together into a volume, although one of them (the third) was once reprinted in a pamphlet form. It is, therefore, inevitable that there should be considerable iteration in the argument, if not in the language. This could not be eliminated except by recasting the whole, which was neither practicable nor really desirable. It is better that they should record, as they do, the writer's freely-expressed thoughts upon the subject at the time; and to many readers there may be some advantage in going more than once, in different directions, over the same ground. If these essays were to be written now, some things might be differently expressed or qualified, but probably not so as to affect materially any important point. Accordingly, they are here reprinted unchanged, except by a few merely verbal alterations made in proof-reading, and the striking out of one or two superfluous or immaterial passages. A very few additional notes or references are appended. To the last article but one a second part is now added, and the more elaborate Article XIII is wholly new. If it be objected that some of these pages are written in a lightness of vein not quite congruous with the gravity of the subject and the seriousness of its issues, the excuse must be that they were written with perfect freedom, most of them as anonymous contributions to popular journals, and that an argument may not be the less sound or an exposition less effective for being playful. Some of the essays, however, dealing with points of speculative scientific interest, may redress the balance, and be thought sufficiently heavy if not solid. To the objection likely to be made, that they cover only a part of the ground, it can only be replied that they do not pretend to be systematic or complete. They are all essays relating in some way or other to the subject which has been, during these years, of paramount interest to naturalists, and not much less so to most thinking people. The first appeared between sixteen and seventeen years ago, immediately after the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," as a review of that volume, which, it was then foreseen, was to initiate a revolution in general scientific opinion. Long before our last article was written, it could be affirmed that the general doctrine of the derivation of species (to put it comprehensively) has prevailed over that of specific creation, at least to the extent of being the received and presumably in some sense true conception. Far from undertaking any general discussion of evolution, several even of Mr. Darwin's writings have not been noticed, and topics which have been much discussed elsewhere are not here adverted to. This applies especially to what may be called deductive evolution--a subject which lay beyond the writer's immediate scope, and to which neither the bent of his mind nor the line of his studies has fitted him to do justice. If these papers are useful at all, it will be as showing how these new views of our day are regarded by a practical naturalist, versed in one department only (viz., Botany), most interested in their bearings upon its special problems, one accustomed to direct and close dealings with the facts in hand, and disposed to rise from them only to the consideration of those general questions upon which they throw or from which they receive illustration. Then as to the natural theological questions which (owing to circumstances needless now to be recalled or explained) are here throughout brought into what most naturalists, and some other readers, may deem undue prominence, there are many who may be interested to know how these increasingly prevalent views and their tendencies are regarded by one who is scientifically, and in his own fashion, a Darwinian, philosophically a convinced theist, and religiously an acceptor of the "creed commonly called the Nicene," as the exponent of the Christian faith. "Truth emerges sooner from error than from confusion," says Bacon; and clearer views than commonly prevail upon the points at issue regarding "religion and science" are still sufficiently needed to justify these endeavors. BOTANIC GARDEN, CAMBRIDGE, MASS., June, 1876. ______________________________________ I THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION [I-1] (American Journal of Science and Arts, March, 1860) This book is already exciting much attention. Two American editions are announced, through which it will become familiar to many of our readers, before these pages are issued. An abstract of the argument--for "the whole volume is one long argument," as the author states--is unnecessary in such a case; and it would be difficult to give by detached extracts. For the volume itself is an abstract, a prodromus of a detailed work upon which the author has been laboring for twenty years, and which "will take two or three more years to complete." It is exceedingly compact; and although useful summaries are appended to the several chapters, and a general recapitulation contains the essence of the whole, yet much of the aroma escapes in the treble distillation, or is so concentrated that the flavor is lost to the general or even to the scientific reader. The volume itself--the proof-spirit--is just condensed enough for its purpose. It will be far more widely read, and perhaps will make deeper impression, than the elaborate work might have done, with all its full details of the facts upon which the author's sweeping conclusions have been grounded. At least it is a more readable book: but all the facts that can be mustered in favor of the theory are still likely to be needed. Who, upon a single perusal, shall pass judgment upon a work like this, to which twenty of the best years of the life of a most able naturalist have been devoted? And who among those naturalists who hold a position that entitles them to pronounce summarily upon the subject, can be expected to divest himself for the nonce of the influence of received and favorite systems? In fact, the controversy now opened is not likely to be settled in an off-hand way, nor is it desirable that it should be. A spirited conflict among opinions of every grade must ensue, which--to borrow an illustration from the doctrine of the book before us--may be likened to the conflict in Nature among races in the struggle for life, which Mr. Darwin describes; through which the views most favored by facts will be developed and tested by "Natural Selection," the weaker ones be destroyed in the process, and the strongest in the long-run alone survive. The duty of reviewing this volume in the American Journal of Science would naturally devolve upon the principal editor,' whose wide observation and profound knowledge of various departments of natural history, as well as of geology, particularly qualify him for the task. But he has been obliged to lay aside his pen, and to seek in distant lands the entire repose from scientific labor so essential to the restoration of his health--a consummation devoutly to be wished, and confidently to be expected. Interested as Mr. Dana would be in this volume, he could not be expected to accept this doctrine. Views so idealistic as those upon which his "Thoughts upon Species" [I-2] are grounded, will not harmonize readily with a doctrine so thoroughly naturalistic as that of Mr. Darwin. Though it is just possible that one who regards the kinds of elementary matter, such as oxygen and hydrogen, and the definite compounds of these elementary matters, and their compounds again, in the mineral kingdom, as constituting species, in the same sense, fundamentally, as that of animal and vegetable species, might admit an evolution of one species from another in the latter as well as the former case. Between the doctrines of this volume and those of the other great naturalist whose name adorns the title-page of this journal, the widest divergence appears. It is interesting to contrast the two, and, indeed, is necessary to our purpose; for this contrast brings out most prominently, and sets in strongest light and shade, the main features of the theory of the origination of species by means of Natural Selection. The ordinary and generally-received view assumes the independent, specific creation of each kind of plant and animal in a primitive stock, which reproduces its like from generation to generation, and so continues the species. Taking the idea of species from this perennial succession of essentially similar individuals, the chain is logically traceable back to a local origin in a single stock, a single pair, or a single individual, from which all the individuals composing the species have proceeded by natural generation. Although the similarity of progeny to parent is fundamental in the conception of species, yet the likeness is by no means absolute; all species vary more or less, and some vary remarkably--partly from the influence of altered circumstances, and partly (and more really) from unknown constitutional causes which altered conditions favor rather than originate. But these variations are supposed to be mere oscillations from a normal state, and in Nature to be limited if not transitory; so that the primordial differences between species and species at their beginning have not been effaced, nor largely obscured, by blending through variation. Consequently, whenever two reputed species are found to blend in Nature through a series of intermediate forms, community of origin is inferred, and all the forms, however diverse, are held to belong to one species. Moreover, since bisexuality is the rule in Nature (which is practically carried out, in the long-run, far more generally than has been suspected), and the heritable qualities of two distinct individuals are mingled in the offspring, it is supposed that the general sterility of hybrid progeny interposes an effectual barrier against the blending of the original species by crossing. From this generally-accepted view the well-known theory of Agassiz and the recent one of Darwin diverge in exactly opposite directions. That of Agassiz differs fundamentally from the ordinary view only in this, that it discards the idea of a common descent as the real bond of union among the individuals of a species, and also the idea of a local origin--supposing, instead, that each species originated simultaneously, generally speaking, over the whole geographical area it now occupies or has occupied, and in perhaps as many individuals as it numbered at any subsequent period. Mr. Darwin, on the other hand, holds the orthodox view of the descent of all the individuals of a species not only from a local birthplace, but from a single ancestor or pair; and that each species has extended and established itself, through natural agencies, wherever it could; so that the actual geographical distribution of any species is by no means a primordial arrangement, but a natural result. He goes farther, and this volume is a protracted argument intended to prove that the species we recognize have not been independently created, as such, but have descended, like varieties, from other species. Varieties, on this view, are incipient or possible species: species are varieties of a larger growth and a wider and earlier divergence from the parent stock; the difference is one of degree, not of kind. The ordinary view--rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's--looks to natural agencies for the actual distribution and perpetuation of species, to a supernatural for their origin. The theory of Agassiz regards the origin of species and their present general distribution over the world as equally primordial, equally supernatural; that of Darwin, as equally derivative, equally natural. The theory of Agassiz, referring as it does the phenomena both of origin and distribution directly to the Divine will--thus removing the latter with the former out of the domain of inductive science (in which efficient cause is not the first, but the last word)--may be said to be theistic to excess. The contrasted theory is not open to this objection. Studying the facts and phenomena in reference to proximate causes, and endeavoring to trace back the series of cause and effect as far as possible, Darwin's aim and processes are strictly scientific, and his endeavor, whether successful or futile, must be regarded as a legitimate attempt to extend the domain of natural or physical science. For, though it well may be that "organic forms have no physical or secondary cause," yet this can be proved only indirectly, by the failure of every attempt to refer the phenomena in question to causal laws. But, however originated, and whatever be thought of Mr. Darwin's arduous undertaking in this respect, it is certain that plants and animals are subject from their birth to physical influences, to which they have to accommodate themselves as they can. How literally they are "born to trouble," and how incessant and severe the struggle for life generally is, the present volume graphically describes. Few will deny that such influences must have gravely affected the range and the association of individuals and species on the earth's surface. Mr. Darwin thinks that, acting upon an inherent predisposition to vary, they have sufficed even to modify the species themselves and produce the present diversity. Mr. Agassiz believes that they have not even affected the geographical range and the actual association of species, still less their forms; but that every adaptation of species to climate, and of species to species, is as aboriginal, and therefore as inexplicable, as are the organic forms themselves. Who shall decide between such extreme views so ably maintained on either hand, and say how much of truth there may be in each? The present reviewer has not the presumption to undertake such a task. Having no prepossession in favor of naturalistic theories, but struck with the eminent ability of Mr. Darwin's work, and charmed with its fairness, our humbler duty will be performed if, laying aside prejudice as much as we can, we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method and argument, offering by the way a few suggestions, such as might occur to any naturalist of an inquiring mind. An editorial character for this article must in justice be disclaimed. The plural pronoun is employed not to give editorial weight, but to avoid even the appearance of egotism, and also the circumlocution which attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style. We have contrasted these two extremely divergent theories, in their broad statements. It must not be inferred that they have no points nor ultimate results in common. In the first place, they practically agree in upsetting, each in its own way, the generally-received definition of species, and in sweeping away the ground of their objective existence in Nature. The orthodox conception of species is that of lineal descent: all the descendants of a common parent, and no other, constitute a species; they have a certain identity because of their descent, by which they are supposed to be recognizable. So naturalists had a distinct idea of what they meant by the term species, and a practical rule, which was hardly the less useful because difficult to apply in many cases, and because its application was indirect: that is, the community of origin had to be inferred from the likeness; such degree of similarity, and such only, being held to be con-specific as could be shown or reasonably inferred to be compatible with a common origin. And the usual concurrence of the whole body of naturalists (having the same data before them) as to what forms are species attests the value of the rule, and also indicates some real foundation for it in Nature. But if species were created in numberless individuals over broad spaces of territory, these individuals are connected only in idea, and species differ from varieties on the one hand, and from genera, tribes, etc., on the other, only in degree; and no obvious natural reason remains for fixing upon this or that degree as specific, at least no natural standard, by which the opinions of different naturalists may be correlated. Species upon this view are enduring, but subjective and ideal. Any three or more of the human races, for example, are species or not species, according to the bent of the naturalist's mind. Darwin's theory brings us the other way to the same result. In his view, not only all the individuals of a species are descendants of a common parent, but of all the related species also. Affinity, relationship, all the terms which naturalists use figuratively to express an underived, unexplained resemblance among species, have a literal meaning upon Darwin's system, which they little suspected, namely, that of inheritance. Varieties are the latest offshoots of the genealogical tree in "an unlineal" order; species, those of an earlier date, but of no definite distinction; genera, more ancient species, and so on. The human races, upon this view, likewise may or may not be species according to the notions of each naturalist as to what differences are specific; but, if not species already, those races that last long enough are sure to become so. It is only a question of time. How well the simile of a genealogical tree illustrates the main ideas of Darwin's theory the following extract from the summary of the fourth chapter shows: "It is a truly wonderful fact--the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity--that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other in group subordinate to group, in the manner which we everywhere behold--namely, varieties of the same species most closely related together, species of the same genus less closely and unequally related together, forming sections and sub-genera, species of distinct genera much less closely related, and genera related in different degrees, forming sub-families, families, orders, sub-classes, and classes. The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem rather to be clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. On the view that each species has been independently created, I can see no explanation of this great fact in the classification of all organic beings; but, to the best of my judgment, it is explained through inheritance and the complex action of natural selection, entailing extinction and divergence of character, as we have seen illustrated in the diagram. "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have tried to overmaster other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear all the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few now have living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera, which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin, straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favored and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramification." It may also be noted that there is a significant correspondence between the rival theories as to the main facts employed. Apparently every capital fact in the one view is a capital fact in the other. The difference is in the interpretation. To run the parallel ready made to our hands: [I-4] "The simultaneous existence of the most diversified types under identical circumstances . . . the repetition of similar types under the most diversified circumstances . . . the unity of plan in otherwise highly-diversified types of animals . . . the correspondence, now generally known as special homologies, in the details of structure otherwise entirely disconnected, down to the most minute peculiarities . . . the various degrees and different kinds of relationship among animals which (apparently) can have no genealogical connection . . . the simultaneous existence in the earliest geological periods, . . . of representatives of all the great types of the animal kingdom . . . the gradation based upon complications of structure which may be traced among animals built upon the same plan; the distribution of some types over the most extensive range of surface of the globe, while others are limited to particular geographical areas . . . the identity of structures of these types, notwithstanding their wide geographical distribution . . . the community of structure in certain respects of animals otherwise entirely different, but living within the same geographical area . . . the connection by series of special structures observed in animals widely scattered over the surface of the globe . . . the definite relations in which animals stand to the surrounding world, . . . the relations in which individuals of the same species stand to one another . . . the limitation of the range of changes which animals undergo during their growth . . . the return to a definite norm of animals which multiply in various ways . . . the order of succession of the different types of animals and plants characteristic of the different geological epochs, . . . the localization of some types of animals upon the same points of the surface of the globe during several successive geological periods . . . the parallelism between the order of succession of animals and plants in geological times, and the gradation among their living representatives . . . the parallelism between the order of succession of animals in geological times and the changes their living representatives undergo during their embryological growth, [I-5] . . . the combination in many extinct types of characters which in later ages appear disconnected in different types, . . . the parallelism between the gradation among animals and the changes they undergo during their growth, . . . the relations existing between these different series and the geographical distribution of animals, . . . the connection of all the known features of Nature into one system--" In a word, the whole relations of animals, etc., to surrounding Nature and to each other, are regarded under the one view as ultimate facts, or in the ultimate aspect, and interpreted theologically; under the other as complex facts, to be analyzed and interpreted scientifically. The one naturalist, perhaps too largely assuming the scientifically unexplained to be inexplicable, views the phenomena only in their supposed relation to the Divine mind. The other, naturally expecting many of these phenomena to be resolvable under investigation, views them in their relations to one another, and endeavors to explain them as far as he can (and perhaps farther) through natural causes. But does the one really exclude the other? Does the investigation of physical causes stand opposed to the theological view and the study of the harmonies between mind and Nature? More than this, is it not most presumable that an intellectual conception realized in Nature would be realized through natural agencies? Mr. Agassiz answers these questions affirmatively when he declares that "the task of science is to investigate what has been done, to inquire if possible how it has been done, rather than to ask what is possible for the Deity, since we can know that only by what actually exists;" and also when he extends the argument for the intervention in Nature of a creative mind to its legitimate application in the inorganic world; which, he remarks, "considered in the same light, would not fail also to exhibit unexpected evidence of thought, in the character of the laws regulating the chemical combinations, the action of physical forces, etc., etc." [I-6] Mr. Agassiz, however, pronounces that "the connection between the facts is only intellectual"--an opinion which the analogy of the inorganic world, just referred to, does not confirm, for there a material connection between the facts is justly held to be consistent with an intellectual--and which the most analogous cases we can think of in the organic world do not favor; for there is a material connection between the grub, the pupa, and the butterfly, between the tadpole and the frog, or, still better, between those distinct animals which succeed each other in alternate and very dissimilar generations. So that mere analogy might rather suggest a natural connection than the contrary; and the contrary cannot be demonstrated until the possibilities of Nature under the Deity are fathomed. But, the intellectual connection being undoubted, Mr. Agassiz properly refers the whole to "the agency of Intellect as its first cause." In doing so, however, he is not supposed to be offering a scientific explanation of the phenomena. Evidently he is considering only the ultimate why, not the proximate why or how. Now the latter is just what Mr. Darwin is considering. He conceives of a physical connection between allied species; but we suppose he does not deny their intellectual connection, as related to a supreme intelligence. Certainly we see no reason why he should, and many reasons why he should not, Indeed, as we contemplate the actual direction of investigation and speculation in the physical and natural sciences, we dimly apprehend a probable synthesis of these divergent theories, and in it the ground for a strong stand against mere naturalism. Even if the doctrine of the origin of species through natural selection should prevail in our day, we shall not despair; being confident that the genius of an Agassiz will be found equal to the work of constructing, upon the mental and material foundations combined, a theory of Nature as theistic and as scientific as that which he has so eloquently expounded. To conceive the possibility of "the descent of species from species by insensibly fine gradations" during a long course of time, and to demonstrate its compatibility with a strictly theistic view of the universe, is one thing; to substantiate the theory itself or show its likelihood is quite another thing. This brings us to consider what Darwin's theory actually is, and how he supports it. That the existing kinds of animals and plants, or many of them, may be derived from other and earlier kinds, in the lapse of time, is by no means a novel proposition. Not to speak of ancient speculations of the sort, it is the well-known Lamarckian theory. The first difficulty which such theories meet with is that in the present age, with all its own and its inherited prejudgments, the whole burden of proof is naturally, and indeed properly, laid upon the shoulders of the propounders; and thus far the burden has been more than they could bear. From the very nature of the case, substantive proof of specific creation is not attainable; but that of derivation or transmutation of species may be. He who affirms the latter view is bound to do one or both of two things: 1. Either to assign real and adequate causes, the natural or necessary result of which must be to produce the present diversity of species and their actual relations; or, 2. To show the general conformity of the whole body of facts to such assumption, and also to adduce instances explicable by it and inexplicable by the received view, so perhaps winning our assent to the doctrine, through its competency to harmonize all the facts, even though the cause of the assumed variation remain as occult as that of the transformation of tadpoles into frogs, or that of Coryne into Sarzia. The first line of proof, successfully carried out, would establish derivation as a true physical theory; the second, as a sufficient hypothesis. Lamarck mainly undertook the first line, in a theory which has been so assailed by ridicule that it rarely receives the credit for ability to which in its day it was entitled, But he assigned partly unreal, partly insufficient causes; and the attempt to account for a progressive change in species through the direct influence of physical agencies, and through the appetencies and habits of animals reacting upon their structure, thus causing the production and the successive modification of organs, is a conceded and total failure. The shadowy author of the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" can hardly be said to have undertaken either line, in a scientific way. He would explain the whole progressive evolution of Nature by virtue of an inherent tendency to development, thus giving us an idea or a word in place of a natural cause, a restatement of the proposition instead of an explanation. Mr. Darwin attempts both lines of proof, and in a strictly scientific spirit; but the stress falls mainly upon the first, for, as he does assign real causes, he is bound to prove their adequacy. It should be kept in mind that, while all direct proof of independent origination is attainable from the nature of the case, the overthrow of particular schemes of derivation has not established the opposite proposition. The futility of each hypothesis thus far proposed to account for derivation may be made apparent, or unanswerable objections may be urged against it; and each victory of the kind may render derivation more improbable, and therefore specific creation more probable, without settling the question either way. New facts, or new arguments and a new mode of viewing the question, may some day change the whole aspect of the case. It is with the latter that Mr. Darwin now reopens the discussion. Having conceived the idea that varieties are incipient species, he is led to study variation in the field where it shows itself most strikingly, and affords the greatest facilities to investigation. Thoughtful naturalists have had increasing grounds to suspect that a reexamination of the question of species in zoology and botany, commencing with those races which man knows most about, viz., the domesticated and cultivated races, would be likely somewhat to modify the received idea of the entire fixity of species. This field, rich with various but unsystematized stores of knowledge accumulated by cultivators and breeders, has been generally neglected by naturalists, because these races are not in a state of nature; whereas they deserve particular attention on this very account, as experiments, or the materials for experiments, ready to our hand. In domestication we vary some of the natural conditions of a species, and thus learn experimentally what changes are within the reach of varying conditions in Nature. We separate and protect a favorite race against its foes or its competitors, and thus learn what it might become if Nature ever afforded it equal opportunities. Even when, to subserve human uses, we modify a domesticated race to the detriment of its native vigor, or to the extent of practical monstrosity, although we secure forms which would not be originated and could not be perpetuated in free Nature, yet we attain wider and juster views of the possible degree of variation. We perceive that some species are more variable than others, but that no species subjected to the experiment persistently refuses to vary; and that, when it has once begun to vary, its varieties are not the less but the more subject to variation. "No case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation." It is fair to conclude, from the observation of plants and animals in a wild as well as domesticated state, that the tendency to vary is general, and even universal. Mr. Darwin does "not believe that variability is an inherent and necessary contingency, under all circumstances, with all organic beings, as some authors have thought." No one supposes variation could occur under all circumstances; but the facts on the whole imply a universal tendency, ready to be manifested under favorable circumstances. In reply to the assumption that man has chosen for domestication animals and plants having an extraordinary inherent tendency to vary, and likewise to withstand diverse climates, it is asked: "How could a savage possibly know, when he first tamed an animal, whether it would vary in succeeding generations and whether it would endure other climates? Has the little variability of the ass or Guinea-fowl, or the small power of endurance of warmth by the reindeer, or of cold by the common camel, prevented their domestication? I cannot doubt that if other animals and plants, equal in number to our domesticated productions, and belonging to equally diverse classes and countries, were taken from a state of nature, and could be made to breed for an equal number of generations under domestication, they would vary on an average as largely as the parent species of our existing domesticated productions have varied." As to amount of variation, there is the common remark of naturalists that the varieties of domesticated plants or animals often differ more widely than do the individuals of distinct species in a wild state: and even in Nature the individuals of some species are known to vary to a degree sensibly wider than that which separates related species. In his instructive section on the breeds of the domestic pigeon, our author remarks that "at least a score of pigeons might be chosen which if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly be ranked by him as well-defined species. Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would place the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail, in the same genus; more especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited sub-breeds, or species, as he might have called them, could be shown him." That this is not a case like that of dogs, in which probably the blood of more than one species is mingled, Mr. Darwin proceeds to show, adducing cogent reasons for the common opinion that all have descended from the wild rock-pigeon. Then follow some suggestive remarks: "I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how true they bred, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to many species of finches, or other large groups of birds, in Nature. One circumstance has struck me much; namely, that all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I have ever conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species. Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns, and he will laugh you to scorn. I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species. Van Mons, in his treatise on pears and apples, shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several sorts, for instance a Ribston-pippin or Codlin-apple, could ever have proceeded from the seeds of the same tree. Innumerable other examples could be given. The explanation, I think, is simple: from long-continued study they arc strongly impressed with the differences between the several races; and though they well know that each race varies slightly, for they win their prizes by selecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all general arguments, and refuse to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during many successive generations. May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than he does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet admit that many of our domestic races have descended from the same parents--may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they deride the idea of species in a state of nature being lineal descendants of other species?" The actual causes of variation are unknown. Mr. Darwin favors the opinion of the late Mr. Knight, the great philosopher of horticulture, that variability tinder domestication is somehow connected with excess of food. He regards the unknown cause as acting chiefly upon the reproductive system of the parents, which system, judging from the effect of confinement or cultivation upon its functions, he concludes to be more susceptible than any other to the action of changed conditions of life. The tendency to vary certainly appears to be much stronger under domestication than in free Nature. But we are not sure that the greater variableness of cultivated races is not mainly owing to the far greater opportunities for manifestation and accumulation--a view seemingly all the more favorable to Mr. Darwin's theory. The actual amount of certain changes, such as size or abundance of fruit, size of udder, stands of course in obvious relation to supply of food. Really, we no more know the reason why the progeny occasionally deviates from the parent than we do why it usually resembles it. Though the laws and conditions governing variation are known to a certain extent, those governing inheritance are apparently inscrutable. "Perhaps," Darwin remarks, "the correct way of viewing the whole subject would be, to look at the inheritance of every character whatever as the rule, and non-inheritance as the anomaly." This, from general and obvious considerations, we have long been accustomed to do. Now, as exceptional instances are expected to be capable of explanation, while ultimate laws are not, it is quite possible that variation may be accounted for, while the great primary law of inheritance remains a mysterious fact. The common proposition is, that species reproduce their like; this is a sort of general inference, only a degree closer to fact than the statement that genera reproduce their like. The true proposition, the fact incapable of further analysis, is, that individuals reproduce their like--that characteristics are inheritable. So varieties, or deviations, once originated, are perpetuable, like species. Not so likely to be perpetuated, at the outset; for the new form tends to resemble a grandparent and a long line of similar ancestors, as well as to resemble its immediate progenitors. Two forces which coincide in the ordinary case, where the offspring resembles its parent, act in different directions when it does not and it is uncertain which will prevail. If the remoter but very potent ancestral influence predominates, the variation disappears with the life of the individual. If that of the immediate parent--feebler no doubt, but closer--the variety survives in the offspring; whose progeny now has a redoubled tendency to produce its own like; whose progeny again is almost sure to produce its like, since it is much the same whether it takes after its mother or its grandmother. In this way races arise, which under favorable conditions may be as hereditary as species. In following these indications, watching opportunities, and breeding only from those individuals which vary most in a desirable direction, man leads the course of variation as he leads a streamlet--apparently at will, but never against the force of gravitation--to a long distance from its source, and makes it more subservient to his use or fancy. He unconsciously strengthens those variations which he prizes when he plants the seed of a favorite fruit, preserves a favorite domestic animal, drowns the uglier kittens of a litter, and allows only the handsomest or the best mousers to propagate. Still more, by methodical selection, in recent times almost marvelous results have been produced in new breeds of cattle, sheep, and poultry, and new varieties of fruit of greater and greater size or excellence. It is said that all domestic varieties, if left to run wild, would revert to their aboriginal stocks. Probably they would wherever various races of one species were left to commingle. At least the abnormal or exaggerated characteristics induced by high feeding, or high cultivation and prolonged close breeding, would promptly disappear; and the surviving stock would soon blend into a homogeneous result (in a way presently explained), which would naturally be taken for the original form; but we could seldom know if it were so. It is by no means certain that the result would be the same if the races ran wild each in a separate region. Dr. Hooker doubts if there is a true reversion in the case of plants. Mr. Darwin's observations rather favor it in the animal kingdom. With mingled races reversion seems well made out in the case of pigeons. The common opinion upon this subject therefore probably has some foundation, But even if we regard varieties as oscillations around a primitive centre or type, still it appears from the readiness with which such varieties originate that a certain amount of disturbance would carry them beyond the influence of the primordial attraction, where they may become new centres of variation. Some suppose that races cannot be perpetuated indefinitely even by keeping up the conditions under which they were fixed; but the high antiquity of several, and the actual fixity of many of them, negative this assumption. "To assert that we could not breed our cart and race horses, long and short horned cattle, and poultry of various breeds, for almost an infinite number of generations, would be opposed to all experience." Why varieties develop so readily and deviate so widely under domestication, while they are apparently so rare or so transient in free Nature, may easily be shown. In Nature, even with hermaphrodite plants, there is a vast amount of cross-fertilization among various individuals of the same species. The inevitable result of this (as was long ago explained in this Journal [I-7]) is to repress variation, to keep the mass of a species comparatively homogeneous over any area in which it abounds in individuals. Starting from a suggestion of the late Mr. Knight, now so familiar, that close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility; [I-8] and perceiving that bisexuality is ever aimed at in Nature--being attained physiologically in numerous cases where it is not structurally--Mr. Darwin has worked out the subject in detail, and shown how general is the concurrence, either habitual or occasional, of two hermaphrodite individuals in the reproduction of their kind; and has drawn the philosophical inference that probably no organic being self-fertilizes indefinitely; but that a cross with another individual is occasionally--perhaps at very long intervals--indispensable. We refer the reader to the section on the intercrossing of individuals (pp. 96--101), and also to an article in the Gardeners' Chronicle a year and a half ago, for the details of a very interesting contribution to science, irrespective of theory. In domestication, this intercrossing may be prevented; and in this prevention lies the art of producing varieties. But "the art itself is Nature," since the whole art consists in allowing the most universal of all natural tendencies in organic things (inheritance) to operate uncontrolled by other and obviously incidental tendencies. No new power, no artificial force, is brought into play either by separating the stock of a desirable variety so as to prevent mixture, or by selecting for breeders those individuals which most largely partake of the peculiarities for which the breed is valued. {I-9] We see everywhere around us the remarkable results which Nature may be said to have brought about under artificial selection and separation. Could she accomplish similar results when left to herself? Variations might begin, we know they do begin, in a wild state. But would any of them be preserved and carried to an equal degree of deviation? Is there anything in Nature which in the long-run may answer to artificial selection? Mr. Darwin thinks that there is; and Natural Selection is the key-note of his discourse, As a preliminary, he has a short chapter to show that there is variation in Nature, and therefore something for natural selection to act upon. He readily shows that such mere variations as may be directly referred to physical conditions (like the depauperation of plants in a sterile soil, or their dwarfing as they approach an Alpine summit, the thicker fur of an animal from far northward, etc.), and also those individual differences which we everywhere recognize but do not pretend to account for, are not separable by any assignable line from more strongly-marked varieties; likewise that there is no clear demarkation between the latter and sub-species, or varieties of the highest grade (distinguished from species not by any known inconstancy, but by the supposed lower importance of their characteristics); nor between these and recognized species. "These differences blend into each other in an insensible series, and the series impresses the mind with an idea of an actual passage." This gradation from species downward is well made out. To carry it one step farther upward, our author presents in a strong light the differences which prevail among naturalists as to what forms should be admitted to the rank of species. Some genera (and these in some countries) give rise to far more discrepancy than others; and it is concluded that the large or dominant genera are usually the most variable. In a flora so small as the British, 182 plants, generally reckoned as varieties, have been ranked by some botanists as species. Selecting the British genera which include the most polymorphous forms, it appears that Babington's Flora gives them 251 species, Bentham's only 112, a difference of 139 doubtful forms. These are nearly the extreme views, but they are the views of two most capable and most experienced judges, in respect to one of the best-known floras of the world. The fact is suggestive, that the best-known countries furnish the greatest number of such doubtful cases. Illustrations of this kind may be multiplied to a great extent. They make it plain that, whether species in Nature are aboriginal and definite or not, our practical conclusions about them, as embodied in systematic works, are not facts but judgments, and largely fallible judgments- How much of the actual coincidence of authorities is owing to imperfect or restricted observation, and to one naturalist's adopting the conclusions of another without independent observation, this is not the place to consider. It is our impression that species of animals are more definitely marked than those of plants; this may arise from our somewhat extended acquaintance with the latter, and our ignorance of the former. But we are constrained by our experience to admit the strong likelihood, in botany, that varieties on the one hand, and what are called closely-related species on the other, do not differ except in degree. Whenever this wider difference separating the latter can be spanned by intermediate forms, as it sometimes is, no botanist long resists the inevitable conclusion. Whenever, therefore, this wider difference can be shown to be compatible with community of origin, and explained through natural selection or in any other way, we are ready to adopt the probable conclusion; and we see beforehand how strikingly the actual geographical association of related species favors the broader view. Whether we should continue to regard the forms in question as distinct species, depends upon what meaning we shall finally attach to that term; and that depends upon how far the doctrine of derivation can be carried back and how well it can be supported. In applying his principle of natural selection to the work in hand, Mr. Darwin assumes, as we have seen: i. Some variability of animals and plants in nature; 2. The absence of any definite distinction between slight variations, and varieties of the highest grade; 3. The fact that naturalists do not practically agree, and do not increasingly tend to agree, as to what forms are species and what are strong varieties, thus rendering it probable that there may be no essential and original difference, or no possibility of ascertaining it, at least in many cases; also, 4. That the most flourishing and dominant species of the larger genera on an average vary most (a proposition which can be substantiated only by extensive comparisons, the details of which are not given); and, 5. That in large genera the species are apt to be closely but unequally allied together, forming little clusters round certain species--just such clusters as would be formed if we suppose their members once to have been satellites or varieties of a central or parent species, but to have attained at length a wider divergence and a specific character. The fact of such association is undeniable; and the use which Mr. Darwin makes of it seems fair and natural. The gist of Mr. Darwin's work is to show that such varieties are gradually diverged into species and genera through natural selection; that natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for existence which all living things are engaged in; and that this struggle is an unavoidable consequence of several natural causes, but mainly of the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Curiously enough, Mr. Darwin's theory is grounded upon the doctrine of Malthus and the doctrine of Hobbes. The elder DeCandolle had conceived the idea of the struggle for existence, and, in a passage which would have delighted the cynical philosopher of Malmesbury, had declared that all Nature is at war, one organism with another or with external Nature; and Lyell and Herbert had made considerable use of it. But Hobbes in his theory of society, and Darwin in his theory of natural history, alone have built their systems upon it. However moralists and political economists may regard these doctrines in their original application to human society and the relation of population to subsistence, their thorough applicability to the great society of the organic world in general is now undeniable. And to Mr. Darwin belongs the credit of making this extended application, and of working out the immensely diversified results with rare sagacity and untiring patience. He has brought to view real causes which have been largely operative in the establishment of the actual association and geographical distribution of plants and animals. In this he must be allowed to have made a very important contribution to an interesting department of science, even if his theory fails in the endeavor to explain the origin or diversity of species. "Nothing is easier," says our author, "than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life, or more difficult--at least I have found it so--than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind. Yet, unless it be thoroughly ingrained in the mind, I am convinced that the whole economy of Nature, with every fact on distribution, rarity, abundance, extinction, and variation, will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood. We behold the face of Nature bright with gladness, we often see superabundance of food; we do not see, or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters, or their eggs, or their nestlings, are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey; we do not always bear in mind that, though food may be now superabundant, it is not so at all seasons of each recurring year."--(p. 62.) "There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate that, if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing-room for his progeny. Linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds--and there is no plant so unproductive as this--and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its pro!)able minimum rate of natural increase; it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair. "But we have better evidence on this subject than mere theoretical calculations, namely, the numerous recorded cases of the astonishingly rapid increase of various animals in a state of nature, when circumstances have been favorable to them during two or three following seasons. Still more striking is the evidence from our domestic animals of many kinds which have run wild in several parts of the world; if the statements of the rate of increase of slow-breeding cattle and horses in South America, and latterly in Australia, had not been well authenticated, they would have been quite incredible. So it is with plants: cases could be given of introduced plants which have become common throughout whole islands in a period of less than ten years. Several of the plants now most numerous over the wide plains of La Plata, clothing square leagues of surface almost to the exclusion of all other plants, have been introduced from Europe; and there are plants which now range in India, as I hear from Dr. Falconer, from Cape Comorin to the Himalaya, which have been imported from America since its discovery. In such cases, and endless instances could be given, no one supposes that the fertility of these animals or plants has been suddenly and temporarily increased in any sensible degree. The obvious explanation is, that the conditions of life have been very favorable, and that there has consequently been less destruction of the old and young, and that nearly all the young have been enabled to breed. In such cases the geometrical ratio of increase, the result of which never fails to be surprising, simply explains the extraordinarily rapid increase and wide diffusion of naturalized productions in their new homes."--(pp. 64, 65.) "All plants and animals are tending to increase at a geometrical ratio; all would most rapidly stock any station in which they could anyhow exist; the increase must be checked by destruction at some period of life."--(p. 65.) The difference between the most and the least prolific species is of no account: "The condor lays a couple of eggs, and the ostrich a score; and yet in the same country the condor may be the more numerous of the two. The Fulmar petrel lays but one egg, yet it is believed to be the most numerous bird in the world."--(p. 68.) "The amount of food gives the extreme limit to which each species can increase; but very frequently it is not the obtaining of food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which determines the average numbers of species."--(p. 68.) "Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought I believe to be the most effective of all checks. I estimated that the winter of 1854--'55 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent, is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man. The action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but, in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food, Even when climate, for instance extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least vigorous, or those which have got least food through the advancing winter, which will suffer most. When we travel from south to north, or from a damp region to a dry, we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and rarer, and finally disappearing; and, the change of climate being conspicuous, we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to its direct action. But this is a very false view; we forget that each species, even where it most abounds, is constantly suffering enormous destruction at some period of its life, from enemies or from competitors for the same place and food; and if these enemies or competitors be in the least degree favored by any slight change of climate, they will increase in numbers, and, as each area is already stocked with inhabitants, the other species will decrease. When we travel southward and see a species decreasing in numbers, we may feel sure that the cause lies quite as much in other species being favored as in this one being hurt. So it is when we travel northward, but in a somewhat lesser degree, for the number of species of all kinds, and therefore of competitors, decreases northward; hence, in going northward, or in ascending a mountain, we far oftener meet with stunted forms, due to the directly injurious action of climate, than we do in proceeding southward or in descending a mountain. When we reach the arctic regions, or snow-capped summits, or absolute deserts, the struggle for life is almost exclusively with the elements. "That climate acts in main part indirectly by favoring other species, we may clearly see in the prodigious number of plants in our gardens which can perfectly well endure our climate, but which never become naturalized, for they cannot compete with our native plants, nor resist destruction by our native animals."--(pp. 68, 69.) After an instructive instance in which "cattle absolutely determine the existence of the Scotch fir," we are referred to cases in which insects determine the existence of cattle: "Perhaps Paraguay offers the most curious instance of this; for here neither cattle, nor horses, nor dogs, have ever run wild, though they swarm southward and northward in a feral state; and Azara and Rengger have shown that this is caused by the greater number in Paraguay of a certain fly, which lays its eggs in the navels of these animals when first born. The increase of these flies, numerous as they are, must be habitually checked by some means, probably by birds. Hence, if certain insectivorous birds (whose numbers are probably regulated by hawks or beasts of prey) were to increase in Paraguay, the flies would decrease--then cattle and horses would become feral, and this would certainly greatly alter (as indeed I have observed in parts of South America) the vegetation; this, again, would largely affect the insects; and this, as we have just seen in Staffordshire, the insectivorous birds, and so onward in ever-increasing circles of complexity. We began this series by insectivorous birds, and we had ended with them. Not that in Nature the relations can ever be as simple as this. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success; and yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced that the face of Nature remains uniform for long periods of time, though assuredly the merest trifle would often give the victory to one organic being over another. Nevertheless, so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life!"--(pp. 72, 73.) "When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we arc tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance. But how false a view is this! Every one has heard that when an American forest is cut down, a very different vegetation springs up; but it has been observed that the trees now growing on the ancient Indian mounds, in the Southern United States, display the same beautiful diversity and proportion of kinds as in the surrounding virgin forests. What a struggle between the several kinds of trees must here have gone on during long centuries, each annually scattering its seeds by the thousand; what war between insect and insect--between insects, snails, and other animals, with birds and beasts of prey--all striving to increase, and all feeding on each other or on the trees, or their seeds and seedlings, or on the other plants which first clothed the ground and thus checked the growth of the trees! Throw up a handful of feathers, and all must fall to the ground according to definite laws; but how simple is this problem compared to the action and reaction of the innumerable plants and animals which have determined, in the course of centuries, the proportional numbers and kinds of trees now growing on the old Indian ruins!"--(pp. 74, 75.) For reasons obvious upon reflection, the competition is often, if not generally, most severe between nearly related species when they are in contact, so that one drives the other before it, as the Hanoverian the old English rat, the small Asiatic cockroach in Russia, its greater congener, etc. And this, when duly considered, explains many curious results; such, for instance, as the considerable number of different genera of plants and animals which are generally found to inhabit any limited area. "The truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure is seen under many natural circumstances. In an extremely small area, especially if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual and individual must be severe, we always find great diversity in its inhabitants. For instance, I found that a piece of turf, three feet by four in size, which had been exposed for many years to exactly the same conditions, supported twenty species of plants, and these belonged to eighteen genera, and to eight orders, which showed how much these plants differed from each other. So it is with the plants and insects on small and uniform islets; and so in small ponds of fresh water. Farmers find that they can raise most food by a rotation of plants belonging to the most different orders; Nature follows what may be called a simultaneous rotation. Most of the animals and plants which live close round any small piece of ground could live on it (supposing it not to be in any way peculiar in its nature), and may be said to be striving to the utmost to live there; but it is seen that, where they come into the closest competition with each other, the advantages of diversification of structure, with the accompanying differences of habit and constitution, determine that the inhabitants, which thus jostle each other most closely, shall, as a general rule, belong to what we call different genera and orders."--(p. 114.) The abundance of some forms, the rarity and final extinction of many others, and the consequent divergence of character or increase of difference among the surviving representatives, are other consequences. As favored forms increase, the less favored must diminish in number, for there is not room for all; and the slightest advantage, at first probably inappreciable to human observation, must decide which shall prevail and which must perish, or be driven to another and for it more favorable locality. We cannot do justice to the interesting chapter upon natural selection by separated extracts. The following must serve to show how the principle is supposed to work: "If during the long course of ages, and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed: then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection."--(pp. 126, 127.) "In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations. Let us take the case of a wolf, which preys on various animals, securing some by craft, some by strength, and some by fleetness; and let us suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had from any change in the country increased in numbers, or that other prey had decreased in numbers, during that season of the year when the wolf is hardest pressed for food. I can under such circumstances see no reason to doubt that the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected--provided always that they retained strength to master their prey at this or at some other period of the year, when they might be compelled to prey on other animals. I can see no more reason to doubt this than that man can improve the fleetness of his greyhounds by careful and methodical selection, or by that unconscious selection which results from each man trying to keep the best dogs without any thought of modifying the breed. "Even without any change in the proportional numbers of the animals on which our wolf preyed, a cub might be born with an innate tendency to pursue certain kinds of prey. Nor can this be thought very improbable; for we often observe great differences in the natural tendencies of our domestic animals: one cat, for instance, taking to catching rats, another mice; one cat, according to Mr. St. John, bringing home winged game, another hares or rabbits, and another hunting on marshy ground!, and almost nightly catching woodcocks or snipes. The tendency to catch rats rather than mice is known to be inherited. Now, if any slight innate change of habit or of structure benefited an individual wolf, it would have the best chance of surviving and of leaving offspring. Some of its young would probably inherit the same habits or structure, and by the repetition of this process a new variety might be formed which would either supplant or coexist with the parent-form of wolf. Or, again, the wolves inhabiting a mountainous district, and those frequenting the lowlands, would naturally be forced to hunt different prey; and from a continued preservation of the individuals best fitted for the two sites, two varieties might slowly be formed. These varieties would cross and blend where they met; but to this subject of intercrossing we shall soon have to return. I may add that, according to Mr. Pierce, there are two varieties of the wolf inhabiting the Catskill Mountains in the United States, one with a light greyhound-like form, which pursues deer, and the other more bulky, with shorter legs, which more frequently attacks the shepherd's flock."--(pp. 90, 91.) We eke out the illustration here with a counterpart instance, viz., the remark of Dr. Bachman that "the deer that reside permanently in the swamps of Carolina are taller and longer-legged than those in the higher grounds." [I-10] The limits allotted to this article are nearly reached, yet only four of the fourteen chapters of the volume have been touched. These, however, contain the fundamental principles of the theory, and most of those applications of it which are capable of something like verification, relating as they do to the phenomena now occurring. Some of our extracts also show how these principles are thought to have operated through the long lapse of the ages. The chapters from the sixth to the ninth inclusive are designed to obviate difficulties and objections, "some of them so grave that to this day," the author frankly says, he "can never reflect on them without being staggered." We do not wonder at it. After drawing what comfort he can from "the imperfection of the geological record" (Chapter IX), which we suspect is scarcely exaggerated, the author considers the geological succession of organic beings (Chapter X), to see whether they better accord with the common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their slow and gradual modification. Geologists must settle that question. Then follow two most interesting and able chapters on the geographical distribution of plants and animals, the summary of which we should be glad to cite; then a fitting chapter upon classification, morphology, embryology, etc., as viewed in the light of this theory, closes the argument; the fourteenth chapter being a recapitulation. The interest for the general reader heightens as the author advances on his perilous way and grapples manfully with the most formidable difficulties. To account, upon these principles, for the gradual elimination and segregation of nearly allied forms--such as varieties, sub-species, and closely-related or representative species--also in a general way for their geographical association and present range, is comparatively easy, is apparently within the bounds of possibility. Could we stop here we should be fairly contented. But, to complete the system, to carry out the principles to their ultimate conclusion, and to explain by them many facts in geographical distribution which would still remain anomalous, Mr. Darwin is equally bound to account for the formation of genera, families, orders, and even classes, by natural selection. He does "not doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class," and he concedes that analogy would press the conclusion still further; while he admits that "the more distinct the forms are, the more the arguments fall away in force." To command assent we naturally require decreasing probability to be overbalanced by an increased weight of evidence. An opponent might plausibly, and perhaps quite fairly, urge that the links in the chain of argument are weakest just where the greatest stress falls upon them. To which Mr. Darwin's answer is, that the best parts of the testimony have been lost. He is confident that intermediate forms must have existed; that in the olden times when the genera, the families, and the orders, diverged from their parent stocks, gradations existed as fine as those which now connect closely related species with varieties. But they have passed and left no sign. The geological record, even if all displayed to view, is a book from which not only many pages, but even whole alternate chapters, have been lost out, or rather which were never printed from the autographs of Nature. The record was actually made in fossil lithography only at certain times and under certain conditions (i.e., at periods of slow subsidence and places of abundant sediment); and of these records all but the last volume is out of print; and of its pages only local glimpses have been obtained. Geologists, except Lyell, will object to this--some of them moderately, others with vehemence. Mr. Darwin himself admits, with a candor rarely displayed on such occasions, that he should have expected more geological evidence of transition than he finds, and that all the most eminent paleontologists maintain the immutability of species. The general fact, however, that the fossil fauna of each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the preceding and the succeeding faunas, is much relied on. We are brought one step nearer to the desired inference by the similar "fact, insisted on by all paleontologists, that fossils from two consecutive formations are far more closely related to each other than are the fossils of two remote formations. Pictet gives a well-known instance--the general resemblance of the organic remains from the several stages of the chalk formation, though the species are distinct at each stage. This fact alone, from its generality, seems to have shaken Prof. Pictet in his firm belief in the immutability of species" (p. 335). What Mr. Darwin now particularly wants to complete his inferential evidence is a proof that the same gradation may be traced in later periods, say in the Tertiary, and between that period and the present; also that the later gradations are finer, so as to leave it doubtful whether the succession is one of species--believed on the one theory to be independent, on the other, derivative--or of varieties, which are confessedly derivative. The proof of the finer gradation appears to be forthcoming. Des Hayes and Lyell have concluded that many of the middle Tertiary and a large proportion of the later Tertiary mollusca are specifically identical with living species; and this is still the almost universally prevalent view. But Mr. Agassiz states that, "in every instance where he had sufficient materials, he had found that the species of the two epochs supposed to be identical by Des Hayes and Lyell were in reality distinct, although closely allied species."[I-11] Moreover, he is now satisfied, as we understand, that the same gradation is traceable not merely in each great division of the Tertiary, but in particular deposits or successive beds, each answering to a great number of years; where what have passed unquestioned as members of one species, upon closer examination of numerous specimens exhibit differences which in his opinion entitle them to be distinguished into two, three, or more species. It is plain, therefore, that whatever conclusions can be fairly drawn from the present animal and vegetable kingdoms in favor of a gradation of varieties into species, or into what may be regarded as such, the same may be extended to the Tertiary period. In both cases, what some call species others call varieties; and in the later Tertiary shells this difference in judgment affects almost half of the species! We pass to a second difficulty in the way of Mr. Darwin's theory; to a case where we are perhaps entitled to demand of him evidence of gradation like that which connects the present with the Tertiary mollusca. Wide, very wide is the gap, anatomically and physiologically (we do not speak of the intellectual) between the highest quadrumana and man; and comparatively recent, if ever, must the line have bifurcated. But where is there the slightest evidence of a common progenitor? Perhaps Mr. Darwin would reply by another question: where are the fossil remains of the men who made the flint knives and arrowheads of the Somme Valley? We have a third objection, one, fortunately, which has nothing to do with geology. We can only state it here in brief terms. The chapter on hybridism is most ingenious, able, and instructive. If sterility of crosses is a special original arrangement to prevent the confusion of species by mingling, as is generally assumed, then, since varieties cross readily and their offspring is fertile inter se, there is a fundamental distinction between varieties and species. Mr. Darwin therefore labors to show that it is not a special endowment, but an incidental acquirement. He does show that the sterility of crosses is of all degrees; upon which we have only to say, Natura non facit saltum, here any more than elsewhere. But, upon his theory he is bound to show how sterility might be acquired, through natural selection or through something else. And the difficulty is, that, whereas individuals of the very same blood tend to be sterile, and somewhat remoter unions diminish this tendency, and when they have diverged into two varieties the cross-breeds between the two are more fertile than either pure stock--yet when they have diverged only one degree more the whole tendency is reversed, and the mongrel is sterile, either absolutely or relatively. He who explains the genesis of species through purely natural agencies should assign a natural cause for this remarkable result; and this Mr. Darwin has not done. Whether original or derived, however, this arrangement to keep apart those forms which have, or have acquired (as the case may be), a certain moderate amount of difference, looks to us as much designed for the purpose, as does a rachet to prevent reverse motion in a wheel. If species have originated by divergence, this keeps them apart. Here let us suggest a possibly attainable test of the theory of derivation, a kind of instance which Mr. Darwin may be fairly asked to produce--viz., an instance of two varieties, or what may be assumed as such, which have diverged enough to reverse the movement, to bring out some sterility in the crosses. The best marked human races might offer the most likely case. If mulattoes are sterile or tend to sterility, as some naturalists confidently assert, they afford Mr. Darwin a case in point. If, as others think, no such tendency is made out, the required evidence is wanting. A fourth and the most formidable difficulty is that of the production and specialization of organs. It is well said that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws: unity of type, and adaptation to the conditions of existence.[I-12] The special teleologists, such as Paley, occupy themselves with the latter only; they refer particular facts to special design, but leave an overwhelming array of the widest facts inexplicable. The morphologists build on unity of type, or that fundamental agreement in the structure of each great class of beings which is quite independent of their habits or conditions of life; which requires each individual "to go through a certain formality," and to accept, at least for a time, certain organs, whether they are of any use to him or not. Philosophical minds form various conceptions for harmonizing the two views theoretically. Mr. Darwin harmonizes and explains them naturally. Adaptation to the conditions of existence is the result of natural selection; unity of type, of unity of descent. Accordingly, as he puts his theory, he is bound to account for the origination of new organs, and for their diversity in each great type, for their specialization, and every adaptation of organ to function and of structure to condition, through natural agencies. Whenever he attempts this he reminds us of Lamarck, and shows us how little light the science of a century devoted to structural investigation has thrown upon the mystery of organization. Here purely natural explanations fail. The organs being given, natural selection may account for some improvement; if given of a variety of sorts or grades, natural selection might determine which should survive and where it should prevail. On all this ground the only line for the theory to take is to make the most of gradation and adherence to type as suggestive of derivation, and unaccountable upon any other scientific view--deferring all attempts to explain how such a metamorphosis was effected, until naturalists have explained how the tadpole is metamorphosed into a frog, or one sort of polyp into another. As to why it is so, the philosophy of efficient cause, and even the whole argument from design, would stand, upon the admission of such a theory of derivation, precisely where they stand without it. At least there is, or need be, no ground of difference here between Darwin and Agassiz. The latter will admit, with Owen and every morphologist, that hopeless is the attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes. "On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is, that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant." Mr. Darwin, in proposing a theory which suggests a how that harmonizes these facts into a system, we trust implies that all was done wisely, in the largest sense designedly, and by an intelligent first cause. The contemplation of the subject on the intellectual side, the amplest exposition of the unity of plan in creation, considered irrespective of natural agencies, leads to no other conclusion. We are thus, at last, brought to the question, What would happen if the derivation of species were to be substantiated, either as a true physical theory, or as a sufficient hypothesis? What would come of it? The inquiry is a pertinent one, just now. For, of those who agree with us in thinking that Darwin has not established his theory of derivation many will admit with us that he has rendered a theory of derivation much less improbable than before; that such a theory chimes in with the established doctrines of physical science, and is not unlikely to be largely accepted long before it can be proved. Moreover, the various notions that prevail--equally among the most and the least religious--as to the relations between natural agencies or phenomena and efficient cause, are seemingly more crude, obscure, and discordant, than they need be. It is not surprising that the doctrine of the book should be denounced as atheistical. What does surprise and concern us is, that it should be so denounced by a scientific man, on the broad assumption that a material connection between the members of a series of organized beings is inconsistent with the idea of their being intellectually connected with one another through the Deity, i.e., as products of one mind, as indicating and realizing a preconceived plan. An assumption the rebound of which is somewhat fearful to contemplate, but fortunately one which every natural birth protests against. It would be more correct to say that the theory in itself is perfectly compatible with an atheistic view of the universe. That is true; but it is equally true of physical theories generally. Indeed, it is more true of the theory of gravitation, and of the nebular hypothesis, than of the hypothesis in question. The latter merely takes up a particular, proximate cause, or set of such causes, from which, it is argued, the present diversity of species has or may have contingently resulted. The author does not say necessarily resulted; that the actual results in mode and measure, and none other, must have taken place. On the other hand, the theory of gravitation and its extension in the nebular hypothesis assume a universal and ultimate physical cause, from which the effects in Nature must necessarily have resulted. Now, it is not thought, at least at the present day, that the establishment of the Newtonian theory was a step toward atheism or pantheism. Yet the great achievement of Newton consisted in proving that certain forces (blind forces, so far as the theory is concerned), acting upon matter in certain directions, must necessarily produce planetary orbits of the exact measure and form in which observation shows them to exist--a view which is just as consistent with eternal necessity, either in the atheistic or the pantheistic form, as it is with theism. Nor is the theory of derivation particularly exposed to the charge of the atheism of fortuity; since it undertakes to assign real causes for harmonious and systematic results. But, of this, a word at the close. The value of such objections to the theory of derivation may be tested by one or two analogous cases. The common scientific as well as popular belief is that of the original, independent creation of oxygen and hydrogen, iron, gold, and the like. Is the speculative opinion now increasingly held, that some or all of the supposed elementary bodies are derivative or compound, developed from some preceding forms of matter, irreligious? Were the old alchemists atheists as well as dreamers in their attempts to transmute earth into gold? Or, to take an instance from force (power)--which stands one step nearer to efficient cause than form--was the attempt to prove that heat, light, electricity, magnetism, and even mechanical power, are variations or transmutations of one force, atheistical in its tendency? The supposed establishment of this view is reckoned as one of the greatest scientific triumphs of this century. Perhaps, however, the objection is brought, not so much against the speculation itself, as against the attempt to show how derivation might have been brought about. Then the same objection applies to a recent ingenious hypothesis made to account for the genesis of the chemical elements out of the ethereal medium, and to explain their several atomic weights and some other characteristics by their successive complexity--hydrogen consisting of so many atoms of ethereal substance united in a particular order, and so on. The speculation interested the philosophers of the British Association, and was thought innocent, but unsupported by facts. Surely Mr. Darwin's theory is none the worse, morally, for having some foundation in fact. In our opinion, then, it is far easier to vindicate a theistic character for the derivative theory, than to establish the theory itself upon adequate scientific evidence. Perhaps scarcely any philosophical objection can be urged against the former to which the nebular hypothesis is not equally exposed. Yet the nebular hypothesis finds general scientific acceptance, and is adopted as the basis of an extended and recondite illustration in Mr. Agassiz's great work.[I-13] How the author of this book harmonizes his scientific theory with his philosophy and theology, he has not informed us. Paley in his celebrated analogy with the watch, insists that if the timepiece were so constructed as to produce other similar watches, after a manner of generation in animals, the argument from design would be all the stronger. What is to hinder Mr. Darwin from giving Paley's argument a further a-fortiori extension to the supposed case of a watch which sometimes produces better watches, and contrivances adapted to successive conditions, and so at length turns out a chronometer, a town clock, or a series of organisms of the same type? From certain incidental expressions at the close of the volume, taken in connection with the motto adopted from Whewell, we judge it probable that our author regards the whole system of Nature as one which had received at its first formation the impress of the will of its Author, foreseeing the varied yet necessary laws of its action throughout the whole of its existence, ordaining when and bow each particular of the stupendous plan should be realized in effect, and--with Him to whom to will is to do--in ordaining doing it, Whether profoundly philosophical or not, a view maintained by eminent philosophical physicists and theologians, such as Babbage on the one hand and Jowett on the other, will hardly be denounced as atheism. Perhaps Mr. Darwin would prefer to express his idea in a more general way, by adopting the thoughtful words of one of the most eminent naturalists of this or any age, substituting the word action for "thought," since it is the former (from which alone the latter can be inferred) that he has been considering. "Taking Nature as exhibiting thought for my guide, it appears to me that while human thought is consecutive, Divine thought is simultaneous, embracing at the same time and forever, in the past, the present and the future, the most diversified relations among hundreds of thousands of organized beings, each of which may present complications again, which to study and understand even imperfectly--as for instance man himself-- mankind has already spent thousands of years."[I-14] In thus conceiving of the Divine Power in act as coetaneous with Divine Thought, and of both as far as may be apart from the human element of time, our author may regard the intervention of the Creator either as, humanly speaking, done from all time, or else as doing through all time. In the ultimate analysis we suppose that every philosophical theist must adopt one or the other conception. A perversion of the first view leads toward atheism, the notion of an eternal sequence of cause and effect, for which there is no first cause--a view which few sane persons can long rest in. The danger which may threaten the second view is pantheism. We feel safe from either error, in our profound conviction that there is order in the universe; that order presupposes mind; design, will; and mind or will, personality. Thus guarded, we much prefer the second of the two conceptions of causation, as the more philosophical as well as Christian view--a view which leaves us with the same difficulties and the same mysteries in Nature as in Providence, and no other. Natural law, upon this view, is the human conception of continued and orderly Divine action. We do not suppose that less power, or other power, is required to sustain the universe and carry on its operations, than to bring it into being. So, while conceiving no improbability of "interventions of Creative mind in Nature," if by such is meant the bringing to pass of new and fitting events at fitting times, we leave it for profounder minds to establish, if they can, a rational distinction in kind between his working in Nature carrying on operations, and in initiating those operations. We wished, under the light of such views, to examine more critically the doctrine of this book, especially of some questionable parts; for instance, its explanation of the natural development of organs, and its implication of a "necessary acquirement of mental power" in the ascending scale of gradation. But there is room only for the general declaration that we cannot think the Cosmos a series which began with chaos and ends with mind, or of which mind is a result: that, if, by the successive origination of species and organs through natural agencies, the author means a series of events which succeed each other irrespective of a continued directing intelligence--events which mind does not order and shape to destined ends--then he has not established that doctrine, nor advanced toward its establishment, but has accumulated improbabilities beyond all belief. Take the formation and the origination of the successive degrees of complexity of eyes as a specimen. The treatment of this subject (pp. i88, 189), upon one interpretation, is open to all the objections referred to; but, if, on the other hand, we may rightly compare the eye "to a telescope, perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects," we could carry out the analogy, and draw satisfactory illustrations and inferences from it. The essential, the directly intellectual thing is the making of the improvements in the telescope or the steam-engine. Whether the successive improvements, being small at each step, and consistent with the general type of the instrument, are applied to some of the individual machines, or entire new machines are constructed for each, is a minor matter. Though, if machines could engender, the adaptive method would be most economical; and economy is said to be a paramount law in Nature. The origination of the improvements, and the successive adaptations to meet new conditions or subserve other ends, are what answer to the supernatural, and therefore remain inexplicable. As to bringing them into use, though wisdom foresees the result, the circumstances and the natural competition will take care of that, in the long-run. The old ones will go out of use fast enough, except where an old and simple machine remains still best adapted to a particular purpose or condition--as, for instance, the old Newcomen engine for pumping out coal-pits. If there's a Divinity that shapes these ends, the whole is intelligible and reasonable; otherwise, not. We regret that the necessity of discussing philosophical questions has prevented a fuller examination of the theory itself, and of the interesting scientific points which are brought to bear in its favor. One of its neatest points, certainly a very strong one for the local origination of species, and their gradual diffusion under natural agencies, we must reserve for some other convenient opportunity. The work is a scientific one, rigidly restricted to its direct object; and by its science it must stand or fall. Its aim is, probably, not to deny creative intervention in Nature--for the admission of the independent origination of certain types does away with all antecedent improbability of as much intervention as may be required--but to maintain that Natural Selection, in explaining the facts, explains also many classes of facts which thousand-fold repeated independent acts of creation do not explain, but leave more mysterious than ever. How far the author has succeeded, the scientific world will in due time be able to pronounce. As these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the second edition has reached us. We notice with pleasure the insertion of an additional motto on the reverse of the title page, directly claiming the theistic view which we have vindicated for the doctrine. Indeed, these pertinent words of the eminently wise Bishop Butler comprise, in their simplest expression, the whole substance of our later pages: "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent mind to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." II DESIGN VERSUS NECESSITY DISCUSSION BETWEEN TWO READERS OF DARWIN'S TREATISE ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, UPON ITS NATURAL THEOLOGY (American Journal of Science and Arts, September, 1860) D.T.--Is Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? or, does it tend to atheism or pantheism? Before attempting any solution of this question, permit me to say a few words tending to obtain a definite conception of necessity and design, as the sources from which events may originate, each independent of the other; and we shall, perhaps, best attain a clear understanding of each, by the illustration of an example in which simple human designers act upon the physical powers of common matter. Suppose, then, a square billiard-table to be placed with its corners directed to the four cardinal points. Suppose a player, standing at the north corner, to strike a red ball directly to the south, his design being to lodge the ball in the south pocket; which design, if not interfered with, must, of course be accomplished. Then suppose another player, standing at the east corner, to direct a white ball to the west corner. This design also, if not interfered with, must be accomplished. Next suppose both players to strike their balls at the same instant, with like forces, in the directions before given. In this case the balls would not pass as before, namely, the red ball to the south, and the white ball to the west, but they must both meet and strike each other in the centre of the table, and, being perfectly elastic, the red ball must pass to the west pocket, and the white ball to the south pocket. We may suppose that the players acted wholly without concert with each other, indeed, they may be ignorant of each other' s design, or even of each other's existence; still we know that the events must happen as herein described. Now, the first half of the course of these two balls is from an impulse, or proceeds from a power, acting from design. Each player has the design of driving his ball across the table in a diagonal line to accomplish its lodgment at the opposite corner of the table. Neither designed that his ball should be deflected from that course and pass to another corner of the table. The direction of this second part of the motion must be referred entirely to necessity, which directly interferes with the purpose of him who designed the rectilinear direction. We are not, in this case, to go back to find design in the creation of the powers or laws of inertia and elasticity, after the order of which the deflection, at the instant of collision, necessarily takes place. We know that these powers were inherent in the balls, and were not created to answer this special deflection. We are required, by the hypothesis, to confine attention in point of time, from the instant preceding the impact of the balls, to the time of their arrival at the opposite corners of the table. The cues aremoved by design. The impacts are acts from design. The first half of the motion of each ball is under the direction of design. We mean by this the particular design of each player. But, at the instant of the collision of the balls upon each other, direction from design ceases, and the balls no longer obey the particular designs of the players, the ends or purposes intended by them are not accomplished, but frustrated, by necessity, or by the necessary action of the powers of inertia and elasticity, which are inherent in matter, and are not made by any design of a Creator for this special action, or to serve this special purpose, but would have existed in the materials of which the balls were made, although the players had never been born. I have thus stated, by a simple example in physical action, what is meant by design and what by necessity; and that the latter may exist without any dependence upon the former. If I have given the statement with what may be thought, by some, unnecessary prolixity, I have only to say that I have found many minds to have a great difficulty in conceiving of necessity as acting altogether independent of design. Let me now trace these principles as sources of action in Darwin's work or theory. Let us see how much there is of design acting to produce a foreseen end, and thus proving a reasoning and self-conscious Creator; and how much of mere blind power acting without rational design, or without a specific purpose or conscious foresight. Mr. Darwin has specified in a most clear and unmistakable manner the operation of his three great powers, or rather, the three great laws by which the organic power of life acts in the formation of an eye. (See p. 169.) Following the method he has pointed out, we will take a number of animals of the same species, in which the eye is not developed. They may have all the other senses, with the organs of nutrition, circulation, respiration, and locomotion. They all have a brain and nerves, and some of these nerves may be sensitive to light; but have no combination of retina, membranes, humors, etc., by which the distinct image of an object may be formed and conveyed by the optic nerve to the cognizance of the internal perception, or the mind. The animal in this case would be merely sensible of the difference between light and darkness. He would have no power of discriminating form, size, shape, or color, the difference of objects, and to gain from these a knowledge of their being useful or hurtful, friends or enemies. Up to this point there is no appearance of necessity upon the scene. The billiard-balls have not yet struck together, and we will suppose that none of the arguments that may be used to prove, from this organism, thus existing, that it could not have come into form and being without a creator acting to this end with intelligence and design, are opposed by anything that can be found in Darwin's theory; for, so far, Darwin's laws are supposed not to have come into operation. Give the animals, thus organized, food and room, and they may go on, from generation to generation, upon the same organic level. Those individuals that, from natural variation, are born with light-nerves a little more sensitive to light than their parents, will cross or interbreed with those who have the same organs a little less sensitive, and thus the mean standard will be kept up without any advancement. If our billiard-table were sufficiently extensive, i. e., infinite, the balls rolled from the corners would never meet, and the necessity which we have supposed to deflect them would never act. The moment, however, that the want of space or food commences natural selection begins. Here the balls meet, and all future action is governed by necessity. The best forms, or those nerves most sensitive to light, connected with incipient membranes and humors for corneas and lenses, are picked out and preserved by natural selection, of necessity. All cannot live and propagate, and it is a necessity, obvious to all, that the weaker must perish, if the theory be true. Working on, in this way, through countless generations, the eye is at last 55 formed in all its beauty and excellence. It must (always assuming that this theory is true) result from this combined action of natural variation, the struggle for life, and natural selection, with as much certainty as the balls, after collision, must pass to corners of the table different from those to which they were directed, and so far forth as the eye is formed by these laws, acting upward from the nerve merely sensitive to light, we can no more infer design, and from design a designer, than we can infer design in the direction of the billiard-balls after the collision. Both are sufficiently accounted for by blind powers acting under a blind necessity. Take away the struggle for life from the one, and the collision of the balls from the other--and neither of these was designed--and the animal would have gone on without eyes. The balls would have found the corners of the table to which they were first directed. While, therefore, it seems to me clear that one who can find no proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator except through the evidence of design in the organic world, can find no evidence of such design in the construction of the eye, if it were constructed under the operation of Darwin's laws, I shall not for one moment contend that these laws are incompatible with design and a self-conscious, intelligent Creator. Such design might, indeed, have coexisted with the necessity or natural selection; and so the billiard-players might have �designed the collision of their balls; but neither the formation of the eye, nor the path of the balls after collision, furnishes any sufficient proof of such design in either case. One, indeed, who believes, from revelation or any other cause, in the existence of such a Creator, the fountain and Source of all things in heaven above and in the earth beneath, will see in natural variation, the struggle for life, and natural selection, only the order or mode in which this Creator, in his �own perfect wisdom, sees fit to act. Happy is he who can thus see and adore. But how many are there who have no such 56 belief from intuition, or faith in revelation; but who have by careful and elaborate search in the physical, and more especially in the organic world, inferred, by induction, the existence of God from what has seemed to them the wonderful adaptation of the different organs and parts of the animal body to its, apparently, designed ends! Imagine a mind of this skeptical character, in all honesty and under its best reason, after finding itself obliged to reject the evidence of revelation, to commence a search after the Creator, in the light of natural theology. He goes through the proof for final cause and design, as given in a summary though clear, plain, and convincing form, in the pages of Paley and the "Bridgewater Treatises." The eye and the hand, those perfect instruments of optical and mechanical contrivance and adaptation, without the least waste or surplusage--these, say Paley and Bell, certainly prove a designing maker as much as the palace or the watch proves an architect or a watchmaker. Let this mind, in this state, cross Darwin's work, and find that, after a sensitive nerve or a rudimentary hoof or claw, no design is to be found. From this point upward the development is the mere necessary result of natural selection; and let him receive this law of natural selection as true, and where does he find himself? Before, he could refer the existence of the eye, for example, only to design, or chance. There was no other alternative. He rejected chance, as impossible. It must then be a design. But Darwin brings up another power, namely, natural selection, in place of this impossible chance. This not only may, but, according to Darwin, must of necessity produce an eye. It may indeed coexist with design, but it must exist and act and produce its results, even without design. Will such a mind, under such circumstances, infer the existence of the designer--God--when he can, at the same time, satisfactorily account for the thing produced, by the operation of this natural selection? It seems to me, therefore, perfectly evident 57 that the substitution of natural selection, by necessity, for design in the formation of the organic world, is a step decidedly atheistical. It is in vain to say that Darwin takes the creation of organic life, in its simplest forms, to have been the work of the Deity. In giving up design in these highest and most complex forms of organization, which have always been relied upon as the crowning proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator, without whose intellectual power they could not have been brought into being, he takes a most decided step to banish a belief in the intelligent action of God from the organic world. The lower organisms will go next. The atheist will say, Wait a little. Some future Darwin will show how the simple forms came necessarily from inorganic matter. This is but another step by which, according to Laplace, "the discoveries of science throw final causes further back." A.G.--It is conceded that, if the two players in the supposed case were ignorant of each other's presence, the designs of both were frustrated, and from necessity. Thus far it is not needful to inquire whether this necessary consequence is an unconditional or a conditioned necessity, nor to require a more definite statement of the meaning attached to the word necessity as a supposed third alternative. But, if the players knew of each other's presence, we could not infer from the result that the design of both or of either was frustrated. One of them may have intended to frustrate the other's design, and to effect his own. Or both may have been equally conversant with the properties of the matter and the relation of the forces concerned (whatever the cause, origin, or nature, of these forces and properties), and the result may have been according to the designs of both. As you admit that they might or might not have designed the collision of their balls and its consequences the question arises whether there is any way of ascertaining which of the two conceptions we may form about it is the true one. Now, let it be remarked that design can never be demonstrated. Witnessing the act does not make known the design, as we have seen in the case assumed for the basis of the argument. The word of the actor is not proof; and that source of evidence is excluded from the cases in question. The only way left, and the only possible way in cases where testimony is out of the question, is to infer the design from the result, or from arrangements which strike us as adapted or intended to produce a certain result, which affords a presumption of design. The strength of this presumption may be zero, or an even chance, as perhaps it is in the assumed case; but the probability of design will increase with the particularity of the act, the specialty of the arrangement or machinery, and with the number of identical or yet more of similar and analogous instances, until it rises to a moral certainty--i. e., to a conviction which practically we are as unable to resist as we are to deny the cogency of a mathematical demonstration. A single instance, or set of instances, of a comparatively simple arrangement might suffice. For instance, we should not doubt that a pump was designed to raise water by the moving of the handle. Of course, the conviction is the stronger, or at least the sooner arrived at, where we can imitate the arrangement, and ourselves produce the result at will, as we could with a pump, and also with the billiard-balls. And here I would suggest that your billiard-table, with the case of collision, answers well to a machine. In both a result is produced by indirection--by applying a force out of line of the ultimate direction. And, as I should feel as confident that a man intended to raise water who was working a pumphandle, as if he were bringing it up in pailfuls from below by means of a ladder, so, after due examination of the billiard-table and its appurtenances, I should probably think it likely that the effect of the rebound was expected and intended no less than that of the immediate impulse. And a similar inspection of arrangements and results in Nature would raise at least an equal presumption of design. You allow that the rebound might have been intended, but you require proof that it was. We agree that a single such instance affords no evidence either way. But how would it be if you saw the men doing the same thing over and over? and if they varied it by other arrangements of the balls or of the blow, and these were followed by analogous results? How if you at length discovered a profitable end of the operation, say the winning of a wager? So in the counterpart case of natural selection: must we not infer intention from the arrangements and the results? But I will take another case of the very same sort, though simpler, and better adapted to illustrate natural selection; because the change of direction--your necessity--acts gradually or successively, instead of abruptly. Suppose I hit a man standing obliquely in my rear, by throwing forward a crooked stick, called a boomerang. How could he know whether the blow was intentional or not? But suppose I had been known to throw boomerangs before; suppose that, on different occasions, I had before wounded persons by the same, or other indirect and apparently aimless actions; and suppose that an object appeared to be gained in the result--that definite ends were attained--would it not at length be inferred that my assault, though indirect, or apparently indirect, was designed? To make the case more nearly parallel with those it is brought to illustrate, you have only to suppose that, although the boomerang thrown by me went forward to a definite place, and at least appeared to subserve a purpose, and the bystanders, after a while, could get traces of the mode or the empirical law of its flight, yet they could not themselves do anything with it. It was quite beyond their power to use it. Would they doubt, or deny my intention, on that account? No: they would insist that design on my part must be presumed from the nature of the results; that, though design may have been wanting in any one case, yet the repetition of the result, and from different positions and under varied circumstances, showed that there must have been design. Moreover, in the way your case is stated, it seems to concede the most important half of the question, and so affords a presumption for the rest, on the side of design. For you seem to assume an actor, a designer, accomplishing his design in the first instance. You--a bystander--infer that the player effected his design in sending the first ball to the pocket before him. You infer this from observation alone. Must you not from a continuance of the same observation equally infer a common design of the two players in the complex result, or a design of one of them to frustrate the design of the other? If you grant a designing actor, the presumption of design is as strong, or upon continued observation of instances soon becomes as strong, in regard to the deflection of the balls, or variation of the species, as it was for the result of the first impulse or for the production of the original animal, etc. But, in the case to be illustrated, we do not see the player. We see only the movement of the balls. Now, if the contrivances and adaptations referred to really do "prove a designer as much as the palace or the watch proves an architect or a watchmaker"--as Paley and Bell argue, and as your skeptic admits, while the alternative is between design and chance--then they prove it with all the proof the case is susceptible of, and with complete conviction. For we cannot doubt that the watch had a watchmaker. And if they prove it on the supposition that the unseen operator acted immediately--i.e., that the player directly impelled the balls in the directions we see them moving, I insist that this proof is not impaired by our ascertaining that he acted mediately--i.e., that the present state or form of the plants or animals, like the present position of the billiard-balls, resulted from the collision of the individuals with one another, or with the surroundings. The original impulse, which we once supposed was in the line of the observed movement, only proves to have been in a different direction; but the series of movements took place with a series of results, each and all of them none the less determined, none the less designed. Wherefore, when, at the close, you quote Laplace, that "the discoveries of science throw final causes farther back," the most you can mean is, that they constrain us to look farther back for the impulse. They do not at all throw the argument for design farther back, in the sense of furnishing evidence or presumption that only the primary impulse was designed, and that all the rest followed from chance or necessity. Evidence of design, I think you will allow, everywhere is drawn from the observation of adaptations and of results, and has really nothing to do with anything else, except where you can take the word for the will. And in that case you have not argument for design, but testimony. In Nature we have no testimony; but the argument is overwhelming. Now, note that the argument of the olden time--that of Paley, etc., which your skeptic found so convincing--was always the argument for design in the movement of the balls after deflection. For it was drawn from animals produced by generation, not by creation, and through a long succession of generations or deflections. Wherefore, if the argument for design is perfect in the case of an animal derived from a long succession of individuals as nearly alike as offspring is generally like parents and grandparents, and if this argument is not weakened when a variation, or series of variations, has occurred in the course, as great as any variations we know of among domestic cattle, how then is it weakened by the supposition, or by the likelihood, that the variations have been twice or thrice as great as we formerly supposed, or because the variations have been "picked out," and a few of them pre served as breeders of still other variations, by natural selection? Finally let it be noted that your element of necessity has to do, so far as we know, only with the picking out and preserving of certain changing forms, i. e., with the natural selection. This selection, you may say, must happen under the circumstances. This is a necessary result of the collision of the balls; and these results can be predicted. If the balls strike so and so, they will be deflected so and so. But the variation itself is of the nature of an origination. It answers well to the original impulse of the balls, or to a series of such impulses. We cannot predict what particular new variation will occur from any observation of the past. Just as the first impulse was given to the balls at a point out of sight, so the impulse which resulted in the variety or new form was given at a point beyond observation, and is equally mysterious or unaccountable, except on the supposition of an ordaining will. The parent had not the peculiarity of the variety, the progeny has. Between the two is the dim or obscure region of the formation of a new individual, in some unknown part of which, and in some wholly unknown way, the difference is intercalated. To introduce necessity here is gratuitous and unscientific; but here you must have it to make your argument valid. I agree that, judging from the past, it is not improbable that variation itself may be hereafter shown to result from physical causes. When it is so shown, you may extend your necessity into this region, but not till then. But the whole course of scientific discovery goes to assure us that the discovery of the cause of variation will be only a resolution of variation into two factors: one, the immediate secondary cause of the changes, which so far explains them; the other an unresolved or unexplained phenomenon, which will then stand just where the product, variation, stands now, only that it will be one step nearer to the efficient cause. This line of argument appears to me so convincing, that I am bound to suppose that it does not meet your case. Although you introduced players to illustrate what design is, it is probable that you did not intend, and would not accept, the parallel which your supposed case suggested. When you declare that the proof of design in the eye and the hand, as given by Paley and Bell, was convincing, you mean, of course, that it was convincing, so long as the question was between design and chance, but that now another alternative is offered, one which obviates the force of those arguments, and may account for the actual results without design. I do not clearly apprehend this third alternative. Will you be so good, then, as to state the grounds upon which you conclude that the supposed proof of design from the eye, or the hand, as it stood before Darwin's theory was promulgated, would be invalidated by the admission of this new theory? D.T.--As I have ever found you, in controversy, meeting the array of your opponent fairly and directly, without any attempt to strike the body of his argument through an unguarded joint in the phraseology, I was somewhat surprised at the course taken in your answer to my statement on Darwin's theory. You there seem to suppose that I instanced the action of the billiard balls and players as a parallel, throughout, to the formation of the organic world. Had it occurred to me that such an application might be supposed to follow legitimately from my introduction of this action, I should certainly have stated that I did not intend, and should by no means accede to, that construction. My purpose in bringing the billiard-table upon the scene was to illustrate, by example, design and necessity, as different and independent sources from which results, it might indeed be identical results, may be derived All the conclusions, therefore, that you have arrived at through this misconception or misapplication of my illustration, I cannot take as an answer to the matter stated or intended to be stated by me. Again, following this misconception, you suppose the skeptic (instanced by me as revealing through the evidence of design, exhibited in the structure of the eye, for its designer, God) as bringing to the examination a belief in the existence of design in the construction of the animals as they existed up to the moment when the eye was, according to my supposition, added to the heart, stomach, brain, etc. By skeptic I, of course, intended one who doubted the existence of design in every organic structure, or at least required proof of such design. Now, as the watch may be instanced as a more complete exhibition of design than a flint knife or an hour-glass, I selected, after the example of Paley, the eye, as exhibiting by its complex but harmonious arrangements a higher evidence of design and a designer than is to be found in a nerve sensitive to light, or any mere rudimentary part or organ. I could not mean by skeptic one who believed in design so far as a claw, or a nerve sensitive to light, was concerned, but doubted all above. For one who believes in design at all will not fail to recognize it in a hand or an eye. But I need not extend these remarks, as you acknowledge in the sequel to your argument that you may not have suited it to the case as I have stated it. You now request me to "state the grounds upon which I conclude that the supposed proof of design from the eye and the hand, as it stood before Darwin's theory was promulgated, is invalidated by the admission of that theory." It seems to me that a sufficient answer to this question has already been made in the last part of my former paper; but, as you request it, I will go over the leading points as there given, with more minuteness of detail. Let us, then, suppose a skeptic, one who is yet considering and doubting of the existence of God, having already concluded that the testimony from any and all revelation is insufficient, and having rejected what is called the a priori arguments brought forward in natural theology, and pertinaciously insisted upon by Dr. Clark and others, turning as a last resource to the argument from design in the organic world. Voltaire tells him that a palace could not exist without an architect to design it. Dr. Paley tells him that a watch proves the design of a watchmaker. He thinks this very reasonable, and, although he sees a difference between the works of Nature and those of mere human art, yet if he can find in any organic body, or part of a body, the same adaptation to its use that he finds in a watch, this truth will go very far toward proving, if it is not entirely conclusive, that, in making it, the powers of life by which it grew were directed by an intelligent, reasoning master. Under the guidance of Paley he takes an eye, which, although an optical, and not a mechanical instrument like the watch, is as well adapted to testify to design. He sees, first, that the eye is transparent when every other part of the body is opaque. Was this the result of a mere Epicurean or Lucretian "fortuitous concourse" of living "atoms"? He is not yet certain it might not be so. Next he sees that it is spherical, and that this convex form alone is capable of changing the direction of the light which proceeds from a distant body, and of collecting it so as to form a distinct image within its globe. Next he sees at the exact place where this image must be formed a curtain of nerve-work, ready to receive and convey it, or excite from it, in its own mysterious way, an idea of it in the mind. Last of all, he comes to the crystalline lens. Now, he has before learned that without this lens an eye would by the aqueous and Vitreous humors alone form an image upon the retina, but this image would be indistinct from the light not being sufficiently refracted, and likewise from having a colored fringe round its edges. This last effect is attributable to the refrangibility of light, that is, to some of the colors being more refracted than others. He likewise knows that more than a hundred years ago Mr. Dollond having found out, after many experiments, that some kinds of glass have the power of dispersing light, for each degree of its refraction, much more than other kinds, and that on the discovery of this fact he contrived to make telescopes in which he passed the light through two object-glasses successively, one of which he made of crown and one of flint glass, so ground and adapted to each other that the greater dispersion produced by the substance of one should be corrected by the smaller dispersion of the other. This contrivance corrected entirely the colored images which had rendered all previous telescopes very imperfect. He finds in this invention all the elements of design, as it appeared in the thought and action of a human designer. First, conjecture of certain laws or facts in optics. Then, experiment proving these laws or facts. Then, the contrivance and formation of an instrument by which those laws or facts must produce a certain sought result. Thus enlightened, our skeptic turns to his crystalline lens to see if he can discover the work of a Dollond in this. Here he finds that an eye, having a crystalline lens placed between the humors, not only refracts the light more than it would be refracted by the humors alone, but that, in this combination of humors and lens, the colors are as completely corrected as in the combination of Dollond's telescope. Can it be that there was no design, no designer, directing the powers of life in the formation of this wonderful organ? Our skeptic is aware that, in the arts of man, great aid has been, sometimes, given by chance, that is, by the artist or workman observing some fortuitous combination, form, or action, around him. He has heard it said that the chance arrangement of two pairs of spectacles, in the shop of a Dutch optician, gave the direction 67 for constructing the first telescope. Possibly, in time, say a few geological ages, it might in some optician's shop have brought about a combination of flint and crown glass which, together, should have been achromatic. But the space between the humors of the eye is not an optician' s shop where object-glasses of all kinds, shapes, and sizes, are placed by chance, in all manner of relations and positions. On the hypothesis under which our skeptic is making his examination--the eye having been completed in all but the formation of the lens--the place which the lens occupies when completed was filled with parts of the humors and plane membrane, homogeneous in texture and surface, presenting, therefore, neither the variety of the materials nor forms which are contained in the optician's shop for chance to make its combinations with. How, then, could it be cast of a combination not before used, and fashioned to a shape different from that before known, and placed in exact combination with all the parts before enumerated, with many others not even mentioned? He sees no parallelism of condition, then, by which chance could act in forming a crystalline lens, which answers to the condition of an optician's shop, where it might be possible in many ages for chance to combine existing forms into an achromatic object-glass. Considering, therefore, the eye thus completed and placed in its bony case and provided with its muscles, its lids, its tear-ducts, and all its other elaborate and curious appendages, and, a thousand times more wonderful still, without being encumbered with a single superfluous or useless part, can he say that this could be the work of chance? The improbability of this is so great, and consequently the evidence of design is so strong, that he is about to seal his verdict in favor of design, when he opens Mr. Darwin's book. There he finds that an eye is no more than a vital aggregation or growth, directed, not by design nor chance, but moulded by natural variation and natural selection, through which it must, necessarily, have been developed and formed. Particles or atoms being aggregated by the blind powers of life, must become under the given conditions, by natural variation and natural selection, eyes, without design, as certainly as the red billiard-ball went to the west pocket, by the powers of inertia and elasticity, without the design of the hand that put it in motion. (See Darwin, p. 169.) Let us lay before our skeptic the way in which we may suppose that Darwin would trace the operation of life, or the vital force conforming to these laws. In doing this we need not go through with the formation of the several membranes, humors, etc., but take the crystalline lens as the most curious and nicely arranged and adapted of all the parts, and as giving, moreover, a close parallel, in the end produced, to that produced by design, by a human designer, Dollond, in forming his achromatic object-glass. If it can be shown that natural variation and natural selection were capable of forming the crystalline lens, it will not be denied that they were capable of forming the iris, the sclerotica, the aqueous humors, or any and all the other parts. Suppose, then, that we have a number of animals, with eyes yet wanting the crystalline. In this state the animals can see, but dimly and imperfectly, as a man sees after having been couched. Some of the offspring of these animals have, by natural variation, merely a portion of the membrane which separates the aqueous from the vitreous humor a little thickened in its middle part, a little swelled out. This refracts the light a little more than it would be refracted by a membrane in which no such swelling existed, and not only so, but, in combination with the humors, it corrects the errors of dispersion and makes the image somewhat more colorless. All the young animals that have this swelled membrane see more distinctly than their parents or brethren. They, therefore, have an advantage over them in the struggle for life. They can obtain food more easily; can find their prey, and escape from their enemies with greater facility than their kindred. This thickening and rounding of the membrane goes on from generation to generation by natural variation; natural selection all the while "picking out with unerring skill all the improvements, through countless generations," until at length it is found that the membrane has become a perfect crystalline lens. Now, where is the design in all this? The membrane was not thickened and rounded to the end that the image should be more distinct and colorless; but, being thickened and rounded by the operation of natural variation, inherent in generation, natural selection of necessity produced the result that we have seen. The same result was thus produced of necessity, in the eye, that Dollond came at, in the telescope, with design, through painful guessing, reasoning, experimenting, and forming. Suppose our skeptic to believe in all this power of natural selection; will he now seal up his verdict for design, with the same confidence that he would before he heard of Darwin? If not, then "the supposed proof from design is invalidated by Darwin's theory." A.G.--Waiving incidental points and looking only to the gist of the question, I remark that the argument for design as against chance, in the formation of the eye, is most convincingly stated in your argument. Upon this and upon numerous similar arguments the whole question we are discussing turns. So, if the skeptic was about to seal his verdict in favor of design, and a designer, when Darwin's book appeared, why should his verdict now be changed or withheld? All the facts about the eye, which convinced him that the organ was designed, remain just as they were. His conviction was not produced through testimony or eyewitness, but design was irresistibly inferred from the evidence of contrivance in the eye itself. Now, if the eye as it is, or has become, so convincingly argued design why not each particular step or part of this result? If the production of a perfect crystalline lens in the eye--you know not how--as much indicated design as did the production of a Dollond achromatic lens--you understand how--then why does not "the swelling out" of a particular portion of the membrane behind the iris--caused you know not how--which, by "correcting the errors of dispersion and making the image somewhat more colorless," enabled the "young animals to see more distinctly than their parents or brethren," equally indicate design--if not as much as a perfect crystalline, or a Dollond compound lens, yet as much as a common spectacle-glass? Darwin only assures you that what you may have thought was done directly and at once was done indirectly and successively. But you freely admit that indirection and succession do not invalidate design, and also that Paley and all the natural theologians drew the arguments which convinced your skeptic wholly from eyes indirectly or naturally produced. Recall a woman of a past generation and show her a web of cloth; ask her how it was made, and she will say that the wool or cotton was carded, spun, and woven by hand. When you tell her it was not made by manual labor, that probably no hand has touched the materials throughout the process, it is possible that she might at first regard your statement as tantamount to the assertion that the cloth was made without design. If she did, she would not credit your statement. If you patiently explained to her the theory of carding-machines, spinning-jennies, and power-looms, would her reception of your explanation weaken her conviction that the cloth was the result of design? It is certain that she would believe in design as firmly as before, and that this belief would be attended by a higher conception and reverent admiration of a wisdom, skill, and power greatly beyond anything she had previously conceived possible. Wherefore, we may insist that, for all that yet appears, the argument for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as good now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before that theory was promulgated; and that the skeptical juryman, who was about to join the other eleven in a unanimous verdict in favor of design, finds no good excuse for keeping the court longer waiting.[II-1] III NATURAL SELECTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH NATURAL THEOLOGY (Atlantic Monthly for July, August, and October, 1860, reprinted in 1861) I Novelties are enticing to most people; to us they are simply annoying. We cling to a long-accepted theory, just as we cling to an old suit of clothes. A new theory, like a new pair of breeches (the Atlantic still affects the older type of nether garment), is sure to have hard-fitting places; or, even when no particular fault can be found with the article, it oppresses with a sense of general discomfort. New notions and new styles worry us, till we get well used to them, which is only by slow degrees. Wherefore, in Galileo's time, we might have helped to proscribe, or to burn--had he been stubborn enough to warrant cremation--even the great pioneer of inductive research; although, when we had fairly recovered our composure, and bad leisurely excogitated the matter, we might have come to conclude that the new doctrine was better than the old one, after all, at least for those who had nothing to unlearn. Such being our habitual state of mind, it may well be believed that the perusal of the new book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" left an uncomfortable impression, in spite of its plausible and winning ways. We were not wholly unprepared for it, as many of our contemporaries seem to have been. The scientific reading in which we indulge as a relaxation from severer studies had raised dim forebodings. Investigations about the succession of species in time, and their actual geographical distribution over the earth's surface, were leading up from all sides and in various ways to the question of their origin. Now and then we encountered a sentence, like Prof. Owen's "axiom of the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things," which haunted us like an apparition. For, dim as our conception must needs be as to what such oracular and grandiloquent phrases might really mean, we felt confident that they presaged no good to old beliefs. Foreseeing, yet deprecating, the coming time of trouble, we still hoped that, with some repairs and makeshifts, the old views might last out our days. Apres nous le deluge. Still, not to lag behind the rest of the world, we read the book in which the new theory is promulgated. We took it up, like our neighbors, and, as was natural, in a somewhat captious frame of mind. Well, we found no cause of quarrel with the first chapter. Here the author takes us directly to the barn-yard and the kitchen-garden. Like an honorable rural member of our General Court, who sat silent until, near the close of a long session, a bill requiring all swine at large to wear pokes was introduced, when he claimed the privilege of addressing the house, on the proper ground that he had been "brought up among the pigs, and knew all about them"--so we were brought up among cows and cabbages; and the lowing of cattle, the cackle of hens, and the cooing of pigeons, were sounds native and pleasant to our ears. So "Variation under Domestication" dealt with familiar subjects in a natural way, and gently introduced "Variation under Nature," which seemed likely enough. Then follows "Struggle for Existence"--a principle which we experimentally know to be true and cogent--bringing the comfortable assurance, that man, even upon Leviathan Hobbes's theory of society, is no worse than the rest of creation, since all Nature is at war, one species with another, and the nearer kindred the more internecine--bringing in thousandfold confirmation and extension of the Malthusian doctrine that population tends far to outrun means of subsistence throughout the animal and vegetable world, and has to be kept down by sharp preventive checks; so that not more than one of a hundred or a thousand of the individuals whose existence is so wonderfully and so sedulously provided for ever comes to anything, under ordinary circumstances; so the lucky and the strong must prevail, and the weaker and ill-favored must perish; and then follows, as naturally as one sheep follows another, the chapter on "Natural Selection," Darwin's cheval de bataille, which is very much the Napoleonic doctrine that Providence favors the strongest battalions--that, since many more individuals are born than can possibly survive, those individuals and those variations which possess any advantage, however slight, over the rest, are in the long-run sure to survive, to propagate, and to occupy the limited field, to the exclusion or destruction of the weaker brethren. All this we pondered, and could not much object to. In fact, we began to contract a liking for a system which at the outset illustrates the advantages of good breeding, and which makes the most "of every creature's best." Could we "let by-gones be by-gones," and, beginning now, go on improving and diversifying for the future by natural selection, could we even take up the theory at the introduction of the actually existing species, we should be well content; and so, perhaps, would most naturalists be. It is by no means difficult to believe that varieties are incipient or possible species, when we see what trouble naturalists, especially botanists, have to distinguish between them--one regarding as a true species what another regards as a variety; when the progress of knowledge continually increases, rather than diminishes, the number of doubtful instances; and when there is less agreement than ever among naturalists as to what is the basis in Nature upon which our idea of species reposes, or how the word is to be defined. Indeed, when we consider the endless disputes of naturalists and ethnologists over the human races, as to whether they belong to one species or to more, and, if to more, whether to three, or five, or fifty, we can �hardly help fancying that both may be right--or rather, that the uni-humanitarians would have been right many thousand years ago, and the multi-humanitarians will be several thousand years later; while at present the safe thing to say is, that probably there is some truth on both sides. "Natural selection," Darwin remarks, "leads to divergence of character; for the more living beings can be supported on the same area, the more they diverge in structure, habits, and constitution" (a principle which, by-the-way, is paralleled and illustrated by the diversification of human labor); and also leads to much extinction of intermediate or unimproved forms. Now, though this divergence may "steadily tend to increase," yet this is evidently a slow process in Nature, and liable to much counteraction wherever man does not interpose, and so not likely to work much harm for the future. And if natural selection, with artificial to help it, will produce better animals and better men than the present, and fit them better to the conditions of existence, why, let it work, say we, to the top of its bent There is still room enough for improvement. Only let us hope that it always works for good: if not, the divergent lines on Darwin's lithographic diagram of "Transmutation made Easy," ominously show what small deviations from the straight path may come to in the end. The prospect of the future, accordingly, is on the whole pleasant and encouraging. It is only the backward glance, the gaze up the long vista of the past, that reveals anything alarming. Here the lines converge as they recede into the geological ages, and point to conclusions which, upon the theory, are inevitable, but hardly welcome. The very first step backward makes the negro and the Hottentot our blood-relations--not that reason or Scripture objects to that, though pride may. The next suggests a closer association of our ancestors of the olden time with "our poor relations" of the quadrumanous family than we like to acknowledge. Fortunately, however--even if we must account for him scientifically --man with his two feet stands upon a foundation of his own. Intermediate links between the Bimana and the Quadrumana are lacking altogether; so that, put the genealogy of the brutes upon what footing you will, the four-handed races will not serve for our forerunners--at least, not until some monkey, live or fossil, is producible with great-toes, instead of thumbs, upon his nether extremities; or until some lucky geologist turns up the bones of his ancestor and prototype in France or England, who was so busy "napping the chuckie-stanes" and chipping out flint knives and arrow-heads in the time of the drift, very many ages ago--before the British Channel existed, says Lyell [III-1]--and until these men of the olden time are shown to have worn their great-toes in the divergent and thumblike fashion. That would be evidence indeed: but, until some testimony of the sort is produced, we must needs believe in the separate and special creation of man, however it may have been with the lower animals and with plants. No doubt, the full development and symmetry of Darwin's hypothesis strongly suggest the evolution of the human no less than the lower animal races out of some simple primordial animal--that all are equally "lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited." But, as the author speaks disrespectfully of spontaneous generation, and accepts a supernatural beginning of life on earth, in some form or forms of being which included potentially all that have since existed and are yet to be, he is thereby not warranted to extend his inferences beyond the evidence or the fair probability. There seems as great likelihood that one special origination should be followed by another upon fitting occasion (such as the introduction of man), as that one form should be transmuted into another upon fitting occasion, as, for instance, in the succession of species which differ from each other only in some details. To compare small things with great in a homely illustration: man alters from time to time his instruments or machines, as new circumstances or conditions may require and his wit suggest. Minor alterations and improvements he adds to the machine he possesses; he adapts a new rig or a new rudder to an old boat: this answers to Variation. "Like begets like," being the great rule in Nature, if boats could engender, the variations would doubtless be propagated, like those of domestic cattle. In course of time the old ones would be worn out or wrecked; the best sorts would be chosen for each particular use, and further improved upon; and so the primordial boat be developed into the scow, the skiff, the sloop, and other species of water-craft--the very diversification, as well as the successive improvements, entailing the disappearance of intermediate forms, less adapted to any one particular purpose; wherefore these go slowly out of use, and become extinct species: this is Natural Selection. Now, let a great and important advance be made, like that of steam navigation: here, though the engine might be added to the old vessel, yet the wiser and therefore the actual way is to make a new vessel on a modified plan: this may answer to Specific Creation. Anyhow, the one does not necessarily exclude the other. Variation and natural selection may play their part, and so may specific creation also. Why not? This leads us to ask for the reasons which call for this new theory of transmutation. The beginning of things must needs lie in obscurity, beyond the bounds of proof, though within those of conjecture or of analogical inference. Why not hold fast to the customary view, that all species were directly, instead of indirectly, created after their respective kinds, as we now behold them--and that in a manner which, passing our comprehension, we intuitively refer to the supernatural? Why this continual striving after "the unattained and dim?" why these anxious endeavors, especially of late years, by naturalists and philosophers of various schools and different tendencies, to penetrate what one of them calls "that mystery of mysteries," the origin of species? To this, in general, sufficient answer may be found in the activity of the human intellect, "the delirious yet divine desire to know," stimulated as it has been by its own success in unveiling the laws and processes of inorganic Nature; in the fact that the principal triumphs of our age in physical science have consisted in tracing connections where none were known before, in reducing heterogeneous phenomena to a common cause or origin, in a manner quite analogous to that of the reduction of supposed independently originated species to a common ultimate origin--thus, and in various other ways, largely and legitimately extending the domain of secondary causes. Surely the scientific mind of an age which contemplates the solar system as evolved from a common revolving fluid mass--which, through experimental research, has come to regard light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, and mechanical power as varieties or derivative and convertible forms of one force, instead of independent species--which has brought the so-called elementary kinds of matter, such as the metals, into kindred groups, and pertinently raised the question, whether the members of each group may not be mere varieties of one species--and which speculates steadily in the direction of the ultimate unity of matter, of a sort of prototype or simple element which may be to the ordinary species of matter what the Protozoa or what the component cells of an organism are to the higher sorts of animals and plants--the mind of such an age cannot be expected to let the old belief about species pass unquestioned. It will raise the question, how the diverse sorts of plants and animals came to be as they are and where they are and will allow that the whole inquiry transcends its powers only when all endeavors have failed Granting the origin to be super natural or miraculous even, will not arrest the inquiry All real origination the philosophers will say, is supernatural, their very question is, whether we have yet gone back to the origin and can affirm that the present forms of plants and animals are the primordial, the miraculously created ones. And, even if they admit that, they will still inquire into the order of the phenomena, into the form of the miracle You might as well expect the child to grow up content with what it is told about the advent of its infant brother Indeed, to learn that the new comer is the gift of God, far from lulling inquiry, only stimulates speculation as to how the precious gift was bestowed That questioning child is father to the man--is philosopher in short-clothes. Since, then questions about the origin of species will be raised, and have been raised--and since the theorizings, however different in particulars, all proceed upon the notion that one species of plant or animal is somehow derived from another, that the different sorts which now flourish are lineal (or unlineal) descendants of other and earlier sorts--it now concerns us to ask, What are the grounds in Nature, the admitted facts, which suggest hypotheses of derivation in some :shape or other? Reasons there must be, and plausible ones, for the persistent recurrence of theories upon this genetic basis. A study of Darwin's book, and a general glance at the present state of the natural sciences, enable us to gather the following as among the most suggestive and influential. We can only enumerate them here, without much indication of their particular bearing. There is-- 1. The general fact of variability, and the general tendency of the variety to propagate its like--the patent facts that all species vary more or less; that domesticated plants and animals, being in conditions favorable to the production and preservation of varieties, are apt to vary widely; and that, by interbreeding, any variety may be fixed into a race, that is, into a variety which comes true from seed. Many such races, it is allowed, differ from each other in structure and appearance as widely as do many admitted species; and it is practically very difficult, even impossible, to draw a clear line between races and species. Witness the human races, for instance. Wild species also vary, perhaps about as widely as those of domestication, though in different ways. Some of them apparently vary little, others moderately, others immoderately, to the great bewilderment of systematic botanists and zoologists, and increasing disagreement as to whether various forms shall be held to be original species or strong varieties. Moreover, the degree to which the descendants of the same stock, varying in different directions, may at length diverge, is unknown. All we know is, that varieties are themselves variable, and that very diverse forms have been educed from one stock. 2. Species of the same genus are not distinguished from each other by equal amounts of difference. There is diversity in this respect analogous to that of the varieties of a polymorphous species, some of them slight, others extreme. And in large genera the unequal resemblance shows itself in the clustering of the species around several types or central species, like satellites around their respective planets. Obviously suggestive this of the hypothesis that they were satellites, not thrown off by revolution, like the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and our own solitary moon, but gradually and peacefully detached by divergent variation. That such closely-related species may be only varieties of higher grade, earlier origin, or more favored evolution, is not a very violent supposition. Anyhow, it was a supposition sure to be made. 3. The actual geographical distribution of species upon the earth's surface tends to suggest the same notion. For, as a general thing, all or most of the species of a peculiar genus or other type are grouped in the same country, or occupy continuous, proximate, or accessible areas. So well does this rule hold, so general is the implication that kindred species are or were associated geographically, that most trustworthy naturalists, quite free from hypotheses of transmutation, are constantly inferring former geographical continuity between parts of the world now widely disjoined, in order to account thereby for certain generic similarities among their inhabitants; just as philologists infer former connection of races, and a parent language, to account for generic similarities among existing languages. Yet no scientific explanation has been offered to account for the geographical association of kindred species, except the hypothesis of a common origin. 4. Here the fact of the antiquity of creation, and in particular of the present kinds of the earth's inhabitants, or of a large part of them, comes in to rebut the objection that there has not been time enough for any marked diversification of living things through divergent variation--not time enough for varieties to have diverged into what we call species. So long as the existing species of plants and animals were thought to have originated a few thousand years ago, and without predecessors, there was no room for a theory of derivation of one sort from another, nor time enough even to account for the establishment of the races which are generally believed to have diverged from a common stock. Not so much that five or six thousand years was a short allowance for this; but because some of our familiar domesticated varieties of grain, of fowls, and of other animals, were pictured and mummified by the old Egyptians more than half that number of years ago, if not earlier. Indeed, perhaps the strongest argument for the original plurality of human species was drawn from the identification of some of the present races of men upon these early historical monuments and records. But this very extension of the current chronology, if we may rely upon the archaeologists, removes the difficulty by opening up a longer vista. So does the discovery in Europe of remains and implements of prehistoric races of men, to whom the use of metals was unknown--men of the stone age, as the Scandinavian archaeologists designate them. And now, "axes and knives of flint, evidently wrought by human skill, are found in beds of the drift at Amiens (also in other places, both in France and England), associated with the bones of extinct species of animals." These implements, indeed, were noticed twenty years ago; at a place in Suffolk they have been exhumed from time to time for more than a century; but the full confirmation, the recognition of the age of the deposit in which the implements occur, their abundance, and the appreciation of their bearings upon most interesting questions, belong to the present time. To complete the connection of these primitive people with the fossil ages, the French geologists, we are told, have now "found these axes in Picardy associated with remains of Elephas primigenius, Rhinoceros tichorhinus, Equus fossilis, and an extinct species of Bos."[III-2] In plain language, these workers in flint lived in the time of the mammoth, of a rhinoceros now extinct, and along with horses and cattle unlike any now existing--specifically different, as naturalists say, from those with which man is now associated. Their connection with existing human races may perhaps be traced through the intervening people of the stone age, who were succeeded by the people of the bronze age, and these by workers in iron.[III-3] Now, various evidence carries back the existence of many of the present lower species of animals, and probably of a larger number of plants, to the same drift period. All agree that this was very many thousand years ago. Agassiz tells us that the same species of polyps which are now building coral walls around the present peninsula of Florida actually made that peninsula, and have been building there for many thousand centuries. 5. The overlapping of existing and extinct species, and the seemingly gradual transition of the life of the drift period into that of the present, may be turned to the same account. Mammoths, mastodons, and Irish elks, now extinct, must have lived down to human, if not almost to historic times. Perhaps the last dodo did not long outlive his huge New Zealand kindred. The aurochs, once the companion of mammoths, still survives, but owes his present and precarious existence to man's care. Now, nothing that we know of forbids the hypothesis that some new species have been independently and supernaturally created within the period which other species have survived. Some may even believe that man was created in the days of the mammoth, became extinct, and was recreated at a later date. But why not say the same of the aurochs, contemporary both of the old man and of the new? Still it is more natural, if not inevitable, to infer that, if the aurochs of that olden time were the ancestors of the aurochs of the Lithuanian forests, so likewise were the men of that age the ancestors of the present human races. Then, whoever concludes that these primitive makers of rude flint axes and knives were the ancestors of the better workmen of the succeeding stone age, and these again of the succeeding artificers in brass and iron, will also be likely to suppose that the Equus and Bos of that time, different though they be, were the remote progenitors of our own horses and cattle. In all candor we must at least concede that such considerations suggest a genetic descent from the drift period down to the present, and allow time enough--if time is of any account-- for variation and natural selection to work out some appreciable results in the way of divergence into races, or even into so-called species. Whatever might have been thought, when geological time was supposed to be separated from the present era by a clear line, it is now certain that a gradual replacement of old forms by new ones is strongly suggestive of some mode of origination which may still be operative. When species, like individuals, were found to die out one by one, and apparently to come in one by one, a theory for what Owen sonorously calls "the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things" could not be far off. That all such theories should take the form of a derivation of the new from the old seems to be inevitable, perhaps from our inability to conceive of any other line of secondary causes in this connection. Owen himself is apparently in travail with some transmutation theory of his own conceiving, which may yet see the light, although Darwin's came first to the birth. Different as the two theories will probably be, they cannot fail to exhibit that fundamental resemblance in this respect which betokens a community of origin, a common foundation on the general facts and the obvious suggestions of modern science. Indeed--to turn the point of a pungent simile directed against Darwin--the difference between the Darwinian and the Owenian hypotheses may, after all, be only that between homoeopathic and heroic doses of the same drug. If theories of derivation could only stop here, content with explaining the diversification and succession of species between the teritiary period and the present time, through natural agencies or secondary causes still in operation, we fancy they would not be generally or violently objected to by the savants of the present day. But it is hard, if not impossible, to find a stopping-place. Some of the facts or accepted conclusions already referred to, and several others, of a more general character, which must be taken into the account, impel the theory onward with accumulated force. Vires (not to say virus) acquirit eundo. The theory hitches on wonderfully well to Lyell's uniformitarian theory in geology--that the thing that has been is the thing that is and shall be--that the natural operations now going on will account for all geological changes in a quiet and easy way, only give them time enough, so connecting the present and the proximate with the farthest past by almost imperceptible gradations--a view which finds large and increasing, if not general, acceptance in physical geology, and of which Darwin's theory is the natural complement. So the Darwinian theory, once getting a foothold, marches; boldly on, follows the supposed near ancestors of our present species farther and yet farther back into the dim past, and ends with an analogical inference which "makes the whole world kin." As we said at the beginning, this upshot discomposes us. Several features of the theory have an uncanny look. They may prove to be innocent: but their first aspect is suspicious, and high authorities pronounce the whole thing to be positively mischievous. In this dilemma we are going to take advice. Following the bent of our prejudices, and hoping to fortify these by new and strong arguments, we are going now to read the principal reviews which undertake to demolish the theory--with what result our readers shall be duly informed. II "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained, namely, that each species has been independently created, is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main, but not exclusive, means of modification." This is the kernel of the new theory, the Darwinian creed, as recited at the close of the introduction to the remarkable book under consideration. The questions, "What will he do with it?" and "How far will he carry it?" the author answers at the close of the volume: "I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class." Furthermore, "I believe that all animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number." Seeing that analogy as strongly suggests a further step in the same direction, while he protests that "analogy may be a deceitful guide," yet he follows its inexorable leading to the inference that-- "Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this ear have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."[III-4] In the first extract we have the thin end of the wedge driven a little way; in the last, the wedge driven home. We have already sketched some of the reasons suggestive of such a theory of derivation of species, reasons which gave it plausibility, and even no small probability, as applied to our actual world and to changes occurring since the latest tertiary period. We are well pleased at this moment to find that the conclusions we were arriving at in this respect are sustained by the very high authority and impartial judgment of Pictet, the Swiss paleontologist. In his review of Darwin's book[III-5] -- the fairest and most admirable opposing one that has appeared--he freely accepts that ensemble of natural operations which Darwin impersonates under the now familiar name of Natural Selection, allows that the exposition throughout the first chapters seems "a la fois prudent et fort," and is disposed to accept the whole argument in its foundations, that is, so far as it relates to what is now going on, or has taken place in the present geological period--which period he carries back through the diluvial epoch to the borders of the tertiary.[III-6] Pictet accordingly admits that the theory will very well account for the origination by divergence of nearly-related species, whether within the present period or in remoter geological times; a very natural view for him to take, since he appears to have reached and published, several years ago, the pregnant conclusion that there most probably was some material connection between the closely-related species of two successive faunas, and that the numerous close species, whose limits are so difficult to determine, were not all created distinct and independent. But while thus accepting, or ready to accept, the basis of Darwin's theory, and all its legitimate direct inferences, he rejects the ultimate conclusions, brings some weighty arguments to bear against them, and is evidently convinced that he can draw a clear line between the sound inferences, which he favors, and the unsound or unwarranted theoretical deductions, which he rejects. We hope he can. This raises the question, Why does Darwin press his theory to these extreme conclusions? Why do all hypotheses of derivation converge so inevitably to one ultimate point? Having already considered some of the reasons which suggest or support the theory at its outset--which may carry it as far as such sound and experienced naturalists as Pictet allow that it may be true--perhaps as far as Darwin himself unfolds it in the introductory proposition cited at the beginning of this article--we may now inquire after the motives which impel the theorist so much farther. Here proofs, in the proper sense of the word, are not to be had. We are beyond the region of demonstration, and have only probabilities to consider. What are these probabilities? What work will this hypothesis do to establish a claim to be adopted in its completeness? Why should a theory which may plausibly enough account for the diversification of the species of each special type or genus be expanded into a general system for the origination or successive diversification of all species, and all special types or forms, from four or five remote primordial forms, or perhaps from one? We accept the theory of gravitation because it explains all the facts we know, and bears all the tests that we can put it to. We incline to accept the nebular hypothesis, for similar reasons; not because it is proved--thus far it is incapable of proof--but because it is a natural theoretical deduction from accepted physical laws, is thoroughly congruous with the facts, and because its assumption serves to connect and harmonize these into one probable and consistent whole. Can the derivative hypothesis be maintained and carried out into a system on similar grounds? If so, however unproved, it would appear to be a tenable hypothesis, which is all that its author ought now to claim. Such hypotheses as, from the conditions of the case, can neither be proved nor disproved by direct evidence or experiment, are to be tested only indirectly, and therefore imperfectly, by trying their power to harmonize the known facts, and to account for what is otherwise unaccountable. So the question comes to this: What will an hypothesis of the derivation of species explain which the opposing view leaves unexplained? Questions these which ought to be entertained before we take up the arguments which have been advanced against this theory. We can barely glance at some of the considerations which Darwin adduces, or will be sure to adduce in the future and fuller exposition which is promised. To display them in such wise as to indoctrinate the unscientific reader would require a volume. Merely to refer to them in the most general terms would suffice for those familiar with scientific matters, but would scarcely enlighten those who are not. Wherefore let these trust the impartial Pictet, who freely admits that, "in the absence of sufficient direct proofs to justify the possibility of his hypothesis, Mr. Darwin relies upon indirect proofs, the bearing of which is real and incontestable;" who concedes that "his theory accords very well with the great facts of comparative anatomy and zoology--comes in admirably to explain unity of composition of organisms, also to explain rudimentary and representative organs, and the natural series of genera and species--equally corresponds with many paleontological data--agrees well with the specific resemblances which exist between two successive faunas, with the parallelism which is sometimes observed between the series of paleontological succession and of embryonal development," etc.; and finally, although he does not accept the theory in these results, he allows that "it appears to offer the best means of explaining the manner in which organized beings were produced in epochs anterior to our own." What more than this could be said for such an hypothesis? Here, probably, is its charm, and its strong hold upon the speculative mind. Unproven though it be, and cumbered prima facie with cumulative improbabilities as it proceeds, yet it singularly accords with great classes of facts otherwise insulated and enigmatic, and explains many things which are thus far utterly inexplicable upon any other scientific assumption. We have said that Darwin's hypothesis is the natural complement to Lyell's uniformitarian theory in physical geology. It is for the organic world what that is for the inorganic; and the accepters of the latter stand in a position from which to regard the former in the most favorable light. Wherefore the rumor that the cautious Lyell himself has adopted the Darwinian hypothesis need not surprise us. The two views are made for each other, and, like the two counterpart pictures for the stereoscope, when brought together, combine into one apparently solid whole. If we allow, with Pictet, that Darwin's theory will very well serve for all that concerns the present epoch of the world's history--an epoch in which this renowned paleontologist includes the diluvial or quaternary period--then Darwin's first and foremost need in his onward course is a practicable road from this into and through the tertiary period, the intervening region between the comparatively near and the far remote past. Here Lyell's doctrine paves the way, by showing that in the physical geology there is no general or absolute break between the two, probably no greater between the latest tertiary and the quaternary period than between the latter and the present time. So far, the Lyellian view is, we suppose, generally concurred in. It is largely admitted that numerous tertiary species have continued down into the quaternary, and many of them to the present time. A goodly percentage of the earlier and nearly half of the later tertiary mollusca, according to Des Hayes, Lye!!, and, if we mistake not, Bronn, still live. This identification, however, is now questioned by a naturalist of the very highest authority. But, in its bearings on the new theory, the point here turns not upon absolute identity so much as upon close resemblance. For those who, with Agassiz, doubt the specific identity in any of these cases, and those who say, with Pictet, that "the later tertiary deposits contain in general the debris of species very nearly related to those which still exist, belonging to the same genera, but specifically different," may also agree with Pictet, that the nearly-related species of successive faunas must or may have had "a material connection." But the only material connection that we have an idea of in such a case is a genealogical one. And the supposition of a genealogical connection is surely not unnatural in such cases--is demonstrably the natural one as respects all those tertiary species which experienced naturalists have pronounced to be identical with existing ones, but which others now deem distinct For to identify the two is the same thing as to conclude the one to be the ancestor of the other No doubt there are differences between the tertiary and the present individuals, differences equally noticed by both classes of naturalists, but differently estimated By the one these are deemed quite compatible, by the other incompatible, with community of origin But who can tell us what amount of difference is compatible with community of origin? This is the very question at issue, and one to be settled by observation alone Who would have thought that the peach and the nectarine came from one stock? But, this being proved is it now very improbable that both were derived from the almond, or from some common amygdaline progenitor? Who would have thought that the cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli kale, and kohlrabi are derivatives of one species, and rape or colza, turnip, and probably ruta-baga, of another species? And who that is convinced of this can long undoubtingly hold the original distinctness of turnips from cabbages as an article of faith? On scientific grounds may not a primordial cabbage or rape be assumed as the ancestor of all the cabbage races, on much the same ground that we assume a common ancestry for the diversified human races? If all Our breeds of cattle came from one stock why not this stock from the auroch, which has had all the time between the diluvial and the historic periods in which to set off a variation perhaps no greater than the difference between some sorts of domestic cattle? That considerable differences are often discernible between tertiary individuals and their supposed descendants of the present day affords no argument against Darwin's theory, as has been rashly thought, but is decidedly in its favor. If the identification were so perfect that no more differences were observable between the tertiary and the recent shells than between various individuals of either, then Darwin's opponents, who argue the immutability of species from the ibises and cats preserved by the ancient Egyptians being just like those of the present day, could triumphantly add a few hundred thousand years more to the length of the experiment and to the force of their argument. As the facts stand, it appears that, while some tertiary forms are essentially undistinguishable from existing ones, others are the same with a difference, which is judged not to be specific or aboriginal; and yet others show somewhat greater differences, such as are scientifically expressed by calling them marked varieties, or else doubtful species; while others, differing a little more, are confidently termed distinct, but nearly-related species. Now, is not all this a question of degree, of mere gradation of difference? And is it at all likely that these several gradations came to be established in two totally different ways--some of them (though naturalists can't agree which) through natural variation, or other secondary cause, and some by original creation, without secondary cause? We have seen that the judicious Pictet answers such questions as Darwin would have him do, in affirming that, in all probability, the nearly-related species of two successive faunas were materially connected, and that contemporaneous species, similarly resembling each other, were not all created so, but have become so. This is equivalent to saying that species (using the term as all naturalists do, and must continue to employ the word) have only a relative, not an absolute fixity; that differences fully equivalent to what are held to be specific may arise in the course of time, so that one species may at length be naturally replaced by another species a good deal like it, or may be diversified into two, three, or more species, or forms as different as species. This concedes all that Darwin has a right to ask, all that he can directly infer from evidence. We must add that it affords a locus standi, more or less tenable, for inferring more. Here another geological consideration comes in to help on this inference. The species of the later tertiary period for the most part not only resembled those of our days--many of them so closely as to suggest an absolute continuity--but also occupied in general the same regions that their relatives occupy now. The same may be said, though less specially, of the earlier tertiary and of the later secondary; but there is less and less localization of forms as we recede, yet some localization even in palaeozoic times. While in the secondary period one is struck with the similarity of forms and the identity of many of the species which flourished apparently at the same time in all or in the most widely-separated parts of the world, in the tertiary epoch, on the contrary, along with the increasing specialization of climates and their approximation to the present state, we find abundant evidence of increasing localization of orders, genera and species, and this localization strikingly accords with the present geographical distribution of the same groups of species Where the imputed forefathers lived their relatives and supposed descendants now flourish All the actual classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms were represented in the tertiary faunas and floras and in nearly the same proportions and the same diversities as at present The faunas of what is now Europe, Asia America and Australia, differed from each other much as they now differ: in fact--according to Adolphe Brongniart, whose statements we here condense[III-7]--the inhabitants of these different regions appear for the most part to have acquired, before the close of the tertiary period, the characters which essentially distinguish their existing faunas. The Eastern Continent had then, as now, its great pachyderms, elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus; South America, its armadillos, sloths, and anteaters; Australia, a crowd of marsupials; and the very strange birds of New Zealand had predecessors of similar strangeness. Everywhere the same geographical distribution as now, with a difference in the particular area, as respects the northern portion of the continents, answering to a warmer climate then than ours, such as allowed species of hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and elephant, to range even to the regions now inhabited by the reindeer and the musk-ox, and with the serious disturbing intervention of the glacial period within a comparatively recent time. Let it be noted also that those tertiary species which have continued with little change down to our days are the marine animals of the lower grades, especially mollusca. Their low organization, moderate sensibility, and the simple conditions of an existence in a medium like the ocean, not subject to great variation and incapable of sudden change, may well account for their continuance; while, on the other hand, the more intense, however gradual, climatic vicissitudes on land, which have driven all tropical and subtropical forms out of the higher latitudes and assigned to them their actual limits, would be almost sure to extinguish such huge and unwieldy animals as mastodons, mammoths, and the like, whose power of enduring altered circumstances must have been small. This general replacement of the tertiary species of a country by others so much like them is a noteworthy fact. The hypothesis of the independent creation of all species, irrespective of their antecedents, leaves this fact just as mysterious as is creation itself; that of derivation undertakes to account for it. Whether it satisfactorily does so or not, it must be allowed that the facts well accord with that hypothesis. The same may be said of another conclusion, namely, that the geological succession of animals and plants appears to correspond in a general way with their relative standing or rank in a natural system of classification. It seems clear that, though no one of the grand types of the animal kingdom can be traced back farther than the rest, yet the lower classes long preceded the higher; that there has been on the whole a steady progression within each class and order; and that the highest plants and animals have appeared only in relatively modern times. It is only, however, in a broad sense that this generalization is now thought to hold good. It encounters many apparent exceptions, and sundry real ones. So far as the rule holds, all is as it should be upon an hypothesis of derivation. The rule has its exceptions. But, curiously enough, the most striking class of exceptions, if such they be, seems to us even more favorable to the doctrine of derivation than is the general rule of a pure and simple ascending gradation. We refer to what Agassiz calls prophetic and synthetic types; for which the former name may suffice, as the difference between the two is evanescent. "It has been noticed," writes our great zoologist, "that certain types, which are frequently prominent among the representatives of past ages, combine in their structure peculiarities which at later periods are only observed separately in different, distinct types. Sauroid fishes before reptiles, Pterodactyles before birds, Ichthyosauri before dolphins, etc. There are entire families, of nearly every class of animals, which in the state of their perfect development exemplify such prophetic relations. The sauroid fishes of the past geological ages are an example of this kind These fishes which preceded the appearance of reptiles present a combination of ichthyic and reptilian characters not to be found in the true members of this class, which form its bulk at present. The Pterodactyles, which preceded the class of birds, and the Ichthyosauri, which preceded the Cetacea, are other examples of such prophetic types."--(Agassiz, "Contributions, Essay on Classification," p. 117.) Now, these reptile-like fishes, of which gar-pikes are the living representatives, though of earlier appearance, are admittedly of higher rank than common fishes. They dominated until reptiles appeared, when they mostly gave place to (or, as the derivationists will insist, were resolved by divergent variation and natural selection into) common fishes, destitute of reptilian characters, and saurian reptiles--the intermediate grades, which, according to a familiar piscine saying, are "neither fish, flesh, nor good red-herring," being eliminated and extinguished by natural consequence of the struggle for existence which Darwin so aptly portrays. And so, perhaps, of the other prophetic types. Here type and antitype correspond. If these are true prophecies, we need not wonder that some who read them in Agassiz's book will read their fulfillment in Darwin's. Note also, in this connection, that along with a wonderful persistence of type, with change of species, genera, orders, etc., from formation to formation, no species and no higher group which has once unequivocally died out ever afterward reappears. Why is this, but that the link of generation has been sundered? Why, on the hypothesis of independent originations, were not failing species recreated, either identically or with a difference, in regions eminently adapted to their well-being? To take a striking case. That no part of the world now offers more suitable conditions for wild horses and cattle than the pampas and other plains of South America, is shown by the facility with which they have there run wild and enormously multiplied, since introduced from the Old World not long ago. There was no wild American stock. Yet in the times of the mastodon and megatherium, at the dawn of the present period, wild-horses--certainly very much like the existing horse--roamed over those plains in abundance. On the principle of original and direct created adaptation of species to climate and other conditions, why were they not reproduced, when, after the colder intervening era, those regions became again eminently adapted to such animals? Why, but because, by their complete extinction in South America, the line of descent was there utterly broken? Upon the ordinary hypothesis, there is no scientific explanation possible of this series of facts, and of many others like them. Upon the new hypothesis, "the succession of the same types of structure within the same areas during the later geological periods ceases to be mysterious, and is simply explained by inheritance." Their cessation is failure of issue. Along with these considerations the fact (alluded to on page 98) should be remembered that, as a general thing, related species of the present age are geographically associated. The larger part of the plants, and still more of the animals, of each separate country are peculiar to it; and, as most species now flourish over the graves of their by-gone relatives of former ages, so they now dwell among or accessibly near their kindred species. Here also comes in that general "parallelism between the order of succession of animals and plants in geological times, and the gradation among their living representatives" from low to highly organized, from simple and general to complex and specialized forms; also "the parallelism between the order of succession of animals in geological times and the changes their living representatives undergo during their embryological growth," as if the world were one prolonged gestation. Modern science has much insisted on this parallelism, and to a certain extent is allowed to have made it out. All these things, which conspire to prove that the ancient and the recent forms of life "are somehow intimately connected together in one grand system," equally conspire to suggest that the connection is one similar or analogous to generation. Surely no naturalist can be blamed for entering somewhat confidently upon a field of speculative inquiry which here opens so invitingly; nor need former premature endeavors and failures utterly dishearten him. All these things, it may naturally be said, go to explain the order, not the mode, of the incoming of species. But they all do tend to bring out the generalization expressed by Mr. Wallace in the formula that "every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with preexisting closely-allied species." Not, however, that this is proved even of existing species as a matter of general fact. It is obviously impossible to prove anything of the kind. But we must concede that the known facts strongly suggest such an inference. And--since species are only congeries of individuals, since every individual came into existence in consequence of preexisting individuals of the same sort, so leading up to the individuals with which the species began, and since the only material sequence we know of among plants and animals is that from parent to progeny--the presumption becomes exceedingly strong that the connection of the incoming with the preexisting species is a genealogical one. Here, however, all depends upon the probability that Mr. Wallace's inference is really true. Certainly it is not yet generally accepted; but a strong current is setting toward its acceptance. So long as universal cataclysms were in vogue, and all life upon the earth was thought to have been suddenly destroyed and renewed many times in succession, such a view could not be thought of. So the equivalent view maintained by Agassiz, and formerly, we believe, by D'Orbigny, that irrespectively of general and sudden catastrophes, or any known adequate physical cause, there has been a total depopulation at the close of each geological period or formation, say forty or fifty times or more, followed by as many independent great acts of creation, at which alone have species been originated, and at each of which a vegetable and an animal kingdom were produced entire and complete, full-fledged, as flourishing, as wide-spread, and populous, as varied and mutually adapted from the beginning as ever afterward--such a view, of course, supersedes all material connection between successive species, and removes even the association and geographical range of species entirely out of the domain of physical causes and of natural science. This is the extreme opposite of Wallace's and Darwin's view, and is quite as hypothetical. The nearly universal opinion, if we rightly gather it, manifestly is, that the replacement of the species of successive formations was not complete and simultaneous, but partial and successive; and that along the course of each epoch some species probably were introduced, and some, doubtless, became extinct. If all since the tertiary belongs to our present epoch, this is certainly true of it: if to two or more epochs, then the hypothesis of a total change is not true of them. Geology makes huge demands upon time; and we regret to find that it has exhausted ours--that what we meant for the briefest and most general sketch of some geological considerations in favor of Darwin's hypothesis has so extended as to leave no room for considering "the great facts of comparative anatomy and zoology" with which Darwin's theory "very well accords," nor for indicating how "it admirably serves for explaining the unity of composition of all organisms, the existence of representative and rudimentary organs, and the natural series which genera and species compose." Suffice it to say that these are the real strongholds of the new system on its theoretical side; that it goes far toward explaining both the physiological and the structural gradations and relations between the two kingdoms, and the arrangement of all their forms in groups subordinate to groups, all within a few great types; that it reads the riddle of abortive organs and of morphological conformity, of which no other theory has ever offered a scientific explanation, and supplies a ground for harmonizing the two fundamental ideas which naturalists and philosophers conceive to have ruled the organic world, though they could not reconcile them; namely, Adaptation to Purpose and Conditions of Existence, and Unity of Type. To reconcile these two undeniable principles is the capital problem in the philosophy of natural history; and the hypothesis which consistently does so thereby secures a great advantage. We all know that the arm and hand of a monkey, the foreleg and foot of a dog and of a horse, the wing of a bat, and the fin of a porpoise, are fundamentally identical; that the long neck of the giraffe has the same and no more bones than the short one of the elephant; that the eggs of Surinam frogs hatch into tadpoles with as good tails for swimming as any of their kindred, although as tadpoles they never enter the water; that the Guinea-pig is furnished with incisor teeth which it never uses, as it sheds them before birth; that embryos of mammals and birds have branchial slits and arteries running in loops, in imitation or reminiscence of the arrangement which is permanent in fishes; and that thousands of animals and plants have rudimentary organs which, at least in numerous cases, are wholly useless to their possessors, etc., etc. Upon a derivative theory this morphological conformity is explained by community of descent; and it has not been explained in any other way. Naturalists are constantly speaking of "related species," of the "affinity" of a genus or other group, and of "family resemblance"--vaguely conscious that these terms of kinship are something more than mere metaphors, but unaware of the grounds of their aptness. Mr. Darwin assures them that they have been talking derivative doctrine all their lives--as M. Jourdain talked prose--without knowing it. If it is difficult and in many cases practically impossible to fix the limits of species, it is still more so to fix those of genera; and those of tribes and families are still less susceptible of exact natural circumscription. Intermediate forms occur, connecting one group with another in a manner sadly perplexing to systematists, except to those who have ceased to expect absolute limitations in Nature. All this blending could hardly fail to suggest a former material connection among allied forms, such as that which the hypothesis of derivation demands. Here it would not be amiss to consider the general principle of gradation throughout organic Nature--a principle which answers in a general way to the Law of Continuity in the inorganic world, or rather is so analogous to it that both may fairly be expressed by the Leibnitzian axiom, Natura non agit saltatim. As an axiom or philosophical principle, used to test modal laws or hypotheses, this in strictness belongs only to physics. In the investigation of Nature at large, at least in the organic world, nobody would undertake to apply this principle as a test of the validity of any theory or supposed law. But naturalists of enlarged views will not fail to infer the principle from the phenomena they investigate--to perceive that the rule holds, under due qualifications and altered forms, throughout the realm of Nature; although we do not suppose that Nature in the organic world makes no distinct steps, but only short and serial steps--not infinitely fine gradations, but no long leaps, or few of them. To glance at a few illustrations out of many that present themselves. It would be thought that the distinction between the two organic kingdoms was broad and absolute. Plants and animals belong to two very different categories, fulfill opposite offices and, as to the mass of them are so unlike that the difficulty of the ordinary observer would be to find points of comparison Without entering into details which would fill an article, we may safely say that the difficulty with the naturalist is all the other way--that all these broad differences vanish one by one as we approach the lower confines of the two kingdoms, and that no absolute distinction whatever is now known between them. It is quite possible that the same organism may be both vegetable and animal, or may be first the one and then the other. If some organisms may be said to be at first vegetables and then animals, others, like the spores and other reproductive bodies of many of the lower Algae, may equally claim to have first a characteristically animal, and then an unequivocally vegetable existence. Nor is the gradation restricted to these simple organisms. It appears in general functions, as in that of reproduction, which is reducible to the same formula in both kingdoms, while it exhibits close approximations in the lower forms; also in a common or similar ground of sensibility in the lowest forms of both, a common faculty of effecting movements tending to a determinate end, traces of which pervade the vegetable kingdom--while, on the other hand, this indefinable principle, this vegetable "Animula vagula, blandula, Hospes comesque corporis," graduates into the higher sensitiveness of the lower class of animals. Nor need we hesitate to recognize the fine gradations from simple sensitiveness and volition to the higher instinctive and to the other psychical manifestations of the higher brute animals. The gradation is undoubted, however we may explain it. Again, propagation is of one mode in the higher animals, of two in all plants; but vegetative propagation, by budding or offshoots, extends through the lower grades of animals. In both kingdoms there may be separation of the offshoots, or indifference in this respect, or continued and organic union with the parent stock; and this either with essential independence of the offshoots, or with a subordination of these to a common whole; or finally with such subordination and amalgamation, along with specialization of function, that the same parts, which in other cases can be regarded only as progeny, in these become only members of an individual. This leads to the question of individuality, a subject quite too large and too recondite for present discussion. The conclusion of the whole matter, however, is, that individuality--that very ground of being as distinguished from thing--is not attained in Nature at one leap. If anywhere truly exemplified in plants, it is only in the lowest and simplest, where the being is a structural unit, a single cell, member-less and organless, though organic--the same thing as those cells of which all the more complex plants are built up, and with which every plant and (structurally) every animal began its development. In the ascending gradation of the vegetable kingdom individuality is, so to say, striven after, but never attained; in the lower animals it is striven after with greater though incomplete success; it is realized only in animals of so high a rank that vegetative multiplication or offshoots are out of the question, where all parts are strictly members and nothing else, and all subordinated to a common nervous centre--is fully realized only in a conscious person. So, also, the broad distinction between reproduction by seeds or ova and propagation by buds, though perfect in some of the lowest forms of life, becomes evanescent in others; and even the most absolute law we know in the physiology of genuine reproduction--that of sexual cooperation--has its exceptions in both kingdoms in parthenogenesis, to which in the vegetable kingdom a most curious and intimate series of gradations leads. In plants, likewise, a long and finely graduated series of transitions leads from bisexual to unisexual blossoms; and so in various other respects. Everywhere we may perceive that Nature secures her ends, and makes her distinctions on the whole manifest and real but everywhere without abrupt breaks We need not wonder therefore that gradations between species and varieties should occur; the more so, since genera, tribes, and other groups into which the naturalist collocates species, are far from being always absolutely limited in Nature, though they are necessarily represented to be so in systems. >From the necessity of the case, the classifications of the naturalist abruptly define where Nature more or less blends. Our systems are nothing, if not definite. They express differences, and some of the coarser gradations. But this evinces not their perfection, but their imperfection. Even the best of them are to the system of Nature what consecutive patches of the seven colors are to the rainbow. Now the principle of gradation throughout organic Nature may, of course, be interpreted upon other assumptions than those of Darwin's hypothesis--certainly upon quite other than those of a materialistic philosophy, with which we ourselves have no sympathy. Still we conceive it not only possible, but probable, that this gradation, as it has its natural ground, may yet have its scientific explanation. In any case, there is no need to deny that the general facts correspond well with an hypothesis like Darwin's, which is built upon fine gradations. We have contemplated quite long enough the general presumptions in favor of an hypothesis of the derivation of species. We cannot forget, however, while for the moment we overlook, the formidable difficulties which all hypotheses of this class have to encounter, and the serious implications which they seem to involve. We feel, moreover, that Darwin's particular hypothesis is exposed to some special objections. It requires no small strength of nerve steadily to conceive, not only of the diversification, but of the formation of the organs of an animal through cumulative variation and natural selection. Think of such an organ as the eye, that most perfect of optical instruments, as so produced in the lower animals and perfected in the higher! A friend of ours, who accepts the new doctrine, confesses that for a long while a cold chill came over him whenever he thought of the eye. He has at length got over that stage of the complaint, and is now in the fever of belief, perchance to be succeeded by the sweating stage, during which sundry peccant humors may be eliminated from the system. For ourselves, we dread the chill, and have some misgivings about the consequences of the reaction. We find ourselves in the "singular position" acknowledged by Pictet--that is, confronted with a theory which, although it can really explain much, seems inadequate to the heavy task it so boldly assumes, but which, nevertheless, appears better fitted than any other that has been broached to explain, if it be possible to explain, somewhat of the manner in which organized beings may have arisen and succeeded each other. In this dilemma we might take advantage of Mr. Darwin's candid admission, that he by no means expects to convince old and experienced people, whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all regarded during a long course of years from the old point of view. This is nearly our case. So, owning no call to a larger faith than is expected of us, but not prepared to pronounce the whole hypothesis untenable, under such construction as we should put upon it, we naturally sought to attain a settled conviction through a perusal of several proffered refutations of the theory. At least, this course seemed to offer the readiest way of bringing to a head the various objections to which the theory is exposed. On several accounts some of these opposed reviews especially invite examination. We propose, accordingly, to conclude our task with an article upon "Darwin and his Reviewers." III The origin of species, like all origination, like the institution of any other natural state or order, is beyond our immediate ken. We see or may learn how things go on; we can only frame hypotheses as to how they began. Two hypotheses divide the scientific world, very unequally, upon the origin of the existing diversity of the plants and animals which surround us. One assumes that the actual kinds are primordial; the other, that they are derivative. One, that all kinds originated supernaturally and directly as such, and have continued unchanged in the order of Nature; the other, that the present kinds appeared in some sort of genealogical connection with other and earlier kinds, that they became what they now are in the course of time and in the order of Nature. Or, bringing in the word species, which is well defined as "the perennial succession of individuals," commonly of very like individuals--as a close corporation of individuals perpetuated by generation, instead of election--and reducing the question to mathematical simplicity of statement: species are lines of individuals coming down from the past and running on to the future; lines receding, therefore, from our view in either direction. Within our limited observation they appear to be parallel lines, as a general thing neither approaching to nor diverging from each other. The first hypothesis assumes that they were parallel from the unknown beginning and will be to the unknown end. The second hypothesis assumes that the apparent parallelism is not real and complete, at least aboriginally, but approximate or temporary; that we should find the lines convergent in the past, if we could trace them far enough; that some of them, if produced back, would fall into certain fragments of lines, which have left traces in the past, lying not exactly in the same direction, and these farther back into others to which they are equally unparallel. It will also claim that the present lines, whether on the whole really or only approximately parallel, sometimes fork or send off branches on one side or the other, producing new lines (varieties), which run for a while, and for aught we know indefinitely when not interfered with, near and approximately parallel to the parent line. This claim it can establish; and it may also show that these close subsidiary lines may branch or vary again, and that those branches or varieties which are best adapted to the existing conditions may be continued, while others stop or die out. And so we may have the basis of a real theory of the diversification of species and here indeed, there is a real, though a narrow, established ground to build upon But as systems of organic Nature, both doctrines are equally hypotheses, are suppositions of what there is no proof of from experience, assumed in order to account for the observed phenomena, and supported by such indirect evidence as can be had. Even when the upholders of the former and more popular system mix up revelation with scientific discussion--which we decline to do--they by no means thereby render their view other than hypothetical. Agreeing that plants and animals were produced by Omnipotent fiat does not exclude the idea of natural order and what we call secondary causes. The record of the fiat--"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed," etc., "and it was so;" "let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so"--seems even to imply them. Agreeing that they were formed of "the dust of the ground," and of thin air, only leads to the conclusion that the pristine individuals were corporeally constituted like existing individuals, produced through natural agencies. To agree that they were created "after their kinds" determines nothing as to what were the original kinds, nor in what mode, during what time, and in what connections it pleased the Almighty to introduce the first individuals of each sort upon the earth. Scientifically considered, the two opposing doctrines are equally hypothetical. The two views very unequally divide the scientific world; so that believers in "the divine right of majorities" need not hesitate which side to take, at least for the present. Up to a time quite within the memory of a generation still on the stage, two hypotheses about the nature of light very unequally divided the scientific world. But the small minority has already prevailed: the emission theory has gone out; the undulatory or wave theory, after some fluctuation, has reached high tide, and is now the pervading, the fully-established system. There was an intervening time during which most physicists held their opinions in suspense. The adoption of the undulatory theory of light called for the extension of the same theory to heat, and this promptly suggested the hypothesis of a correlation, material connection, and transmutability of heat, light, electricity, magnetism, etc.; which hypothesis the physicists held in absolute suspense until very lately, but are now generally adopting. If not already established as a system, it promises soon to become so. At least, it is generally received as a tenable and probably true hypothesis. Parallel to this, however less cogent the reasons, Darwin and others, having shown it likely that some varieties of plants or animals have diverged in time into cognate species, or into forms as different as species, are led to infer that all species of a genus may have thus diverged from a common stock, and thence to suppose a higher community of origin in ages still farther back, and so on. Following the safe example of the physicists, and acknowledging the fact of the diversification of a once homogeneous species into varieties, we may receive the theory of the evolution of these into species, even while for the present we hold the hypothesis of a further evolution in cool suspense or in grave suspicion. In respect to very many questions a wise man's mind rests long in a state neither of belief nor unbelief. But your intellectually short-sighted people are apt to be preternaturally clear-sighted, and to find their way very plain to positive conclusions upon one side or the other of every mooted question. In fact, most people, and some philosophers, refuse to hold questions in abeyance, however incompetent they may be to decide them. And, curiously enough, the more difficult, recondite, and perplexing, the questions or hypotheses are--such, for instance, as those about organic Nature--the more impatient they are of suspense. Sometimes, and evidently in the present case, this impatience grows out of a fear that a new hypothesis may endanger cherished and most important beliefs. Impatience under such circumstances is not unnatural, though perhaps needless, and, if so, unwise. To us the present revival of the derivative hypothesis, in a more winning shape than it ever before had, was not unexpected. We wonder that any thoughtful observer of the course of investigation and of speculation in science should not have foreseen it, and have learned at length to take its inevitable coming patiently; the more so, as in Darwin's treatise it comes in a purely scientific form, addressed only to scientific men. The notoriety and wide popular perusal of this treatise appear to have astonished the author even more than the book itself has astonished the reading world Coming as the new presentation does from a naturalist of acknowledged character and ability and marked by a conscientiousness and candor which have not always been reciprocated we have thought it simply right to set forth the doctrine as fairly and as favorably as we could There are plenty to decry it and the whole theory is widely exposed to attack For the arguments on the other side we may look to the numerous adverse publications which Darwin s volume has already called out and especially to those reviews which propose directly to refute it. Taking various lines and reflecting very diverse modes of thought, these hostile critics may be expected to concentrate and enforce the principal objections which can be brought to bear against the derivative hypothesis in general, and Darwin's new exposition of it in particular. Upon the opposing side of the question we have read with attention--1. An article in the North American Review for April last; 2. One in the Christian Examiner, Boston, for May; 3. M. Pictet's article in the Bibliotheque Universelle, which we have already made considerable use of, which seems throughout most able and correct, and which in tone and fairness is admirably in contrast with--4. The article in the Edinburgh Review for May, attributed--although against a large amount of internal presumptive evidence--to the most distinguished British comparative anatomist; 5. An article in the North British Review for May; 6. Prof. Agassiz has afforded an early opportunity to peruse the criticisms he makes in the forthcoming third volume of his great work, by a publication of them in advance in the American Journal of Science for July. In our survey of the lively discussion which has been raised, it matters little how our own particular opinions may incline. But we may confess to an impression, thus far, that the doctrine of the permanent and complete immutability of species has not been established, and may fairly be doubted. We believe that species vary, and that "Natural Selection" works; but we suspect that its operation, like every analogous natural operation, may be limited by something else. Just as every species by its natural rate of reproduction would soon completely fill any country it could live in, but does not, being checked by some other species or some other condition--so it may be surmised that variation and natural selection have their struggle and consequent check, or are limited by something inherent in the constitution of organic beings. We are disposed to rank the derivative hypothesis in its fullness with the nebular hypothesis, and to regard both as allowable, as not unlikely to prove tenable in spite of some strong objections, but as not therefore demonstrably true. Those, if any there be, who regard the derivative hypothesis as satisfactorily proved, must have loose notions as to what proof is. Those who imagine it can be easily refuted and cast aside, must, we think, have imperfect or very prejudiced conceptions of the facts concerned and of the questions at issue. We are not disposed nor prepared to take sides for or against the new hypothesis, and so, perhaps, occupy a good position from which to watch the discussion and criticise those objections which are seemingly inconclusive. On surveying the arguments urged by those who have undertaken to demolish the theory, we have been most impressed with a sense of their great inequality. Some strike us as excellent and perhaps unanswerable; some, as incongruous with other views of the same writers; others, when carried out, as incompatible with general experience or general beliefs, and therefore as proving too much; still others, as proving nothing at all; so that, on the whole, the effect is rather confusing and disappointing. We certainly expected a stronger adverse case than any which the thoroughgoing opposers of Darwin appear to have made out. Wherefore, if it be found that the new hypothesis has grown upon our favor as we proceeded, this must be attributed not so much to the force of the arguments of the book itself as to the want of force of several of those by which it has been assailed. Darwin's arguments we might resist or adjourn; but some of the refutations of it give us more concern than the book itself did. These remarks apply mainly to the philosophical and theological objections which have been elaborately urged, almost exclusively by the American reviewers. The North British reviewer, indeed, roundly denounces the book as atheistical, but evidently deems the case too clear for argument. The Edinburgh reviewer, on the contrary, scouts all such objections--as well he may, since he records his belief in "a continuous creative operation," a constantly operating secondary creational law," through which species are successively produced; and he emits faint, but not indistinct, glimmerings of a transmutation theory of his own;[III-8] so that he is equally exposed to all the philosophical objections advanced by Agassiz, and to most of those urged by the other American critics, against Darwin himself. Proposing now to criticise the critics, so far as to see what their most general and comprehensive objections amount to, we must needs begin with the American reviewers, and with their arguments adduced to prove that a derivative hypothesis ought not to be true, or is not possible, philosophical, or theistic. It must not be forgotten that on former occasions very confident judgments have been pronounced by very competent persons, which have not been finally ratified. Of the two great minds of the seventeenth century, Newton and Leibnitz, both profoundly religious as well as philosophical, one produced the theory of gravitation, the other objected to that theory that it was subversive of natural religion. The nebular hypothesis--a natural consequence of the theory of gravitation and of the subsequent progress of physical and astronomical discovery--has been denounced as atheistical even down to our own day. But it is now largely adopted by the most theistical natural philosophers as a tenable and perhaps sufficient hypothesis, and where not accepted is no longer objected to, so far as we know, on philosophical or religious grounds. The gist of the philosophical objections urged by the two Boston reviewers against an hypothesis of the derivation of species--or at least against Darwin's particular hypothesis-- is, that it is incompatible with the idea of any manifestation of design in the universe, that it denies final causes. A serious objection this, and one that demands very serious attention. The proposition, that things and events in Nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism. Yet most people believe that some were designed and others were not, although they fall into a hopeless maze whenever they undertake to define their position. So we should not like to stigmatize as atheistically disposed a person who regards certain things and events as being what they are through designed laws (whatever that expression means), but as not themselves specially ordained, or who, in another connection, believes in general, but not in particular Providence. We could sadly puzzle him with questions; but in return he might equally puzzle us. Then, to deny that anything was specially designed to be what it is, is one proposition; while to deny that the Designer supernaturally or immediately made it so, is another: though the reviewers appear not to recognize the distinction. Also, "scornfully to repudiate" or to "sneer at the idea of any manifestation of design in the material universe,"[III-9] is one thing; while to consider, and perhaps to exaggerate, the difficulties which attend the practical application of the doctrine of final causes to certain instances, is quite another thing: yet the Boston reviewers, we regret to say, have not been duly regardful of the difference. Whatever be thought of Darwin's doctrine, we are surprised that he should be charged with scorning or sneering at the opinions of others, upon such a subject. Perhaps Darwin' s view is incompatible with final causes--we will consider that question presently-- but as to the Examiner's charge, that he "sneers at the idea of any manifestation of design in the material universe," though we are confident that no misrepresentation was intended, we are equally confident that it is not at all warranted by the two passages cited in support of it. Here are the passages: "If green woodpeckers alone had existed, or we did not know that there were many black and pied kinds, I dare say that we should have thought that the green color was a beautiful adaptation to hide this tree-frequenting bird from its enemies." "If our reason leads us to admire with enthusiasm a multitude of inimitable contrivances in Nature, this same reason tells us, though we may easily err on both sides, that some contrivances are less perfect. Can we consider the sting of the wasp or of the bee as perfect, which, when used against many attacking animals, cannot be withdrawn, owing to the backward serratures, and so inevitably causes the death of the insect by tearing out its viscera?" If the sneer here escapes ordinary vision in the detached extracts (one of them wanting the end of the sentence), it is, if possible, more imperceptible when read with the context. Moreover, this perusal inclines us to think that the Examiner has misapprehended the particular argument or object, as well as the spirit, of the author in these passages. The whole reads more naturally as a caution against the inconsiderate use of final causes in science, and an illustration of some of the manifold errors and absurdities which their hasty assumption is apt to involve--considerations probably equivalent to those which induced Lord Bacon to liken final causes to "vestal virgins." So, if any one, it is here Bacon that "sitteth in the seat of the scornful." As to Darwin, in the section from which the extracts were made, he is considering a subsidiary question, and trying to obviate a particular difficulty, but, we suppose, is wholly unconscious of denying "any manifestation of design in the material universe." He concludes the first sentence: --"and consequently that it was a character of importance, and might have been acquired through natural selection; as it is, I have no doubt that the color is due to some quite distinct cause, probably to sexual selection." After an illustration from the vegetable creation, Darwin adds: "The naked skin on the head of a vulture is generally looked at as a direct adaptation for wallowing in putridity; and so it may be, or it may possibly be due to the direct action of putrid matter; but we should be very cautious in drawing any such inference, when we see that the skin on the head of the clean-feeding male turkey is likewise naked. The sutures in the skulls of young mammals have been advanced as a beautiful adaptation for aiding parturition, and no doubt they facilitate or may be indispensable for this act; but as sutures occur in the skulls of young birds and reptiles, which have only to escape from a broken egg, we may infer that this structure has arisen from the laws of growth, and has been taken advantage of in the parturition of the higher animals." All this, simply taken, is beyond cavil, unless the attempt to explain scientifically how any designed result is accomplished savors of impropriety. In the other place, Darwin is contemplating the patent fact that "perfection here below" is relative, not absolute--and illustrating this by the circumstance that European animals, and especially plants, are now proving to be better adapted for New Zealand than many of the indigenous ones--that "the correction for the aberration of light is said, on high authority, not to be quite perfect even in that most perfect organ, the eye." And then follows the second extract of the reviewer. But what is the position of the reviewer upon his own interpretation of these passages? If he insists that green woodpeckers were specifically created so in order that they might be less liable to capture, must he not equally hold that the black and pied ones were specifically made of these colors in order that they might be more liable to be caught? And would an explanation of the mode in which those woodpeckers came to be green, however complete, convince him that the color was undesigned? As to the other illustration, is the reviewer so complete an optimist as to insist that the arrangement and the weapon are wholly perfect (quoad the insect) the normal use of which often causes the animal fatally to injure or to disembowel itself? Either way it seems to us that the argument here, as well as the insect, performs hari-kari. The Examiner adds: "We should in like manner object to the word favorable, as implying that some species are placed by the Creator under unfavorable circumstances, at least under such as might be advantageously modified." But are not many individuals and some races of men placed by the Creator "under unfavorable circumstances, at least under such as might be advantageously modified?" Surely these reviewers must be living in an ideal world, surrounded by "the faultless monsters which our world ne'er saw," in some elysium where imperfection and distress were never heard of! Such arguments resemble some which we often hear against the Bible, holding that book responsible as if it originated certain facts on the shady side of human nature or the apparently darker lines of Providential dealing, though the facts are facts of common observation and have to be confronted upon any theory. The North American reviewer also has a world of his own--just such a one as an idealizing philosopher would be apt to devise--that is, full of sharp and absolute distinctions: such, for instance, as the "absolute invariableness of instinct;" an absolute want of intelligence in any brute animal; and a complete monopoly of instinct by the brute animals, so that this "instinct is a great matter" for them only, since it sharply and perfectly distinguishes this portion of organic Nature from the vegetable kingdom on the one hand and from man on the other: most convenient views for argumentative purposes, but we suppose not borne out in fact. In their scientific objections the two reviewers take somewhat different lines; but their philosophical and theological arguments strikingly coincide. They agree in emphatically asserting that Darwin's hypothesis of the origination of species through variation and natural selection "repudiates the whole doctrine of final causes," and "all indication of design or purpose in the organic world . . . is neither more nor less than a formal denial of any agency beyond that of a blind chance in the developing or perfecting of the organs or instincts of created beings. . . . It is in vain that the apologists of this hypothesis might say that it merely attributes a different mode and time to the Divine agency--that all the qualities subsequently appearing in their descendants must have been implanted, and have remained latent in the original pair." Such a view, the Examiner declares, "is nowhere stated in this book, and would be, we are sure, disclaimed by the author." We should like to be informed of the grounds of this sureness. The marked rejection of spontaneous generation--the statement of a belief that all animals have descended from four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number, or, perhaps, if constrained to it by analogy, "from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed"--coupled with the expression, "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes," than "that each species has been independently created"--these and similar expressions lead us to suppose that the author probably does accept the kind of view which the Examiner is sure he would disclaim. At least, we charitably see nothing in his scientific theory to hinder his adoption of Lord Bacon's "Confession of Faith" in this regard-- "That, notwithstanding God hath rested and ceased from creating, yet, nevertheless, he doth accomplish and fulfill his divine will in all things, great and small, singular and general, as fully and exactly by providence as he could by miracle and new creation, though his working be not immediate and direct, but by compass; not violating Nature, which is his own law upon the creature." However that may be, it is undeniable that Mr. Darwin has purposely been silent upon the philosophical and theological applications of his theory. This reticence, under the circumstances, argues design, and raises inquiry as to the final cause or reason why. Here, as in higher instances, confident as we are that there is a final cause, we must not be overconfident that we can infer the particular or true one. Perhaps the author is more familiar with natural-historical than with philosophical inquiries, and, not having decided which particular theory about efficient cause is best founded, he meanwhile argues the scientific questions concerned--all that relates to secondary causes--upon purely scientific grounds, as he must do in any case. Perhaps, confident, as he evidently is, that his view will finally be adopted, he may enjoy a sort of satisfaction in hearing it denounced as sheer atheism by the inconsiderate, and afterward, when it takes its place with the nebular hypothesis and the like, see this judgment reversed, as we suppose it would be in such event. Whatever Mr. Darwin's philosophy may be, or whether he has any, is a matter of no consequence at all, compared with the important questions, whether a theory to account for the origination and diversification of animal and vegetable forms through the operation of secondary causes does or does not exclude design; and whether the establishment by adequate evidence of Darwin's particular theory of diversification through variation and natural selection would essentially alter the present scientific and philosophical grounds for theistic views of Nature. The unqualified affirmative judgment rendered by the two Boston reviewers, evidently able and practised reasoners, "must give us pause." We hesitate to advance our conclusions in opposition to theirs. But, after full and serious consideration, we are constrained to say that, in our opinion, the adoption of a derivative hypothesis, and of Darwin's particular hypothesis, if we understand it, would leave the doctrines of final causes, utility, and special design, just where they were before. We do not pretend that the subject is not environed with difficulties. Every view is so environed; and every shifting of the view is likely, if it removes some difficulties, to bring others into prominence. But we cannot perceive that Darwin's theory brings in any new kind of scientific difficulty, that is, any with which philosophical naturalists were not already familiar. Since natural science deals only with secondary or natural causes, the scientific terms of a theory of derivation of species--no less than of a theory of dynamics--must needs be the same to the theist as to the atheist. The difference appears only when the inquiry is carried up to the question of primary cause--a question which belongs to philosophy. Wherefore, Darwin 's reticence about efficient cause does not disturb us. He considers only the scientific questions. As already stated, we think that a theistic view of Nature is implied in his book, and we must charitably refrain from suggesting the contrary until the contrary is logically deduced from his premises. If, however, he anywhere maintains that the natural causes through which species are diversified operate without an ordaining and directing intelligence, and that the orderly arrangements and admirable adaptations we see all around us are fortuitous or blind, undesigned results--that the eye, though it came to see, was not designed for seeing, nor the hand for handling--then, we suppose, he is justly chargeable with denying, and very needlessly denying, all design in organic Nature; otherwise, we suppose not. Why, if Darwin's well-known passage about the eye[III-10] equivocal though some of the language be--does not imply ordaining and directing intelligence, then he refutes his own theory as effectually as any of his opponents are likely to do. He asks: "May we not believe that [under variation proceeding long enough, generation multiplying the better variations times enough, and natural selection securing the improvements] a living optical instrument might be thus formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?" This must mean one of two things: either that the living instrument was made and perfected under (which is the same thing as by) an intelligent First Cause, or that it was not. If it was, then theism is asserted; and as to the mode of operation, how do we know, and why must we believe, that, fitting precedent forms being in existence, a living instrument (so different from a lifeless manufacture) would be originated and perfected in any other way, or that this is not the fitting way? If it means that it was not, if he so misuses words that by the Creator he intends an unintelligent power, undirected force, or necessity, then he has put his case so as to invite disbelief in it. For then blind forces have produced not only manifest adaptions of means to specific ends--which is absurd enough--but better adjusted and more perfect instruments or machines than intellect (that is, human intellect) can contrive and human skill execute--which no sane person will believe. On the other hand, if Darwin even admits--we will not say adopts--the theistic view, he may save himself much needless trouble in the endeavor to account for the absence of every sort of intermediate form. Those in the line between one species and another supposed to be derived from it he may be bound to provide; but as to "an infinite number of other varieties not intermediate, gross, rude, and purposeless, the unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause," born only to perish, which a relentless reviewer has imposed upon his theory--rightly enough upon the atheistic alternative--the theistic view rids him at once of this "scum of creation." For, as species do not now vary at all times and places and in all directions, nor produce crude, vague, imperfect, and useless forms, there is no reason for supposing that they ever did. Good-for-nothing monstrosities, failures of purpose rather than purposeless, indeed, sometimes occur; but these are just as anomalous and unlikely upon Darwin's theory as upon any other. For his particular theory is based, and even over-strictly insists, upon the most universal of physiological laws, namely, that successive generations shall differ only slightly, if at all, from their parents; and this effectively excludes crude and impotent forms. Wherefore, if we believe that the species were designed, and that natural propagation was designed, how can we say that the actual varieties of the species were not equally designed? Have we not similar grounds for inferring design in the supposed varieties of species, that we have in the case of the supposed species of a genus? When a naturalist comes to regard as three closely related species what he before took to be so many varieties of one species how has he thereby strengthened our conviction that the three forms are designed to have the differences which they actually exhibit? Wherefore so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. Streams flowing over a sloping plain by gravitation (here the counterpart of natural selection) may have worn their actual channels as they flowed; yet their particular courses may have been assigned; and where we see them forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was designed. To insist, therefore, that the new hypothesis of the derivative origin of the actual species is incompatible with final causes and design, is to take a position which we must consider philosophically untenable. We must also regard it as highly unwise and dangerous, in the present state and present prospects of physical and physiological science. We should expect the philosophical atheist or skeptic to take this ground; also, until better informed, the unlearned and unphilosophical believer; but we should think that the thoughtful theistic philosopher would take the other side. Not to do so seems to concede that only supernatural events can be shown to be designed, which no theist can admit--seems also to misconceive the scope and meaning of all ordinary arguments for design in Nature. This misconception is shared both by the reviewers and the reviewed. At least, Mr. Darwin uses expressions which imply that the natural forms which surround us, because they have a history or natural sequence, could have been only generally, but not particularly designed--a view at once superficial and contradictory; whereas his true line should be, that his hypothesis concerns the order and not the cause, the how and not the why of the phenomena, and so leaves the question of design just where it was before. To illustrate this from the theist's point of view: Transfer the question for a moment from the origination of species to the origination of individuals, which occurs, as we say, naturally. Because natural, that is, "stated, fixed, or settled," is it any the less designed on that account? We acknowledge that God is our maker--not merely the originator of the race, but our maker as individuals--and none the less so because it pleased him to make us in the way of ordinary generation. If any of us were born unlike our parents and grandparents, in a slight degree, or in whatever degree, would the case be altered in this regard? The whole argument in natural theology proceeds upon the ground that the inference for a final cause of the structure of the hand and of the valves in the veins is just as valid now, in individuals produced through natural generation, as it would have been in the case of the first man, supernaturally created. Why not, then, just as good even on the supposition of the descent of men from chimpanzees and gorillas, since those animals possess these same contrivances? Or, to take a more supposable case: If the argument from structure to design is convincing when drawn from a particular animal, say a Newfoundland dog, and is not weakened by the knowledge that this dog came from similar parents, would it be at all weakened if, in tracing his genealogy, it were ascertained that he was a remote descendant of the mastiff or some other breed, or that both these and other breeds came (as is suspected) from some wolf? If not, how is the argument for design in the structure of our particular dog affected by the supposition that his wolfish progenitor came from a post-tertiary wolf, perhaps less unlike an existing one than the dog in question is to some other of the numerous existing races of dogs, and that this post-tertiary came from an equally or more different tertiary wolf? And if the argument from structure to design is not invalidated by our present knowledge that our individual dog was developed from a single organic cell, how is it invalidated by the supposition of an analogous natural descent, through a long line of connected forms, from such a cell, or from some simple animal, existing ages before there were any dogs? Again, suppose we have two well-known and apparently most decidedly different animals or plants, A and D, both presenting, in their structure and in their adaptations to the conditions of existence, as valid and clear evidence of design as any animal or plant ever presented: suppose we have now discovered two intermediate species, B and C, which make up a series with equable differences from A to D. Is the proof of design or final cause in A and D, whatever it amounted to, at all weakened by the discovery of the intermediate forms? Rather does not the proof extend to the intermediate species, and go to show that all four were equally designed? Suppose, now, the number of intermediate forms to be much increased, and therefore the gradations to be closer yet--as close as those between the various sorts of dogs, or races of men, or of horned cattle: would the evidence of design, as shown in the structure of any of the members of the series, be any weaker than it was in the case of A and D? Whoever contends that it would be, should likewise maintain that the origination of individuals by generation is incompatible with design, or an impossibility in Nature. We might all have confidently thought the latter, antecedently to experience of the fact of reproduction. Let our experience teach us wisdom. These illustrations make it clear that the evidence of design from structure and adaptation is furnished complete by the individual animal or plant itself, and that our knowledge or our ignorance of the history of its formation or mode of production adds nothing to it and takes nothing away. We infer design from certain arrangements and results; and we have no other way of ascertaining it. Testimony, unless infallible, cannot prove it, and is out of the question here. Testimony is not the appropriate proof of design: adaptation to purpose is. Some arrangements in Nature appear to be contrivances, but may leave us in doubt. Many others, of which the eye and the hand are notable examples, compel belief with a force not appreciably short of demonstration. Clearly to settle that such as these must have been designed goes far toward proving that other organs and other seemingly less explicit adaptations in Nature must also have been designed, and clinches our belief, from manifold considerations, that all Nature is a preconcerted arrangement, a manifested design. A strange contradiction would it be to insist that the shape and markings of certain rude pieces of flint, lately found in drift-deposits, prove design, but that nicer and thousand-fold more complex adaptations to use in animals and vegetables do not a fortiori argue design. We could not affirm that the arguments for design in Nature are conclusive to all minds. But we may insist, upon grounds already intimated, that, whatever they were good for before Darwin's book appeared, they are good for now. To our minds the argument from design always appeared conclusive of the being and continued operation of an intelligent First Cause, the Ordainer of Nature; and we do not see that the grounds of such belief would be disturbed or shifted by the adoption of Darwin's hypothesis. We are not blind to the philosophical difficulties which the thoroughgoing implication of design in Nature has to encounter, nor is it our vocation to obviate them It suffices us to know that they are not new nor peculiar difficulties--that, as Darwin's theory and our reasonings upon it did not raise these perturbing spirits, they are not bound to lay them. Meanwhile, that the doctrine of design encounters the very same difficulties in the material that it does in the moral world is Just what ought to be expected. So the issue between the skeptic and the theist is only the old one, long ago argued out--namely, whether organic Nature is a result of design or of chance. Variation and natural selection open no third alternative; they concern only the question how the results, whether fortuitous or designed, may have been brought about. Organic Nature abounds with unmistakable and irresistible indications of design, and, being a connected and consistent system, this evidence carries the implication of design throughout the whole. On the other hand, chance carries no probabilities with it, can never be developed into a consistent system, but, when applied to the explanation of orderly or beneficial results, heaps up improbabilities at every step beyond all computation. To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos. It is very easy to assume that, because events in Nature are in one sense accidental, and the operative forces which bring them to pass are themselves blind and unintelligent (physically considered, all forces are), therefore they are undirected, or that he who describes these events as the results of such forces thereby assumes that they are undirected. This is the assumption of the Boston reviewers, and of Mr. Agassiz, who insists that the only alternative to the doctrine, that all organized beings were supernaturally created just as they are, is, that they have arisen spontaneously through the omnipotence of matter.[III-11] As to all this, nothing is easier than to bring out in the conclusion what you introduce in the premises. If you import atheism into your conception of variation and natural selection, you can readily exhibit it in the result. If you do not put it in, perhaps there need be none to come out. While the mechanician is considering a steamboat or locomotive-engine as a material organism, and contemplating the fuel, water, and steam, the source of the mechanical forces, and how they operate, he may not have occasion to mention the engineer. But, the orderly and special results accomplished, the why the movements are in this or that particular direction, etc., is inexplicable without him. If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold were undirected and undesigned, or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheism. But the admission of the phenomena and of these natural processes and forces does not necessitate any such belief, nor even render it one whit less improbable than before. Surely, too, the accidental element may play its part in Nature without negativing design in the theist's view. He believes that the earth's surface has been very gradually prepared for man and the existing animal races, that vegetable matter has through a long series of generations imparted fertility to the soil in order that it may support its present occupants, that even beds of coal have been stored up for man's benefit Yet what is more accidental, and more simply the consequence of physical agencies than the accumulation of vegetable matter in a peat bog and its transformation into coal? No scientific person at this day doubts that our solar system is a progressive development, whether in his conception he begins with molten masses, or aeriform or nebulous masses, or with a fluid revolving mass of vast extent, from which the specific existing worlds have been developed one by one What theist doubts that the actual results of the development in the inorganic worlds are not merely compatible with design but are in the truest sense designed re suits? Not Mr. Agassiz, certainly, who adopts a remarkable illustration of design directly founded on the nebular hypothesis drawing from the position and times of the revolution of the world, so originated direct evidence that the physical world has been ordained in conformity with laws which obtain also among living beings But the reader of the interesting exposition[III-12] will notice that the designed result has been brought to pass through what, speaking after the manner of men, might be called a chapter of accidents. A natural corollary of this demonstration would seem to be, that a material connection between a series of created things--such as the development of one of them from another, or of all from a common stock--is highly compatible with their intellectual connection, namely, with their being designed and directed by one mind. Yet upon some ground which is not explained, and which we are unable to conjecture, Mr. Agassiz concludes to the contrary in the organic kingdoms, and insists that, because the members of such a series have an intellectual connection, "they cannot be the result of a material differentiation of the objects themselves,"[III-13] that is, they cannot have had a genealogical connection. But is there not as much intellectual connection between the successive generations of any species as there is between the several species of a genus, or the several genera of an order? As the intellectual connection here is realized through the material connection, why may it not be so in the case of species and genera? On all sides, therefore, the implication seems to be quite the other way. Returning to the accidental element, it is evident that the strongest point against the compatibility of Darwin's hypothesis with design in Nature is made when natural selection is referred to as picking out those variations which are improvements from a vast number which are not improvements, but perhaps the contrary, and therefore useless or purposeless, and born to perish. But even here the difficulty is not peculiar; for Nature abounds with analogous instances. Some of our race are useless, or worse, as regards the improvement of mankind; yet the race may be designed to improve, and may be actually improving. Or, to avoid the complication with free agency--the whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon the vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture is furnished by the ocean, is raised by the sun's heat from the ocean's surface, and is wafted inland by the winds. But what multitudes of raindrops fall back into the ocean--are as much without a final cause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing! Does it therefore follow that the rains which are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity were not designed to support vegetable and animal life? Consider, likewise, the vast proportion of seeds and pollen, of ova and young--a thousand or more to one--which come to nothing, and are therefore purposeless in the same sense, and only in the same sense, as are Darwin's unimproved and unused slight variations. The world is full of such cases; and these must answer the argument--for we cannot, except by thus showing that it proves too much. Finally, it is worth noticing that, though natural selection is scientifically explicable, variation is not. Thus far the cause of variation, or the reason why the offspring is sometimes unlike the parents, is just as mysterious as the reason why it is generally like the parents. It is now as inexplicable as any other origination; and, if ever explained, the explanation will only carry up the sequence of secondary causes one step farther, and bring us in face of a somewhat different problem, but which will have the same element of mystery that the problem of variation has now. Circumstances may preserve or may destroy the variations man may use or direct them but selection whether artificial or natural no more originates them than man originates the power which turns a wheel when he dams a stream and lets the water fall upon it The origination of this power is a question about efficient cause. The tendency of science in respect to this obviously is not toward the omnipotence of matter, as some suppose, but to ward the omnipotence of spirit. So the real question we come to is as to the way in which we are to conceive intelligent and efficient cause to be exerted, and upon what exerted. Are we bound to suppose efficient cause in all cases exerted upon nothing to evoke something into existence--and this thousands of times repeated, when a slight change in the details would make all the difference between successive species? Why may not the new species, or some of them, be designed diversifications of the old? There are, perhaps, only three views of efficient cause which may claim to be both philosophical and theistic: 1. The view of its exertion at the beginning of time, endowing matter and created things with forces which do the work and produce the phenomena. 2. This same view, with the theory of insulated interpositions, or occasional direct action, engrafted upon it--the view that events and operations in general go on in virtue simply of forces communicated at the first, but that now and then, and only now and then, the Deity puts his hand directly to the work. 3. The theory of the immediate, orderly, and constant, however infinitely diversified, action of the intelligent efficient Cause. It must be allowed that, while the third is preeminently the Christian view, all three are philosophically compatible with design in Nature. The second is probably the popular conception. Perhaps most thoughtful people oscillate from the middle view toward the first or the third--adopting the first on some occasions, the third on others. Those philosophers who like and expect to settle all mooted questions will take one or the other extreme. The Examiner inclines toward, the North American reviewer fully adopts, the third view, to the logical extent of maintaining that "the origin of an individual, as well as the origin of a species or a genus, can be explained only by the direct action of an intelligent creative cause." To silence his critics, this is the line for Mr. Darwin to take; for it at once and completely relieves his scientific theory from every theological objection which his reviewers have urged against it. At present we suspect that our author prefers the first conception, though he might contend that his hypothesis is compatible with either of the three. That it is also compatible with an atheistic or pantheistic conception of the universe, is an objection which, being shared by all physical, and some ethical or moral science, cannot specially be urged against Darwin's system. As he rejects spontaneous generation, and admits of intervention at the beginning of organic life, and probably in more than one instance, he is not wholly excluded from adopting the middle view, although the interventions he would allow are few and far back. Yet one interposition admits the principle as well as more. Interposition presupposes particular necessity or reason for it, and raises the question, when and how often it may have been necessary. It might be the natural supposition, if we had only one set of species to account for, or if the successive inhabitants of the earth had no other connections or resemblances than those which adaptation to similar conditions, which final causes in the narrower sense, might explain. But if this explanation of organic Nature requires one to "believe that, at innumerable periods in the earth's history, certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues," and this when the results are seen to be strictly connected and systematic, we cannot wonder that such interventions should at length be considered, not as interpositions or interferences, but rather--to use the reviewer's own language--as "exertions so frequent and beneficent that we come to regard them as the ordinary action of Him who laid the foundation of the earth, and without whom not a sparrow falleth to the ground."[III-14] What does the difference between Mr. Darwin and his reviewer now amount to? If we say that according to one view the origination of species is natural, according to the other miraculous, Mr. Darwin agrees that "what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent mind to render it so-- that is, to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural does to effect it for once."[III-15] He merely inquires into the form of the miracle, may remind us that all recorded miracles (except the primal creation of matter) were transformations or actions in and upon natural things, and will ask how many times and how frequently may the origination of successive species be repeated before the supernatural merges in the natural. In short, Darwin maintains that the origination of a species, no less than that of an individual, is natural; the reviewer, that the natural origination of an individual, no less than the origination of a species, requires and presupposes Divine power. A fortiori, then, the origination of a variety requires and presupposes Divine power. And so between the scientific hypothesis of the one and the philosophical conception of the other no contrariety remains. And so, concludes the North American reviewer, "a proper view of the nature of causation places the vital doctrine of the being and the providence of a God on ground that can never be shaken."[III-16] A worthy conclusion, and a sufficient answer to the denunciations and arguments of the rest of the article, so far as philosophy and natural theology are concerned. If a writer must needs use his own favorite dogma as a weapon with which to give coup de grace to a pernicious theory, he should be careful to seize his edge-tool by the handle, and not by the blade. We can barely glance at a subsidiary philosophical objection of the North American reviewer, which the Examiner also raises, though less explicitly. Like all geologists, Mr. Darwin draws upon time in the most unlimited manner. He is not peculiar in this regard. Mr. Agassiz tells us that the conviction is "now universal, among well-informed naturalists, that this globe has been in existence for innumerable ages, and that the length of time elapsed since it first became inhabited cannot be counted in years;" Pictet, that the imagination refuses to calculate the immense number of years and of ages during which the faunas of thirty or more epochs have succeeded one another, and developed their long succession of generations. Now, the reviewer declares that such indefinite succession of ages is "virtually infinite," "lacks no characteristic of eternity except its name," at least, that "the difference between such a conception and that of the strictly infinite, if any, is not appreciable." But infinity belongs to metaphysics. Therefore, he concludes, Darwin supports his theory, not by scientific but by metaphysical evidence; his theory is "essentially and completely metaphysical in character, resting altogether upon that idea of �the infinite' which the human mind can neither put aside nor comprehend."[III-17] And so a theory which will be generally regarded as much too physical is transferred by a single syllogism to metaphysics. Well, physical geology must go with it: for, even on the soberest view, it demands an indefinitely long time antecedent to the introduction of organic life upon our earth. A fortiori is physical astronomy a branch of metaphysics, demanding, as it does, still larger "instalments of infinity," as the reviewer calls them, both as to time and number. Moreover, far the greater part of physical inquiries now relate to molecular actions, which, a distinguished natural philosopher informs us, "we have to regard as the results of an infinite number of in finitely small material particles, acting on each other at infinitely small distances"--a triad of infinities--and so physics becomes the most metaphysical of sciences. Verily, if this style of reasoning is to prevail-- "Thinking is but an idle waste of thought, And naught is everything, and everything is naught." The leading objection of Mr. Agassiz is likewise of a philosophical character. It is, that species exist only "as categories of thought"--that, having no material existence, they can have had no material variation, and no material community of origin. Here the predication is of species in the subjective sense, the inference in the objective sense. Reduced to plain terms, the argument seems to be: Species are ideas; therefore the objects from which the idea is derived cannot vary or blend, and cannot have had a genealogical connection. The common view of species is, that, although they are generalizations, yet they have a direct objective ground in Nature, which genera, orders, etc., have not. According to the succinct definition of Jussieu--and that of Linnaeus is identical in meaning--a species is the perennial succession of similar individuals in continued generations. The species is the chain of which the individuals are the links. The sum of the genealogically-connected similar individuals constitutes the species, which thus has an actuality and ground of distinction not shared by genera and other groups which were not supposed to be genealogically connected. How a derivative hypothesis would modify this view, in assigning to species only a temporary fixity, is obvious. Yet, if naturalists adopt that hypothesis, they will still retain Jussieu's definition, which leaves untouched the question as to how and when the "perennial successions" were established. The practical question will only be, How much difference between two sets of individuals entitles them to rank under distinct species? and that is the practical question now, on whatever theory. The theoretical question is--as stated at the beginning of this article--whether these specific lines were always as distinct as now. Mr. Agassiz has "lost no opportunity of urging the idea that, while species have no material existence, they yet exist as categories of thought in the same way [and only in the same way] as genera, families, orders, classes," etc. He "has taken the ground that all the natural divisions in the animal kingdom are primarily distinct, founded upon different categories of characters, and that all exist in the same way, that is, as categories of thought, embodied in individual living forms. I have attempted to show that branches in the animal kingdom are founded upon different plans of structure, and for that very reason have embraced from the beginning representatives between which there could be no community of origin; that classes are founded upon different modes of execution of these plans, and therefore they also embrace representatives which could have no community of origin; that orders represent the different degrees of complication in the mode of execution of each class, and therefore embrace representatives which could not have a community of origin any more than the members of different classes or branches; that families are founded upon different patterns of form, and embrace, representatives equally independent in their origin; that genera are founded upon ultimate peculiarities of structure, embracing representatives which, from the very nature of their peculiarities, could have no community of origin; and that, finally, species are based upon relations--and proportions that exclude, as much as all the preceding distinctions, the idea of a common descent. "As the community of characters among the beings belonging to these different categories arises from the intellectual connection which shows them to be categories of thought, they cannot be the result of a gradual material differentiation of the objects themselves. The argument on which these views are founded may be summed up in the following few words: Species, genera, families, etc., exist as thoughts, individuals as facts."[III-18] An ingenious dilemma caps the argument: "It seems to me that there is much confusion of ideas in the general statement of the variability of species so often repeated lately. If species do not exist at all, as the supporters of the transmutation theory maintain, how can they vary? And if individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of species?" Now, we imagine that Mr. Darwin need not be dangerously gored by either horn of this curious dilemma. Although we ourselves cherish old-fashioned prejudices in favor of the probable permanence, and therefore of a more stable objective ground of species, yet we agree--and Mr. Darwin will agree fully with Mr. Agassiz--that species, and he will add varieties, "exist as categories of thought," that is, as cognizable distinctions--which is all that we can make of the phrase here, whatever it may mean in the Aristotelian metaphysics. Admitting that species are only categories of thought, and not facts or things, how does this prevent the individuals, which are material things, from having varied in the course of time, so as to exemplify the present almost innumerable categories of thought, or embodiments of Divine thought in material forms, or--viewed on the human side--in forms marked with such orderly and graduated resemblances and differences as to suggest to our minds the idea of species, genera, orders, etc., and to our reason the inference of a Divine Original? We have no clear idea how Mr. Agassiz intends to answer this question, in saying that branches are founded upon different plans of structure, classes upon different mode of execution of these plans, orders on different degrees of complication in the mode of execution, families upon different patterns of form, genera upon ultimate peculiarities of structure, and species upon relations and proportions. That is, we do not perceive how these several "categories of thought" exclude the possibility or the probability that the individuals which manifest or suggest the thoughts had an ultimate community of origin. Moreover, Mr. Darwin might insinuate that the particular philosophy of classification upon which this whole argument reposes is as purely hypothetical and as little accepted as is his own doctrine. If both are pure hypotheses, it is hardly fair or satisfactory to extinguish the one by the other. If there is no real contradiction between them, nothing is gained by the attempt. As to the dilemma propounded, suppose we try it upon that category of thought which we call chair. This is a genus, comprising a common chair (Sella vulgaris), arm or easy chair (S. cathedra), the rocking-chair (S. oscillans)--widely distributed in the United States--and some others, each of which has sported, as the gardeners say, into many varieties. But now, as the genus and the species have no material existence, how can they vary? If only individual chairs exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of the species? To which we reply by asking, Which does the question refer to, the category of thought, or the individual embodiment? If the former, then we would remark that our categories of thought vary from time to time in the readiest manner. And, although the Divine thoughts are eternal, yet they are manifested to us in time and succession, and by their manifestation only can we know them, how imperfectly! Allowing that what has no material existence can have had no material connection or variation, we should yet infer that what has intellectual existence and connection might have intellectual variation; and, turning to the individuals, which represent the species, we do not see how all this shows that they may not vary. Observation shows us that they do. Wherefore, taught by fact that successive individuals do vary, we safely infer that the idea must have varied, and that this variation of the individual representatives proves the variability of the species, whether objectively or subjectively regarded. Each species or sort of chair, as we have said, has its varieties, and one species shades off by gradations into another. And--note it well--these numerous and successively slight variations and gradations, far from suggesting an accidental origin to chairs and to their forms, are very proofs of design. Again, edifice is a generic category of thought. Egyptian, Grecian, Byzantine, and Gothic buildings are well-marked species, of which each individual building of the sort is a material embodiment. Now, the question is, whether these categories or ideas may not have been evolved, one from another in succession, or from some primal, less specialized, edificial category. What better evidence for such hypothesis could we have than the variations and grades which connect these species with each other? We might extend the parallel, and get some good illustrations of natural selection from the history of architecture, and the origin of the different styles under different climates and conditions. Two considerations may qualify or limit the comparison. One, that houses do not propagate, so as to produce continuing lines of each sort and variety; but this is of small moment on Agassiz's view, he holding that genealogical connection is not of the essence of a species at all. The other, that the formation and development of the ideas upon which human works proceed are gradual; or, as the same great naturalist well states it, "while human thought is consecutive, Divine thought is simultaneous." But we have no right to affirm this of Divine action. We must close here. We meant to review some of the more general scientific objections which we thought not altogether tenable. But, after all, we are not so anxious just now to know whether the new theory is well founded on facts, as whether it would be harmless if it were. Besides, we feel quite unable to answer some of these objections, and it is pleasanter to take up those which one thinks he can. Among the unanswerable, perhaps the weightiest of the objections, is that of the absence, in geological deposits, of vestiges of the intermediate forms which the theory requires to have existed. Here all that Mr. Darwin can do is to insist upon the extreme imperfection of the geological record and the uncertainty of negative evidence. But, withal, he allows the force of the objection almost as much as his opponents urge it--so much so, indeed, that two of his English critics turn the concession unfairly upon him, and charge him with actually basing his hypothesis upon these and similar difficulties--as if he held it because of the difficulties, and not in spite of them; a handsome return for his candor! As to this imperfection of the geological record, perhaps we should get a fair and intelligible illustration of it by imagining the existing animals and plants of New England, with all their remains and products since the arrival of the Mayflower, to be annihilated; and that, in the coming time, the geologists of a new colony, dropped by the New Zealand fleet on its way to explore the ruins of London, undertake, after fifty years of examination, to reconstruct in a catalogue the flora and fauna of our day, that is, from the close of the glacial period to the present time. With all the advantages of a surface exploration, what a beggarly account it would be! How many of the land animals and plants which are enumerated in the Massachusetts official reports would it be likely to contain? Another unanswerable question asked by the Boston reviewers is, Why, when structure and instinct or habit vary-- as they must have varied, on Darwin's hypothesis--they vary together and harmoniously, instead of vaguely? We cannot tell, because we cannot tell why either varies at all. Yet, as they both do vary in successive generations--as is seen under domestication--and are correlated, we can only adduce the fact. Darwin may be precluded from our answer, but we may say that they vary together because designed to do so. A reviewer says that the chance of their varying together is inconceivably small; yet, if they do not, the variant individuals must all perish. Then it is well that it is not left to chance. To refer to a parallel case: before we were born, nourishment and the equivalent to respiration took place in a certain way. But the moment we were ushered into this breathing world, our actions promptly conformed, both as to respiration and nourishment, to the before unused structure and to the new surroundings. "Now," says the Examiner, "suppose, for instance, the gills of an aquatic animal converted into lungs, while instinct still compelled a continuance under water, would not drowning ensue?" No doubt. But--simply contemplating the facts, instead of theorizing--we notice that young frogs do not keep their heads under water after ceasing to be tadpoles. The instinct promptly changes with the structure, without supernatural interposition--just as Darwin would have it, if the development of a variety or incipient species, though rare, were as natural as a metamorphosis. "Or if a quadruped, not yet furnished with wings, were suddenly inspired with the instinct of a bird, and precipitated itself from a cliff, would not the descent be hazardously rapid?" Doubtless the animal would be no better supported than the objection. But Darwin makes very little indeed of voluntary efforts as a cause of change, and even poor Lamarck need not be caricatured. He never supposed that an elephant would take such a notion into his wise head, or that a squirrel would begin with other than short and easy leaps; yet might not the length of the leap be increased by practice? The North American reviewer's position, that the higher brute animals have comparatively little instinct and no intelligence, is a heavy blow and great discouragement to dogs, horses, elephants, and monkeys. Thus stripped of their all, and left to shift for themselves as they may in this hard world, their pursuit and seeming attainment of knowledge under such peculiar difficulties are interesting to contemplate. However, we are not so sure as is the critic that instinct regularly increases downward and decreases upward in the scale of being. Now that the case of the bee is reduced to moderate proportions,[III-19] we know of nothing in instinct surpassing that of an animal so high as a bird, the talegal, the male of which plumes himself upon making a hot-bed in which to batch his partner's eggs--which he tends and regulates the beat of about as carefully and skillfully as the unplumed biped does an eccaleobion.[III-20] As to the real intelligence of the higher brutes, it has been ably defended by a far more competent observer, Mr. Agassiz, to whose conclusions we yield a general assent, although we cannot quite place the best of dogs "in that respect upon a level with a considerable proportion of poor humanity," nor indulge the hope, or indeed the desire, of a renewed acquaintance with the whole animal kingdom in a future life. The assertion that acquired habitudes or instincts, and acquired structures, are not heritable, any breeder or good observer can refute. That "the human mind has become what it is out of a developed instinct," is a statement which Mr. Darwin nowhere makes, and, we presume, would not accept. That he would have us believe that individual animals acquire their instincts gradually,[III-21] is a statement which must have been penned in inadvertence both of the very definition of instinct, and of everything we know of in Mr. Darwin's book. It has been attempted to destroy the very foundation of Darwin's hypothesis by denying that there are any wild varieties, to speak of, for natural selection to operate upon. We cannot gravely sit down to prove that wild varieties abound. We should think it just as necessary to prove that snow falls in winter. That variation among plants cannot be largely due to hybridism, and that their variation in Nature is not essentially different from much that occurs in domestication, and, in the long-run, probably hardly less in amount, we could show if our space permitted. As to the sterility of hybrids, that can no longer be insisted upon as absolutely true, nor be practically used as a test between species and varieties, unless we allow that hares and rabbits are of one species. That such sterility, whether total or partial, subserves a purpose in keeping species apart, and was so designed, we do not doubt. But the critics fail to perceive that this sterility proves nothing whatever against the derivative origin of the actual species; for it may as well have been intended to keep separate those forms which have reached a certain amount of divergence, as those which were always thus distinct. The argument for the permanence of species, drawn from the identity with those now living of cats, birds, and other animals preserved in Egyptian catacombs, was good enough as used by Cuvier against St.-Hilaire, that is, against the supposition that time brings about a gradual alteration of whole species; but it goes for little against Darwin, unless it be proved that species never vary, or that the perpetuation of a variety necessitates the extinction of the parent breed. For Darwin clearly maintains--what the facts warrant--that the mass of a species remains fixed so long as it exists at all, though it may set off a variety now and then. The variety may finally supersede the parent form, or it may coexist with it; yet it does not in the least hinder the unvaried stock from continuing true to the breed, unless it crosses with it. The common law of inheritance may be expected to keep both the original and the variety mainly true as long as they last, and none the less so because they have given rise to occasional varieties. The tailless Manx cats, like the curtailed fox in the fable, have not induced the normal breeds to dispense with their tails, nor have the Dorkings (apparently known to Pliny) affected the permanence of the common sort of fowl. As to the objection that the lower forms of life ought, on Darwin's theory, to have been long ago improved out of existence, and replaced by higher forms, the objectors forget what a vacuum that would leave below, and what a vast field there is to which a simple organization is best adapted, and where an advance would be no improvement, but the contrary. To accumulate the greatest amount of being upon a given space, and to provide as much enjoyment of life as can be under the conditions, is what Nature seems to aim at; and this is effected by diversification. Finally, we advise nobody to accept Darwin's or any other derivative theory as true. The time has not come for that, and perhaps never will. We also advise against a similar credulity on the other side, in a blind faith that species--that the manifold sorts and forms of existing animals and vegetables--"have no secondary cause." The contrary is already not unlikely, and we suppose will hereafter become more and more probable. But we are confident that, if a derivative hypothesis ever is established, it will be so on a solid theistic ground. Meanwhile an inevitable and legitimate hypothesis is on trial--an hypothesis thus far not untenable--a trial just now very useful to science, and, we conclude, not harmful to religion, unless injudicious assailants temporarily make it so. One good effect is already manifest; its enabling the advocates of the hypothesis of a multiplicity of human species to perceive the double insecurity of their ground. When the races of men are admitted to be of one species, the corollary, that they are of one origin, may be expected to follow. Those who allow them to be of one species must admit an actual diversification into strongly-marked and persistent varieties, and so admit the basis of fact upon which the Darwinian hypothesis is built; while those, on the other hand, who recognize several or numerous human species, will hardly be able to maintain that such species were primordial and supernatural in the ordinary sense of the word. The English mind is prone to positivism and kindred forms of materialistic philosophy, and we must expect the derivative theory to be taken up in that interest. We have no predilection for that school, but the contrary. If we had, we might have looked complacently upon a line of criticism which would indirectly, but effectively, play into the hands of positivists and materialistic atheists generally. The wiser and stronger ground to take is, that the derivative hypothesis leaves the argument for design, and therefore for a designer, as valid as it ever was; that to do any work by an instrument must require, and therefore presuppose, the exertion rather of more than of less power than to do it directly; that whoever would be a consistent theist should believe that Design in the natural world is coextensive with Providence, and hold as firmly to the one as he does to the other, in spite of the wholly similar and apparently insuperable difficulties which the mind encounters whenever it endeavors to develop the idea into a system, either in the material and organic, or in the moral world. It is enough, in the way of obviating objections, to show that the philosophical difficulties of the one are the same, and only the same, as of the other. IV SPECIES AS TO VARIATION, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, AND SUCCESSION (American Journal of Science and Arts, May, 1863) Etude sur l'Espece, a l'Occasion d'une Revision de la Famille des Cupuliferes, par M. ALPHONSE DE CANDOLLE.-- This is the title of a paper by M. Alph. De Candolle, growing out of his study of the oaks. It was published in the November number of the Bibliotheque Universelle, and separately issued as a pamphlet. A less inspiring task could hardly be assigned to a botanist than the systematic elaboration of the genus Quercus and its allies. The vast materials assembled under De Candolle's hands, while disheartening for their bulk, offered small hope of novelty. The subject was both extremely trite and extremely difficult. Happily it occurred to De Candolle that an interest might be imparted to an onerous undertaking, and a work of necessity be turned to good account for science, by studying the oaks in view of the question of species. What this term species means, or should mean, in natural history, what the limits of species, inter se or chronologically, or in geographical distribution, their modifications, actual or probable, their origin, and their destiny--these are questions which surge up from time to time; and now and then in the progress of science they come to assume a new and hopeful interest. Botany and zoology, geology, and what our author, feeling the want of a new term proposes to name epiontology, [IV-1] all lead up to and converge into this class of questions, while recent theories shape and point the discussion So we look with eager interest to see what light the study of oaks by a very careful experienced and conservative botanist, particularly conversant with the geographical relations of plants may throw upon the subject. The course of investigation in this instance does not differ from that ordinarily pursued by working botanists nor, in deed are the theoretical conclusions other than those to which a similar study of other orders might not have equally led. The oaks afford a very good occasion for the discussion of questions which press upon our attention, and perhaps they offer peculiarly good materials on account of the number of fossil species. Preconceived notions about species being laid aside, the specimens in hand were distributed, according to their obvious resemblances, into groups of apparently identical or nearly identical forms, which were severally examined and compared. Where specimens were few, as from countries little explored, the work was easy, but the conclusions, as will be seen, of small value. The fewer the materials, the smaller the likelihood of forms intermediate between any two, and--what does not appear being treated upon the old law-maxim as non-existent--species are readily enough defined. Where, however, specimens abound, as in the case of the oaks of Europe, of the Orient, and of the United States, of which the specimens amounted to hundreds, collected at different ages, in varied localities, by botanists of all sorts of views and predilections--here alone were data fit to draw useful conclusions from. Here, as De Candolle remarks, he had every advantage, being furnished with materials more complete than any one person could have procured from his own herborizations, more varied than if he had observed a hundred times over the same forms in the same district, and more impartial than if they had all been amassed by one person with his own ideas or predispositions. So that vast herbaria, into which contributions from every source have flowed for years, furnish the best possible data--at least are far better than any practicable amount of personal herborization--or the comparative study of related forms occurring over wide tracts of territory. But as the materials increase, so do the difficulties. Forms, which appeared totally distinct, approach or blend through intermediate gradations; characters, stable in a limited number of instances or in a limited district, prove unstable occasionally, or when observed over a wider area; and the practical question is forced upon the investigator, What here is probably fixed and specific, and what is variant, pertaining to individual, variety, or race? In the examination of these rich materials, certain characters were found to vary upon the same branch, or upon the same tree, sometimes according to age or development, sometimes irrespective of such relations or of any assignable reasons. Such characters, of course, are not specific, although many of them are such as would have been expected to be constant in the same species, and are such as generally enter into specific definitions. Variations of this sort, De Candolle, with his usual painstaking, classifies and tabulates, and even expresses numerically their frequency in certain species. The results are brought well to view in a systematic enumeration: 1. Of characters which frequently vary upon the same branch: over a dozen such are mentioned. 2. Of those which sometimes vary upon the same branch: a smaller number of these are mentioned. 3. Those so rare that they might be called monstrosities. Then he enumerates characters, ten in number, which he has never found to vary on the same branch, and which, therefore, may better claim to be employed as specific. But, as among them he includes the duration of the leaves, the size of the cupule, and the form and size of its scales, which are by no means quite uniform in different trees of the same species, even these characters must be taken with allowance. In fact, having first brought together, as groups of the lowest order, those forms which varied upon the same stock, he next had to combine similarly various forms which, though not found associated upon the same branch, were thoroughly blended by intermediate degrees: "The lower groups (varieties or races) being thus constituted, I have given the rank of species to the groups next above these, which differ in other respects, i.e., either in characters which were not found united upon certain individuals, or in those which do not show transitions from one individual to another. For the oaks of regions sufficiently known, the species thus formed rest upon satisfactory bases, of which the proof can be furnished. It is quite otherwise with those which are represented in our herbaria by single or few specimens. These are provisional species--species which may hereafter fall to the rank of simple varieties. I have not been inclined to prejudge such questions; indeed, in this regard, I am not disposed to follow those authors whose tendency is, as they say, to reunite species. I never reunite them without proof in each particular case; while the botanists to whom I refer do so on the ground of analogous variations or transitions occurring in the same genus or in the same family. For example resting on the fact that Quercus hex, Q. coccifera, Q. acutifolia, etc., have the leaves sometimes entire and sometimes toothed upon the same branch, or present transitions from one tree to another, I might readily have united my Q. Tlapuxahuensis to Q. Sartorii of Liebmann, since these two differ only in their entire or their toothed leaves. From the fact that the length of the peduncle varies in Q. Robur and many other oaks, I might have combined Q. Seemannii Liebm. with Q. salicifolia Nee. I have not admitted these inductions, but have demanded visible proof in each particular case. Many species are thus left as provisional; but, in proceeding thus, the progress of the science will be more regular, and the synonymy less dependent upon the caprice or the theoretical opinions of each author." This is safe and to a certain degree judicious, no doubt, as respects published species. Once admitted, they may stand until they are put down by evidence, direct or circumstantial. Doubtless a species may rightfully be condemned on good circumstantial evidence. But what course does De Candolle pursue in the case--of every-day occurrence to most working botanists, having to elaborate collections from countries not so well explored as Europe--when the forms in question, or one of the two, are as yet unnamed? Does he introduce as a new species every form which he cannot connect by ocular proof with a near relative, from which it differs only in particulars which he sees are inconstant in better known species of the same group? We suppose not. But, if he does, little improvement for the future upon the state of things revealed in the following quotation can be expected: "In the actual state of our knowledge, after having seen nearly all the original specimens, and in some species as many as two hundred representatives from different localities, I estimate that, out of the three hundred species of Cupuliferae which will be enumerated in the Prodromus, two-thirds at least are provisional species. In general, when we consider what a multitude of species were described from a single specimen, or from the forms of a single locality, of a single country, or are badly described, it is difficult to believe that above one-third of the actual species in botanical works will remain unchanged." Such being the results of the want of adequate knowledge, how is it likely to be when our knowledge is largely increased? The judgment of so practised a botanist as De Candolle is important in this regard, and it accords with that of other botanists of equal experience. "They are mistaken," he pointedly asserts, "who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seemed to be true, so long as a genus was imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment." De Candolle insists, indeed, in this connection, that the higher the rank of the groups the more definite their limitation, or, in other terms, the fewer the ambiguous or doubtful forms, that genera are more strictly limited than species tribes than genera, orders than tribes, etc. We are not convinced of this Often where it has appeared to be so, advancing discovery has brought intermediate forms to light, perplexing to the systematist. "They are mistaken, we think more than one systematic botanist will say, "who repeat that the greater part of our natural orders and tribes are absolutely limited," however we may agree that we will limit them. Provisional genera we suppose are proportionally hardly less common than provisional species; and hundreds of genera are kept up on considerations of general propriety or general convenience, although well known to shade off into adjacent ones by complete gradations. Somewhat of this greater fixity of higher groups, therefore, is rather apparent than real. On the other hand, that varieties should be less definite than species, follows from the very terms employed. They are ranked as varieties, rather than species, just because of their less definiteness. Singular as it may appear, we have heard it denied that spontaneous varieties occur. De Candolle makes the important announcement that, in the oak genus, the best known species are just those which present the greatest number of spontaneous varieties and sub-varieties. The maximum is found in Q. Robur, with twenty-eight varieties, all spontaneous. Of Q. Lusitanica eleven varieties are enumerated, of Q. Calliprinos ten, of Q. coccifera eight, * etc. And he significantly adds that "these very species which offer such numerous modifications are themselves ordinarily surrounded by other forms, provisionally called species, because of the absence of known transitions or variations, but to which some of these will probably have to be joined hereafter." The inference is natural, if not inevitable, that the difference between such species and such varieties is only one of degree, either as to amount of divergence, or of hereditary fixity, or as to the frequency or rarity at the present time of intermediate forms. This brings us to the second section of De Candolle's article, in which he passes on, from the observation of the present forms and affinities of cupuliferous plants, to the consideration of their probable history and origin. Suffice it to say, that he frankly accepts the inferences derived from the whole course of observation, and contemplates a probable historical connection between congeneric species. He accepts and, by various considerations drawn from the geographical distribution of European Cupuliferae, fortifies the conclusion--long ago arrived at by Edward Forbes--that the present species, and even some of their varieties, date back to about the close of the Tertiary epoch, since which time they have been subject to frequent and great changes of habitation or limitation, but without appreciable change of specific form or character; that is, without profounder changes than those within which a species at the present time is known to vary. Moreover, he is careful to state that he is far from concluding that the time of the appearance of a species in Europe at all indicates the time of its origin. Looking back still further into the Tertiary epoch, of which the vegetable remains indicate many analogous, but few, if any, identical forms, he concludes, with Heer and others, that specific changes of form, as well as changes of station, are to be presumed; and, finally, that "the theory of a succession of forms through the deviation of anterior forms is the most natural hypothesis, and the most accordant with the known facts in palaeontology, geographical botany and zoology, of anatomical structure and classification: but direct proof of it is wanting, and moreover, if true, it must have taken place very slowly; so slowly, indeed, that its effects are discernible only after a lapse of time far longer than our historic epoch." In contemplating the present state of the species of Cupuliferae in Europe, De Candolle comes to the conclusion that, while the beech is increasing, and extending its limits southward and westward (at the expense of Coniferae and birches), the common oak, to some extent, and the Turkey oak decidedly, are diminishing and retreating, and this wholly irrespective of man's agency. This is inferred of the Turkey oak from the great gaps found in its present geographical area, which are otherwise inexplicable, and which he regards as plain indications of a partial extinction. Community of descent of all the individuals of species is of course implied in these and all similar reasonings. An obvious result of such partial extinction is clearly enough brought to view The European oaks (like the American species) greatly tend to vary that is they manifest an active disposition to produce new forms Every form tends to become hereditary and so to pass from the state of mere variation to that of race and of these competing incipient races some only will survive. Quercus Robur offers a familiar illustration of the manner in which one form may in the course of time become separated into two or more distinct ones. To Linnaeus this common oak of Europe was all of one species. But of late years the greater number of European botanists have regarded it as including three species, Q. pedunculata, Q. sessiliflora, and Q. pubescens. De Candolle looks with satisfaction to the independent conclusion which he reached from a long and patient study of the forms (and which Webb, Gay, Bentham, and others, had equally reached), that the view of Linnaeus was correct, inasmuch as it goes to show that the idea and the practical application of the term species have remained unchanged during the century which has elapsed since the publication of the "Species Plantarum." But, the idea remaining unchanged, the facts might appear under a different aspect, and the conclusion be different, under a slight and very supposable change of circumstances. Of the twenty-eight spontaneous varieties of Q. Robur, which De Candolle recognizes, all but six, he remarks, fall naturally under the three sub-species, pedunculata, sessiliflora, and pubescens, and are therefore forms grouped around these as centres; and, moreover, the few connecting forms are by no means the most common. Were these to die out, it is clear that the three forms which have already been so frequently taken for species would be what the group of four or five provisionally admitted species which closely surround Q. Robur now are. The best example of such a case, as having in all probability occurred through geographical segregation and partial extinction, is that of the cedar, thus separated into the Deodar, the Lebanon, and the Atlantic cedars--a case admirably worked out by Dr. Hooker two or three years ago. [IV-2] A special advantage of the Cupuliferae for determining the probable antiquity of existing species in Europe, De Candolle finds in the size and character of their fruits. However it may be with other plants (and he comes to the conclusion generally that marine currents and all other means of distant transport have played only a very small part in the actual dispersion of species), the transport of acorns and chestnuts by natural causes across an arm of the sea in a condition to germinate, and much more the spontaneous establishment of a forest of oaks or chestnuts in this way, De Candolle conceives to be fairly impossible in itself, and contrary to all experience. From such considerations, i.e., from the actual dispersion of the existing species (with occasional aid from post-tertiary deposits), it is thought to be shown that the principal Cupuliferae of the Old World attained their actual extension before the present separation of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and of Britain, from the European Continent. This view once adopted, and this course once entered upon, has to be pursued farther. Quercus Robur of Europe with its bevy of admitted derivatives, and its attending species only provisionally admitted to that rank, is very closely related to certain species of Eastern Asia, and of Oregon and California--so closely that "a view of the specimens by no means forbids the idea that they have all originated from Q. Robur, or have originated, with the latter, from one or more preceding forms so like the present ones that a naturalist could hardly know whether to call them species or varieties." Moreover, there are fossil leaves from diluvian deposits in Italy, figured by Gaudin, which are hardly distinguishable from those of Q. Robur on the one hand, and from those of Q. Douglasii, etc., of California, on the other. No such leaves are found in any tertiary deposit in Europe; but such are found of that age, it appears, in Northwest America, where their remote descendants still flourish. So that the probable genealogy of Q. Robur, traceable in Europe up to the commencement of the present epoch, looks eastward and far into the past on far-distant shores. Quercus Ilex, the evergreen oak of Southern Europe and Northern Africa, reveals a similar archaeology; but its presence in Algeria leads De Candolle to regard it as a much more ancient denizen of Europe than Q. Robur; and a Tertiary oak, Q. ilicoides, from a very old Miocene bed in Switzerland, is thought to be one of its ancestral forms. This high antiquity once established, it follows almost of course that the very nearly-related species in Central Asia, in Japan, in California, and even our own live-oak with its Mexican relatives, may probably enough be regarded as early offshoots from the same stock with Q. hex. In brief--not to continue these abstracts and remarks, and without reference to Darwin's particular theory (which De Candolle at the close very fairly considers)--if existing species, or many of them, are as ancient as they are now generally thought to be, and were subject to the physical and geographical changes (among them the coming and the going of the glacial epoch) which this antiquity implies; if in former times they were as liable to variation as they now are; and if the individuals of the same species may claim a common local origin, then we cannot wonder that "the theory of a succession of forms by deviations of anterior forms" should be regarded as "the most natural hypothesis," nor at the general advance made toward its acceptance. The question being, not, how plants and animals originated, but, how came the existing animals and plants to be just where they are and what they are, it is plain that naturalists interested in such inquiries are mostly looking for the answer in one direction. The general drift of opinion, or at least of expectation, is exemplified by this essay of De Candolle; and the set and force of the current are seen by noticing how it carries along naturalists of widely different views and prepossessions--some faster and farther than others--but all in one way. The tendency is, we may say, to extend the law of continuity, or something analogous to it, from inorganic to organic Nature, and in the latter to connect the present with the past in some sort of material connection. The generalization may indeed be expressed so as not to assert that the connection is genetic, as in Mr. Wallace's formula: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with preexisting closely-allied species." Edward Forbes, who may be called the originator of this whole line of inquiry, long ago expressed a similar view. But the only material sequence we know, or can clearly conceive, in plants and animals, is that from parent to progeny; and, as De Candolle implies, the origin of species and that of races can hardly be much unlike, nor governed by other than the same laws, whatever these may be. The progress of opinion upon this subject in one generation is not badly represented by that of De Candolle himself, who is by no means prone to adopt new views without much consideration. In an elementary treatise published in the year 1835, he adopted and, if we rightly remember, vigorously maintained, Schouw's idea of the double or multiple origin of species, at least of some species--a view which has been carried out to its ultimate development only perhaps by Agassiz, in the denial of any necessary genetic connection among the individuals of the same species, or of any original localization more restricted than the area now occupied by the species. But in i855, in his "Geographic Botanique," the multiple hypothesis, although in principle not abandoned, loses its point, in view of the probable high antiquity of existing species. The actual vegetation of the world being now regarded as a continuation, through numerous geological, geographical, and more recently historical changes, of anterior vegetations, the actual distribution of plants is seen to be a consequence of preceding conditions; and geological considerations, and these alone, may be expected to explain all the facts--many of them so curious and extraordinary--of the actual geographical distribution of the species. In the present essay, not only the distribution but the origin of congeneric species is regarded as something derivative; whether derived by slow and very gradual changes in the course of ages, according to Darwin, or by a sudden, inexplicable change of their tertiary ancestors, as conceived by Heer, De Candolle hazards no opinion. It may, however, be inferred that he looks upon "natural selection" as a real, but insufficient cause; while some curious remarks upon the number of monstrosities annually produced, and the possibility of their enduring, may be regarded as favorable to Heer's view. As an index to the progress of opinion in the direction referred to, it will be interesting to compare Sir Charles Lyell's well-known chapters of twenty or thirty years ago, in which the permanence of species was ably maintained, with his treatment of the same subject in a work just issued in England, which, however, has not yet reached us. A belief of the derivation of species may be maintained along with a conviction of great persistence of specific characters. This is the idea of the excellent Swiss vegetable palaeontologist, Heer, who imagines a sudden change of specific type at certain periods, and perhaps is that of Pictet. Falconer adheres to somewhat similar views in his elaborate paper on elephants, living and fossil, in the Natural History Review for January last. Noting that "there is clear evidence of the true mammoth having existed in America long after the period of the northern drift, when the surface of the country had settled down into its present form, and also in Europe so late as to have been a contemporary of the Irish elk, and on the other hand that it existed in England so far back as before the deposition of the bowlder clay; also that four well-defined species of fossil elephant are known to have existed in Europe; that "a vast number of the remains of three of these species have been exhumed over a large area in Europe; and, even in the geological sense, an enormous interval of time has elapsed between the formation of the most ancient and the most recent of these deposits, quite sufficient to test the persistence of specific characters in an elephant," he presents the question, "Do, then, the successive elephants occurring in these strata show any signs of a passage from the older form into the newer?" To which the reply is: "If there is one fact which is impressed on the conviction of the observer with more force than any other, it is the persistence and uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth and his most modern successor . . . Assuming the observation to be correct, what strong proof does it not afford of the persistence and constancy, throughout vast intervals of time, of the distinctive characters of those organs which arc most concerned in the existence and habits of the species? If we cast a glance back on the long vista of physical changes which our planet has undergone since the Neozoic epoch, we can nowhere detect signs of a revolution more sudden and pronounced, or more important in its results, than the intercalation and sudden disappearance of the glacial period. Yet the 'dicyclotherian' mammoth lived before it, and passed through the ordeal of all the hard extremities it involved, bearing his organs of locomotion and digestion all but unchanged. Taking the group of four European fossil species above enumerated, do they show any signs in the successive deposits of a transition from the one form into the other? Here again the result of my observation, in so far as it has extended over the European area, is, that the specific characters of the molars are constant in each, within a moderate range of variation, and that we nowhere meet with intermediate forms." . . . Dr. Falconer continues (page 80): "The inferences which I draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of Darwin's theory. With him, I have no faith in the opinion that the mammoth and other extinct elephants made their appearance suddenly, after the type in which their fossil remains are presented to us. The most rational view seems to be, that they are in some shape the modified descendants of earlier progenitors. But if the asserted facts be correct, they seem clearly to indicate that the older elephants of Europe, such as E. meridionalis and E. antiguus, were not the stocks from which the later species, E. primigenius and E. Africanus sprung, and that we must look elsewhere for their origin. The nearest affinity, and that a very close one, of the European E. meridionalis is with the Miocene E. planifrons of India; and of E. primigenius, with the existing India species. "Another reflection is equally strong in my mind--that the means which have been adduced to explain the origin of the species by 'natural selection,' or a process of variation from external influences, are inadequate to account for the phenomena. The law of phyllotaxis, which governs the evolution of leaves around the axis of a plant, is as nearly constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with the material world. Each instance, however different from another, can be shown to be a term of some series of continued fractions. When this is coupled with the geometrical law governing the evolution of form, so manifest in some departments of the animal kingdom, e. g., the spiral shells of the Mollusca, it is difficult to believe that there is not, in Nature, a deeper-seated and innate principle, to the operation of which natural selection is merely an adjunct. The whole range of the Mammalia, fossil and recent, cannot furnish a species which has had a wider geographical distribution, and passed through a longer term of time, and through more extreme changes of climatal conditions, than the mammoth. If species are so unstable, and so susceptible of mutation through such influences, why does that extinct form stand out so signally a monument of stability? By his admirable researches and earnest writings, Darwin has, beyond all his contemporaries, given an impulse to the philosophical investigation of the most backward and obscure branch of the biological sciences of his day; he has laid the foundations of a great edifice; but he need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure is altered by his successors, like the Duomo of Milan from the Roman to a different style of architecture." Entertaining ourselves the opinion that something more than natural selection is requisite to account for the orderly production and succession of species, we offer two incidental remarks upon the above extract. 1. We find in it--in the phrase "natural selection, or a process of variation from external influences"--an example of the very common confusion of two distinct things, viz., variation and natural selection. The former has never yet been shown to have its cause in "external influences," nor to occur at random. As we have elsewhere insisted, if not inexplicable, it has never been explained; all we can yet say is, that plants and animals are prone to vary, and that some conditions favor variation. Perhaps in this Dr. Falconer may yet find what he seeks: for "it is difficult to believe that there is not in nature a deeper-seated and innate principle, to the operation of which natural selection is merely an adjunct." The latter, which is the ensemble of the external influences, including the competition of the individuals them selves, picks out certain variations as they arise, but in no proper sense can be said to originate them 2. Although we are not quite sure how Dr Falconer in tends to apply the law of phyllotaxis to illustrate his idea, we fancy that a pertinent illustration may be drawn from it in this way. There are two species of phyllotaxis, perfectly distinct, and we suppose, not mathematically reducible the one to the other, viz.: (1.) That of alternate leaves, with its vane ties and (2.) That of verticillate leaves, of which opposite leaves present the simplest case That although generally constant a change from one variety of alternate phyllotaxis to an other should occur on the same axis, or on successive axes, is not surprising, the different sorts being terms of a regular series--although indeed we have not the least idea as to how the change from the one to the other comes to pass But it is interesting and in this connection perhaps instructive, to remark that while some dicotyledonous plants hold to the verticillate, i.e., opposite-leaved phyllotaxis throughout, a larger number--through the operation of some deep seated and innate principle which we cannot fathom--change abruptly into the other species at the second or third node, and change back again in the flower, or else effect a synthesis of the two species in a manner which is puzzling to understand. Here is a change from one fixed law to another, as unaccountable, if not as great, as from one specific form to another. An elaborate paper on the vegetation of the Tertiary period in the southeast of France, by Count Gaston de Saporta, published in the Annales des Sciences Naturelles in 1862, vol. xvi., pp. 309-344--which we have not space to analyze--is worthy of attention from the general inquirer, on account of its analysis of the Tertiary flora into its separate types, Cretaceous, Austral, Tropical, and Boreal, each of which has its separate and different history--and for the announcement that "the hiatus, which, in the idea of most geologists, intervened between the close of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Tertiary, appears to have had no existence, so far as concerns the vegetation; that in general it was not by means of a total overthrow, followed by a complete new emission of species, that the flora has been renewed at each successive period; and that while the plants of Southern Europe inherited from the Cretaceous period more or less rapidly disappeared, as also the austral forms, and later the tropical types (except the laurel, the myrtle, and the Chamaerops humilis), the boreal types, coming later, survived all the others, and now compose, either in Europe, or in the north of Asia, or in North America, the basis of the actual arborescent vegetation. Especially "a very considerable number of forms nearly identical with tertiary forms now exist in America, where they have found, more easily than in our soil--less vast and less extended southward--refuge from ulterior revolutions," The extinction of species is attributed to two kinds of causes; the one material or physical, whether slow or rapid; the other inherent in the nature of organic beings, incessant, but slow, in a manner latent, but somehow assigning to the species, as to the individuals, a limited period of existence, and, in some equally mysterious but wholly natural way, connected with the development of organic types: "By type meaning a collection of vegetable forms constructed upon the same plan of organization, of which they reproduce the essential lineaments with certain secondary modifications, and which appear to run back to a common point of departure." In this community of types, no less than in the community of certain existing species, Saporta recognizes a prolonged material union between North America and Europe in former times. Most naturalists and geologists reason in the same way--some more cautiously than others--yet perhaps most of them seem not to perceive how far such inferences imply the doctrine of the common origin of related species. For obvious reasons such doctrines are likely to find more favor with botanists than with zoologists. But with both the advance in this direction is seen to have been rapid and great; yet to us not unexpected. We note, also, an evident disposition, notwithstanding some endeavors to the contrary, to allow derivative hypotheses to stand or fall upon their own merits--to have indeed upon philosophical grounds certain presumptions in their favor--and to be, perhaps, quite as capable of being turned to good account as to bad account in natural theology.[IV-3] Among the leading naturalists, indeed, such views--taken in the widest sense--have one and, so far as we are now aware, only one thoroughgoing and thoroughly consistent opponent, viz., Mr. Agassiz. Most naturalists take into their very conception of a species, explicitly or by implication, the notion of a material connection resulting from the descent of the individuals composing it from a common stock, of local origin. Agassiz wholly eliminates community of descent from his idea of species, and even conceives a species to have been as numerous in individuals and as wide-spread over space, or as segregated in discontinuous spaces, from the first as at the later period. The station which it inhabits, therefore, is with other naturalists in no wise essential to the species, and may not have been the region of its origin. In Agassiz's view the habitat is supposed to mark the origin, and to be a part of the character of the species. The habitat is not merely the place where it is, but a part of what it is. Most naturalists recognize varieties of species; and many, like De Candolle, have come to conclude that varieties of the highest grade, or races, so far partake of the characteristics of species, and are so far governed by the same laws, that it is often very difficult to draw a clear and certain distinction between the two. Agassiz will not allow that varieties or races exist in Nature, apart from man's agency. Most naturalists believe that the origin of species is supernatural, their dispersion or particular geographical area, natural, and their extinction, when they disappear, also the result of physical causes. In the view of Agassiz, if rightly understood, all three are equally independent of physical cause and effect, are equally supernatural. In comparing preceding periods with the present and with each other, most naturalists and palaeontologists now appear to recognize a certain number of species as having survived from one epoch to the next, or even through more than one formation, especially from the Tertiary into the post-Tertiary period, and from that to the present age. Agassiz is understood to believe in total extinctions and total new creations at each successive epoch, and even to recognize no existing species as ever contemporary with extinct ones, except in the case of recent exterminations. These peculiar views if sustained will effectually dispose of every form of derivative hypothesis. Returning for a moment to De Candolle's article, we are disposed to notice his criticism of Linnaeus's "definition" of the term species (Philosophia Botanica, No. 157): "Species tot numeramus quot diversae formae in principio sunt creatae"-- which he declares illogical, inapplicable, and the worst that has been propounded. "So, to determine if a form is specific, it is necessary to go back to its origin which is impossible A definition by a character which can never be verified is no definition at all." Now as Linnaeus practically applied the idea of species with a sagacity which has never been surpassed and rarely equaled and indeed may be said to have fixed its received meaning in natural history, it may well be inferred that in the phrase above cited he did not so much undertake to frame a logical definition, as to set forth the idea which, in his opinion, lay at the foundation of species; on which basis A.L. Jussieu did construct a logical definition--"Nunc rectius definitur perennis individuorum similium successio continuata generatione renascentium." The fundamental idea of species, we would still maintain, is that of a chain of which genetically-connected individuals are the links. That, in the practical recognition of species, the essential characteristic has to be inferred, is no great objection--the general fact that like engenders like being an induction from a vast number of instances, and the only assumption being that of the uniformity of Nature. The idea of gravitation, that of the atomic constitution of matter, and the like, equally have to be verified inferentially. If we still hold to the idea of Linnaeus, and of Agassiz, that existing species were created independently and essentially all at once at the beginning of the present era, we could not better the propositions of Linnaeus and of Jussieu. If; on the other hand, the time has come in which we may accept, with De Candolle, their successive origination, at the commencement of the present era or before, and even by derivation from other forms, then the "in principio" of Linnaeus will refer to that time, whenever it was, and his proposition be as sound and wise as ever. In his "Geographie Botanique" (ii., 1068-1077) De Candolle discusses this subject at length, and in the same interest. Remarking that of the two great facts of species, viz., likeness among the individuals, and genealogical connection, zoologists have generally preferred the latter,[IV-4] while botanists have been divided in opinion, he pronounces for the former as the essential thing, in the following argumentative statement: "Quant a moi, j'ai ete conduit, dans ma definition de l'espece, a mettre decidement la ressemblance au-dessus de caracteres de succession. Ce n'est pas seulement a cause des circonstances propres au regne vegetal, dont je m'occupe exclusivement; ce n'est pas non plus afin de sortir ma definition des theories et de la rendre le plus possible utile aux naturalistes descripteurs et nomenclateurs, c'est aussi par un motif philosophique. En toute chose il faut aller au fond des questions, quand on le peut. Or, pourquoi la reproduction est-elle possible, habituelle, feconde indefiniment, entre des etres organises que nous dirons de la meme espece? Parce qu'ils se ressemblent et uniquement a cause de cela. Lorsque deux especes ne peuvent, ou, s'il s'agit d'animaux superieurs, ne peuvent et ne veulent se croiser, c'est qu'elles sont tres differentes. Si l'on obtient des croisements, c'est que les individus sont analogues; si ces croisements donnent des produits feconds, c'est que les individus etaient plus analogues; si ces produits euxmemes sont feconds, c'est que la ressemblance etait plus grande; s'ils sont fecond habituellement et indefiniment, c'est que la ressemblance interieure et exterieure etait tres grande. Ainsi le degre de ressemblance est le fond; la reproduction en est seulement la manifestation et la mesure, et il est logique de placer la cause au-dessus de l'effet." We are not yet convinced. We still hold that genealogical connection, rather than mutual resemblance, is the fundamental thing--first on the ground of fact, and then from the philosophy of the case. Practically, no botanist can say what amount of dissimilarity is compatible with unity of species; in wild plants it is sometimes very great, in cultivated races often enormous. De Candolle himself informs us that the different variations which the same oak-tree exhibits arc significant indications of a disposition to set up separate varieties, which becoming hereditary may constitute a race; he evidently looks upon the extreme forms, say of Quercus Robur, as having thus originated; and on this ground, inferred from transitional forms, and not from their mutual resemblance, he includes them in that species. This will be more apparent should the discovery of transitions, which he leads us to expect, hereafter cause the four provisional species which attend Q. Robur to be merged in that species. It may rightly be replied that this conclusion would be arrived at from the likeness step by step in the series of forms; but the cause of the likeness here is obvious. And this brings in our "motif philosophique." Not to insist that the likeness is after all the variable, not the constant, element--to learn which is the essential thing, resemblance among individuals or their genetic connection--we have only to ask which can be the cause of the other. In hermaphrodite plants (the normal case), and even as the question is ingeniously put by De Candolle in the above extract, the former surely cannot be the cause of the latter, though it may, in case of crossing, offer occasion. But, on the ground of the most fundamental of all things in the constitution of plants and animals--the fact incapable of further analysis, that individuals reproduce their like, that characteristics are inheritable--the likeness is a direct natural consequence of the genetic succession; "and it is logical to place the cause above the effect." We are equally disposed to combat a proposition of De Candolle's about genera, elaborately argued in the "Geographie Botanique," and incidentally reaffirmed in his present article, viz., that genera are more natural than species, and more correctly distinguished by people in general, as is shown by vernacular names. But we have no space left in which to present some evidence to the contrary. V SEQUOIA AND ITS HISTORY THE RELATIONS OF NORTH AMERICAN TO NORTHEAST ASIAN AND TO TERTIARY VEGETATION (A Presidential Address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Dubuque, August, 1872) The session being now happily inaugurated, your presiding officer of the last year has only one duty to perform before he surrenders the chair to his successor. If allowed to borrow a simile from the language of my own profession, I might liken the President of this Association to a biennial plant. He flourishes for the year in which he comes into existence, and performs his appropriate functions as presiding officer. When the second year comes round, he is expected to blossom out in an address and disappear. Each president, as he retires, is naturally expected to contribute something from his own investigations or his own line of study, usually to discuss some particular scientific topic. Now, although I have cultivated the field of North American botany, with some assiduity, for more than forty years, have reviewed our vegetable hosts, and assigned to no small number of them their names and their place in the ranks, yet, so far as our own wide country is concerned, I have been to a great extent a closet botanist. Until this summer I had not seen the Mississippi, nor set foot upon a prairie. To gratify a natural interest, and to gain some title for addressing a body of practical naturalists and explorers, I have made a pilgrimage across the continent. I have sought and viewed in their native haunts many a plant and flower which for me had long bloomed unseen, or only in the hortus siccus. I have been able to see for myself what species and what forms constitute the main features of the vegetation of each successive region, and record--as the vegetation unerringly does--the permanent characteristics of its climate. Passing on from the eastern district, marked by its equably distributed rainfall, and therefore naturally forest-clad, I have seen the trees diminish in number, give place to wide prairies, restrict their growth to the borders of streams, and then disappear from the boundless drier plains; have seen grassy plains change into a brown and sere desert--desert in the common sense, but hardly anywhere botanically so--have seen a fair growth of coniferous trees adorning the more favored slopes of a mountain-range high enough to compel summer showers; have traversed that broad and bare elevated region shut off on both sides by high mountains from the moisture supplied by either ocean, and longitudinally intersected by sierras which seemingly remain as naked as they were born; and have reached at length the westward slopes of that high mountain-barrier which, refreshed by the Pacific, bears the noble forests of the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Ranges, and among them trees which are the wonder of the world. As I stood in their shade, in the groves of Mariposa and Calaveras, and again under the canopy of the commoner redwood, raised on columns of such majestic height and ample girth, it occurred to me that I could not do better than to share with you, upon this occasion, some of the thoughts which possessed my mind. In their development they may, perhaps, lead us up to questions of considerable scientific interest. I shall not detain you with any remarks--which would now be trite--upon the size or longevity of these far-famed Sequoia-trees, or of the sugar-pines, incense-cedar, and firs associated with them, of which even the prodigious bulk of the dominating Sequoia does not sensibly diminish the grandeur. Although no account and no photographic representation of either species of the far-famed Sequoia-trees gives any adequate impression of their singular majesty--still less of their beauty--yet my interest in them did not culminate merely or mainly in considerations of their size and age. Other trees, in other parts of the world, may claim to be older. Certain Australian gumtrees (Eucalypti) are said to be taller. Some, we are told, rise so high that they might even cast a flicker of shadow upon the summit of the Pyramid of Cheops. Yet the oldest of them doubtless grew from seed which was shed long after the names of the pyramid-builders had been forgotten. So far as we can judge from the actual counting of the layers of several trees, no Sequoia now alive sensibly antedates the Christian era. Nor was I much impressed with an attraction of man's adding. That the more remarkable of these trees should bear distinguishing appellations seems proper enough; but the tablets of personal names which are affixed to many of them 172 in the most visited groves--as if the memory of more or less notable people of our day might be made enduring by the juxtaposition--do suggest some incongruity. When we consider that a hand's breadth at the circumference of any one of the venerable trunks so placarded has recorded in annual lines the lifetime of the individual thus associated with it, one may question whether the next hand's breadth may not measure the fame of some of the names thus ticketed for adventitious immortality. Whether it be the man or the tree that is honored in the connection, probably either would live as long, in fact and in memory, without it. One notable thing about the Sequoia-trees is their isolation. Most of the trees associated with them are of peculiar species, and some of them are nearly as local. Yet every pine, fir, and cypress of California is in some sort familiar, because it has near relatives in other parts of the world. But the redwoods have none. The redwood--including in that name the two species of "big-trees"--belongs to the general Cypress family, but is sui generis. Thus isolated systematically, and extremely isolated geographically, and so wonderful in size and port, they more than other trees suggest questions. Were they created thus local and lonely, denizens of California only; one in limited numbers in a few choice spots on the Sierra Nevada, the other along the Coast Range from the Bay of Monterey to the frontiers of Oregon? Are they veritable Melchizedeks, without pedigree or early relationship, and possibly fated to be without descent? Or are they now coming upon the stage--or rather were they coming but for man's interference--to play a part in the future? Or are they remnants, sole and scanty survivors of a race that has played a grander part in the past, but is now verging to extinction? Have they had a career, and can that career be ascertained or surmised, so that we may at least guess whence they came, and how, and when? SEQUOIA AND ITS HISTORY 173 Time was, and not long ago, when such questions as these were regarded as useless and vain--when students of natural history, unmindful of what the name denotes, were content with a knowledge of things as they now are, but gave little heed as to how they came to be so. Now such questions are held to be legitimate, and perhaps not wholly unanswerable. It cannot now be said that these trees inhabit their present restricted areas simply because they are there placed in the climate and soil of all the world most congenial to them. These must indeed be congenial, or they would not survive. But when we see how the Australian Eucalyptus-trees thrive upon the Californian coast, and how these very redwoods flourish upon another continent; how the so-called wild-oat (Avena sterilis of the Old World) has taken full possession of California; how that cattle and horses, introduced by the Spaniard, have spread as widely and made themselves as much at home on the plains of La Plata as on those of Tartary; and that the cardoon-thistle-seeds, and others they brought with them, have multiplied there into numbers probably much exceeding those extant in their native lands; indeed, when we contemplate our own race, and our particular stock, taking such recent but dominating possession of this New World; when we consider how the indigenous flora of islands generally succumbs to the foreigners which come in the train of man; and that most weeds (i.e., the prepotent plants in open soil) of all temperate climates are not "to the manner born," but are self-invited intruders--we must needs abandon the notion of any primordial and absolute adaptation of plants and animals to their habitats, which may stand in lieu of explanation, and so preclude our inquiring any further. The harmony of Nature and its admirable perfection need not be regarded as inflexible and changeless. Nor need Nature be likened to a statue, or a cast in rigid bronze, but rather to an organism, with play and adaptability of parts, and life and even soul informing the whole. Under the former view Nature 174 would be "the faultless monster which the world ne'er saw," but inscrutable as the Sphinx, whom it were vain, or worse, to question of the whence and whither. Under the other, the perfection of Nature, if relative, is multifarious and ever renewed; and much that is enigmatical now may find explanation in some record of the past. That the two species of redwood we are contemplating originated as they are and where they are, and for the part they are now playing, is, to say the least, not a scientific supposition, nor in any sense a probable one. Nor is it more likely that they are destined to play a conspicuous part in the future, or that they would have done so, even if the Indian's fires and the white man's axe had spared them. The redwood of the coast (Sequoia sempervirens) had the stronger hold upon existence, forming as it did large forests throughout a narrow belt about three hundred miles in length, and being so tenacious of life that every large stump sprouts into a copse. But it does not pass the bay of Monterey, nor cross the line of Oregon, although so grandly developed not far below it. The more remarkable Sequoia gigantea of the Sierra exists in numbers so limited that the separate groves may be reckoned upon the fingers, and the trees of most of them have been counted, except near their southern limit, where they are said to be more copious. A species limited in individuals holds its existence by a precarious tenure; and this has a foothold only in a few sheltered spots, of a happy mean in temperature, and locally favored with moisture in summer. Even there, for some reason or other, the pines with which they are associated (Pinus Lambertiana and P. ponderosa), the firs (Abies grandis and A. amabilis), and even the incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens), possess a great advantage, and, though they strive in vain to emulate their size, wholly overpower the Sequoias in numbers. "To him that hath shall be given." The force of numbers eventually wins. At least in the commonly-visited groves Sequoia gigantea is invested in its SEQUOIA AND ITS HISTORY 175 last stronghold, can neither advance into more exposed positions above, nor fall back into drier and barer ground below, nor hold its own in the long-run where it is, under present conditions; and a little further drying of the climate, which must once have been much moister than now, would precipitate its doom. Whatever the individual longevity, certain if not speedy is the decline of a race in which a high death-rate afflicts the young. Seedlings of the big trees occur not rarely, indeed, but in meagre proportion to those of associated trees; T small indeed is the chance that any of these will attain to "the days of the years of their fathers." "Few and evil" are .: the days of all the forest likely to be, while man, both bar-barian and civilized, torments them with fires, fatal at once to seedlings, and at length to the aged also. The forests of California, proud as the State may be of them, are already too scanty and insufficient for her uses. Two lines, such as may be drawn with one sweep of a brush over the map, would cover them all. The coast redwood--the most important tree in California, although a million times more numerous than its relative of the Sierra--is too good to live long. Such is its value for lumber and its accessibility, that, judging the future by the past, it is not likely, in its primeval growth, to outlast its rarer fellow-species. Happily man preserves and disseminates as well as destroys. The species will doubtless be preserved to science, and for ornamental and other uses, in its own and other lands; and the more remarkable individuals of the present day are likely to be sedulously cared for, all the more so as they become scarce. Our third question remains to be answered: Have these famous Sequoias played in former times and upon a larger stage a more imposing part, of which the present is but the epilogue? We cannot gaze high up the huge and venerable trunks, which one crosses the continent to behold, without wishing that these patriarchs of the grove were able, like the 176 long-lived antediluvians of Scripture, to hand down to us, through a few generations, the traditions of centuries, and so tell us somewhat of the history of their race. Fifteen hundred annual layers have been counted, or satisfactorily made out, upon one or two fallen trunks. It is probable that close to the heart of some of the living trees may be found the circle that records the year of our Saviour's nativity. A few generations of such trees might carry the history a long way back. But the ground they stand upon, and the marks of very recent geological change and vicissitude in the region around, testify that not very many such generations can have flourished just there, at least in an unbroken series. When their site was covered by glaciers, these Sequoias must have occupied other stations, if, as there is reason to believe, they then existed in the land. I have said that the redwoods have no near relatives in the country of their abode, and none of their genus anywhere else. Perhaps something may be learned of their genealogy by inquiring of such relatives as they have. There are only two of any particular nearness of kin; and they are far away. One is the bald cypress, our Southern cypress, Taxodium, inhabiting the swamps of the Atlantic coast from Maryland to Texas, thence extending--with, probably, a specific difference--into Mexico. It is well known as one of the largest trees of our Atlantic forest-district, and, although it never--except perhaps in Mexico, and in rare instances--attains the portliness of its Western relatives, yet it may equal them in longevity. The other relative is Glyptostrobus, a sort of modified Taxodium, being about as much like our bald cypress as one species of redwood is like the other. Now, species of the same type, especially when few, and the type peculiar, are, in a general way, associated geographically, i.e., inhabit the same country, or (in a large sense) the same region. Where it is not so, where near relatives are separated, there is usually something to be explained. Here is an instance. stance. These four trees, sole representatives of their tribe, dwell almost in three separate quarters of the world: the two redwoods in California, the bald cypress in Atlantic North America, its near relative, Glyptostrobus, in China. It was not always so. In the Tertiary period, the geological botanists assure us, our own very Taxodium or bald cypress, and a Glyptostrobus, exceedingly like the present Chinese tree, and more than one Sequoia, coexisted in a fourth quarter of the globe, viz., in Europe! This brings up the question, Is it possible to bridge over these four wide intervals of space and the much vaster interval of time, so as to bring these extraordinarily separated relatives into connection? The evidence which may be brought to bear upon this question is various and widely scattered. I bespeak your patience while I endeavor to bring together, in an abstract, the most important points of it. Some interesting facts may come out by comparing generally the botany of the three remote regions, each of which is the sole home of one of these genera, i.e., Sequoia in California, Taxodium in the Atlantic United States,[V-1] and Glyptostrobus in China, which compose the whole of the peculiar tribe under consideration. Note then, first, that there is another set of three or four peculiar trees, in this case of the yew family, which has just the same peculiar distribution, and which therefore may have the same explanation, whatever that explanation be. The genus Torreya, which commemorates our botanical Nestor and a former president of this Association, Dr. Torrey, was founded upon a tree rather lately discovered (that is, about thirty-five years ago) in Northern Florida. It is a noble, yew like tree, and very local, being, so far as known, nearly confined to a few miles along the shores of a single river. It seems as if it had somehow been crowded down out of the Alleghanies into its present limited southern quarters; for in cultivation it evinces a northern hardiness. Now, another species of Torreya is a characteristic tree of Japan; and one very like it, if not the same, inhabits the mountains of Northern China--belongs, therefore, to the Eastern Asiatic temperate region, of which Northern China is a part, and Japan, as we shall see, the portion most interesting to us. There is only one more species of Torreya, and that is a companion of the redwoods in California. It is the tree locally known under the name of the California nutmeg. Here are three or four near brethren, species of the same genus, known nowhere else than in these three habitats. Moreover, the Torreya of Florida is associated with a yew; and the trees of this grove are the only yew-trees of Eastern North America; for the yew of our Northern woods is a decumbent shrub. A yew-tree, perhaps the same, is found with Taxodium in the temperate parts of Mexico. The only other yews in America grow with the redwoods and the other Torreya in California, and extend northward into Oregon. Yews are also associated with Torreya in Japan; and they extend westward through Mantchooria and the Himalayas to Western Europe, and even to the Azores Islands, where occurs the common yew of the Old World. So we have three groups of coniferous trees which agree in this peculiar geographical distribution, with, however, a notable extension of range in the case of the yew: 1. The redwoods, and their relatives, Taxodium and Glyptostrobus, which differ so as to constitute a genus for each of the three regions; 2. The Torreyas, more nearly akin, merely a different species in each region; 3. The yews, still more closely related while more widely disseminated, of which it is yet uncertain whether they constitute seven, five, three, or only one species. Opinions differ, and can hardly be brought to any decisive test. However it be determined, it may still be said that the extreme differences among the yews do not surpass those of the recognized variations of the European yew, the cultivated races included. It appears to me that these several instances all raise the very same question, only with different degrees of emphasis, and, if to be explained at all, will have the same kind of explanation. Continuing the comparison between the three regions with which we are concerned, we note that each has its own species of pines, firs, larches, etc., and of a few deciduous-leaved trees, such as oaks and maples; all of which have no peculiar significance for the present purpose, because they are of genera which are common all round the northern hemisphere. Leaving these out of view, the noticeable point is that the vegetation of California is most strikingly unlike that of the Atlantic United States. They possess some plants, and some peculiarly American plants, in common--enough to show, as I imagine, that the difficulty was not in the getting from the one district to the other, or into both from a common source, but in abiding there. The primordially unbroken forest of Atlantic North America, nourished by rainfall distributed throughout the year, is widely separated from the western region of sparse and discontinuous tree-belts of the same latitude on the western side of the continent (where summer rain is wanting, or nearly so), by immense treeless plains and plateaux of more or less aridity, traversed by longitudinal mountain-ranges of a similar character. Their nearest approach is at the north, in the latitude of Lake Superior, where, on a more rainy line, trees of the Atlantic forest and that of Oregon may be said to intermix. The change of species and of the aspect of vegetation in crossing, say on the forty-seventh parallel, is slight in comparison with that on the thirty-seventh or near it. Confining our attention to the lower latitude, and under the exceptions already specially noted, we may say that almost every characteristic form in the vegetation of the Atlantic States is wanting in California, and the characteristic plants and trees of California are wanting here. California has no magnolia nor tulip trees, nor star-anise tree; no so-called papaw (Asimina); no barberry of the common single-leaved sort; no Podophyllum or other of the peculiar associated genera; no nelumbo nor white water-lily; no prickly ash nor sumach; no loblolly-bay nor Stuartia; no basswood nor linden-trees; neither locust, honey-locust, coffeetrees (Gymnocladus) nor yellow-wood (Cladrastis); nothing answering to Hydrangea or witch-hazel, to gum-trees (Nyssa and Liquidambar), Viburnum or Diervilla; it has few asters and golden-rods; no lobelias; no huckleberries and hardly any blueberries; no Epigaea, charm of our earliest Eastern spring, tempering an icy April wind with a delicious wild fragrance; no Kalmia nor Clethra, nor holly, nor persimmon; no catalpa-tree, nor trumpet-creeper (Tecoma); nothing answering to sassafras, nor to benzoin-tree, nor to hickory; neither mulberry nor elm; no beech, true chestnut, hornbeam, nor iron-wood, nor a proper birch-tree; and the enumeration might be continued very much further by naming herbaceous plants and others familiar only to botanists. In their place California is filled with plants of other types--trees, shrubs, and herbs, of which I will only remark that they are, with one or two exceptions, as different from the plants of the Eastern Asiatic region with which we are concerned (Japan, China, and Mantchooria), as they are from those of Atlantic North America. Their near relatives, when they have any in other lands, are mostly southward, on the Mexican plateau, or many as far south as Chili. The same may be said of the plants of the intervening great Plains, except that northward in the subsaline vegetation there are some close alliances with the flora of the steppes of Siberia. And 181 along the crests of high mountain-ranges the Arctic-Alpine . flora has sent southward more or less numerous representatives through the whole length of the country. If we now compare, as to their flora generally, the Atlantic United States with Japan, Mantchooria, and Northern China--i.e., Eastern North America with Eastern North Asia, half the earth's circumference apart--we find an astonishing similarity. The larger part of the genera of our own region, which I have enumerated as wanting in California, are present in Japan or Mantchooria, along with many other peculiar plants, divided between the two. There are plants enough of the one region which have no representatives in the other. There are types which appear to have reached the Atlantic States from the south; and there is a larger infusion of subtropical Asiatic types into temperate China and Japan; among these there is no relationship between the two countries to speak of. There are also, as I have already said, no small number of genera and some species which, being common all round or partly round the northern temperate zone, have no special significance because of their occurrence in these two antipodal floras, although they have testimony to bear upon the general question of geographical distribution. The point to be remarked is, that many, or even most, of the genera and species which are peculiar to North America as compared with Europe, and largely peculiar to Atlantic North America as compared with the Californian region, are also represented in Japan and Mantchooria, either by identical or by closely-similar forms! The same rule holds on a more northward line, although not so strikingly. If we compare the plants, say of New England and Pennsylvania (latitude 450_470), with those of Oregon, and then with those of Northeastern Asia, we shall find many of our own curiously repeated in the latter, while only a small number of them can be traced along the route even so far as the western slope of the Rocky Mountains. And these repetitions of East American types in Japan 182 and neighboring districts are in all degrees of likeness. Sometimes the one is undistinguishable from the other; sometimes there is a difference of aspect, but hardly of tangible character; sometimes the two would be termed marked varieties if they grew naturally in the same forest or in the same region; sometimes they are what the botanist calls representative species, the one answering closely to the other, but with some differences regarded as specific; sometimes the two are merely of the same genus, or not quite that, but of a single or very few species in each country; in which case the point which interests us is, that this peculiar limited type should occur in two antipodal places, and nowhere else. It would be tedious, and, except to botanists, abstruse, to enumerate instances; yet the whole strength of the case depends upon the number of such instances. I propose therefore, if the Association does me the honor to print this discourse, to append in a note a list of the more remarkable ones.[V-2] But I would here mention certain cases as specimens. Our Rhus Toxicodendron, or poison-ivy, is very exactly repeated in Japan, but is found in no other part of the world, although a species much like it abounds in California. Our other poisonous Rhus (R. venenata), commonly called poison-dogwood, is in no way represented in Western America, but has so close an analogue in Japan that the two were taken for the same by Thunberg and Linnaeus, who called them both R. vernix. Our northern fox-grape, Vitis Labrusca, is wholly confined to the Atlantic States, except that it reappears in Japan and that region. The original Wistaria is a woody leguminous climber with showy blossoms, native to the middle Atlantic States; the other species, which we so much prize in cultivation, W. Sinensis, is from China, as its name denotes, or perhaps only from Japan, where it is certainly indigenous. Our yellow-wood (Cladrastis) inhabits a very limited district on the western slope of the Alleghanies. Its only and very near relative, Maackia, is confined to Mantchooria. The Hydrangeas have some species in our Alleghany region: all the rest belong to the Chino-Japanese region and its continuation westward. The same may be said of Philadelphus, except that there are one or two mostly very similar species in California and Oregon. Our May-flower (Epigaea) and our creeping snowberry, otherwise peculiar to Atlantic North America, recur in Japan. Our blue cohosh (Caulophyllum) is confined to the woods of the Atlantic States, but has lately been discovered in Japan. A peculiar relative of it, Diphylleia, confined to the higher Alleghanies, is also repeated in Japan, with a slight difference, so that it may barely be distinguished as another : species. Another relative is our twin-leaf (Jeffersonia) of the Alleghany region alone: a second species has lately turned up in Mantchooria. A relative of this is Podophyllum, our mandrake, a common inhabitant of the Atlantic United States, but found nowhere else. There is one other species of it, and that is in the Himalayas. Here are four most peculiar genera of one family, each of a single species in the Atlantic United States, which are duplicated on the other side of the world, either in identical or almost identical species, or in an analogous species, while nothing else of the kind is known in any other part of the world. I ought not to omit ginseng, the root so prized by the Chinese, which they obtain from their northern provinces and Mantchooria, and which is now known to inhabit Corea and Northern Japan. The Jesuit Fathers identified the plant in Canada and the Atlantic States, brought over the Chinese name by which we know it, and established the trade in it, which was for many years most profitable. The exportation of ginseng to China probably has not yet entirely ceased. Whether the Asiatic and the Atlantic American ginsengs are to be regarded as of the same species or not is somewhat uncertain, but they are hardly, if at all, distinguishable. There is a shrub, Elliottia, which is so rare and local that it is known only at two stations on the Savannah River in Georgia. It is of peculiar structure, and was without near relative until one was lately discovered in Japan (Tripetaleia), so like it as hardly to be distinguishable except by having the parts of the blossom in threes instead of fours--a difference not uncommon in the same genus, or even in the same species. Suppose Elliottia had happened to be collected only once, a good while ago, and all knowledge of the limited and obscure locality were lost; and meanwhile the Japanese form came to be known. Such a case would be parallel with an actual one. A specimen of a peculiar plant (Shortia galacifolia) was detected in the herbarium of the elder Michaux, who collected it (as his autograph ticket shows) somewhere in the high Alleghany Mountains, more than eighty years ago. No one has seen the living plant since or knows where to find it, if haply it still flourishes in some secluded spot. At length it is found in Japan; and I had the satisfaction of making the identification.[V-3] A relative is also known in Japan; and a less near one has just been detected in Thibet. Whether the Japanese and the Alleghanian plants are exactly the same or not, it needs complete specimens of the two to settle. So far as we know, they are just alike; and, even if some difference were discerned between them, it would not appreciably alter the question as to how such a result came to pass. Each and every one of the analogous cases I have been detailing--and very many more could be mentioned--raises the same question, and would be satisfied with the same answer. These singular relations attracted my curiosity early in the course of my botanical studies, when comparatively few of them were known, and my serious attention in later years, when I had numerous and new Japanese plants to study in the collections made, by Messrs. Williams and Morrow, during Commodore Perry's visit in 1853, and especially, by Mr. Charles Wright, of Commodore Rodgers's expedition in 1855. I then discussed this subject somewhat fully, and tabulated the facts within my reach.[V-4] This was before Heer had developed the rich fossil botany of the arctic zone, before the immense antiquity of existing species of plants was recognized, and before the publication of Darwin's now famous volume on the "Origin of Species" had introduced and familiarized the scientific world with those now current ideas respecting the history and vicissitudes of species with which I attempted to deal in a moderate and feeble way. My speculation was based upon the former glaciation of the northern temperate zone, and the inference of a warmer period preceding and perhaps following. I considered that our own present vegetation, or its proximate ancestry, must have occupied the arctic and subarctic regions in pliocene times, and that it had been gradually pushed southward as the temperature lowered and the glaciation advanced, even beyond its present habitation; that plants of the same stock and kindred, probably ranging round the arctic zone as the present arctic species do, made their forced migration southward upon widely different longitudes, and receded more or less as the climate grew warmer; that the general difference of climate which marks the eastern and the western sides of the continents--the one extreme, the other mean--was doubtless even then established, so that the same species and the same sorts of species would be likely to secure and retain foothold in the similar climates of Japan and the Atlantic United States, but not in intermediate regions of different distribution of heat and moisture; so that different species of the same genus, as in Torreya, or different genera of the same group, as redwood, Taxodium, and Glyptostrobus, or different associations of forest-trees, might establish themselves each in the region best suited to the particular requirements, while they would fail to do so in any other. These views implied that the sources of our actual vegetation and the explanation of these peculiarities were to be sought in, and presupposed, an ancestry in pliocene or earlier times, occupying the higher northern regions. And it was thought that the occurrence of peculiar North American genera in Europe in the Tertiary period (such as Taxodium, Carya, Liquidambar, sassafras, Negundo, etc.) might be best explained on the assumption of early interchange and diffusion through North Asia, rather than by that of the fabled Atlantis. The hypothesis supposed a gradual modification of species in different directions under altering conditions, at least to the extent of producing varieties, sub-species, and representative species, as they may be variously regarded; likewise the single and local origination of each type, which is now almost universally taken for granted. The remarkable facts in regard to the Eastern American and Asiatic floras which these speculations were to explain have since increased in number, especially through the admirable collections of Dr. Maximowicz in Japan and adjacent countries, and the critical comparisons he has made and is still engaged upon. I am bound to state that, in a recent general work[V-5] by a distinguished European botanist, Prof. Grisebach, of Jotting, these facts have been emptied of all special significance, and the relations between the Japanese and the Atlantic United States flora declared to be no more intimate than might be expected from the situation, climate, and present opportunity of interchange. This extraordinary conclusion is reached by regarding as distinct species all the plants common to both countries between which any differences have been discerned, although such differences would probably count for little if the two inhabited the same country, thus transferring many of my list of identical to that of representative species; and then by simply eliminating from consideration the whole array of representative species, i.e., all cases in which the Japanese and the American plant are not exactly alike. As if, by pronouncing the cabalistic word species, the question were settled, or rather the greater part of it remanded out of the domain of science; as if, while complete identity of forms implied community of origin, anything short of it carried no presumption of the kind; so leaving all these singular duplicates to be wondered at, indeed, but wholly beyond the reach of inquiry. Now, the only known cause of such likeness is inheritance; and as all transmission of likeness is with some difference in individuals, and as changed conditions have resulted, as is well known, in very considerable differences, it seems to me that, if the high antiquity of our actual vegetation could be rendered probable, not to say certain, and the former habitation of any of our species or of very near relatives of them in high northern regions could be ascertained, my whole case would be made out. The needful facts, of which I was ignorant when my essay was published, have now been for some years made known--thanks, mainly, to the researches of Heer upon ample collections of arctic fossil plants. These are confirmed and extended by new investigations, by Heer and Lesquereux, the results of which have been indicated to me by the latter.[V-6] The Taxodium, which everywhere abounds in the miocene formations in Europe, has been specifically identified, first by Goeppert, then by Heer, with our common cypress of the Southern States. It has been found fossil in Spitzbergen, Greenland, and Alaska--in the latter country along with the remains of another form, distinguishable, but very like the common species; and this has been identified by Lesquereux in the miocene of the Rocky Mountains. So there is one species of tree which has come down essentially unchanged from the Tertiary period, which for a long while inhabited both Europe and North America, and also, at some part of the period, the region which geographically connects the two (once doubtless much more closely than now), but which has survived only in the Atlantic United States and Mexico. The same Sequoia which abounds in the same miocene formations in Northern Europe has been abundantly found in those of Iceland, Spitzbergen, Greenland, Mackenzie River, and Alaska. It is named S. Langsdorfii, but is pronounced to be very much like S. sempervirens, our living redwood of the Californian coast, and to be the ancient representative of it. Fossil specimens of a similar, if not the same, species have recently been detected in the Rocky Mountains by Hayden, and determined by our eminent palaeontological botanist, Lesquereux; and he assures me that he has the common redwood itself from Oregon in a deposit of tertiary age. Another Sequoia (S. Sternbergii), discovered in miocene deposits in Greenland, is pronounced to be the representative of S. gigantea, the big tree of the Californian Sierra. If the Taxodium of the tertiary time in Europe and throughout the arctic regions is the ancestor of our present bald cypress--which is assumed in regarding them as specifically identical-- then I think we may, with our present light, fairly assume that the two redwoods of California are the direct or collateral descendants of the two ancient species which so closely resemble them. The forests of the arctic zone in tertiary times contained at least three other species of Sequoia, as determined by their remains, one of which, from Spitzbergen, also much resembles the common redwood of California. Another, "which appears to have been the commonest coniferous tree on Disco," was common in England and some other parts of Europe. So the Sequoias, now remarkable for their restricted station and numbers, as well as for their extraordinary size, are of an ancient stock; their ancestors and kindred formed a large part of the forests which flourished throughout the polar regions, now desolate and ice-clad, and which extended into low latitudes in Europe. On this continent one species, at least, had reached to the vicinity of its present habitat before the glaciation of the region. Among the fossil specimens already found in California, but which our trustworthy palaeontological botanist has not yet had time to examine, we may expect to find evidence of the early arrival of these two redwoods upon the ground which they now, after much vicissitude, scantily occupy. Differences of climate, or circumstances of migration, or both, must have determined the survival of Sequoia upon the Pacific, and of Taxodium upon the Atlantic coast. And still the redwoods will not stand in the east, nor could our Taxodium find a congenial station in California. Both have probably had their opportunity in the olden time, and failed. As to the remaining near relative of Sequoia, the Chinese Glyptostrobus, a species of it, and its veritable representative, was contemporaneous with Sequoia and Taxodium, not only in temperate Europe, but throughout the arctic regions from Greenland to Alaska. According to Newberry, it was abundantly represented in the miocene flora of the temperate zone of our own continent, from Nebraska to the Pacific. Very similar would seem to have been the fate of a more familiar gymnospermous tree, the Gingko or Salisburia. It is now indigenous to Japan only. Its ancestor, as we may fairly call it--since, according to Heer, "it corresponds so entirely with the living species that it can scarcely be separated from it"--once inhabited Northern Europe and the whole arctic region round to Alaska, and had even a representative farther south, in our Rocky Mountain district. For some reason, this and Glyptostrobus survive only on the shores of Eastern Asia. Libocedrus, on the other hand, appears to have cast in its lot with the Sequoias. Two species, according to Heer, were with them in Spitzbergen. L. decurrens, the incense cedar, is one of the noblest associates of the present redwoods. But all the rest are in the southern hemisphere, two at the southern extremity of the Andes, two in the South-Sea Islands. It is only by bold and far-reaching suppositions that they can be geographically associated. The genealogy of the Torreyas is still wholly obscure; yet it is not unlikely that the yew-like trees, named Taxites, which flourished with the Sequoias in the tertiary arctic forests, are the remote ancestors of the three species of Torreya, now severally in Florida, in California, and in Japan. As to the pines and firs, these were more numerously associated with the ancient Sequoias of the polar forests than with their present representatives, but in different species, apparently more like those of Eastern than of Western North America. They must have encircled the polar zone then, as they encircle the present temperate zone now. I must refrain from all enumeration of the angiospermous or ordinary deciduous trees and shrubs, which are now known, by their fossil remains, to have flourished throughout the polar regions when Greenland better deserved its name and enjoyed the present climate of New England and New Jersey. Then Greenland and the rest of the north abounded with oaks, representing the several groups of species which now inhabit both our Eastern and Western forest districts; several poplars, one very like our balsam poplar or balm-of-Gilead tree; more beeches than there are now, a hornbeam, and a hop-hornbeam, some birches, a persimmon, and a planer-tree, near representatives of those of the Old World, at least of Asia, as well as of Atlantic North America, but all wanting in California; one Juglans like the walnut of the Old World, and another like our black walnut; two or three grapevines, one near our Southern fox grape or muscadine, another near our Northern frostgrape; a Tilia, very like our basswood of the Atlantic States only; a Liquidambar; a magnolia, which recalls our M. grandiflora; a Liriodendron, sole representative of our tulip-tree; and a sassafras, very like the living tree. Most of these, it will be noticed, have their nearest or their only living representatives in the Atlantic States, and when elsewhere, mainly in Eastern Asia. Several of them, or of species like them, have been detected in our tertiary deposits, west of the Mississippi, by Newberry and Lesquereux. Herbaceous plants, as it happens, are rarely preserved in a fossil state, else they would probably supply additional testimony to the antiquity of our existing vegetation, its wide diffusion over the northern and now frigid zone, and its enforced migration under changes of climate.[V-7] Concluding, then, as we must, that our existing vegetation is a continuation of that of the tertiary period, may we suppose that it absolutely originated then? Evidently not. The preceding Cretaceous period has furnished to Carruthers in Europe a fossil fruit like that of the Sequoia gigantea of the famous groves, associated with pines of the same character as those that accompany the present tree; has furnished to Heer, from Greenland, two more Sequoias, one of them identical with a tertiary species, and one nearly allied to Sequoia Langsdorfii, which in turn is a probable ancestor of the common California redwood; has furnished to Newberry and Lesquereux in North America the remains of another ancient Sequoia, a Glyptostrobus, a Liquidambar which well represents our sweet-gum-tree, oaks analogous to living ones, leaves of a plane-tree, which are also in the Tertiary, and are scarcely distinguishable from our own Platanus occidentalis, of a magnolia and a tulip-tree, and "of a sassafras undistinguishable from our living species." I need not continue the enumeration. Suffice it to say that the facts justify the conclusion which Lesquereux--a scrupulous investigator--has already announced: that "the essential types of our actual flora are marked in the Cretaceous period, and have come to us after passing, without notable changes, through the Tertiary formations of our continent." According to these views, as regards plants at least, the adaptation to successive times and changed conditions has been maintained, not by absolute renewals, but by gradual modifications. I, for one, cannot doubt that the present existing species are the lineal successors of those that garnished the earth in the old time before them, and that they were as well adapted to their surroundings then, as those which flourish and bloom around us are to their conditions now. Order and exquisite adaptation did not wait for man's coming, nor were they ever stereotyped. Organic Nature--by which I mean the system and totality of living things, and their adaptation to each other and to the world--with all its apparent and indeed real stability, should be likened, not to the ocean, which varies only by tidal oscillations from a fixed level to which it is always returning, but rather to a river, so vast that we can neither discern its shores nor reach its sources, whose onward flow is not less actual because too slow to be observed by the ephemerae which hover over its surface, or are borne upon its bosom. Such ideas as these, though still repugnant to some, and not long since to many, have so possessed the minds of the naturalists of the present day that hardly a discourse can be pronounced or an investigation prosecuted without reference to them. I suppose that the views here taken are little, if at all, in advance of the average scientific mind of the day. I cannot regard them as less noble than those which they are succeeding. An able philosophical writer, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, has recently and truthfully said:[V-8] "It is a singular fact that, when we can find out how anything is done, our first conclusion seems to be that God did not do it. No matter how wonderful, how beautiful, how intimately complex and delicate has been the machinery which has worked, perhaps for centuries, perhaps for millions of ages, to bring about some beneficent result, if we can but catch a glimpse of the wheels its divine character disappears." I agree with the writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy--I will add, deplorable. Through what faults or infirmities of dogmatism on the one hand, and skepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here consider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last; that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of the fixity of the earth itself may equally outlast the notion of the fixity of the species which inhabit it; that, in the future even more than in the past, faith in an order, which is the basis of science, will not--as it cannot reasonably--be dissevered from faith in an Ordainer, which is the basis of religion. VI THE ATTITUDE OF WORKING NATURALISTS TOWARD DARWINISM [VI-1] (The Nation, October 16, 1873) That homely adage, "What is one man's meat is another man's poison," comes to mind when we consider with what different eyes different naturalists look upon the hypothesis of the derivative origin of actual specific forms, since Mr. Darwin gave it vogue and vigor and a raison d'être for the present day. This latter he did, not only by bringing forward a vera causa in the survival of the fittest under changing circumstances--about which the question among naturalists mainly is how much it will explain, some allowing it a restricted, others an unlimited operation--but also by showing that the theory may be made to do work, may shape and direct investigations, the results of which must in time tell us whether the theory is likely to hold good or not. If the hypothesis of natural selection and the things thereto appertaining had not been capable of being put to useful work, although, like the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," it might have made no little noise in the world, it would hardly have engaged the attention of working naturalists as it has done. We have no idea even of opening the question as to what work the Darwinian theory has incited, and in what way the work done has reacted upon the theory; and least of all do we like to meddle with the polemical literature of the subject, already so voluminous that the German bibliographers and booksellers make a separate class of it. But two or three treatises before us, of a minor or incidental sort, suggest a remark or two upon the attitude of mind toward evolutionary theories taken by some of the working naturalists. Mr. Darwin's own expectation, that his new presentation of the subject would have little or no effect upon those who had already reached middle-age, has--out of Paris--not been fulfilled. There are, indeed, one or two who have thought it their duty to denounce the theory as morally dangerous, as well as scientifically baseless; a recent instance of the sort we may have to consider further on. Others, like the youth at the river's bank, have been waiting in confident expectation of seeing the current run itself dry. On the other hand, a notable proportion of the more active-minded naturalists had already come to doubt the received doctrine of the entire fixity of species, and still more that of their independent and supernatural origination. While their systematic work all proceeded implicitly upon the hypothesis of the independence and entire permanence of species, they were perceiving more or less clearly that the whole question was inevitably to be mooted again, and so were prepared to give the alternative hypothesis a dispassionate consideration. The veteran Lyell set an early example, and, on a reconsideration of the whole question, wrote anew his famous chapter and reversed his former and weighty opinion. Owen, still earlier, signified his adhesion to the doctrine of derivation in some form, but apparently upon general, speculative grounds; for he repudiated natural selection, and offered no other natural solution of the mystery of the orderly incoming of cognate forms. As examples of the effect of Darwin's "Origin of Species" upon the minds of naturalists who are no longer young, and whose prepossessions, even more than Lyell's, were likely to bias them against the new doctrine, two from the botanical side are brought to our notice through recent miscellaneous writings which are now before us.[VI-2] Before the publication of Darwin's first volume, M. Alphonse de Candolle had summed up the result of his studies in this regard, in the final chapter of his classical "Geographie Botanique Raisonnee," in the conclusion, that existing vegetation must be regarded as the continuation, through many geological and geographical changes, of the anterior vegetations of the world; and that, consequently, the present distribution of species is explicable only in the light of their geological history. He surmised that, notwithstanding the general stability of forms, certain species or quasi-species might have originated through diversification under geographical isolation. But, on the other hand, he was still disposed to admit that even the same species might have originated independently in two or more different regions of the world; and he declined, as unpractical and unavailing, all attempts to apply hypotheses to the elucidation of the origin of species. Soon after Darwin's book appeared, De Candolle had occasion to study systematically a large and wide-spread genus-- that of the oak. Investigating it under the new light of natural selection, he came to the conclusion that the existing oaks are all descendants of earlier forms, and that no clear line can be drawn between the diversification whic h has resulted in species and that which is exhibited in races and minor varieties. And now, in the introductory chapter of the volume of essays before us, he informs us that the idea which pervades them all, and in some sort connects very diverse topics, is that of considering this principle of selection. Of the principle itself, he remarks that it is neither a theory nor an hypothesis, but the expression of a necessary fact; that to deny it is very much like denying that round stones will roll downhill faster and farther than flat ones; and that the question of the present day in natural history is not whether there be natural selection, or even whether forms are derived from other forms, but to comprehend how, in what proportions, and by what means hereditary deviations take place, and in what ways an inevitable selection takes effect upon these. In two of these essays natural selection is directly discussed in its application to the human race; the larger one dealing ably with the whole subject, and with results at first view seemingly in a great degree negative, but yet showing that the supposed "failure of natural selection in the case of man" was an unwarrantable conclusion from too limited a view of a very complicated question. The article abounds in acute and fertile suggestions, and its closing chapter, "on the probable future of the human species" under the laws of selection, is highly interesting and noteworthy. The other and shorter essay discusses a special point, and brings out a corollary of the law of heredity which may not have been thought of before, but which is perfectly clear as soon as it is stated. It explains at once why contagious or epidemic diseases are most fatal at their first appearance, and less so afterward: not by the dying out of a virus--for, when the disease reaches a new population, it is as virulent as ever (as, for instance, the smallpox among the Indians)--but by the selection of a race less subject to attack through the destruction of those that were more so, and the inheritance of the comparative immunity by the children and the grandchildren of the survivors; and how this immunity itself, causing the particular disease to become rare, paves the way to a return of the original fatality; for the mass of such population, both in the present and the immediately preceding generation, not having been exposed to the infection, or but little exposed, has not undergone selection, and so in time the proportion liable to attack, or to fatal attack, gets to be as large as ever. The greater the fatality, especially in the population under marriageable age, the more favorable the condition of the survivors; and, by the law of heredity, their children should share in the immunity. This explanation of the cause, or of one cause, of the return of pests at intervals no less applies to the diminution of the efficacy of remedies, and of preventive means, such as vaccination. When Jenner introduced vaccination, the small-pox in Europe and European colonies must have lost somewhat of its primitive intensity by the vigorous weeding out of the more susceptible through many generations. Upon the residue, vaccination was almost complete protection, and, being generally practised, small-pox consequently became rare. Selection thus ceasing to operate, a population arises which has not been exposed to the contagion, and of which a considerable proportion, under the common law of atavism, comes to be very much in the condition of a people invaded for the first time by the disease. To these, as we might expect, vaccination would prove a less safeguard than to their progenitors three or four generations before. Mr. Bentham is a veteran systematic botanist of the highest rank and widest knowledge. He had not, so far as we know, touched upon questions of origination in the ante-Darwinian era. The dozen of presidential addresses delivered at anniversary meetings of the Linnean Society, from his assumption of the chair in the year 1862 down to the current year--each devoted to some topic of interest--and his recent "Memoir on Compositae," summing up the general results of a revision of an order to which a full tenth of all higher plants belong, furnish apt examples both of cautious criticism, conditional assent (as becomes the inaugurator of the quantification of the predicate), and of fruitful application of the new views to various problems concerning the classification and geographical distribution of plants. In his hands the hypothesis is turned at once to practical use as an instrument of investigation, as a means of interrogating Nature. In the result, no doubt seems to be left upon the author's mind that the existing species of plants are the result of the differentiation of previous species, or at least that the derivative hypothesis is to be adopted as that which offers the most natural, if not the only, explanation of the problems concerned. Similar conclusions reached in this country, from a study of the relations of its present flora with that which in earlier ages occupied the arctic zone, might also be referred to. (See preceding article.) An excellent instance of the way in which the derivative hypothesis is practically applied in these days, by a zoologist, is before us in Prof. Flower's modest and admirable paper on the Ungulata, or hoofed animals, and their geological history. We refer to it here, not so much for the conclusions it reaches or suggests, as to commend the clearness and the impartiality of the handling, and the sobriety and moderation of the deductions. Confining himself "within the region of the known, it is shown that, at least in one group of animals, the facts which we have as yet acquired point to the former existence of various intermediate forms, so numerous that they go far to discredit the view of the sudden introduction of new species. . . . The modern forms are placed along lines which converge toward a common centre." The gaps between the existing forms of the odd-toed group of ungulates (of which horses, rhinoceroses, and tapirs, are the principal representatives) are most bridged over by palaeontology, and somewhat the same may be said of the even-toed group, to which the ruminants and the porcine genus belong. "Moreover, the lines of both groups to a certain extent approximate, but, within the limits of our knowledge, they do not meet. . - . Was the order according to which the introduction of new forms seems to have taken place since the Eocene then entirely changed, or did it continue as far back as the period when these lines would have been gradually fused in a common centre?" Facts like these, which suggest grave diversification under long lapse of time, are well supplemented by those which essentially demonstrate a slighter diversification of many species over a wide range of space; whether into species or races depends partly upon how the naturalist uses these terms, partly upon the extent of the observations, or luck in getting together intermediate forms. The researches of Prof. Baird upon the birds of this continent afford a good illustration. A great number of our birds which have been, and must needs have been, regarded as very distinct species, each mainly with its own geographical area, are found to mingle their characters along bordering lines; and the same kinds of differences (of coloration, form, or other) are found to prevail through the species of each region, thus impressing upon them a geographical facies. Upon a submergence of the continent, reducing these several regions to islands sufficiently separated, these forms would be unquestioned species. Considerations such as these, of which a few specimens have now been adduced (not general speculations, as the unscientific are apt to suppose), and trials of the new views to see how far they will explain the problems or collocate the facts they are severally dealing with, are what have mainly influenced working naturalists in the direction of the provisional acceptance of the derivative hypothesis. They leave to polemical speculators the fruitless discussion of the question whether all species came from one or two, or more; they are trying to grasp the thing by the near, not by the farther end, and to ascertain, first of all, whether it is probable or provable that present species are descendants of former ones which were like them, but less and less like them the farther back we go. And it is worth noting that they all seem to be utterly unconscious of wrong-doing. Their repugnance to novel hypotheses is only the natural and healthy one. A change of a wonted line of thought is not made without an effort, nor need be made without adequate occasion. Some courage was required of the man who first swallowed an oyster from its shell; and of most of us the snail would still demand more. As the unaccustomed food proves to be good and satisfying, and also harmless, we may come to like it. That, however, which many good and eminent naturalists find to be healthful and reasonable, and others innocuous, a few still regard as most unreasonable and harmful. At present, we call to mind only two who not only hold to the entire fixity of species as an axiom or a confirmed principle, but also as a dogma, and who maintain, either expressly or implicitly, that the logical antithesis to the creation of species as they are, is not by law (which implies intention), but by chance. A recent book by one of these naturalists, or rather, by a geologist of eminence, the "Story of the Earth and Man," by Dr. Dawson,4 is now before us. The title is too near that of Guyot's "Earth and Man," with the publication of which popular volume that distinguished physical naturalist commenced his career in this country; and such catch-titles are a sort of trade-mark. As to the nature and merits of Dr. Dawson's work, we have left ourselves space only to say: 1. That it is addressed ad populum, which renders it rather the more than less amenable to the criticisms we may be disposed to make upon it. 2. That the author is thoroughly convinced that no species or form deserving the name was ever derived from another, or originated from natural causes; and he maintains this doctrine with earnestness, much variety of argument and illustration, and no small ability; so that he may be taken as a representative of the view exactly opposed to that which is favored by those naturalists whose essays we have been considering--to whom, indeed, he stands in marked contrast in spirit and method, being greatly disposed to argue the question from the remote rather than the near end. 3. And finally, he has a conviction that the evolutionary doctrines of the day are not only untrue, but thoroughly bad and irreligious. This belief, and the natural anxiety with which he contemplates their prevalence, may excuse a certain vehemence and looseness of statement which were better avoided, as where the geologists of the day are said to be "broken up into bands of specialists, little better than scientific banditti, liable to be beaten in detail, and prone to commit outrages on common-sense and good taste which bring their otherwise good cause into disrepute;" and where he despairingly suggests that the prevalence of the doctrines he deprecates "seems to indicate that the accumulated facts of our age have gone altogether beyond its capacity for generalization, and, but for the vigor which one sees everywhere, might be taken as an indication that the human mind has fallen into a state of senility." This is droll reading, when one considers that the "evolutionist" is the only sort of naturalist who has much occasion to employ his "capacity for generalization" upon "the accumulated facts" in their bearing upon the problem of the origin of species; since the "special creationist," who maintains that they were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation. Again, when one reflects upon the new impetus which the derivative hypothesis has given to systematic natural history, and reads the declaration of a master in this department (the President of the Linnean Society) that Mr. Darwin "has in this nineteenth century brought about as great a revolution in the philosophic study of organic Nature as that which was effected in the previous century by the immortal Swede," it sounds oddly to hear from Dr. Dawson that "it obliterates the fine perception of differences from the mind of the naturalist, . . . . destroys the possibility of a philosophical classification, reducing all things to a mere series, and leads to a rapid decay in systematic zoology and botany, which is already very manifest among the disciples of Spencer and Darwin in England." So, also, "it removes from the study of Nature the ideas of final cause and purpose"--a sentence which reads curiously in the light of Darwin's special investigations, such as those upon the climbing of plants, the agency of insects in the fertilization of blossoms, and the like, which have brought back teleology to natural science, wedded to morphology and already fruitful of discoveries. The difficulty with Dr. Dawson here is (and it need not be underrated) that apparently he cannot as yet believe an adaptation, act, or result, to be purposed the apparatus of which is perfected or evolved in the course of Nature--a common but a crude state of mind on the part of those who believe that there is any originating purpose in the universe, and one which, we are sure, Dr. Dawson does not share as respects the material world until he reaches the organic kingdoms, and there, possibly, because he sees man at the head of them--of them, while above them. However that may be, the position which Dr. Dawson chooses to occupy is not left uncertain. After concluding, substantially, that those "evolutionists" who exclude design from Nature thereby exclude theism, which nobody will deny, he proceeds (on page 348) to give his opinion that the "evolutionism which professes to have a creator somewhere behind it . . . . is practically atheistic," and, "if possible, more unphilosophical than that which professes to set out from absolute and eternal nonentity," etc. There are some sentences which might lead one to suppose that Dr. Dawson himself admitted of an evolution "with a creator somewhere behind it." He offers it (page 320) as a permissible alternative that even man "has been created mediately by the operation of forces also concerned in the production of other animals;" concedes that a just theory "does not even exclude evolution or derivation, to a certain extent" (page 341); and that "a modern man of science" may safely hold "that all things have been produced by the Supreme Creative Will, acting either directly or through the agency of the forces and materials of his own production." Well, if this be so, why denounce the modern man of science so severely upon the other page merely for accepting the permission? At first sight, it might be thought that our author is exposing himself in one paragraph to a share of the condemnation which he deals out in the other. But the permitted views are nowhere adopted as his own; the evolution is elsewhere restricted within specific limits; and as to "mediate creation," although we cannot divine what is here meant by the term, there is reason to think it does not imply that the several species of a genus were mediately created, in a natural way, through the supernatural creation of a remote common ancestor. So that his own judgment in the matter is probably more correctly gathered from the extract above referred to and other similar deliverances, such as that in which he warns those who "endeavor to steer a middle course, and to maintain that the Creator has proceeded by way of evolution," that "the bare, hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English authority on evolution, leaves no place for this compromise, and shows that the theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, excludes the knowledge of a Creator and the possibility of his work." Now, this is a dangerous line to take. Those defenders of the faith are more zealous than wise who must needs fire away in their catapults the very bastions of the citadel, in the defense of outposts that have become untenable. It has been and always will be possible to take an atheistic view of Nature, but far more reasonable from science and philosophy only to take a theistic view. Voltaire's saying here holds true: that if there were no God known, it would be necessary to invent one. It is the best, if not the only, hypothesis for the explanation of the facts. Whether the philosophy of Herbert Spencer (which is not to our liking) is here fairly presented, we have little occasion and no time to consider. In this regard, the close of his article No. 12 in the Contemporary Review shows, at least, his expectation of the entire permanence of our ideas of cause, origin, and religion, and predicts the futility of the expectation that the "religion of humanity" will be the religion of the future, or "can ever more than temporarily shut out the thought of a Power, of which humanity is but a small and fugitive product, which was in its course of ever-changing manifestation before humanity was, and will continue through other manifestations when humanity has ceased to be." If, on the one hand, the philosophy of the unknowable of the Infinite may be held in a merely quasi-theistic or even atheistic way, were not its ablest expounders and defenders Hamilton and Dean Mansel? One would sup-pose that Dr. Dawson might discern at least as much of a divine foundation to Nature as Herbert Spencer and Matthew Arnold; might recognize in this power that "something not ourselves that makes" for order as well as "for righteousness," and which he fitly terms supreme creative will; and, resting in this, endure with more complacency and faith the inevitable prevalence of evolutionary views which he is powerless to hinder. Although he cannot arrest the stream, he might do something toward keeping it in safe channels. We wished to say something about the way in which scientific men, worthy of the name, hold hypotheses and theories, using them for the purpose of investigation and the collocation of facts, yielding or withholding assent in degrees or provisionally, according to the amount of verification or likelihood, or holding it long in suspense; which is quite in contrast to that of amateurs and general speculators (not that we reckon Dr. Dawson in this class), whose assent or denial seldom waits, or endures qualification. With them it must on all occasions be yea or nay only, according to the letter of the Scriptural injunction, and whatsoever is less than this, or between the two, cometh of evil. VII EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY [VII-1] (The Nation, January 15, 1874) The attitude of theologians toward doctrines of evolution, from the nebular hypothesis down to "Darwinism," is no less worthy of consideration, and hardly less diverse, than that of naturalists. But the topic, if pursued far, leads to questions too wide and deep for our handling here, except incidentally, in the brief notice which it falls in our way to take of the Rev. George Henslow's recent volume on "The Theory of Evolution of Living Things." This treatise is on the side of evolution, "considered as illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty." It was submitted for and received one of the Actonian prizes recently awarded by the Royal Institution of Great Britain. We gather that the staple of a part of it is worked up anew from some earlier discourses of the author upon "Genesis and Geology," "Science and Scripture not antagonistic," etc. In coupling with it a chapter of the second volume of Dr. Hodge's "Systematic Theology (Part II, Anthropology)," we call attention to a recent essay, by an able and veteran writer, on the other side of the question. As the two fairly enough represent the extremes of Christian thought upon the subject, it is convenient to review them in connection. Theologians have a short and easy, if not wholly satisfactory, way of refuting scientific doctrines which they object to, by pitting the authority or opinion of one savant against another. Already, amid the currents and eddies of modern opinion, the savants may enjoy the same advantage at the expense of the divines-- we mean, of course, on the scientific arena; for the mutual refutation of conflicting theologians on their own ground is no novelty. It is not by way of offset, however, that these divergent or contradictory views are here referred to, but only as an illustration of the fact that the divines are by no means all arrayed upon one side of the question in hand. And indeed, in the present transition period, until some one goes much deeper into the heart of the subject, as respects the relations of modern science to the foundations of religious belief, than either of these writers has done, it is as well that the weight of opinion should be distributed, even if only according to prepossessions, rather than that the whole stress should bear upon a single point, and that perhaps the authority of an interpretation of Scripture. A consensus of opinion upon Dr. Hodge's ground, for instance (although better guarded than that of Dr. Dawson), if it were still possible, would--to say the least--probably not at all help to reconcile science and religion. Therefore, it is not to be regretted that the diversities of view among accredited theologians and theological naturalists are about as wide and as equably distributed between the extremes (and we may add that the views themselves are quite as hypothetical) as those which prevail among the various naturalists and natural philosophers of the day. As a theologian, Mr. Henslow doubtless is not to be compared with the veteran professor at Princeton. On the other hand, he has the advantage of being a naturalist, and the son of a naturalist, as well as a clergyman: consequently he feels the full force of an array of facts in nature, and of the natural inferences from them, which the theological professor, from his Biblical standpoint, and on his implicit assumption that the Old Testament must needs teach true science, can hardly be expected to appreciate. Accordingly, a naturalist would be apt to say of Dr. Hodge's exposition of "theories of the universe" and kindred topics--and in no captious spirit-- that whether right or wrong on particular points, he is not often right or wrong in the way of a man of science. Probably from the lack of familiarity with prevalent ideas and their history, the theologians are apt to suppose that scientific men of the present day are taking up theories of evolution in pure wantonness or mere superfluity of naughtiness; that it would have been quite possible, as well as more proper, to leave all such matters alone. Quieta non movere is doubtless a wise rule upon such subjects, so long as it is fairly applicable. But the time for its application in respect to questions of the origin and relations of existing species has gone by. To ignore them is to imitate the foolish bird that seeks security by hiding its head in the sand. Moreover, the naturalists did not force these questions upon the world; but the world they study forced them upon the naturalists. How these questions of derivation came naturally and inevitably to be revived, how the cumulative probability that the existing are derived from preexisting forms impressed itself upon the minds of many naturalists and thinkers, Mr. Henslow has briefly explained in the introduction and illustrated in the succeeding chapters of the first part of his book. Science, he declares, has been compelled to take up the hypothesis of the evolution of living things as better explaining all the phenomena. In his opinion, it has become "infinitely more probable that all living and extinct beings have been developed or evolved by natural laws of generation from preexisting forms, than that they, with all their innumerable races and varieties, should owe their existences severally to Creative fiats." This doctrine, which even Dr. Hodge allows may possibly be held in a theistic sense, and which, as we suppose, is so held or viewed by a great proportion of the naturalists of our day, Mr. Henslow maintains is fully compatible with dogmatic as well as natural theology; that it explains moral anomalies, and accounts for the mixture of good and evil in the world, as well as for the merely relative perfection of things; and, finally, that "the whole scheme which God has framed for man's existence, from the first that was created to all eternity, collapses if the great law of evolution be suppressed." The second part of his book is occupied with a development of this line of argument. By this doctrine of evolution he does not mean the Darwinian hypothesis, although he accepts and includes this, looking upon natural selection as playing an important though not an unlimited part. He would be an evolutionist with Mivart and Owen and Argyll, even if he had not the vera causa which Darwin contributed to help him on. And, on rising to man, he takes ground with Wallace, saying: "I would wish to state distinctly that I do not at present see any evidence for believing in a gradual development of man from the lower animals by ordinary natural laws; that is, without some special interference, or, if it be preferred, some exceptional conditions which have thereby separated him from all other creatures, and placed him decidedly in advance of them all. On the other hand, it would be absurd to regard him as totally severed from them. It is the great degree of difference I would insist upon, bodily, mental, and spiritual, which precludes the idea of his having been evolved by exactly the same processes, and with the same limitations, as, for example, the horse from the palaeotherium." In illustrating this view, he reproduces Wallace's well-known points, and adds one or two of his own. We need not follow up his lines of argument. The essay, indeed, adds nothing material to the discussion of evolution, although it states one side of the case moderately well, as far as it goes. Dr. Hodge approaches the subject from the side of systematic theology, and considers it mainly in its bearing upon the origin and original state of man. Under each head he first lays down "the Scriptural doctrine," and then discusses "anti-Scriptural theories," which latter, under the first head, are the heathen doctrine of spontaneous generation, the modern doctrine of spontaneous generation, theories of development, specially that of Darwin, the atheistic character of the theory, etc. Although he admits "that there is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the origin of the universe, so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory," yet he contends that "the system is thoroughly atheistic," notwithstanding that the author "expressly acknowledges the existence of God." Curiously enough, the atheistic form of evolutionary hypotheses, or what he takes for such, is the only one which Dr. Hodge cares to examine. Even the "Reign of Law" theory, Owen's "purposive route of development and chance . . . . by virtue of inherent tendencies thereto," as well as other expositions of the general doctrine on a theistic basis, are barely mentioned without a word of comment, except, perhaps, a general "protest against the arraying of probabilities against the teachings of Scripture." Now, all former experience shows that it is neither safe nor wise to pronounce a whole system "thoroughly atheistic" which it is conceded may be held theistically, and which is likely to be largely held, if not to prevail, on scientific grounds. It may be well to remember that, "of the two great minds of the seventeenth century, Newton and Leibnitz, both profoundly religious as well as philosophical, one produced the theory of gravitation, the other objected to that theory that it was subversive of natural religion; also that the nebular hypothesis--a natural consequence of the theory of gravitation and of the subsequent progress of physical and astronomical discovery--has been denounced as atheistical even down to our day." It has now outlived anathema. It is undeniable that Mr. Darwin lays himself open to this kind of attack. The propounder of natural selection might be expected to make the most of the principle, and to overwork the law of parsimony in its behalf. And a system in which exquisite adaptation of means to ends, complicated inter-dependencies, and orderly sequences, appear as results instead of being introduced as factors, and in which special design is ignored in the particulars, must needs be obnoxious, unless guarded as we suppose Mr. Darwin might have guarded his. ground if he had chosen to do so. Our own opinion, after long consideration, is, that Mr. Darwin has no atheistical intent; and that, as respects the test question of design in Nature, his view may be made clear to the theological mind by likening it to that of the "believer in general but not in particular Providence." There is no need to cull passages in support of this interpretation from his various works while the author--the most candid of men--retains through all the editions of the "Origin of Species" the two mottoes from Whewell and Bishop Butler.[VII-2] The gist of the matter lies in the answer that should be rendered to the questions--1. Do order and useful-working collocation, pervading a system throughout all its parts, prove design? and, 2. Is such evidence negatived or invalidated by the probability that these particular collocations belong to lineal series of such in time, and diversified in the course of Nature--grown up, so to say, step by step? We do not use the terms "adaptation, "arrangement of means to ends," and the like, because they beg the question in stating it. Finally, ought not theologians to consider whether they have not already, in principle, conceded to the geologists and physicists all that they are asked to concede to the evolutionists; whether, indeed, the main natural theological difficulties which attend the doctrine of evolution--serious as they may be--are not virtually contained in the admission that there is a system of Nature with fixed laws. This, at least, we may say, that, under a system in which so much is done "by the establishment of general laws," it is legitimate for any one to prove, if he can, that any particular thing in the natural world is so done; and it is the proper business of scientific men to push their enquiries in this direction. It is beside the point for Dr. Hodge to object that, "from the nature of the case, what concerns the origin of things cannot be known except by a supernatural revelation;" that "science has to do with the facts and laws of Nature: here the question concerns the origin of such facts." For the very object of the evolutionists, and of Mr. Darwin in particular, is to remove these subjects from the category of origination, and to bring them under the domain of science by treating them as questions about how things go on, not how they began. Whether the succession of living forms on the earth is or is not among the facts and laws of Nature, is the very matter in controversy. Moreover, adds Dr. Hodge, it has been conceded that in this matter "proofs, in the proper sense of the word, are not to be had; we are beyond the region of demonstration, and have only probabilities to consider." Wherefore "Christians have a right to protest against the arraying of probabilities against the clear teachings of Scripture." The word is italicized, as if to intimate that probabilities have no claims which a theologian is bound to respect. As to arraying them against Scripture, there is nothing whatever in the essay referred to that justifies the statement. Indeed, no occasion offered; for the writer was discussing evolution in its relations to theism, not to Biblical theology, and probably would not be disposed to intermix arguments so different in kind as those from natural science and those from revelation. To pursue each independently, according to its own method, and then to compare the results, is thought to be the better mode of proceeding. The weighing of probabilities we had regarded as a proper exercise of the mind preparatory to forming an opinion. Probabilities, hypotheses, and even surmises, whatever they may be worth, are just what, as it seems to us, theologians ought not to be foremost in decrying, particularly those who deal with the reconciliation of science with Scripture, Genesis with geology, and the like. As soon as they go beyond the literal statements even of the English text, and enter into the details of the subject, they find ample occasion and display a special aptitude for producing and using them, not always with very satisfactory results. It is not, perhaps, for us to suggest that the theological army in the past has been too much encumbered with impedimenta for effective aggression in the conflict against atheistic tendencies in modern science; and that in resisting attack it has endeavored to hold too much ground, so wasting strength in the obstinate defense of positions which have become unimportant as well as untenable. Some of the arguments, as well as the guns, which well served a former generation, need to be replaced by others of longer range and greater penetration. If the theologians are slow to discern the signs and exigencies of the times, the religious philosophical naturalists must be looked to. Since the above remarks were written, Prof. Le Conte's "Religion and Science," just issued, has come to our hands. It is a series of nineteen Sunday lectures on the relation of natural and revealed religion, prepared in the first instance for a Bible-class of young men, his pupils in the University of South Carolina, repeated to similar classes at the University of California, and finally delivered to a larger and general audience. They are printed, the preface states, from a verbatim report, with only verbal alterations and corrections of some redundancies consequent upon extemporaneous delivery. They are not, we find, lectures on science under a religious aspect, but discourses upon Christian theology and its foundations from a scientific layman's point of view, with illustrations from his own lines of study. As the headings show, they cover, or, more correctly speaking, range over, almost the whole field of theological thought, beginning with the personality of Deity as revealed in Nature, the spiritual nature and attributes of Deity, and the incarnation; discussing by the way the general relations of theology to science, man, and his place in Nature; and ending with a discussion of predestination and free-will, and of prayer in relation to invariable law--all in a volume of three hundred and twenty-four duodecimo pages! And yet the author remarks that many important subjects have been omitted because he felt unable to present them in a satisfactory manner from a scientific point of view. We note, indeed, that one or two topics which would naturally come in his way--such, especially, as the relation of evolution to the human race--are somewhat conspicuously absent. That most of the momentous subjects which he takes up are treated discursively, and not exhaustively, is all the better for his readers. What they and we most want to know is, how these serious matters are viewed by an honest, enlightened, and devout scientific man. To solve the mysteries of the universe, as the French lady required a philosopher to explain his new system, "dans un mot," is beyond rational expectation. All that we have time and need to say of this little book upon great subjects relates to its spirit and to the view it takes of evolution. Its theology is wholly orthodox; its tone devotional, charitable, and hopeful; its confidence in religious truth, as taught both in Nature and revelation, complete; the illustrations often happy, but often too rhetorical; the science, as might be expected from this author, unimpeachable as regards matters of fact, discreet as to matters of opinion. The argument from design in the first lecture brings up the subject of the introduction of species. Of this, considered "as a question of history, there is no witness on the stand except geology." "The present condition of geological evidence is undoubtedly in favor of some degree of suddenness--is against infinite gradations. The evidence may be meagre . . . but whether meagre or not, it is all the evidence we have. . . . Now, the evidence of geology to-day is, that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place apparently by substitution, not by transmutation. But you will ask me, 'Do you, then, reject the doctrine of evolution? Do you accept the creation of species directly and without secondary agencies and processes?' I answer, No! Science knows nothing of phenomena which do not take place by secondary causes and processes. She does not deny such occurrence, for true Science is not dogmatic, and she knows full well that, tracing up the phenomena from cause to cause, we must somewhere reach the more direct agency of a First Cause. . . . It is evident that, however species were introduced, whether suddenly or gradually, it is the duty of Science ever to strive to understand the means and processes by which species originated. . . . Now, of the various conceivable secondary causes and processes, by some of which we must believe species originated, by far the most probable is certainly that of evolution from other species." (We might interpose the remark that the witness on the stand, if subjected to cross-examination by a biologist, might be made to give a good deal of testimony in favor of transmutation rather than substitution.) After referring to different ideas as to the cause or mode of evolution, he concludes that it can make no difference, so far as the argument of design in Nature is concerned, whether there be evolution or not, or whether, in the case of evolution, the change be paroxysmal or uniform. We may infer even that he accepts the idea that "physical and chemical forces are changed into vital force, and vice versa." Physicists incline more readily to this than physiologists; and if what is called vital force be a force in the physicists' sense, then it is almost certainly so. But the illustration on page 275 touches this point only seemingly. It really concerns only the storing and the using of physical force in a living organism. If, for want of a special expression, we continue to use the term vital force to designate that intangible something which directs and governs the accumulation and expenditure of physical force in organisms, then there is as yet no proof and little likelihood that this is correlate with physical force. "A few words upon the first chapter of Genesis and the Mosaic cosmogony, and I am done," says Prof. Le Conte, and so are we: "It might be expected by many that, after speaking of schemes of reconciliation, I should give mine also. My Christian friends, these schemes of reconciliation become daily more and more distasteful to me. I have used them in times past; but now the deliberate construction of such schemes seems to me almost like trifling with the words of Scripture and the teachings of Nature. They seem to me almost irreverent, and quite foreign to the true, humble, liberal spirit of Christianity; they are so evidently artificial, so evidently mere ingenious human devices. It seems to me that if we will only regard the two books in the philosophical spirit which I have endeavored to describe, and then simply wait and possess our souls in patience, the questions in dispute will soon adjust themselves as other similar questions have already done." VIII WHAT IS DARWINISM? [VIII-1] The Nation, May 28, 1874) The question which Dr. Hodge asks he promptly and decisively answers: "What is Darwinism? it is atheism." Leaving aside all subsidiary and incidental matters, let us consider--1. What the Darwinian doctrine is, and 2. How it is proved to be atheistic. Dr. Hodge's own statement of it cannot be very much bettered: "His [Darwin's] work on the 'Origin of Species' does not purport to be philosophical. In this aspect it is very different from the cognate works of Mr. Spencer. Darwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe, on the nature of matter or of force. He is simply a naturalist, a careful and laborious observer, skillful in his descriptions, and singularly candid in dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine. He set before himself a single problem--namely, How are the fauna and flora of our earth to be accounted for? . . . To account for the existence of matter and life, Mr. Darwin admits a Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. . . . He assumes the efficiency of physical causes, showing no disposition to resolve them into mind-force or into the efficiency of the First Cause. . . . He assumes, also, the existence of life in the form of one or more primordial germs. . . . How all living things on earth, including the endless variety of plants and all the diversity of animals, . . . have descended from the primordial animalcule, he thinks, may be accounted for by the operation of the following natural laws, viz.: First, the law of Heredity, or that by which like begets like--the offspring are like the parent. Second, the law of Variation; that is, while the offspring are in all essential characteristics like their immediate progenitor, they nevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits from their parent and from each other. Some of these variations are indifferent, some deteriorations, some improvements--that is, such as enable the plant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage. Third, the law of Over-Production. All plants and animals tend to increase in a geometrical ratio, and therefore tend to overrun enormously the means of support. If all the seeds of a plant, all the spawn of a fish, were to arrive at maturity, in a very short time the world could not contain them. Hence, of necessity, arises a struggle for life. Only a few of the myriads born can possibly live. Fourth, here comes in the law of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest; that is, if any individual of a given species of plant or animal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type favorable to its success in the struggle for life, it will survive. This variation, by the law of heredity, will be transmitted to its offspring, and by them again to theirs. Soon these favored ones gain the ascendency, and the less favored perish, and the modification becomes established in the species. After a time, another and another of such favorable variations occur, with like results. Thus, very gradually, great changes of structure are introduced, and not only species, but genera, families, and orders, in the vegetable and animal world, are produced" (pp. 26-29). Now, the truth or the probability of Darwin's hypothesis is not here the question, but only its congruity or incongruity with theism. We need take only one exception to this abstract of it, but that is an important one for the present investigation. It is to the sentence which we have italicized in the earlier part of Dr. Hodge's own statement of what Darwinism is. With it begins our inquiry as to how he proves the doctrine to be atheistic. First, if we rightly apprehend it, a suggestion of atheism is infused into the premises in a negative form: Mr. Darwin shows no disposition to resolve the efficiency of physical causes into the efficiency of the First Cause. Next (on page 48) comes the positive charge that "Mr. Darwin, although himself a theist," maintains that "the contrivances manifested in the organs of plants and animals . . . are not due to the continued cooperation and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose of God in the constitution of the universe." As to the negative statement, it might suffice to recall Dr. Hodge's truthful remark that Darwin "is simply a naturalist," and that "his work on the origin of species does not purport to be philosophical." In physical and physiological treatises, the most religious men rarely think it necessary to postulate the First Cause, nor are they misjudged by the omission. But surely Mr. Darwin does show the disposition which our author denies him, not only by implication in many instances, but most explicitly where one would naturally look for it, namely--at the close of the volume in question: "To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," etc. If that does not refer the efficiency of physical causes to the First Cause, what form of words could do so? The positive charge appears to be equally gratuitous. In both Dr. Hodge must have overlooked the beginning as well as the end of the volume which he judges so hardly. Just as mathematicians and physicists, in their systems, are wont to postulate the fundamental and undeniable truths they are concerned with, or what they take for such and require to be taken for granted, so Mr. Darwin postulates, upon the first page of his notable work, and in the words of Whewell and Bishop Butler: 1. The establishment by divine power of general laws, according to which, rather than by insulated interpositions in each particular case, events are brought about in the material world; and 2. That by the word ':natural" is meant "stated, fixed, or settled," by this same power, "since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so--i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.[VIII-2] So when Mr. Darwin makes such large and free use of "natural as antithetical to supernatural" causes, we are left in no doubt as to the ultimate source which he refers them to. Rather let us say there ought to be no doubt, unless there are other grounds for it to rest upon. Such ground there must be, or seem to be, to justify or excuse a veteran divine and scholar like Dr. Hodge in his deduction of pure atheism from a system produced by a confessed theist, and based, as we have seen, upon thoroughly orthodox fundamental conceptions. Even if we may not hope to reconcile the difference between the theologian and the naturalist, it may be well to ascertain where their real divergence begins, or ought to begin, and what it amounts to. Seemingly, it is in their proximate, not in their ultimate, principles, as Dr. Hodge insists when he declares that the whole drift of Darwinism is to prove that everything "may be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes, without any intention, purpose, or cooperation of God." "Why don't he say," cries the theologian, "that the complicated organs of plants and animals are the product of the divine intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the question of design is concerned, how he made them, whether at once or by process of evolution." But, as we have seen, Mr. Darwin does say that, and he over and over implies it when he refers the production of species "to secondary causes," and likens their origination to the origination of individuals; species being series of individuals with greater difference. It is not for the theologian to object that the power which made individual men and other animals, and all the differences which the races of mankind exhibit, through secondary causes, could not have originated congeries of more or less greatly differing individuals through the same causes. Clearly, then, the difference between the theologian and the naturalist is not fundamental, and evolution may be as profoundly and as particularly theistic as it is increasingly probable. The taint of atheism which, in Dr. Hodge's view, leavens the whole lump, is not inherent in the original grain of Darwinism--in the principles posited--but has somehow been introduced in the subsequent treatment. Possibly, when found, it may be eliminated. Perhaps there is mutual misapprehension growing out of some ambiguity in the use of terms. "Without any intention, purpose, or cooperation of God."- These are sweeping and effectual words. How came they to be applied to natural selection by a divine who professes that God ordained whatsoever cometh to pass? In this wise: "The point to be proved is, that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr. Darwin that species owe their origin--1. Not to the original intention of the divine mind; 2. Not to special acts of creation calling new forms into existence at certain epochs; 3. Not to the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of God guiding physical causes in the production of intended effects; but 4. To the gradual accumulation of unintended variations of structure and instinct securing some advantage to their subjects." Then Dr. Hodge adduces "Darwin's own testimony," to the purport that natural selection denotes the totality of natural causes and their interactions, physical and physiological, reproduction, variation, birth, struggle, extinction--in short, all that is going on in Nature; that the variations which in this interplay are picked out for survival are not intentionally guided; that "nothing can be more hopeless than the attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes" (which Dr. Hodge takes to be the denial of any such thing as final causes); and that the interactions and processes going on which constitute natural selection may suffice to account for the present diversity of animals and plants (primordial organisms being postulated and time enough given) with all their structures and adaptations--that is, to account for them scientifically, as science accounts for other things. A good deal may be made of this, but does it sustain the indictment? Moreover, the counts of the indictment may be demurred to. It seems to us that only one of the three points which Darwin is said to deny is really opposed to the fourth, which he is said to maintain, except as concerns the perhaps ambiguous word unintended. Otherwise, the origin of species through the gradual accumulation of variations--i.e., by the addition of a series of small differences--is surely not incongruous with their origin through "the original intention of the divine mind" or through "the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of God."- One or both of these Mr. Darwin (being, as Dr. Hodge says, a theist) must needs hold to in some form or other; wherefore he may be presumed to hold the fourth proposition in such wise as not really to contradict the first or the third. The proper antithesis is with the second proposition only, and the issue comes to this: Have the multitudinous forms of living creatures, past and present, been produced by as many special and independent acts of creation at very numerous epochs? Or have they originated under causes as natural as reproduction and birth, and no more so, by the variation and change of preceding into succeeding species? Those who accept the latter alternative are evolutionists. And Dr. Hodge fairly allows that their views, although clearly wrong, may be genuinely theistic. Surely they need not become the less so by the discovery or by the conjecture of natural operations through which this diversification and continued adaptation of species to conditions is brought about. Now, Mr. Darwin thinks--and by this he is distinguished. from most evolutionists--that he can assign actual natural causes, adequate to the production of the present out of the preceding state of the animal and vegetable world, and so on backward--thus uniting, not indeed the beginning but the far past with the present in one coherent system of Nature. But in assigning actual natural causes and processes, and applying them to the explanation of the whole case, Mr. Dar-win assumes the obligation of maintaining their general sufficiency--a task from which the numerous advocates and acceptors of evolution on the general concurrence of probabilities and its usefulness as a working hypothesis (with or without much conception of the manner how) are happily free. Having hit upon a modus operandi which all who understand it admit will explain something, and many that it will explain very much, it is to be expected that Mr. Darwin will make the most of it. Doubtless he is far from pretending to know all the causes and operations at work; he has already added some and restricted the range of others; he probably looks for additions to their number and new illustrations of their efficiency; but he is bound to expect them all to fall within the category of what he calls natural selection (a most expansible principle), or to be congruous with it--that is, that they shall be natural causes. Also--and this is the critical point--he is bound to maintain their sufficiency without intervention. Here, at length, we reach the essential difference between Darwin, as we understand him, and Dr. Hodge. The terms which Darwin sometimes uses, and doubtless some of the ideas they represent, are not such as we should adopt or like to defend; and we may say once for all--aside though it be from the present issue--that, in our opinion, the adequacy of the assigned causes to the explanation of the phenomena has not been made out. But we do not understand him to deny "purpose, intention, or the cooperation of God" in Nature. This would be as gratuitous as unphilosophical, not to say unscientific. When he speaks of this or that particular or phase in the course of events or the procession of organic forms as not intended, he seems to mean not specially and disjunctively intended and not brought about by intervention. Purpose in the whole, as we suppose, is not denied but implied. And when one considers how, under whatever view of the case, the designed and the contingent lie inextricably commingled in this world of ours, past man's disentanglement, and into what metaphysical dilemmas the attempt at unraveling them leads, we cannot greatly blame the naturalist for relegating such problems to the philosopher and the theologian. If charitable, these will place the most favorable construction upon attempts to extend and unify the operation of known secondary causes, this being the proper business of the naturalist and physicist; if wise, they will be careful not to predicate or suggest the absence of intention from what comes about by degrees through the continuous operation of physical causes, even in the organic world, lest, in their endeavor to retain a probable excess of supernaturalism in that realm of Nature, they cut away the grounds for recognizing it at all in inorganic Nature, and so fall into the same condemnation that some of them award to the Darwinian. Moreover, it is not certain that Mr. Darwin would very much better his case, Dr. Hodge being judge, if he did propound some theory of the nexus of divine causation and natural laws, or even if he explicitly adopted the one or the other of the views which he is charged with rejecting. Either way he might meet a procrustean fate; and, although a saving amount of theism might remain, he would not be sound or comfortable. For, if he predicates "the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of God," he may "lapse into the same doctrine" that the Duke of Argyll and Sir John Herschel "seem inclined to," the latter of whom is blamed for thinking "it but reasonable to regard the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a consciousness or will existing somewhere," and the former for regarding "it unphilosophical 'to think or speak as if the forces of Nature were either independent of or even separate from the Creator's power' ": while if he falls back upon an "original intention of the divine mind," endowing matter with forces which he foresaw and intended should produce such results as these contrivances in Nature, he is told that this banishes God from the world, and is inconsistent with obvious facts. And that because of its implying that "He never interferes to guide the operation of physical causes. We italicize the word, for interference proves to be the keynote of Dr. Hodge's system. Interference with a divinely ordained physical Nature for the accomplishment of natural results! An unorthodox friend has just imparted to us, with much misgiving and solicitude lest he should be thought irreverent, his tentative hypothesis, which is, that even the Creator may be conceived to have improved with time and experience! Never before was this theory so plainly and barely put before us. We were obliged to say that, in principle and by implication, it was not wholly original. But in such matters, which are far too high for us, no one is justly to be held responsible for the conclusions which another may draw from his principles or assumptions. Dr. Hodge's particular view should be gathered from his own statement of it: "In the external world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the activity of two kinds of force, the one physical, the other mental. The physical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it has been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever-acting mind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of design in Nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply asserts that God overrules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says: 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered) in the lower parts of the earth. . . . God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children of men.'- He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the waves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and the falling of a sparrow." Far be it from us to object to this mode of conceiving divine causation, although, like the two other theistic conceptions referred to, it has its difficulties, and perhaps the difficulties of both. But, if we understand it, it draws an unusually hard and fast line between causation in organic and inorganic Nature, seems to look for no manifestation of design in the latter except as "God overrules and controls" second causes, and, finally, refers to this overruling and controlling (rather than to a normal action through endowment) all embryonic development, the growth of vegetables, and the like. He even adds, without break or distinction, the sending of rain, frost, and snow, the flight of an arrow, and the falling of a sparrow. Somehow we must have misconceived the bearing of the statement; but so it stands as one of "the three ways," and the right way, of "accounting for contrivances in Nature; the other two being--1. Their reference to the blind operation of natural causes; and, 2. That they were foreseen and purposed by God, who endowed matter with forces which he foresaw and intended should produce such results, but never interferes to guide their operation. In animadverting upon this latter view, Dr. Hodge brings forward an argument against evolution, with the examination of which our remarks must close: "Paley, indeed, says that if the construction of a watch be an undeniable evidence of design, it would be a still more wonderful manifestation of skill if a watch could be made to produce other watches, and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all kinds of timepieces, in endless variety. So it has been asked, If a man can make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces others like itself? This is simply asking whether matter can be made to do the work of mind. The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope to make a telescope supposes it to select copper and zinc in due proportions, and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass into inter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for the different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and polish them, adjust their densities, focal distances, etc., etc. A man who can believe that brass can do all this might as well believe in God" (pp. 45, 46). If Dr. Hodge's meaning is, that matter unconstructed cannot do the work of mind, he misses the point altogether; for original construction by an intelligent mind is given in the premises. If he means that the machine cannot originate the power that operates it, this is conceded by all except believers in perpetual motion, and it equally misses the point; for the operating power is given in the case of the watch, and implied in that of the reproductive telescope. But if he means that matter cannot be made to do the work of mind in constructions, machines, or organisms, he is surely wrong. "Sovitur ambulando," vel scribendo; he confuted his argument in the act of writing the sentence. That is just what machines and organisms are for; and a consistent Christian theist should maintain that is what all matter is for. Finally, if, as we freely suppose, he means none of these, he must mean (unless we are much mistaken) that organisms originated by the Almighty Creator could not be endowed with the power of producing similar organisms, or slightly dissimilar organisms, without successive interventions. Then he begs the very question in dispute, and that, too, in the face of the primal command, "Be fruitful and multiply," and its consequences in every natural birth. If the actual facts could be ignored, how nicely the parallel would run! "The idea involves a contradiction." For an animal to make an animal, or a plant to make a plant, supposes it to select carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, to combine these into cellulose and protoplasm, to join with these some phosphorus, lime, etc., to build them into structures and usefully-adjusted organs. A man who can believe that plants and animals can do this (not, indeed, in the crude way suggested, but in the appointed way) "might as well believe in God." Yes, verily, and so he probably will, in spite of all that atheistical philosophers have to offer, if not harassed and confused by such arguments and statements as these. There is a long line of gradually-increasing divergence from the ultra-orthodox view of Dr. Hodge through those of such men as Sir William Thomson, Herschel, Argyll, Owen, Mivart, Wallace, and Darwin, down to those of Strauss, Vogt, and Buchner. To strike the line with telling power and good effect, it is necessary to aim at the right place. Excellent as the present volume is in motive and clearly as it shows that Darwinism may bear an atheistic as well as a theistic interpretation, we fear that it will not contribute much to the reconcilement of science and religion. The length of the analysis of the first book on our list precludes the notices which we intended to take of the three others. They are all the production of men who are both scientific and religious, one of them a celebrated divine and writer unusually versed in natural history. They all look upon theories of evolution either as in the way of being established or as not unlikely to prevail, and they confidently expect to lose thereby no solid ground for theism or religion. Mr. St. Clair, a new writer, in his "Darwinism and Design; or, Creation by Evolution," takes his ground in the following succinct statement of his preface: "It is being assumed by our scientific guides that the design-argument has been driven out of the field by the doctrine of evolution. It seems to be thought by our theological teachers that the best defense of the faith is to deny evolution in toto, and denounce it as anti-Biblical. My volume endeavors to show that, if evolution be true, all is not lost; but, on the contrary, something is gained: the design-argument remains unshaken, and the wisdom and beneficence of God receive new illustration." Of his closing remark, that, so far as he knows, the subject has never before been handled in the same way for the same purpose, we will only say that the handling strikes us as mainly sensible rather than as substantially novel. He traverses the whole ground of evolution, from that of the solar system to "the origin of moral species." He is clearly a theistic Darwinian without misgiving, and the arguments for that hypothesis and for its religious aspects obtain from him their most favorable presentation, while he combats the dysteleology of Hackel, Buchner, etc., not, however, with any remarkable strength. Dr. Winchell, chancellor of the new university at Syracuse, in his volume just issued upon the "Doctrine of Evolution," adopts it in the abstract as "clearly as the law of universal intelligence under which complex results are brought into existence" (whatever that may mean), accepts it practically for the inorganic world as a geologist should, hesitates as to the organic world, and sums up the arguments for the origin of species by diversification unfavorably for the Darwinians, regarding it mainly from the geological side. As some of our zoologists and palaeontologists may have somewhat to say upon this matter, we leave it for their consideration. We are tempted to develop a point which Dr. Winchell incidentally refers to--viz., how very modern the idea of the independent creation and fixity of species is, and how well the old divines got on without it. Dr. Winchell reminds us that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were model evolutionists; and, where authority is deferred to, this should count for something. Mr. Kingsley's eloquent and suggestive "Westminster Sermons," in which he touches here and there upon many of the topics which evolution brings up, has incorporated into the preface a paper which he read in 187i to a meeting of London clergy at Sion College, upon certain problems of natural theology as affected by modern theories in science. We may hereafter have occasion to refer to this volume. Meanwhile, perhaps we may usefully conclude this article with two or three short extracts from it: "The God who satisfies our conscience ought more or less to satisfy our reason also. To teach that was Butler's mission; and he fulfilled it well. But it is a mission which has to be refulfilled again and again, as human thought changes, and human science develops, For if, in any age or country, the God who seems to be revealed by Nature seems also different from the God who is revealed by the then-popular religion, then that God and the religion which tells of that God will gradually cease to be believed in. "For the demands of reason--as none knew better than good Bishop Butler--must be and ought to be satisfied. And, therefore, when a popular war arises between the reason of any generation and its theology, then it behooves the ministers of religion to inquire, with all humility and godly fear, on whose side lies the fault; whether the theology which they expound is all that it should be, or whether the reason of those who impugn it is all that it should be." Pronouncing it to be the duty of the naturalist to find out the how of things, and of the natural theologian to find out the why, Mr. Kingsley continues: "But if it be said, 'After all, there is no why; the doctrine of evolution, by doing away with the theory of creation, does away with that of final causes,' let us answer boldly, 'Not in the least.' We might accept all that Mr. Darwin, all that Prof. Huxley, all that other most able men have so learnedly and acutely written on physical science, and yet preserve our natural theology on the same basis as that on which Butler and Paley left it. That we should have to develop it I do not deny. "Let us rather look with calmness, and even with hope and good-will, on these new theories; they surely mark a tendency toward a more, not a less, Scriptural view of Nature. "Of old it was said by Him, without whom nothing is made, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' Shall we quarrel with Science if she should show how these words are true? What, in one word, should we have to say but this: 'We know of old that God was so wise that he could make all things; but, behold, he is so much wiser than even that, that he can make all things make themselves?' " CHARLES DARWIN: A SKETCH (Nature, June 4, 1874, accompanying a portrait) Two British naturalists, Robert Brown and Charles Darwin, have, more than any others, impressed their influence upon science in this nineteenth century. Unlike as these men and their works were and are, we may most readily subserve the present purpose in what we are called upon to say of the latter by briefly comparing and contrasting the two. Robert Brown died sixteen years ago, full of years and scientific honors, and he seems to have finished, several years earlier, all the scientific work that he had undertaken. To the other, Charles Darwin, a fair number of productive years may yet remain, and are earnestly hoped for. Both enjoyed the great advantage of being all their lives long free from exacting professional duties or cares, and so were able in the main to apply themselves to research without distraction and according to their bent. Both, at the beginning of their career, were attached to expeditions of exploration in the southern hemisphere, where they amassed rich stores of observation and materials, and probably struck out, while in the field, some of the best ideas which they subsequently developed. They worked in different fields and upon different methods; only in a single instance, so far as we know, have they handled the same topic; and in this the more penetrating insight of the younger naturalist into an interesting general problem may be appealed to in justification of a comparison which some will deem presumptuous. Be this as it may, there will probably be little dissent from the opinion that the characteristic trait common to the two is an unrivaled scientific sagacity. In this these two naturalists seem to us, each in his way, preeminent. There is a characteristic likeness, too--underlying much difference--in their admirable manner of dealing with facts closely, and at first hand, without the interposition of the formal laws, vague ideal conceptions, or "glittering generalities" which some philosophical naturalists make large use of. A likeness may also be discerned in the way in which the work or contributions of predecessors and contemporaries are referred to. The brief historical summaries prefixed to many of Mr. Brown's papers are models of judicial conscientiousness. And Mr. Darwin's evident delight at discovering that some one else has "said his good things before him," or has been on the verge of uttering them, seemingly equals that of making the discovery himself. It reminds one of Goethe's insisting that his views in morphology must have been held before him and must be somewhere on record, so obvious did they appear to him. Considering the quiet and retired lives led by both these men, and the prominent place they are likely to occupy in the history of science, the contrast between them as to contemporary and popular fame is very remarkable. While Mr. Brown was looked up to with the greatest reverence by all the learned botanists, he was scarcely heard of by any one else; and out of botany he was unknown to science except as the discoverer of the Brownian motion of minute particles, which discovery was promulgated in a privately-printed pamphlet that few have ever seen. Although Mr. Darwin had been for twenty years well and widely known for his "Naturalist's Journal," his works on "Coral Islands," on "Volcanic Islands, and especially for his researches on the Barnacles, it was not till about fifteen years ago that his name became popularly famous. Ever since no scientific name has been so widely spoken. Many others have had hypotheses or systems named after them, but no one else that we know of a department of bibliography. The nature of his latest researches accounts for most of the difference, but not for all, The Origin of Species is a fascinating topic, having interests and connections with every branch of science, natural and moral. The investigation of recondite affinities is very dry and special; its questions, processes, and results alike--although in part generally presentable in the shape of morphology--are mainly, like the higher mathematics, unintelligible except to those who make them a subject of serious study. They are especially so when presented in Mr. Brown's manner. Perhaps no naturalist ever recorded the results of his investigations in fewer words and with greater precision than Robert Brown: certainly no one ever took more pains to state nothing beyond the precise point in question. Indeed, we have sometimes fancied that he preferred to enwrap rather than to explain his meaning; to put it into such a form that, unless you follow Solomon's injunction and dig for the wisdom as for hid treasure, you may hardly apprehend it until you have found it all out for yourself, when you will have the satisfaction of perceiving that Mr. Brown not only knew all about it, but had put it upon record. Very different from this is the way in which Mr. Darwin takes his readers into his confidence, freely displays to them the sources of his information, and the working of his mind, and even shares with them all his doubts and misgivings, while in a clear exposition he sets forth the reasons which have guided him to his conclusions. These you may hesitate or decline to adopt, but you feel sure that they have been presented with perfect fairness; and if you think of arguments against them you may be confident that they have all been duly considered before. The sagacity which characterizes these two naturalists is seen in their success in finding decisive instances, and their sure insight into the meaning of things. As an instance of the latter on Mr. Darwin's part, and a justification of our venture to compare him with the facile princeps botanicorum, we will, in conclusion, allude to the single instance in which they took the same subject in hand. In his papers on the organs and modes of fecundation in Orchideae and Asclepiadeae, Mr. Brown refers more than once to C.K. Sprengel's almost forgotten work, shows how the structure of the flowers in these orders largely requires the agency of insects for their fecundation, and is aware that "in Asclepiadeae . . . the insect so readily passes from one corolla to another that it not unfrequently visits every flower of the umbel." He must also have contemplated the transport of pollen from plant to plant by wind and insects; and we know from another source that he looked upon Sprengel's ideas as far from fantastic. Yet, instead of taking the single forward step which now seems so obvious, he even hazarded the conjecture that the insect-forms of some orchideous flowers are intended to deter rather than to attract insects. And so the explanation of all these and other extraordinary structures, as well as of the arrangement of blossoms in general, and even the very meaning and need of sexual propagation, were left to be supplied by Mr. Darwin. The aphorism "Nature abhors a vacuum" is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism "Nature abhors close fertilization," and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age, and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of natural selection--the truthfulness and importance of which are evident the moment it is apprehended--and to have applied these principles to the system of Nature in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample title for one man's fame. There is no need of our giving any account or of estimating the importance of such works as the "Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," the "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," the "Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," and the "Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals"--a series to which we may hope other volumes may in due time be added. We would rather, if space permitted, attempt an analysis of the less known, but not less masterly, subsidiary essays, upon the various arrangements for insuring cross-fertilization in flowers, for the climbing of plants, and the like. These, as we have heard, may before long be reprinted in a volume, and supplemented by some long-pending but still unfinished investigations upon the action of Dionaea and Drosera--a capital subject for Mr. Darwin's handling. A propos to these papers, which furnish excellent illustrations of it, let us recognize Darwin's great service to natural science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology. To many, no doubt, evolutionary Teleology comes in such a questionable shape as to seem shorn of all its goodness; but they will think better of it in time, when their ideas become adjusted, and they see what an impetus the new doctrines have given to investigation. They are much mistaken who suppose that Darwinism is only of speculative importance, and perhaps transient interest. In its working applications it has proved to be a new power, eminently practical and fruitful. And here, again, we are bound to note a striking contrast to Mr. Brown, greatly as we revere his memory. He did far less work than was justly to be expected from him. Mr. Darwin not only points out the road, but labors upon it indefatigably and unceasingly. A most commendable noblesse oblige assures us that he will go on while strength (would we could add health) remains. The vast amount of such work he has already accomplished might overtax the powers of the strongest. That it could have been done at all under constant infirm health is most wonderful. X INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS (The Nation, April 2 and 9, 1874) That animals should feed upon plants is natural and normal, and the reverse seems impossible. But the adage, "Natura non agit saltatim," has its application even here. It is the naturalist, rather than Nature, that draws hard and fast lines everywhere, and marks out abrupt boundaries where she shades off with gradations. However opposite the parts which animals and vegetables play in the economy of the world as the two opposed kingdoms of organic Nature, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are not only two contiguous kingdoms, but are parts of one whole--antithetical and complementary to each other, indeed; but such "thin partitions do the bounds divide" that no definitions yet framed hold good without exception. This is a world of transition in more senses than is commonly thought; and one of the lessons which the philosophical naturalist learns, or has to learn, is, that differences the most wide and real in the main, and the most essential, may nevertheless be here and there connected or bridged over by gradations. There is a limbo filled with organisms which never rise high enough in the scale to be manifestly either animal or plant, unless it may be said of some of them that they are each in turn and neither long. There are undoubted animals which produce the essential material of vegetable fabric, or build up a part of their structure of it, or elaborate the characteristic leaf-green which, under solar light, assimilates inorganic into organic matter, the most distinguishing function of vegetation. On the other hand, there are plants--microscopic, indeed, but unquestionable--which move spontaneously and freely around and among animals that are fixed and rooted. And, to come without further parley to the matter in hand, while the majority of animals feed directly upon plants, "for 'tis their nature to," there are plants which turn the tables and feed upon them. Some, being parasitic upon living animals, feed insidiously and furtively; these, although really cases in point, are not so extraordinary, and, as they belong to the lower orders, they are not much regarded, except for the harm they do. There are others, and those of the highest orders, which lure or entrap animals in ways which may well excite our special wonder--all the more so since we are now led to conclude that they not only capture but consume their prey. As respects the two or three most notable instances, the conclusions which have been reached are among the very recent acquisitions of physiological science. Curiously enough, however, now that they are made out, it appears that they were in good part long ago attained, recorded, and mainly forgotten. The earlier observations and surmises shared the common fate of discoveries made before the time, or by those who were not sagacious enough to bring out their full meaning or importance. Vegetable morphology, dimly apprehended by Linnaeus, initiated by Casper Frederick Wolff, and again, independently in successive generations, by Goethe and by De Candolle, offers a parallel instance. The botanists of Goethe's day could not see any sense, advantage, or practical application, to be made of the proposition that the parts of a blossom answer to leaves; and so the study of homologies had long to wait. Until lately it appeared to be of no consequence whatever (except, perhaps, to the insects) whether Drosera and Sarracenia caught flies or not; and even Dionaea excited only unreflecting wonder as a vegetable anomaly. As if there were real anomalies in Nature, and some one plant possessed extraordinary powers denied to all others, and (as was supposed) of no importance to itself! That most expert of fly-catchers, Dionaea, of which so much has been written and so little known until lately, came very near revealing its secret to Solander and Ellis a hundred years ago, and doubtless to John Bartram, our botanical pioneer, its C probable discoverer, who sent it to Europe. Ellis, in his published letter to Linnaeus, with which the history begins, described the structure and action of the living trap correctly; noticed that the irritability which called forth the quick movement closing the trap, entirely resided in the few small bristles of its upper face; that this whole surface was studded C with glands, which probably secreted a liquid; and that the trap did not open again when an insect was captured, even upon the death of the captive, although it opened very soon when nothing was caught, or when the irritation was caused by a bit of straw, or any such substance. It was Linnaeus who originated the contrary and erroneous statement, which has long prevailed in the books, that the trap reopened when the fatigued captive became quiet, and let it go; as if the plant caught flies in mere play and pastime! Linnaeus also omitted all allusion to a secreted liquid--which was justifiable, as. Ellis does not state that he had actually seen any; and, if he did see it, quite mistook its use, supposing it to be, like the nectar of flowers, a lure for insects, a bait for the trap. Whereas, in fact, the lure, if there be any, must be an odor (although nothing is perceptible to the human olfactories); for the liquid secreted by the glands never appears until the trap has closed upon some insect, and held it at least for some hours a prisoner. Within twenty-four or forty-eight hours this glairy liquid is abundant, bathing and macerating the body of the perished insect. Its analogue is not the nectar of flowers, but the saliva or the gastric juice! The observations which compel such an inference are re-cent, and the substance of them may be briefly stated. The late Rev. Dr. M. A. Curtis (by whose death, two years ago, we lost one of our best botanists, and the master in his especial line, mycology), forty years and more ago resided at Wilmington, North Carolina, in the midst of the only district to which the Dionaea is native; and he published, in 1834, in the first volume of the "Journal of the Boston Society of Natural History," by far the best account of this singular plant which had then appeared. He remarks that "the little prisoner is not crushed and suddenly destroyed, as is sometimes supposed," for he had often liberated "captive flies and spiders, which sped away as fast as fear or joy could hasten them." But he neglected to state, although he must have noticed the fact, that the two sides of the trap, at first concave to the contained insect, at length flatten and close down firmly upon the prey, exerting no inconsiderable pressure, and insuring the death of any soft-bodied insect, if it had not already succumbed to the confinement and salivation. This last Dr. Curtis noticed, and first discerned its import, although he hesitated to pronounce upon its universality. That the captured insects were in some way "made subservient to the nourishment of the plant" had been conjectured from the first. Dr. Curtis "at times (and he might have always at the proper time) found them enveloped in a fluid of mucilaginous consistence, which seems to act as a solvent, the insects being more or less consumed in it." This was verified and the digestive character of the liquid well-nigh demonstrated six or seven years ago by Mr. Canby, of Wilmington, Delaware, who, upon a visit to the sister-town of North Carolina, and afterward at his home, followed up Dr. Curtis's suggestions with some capital observations and experiments. These were published at Philadelphia in the tenth volume of Meehan's Gardeners' Monthly, August, i868; but they do not appear to have attracted the attention which they merited. The points which Mr. Canby made out are, that this fluid is always poured out around the captured insect in due time, "if the leaf is in good condition and the prey suitable;" that it comes from the leaf itself, and not from the decomposing insect (for, when the trap caught a plum-curculio, the fluid was poured out while he was still alive, though very weak, and endeavoring, ineffectively, to eat his way out); that bits of raw beef, although sometimes rejected after a while, were generally acted upon in the same manner--i.e., closed down upon tightly, salvered with the liquid, dissolved mainly, and absorbed; so that, in fine, the fluid may well be said to be analogous to the gastric juice of animals, dissolving the prey and rendering it fit for absorption by the leaf. Many leaves remain inactive or slowly die away after one meal; others reopen for a second and perhaps even a third capture, and are at least capable of digesting a second meal. Before Mr. Canby's experiments had been made, we were aware that a similar series had been made in England by Mr. Darwin, with the same results, and with a small but highly-curious additional one--namely, that the fluid secreted in the trap of Dionaea, like the gastric juice, has an acid reaction. Having begun to mention unpublished results (too long allowed to remain so), it may be well, under the circumstances, to refer to a still more remarkable experiment by the same most sagacious investigator. By a prick with a sharp lancet at a certain point, he has been able to paralyze one-half of the leaf-trap, so that it remained motionless under the stimulus to which the other half responded. Such high and sensitive organization entails corresponding ailments. Mr. Canby tells us that he gave to one of his Dionaea-subjects a fatal dyspepsia by feeding it with cheese; and under Mr. Darwin's hands another suffers from paraplegia. Finally, Dr. Burdon-Sanderson's experiments, detailed at the last meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, show that the same electrical currents are developed upon the closing of the Dionaea-trap as in the contraction of a muscle. If the Venus's Fly-trap stood alone, it would be doubly marvelous--first, on account of its carnivorous propensities, and then as constituting a real anomaly in organic Nature, to which nothing leads up. Before acquiescing in such a conclusion, the modern naturalist would scrutinize its relatives. Now, the nearest relatives of our vegetable wonder are the sundews. While Dionaea is as local in habitation as it is singular in structure and habits, the Droseras or sundews are widely diffused over the world and numerous in species. The two whose captivating habits have attracted attention abound in bogs all around the northern hemisphere. That flies are caught by them is a matter of common observation; but this was thought to be purely accidental. They spread out from the root a circle of small leaves, the upper face of which especially is beset and the margin fringed with stout bristles (or what seem to be such, although the structure is more complex), tipped by a secreting gland, which produces, while in vigorous state, a globule of clear liquid like a drop of dew-- whence the name, both Greek and English. One expects these seeming dew-drops to be dissipated by the morning sun; but they remain unaffected. A touch shows that the glistening drops are glutinous and extremely tenacious, as flies learn to their cost on alighting, perhaps to sip the tempting liquid, which acts first as a decoy and then like birdlime. A small fly is held so fast, and in its struggles comes in contact with so many of these glutinous globules, that it seldom escapes. The result is much the same to the insect, whether captured in the trap of Dionaea or stuck fast to the limed bristles of Drosera. As there are various plants upon whose glandular hairs or glutinous surfaces small insects are habitually caught and perish, it might be pure coincidence that the most effectual arrangement of the kind happens to occur in the nearest relatives of Dionaea. Roth, a keen German botanist of the eighteenth century, was the first to detect, or at least to record, some evidence of intention in Drosera, and to compare its action with that of Dionaea, which, through Ellis's account, had shortly before been made known in Europe. He noticed the telling fact that not only the bristles which the unfortunate insect had come in contact with, but also the surrounding rows, before widely spreading, curved inward one by one, although they had not been touched, so as within a few hours to press their glutinous tips likewise against the body of the captive insect--thus doubling or quadrupling the bonds of the victim and (as we may now suspect) the surfaces through which some part of the animal substance may be imbibed. For Roth surmised that both these plants were, in their way, predaceous. He even observed that the disk of the Drosera-leaf itself often became concave and enveloped the prey. These facts, although mentioned now and then in some succeeding works, were generally forgotten, except that of the adhesion of small insects to the leaves of sundews, which must have been observed in every generation. Up to and even within a few years past, if any reference was made to these asserted movements (as by such eminent physiologists as Meyen and Treviranus) it was to discredit them. Not because they are difficult to verify, but because, being naturally thought improbable, it was easier to deny or ignore them. So completely had the knowledge of almost a century ago died out in later years that, when the subject was taken up anew in our days by Mr. Darwin, he had, as we remember, to advertise for it, by sending a "note and query" to the magazines, asking where any account of the fly-catching of the leaves of sundew was recorded. When Mr. Darwin takes a matter of this sort in hand, he is not likely to leave it where he found it. He not only confirmed all Roth's observations as to the incurving of the bristles toward and upon an insect entangled on any part of the disk of the leaf, but also found that they responded similarly to a bit of muscle or other animal substance, while to any particles of inorganic matter they were nearly indifferent. To minute fragments of carbonate of ammonia, however, they were more responsive. As these remarkable results, attained (as we are able to attest) half a dozen years ago, remained unpublished (being portions of an investigation not yet completed), it would have been hardly proper to mention them, were it not that independent observers were beginning to bring out the same or similar facts. Mrs. Treat, of New Jersey, noticed the habitual infolding of the leaf in the longer-leaved species of sundew (American Journal of Science for November, 1871), as was then thought for the first time--Roth's and Withering's observations not having been looked up. In recording this, the next year, in a very little book, entitled "How Plants Behave," the opportunity was taken to mention, in the briefest way, the capital discovery of Mr. Darwin that the leaves of Drosera act differently when different objects are placed upon them, the bristles closing upon a particle of raw meat as upon a living insect, while to a particle of chalk or wood they are nearly inactive. The same facts were independently brought out by Mr. A. W. Bennett at the last year's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and have been mentioned in the journals. If to these statements, which we may certify, were added some far more extraordinary ones, communicated to the French Academy of Science in May last by M. Zeigler, a stranger story of discrimination on the part of sundew-bristles would be told. But it is safer to wait for the report of the committee to which these marvels were referred, and conclude this sufficiently "strange eventful history" with some details of experiments made last summer by Mrs. Treat, of New Jersey, and published in the December number of the American Naturalist. It is well to note that Mrs. Treat selects for publication the observations of one particular day in July, when the sundew-leaves were unusually active; for their moods vary with the weather, and also in other unaccountable ways, although in general the sultrier days are the most appetizing: "At fifteen minutes past ten of the same day I placed bits of raw beef on some of the most vigorous leaves of Drosera longifolia. Ten minutes past twelve, two of the leaves had folded around the beef, hiding it from sight. Half-past eleven of the same day, I placed living flies on the leaves of D. longifolia. At 12 and 48 minutes one of the leaves had folded entirely around its victim, the other leaves had partially folded, and the flies had ceased to struggle. By 2 and 30 minutes four leaves had each folded around a fly. . . . I tried mineral substances--bits of dry chalk, magnesia, and pebbles. In twenty-four hours, neither the leaves nor their bristles had made any move like clasping these articles. I wet a piece of chalk in water, and in less than an hour the bristles were curving about it, but soon unfolded again, leaving the chalk free on the blade of the leaf. Parallel experiments made on D. rotundifolia, with bits of beef and of chalk, gave the same results as to the action of the bristles; while with a piece of raw apple, after eleven hours, "part of the bristles were clasping it, but not so closely as the beef," and in twenty-four hours "nearly all the bristles were curved toward it, but not many of the glands were touching it." To make such observations is as easy as it is interesting. Throughout the summer one has only to transfer plants of Drosera from the bogs into pots or pans filled with wet moss--if need be, allowing them to become established in the somewhat changed conditions, or even to put out fresh leaves--and to watch their action or expedite it by placing small flies upon the disk of the leaves. The more common round-leaved sundew acts as well as the other by its bristles, and the leaf itself is sometimes almost equally prehensile, although in a different way, infolding the whole border instead of the summit only. Very curious, and even somewhat painful, is the sight when a fly, alighting upon the central dew-tipped bristles, is held as fast as by a spider's web; while the efforts to escape not only entangle the insect more hopelessly as they exhaust its strength, but call into action the surrounding bristles, which, one by one, add to the number of the bonds, each by itself apparently feeble, but in their combination so effectual that the fly may be likened to the sleeping Gulliver made fast in the tiny but multitudinous toils of the Liliputians. Anybody who can believe that such an apparatus was not intended to capture flies might say the same of a spider's web. Is the intention here to be thought any the less real because there are other species of Drosera which are not so perfectly adapted for fly-catching, owing to the form of their leaves and the partial or total want of cooperation of their scattered bristles? One such species, D. filiformis, the thread-leaved sundew, is not uncommon in this country, both north and south of the district that Dionaea locally inhabits. Its leaves are long and thread-shaped, beset throughout with glutinous gland-tipped bristles, but wholly destitute of a blade. Flies, even large ones, and even moths and butterflies, as Mrs. Treat and Mr. Canby affirm (in the American Naturalist), get stuck fast to these bristles, whence they seldom escape. Accidental as such captures are, even these thread-shaped leaves respond more or less to the contact, somewhat in the manner of their brethren. In Mr. Canby's recent and simple experiment, made at Mr. Darwin's suggestion, when a small fly alights upon a leaf a little below its slender apex, or when a bit of crushed fly is there affixed, within a few hours the tip of the leaf bends at the point of contact, and curls over or around the body in question; and Mrs. Treat even found that when living flies were pinned at half an inch in distance from the leaves, these in forty minutes had bent their tips perceptibly toward the flies, and in less than two hours reached them! If this be confirmed--and such a statement needs ample confirmation--then it may be suspected that these slender leaves not only incurve after prolonged contact, just as do the leaf-stalks of many climbers, but also make free and independent circular sweeps, in the manner of twining stems and of many tendrils. Correlated movements like these indicate purpose. When performed by climbing plants, the object and the advantage are obvious. That the apparatus and the actions of Dionaea and Drosera are purposeless and without advantage to the plants themselves, many have been believed in former days, when it was likewise conceived that abortive and functionless organs were specially created "for the sake of symmetry" and to display a plan; but this is not according to the genius of modern science. In the cases of insecticide next to be considered, such evidence of intent is wanting, but other and circumstantial evidence may be had, sufficient to warrant convictions. Sarracenias have hollow leaves in the form of pitchers or trumpet-shaped tubes, containing water, in which flies and other insects are habitually drowned. They are all natives of the eastern side of North America, growing in bogs or low ground, so that they cannot be supposed to need the water as such. Indeed, they secrete a part if not all of it. The commonest species, and the only one at the North, which ranges from Newfoundland to Florida, has a broad-mouthed pitcher with an upright lid, into which rain must needs fall more or less. The yellow Sarracenia, with long tubular leaves, called "trumpets in the Southern States, has an arching or partly upright lid, raised well above the orifice, so that some water may rain in; but a portion is certainly secreted there, and may be seen bedewing the sides and collected at the bottom before the mouth opens. In other species, the orifice is so completely overarched as essentially to prevent the access of water from without. In these tubes, mainly in the water, flies and other insects accumulate, perish, and decompose. Flies thrown into the open-mouthed tube of the yellow Sarracenia, even when free from water, are unable to get out--one hardly sees why, except that they cannot fly directly upward; and microscopic chevaux-de-frise of fine, sharp-pointed bristles which line most of the interior, pointing strictly downward, may be a more effectual obstacle to crawling up the sides than one would think possible. On the inside of the lid or hood of the purple Northern species, the bristles are much stronger; but an insect might escape by the front without encountering these. In this species, the pitchers, however, are so well supplied with water that the insects which somehow are most abundantly attracted thither are effectually drowned, and the contents all summer long are in the condition of a rich liquid manure. That the tubes or pitchers of the Southern species are equally attractive and fatal to flies is well known. Indeed, they are said to be taken into houses and used as fly-traps. There is no perceptible odor to draw insects, except what arises from the decomposition of macerated victims; nor is any kind of lure to be detected at the mouth of the pitcher of the common purple-flowered species. Some incredulity was therefore natural when it was stated by a Carolinian correspondent (Mr. B.F. Grady) that in the long-leaved, yellow-flowered species the lid just above the mouth of the tubular pitcher habitually secretes drops of a sweet and viscid liquid, which attracts flies and apparently intoxicates them, since those that sip it soon become unsteady in gait and mostly fall irretrievably into the well beneath. But upon cultivating plants of this species, obtained for the purpose, the existence of this lure was abundantly verified; and, although we cannot vouch for its inebriating quality, we can no longer regard it as unlikely. No sooner was it thus ascertained that at least one species of Sarracenia allures flies to their ruin than it began to appear that--just as in the case of Drosera--most of this was a mere revival of obsolete knowledge. The "insect-destroying process" was known and well described sixty years ago, the part played by the sweet exudation indicated, and even the intoxication perhaps hinted at, although evidently little thought of in those ante-temperance days. Dr. James Macbride, of South Carolina--the early associate of Elliott in his "Botany of South Carolina and Georgia," and to whose death, at the age of thirty-three, cutting short a life of remarkable promise, the latter touchingly alludes in the preface to his second volume--sent to Sir James Edward Smith an account of his observations upon this subject, made in 1810 and the following years. This was read to the Linnaean Society in 1815, and published in the twelfth volume of its "Transactions." From this forgotten paper (to which attention has lately been recalled) we cull the following extracts, premising that the observations mostly relate to a third species, Sarracenia adunca, alias variolaris, which is said to be the most efficient fly-catcher of the kind: "If, in the months of May, June, or July, when the leaves of those plants perform their extraordinary functions in the greatest perfection, some of them be removed to a house and fixed in an erect position, it will soon be perceived that flies are attracted by them. These insects immediately approach the fauces of the leaves, and, leaning over their edges, appear to sip with eagerness something from their internal surfaces. In this position they linger; but at length, allured as it would seem by the pleasure of taste, they enter the tubes. The fly which has thus changed its situation will be seen to stand unsteadily; it totters for a few seconds, slips, and falls to the bottom of the tube, where it is either drowned or attempts in vain to ascend against the points of the hairs. The fly seldom takes wing in its fall and escapes. . . . in a house much infested with flies, this entrapment goes on so rapidly that a tube is filled in a few hours, and it becomes necessary to add water, the natural quantity being insufficient to drown the imprisoned insects. The leaves of S. adunca and rubra might well be employed as fly-catchers; indeed, I am credibly informed they are in some neighborhoods. The leaves of the S. flava [the species to which our foregoing remarks mainly relate], although they are very capacious, and often grow to the height of three feet or more, are never found to contain so many insects as those of the species above mentioned. "The cause which attracts flies is evidently a sweet, viscid substance resembling honey, secreted by or exuding from the internal surface of the tube . . . From the margin, where it commences, it does not extend lower than one-fourth of an inch. "The falling of the insect as soon as it enters the tube is wholly attributable to the downward or inverted position of the hairs of the internal surface of the leaf. At the bottom of a tube split open, the hairs are plainly discernible pointing downward; as the eye ranges upward, they gradually become shorter and attenuated, till at or just below the surface covered by the bait they are no longer perceptible to the naked eye nor to the most delicate touch. It is here that the fly cannot take a hold sufficiently strong to support itself, but falls. The in. ability of insects to crawl up against the points of the hairs I have often tested in the most satisfactory manner." From the last paragraph it may be inferred that Dr. Macbride did not suspect any inebriating property in the nectar, and in a closing note there is a conjecture of an impalpable loose powder in S. flava, at the place where the fly stands so unsteadily, and from which it is supposed to slide. We incline to take Mr. Grady's view of the case. The complete oblivion into which this paper and the whole subject had fallen is the more remarkable when it is seen that both are briefly but explicitly referred to in Elliott's book, with which botanists are familiar. It is not so wonderful that the far earlier allusion to these facts by the younger Bartram should have been overlooked or disregarded. With the genuine love of Nature and fondness for exploration, 'William Bartram did not inherit the simplicity of his father, the earliest native botanist of this country. Fine writing was his foible; and the preface to his well-known "Travels" (published at Philadelphia in 1791) is its full-blown illustration, sometimes perhaps deserving the epithet which he applies to the palms of Florida--that of pomposity. In this preface he declares that "all the Sarracenias are insect-catchers, and so is the Drosera rotundifolia. Whether the insects caught in their leaves, and which dissolve and mix with the fluid, serve for aliment or support to these kind of plants is doubtful," he thinks, but he should be credited with the suggestion. In one sentence he speaks of the quantities of insects which, "being invited down to sip the mellifluous exuvia from the interior surface of the tube, where they inevitably perish," being prevented from returning by the stiff hairs all pointing downward. This, if it refers to the sweet secretion, would place it below, and not, as it is, above the bristly surface, while the liquid below, charged with decomposing insects, is declared in an earlier sentence to be "cool and animating, limpid as the morning dew." Bartram was evidently writing from memory; and it is very doubtful if he ever distinctly recognized the sweet exudation which entices insects. Why should these plants take to organic food more than others? If we cannot answer the question, we may make a probable step toward it. For plants that are not parasitic, these, especially the sundews, have much less than the ordinary amount of chlorophyll--that is, of the universal leaf-green upon which the formation of organic matter out of inorganic materials depends. These take it instead of making it, to a certain extent. What is the bearing of these remarkable adaptations and operations upon doctrines of evolution? There seems here to be a field on which the specific creationist, the evolutionist with design, and the necessary evolutionist, may fight out an interesting, if not decisive, "triangular duel." XI INSECTIVOROUS AND CLIMBING PLANTS [XI-1] (The Nation, January 6 and 13, 1876) "Minerals grow; vegetables grow and live; animals grow, live, and feel;" this is the well-worn, not to say out-worn, diagnosis of the three kingdoms by Linnaeus. It must be said of it that the agreement indicated in the first couplet is unreal, and that the distinction declared in the second is evanescent. Crystals do not grow at all in the sense that plants and animals grow. On the other hand, if a response to external impressions by special movements is evidence of feeling, vegetables share this endowment with animals; while, if conscious feeling is meant, this can be affirmed only of the higher animals. What appears to remain true is, that the difference is one of successive addition. That the increment in the organic world is of many steps; that in the long series no absolute lines separate, or have always separated, organisms which barely respond to impressions from those which more actively and variously respond, and even from those that consciously so respond--this, as we all know, is what the author of the works before us has undertaken to demonstrate. Without reference here either to that part of the series with which man is connected, and in some sense or other forms a part of, or to that lower limbo where the two organic kingdoms apparently merge--or whence, in evolutionary phrase, they have emerged--Mr. Darwin, in the present volumes, directs our attention to the behavior of the highest plants alone. He shows that some (and he might add that all) of them execute movements for their own advantage, and that some capture and digest living prey. When plants are seen to move and to devour, what faculties are left that are distinctively animal? As to insectivorous or otherwise carnivorous plants, we have so recently here discussed this subject--before it attained to all this new popularity--that a brief account of Mr. Darwin's investigation may suffice.[XI-2] It is full of interest as a physiological research, and is a model of its kind, as well for the simplicity and directness of the means employed as for the clearness with which the results are brought out--results which any one may verify now that the way to them is pointed out, and which, surprising as they are, lose half their wonder in the ease and sureness with which they seem to have been reached. Rather more than half the volume is devoted to one subject, the round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), a rather common plant in the northern temperate zone. That flies stick fast to its leaves, being limed by the tenacious seeming dew-drops which stud its upper face and margins, had long been noticed in Europe and in this country. We have heard hunters and explorers in our Northern woods refer with satisfaction to the fate which in this way often befalls one of their plagues, the black fly of early summer. And it was known to some observant botanists in the last century, although forgotten or discredited in this, that an insect caught on the viscid glands it has happened to alight upon is soon fixed by many more--not merely in consequence of its struggles, but by the spontaneous incurvation of the stalks of surrounding and untouched glands; and even the body of the leaf had been observed to incurve or become cup-shaped so as partly to involve the captive insect. Mr. Darwin's peculiar investigations not only confirm all this, but add greater wonders. They relate to the sensitiveness of these tentacles, as he prefers to call them, and the mode in which it is manifested; their power of absorption; their astonishing discernment of the presence of animal or other soluble azotized matter, even in quantities so minute as to rival the spectroscope--that most exquisite instrument of modern research--in delicacy; and, finally, they establish the fact of a true digestion, in all essential respects similar to that of the stomach of animals. First as to sensitiveness and movement. Sensitiveness is manifested by movement or change of form in response to an external impression. The sensitiveness in the sundew is all in the gland which surmounts the tentacle. To incite movement or other action, it is necessary that the gland itself should be reached. Anything laid on the surface of the viscid drop, the spherule of clear, glairy liquid which it secretes, produces no effect unless it sinks through to the gland; or unless the substance is soluble and reaches it in solution, which, in the case of certain substances, has the same effect. But the glands themselves do not move, nor does any neighboring portion of the tentacle. The outer and longer tentacles bend inward (toward the centre of the leaf) promptly, when the gland is irritated or stimulated, sweeping through an arc of 1800 or less, or more--the quickness and the extent of the inflection depending, in equally vigorous leaves, upon the amount of irritation or stimulation, and also upon its kind. A tentacle with a particle of raw meat on its gland sometimes visibly begins to bend in ten seconds, becomes strongly incurved in five minutes, and its tip reaches the centre of the leaf in half an hour; but this is a case of extreme rapidity. A particle of cinder, chalk, or sand, will also incite the bending, if actually brought in contact with the gland, not merely resting on the drop; but the inflection is then much less pronounced and more transient. Even a bit of thin human hair, only 1/8000 of an inch in length, weighing only the 1/78740 of a grain, and largely supported by the viscid secretion, suffices to induce movement; but, on the other hand, one or two momentary, although rude, touches with a hard object produce no effect, although a repeated touch or the slightest pressure, such as that of a gnat's foot, prolonged for a short time, causes bending. The seat of the movement is wholly or nearly confined to a portion of the lower part of the tentacle, above the base, where local irritation produces not the slightest effect. The movement takes place only in response to some impression made upon its own gland at the distant extremity, or upon other glands far more remote. For if one of these members suffers irritation the others sympathize with it. Very noteworthy is the correlation between the central tentacles, upon which an insect is most likely to alight, and these external and larger ones, which, in proportion to their distance from the centre, take the larger share in the movement. The shorter central ones do not move at all when a bit of meat, or a crushed fly, or a particle of a salt of ammonia, or the like, is placed upon them; but they transmit their excitation across the leaf to the surrounding tentacles on all sides; and they, although absolutely untouched, as they successively receive the mysterious impulse, bend strongly inward, just as they do when their own glands are excited. Whenever a tentacle bends in obedience to an impulse from its own gland, the movement is always toward the centre of the leaf; and this also takes place, as we have seen, when an exciting object is lodged at the centre. But when the object is placed upon either half of the leaf, the impulse radiating thence causes all the surrounding untouched tentacles to bend with precision toward the point of excitement, even the central tentacles, which are motionless when themselves charged, now responding to the call. The inflection which follows mechanical irritation or the presence of any inorganic or insoluble body is transient; that which follows the application of organic matter lasts longer, more or less, according to its nature and the amount; but sooner or later the tentacles resume their former position, their glands glisten anew with fresh secretion, and they are ready to act again. As to how the impulse is originated and propagated, and how the movements are made, comparatively simple as the structure is, we know as little as we do of the nature of nervous impulse and muscular motion. But two things Mr. Darwin has wellnigh made out, both of them by means and observations so simple and direct as to command our confidence, although they are contrary to the prevalent teaching. First, the transmission is through the ordinary cellular tissue, and not through what are called the fibrous or vascular bundles. Second, the movement is a vital one, and is effected by contraction on the side toward which the bending takes place, rather than by turgescent tension of the opposite side. The tentacle is pulled over rather than pushed over. So far all accords with muscular action. The operation of this fly-catching apparatus, in any case, is plain. If the insect alights upon the disk of the leaf, the viscid secretion holds it fast--at least, an ordinary fly is unable to escape--its struggles only increase the number of glands involved and the amount of excitement; this is telegraphed to the surrounding and successively longer tentacles, which bent over in succession, so that within ten to thirty hours, if the leaf is active and the fly large enough, every one of the glands (on the average, nearly two hundred in number) will be found applied to the body of the insect. If the insect is small, and the lodgment toward one side, only the neighboring tentacles may take part in the capture. If two or three of the strong marginal tentacles are first encountered, their prompt inflection carries the intruder to the centre, and presses it down upon the glands which thickly pave the floor; these notify all the surrounding tentacles of the capture, that they may share the spoil, and the fate of that victim is even as of the first. A bit of meat or a crushed insect is treated in the same way. This language implies that the animal matter is in some way or other discerned by the tentacles, and is appropriated. Formerly there was only a presumption of this, on the general ground that such an organization could hardly be purposeless. Yet, while such expressions were natural, if not unavoidable, they generally were used by those familiar with the facts in a half-serious, half-metaphorical sense. Thanks to Mr. Darwin's investigations, they may now be used in simplicity and seriousness. That the glands secrete the glairy liquid of the drop is evident, not only from its nature, but from its persistence through a whole day's exposure to a summer sun, as also from its renewal after it has been removed, dried up, or absorbed. That they absorb as well as secrete, and that the whole tentacle may be profoundly affected thereby, are proved by the different effects, in kind and degree, which follow the application of different substances. Drops of rain-water, like single momentary touches of a solid body, produce no effect, as indeed they could be of no advantage; but a little carbonate of ammonia in the water, or an infusion of meat, not only causes inflection, but promptly manifests its action upon the contents of the cells of which the tentacle is constructed. These cells are sufficiently transparent to be viewed under the microscope without dissection or other interference; and the change which takes place in the fluid contents of these cells, when the gland above has been acted upon, is often visible through a weak lens, or sometimes even by the naked eye, although higher powers are required to discern what actually takes place. This change, which Mr. Darwin discovered, and turns to much account in his researches, he terms "aggregation of the protoplasm." When untouched and quiescent, the contents appear as an homogeneous purple fluid. When the gland is acted upon, minute purple particles appear, suspended in the now colorless or almost colorless fluid; and this change appears first in the cells next the gland, and then in those next beneath, traveling down the whole length of the tentacle. When the action is slight, this appearance does not last long; the particles of "aggregated protoplasm redissolved, the process of redissolution traveling upward from the base of the tentacle to the gland in a reverse direction to that of the aggregation. Whenever the action is more prolonged or intense, as when a bit of meat or crushed fly, or a fitting solution, is left upon the gland, the aggregation proceeds further, so that the whole protoplasm of each cell condenses into one or two masses, or into a single mass which will often separate into two, which afterward reunite; indeed, they incessantly change their forms and positions, being never at rest, although their movements are rather slow. In appearance and movements they are very like amoebae and the white corpuscles of the blood. Their motion, along with the streaming movement of rotation in the layer of white granular protoplasm that flows along the walls of the cell, under the high powers of the microscope "presents a wonderful scene of vital activity." This continues while the tentacle is inflected or the gland fed by animal matter, but vanishes by dissolution when the work is over and the tentacle straightens. That absorption takes place, and matter is conveyed from cell to cell, is well made out, especially by the experiments with carbonate of ammonia. Nevertheless, this aggregation is not dependent upon absorption, for it equally occurs from mechanical irritation of the gland, and always accompanies inflection, however caused, though it may take place without it. This is also apparent from the astonishingly minute quantity of certain substances which suffices to produce sensible inflection and aggregation--such, for instance, as the 1/20000000 or even the 1/30000000 of a grain of phosphate or nitrate of ammonia! By varied experiments it was found that the nitrate of ammonia was more powerful than the carbonate, and the phosphate more powerful than the nitrate, this result being intelligible from the difference in the amount of nitrogen in the first two salts, and from the presence of phosphorus in the third. There is nothing surprising in the absorption of such extremely dilute solutions by a gland. As our author remarks: "All physiologists admit that the roots of plants absorb the salts of ammonia brought to them by the rain; and fourteen gallons of rain-water contain a grain of ammonia; therefore, only a little more than twice as much as in the weakest solution employed by me. The fact which appears truly wonderful is that the 1/20000000 of a grain of the phosphate of ammonia, including less than 1/30000000 of efficient matter (if the water of crystallization is deducted), when absorbed by a gland, should induce some change in it which leads to a motor impulse being transmitted down the whole length of the tentacle, causing its basal part to bend, often through an angle of 180 degrees." But odoriferous particles which act upon the nerves of animals must be infinitely smaller, and by these a dog a quarter of a mile to the leeward of a deer perceives his presence by some change in the olfactory nerves transmitted through them to the brain. When Mr. Darwin obtained these results, fourteen years ago, he could claim for Drosera a power and delicacy in the detection of minute quantities of a substance far beyond the resources of the most skillful chemist; but in a foot-note he admits that "now the spectroscope has altogether beaten Drosera; for, according to Bunsen and Kirchhoff, probably less than the 1/200000000 of a grain of sodium can be thus detected." Finally, that this highly-sensitive and active living organism absorbs, will not be doubted when it is proved to digest, that is, to dissolve otherwise insoluble animal matter by the aid of special secretions. That it does this is now past doubting. In the first place, when the glands are excited they pour forth an increased amount of the ropy secretion. This occurs directly when a bit of meat is laid upon the central glands; and the influence which they transmit to the long-stalked marginal glands causes them, while incurving their tentacles, to secrete more copiously long before they have themselves touched anything. The primary fluid, secreted without excitation, does not of itself digest. But the secretion under excitement changes in Nature and becomes acid. So, according to Schiff, mechanical irritation excites the glands of the stomach to secrete an acid. In both this acid appears to be necessary to, but of itself insufficient for, digestion. The requisite solvent, a kind of ferment called pepsin, which acts only in the presence of the acid, is poured forth by the glands of the stomach only after they have absorbed certain soluble nutritive substances of the food; then this pepsin promptly dissolves muscle, fibrine, coagulated albumen, cartilage, and the like. Similarly it appears that Drosera-glands, after irritation by particles of glass, did not act upon little cubes of albumen. But when moistened with saliva, or replaced by bits of roast-meat or gelatine, or even cartilage, which supply some soluble peptone-matter to initiate the process, these substances are promptly acted upon, and dissolved or digested; whence it is inferred that the analogy with the stomach holds good throughout, and that a ferment similar to pepsin is poured out under the stimulus of some soluble animal matter. But the direct evidence of this is furnished only by the related carnivorous plant, Dionaea, from which the secretions, poured out when digestion is about to begin, may be collected in quantity sufficient for chemical examination. In short, the experiments show "that there is a remarkable accordance in the power of digestion between the gastric juice of animals, with its pepsin and hydrochloric acid, and the secretion of Drosera, with its ferment and acid belonging to the acetic series. We can, therefore, hardly doubt that the ferment in both cases is closely similar, if not identically the same. That a plant and an animal should pour forth the same, or nearly the same, complex secretion, adapted for the same purpose of digestion, is a new and wonderful fact in physiology." There are one or two other species of sundew--one of them almost as common in Europe and North America as the ordinary round-leaved species--which act in the same way, except that, having their leaves longer in proportion to their breadth, their sides never curl inward, but they are much disposed to aid the action of their tentacles by incurving the tip of the leaf, as if to grasp the morsel. There are many others, with variously less efficient and less advantageously arranged insectivorous apparatus, which, in the language of the new science, may be either on the way to acquire something better, or of losing what they may have had, while now adapting themselves to a proper vegetable life. There is one member of the family (Drosophyllum Lusitanicum), an almost shrubby plant, which grows on dry and sunny hills in Portugal and Morocco--which the villagers call "the flycatcher," and hang up in their cottages for the purpose--the glandular tentacles of which have wholly lost their powers of movement, if they ever had any, but which still secrete, digest, and absorb, being roused to great activity by the contact of any animal matter. A friend of ours once remarked that it was fearful to contemplate the amount of soul that could be called forth in a dog by the sight of a piece of meat. Equally wonderful is the avidity for animal food manifested by these vegetable tentacles, that can "only stand and wait" for it. Only a brief chapter is devoted to Dionaea of North Carolina, the Venus's fly-trap, albeit, "from the rapidity and force of its movements, one of the most wonderful in the world." It is of the same family as the sundew; but the action is transferred from tentacles on the leaf to the body of the leaf itself, which is transformed into a spring-trap, closing with a sudden movement over the alighted insect. No secretion is provided beforehand either for allurement or detention; but after the captive is secured, microscopic glands within the surface of the leaf pour out an abundant gastric juice to digest it. Mrs. Glass's classical directions in the cook-book, "first catch your hare," are implicitly followed. Avoiding here all repetition or recapitulation of our former narrative, suffice it now to mention two interesting recent additions to our knowledge, for which we are indebted to Mr. Darwin. One is a research, the other an inspiration. It is mainly his investigations which have shown that the glairy liquid, which is poured upon and macerates the captured insect, accomplishes a true digestion; that, like the gastric juice of animals, it contains both a free acid and pepsin or its analogue, these two together dissolving albumen, meat, and the like. The other point relates to the significance of a peculiarity in the process of capture. When the trap suddenly incloses an insect which has betrayed its presence by touching one of the internal sensitive bristles, the closure is at first incomplete. For the sides approach in an arching way, surrounding a considerable cavity, and the marginal spine-like bristles merely intercross their tips, leaving intervening spaces through which one may look into the cavity beneath. A good idea may be had of it by bringing the two palms near together to represent the sides of the trap, and loosely interlocking the fingers to represent the marginal bristles or bars. After remaining some time in this position the closure is made complete by the margins coming into full contact, and the sides finally flattening down so as to press firmly upon the insect within; the secretion excited by contact is now poured out, and digestion begins. Why these two stages? Why should time be lost by this preliminary and incomplete closing? The query probably was never distinctly raised before, no one noticing anything here that needed explanation. Darwinian teleology, however, raises questions like this, and Mr. Darwin not only propounded the riddle but solved it. The object of the partial closing is to permit small insects to escape through the meshes, detaining only those plump enough to be worth the trouble of digesting. For naturally only one insect is caught at a time, and digestion is a slow business with Dionaeas, as with anacondas, requiring ordinarily a fortnight. It is not worth while to undertake it with a gnat when larger game may be had. To test this happy conjecture, Mr. Canby was asked, on visiting the Dionaeas in their native habitat, to collect early in the season a good series of leaves in the act of digesting naturally-caught insects. Upon opening them it was found that ten out of fourteen were engaged upon relatively large prey, and of the remaining four three had insects as large as ants, and one a rather small fly. "There be land-rats and water-rats" in this carnivorous sun-dew family. Aldrovanda, of the warmer parts of Europe and of India, is an aquatic plant, with bladdery leaves, which were supposed to be useful in rendering the herbage buoyant in water. But it has recently been found that the bladder is composed of two lobes, like the trap of its relative Dionaea, or the valves of a mussel-shell; that these open when the plant is in an active state, are provided with some sensitive bristles within, and when these are touched close with a quick movement. These water-traps are manifestly adapted for catching living creatures; and the few incomplete investigations that have already been made render it highly probably that they appropriate their prey for nourishment; whether by digestion or by mere absorption of decomposing animal matter, is uncertain. It is certainly most remarkable that this family of plants, wherever met with, and under the most diverse conditions and modes of life, should always in some way or other be predaceous and carnivorous. If it be not only surprising but somewhat confounding to our classifications that a whole group of plants should subsist partly by digesting animal matter and partly in the normal way of decomposing carbonic acid and producing the basis of animal matter, we have, as Mr. Darwin remarks, a counterpart anomaly in the animal kingdom. While some plants have stomachs, some animals have roots. "The rhizocephalous crustaceans do not feed like other animals by their mouths, for they are destitute of an alimentary canal, but they live by absorbing through root-like processes the juices of the animals on which they are parasitic." To a naturalist of our day, imbued with those ideas of the solidarity of organic Nature which such facts as those we have been considering suggest, the greatest anomaly of all would be that they are really anomalous or unique. Reasonably supposing, therefore, that the sundew did not stand alone, Mr. Darwin turned his attention to other groups of plants; and, first, to the bladderworts, which have no near kinship with the sundews, but, like the aquatic representative of that family, are provided with bladdery sacs, under water. In the common species of Utricularia or bladderwort, these little sacs, hanging from submerged leaves or branches, have their orifice closed by a lid which opens inwardly--a veritable trapdoor. It had been noticed in England and France that they contained minute crustacean animals. Early in the summer of 1874, Mr. Darwin ascertained the mechanism for their capture and the great success with which it is used. But before his account was written out, Prof. Cohn published an excellent paper on the subject in Germany; and Mrs. Treat, of Vineland, New Jersey, a still earlier one in this country--in the New York Tribune in the autumn of 1874. Of the latter, Mr. Darwin remarks that she "has been more successful than any other observer in witnessing the actual entrance of these minute creatures." They never come out, but soon perish in their prison, which receives a continued succession of victims, but little, if any, fresh air to the contained water. The action of the trap is purely mechanical, without evident irritability in the opening or shutting. There is no evidence nor much likelihood of proper digestion; indeed, Mr. Darwin found evidence to the contrary. But the more or less decomposed and dissolved animal matter is doubtless absorbed into the plant; for the whole interior of the sac is lined with peculiar, elongated and four-armed very thin-walled processes, which contain active protoplasm, and which were proved by experiment to "have the power of absorbing matter from weak solutions of certain salts of ammonia and urea, and from a putrid infusion of raw meat." Although the bladderworts "prey on garbage," their terrestrial relatives "live cleanly," as nobler plants should do, and have a good and true digestion. Pinguicula, or butterwort, is the representative of this family upon land. It gets both its Latin and its English name from the fatty or greasy appearance of the upper face of its broad leaves; and this appearance is due to a dense coat or pile of short-stalked glands, which secrete a colorless and extremely viscid liquid. By this small flies, or whatever may alight or fall upon the leaf, are held fast. These waifs might be useless or even injurious to the plant. Probably Mr. Darwin was the first to ask whether they might be of advantage. He certainly was the first to show that they probably are so. The evidence from experiment, shortly summed up, is, that insects alive or dead, and also other nitrogenous bodies, excite these glands to increased secretion; the secretion then becomes acid, and acquires the power of dissolving solid animal substances--that is, the power of digestion in the manner of Drosera and Dionaea. And the stalks of their glands under the microscope give the same ocular evidence of absorption. The leaves of the butterwort are apt to have their margins folded inward, like a rim or hem. Taking young and vigorous leaves to which hardly anything had yet adhered, and of which the margins were still flat, Mr. Darwin set within one margin a row of small flies. Fifteen hours afterward this edge was neatly turned inward, partly covering the row of flies, and the surrounding glands were secreting copiously. The other edge remained flat and unaltered. Then he stuck a fly to the middle of the leaf just below its tip, and soon both margins infolded, so as to clasp the object. Many other and varied experiments yielded similar results. Even pollen, which would not rarely be lodged upon these leaves, as it falls from surrounding wind-fertilized plants, also small seeds, excited the same action, and showed signs of being acted upon. "We may therefore conclude," with Mr. Darwin, "that Pinguicula vulgaris, with its small roots, is not only supported to a large extent by the extraordinary number of insects which it habitually captures, but likewise draws some nourishment from the pollen, leaves, and seeds, of other plants which often adhere to its leaves. It is, therefore, partly a vegetable as well as an animal feeder." What is now to be thought of the ordinary glandular hairs which render the surface of many and the most various plants extremely viscid? Their number is legion. The Chinese primrose of common garden and house culture is no extraordinary instance; but Mr. Francis Darwin, counting those on a small space measured by the micrometer, estimated them at 65,371 to the square inch of foliage, taking in both surfaces of the leaf, or two or three millions on a moderate-sized specimen of this small herb. Glands of this sort were loosely regarded as organs for excretion, without much consideration of the question whether, in vegetable life, there could be any need to excrete, or any advantage gained by throwing off such products; and, while the popular name of catch-fly, given to several common species of Silene, indicates long familiarity with the fact, probably no one ever imagined that the swarms of small insects which perish upon these sticky surfaces were ever turned to account by the plant. In many such cases, no doubt they perish as uselessly as when attracted into the flame of a candle. In the tobacco-plant, for instance, Mr. Darwin could find no evidence that the glandular hairs absorb animal matter. But Darwinian philosophy expects all gradations between casualty and complete adaptation. It is most probable that any thin-walled vegetable structure which secretes may also be capable of absorbing under favorable conditions. The myriads of exquisitely-constructed glands of the Chinese primrose are not likely to be functionless. Mr. Darwin ascertained by direct experiment that they promptly absorb carbonate of ammonia, both in watery solution and in vapor. So, since rain-water usually contains a small percentage of ammonia, a use for these glands becomes apparent--one completely congruous with that of absorbing any animal matter, or products of its decomposition, which may come in their way through the occasional entanglement of insects in their viscid secretion. In several saxifrages--not very distant relatives of Drosera--the viscid glands equally manifested the power of absorption. To trace a gradation between a simply absorbing hair with a glutinous tip, through which the plant may perchance derive slight contingent advantage, and the tentacles of a sundew, with their exquisite and associated adaptations, does not much lessen the wonder nor explain the phenomena. After all, as Mr. Darwin modestly concludes, "we see how little has been made out in comparison with what remains unexplained and unknown." But all this must be allowed to be an important contribution to the doctrine of the gradual acquirement of uses and functions, and hardly to find conceivable explanation upon any other hypothesis. There remains one more mode in which plants of the higher grade are known to prey upon animals; namely, by means of pitchers, urns, or tubes, in which insects and the like are drowned or confined, and either macerated or digested. To this Mr. Darwin barely alludes on the last page of the present volume. The main facts known respecting the American pitcher-plants have, as was natural, been ascertained in this country; and we gave an abstract, two years ago, of our then incipient knowledge. Much has been learned since, although all the observations have been of a desultory character. If space permitted, an instructive narrative might be drawn up, as well of the economy of the Sarracenias as of how we came to know what we do of it. But the very little we have room for will be strictly supplementary to our former article. The pitchers of our familiar Northern Sarracenia, which is likewise Southern, are open-mouthed; and, although they certainly secrete some liquid when young, must derive most of the water they ordinarily contain from rain. How insects are attracted is unknown, but the water abounds with their drowned bodies and decomposing remains. In the more southern S. flava, the long and trumpet-shaped pitchers evidently depend upon the liquid which they themselves secrete, although at maturity, when the hood becomes erect, rain may somewhat add to it. This species, as we know, allures insects by a peculiar sweet exudation within the orifice; they fall in and perish, though seldom by drowning, yet few are able to escape; and their decomposing remains accumulate in the narrow bottom of the vessel. Two other long-tubed species of the Southern States are similar in these respects. There is another, S. psittacina, the parrot-headed species, remarkable for the cowl-shaped hood so completely inflexed over the mouth of the small pitcher that no rain can possibly enter. Little is known, however, of the efficiency of this species as a fly-catcher; but its conformation has a morphological interest, leading up, as it does, to the Californian type of pitcher presently to be mentioned. But the remaining species, S. variolaris, is the most wonderful of our pitcher-plants in its adaptations for the capture of insects. The inflated and mottled lid or hood overarches the ample orifice of the tubular pitcher sufficiently to ward off the rain, but not to obstruct the free access of flying insects. Flies, ants, and most insects, glide and fall from the treacherous smooth throat into the deep well below, and never escape. They are allured by a sweet secretion just within the orifice-- which was discovered and described long ago, and the knowledge of it wellnigh forgotten until recently. And, finally, Dr. Mellichamp, of South Carolina, two years ago made the capital discovery that, during the height of the season, this lure extends from the orifice down nearly to the ground, a length of a foot or two, in the form of a honeyed line or narrow trail on the edge of the wing-like border which is conspicuous in all these species, although only in this one, so far as known, turned to such account. Here, one would say, is a special adaptation to ants and such terrestrial and creeping insects. Well, long before this sweet trail was known, it was remarked by the late Prof. Wyman and others that the pitchers of this species, in the savannahs of Georgia and Florida, contain far more ants than they do of all other insects put together. Finally, all this is essentially repeated in the peculiar Californian pitcher-plant (Darlingtonia), a genus of the same natural family, which captures insects in great variety, enticing them by a sweetish secretion over the whole inside of the inflated hood and that of a curious forked appendage, resembling a fish-tail, which overhangs the orifice. This orifice is so concealed that it can be seen and approached only from below, as if--the casual observer might infer--to escape visitation. But dead insects of all kinds, and their decomposing remains, crowd the cavity and saturate the liquid therein contained, enticed, it is said, by a peculiar odor, as well as by the sweet lure which is at some stages so abundant as to drip from the tips of the overhanging appendage. The principal observations upon this pitcher-plant in its native habitat have been made by Mrs. Austin, and only some of the earlier ones have thus far been published by Mr. Canby. But we are assured that in this, as in the Sarracenia variolaris, the sweet exudation extends at the proper season from the orifice down the wing nearly to the ground, and that ants follow this honeyed pathway to their destruction. Also, that the watery liquid in the pitcher, which must be wholly a secretion, is much increased in quantity after the capture of insects. It cannot now well be doubted that the animal matter is utilized by the plant in all these cases, although most probably only after maceration or decomposition. In some of them even digestion, or at least the absorption of undecomposed soluble animal juices, may be suspected; but there is no proof of it. But, if pitchers of the Sarracenia family are only macerating vessels, those of Nepenthes--the pitchers of the Indian Archipelago, familiar in conservatories--seem to be stomachs. The investigations of the President of the Royal Society, Dr. Hooker, although incomplete, wellnigh demonstrate that these not only allure insects by a sweet secretion at the rim and upon the lid of the cup, but also that their capture, or the presence of other partly soluble animal matter, produces an increase and an acidulation of the contained watery liquid, which thereupon becomes capable of acting in the manner of that of Drosera and Dionaea, dissolving flesh, albumen, and the like. After all, there never was just ground for denying to vegetables the use of animal food. The fungi are by far the most numerous family of plants, and they all live upon organic matter, some upon dead and decomposing, some upon living, some upon both; and the number of those that feed upon living animals is large. Whether these carnivorous propensities of higher plants which so excite our wonder be regarded as survivals of ancestral habits, or as comparatively late acquirements, or even as special endowments, in any case what we have now learned of them goes to strengthen the conclusion that the whole organic world is akin. The volume upon "The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants" is a revised and enlarged edition of a memoir communicated to the Linnaean Society in 1865, and published in the ninth volume of its Journal. There was an extra impression, but, beyond the circle of naturalists, it can hardly have been much known at first-hand. Even now, when it is made a part of the general Darwinian literature, it is unlikely to be as widely read as the companion volume which we have been reviewing; although it is really a more readable book, and well worthy of far more extended notice at our hands than it can now receive. The reason is obvious. It seems as natural that plants should climb as it does unnatural that any should take animal food. Most people, knowing that some plants "twine with the sun," and others "against the sun," have an idea that the sun in some way causes the twining; indeed, the notion is still fixed in the popular mind that the same species twines in opposite directions north and south of the equator. Readers of this fascinating treatise will learn, first of all, that the sun has no influence over such movements directly, and that its indirect influence is commonly adverse or disturbing, except the heat, which quickens vegetable as it does animal life. Also, that climbing is accomplished by powers and actions as unlike those generally predicated of the vegetable kingdom as any which have been brought to view in the preceding volume. Climbing plants "feel" as well as "grow and live;" and they also manifest an automatism which is perhaps more wonderful than a response by visible movement to an external irritation. Nor do plants grow up their supports, as is unthinkingly supposed; for, although only growing or newly-grown parts act in climbing, the climbing and the growth are entirely distinct. To this there is one exception--an instructive one, as showing how one action passes into another, and how the same result may be brought about in different ways--that of stems which climb by rootlets, such as of ivy and trumpet-creeper. Here the stem ascends by growth alone, taking upward direction, and is fixed by root-lets as it grows. There is no better way of climbing walls, precipices, and large tree-trunks. But small stems and similar supports are best ascended by twining; and this calls out powers of another and higher order. The twining stem does not grow around its support, but winds around it, and it does this by a movement the nature of which is best observed in stems which have not yet reached their support, or have overtopped it and stretched out beyond it. Then it may be seen that the extending summit, reaching farther and farther as it grows, is making free circular sweeps, by night as well as by day, and irrespective of external circumstances, except that warmth accelerates the movement, and that the general tendency of young stems to bend toward the light may, in case of lateral illumination, accelerate one-half the circuit while it equally retards the other. The arrest of the revolution where the supporting body is struck, while the portion beyond continues its movement, brings about the twining. As to the proximate cause of this sweeping motion, a few simple experiments prove that it results from the bowing or bending of the free summit of the stem into a more or less horizontal position (this bending being successively to every point of the compass, through an action which circulates around the stem in the direction of the sweep), and of the consequent twining, i.e., "with the sun," or with the movement of the hands of a watch, in the hop, or in the opposite direction in pole-beans and most twiners. Twining plants, therefore, ascend trees or other stems by an action and a movement of their own, from which they derive advantage. To plants liable to be overshadowed by more robust companions, climbing is an economical method of obtaining a freer exposure to light and air with the smallest possible expenditure of material. But twiners have one disadvantage: to rise ten feet they must produce fifteen feet of stem or thereabouts, according to the diameter of the support, and the openness or closeness of the coil. A rootlet-climber saves much in this respect, but has a restricted range of action, and other disadvantages. There are two other modes, which combine the utmost economy of material with freer range of action. There are, in the first place, leaf-climbers of various sorts, agreeing only in this, that the duty of laying hold is transferred to the leaves, so that the stem may rise in a direct line. Sometimes the blade or leaflets, or some of them, but more commonly their slender stalks, undertake the work, and the plant rises as a boy ascends a tree, grasping first with one hand or arm, then with the other. Indeed, the comparison, like the leaf-stalk, holds better than would be supposed; for the grasping of the latter is not the result of a blind groping in all directions by a continuous movement, but of a definite sensitiveness which acts only upon the occasion. Most leaves make no regular sweeps; but when the stalks of a leaf-climbing species come into prolonged contact with any fitting extraneous body, they slowly incurve and make a turn around it, and then commonly thicken and harden until they attain a strength which may equal that of the stem itself. Here we have the faculty of movement to a definite end, upon external irritation, of the same nature with that displayed by Dionaea and Drosera, although slower for the most part than even in the latter. But the movement of the hour-hand of the clock is not different in nature or cause from that of the second-hand. Finally--distribution of office being, on the whole, most advantageous and economical, and this, in the vegetable kingdom, being led up to by degrees--we reach, through numerous gradations, the highest style of climbing plants in the tendril-climber. A tendril morphologically, is either a leaf or branch of stem, or a portion of one, specially organized for climbing. Some tendrils simply turn away from light, as do those of grape-vines, thus taking the direction in which some supporting object is likely to be encountered; most are indifferent to light; and many revolve in the manner of the summit of twining stems. As the stems which bear these highly-endowed tendrils in many cases themselves also revolve more or less, though they seldom twine, their reach is the more extensive; and to this endowment of automatic movement most tendrils add the other faculty, that of incurving and coiling upon prolonged touch, or even brief contact, in the highest degree. Some long tendrils, when in their best condition, revolve so rapidly that the sweeping movement may be plainly seen; indeed, we have seen a quarter-circuit in a Passiflora sicyoides accomplished in less than a minute, and the half-circuit in ten minutes; but the other half (for a reason alluded to in the next paragraph) takes a much longer time. Then, as to the coiling upon contact, in the case first noticed in this country,[XI-3] in the year 1858, which Mr. Darwin mentions as having led him into this investigation, the tendril of Sicyos was seen to coil within half a minute after a stroke with the hand, and to make a full turn or more within the next minute; furnishing ocular evidence that tendrils grasp and coil in virtue of sensitiveness to contact, and, one would suppose, negativing Sachs's recent hypothesis that all these movements are owing "to rapid growth on the side opposite to that which becomes concave"--a view to which Mr. Darwin objects, but not so strongly as he might. The tendril of this sort, on striking some fitting object, quickly curls round and firmly grasps it; then, after some hours, one side shortening or remaining short in proportion to the other, it coils into a spire, dragging the stem up to its support, and enabling the next tendril above to secure a readier hold. In revolving tendrils perhaps the most wonderful adaptation is that by which they avoid attachment to, or winding themselves upon, the ascending summit of the stem that bears them. This they would inevitably do if they continued their sweep horizontally. But when in its course it nears the parent stem the tendril moves slowly, as if to gather strength, then C.~ stiffens and rises into an erect position parallel with it, and C so passes by the dangerous point; after which it comes rapidly down to the horizontal position, in which it moves until it again approaches and again avoids the impending obstacle. Climbing plants are distributed throughout almost all the natural orders. In some orders climbing is the rule, in most it is the exception, occurring only in certain genera. The tendency of stems to move in circuits--upon which climbing more commonly depends, and out of which it is conceived to have been educed--is manifested incipiently by many a plant which does not climb. Of those that do there are all degrees, from the feeblest to the most efficient, from those which have no special adaptation to those which have exquisitely-endowed special organs for climbing. The conclusion reached is, that the power "is inherent, though undeveloped, in almost every plant;" "that climbing plants have utilized and perfected a widely-distributed and incipient capacity, which, as far as we can see, is of no service to ordinary plants." Inherent powers and incipient manifestations, useless to their possessors but useful to their successors--this, doubtless, is according to the order of Nature; but it seems to need something more than natural selection to account for it. XII DURATION AND ORIGINATION OF RACE AND SPECIES-- IMPORT OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION I Do Varieties wear out, or tend to wear out? (New York Tribune, and American Journal of Science and the Arts, February, 1875) This question has been argued from time to time for more than half a century, and is far from being settled yet. Indeed, it is not to be settled either way so easily as is sometimes thought. The result of a prolonged and rather lively discussion of the topic about forty years ago in England, in which Lindley bore a leading part on the negative side, was, if we rightly remember, that the nays had the best of the argument. The deniers could fairly well explain away the facts adduced by the other side, and evade the force of the reasons then assigned to prove that varieties were bound to die out in the course of time. But if the case were fully re-argued now, it is by no means certain that the nays would win it. The most they could expect would be the Scotch verdict, "not proven." And this not because much, if any, additional evidence of the actual wearing out of any variety has turned up since, but because a presumption has been raised under which the evidence would take a bias the other way. There is now in the minds of scientific men some reason to expect that certain varieties would die out in the long run, and this might have an important influence upon the interpretation of the facts. Curiously enough, however, the recent discussions to which our attention has been called seem, on both sides, to have overlooked this. But, first of all, the question needs to be more specifically stated. There are varieties and varieties. They may, some of them, disappear or deteriorate, but yet not wear out--not come to an end from any inherent cause. One might even say, the younger they are the less the chance of survival unless well cared for. They may be smothered out by the adverse force of superior numbers; they are even more likely to be bred out of existence by unprevented cross-fertilization, or to disappear from mere change of fashion. The question, however, is not so much about reversion to an ancestral state, or the falling off of a high-bred stock into an inferior condition. Of such cases it is enough to say that, when a variety or strain, of animal or vegetable, is led up to unusual fecundity or of size or product of any organ, for our good, and not for the good of the plant or animal itself, it can be kept so only by high feeding and exceptional care; and that with high feeding and artificial appliances comes vastly increased liability to disease, which may practically annihilate the race. But then the race, like the bursted boiler, could not be said to wear out, while if left to ordinary conditions, and allowed to degenerate back into a more natural if less useful state, its hold on life would evidently be increased rather than diminished. As to natural varieties or races under normal conditions, sexually propagated, it could readily be shown that they are neither more nor less likely to disappear from any inherent cause than the species from which they originated. Whether species wear out, i.e., have their rise, culmination, and decline, from any inherent cause, is wholly a geological and very speculative problem, upon which, indeed, only vague conjectures can be offered. The matter actually under discussion concerns cultivated domesticated varieties only, and, as to plants, is covered by two questions. First, Will races propagated by seed, being so fixed that they come true to seed, and purely bred (not crossed with any other sort), continue so indefinitely, or will they run out in time--not die out, perhaps, but lose their distinguishing characters? Upon this, all we are able to say is that we know no reason why they should wear out or deteriorate from any inherent cause. The transient existence or the deterioration and disappearance of many such races are sufficiently accounted for otherwise; as in the case of extraordinarily exuberant varieties, such as mammoth fruits or roots, by increased liability to disease, already adverted to, or by the failure of the high feeding they demand. A common cause, in ordinary cases, is cross-breeding, through the agency of wind or insects, which is difficult to guard against. Or they go out of fashion and are superseded by others thought to be better, and so the old ones disappear. Or, finally, they may revert to an ancestral form. As offspring tend to resemble grandparents almost as much as parents, and as a line of close-bred ancestry is generally prepotent, so newly-originated varieties have always a tendency to reversion. This is pretty sure to show itself in some of the progeny of the earlier generations, and the breeder has to guard against it by rigid selection. But the older the variety is--that is, the longer the series of generations in which it has come true from seed--the less the chance of reversion: for now, to be like the immediate parents, is also to be like a long line of ancestry; and so all the influences concerned--- that is, both parental and ancestral heritability--act in one and the same direction. So, since the older a race is the more reason it has to continue true, the presumption of the unlimited permanence of old races is very strong. Of course the race itself may give off new varieties; but that is no interference with the vitality of the original stock. If some of the new varieties supplant the old, that will not be because the unvaried stock is worn out or decrepit with age, but because in wild Nature the newer forms are better adapted to the surroundings, or, under man's care, better adapted to his wants or fancies. The second question, and one upon which the discussion about the wearing out of varieties generally turns, is, Will varieties propagated from buds, i.e., by division, grafts, bulbs, tubers, and the like, necessarily deteriorate and die out? First, Do they die out as a matter of fact? Upon this, the testimony has all along been conflicting. Andrew Knight was sure that they do, and there could hardly be a more trustworthy witness. "The fact," he says, fifty years ago, "that certain varieties of some species of fruit which have been long cultivated cannot now be made to grow in the same soils and under the same mode of management, which was a century ago so perfectly successful, is placed beyond the reach of controversy. Every experiment which seemed to afford the slightest prospect of success was tried by myself and others to propagate the old varieties of the apple and pear which formerly constituted the orchards of Herefordshire, without a single healthy or efficient tree having been obtained; and I believe all attempts to propagate these varieties have, during some years, wholly ceased to be made." To this it was replied, in that and the next generation, that cultivated vines have been transmitted by perpetual division from the time of the Romans, and that several of the sorts, still prized and prolific, are well identified, among them the ancient Graecula, considered to be the modern Corinth or currant grape, which has immemorially been seedless; that the old nonpareil apple was known in the time of Queen Elizabeth; that the white beurre pears of France have been propagated from the earliest times; and that golden pippins, St. Michael pears, and others said to have run out, were still to be had in good condition. Coming down to the present year, a glance through the proceedings of pomological societies, and the debates of farmers' clubs, brings out the same difference of opinion. The testimony is nearly equally divided. Perhaps the larger number speak of the deterioration and failure of particular old sorts; but when the question turns on "wearing out," the positive evidence of vigorous trees and sound fruits is most telling. A little positive testimony outweighs a good deal of negative. This cannot readily be explained away, while the failures may be, by exhaustion of soil, incoming of disease, or alteration of climate or circumstances. On the other hand, it may be urged that, if a variety of this sort is fated to become decrepit and die out, it is not bound to die out all at once, and everywhere at the same time. It would be expected first to give way wherever it is weakest, from whatever cause. This consideration has an important bearing upon the final question, Are old varieties of this kind on the way to die out on account of their age or any inherent limit of vitality? Here, again, Mr. Knight took an extreme view. In his essay in the "Philosophical Transactions," published in the year 1810, he propounded the theory, not merely of a natural limit to varieties from grafts and cuttings, but even that they would not survive the natural term of the life of the seedling trees from which they were originally taken. Whatever may have been his view of the natural term of the life of a tree, and of a cutting being merely a part of the individual that produced it, there is no doubt that he laid himself open to the effective replies which were made from all sides at the time, and have lost none of their force since. Weeping-willows, bread-fruits, bananas, sugar-cane, tiger-lilies, Jerusalem artichokes, and the like, have been propagated for a long while in this way, without evident decadence. Moreover, the analogy upon which his hypothesis is founded will not hold. Whether or not one adopts the present writer's conception, that individuality is not actually reached or maintained in the vegetable world, it is clear enough that a common plant or tree is not an individual in the sense that a horse or man, or any one of the higher animals, is--that it is an individual only in the sense that a branching zoophyte or mass of coral is. Solvitur crescendo: the tree and the branch equally demonstrate that they are not individuals, by being divided with impunity and advantage, with no loss of life, but much increase. It looks odd enough to see a writer like Mr. Sisley reproducing the old hypothesis in so bare a form as this: "I am prepared to maintain that varieties are individuals, and that as they are born they must die, like other individuals . . . We know that oaks, Sequoias, and other trees, live several centuries, but how many we do not exactly know. But that they must die, no one in his senses will dispute." Now, what people in their senses do dispute is, not that the tree will die, but that other trees, established from its cuttings, will die with it. But does it follow from this that non-sexually-propagated varieties are endowed with the same power of unlimited duration that is possessed by varieties and species propagated sexually--i.e., by seed? Those who think so jump too soon at their conclusion. For, as to the facts, it is not enough to point out the diseases or the trouble in the soil or the atmosphere to which certain old fruits are succumbing, nor to prove that a parasitic fungus (Peronospora infestans) is what is the matter with potatoes. For how else would constitutional debility, if such there be, more naturally manifest itself than in such increased liability or diminished resistance to such attacks? And if you say that, anyhow, such varieties do not die of old age--meaning that each individual attacked does not die of old age, but of manifest disease--it may be asked in return, what individual man ever dies of old age in any other sense than of a similar inability to resist invasions which in earlier years would have produced no noticeable effect? Aged people die of a slight cold or a slight accident, but the inevitable weakness that attends old age is what makes these slight attacks fatal. Finally, there is a philosophical argument which tells strongly for some limitation of the duration of non-sexually propagated forms, one that probably Knight never thought of, but which we should not have expected recent writers to overlook. When Mr. Darwin announced the principle that cross-fertilization between the individuals of a species is the plan of Nature, and is practically so universal that it fairly sustains his inference that no hermaphrodite species continually self-fertilized would continue to exist, he made it clear to all who apprehend and receive the principle that a series of plants propagated by buds only must have weaker hold of life than a series reproduced by seed. For the former is the closest possible kind of close breeding. Upon this ground such varieties may be expected ultimately to die out; but "the mills of the gods grind so exceeding slow" that we cannot say that any particular grist has been actually ground out under human observation. If it be asked how the asserted principle is proved or made probable, we can here merely say that the proof is wholly inferential. But the inference is drawn from such a vast array of facts that it is wellnigh irresistible. It is the legitimate explanation of those arrangements in Nature to secure cross-fertilization in the species, either constantly or occasionally, which are so general, so varied and diverse, and, we may add, so exquisite and wonderful, that, once propounded, we see that it must be true.* What else, indeed, is the meaning and * Here an article would be in place, explaining the arrangements in Nature for cross-fertilization, or wide-breeding, in plants, through the agency, sometimes of the winds, but more commonly of insects; the more so, since the development of the principle, the appreciation of its importance, and its confirmation by abundant facts, are mainly due to Mr. Darwin. But our reviews and notices of his early work "On the Contrivances in Nature for the Fertilization of Orchids by Means of Insects, in 1862, and his various subsequent papers upon other parts of this subject, are either too technical or too fragmentary or special to be here reproduced. Indeed, a popular essay is now hardly needed, since the topic has been fully presented, of late years, in the current popular and scientific journals, and in common educational works and text-books, so that it is in the way of becoming a part--and a most inviting part--of ordinary botanical instruction. use of sexual reproduction? Not simply increase of numbers; for that is otherwise effectually provided for by budding propagation in plants and many of the lower animals. There are plants, indeed, of the lower sort (such as diatoms), in which the whole multiplication takes place in this way, and with great rapidity. These also have sexual reproduction; but in it two old individuals are always destroyed to make a single new one! Here propagation diminishes the number of individuals fifty per cent. Who can suppose that such a costly process as this, and that all the exquisite arrangements for cross-fertilization in hermaphrodite plants, do not subserve some most important purpose? How and why the union of two organisms, or generally of two very minute portions of them, should reenforce vitality, we do not know, and can hardly conjecture. But this must be the meaning of sexual reproduction. The conclusion of the matter, from the scientific point of view, is, that sexually-propagated varieties or races, although liable to disappear through change, need not be expected to wear out, and there is no proof that they do; but, that non-sexually propagated varieties, though not especially liable to change, may theoretically be expected to wear out, but to be a very long time about it. II Do Species wear out? and if not, why not? The question we have just been considering was merely whether races are, or may be, as enduring as species. As to the inherently unlimited existence of species themselves, or the contrary, this, as we have said, is a geological and very speculative problem. Not a few geologists and naturalists, however, have concluded, or taken for granted, that species have a natural term of existence--that they culminate, decline, and disappear through exhaustion of specific vitality, or some equivalent internal cause. As might be expected from the nature of the inquiry, the facts which bear upon the question are far from decisive. If the fact that species in general have not been interminable, but that one after another in long succession has become extinct, would seem to warrant this conclusion, the persistence through immense periods of no inconsiderable number of the lower forms of vegetable and animal life, and of a few of the higher plants from the Tertiary period to the present, tells even more directly for the limitless existence of species. The disappearance is quite compatible with the latter view; while the persistence of any species is hardly explicable upon any other. So that, even under the common belief of the entire stability and essential inflexibility of species, extinction is more likely to have been accidental than predetermined, and the doctrine of inherent limitation is unsupported by positive evidence. On the other hand, it is an implication of the Darwinian doctrine that species are essentially unlimited in existence. When they die out--as sooner or later any species may--the verdict must be accidental death, under stress of adverse circumstances, not exhaustion of vitality; and, commonly, when the species seems to die out, it will rather have suffered change. For the stock of vitality which enables it to vary and. survive in changed forms under changed circumstances must be deemed sufficient for a continued unchanged existence under unaltered conditions. And, indeed, the advancement from simpler to more complex, which upon the theory must have attended the diversification, would warrant or require the supposition of increase instead of diminution of power from age to age. The only case we call to mind which, under the Darwinian view, might be interpreted as a dying out from inherent causes, is that of a species which refuses to vary, and thus lacks the capacity of adaptation to altering conditions. Under altering conditions, this lack would be fatal. But this would be the fatality of some species or form in particular, not of species or forms generally, which, for the most part, may and do vary sufficiently, and in varying survive, seemingly none the worse, but rather the better, for their long tenure of life. The opposite idea, however, is maintained by M. Naudin,[XII-1] in a detailed exposition of his own views of evolution, which differ widely from those of Darwin in most respects, and notably in excluding that which, in our day, gives to the subject its first claim to scientific (as distinguished from purely speculative) attention; namely, natural selection. Instead of the causes or operations collectively personified under this term, and which are capable of exact or probable appreciation, M. Naudin invokes "the two principles of rhythm and of the decrease of forces in Nature." He is a thorough evolutionist, starting from essentially the same point with Darwin; for he conceives of all the forms or species of animals and plants "comme tire tout entier d'un protoplasma primordial, uniform, instable, eminemment plastique." Also in "l'integration croissante de la force evolutive a mesure qu'elle se partage dans les formes produites, et la decroissance proportionelle de la plasticite de ces formes a mesure qu'elles s'eloignent davantage de leur origine, et qu'elles sont mieux arretees." As they get older, they gain in fixity through the operation of the fundamental law of inheritance; but the species, like the individual, loses plasticity and vital force. To continue in the language of the original: "C'est dire qu'il y a eu, pour l'ensemble du monde organique, une periode de formation ou tout etait changeant et mobile, une phase analogue a la vie embryonnaire et a la jeunesse de chaque etre particulier; et qu'a cet age de mobilite et de croissance a succede une periode de stabilite, au moins relative, une sorte d'age adulte, ou la force evolutive, ayant acheve son oeuvre, n'est plus occupee qu'a la maintenir, sans pouvoir produire d'organismes nouveaux. Limitee en quantite, comme toutes les forces en jeu dans une planete ou dans un systeme sideral tout entier, cette force n'a pu accomplir qu'un travail limite; et du meme qu'un organisme, animal ou vegetal, ne croit pas indefiniment et qu'il s'arrete a des proportions que rien ne peut faire depasser, de meme aussi l'organisme total de la nature s'est arrete a un etat d'equilibre, dont la duree, selon toutes vraisemblances, doit etre beaucoup plus longue que celle de la phase de developpement et de croissance. A fixed amount of "evolutive force" is given, to begin with. At first enormous, because none has been used up in work, it is necessarily enfeebled in the currents into which the stream divides, and the narrower and narrower channels in which it flows with slowly-diminishing power. Hence the limited although very unequal duration of all individuals, of all species, and of all types of organization. A multitude of forms have disappeared already, and the number of species, far from increasing, as some have believed, must, on the contrary, be diminishing. Some species, no doubt, have suffered death by violence or accident, by geological changes, local alteration of the conditions, or the direct or indirect attacks of other species; but these have only anticipated their fate, for M. Naudin contends that most of the extinct species have died a natural death from exhaustion of force, and that all the survivors are on the way to it. The great timepiece of Nature was wound up at the beginning, and is running down. In the earlier stages of great plasticity and exuberant power, diversification took place freely, but only in definite lines, and species and types multiplied. As the power of survival is inherently limited, still more the power of change: this diminishes in time, if we rightly apprehend the idea, partly through the waning of vital force, partly through the fixity acquired by heredity--like producing like, the more certainly in proportion to the length and continuity of the ancestral chain And so the small variations of species which we behold are the feeble remnants of the pristine plasticity and an exhausted force.[XII-2] This force of variation or origination of forms has acted rhythmically or intermittently, because each movement was the result of the rupture of an equilibrium, the liberation of a force which till then was retained in a potential state by some opposing force or obstacle, overcoming which it passes to a new equilibrium and so on Hence alternations of dynamic activity and static repose, of origination of species and types, alternated with periods of stability or fixity. The timepiece does not run down regularly, but "la force procede par saccades; et . . . par pulsations d'autant plus energiques que la nature etait plus pres de son commencement." Such is the hypothesis. For a theory of evolution, this is singularly unlike Darwin's in most respects, and particularly in the kind of causes invoked and speculations indulged in. But we are not here to comment upon it beyond the particular point under consideration, namely, its doctrine of the inherently limited duration of species. This comes, it will be noticed, as a deduction from the modern physical doctrine of the equivalence of force. The reasoning is ingenious, but, if we mistake not, fallacious. To call that "evolutive force" which produces the change of one kind of plant or animal into another, is simple and easy, but of little help by way of explanation. To homologize it with physical force, as M. Naudin's argument requires, is indeed a step, and a hardy one; but it quite invalidates the argument. For, if the "evolutive force" is a part of the physical force of the universe, of which, as he reminds us, the sum is fixed and the tendency is toward a stable equilibrium in which all change is to end, then this evolutive was derived from the physical force; and why not still derivable from it? What is to prevent its replenishment in vegetation, pari passu with that great operation in which physical force is stored up in vegetable organisms, and by the expenditure or transformation of which their work, and that of all animals, is carried on? Whatever be the cause (if any there be) which determines the decadence and death of species, one cannot well believe that it is a consequence of a diminution of their proper force by plant-development and division; for instance, that the sum of what is called vital force in a full-grown tree is not greater, instead of less, than that in the seeding, and in the grove greater than in the single parental tree. This power, if it be properly a force, is doubtless as truly derived from the sunbeam as is the power which the plant and animal expend in work. Here, then, is a source of replenishment as lasting as the sun itself, and a ground--so far as a supply of force is concerned--for indefinite duration. For all that any one can mean by the indefinite existence of species is, that they may (for all that yet appears) continue while the external conditions of their being or well-being continue. Perhaps, however, M. Naudin does not mean that "evolutive force," or the force of vitality, is really homologous with common physical force, but only something which may be likened to it. In that case the parallel has only a metaphorical value, and the reason why variation must cease and species die out is still to seek. In short, if that which continues the series of individuals in propagation, whether like or unlike the parents, be a force in the physical sense of the term, then there is abundant provision in Nature for its indefinite replenishment. If, rather, it be a part or phase of that something which directs and determines the expenditure of force, then it is not subject to the laws of the latter, and there is no ground for inferring its exhaustibility. The limited vitality is an unproved and unprovable conjecture. The evolutive force, dying out in the using, is either the same conjecture repeated, or a misapplied analogy. After all--apart from speculative analogies--the only evidences we possess which indicate a tendency in species to die out, are those to which Mr. Darwin has called attention. These are, first, the observed deterioration which results, at least in animals, from continued breeding in and in, which may possibly be resolvable into cumulative heritable disease; and, secondly, as already stated (p. 285), what may be termed the sedulous and elaborate pains everywhere taken in Nature to prevent close breeding--arrangements which are particularly prominent in plants, the greater number of which bear hermaphrodite blossoms. The importance of this may be inferred from the universality, variety, and practical perfection of the arrangements which secure the end; and the inference may fairly be drawn that this is the physiological import of sexes. It follows from this that there is a tendency, seemingly inherent, in species as in individuals, to die out; but that this tendency is counteracted or checked by sexual wider breeding, which is, on the whole, amply secured in Nature, and which in some way or other reenforces vitality to such an extent as to warrant Darwin's inference that "some unknown great good is derived from the union of individuals which have been kept distinct for many generations." Whether this reenforcement is a complete preventive of decrepitude in species, or only a palliative, is more than we can determine. If the latter, then existing species and their derivatives must perish in time, and the earth may be growing poorer in species, as M. Naudin supposes, through mere senility. If the former, then the earth, if not even growing richer, may be expected to hold its own, and extant species or their derivatives should last as long as the physical world lasts and affords favorable conditions. General analogies seem to favor the former view. Such facts as we possess, and the Darwinian hypothesis, favor the latter. XIII EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY When Cuvier spoke of the "combination of organs in such order that they may be in consistence with the part which the animal has to play in Nature," his opponent, Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, rejoined, "I know nothing of animals which have to play a part in Nature." The discussion was a notable one in its day. From that time to this, the reaction of morphology against "final causes" has not rarely gone to the extent of denying the need and the propriety of assuming ends in the study of animal and vegetable organizations. Especially in our day, when it became apparent that the actual use of an organ might not be the fundamental reason of its existence-- that one and the same organ, morphologically considered, was modified in different cases to the most diverse uses, while intrinsically different organs subserved identical functions, and consequently that use was a fallacious and homology the surer guide to correct classification--it was not surprising that teleological ideas nearly disappeared from natural history. Probably it is still generally thought that the school of Cuvier and that of St.-Hilaire have neither common ground nor capability of reconcilement. In a review of Darwin's volume on the "Fertilization of Orchids" * (too technical and too detailed for reproduction here), and later in a brief sketch of the character of his scientific work (art. IX, p. 234), we expressed our sense of the great gain to science from his having brought back teleology to natural history. In Darwinism, usefulness and purpose come to the front again as working principles of the first order; upon them, indeed, the whole system rests. To most, this restoration of teleology has come from an unexpected quarter, and in an unwonted guise; so that the first look of it is by no means reassuring to the minds of those who cherish theistic views of Nature. Adaptations irresistibly suggesting purpose had their supreme application in natural theology. Being manifold, particular, and exquisite, and evidently inwrought into the whole system of the organic world, they were held to furnish irrefragable as well as independent proof of a personal designer, a divine originator of Nature. By a confusion of thought, now obvious, but at the time not unnatural, they were also regarded as proof of a direct execution of the contriver's purpose in the creation of each organ and organism, as it were, in the manner man contrives and puts together a machine--an idea which has been set up as the orthodox doctrine, but which to St. Augustine and other learned Christian fathers would have savored of heterodoxy. In the doctrine of the origination of species through natural selection, these adaptations appear as the outcome rather than as the motive, as final results rather than final causes. Adaptation to use, although the very essence of Darwinism, is not a fixed and inflexible adaptation, realized once for all at the outset; it includes a long progression and succession of modifications, adjusting themselves to changing circumstances, under which they may be more and more diversified, specialized, and in a just sense perfected. Now, the question is, Does this involve the destruction or only the reconstruction of our consecrated ideas of teleology? Is it compatible with our seemingly inbore conception of Nature as an ordered system? Furthermore, and above all, can the Darwinian theory itself dispense with the idea of purpose, in the ordinary sense of the word, as tantamount to design? From two opposing sides we hear the first two questions answered in the negative. And an affirmative response to the third is directly implied in the following citation: "The word purpose has been used in a sense to which it is, perhaps, worth while to call attention. Adaptation of means to an end may be provided in two ways that we at present know of: by processes of natural selection, and by the agency of an intelligence in which an image or idea of the end preceded the use of the means. In both cases the existence of the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end. It seems to me convenient to use the word purpose as meaning generally the end to which certain means are adapted, both in these two cases and in any other that may hereafter become known, provided only that the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end. And there seems no objection to the use of the phrase 'final cause' in this wider sense, if it is to be kept at all. The word 'design' might then be kept for the special case of adaptation by an intelligence. And we may then say that, since the process of natural selection has been understood, purpose has ceased to suggest design to instructed people, except in cases where the agency of man is independently probable."--P.C.W., in the Contemporary Review for September, 1875, p. 657. The distinction made by this anonymous writer is convenient and useful, and his statement clear. We propose to adopt this use of the terms purpose and design, and to examine the allegation. The latter comes to this: "Processes of natural selection" exclude "the agency of an intelligence in which the image or idea of the end precedes the use of the means;" and since the former have been understood "purpose has ceased to suggest design to instructed people, except in cases where the agency of man is independently probable." The maxim "L'homme propose, Dieu dispose," under this reading means that the former has the monopoly of design, while the latter accomplishes without designing. Man's works alone suggest design. But it is clear to us that this monopoly is shared with certain beings of inferior grade. Granting that quite possibly the capture of flies for food by Dionaea and the sundews may be attributed to purpose apart from design (if it be practicable in the last resort to maintain this now convenient distinction), still their capture by a spider's-web, and by a swallow on the wing, can hardly "cease to suggest design to instructed people." And surely, in coming at his master's call, the dog fulfills his own design as well as that of his master; and so of other actions and constructions of brute animals. Without doubt so acute a writer has a clear and sensible meaning; so we conclude that he regards brutes as automata, and was thinking of design as coextensive merely with general conceptions. Not concerning ourselves with the difficulty he may have in drawing a line between the simpler judgments and affections of man and those of the highest-endowed brutes, we subserve our immediate ends by remarking that the automatic theory would seem to be one which can least of all dispense with design, since, either in the literal or current sense of the word, undesigned automatism is, as near as may be, a contradiction in terms. As the automaton man constructs manifests the designs of its maker and mover, so the more efficient automata which man did not construct would not legitimately suggest less than human intelligence. And so all adaptations in the animal and vegetable world which irresistibly suggest purpose (in the sense now accepted) would also suggest design, and, under the law of parsimony, claim to be thus interpreted, unless some other hypothesis will better account for the facts. We will consider, presently, if any other does so. We here claim only that some beings other than men design, and that the adaptations of means to ends in the structure of animals and plants, in so far as they carry the marks of purpose, carry also the implication of having been designed. Also, that the idea or hypothesis of a designing mind, as the author of Nature--however we came by it--having possession of the field, and being one which man, himself a designer, seemingly must needs form, cannot be rivaled except by some other equally adequate for explanation, or displaced except by showing the illegitimacy of the inference. As to the latter, is the common apprehension and sense of mankind in this regard well grounded? Can we rightly reason from our own intelligence and powers to a higher or a supreme intelligence ordering and shaping the system of Nature? A very able and ingenious writer upon "The Evidences of Design in Nature," in the Westminster Review for July, 1875, maintains the negative. His article may be taken as the argument in support of the position assumed by "P.C.W.," in the Contemporary Review above cited. It opens with the admission that the orthodox view is the most simple and apparently convincing, has had for centuries the unhesitating assent of an immense majority of thinkers, and that the latest master-writer upon the subject disposed to reject it, namely, Mill, comes to the conclusion that, "in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence." It proceeds to attack not so much the evidence in favor of design as the foundation upon which the whole doctrine rests, and closes with the prediction that sooner or later the superstructure must fall. And, truly, if his reasonings are legitimate, and his conclusions just, "Science has laid the axe to the tree." "Given a set of marks which we look upon in human productions as unfailing indications of design," he asks, "is not the inference equally legitimate when we recognize these marks in Nature? To gaze on such a universe as this, to feel our hearts exult within us in the fullness of existence, and to offer in explanation of such beneficent provision no other word but Chance, seems as unthankful and iniquitous as it seems absurd. Chance produces nothing in the human sphere; nothing, at least, that can be relied upon for good. Design alone engenders harmony, consistency; and Chance not only never is the parent, but is constantly the enemy of these. How, then, can we suppose Chance to be the author of a system in which everything is as regular as clockwork? . . . The hypothesis of Chance is inadmissible." There is, then, in Nature, an order; and, in "P.C.W.'s" sense of the word, a manifest purpose. Some sort of conception as to the cause of it is inevitable, that of design first and foremost. "Why"--the Westminster Reviewer repeats the question--"why, if the marks of utility and adaptation are conclusive in the works of man, should they not be considered equally conclusive in the works of Nature?" His answer appears to us more ingenious than sound. Because, referring to Paley's watch,-- "The watch-finder is not guided solely in his inference by marks of adaptation and utility; he would recognize design in half a watch, in a mere fragment of a watch, just as surely as in a whole time-keeper . . . Two cog-wheels, grasping each other, will be thought conclusive evidence of design, quite independently of any use attaching to them. And the inference, indeed, is perfectly correct; only it is an inference, not from a mark of design, properly so called, but from a mark of human workmanship . . . No more is needed for the watch-finder, since all the works of man are, at the same time, products of design; but a great deal more is requisite for us, who are called upon by Paley to recognize design in works in which this stamp, this label of human workmanship, is wanting. The mental operation required in the one case is radically different from that performed in the other; there is no parallel, and Paley's demonstration is totally irrelevant."[XIII-2] But, surely, all human doings are not "products of design;" many are contingent or accidental. And why not suppose that the finder of the watch, or of the watch-wheel, infers both design and human workmanship? The two are mutually exclusive only on the supposition that man alone is a designer, which is simply begging the question in discussion. If the watch-finder's attention had been arrested by a different object, such as a spider's web, he would have inferred both design and non-human workmanship. Of some objects he might be uncertain whether they were of human origin or not, with-out ever doubting they were designed, while of others this might remain doubtful. Nor is man's recognition of human workmanship, or of any other, dependent upon his comprehending how it was done, or what particular ends it subserves. Such considerations make it clear that "the label of human workmanship" is not the generic stamp from which man infers design. It seems equally clear that "the mental operation required in the one case" is not so radically or materially "different from that performed in the other" as this writer would have us suppose. The judgment respecting a spider's web, or a trap-door spider's dwelling, would be the very same in this regard if it preceded, as it occasionally might, all knowledge of whether the object met with were of human or animal origin. A dam across a stream, and the appearance of the stumps of trees which entered into its formation, would suggest design quite irrespective of and antecedent to the considerable knowledge or experience which would enable the beholder to decide whether this was the work of men or of beavers. Why, then, should the judgment that any particular structure is a designed work be thought illegitimate when attributed to a higher instead of a lower intelligence than that of man? It might, indeed, be so if the supposed observer had no conception of a power and intelligence superior to his own. But it would then be more than "irrelevant;" it would be impossible, except on the supposition that the phenomena would of themselves give rise to such an inference. That it is now possible to make the inference, and, indeed, hardly possible not to make it, is sufficient warrant of its relevancy. It may, of course, be rejoined that, if this important factor is given, the inference yields no independent argument of a divine creator; and it may also be reasonably urged that the difference between things that are made under our observation and comprehension, and things that grow, but have originated beyond our comprehension, is too wide for a sure inference from the one to the other. But the present question involves neither of these. It is simply whether the argument for design from adaptations in Nature is relevant, not whether it is independent or sure. It is conceded that the argument is analogical, and the parallel incomplete. But the gist is in the points that are parallel or similar. Pulleys, valves, and suchlike elaborate mechanical adaptations, cannot differ greatly in meaning, wherever met with. The opposing argument is repeated and passed in another form: "The evidence of design afforded by the marks of adaptation in works of human competence is null and void in the case of creation itself . . . Nature is full of adaptations; but these are valueless to us as traces of design, unless we know something of the rival adaptations among which an intelligent being might have chosen. To assert that in Nature no such rival adaptations existed, and that in every case the useful function in question could be established by no other instrument but one, is simply to reason in a circle, since it is solely from what we find existing that our notions of possibility and impossibility are drawn. . . . We cannot imagine ourselves in the position of the Creator before his work began, nor examine the materials among which he had to choose, nor count the laws which limited his operations. Here all is dark, and the inference we draw from the seeming perfections of the existing instruments or means is a measure of nothing but our ignorance." But the question is not about the perfection of these adaptations, or whether others might have been instituted in their place. It is simply whether observed adaptations of intricate sorts, admirably subserving uses, do or do not legitimately suggest to one designing mind that they are the product of some other. If so, no amount of ignorance, or even inconceivability, of the conditions and mode of production could affect the validity of the inference, nor could it be affected by any misunderstanding on our part as to what the particular use or function was; a statement which would have been deemed superfluous, except for the following: "There is not an organ in our bodies but what has passed, and is still passing, through a series of different and often contradictory interpretations. Our lungs, for instance, were anciently conceived to be a kind of cooling apparatus, a refrigerator; at the close of the last century they were supposed to be a centre of combustion; and nowadays both these theories have been abandoned for a third . . . Have these changes modified in the slightest degree the supposed evidence of design?" We have not the least idea why they should. So, also, of complicated processes, such as human digestion, being replaced by other and simpler ones in lower animals, or even in certain plants. If "we argue the necessity of every adaptation solely from the fact that it exists," and that "we cannot mutilate it grossly without injury to the function," we do not "announce triumphantly that digestion is impossible in any way but this," etc., but see equal wisdom and no impugnment of design in any number of simpler adaptations accomplishing equivalent purposes in lower animals. Finally, adaptation and utility being the only marks of design in Nature which we possess, and adaptation only as subservient to usefulness, the Westminster Reviewer shows us how: "The argument from utility may be equally refuted another way. We found in our discussion of the mark of adaptation that the positive evidence of design afforded by the mechanisms of the human frame was never accompanied by the possibility of negative evidence. We regarded this as a suspicious circumstance, just as the fox, invited to attend the lion in his den, was deterred from his visit by observing that all the foottracks lay in one direction. The same suspicious circumstance warns us now. If positive evidence of design be afforded by the presence of a faculty, negative evidence of design ought to be afforded by the absence of a faculty. This, however, is not the case." [Then follows the account of a butterfly, which, from the wonderful power of the males to find the females at a great distance, is conceived to possess a sixth sense.] "Do we consider the deficiency of this sixth sense in man as the slightest evidence against design? Should we be less apt to infer creative wisdom if we had only four senses instead of five, or three instead of four? No, the case would stand precisely as it does now. We value our senses simply because we have them, and because our conception of life as we desire it is drawn from them. But to reason from such value to the origin of our endowment, to argue that our senses must have been given to us by a deity because we prize them, is evidently to move round and round in a vicious circle. "The same rejoinder is easily applicable to the argument from beauty, which indeed is only a particular aspect of the argument from utility. It is certainly improbable that a random daubing of colors on a canvas will produce a tolerable painting, even should the experiment be continued for thousands of years. Our conception of beauty being given, it is utterly improbable that chance should select, out of the infinity of combinations which form and color may afford, the precise combination which that conception will approve. But the universe is not posterior to our sense of beauty, but antecedent to it: our sense of beauty grows out of what we see; and hence the conformance of our world to our aesthetical conceptions is evidence, not of the world's origin, but of our own." We are accustomed to hear design doubted on account of certain failures of provision, waste of resources, or functionless condition of organs; but it is refreshingly new to have the very harmony itself of man with his surroundings, and the completeness of provision for his wants and desires, brought up as a refutation of the validity of the argument for design. It is hard, indeed, if man must be out of harmony with Nature in order to judge anything respecting it, or his relations with it; if he must have experience of chaos before he can predicate anything of order. But is it true that man has all that he conceives of, or thinks would be useful, and has no "negative evidence of design afforded by the absence of a faculty" to set against the positive evidence afforded by its presence? He notes that he lacks the faculty of flight, sometimes wants it, and in dreams imagines that he has it, yet as thoroughly believes that he was designed not to have it as that he was designed to have the faculties and organs which he possesses. He notes that some animals lack sight, and so, with this negative side of the testimony to the value of vision, he is "apt to infer creative wisdom" both in what he enjoys and in what the lower animal neither needs nor wants. That man does not miss that which he has no conception of, and is by this limitation disqualified from judging rightly of what he can conceive and know, is what the Westminster Reviewer comes to, as follows: "We value the constitution of our world because we live by it, and because we cannot conceive ourselves as living otherwise. Our conceptions of possibility, of law, of regularity, of logic, are all derived from the same source; and as we are constantly compelled to work with these conceptions, as in our increasing endeavors to better our condition and increase our provision we are constantly compelled to guide ourselves by Nature's regulations, we accustom ourselves to look upon these regularities and conceptions as antecedent to all work, even to a Creator's, and to judge of the origin of Nature as we judge of the origin of inventions and utilities ascribable to man. This explains why the argument of design has enjoyed such universal popularity. But that such popularity is no criterion of the argument's worth, and that, indeed, it is no evidence of anything save of an unhappy weakness in man's mental constitution, is abundantly proved by the explanation itself." Well, the constitution and condition of man being such that he always does infer design in Nature, what stronger presumption could there possibly be of the relevancy of the inference? We do not say of its correctness: that is another thing, and is not the present point. At the last, as has well been said, the whole question resolves itself into one respecting the ultimate veracity of Nature, or of the author of Nature, if there be any. Passing from these attempts to undermine the foundation of the doctrine--which we judge to be unsuccessful--we turn to the consideration of those aimed at the superstructure. Evidences of design may be relevant, but not cogent. They may, as Mill thought, preponderate, or the wavering balance may incline the other way. There are two lines of argument: one against the sufficiency, the other against the necessity, of the principle of design. Design has been denied on the ground that it squares with only one part of the facts, and fails to explain others; it may be superseded by showing that all the facts are in the way of being explained without it. The things which the principle of design does not explain are many and serious. Some are in their nature inexplicable, at least are beyond the power and province of science. Others are of matters which scientific students have to consider, and upon which they may form opinions, more or less well grounded. As to biological science--with which alone we are concerned--it is getting to be generally thought that this principle, as commonly understood, is weighted with much more than it can carry. This statement will not be thought exaggerated by those most familiar with the facts and the ideas of the age, and accustomed to look them in the face. Design is held to, no doubt, by most, and by a sure instinct; not, however, as always offering an explanation of the facts, but in spite of the failure to do so. The stumbling-blocks are various, and they lie in every path: we can allude only to one or two as specimens. Adaptation and utility are the marks of design. What, then, are organs not adapted to use marks of? Functionless organs of some sort are the heritage of almost every species. We have ways of seeming to account for them--and of late one which may really account for them--but they are unaccountable on the principle of design. Some, shutting their eyes to the difficulty, deny that we know them to be functionless, and prefer to believe they must have a use because they exist, and are more or less connected with organs which are correlated to obvious use; but only blindfolded persons care to tread the round of so narrow a circle. Of late some such abortive organs in flowers and fruits are found to have a use, though not the use of their kind. But unwavering believers in design should not trust too much to instances of this sort. There is an old adage that, if anything be kept long enough, a use will be found for it. If the following up of this line, when it comes in our way, should bring us round again to a teleological principle, it will not be one which conforms to the prevalent ideas now attacked. It is commonly said that abortive and useless organs exist for the sake of symmetry, or as parts of a plan. To say this, and stop there, is a fine instance of mere seeming to say something. For, under the principle of design, what is the sense of introducing useless parts into a useful organism, and what shadow of explanation does "symmetry" give? To go further and explain the cause of the symmetry and how abortive organs came to be, is more to the purpose, but it introduces quite another principle than that of design. The difficulty recurs in a somewhat different form when an organ is useful and of exquisite perfection in some species, but functionless in another. An organ, such as an eye, strikes us by its exquisite and, as we may, perfect adaptation and utility in some animal; it is found repeated, still useful but destitute of many of its adaptations, in some animal of lower grade; in some one lower still it is rudimentary and useless. It is asked, If the first was so created for its obvious and actual use, and the second for such use as it has, what was the design of the third? One more case, in which use after all is well subserved, we cite from the article already much quoted from: "It is well known that certain fishes (Pleuronecta) display the singularity of having both eyes on the same side of their head, one eye being placed a little higher than the other. This arrangement has its utility; for the Pleuronecta, swimming on their side quite near the bottom of the sea, have little occasion for their eyesight except to observe what is going on above them. But the detail to which we would call notice is, that the original position of the eyes is symmetrical in these fishes, and that it is only at a certain point of their development that the anomaly is manifested, one of the eyes passing to the other side of the head. It is almost inconceivable that an intelligent being should have selected such an arrangement; and that, intending the eyes to be used only on one side of the head, he should have placed them originally on different sides." Then the waste of being is enormous, far beyond the common apprehension. Seeds, eggs, and other germs, are designed to be plants and animals, but not one of a thousand or of a million achieves its destiny. Those that fall into fitting places and in fitting numbers find beneficent provision, and, if they were to wake to consciousness, might argue design from the adaptation of their surroundings to their well-being. But what of the vast majority that perish? As of the light of the sun, sent forth in all directions, only a minute portion is intercepted by the earth or other planets where some of it may be utilized for present or future life, so of potential organisms, or organisms begun, no larger proportion attain the presumed end of their creation. "Destruction, therefore, is the rule; life is the exception. We notice chiefly the exception--namely, the lucky prize-winner in the lottery-- and take but little thought about the losers, who vanish from our field of observation, and whose number it is often impossible to estimate. But, in this question of design, the losers are important witnesses. If the maxim 'audi alteram partem' is applicable anywhere, it is applicable here. We must hear both sides, and the testimony of the seed fallen on good ground must be corrected by the testimony of that which falls by the wayside, or on the rocks. When we find, as we have seen above, that the sowing is a scattering at random, and that, for one being provided for and living, ten thousand perish unprovided for, we must allow that the existing order would be accounted as the worst disorder in any human sphere of action." It is urged, moreover, that all this and much more applies equally to the past stages of our earth and its immensely long and varied succession of former inhabitants, different from, yet intimately connected with, the present. It is not one specific creation that the question has to deal with--as was thought not very many years ago--but a series of creations through countless ages, and of which the beginning is unknown. These references touch a few out of many points, and merely allude to some of the difficulties which the unheeding pass by, but which, when brought before the mind, are seen to be stupendous. Somewhat may be justly, or at least plausibly, said in reply to all this from the ordinary standpoint, but probably not to much effect. There were always insuperable difficulties, which, when they seemed to be few, might be regarded as exceptional; but, as they increase in number and variety, they seem to fall into a system. No doubt we may still insist that, "in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence," as Mill concluded; and probability must needs be the guide of reason through these dark places. Still, the balancing of irreconcilable facts is not a satisfying occupation, nor a wholly hopeful one, while fresh weights are from time to time dropping into the lighter side of the balance. Strong as our convictions are, they may be overborne by evidence. We cannot rival the fabled woman of Ephesus, who, beginning by carrying her calf from the day of its birth, was still able to do so when it became an ox. The burden which our fathers carried comfortably, with some adventitious help, has become too heavy for our shoulders. Seriously, there must be something wrong in the position, some baleful error mixed with the truth, to which this contradiction of our inmost convictions may be attributed. The error, as we suppose, lies in the combination of the principle of design with the hypothesis of the immutability and isolated creation of species. The latter hypothesis, in its nature un-provable, has, on scientific grounds, become so far improbable that few, even of the anti-Darwinian naturalists, now hold to it; and, whatever may once have been its religious claims, it is at present a hinderance rather than a help to any just and consistent teleology. By the adoption of the Darwinian hypothesis, or something like it, which we incline to favor, many of the difficulties are obviated, and others diminished. In the comprehensive and far-reaching teleology which may take the place of the former narrow conceptions, organs and even faculties, useless to the individual, find their explanation and reason of being. Either they have done service in the past, or they may do service in the future. They may have been essentially useful in one way in a past species, and, though now functionless, they may be turned to useful account in some very different way hereafter. In botany several cases come to our mind which suggest such interpretation. Under this view, moreover, waste of life and material in organic Nature ceases to be utterly inexplicable, because it ceases to be objectless. It is seen to be a part of the general "economy of Nature," a phrase which has a real meaning. One good illustration of it is furnished by the pollen of flowers. The seeming waste of this in a pine-forest is enormous. It gives rise to the so-called "showers of sulphur," which every one has heard of. Myriads upon myriads of pollen-grains (each an elaborate organic structure) are wastefully dispersed by the winds to one which reaches a female flower and fertilizes a seed. Contrast this with one of the close-fertilized flowers of a violet, in which there are not many times more grains of pollen produced than there are of seeds to be fertilized; or with an orchis-flower, in which the proportion is not widely different. These latter are certainly the more economical; but there is reason to believe that the former arrangement is not wasteful. The plan in the violet-flower assures the result with the greatest possible saving of material and action; but this result, being close-fertilization or breeding in and in, would, without much doubt, in the course of time, defeat the very object of having seeds at all.[XIII-3] So the same plant produces other flowers also, provided with a large surplus of pollen, and endowed (as the others are not) with color, fragrance, and nectar, attractive to certain insects, which are thereby induced to convey this pollen from blossom to blossom, that it may fulfill its office. In such blossoms, and in the great majority of flowers, the fertilization and consequent perpetuity of which are committed to insects, the likelihood that much pollen may be left behind or lost in the transit is sufficient reason for the apparent superfluity. So, too, the greater economy in orchis-flowers is accounted for by the fact that the pollen is packed in coherent masses, all attached to a common stalk, the end of which is expanded into a sort of button, with a glutinous adhesive face (like a bit of sticking-plaster), and this is placed exactly where the head of a moth or butterfly will be pressed against it when it sucks nectar from the flower, and so the pollen will be bodily conveyed from blossom to blossom, with small chance of waste or loss. The floral world is full of such contrivances; and while they exist the doctrine of purpose or final cause is not likely to die out. Now, in the contrasted case, that of pine-trees, the vast superabundance of pollen would be sheer waste if the intention was to fertilize the seeds of the same tree, or if there were any provision for insect-carriage; but with wide-breeding as the end, and the wind which "bloweth where it listeth" as the means, no one is entitled to declare that pine-pollen is in wasteful excess. The cheapness of wind-carriage may be set against the overproduction of pollen. Similar considerations may apply to the mould-fungi and other very low organisms, with spores dispersed through the air in countless myriads, but of which only an infinitesimal portion find opportunity for development. The myriads perish. The exceptional one, falling into a fit medium, is imagined by the Westminster Reviewer to argue design from the beneficial provision it finds itself enjoying, in happy ignorance of the perishing or latent multitude. But, in view of the large and important part they play (as the producers of all fermentation and as the omnipresent scavenger-police of Nature), no good ground appears for arguing either wasteful excess or absence of design from the vast disparity between their potential and their actual numbers. The reserve and the active members of the force should both be counted in, ready as they always and everywhere are for service. Considering their ubiquity, persistent vitality, and promptitude of action upon fitting occasion, the suggestion would rather be that, while ". . . thousands at His bidding speed, And post o'er land and ocean without rest, They also serve [which] only stand and wait." Finally, Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes. It not only accounts for them, but turns them to practical account. It explains the seeming waste as being part and parcel of a great economical process. Without the competing multitude, no struggle for life; and without this, no natural selection and survival of the fittest, no continuous adaptation to changing surroundings, no diversification and improvement, leading from lower up to higher and nobler forms. So the most puzzling things of all to the old-school teleologists are the principia of the Darwinian. In this system the forms and species, in all their variety, are not mere ends in themselves, but the whole a series of means and ends, in the contemplation of which we may obtain higher and more comprehensive, and perhaps worthier, as well as more consistent, views of design in Nature than heretofore. At least, it would appear that in Darwinian evolution we may have a theory that accords with if it does not explain the principal facts, and a teleology that is free from the common objections. But is it a teleology, or rather--to use the new-fangled term--a dysteleology? That depends upon how it is held. Darwinian evolution (whatever may be said of other kinds) is neither theistical nor nontheistical. Its relations to the question of design belong to the natural theologian, or, in the larger sense, to the philosopher. So long as the world lasts it will probably be open to any one to hold consistently, in the last resort, either of the two hypotheses, that of a divine mind, or that of no divine mind. There is no way that we know of C by which the alternative may be excluded. Viewed philosophically, the question only is, Which is the better supported hypothesis of the two? We have only to say that the Darwinian system, as we understand it, coincides well with the theistic view of Nature. It not only acknowledges purpose (in the Contemporary Reviewer's sense), but builds upon it; and if purpose in this sense does not of itself imply design, it is certainly compatible with it, and suggestive of it. Difficult as it may be to conceive and impossible to demonstrate design in a whole of which the series of parts appear to be contingent, the alternative may be yet more difficult and less satisfactory. If all Nature is of a piece--as modern physical philosophy insists-- then it seems clear that design must in some way, and in some sense, pervade the system, or be wholly absent from it. Of the alternatives, the predication of design--special, general, or universal, as the case may be--is most natural to the mind; while the exclusion of it throughout, because some utilities may happen, many adaptations may be contingent results, and no organic maladaptations could continue, runs counter to such analogies as we have to guide us, and leads to a conclusion which few men ever rested in. It need not much trouble us that we are incapable of drawing clear lines of demarkation between mere utilities, contingent adaptations, and designed contrivances in Nature; for we are in much the same condition as respects human affairs and those of lower animals. What results are comprehended in a plan, and what are incidental, is often more than we can readily determine in matters open to observation. And in plans executed mediately or indirectly, and for ends comprehensive and far-reaching, many purposed steps must appear to us incidental or meaningless. But the higher the intelligence, the more fully will the incidents enter into the plan, and the more universal and interconnected may the ends be. Trite as the remark is, it would seem still needful to insist that the failure of a finite being to compass the designs of an infinite mind should not invalidate its conclusions respecting proximate ends which he can understand. It is just as in physical science, where, as our knowledge and grasp increase, and happy discoveries are made, wider generalizations are formed, which commonly comprehend, rather than destroy, the earlier and partial ones. So, too, the "sterility" of the old doctrine of final causes in science, and the presumptuous uses made of them, when it was supposed that every adapted arrangement or structure existed for this or that direct and special end, and for no other, can hardly be pressed to the conclusion that there are no final causes, i.e., ultimate reasons of things.[XIII-4] Design in Nature is distinguished from that in human affairs--as it fittingly should be--by all comprehensiveness and system. Its theological synonym is Providence. Its application in particular is surrounded by similar insoluble difficulties; nevertheless, both are bound up with theism. Probably few at the present day will maintain that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with the principle of design; but some insist that the theory can dispense with, and in fact supersedes, this principle. The Westminster Reviewer cleverly expounds how it does so. The exposition is too long to quote, and an abstract is unnecessary, for the argument adverse to design is, as usual, a mere summation or illustration of the facts and assumptions of the hypothesis itself, by us freely admitted. Simplest forms began; variations occurred among them; under the competition consequent upon the arithmetical or geometrical progression in numbers, only the fittest for the conditions survive and propagate, vary further, and are similarly selected; and so on. "Progress having once begun by the establishment of species, the laws of atavism and variability will suffice to tell the remainder of the story. The colonies gifted with the faculty of forming others in their likeness will soon by their increase become sole masters of the field; but the common enemy being thus destroyed, the struggle for life will be renewed among the conquerors. The saying that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand,' receives in Nature its flattest contradiction. Civil war is here the very instrument of progress; it brings about the survival of the fittest. Original differences in the cell-colonies, however slight, will bring about differences of life and action; the latter, continued through successive generations, will widen the original differences of structure; innumerable species will thus spring up, branching forth in every direction from the original stock; and the competition of these species among each other for the ground they occupy, or the food they seek, will bring out and develop the powers of the rivals. One chief cause of superiority will lie in the division of labor instituted by each colony; or, in other words, in the localization of the colony's functions. In the primitive associations (as in the lowest organisms existing now), each cell performed much the same work as its neighbor, and the functions necessary to the existence of the whole (alimentation, digestion, respiration, etc.) were exercised by every colonist in his own behalf. Social life, however, acting upon the cells as it acts upon the members of a human family, soon created differences among them--differences ever deepened by continuance, and which, by narrowing the limits of each colonist's activity, and increasing his dependence on the rest, rendered him fitter for his special task. Each function was thus gradually monopolized; but it came to be the appanage of a single group of cells, or organ; and so excellent did this arrangement prove, so greatly were the powers of each commonwealth enhanced by the division of its labor, that the more organs a colony possessed, the more likely it was to succeed in its struggle for life. . . We shall go no further, for the reader will easily fill out the remainder of the picture for himself. Man is but an immense colony of cells, in which the division of labor, together with the centralization of the nervous system, has reached its highest limit. It is chiefly to this that his superiority is due; a superiority so great, as regards certain functions of the brain, that he may be excused for having denied his humbler relatives, and dreamed that, standing alone in the centre of the universe, sun, moon, and stars, were made for him." Let us learn from the same writer how both eyes of the flounder get, quite unintentionally, on the same side of the head. The writer makes much of this case (see p. 306), and we are not disposed to pass it by: "A similar application may be made to the Pleuronecta. Presumably, these fishes had adopted their peculiar mode of swimming long before the position of their eyes became adapted to it. A spontaneous variation occurred, consisting in the passage of one eye to the opposite side of the head; and this variation afforded its possessors such increased facilities of sight that in the course of time the exception became the rule. But the remarkable point is, that the law of heredity not only preserved the variation itself, but the date of its occurrence; and that, although for thousands of years the adult Pleuronecta have had both eyes on the same side, the young still continue during their earlier development to exhibit the contrary arrangement, just as if the variation still occurred spontaneously." Here a wonderful and one would say unaccountable transference takes place in a short time. As Steenstrup showed, one eye actually passes through the head while the young fish is growing. We ask how this comes about; and we are told, truly enough, that it takes place in each generation because it did so in the parents and in the whole line of ancestors. Why offspring should be like parent is more than any one can explain; but so it is, in a manner so nearly fixed and settled that we can count on it; yet not from any absolute necessity that we know of, and, indeed, with sufficiently striking difference now and then to demonstrate that it might have been otherwise, or is so in a notable degree. This transference of one eye through the head, from the side where it would be nearly useless to that in which it may help the other, bears all the marks of purpose, and so carries the implication of design. The case is adduced as part of the evidence that Darwinian evolution supersedes design. But how? Not certainly in the way this goes on from generation to generation; therefore, doubtless in the way it began. So we look for the explanation of how it came about at the first unintentionally or accidentally; how, under known or supposed conditions, it must have happened, or at least was likely to happen. And we read, "A spontaneous variation occurred, consisting in the passage of one eye to the opposite side of the head." That is all; and we suppose there is nothing more to be said. In short, this surprising thing was undesigned because it took place, and has taken place ever since! The writer presumes, moreover (but this is an obiter dictum), that the peculiarity originated long after flounders had fixed the habit of swimming on one side (and in this particular case it is rather difficult to see how the two may have gone on pari passu), and so he cuts away all obvious occasion for the alteration through the summation of slight variations in one direction, each bringing some advantage. This is a strongly-marked case; but its features, although unusually prominent, are like those of the general run of the considerations by which evolution is supposed to exclude design. Those of the penultimate citation and its context are all of the same stamp. The differences which begin as variations are said to be spontaneous--a metaphorical word of wide meanings--are inferred to be casual (whereas we only know them to be occult), or to be originated by surrounding agencies (which is not in a just sense true); they are legitimately inferred to be led on by natural selection, wholly new structures or organs appear, no one can say how, certainly no one can show that they are necessary outcomes of what preceded; and these two are through natural selection kept in harmony with the surroundings, adapted to different ones, diversified, and perfected; purposes are all along subserved through exquisite adaptations; and yet the whole is thought to be undesigned, not because of any assigned reason why this or that must have been thus or so, but simply because they all occurred in Nature! The Darwinian theory implies that the birth and development of a species are as natural as those of an individual, are facts of the same kind in a higher order. The alleged proof of the absence of design from it amounts to a simple reiteration of the statement, with particulars. Now, the marks of contrivance in the structure of animals used not to be questioned because of their coming in the way of birth and development. It is curious that a further extension of this birth and development should be held to disprove them. It appears to us that all this is begging the question against design in Nature, instead of proving that it may be dispensed with. Two things have helped on this confusion. One is the notion of the direct and independent creation of species, with only an ideal connection between them, to question which was thought to question the principle of design. The other is a wrong idea of the nature and province of natural selection. In former papers we have over and over explained the Darwinian doctrine in this respect. It may be briefly illustrated thus: Natural selection is not the wind which propels the vessel, but the rudder which, by friction, now on this side and now on that, shapes the course. The rudder acts while the vessel is in motion, effects nothing when it is at rest. Variation answers to the wind: "Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell when it cometh and whither it goeth." Its course is controlled by natural selection, the action of which, at any given moment, is seemingly small or insensible; but the ultimate results are great. This proceeds mainly through outward influences. But we are more and more convinced that variation, and therefore the ground of adaptation, is not a product of, but a response to, the action of the environment. Variations, in other words, the differences between individual plants and animals, however originated, are evidently not from without but from within--not physical but physiological. We cannot here assign particularly the reasons for this opinion. But we notice that the way in which varieties make their appearance strongly suggests it. The variations of plants which spring up in a seed-bed, for instance, seem to be in no assignable relation to the external conditions. They arise, as we say, spontaneously, and either with decided characters from the first, or with obvious tendencies in one or few directions. The occult power, whatever it be, does not seem in any given case to act vaguely, producing all sorts of variations from a common centre, to be reduced by the struggle for life to fewness and the appearance of order; there are, rather, orderly indications from the first. The variations of which we speak, as originating in no obvious casual relation to the external conditions, do not include dwarfed or starved, and gigantesque or luxuriant forms, and those drawn up or expanded on the one hand, or contracted and hardened on the other, by the direct difference in the supply of food and moisture, light and heat. Here the action of the environment is both obvious and direct. But such cases do not account for much in evolution. Moreover, while we see how the mere struggle and interplay among occurring forms may improve them and lead them on, we cannot well imagine how the adaptations which arrest our attention are thereby secured. Our difficulty, let it be understood, is not about the natural origination of organs. To the triumphant outcry, "How can an organ, such as an eye, be formed under Nature?" we would respond with a parallel question, How can a complex and elaborate organ, such as a nettle-sting, be formed under Nature? But it is so formed. In the same species some individuals have these exquisitely-constructed organs and some have not. And so of other glands, the structure and adaptation of which, when looked into, appear to be as wonderful as anything in Nature. The impossibility lies in conceiving how the obvious purpose was effectuated under natural selection alone. This, under our view, any amount of gradation in a series of forms goes a small way in explaining. The transit of a young flounder's eye across the head is a capital instance of a wonderful thing done under Nature, and done unaccountably. But simpler correlations are involved in similar difficulty. The superabundance of the pollen of pine-trees above referred to, and in oak-trees, is correlated with chance fertilization under the winds. In the analogous instance of willows a diminished amount of pollen is correlated with direct transportation by insects. Even in so simple a case as this it is not easy to see how this difference in the conveyance would reduce the quantity of pollen produced. It is, we know, in the very alphabet of Darwinism that if a male willow-tree should produce a smaller amount of pollen, and if this pollen communicated to the offspring of the female flowers it fertilized a similar tendency (as it might), this male progeny would secure whatever advantage might come from the saving of a certain amount of work and material; but why should it begin to produce less pollen? But this is as nothing compared with the arrangements in orchid-flowers, where new and peculiar structures are introduced--structures which, once originated and then set into variation, may thereupon be selected, and thereby led on to improvement and diversification. But the origination, and even the variation, still remains unexplained either by the action of insects or by any of the processes which collectively are personified by the term natural selection. We really believe that these exquisite adaptations have come to pass in the course of Nature, and under natural selection, but not that natural selection alone explains or in a just sense originates them. Or rather, if this term is to stand for sufficient cause and rational explanation, it must denote or include that inscrutable something which produces--as well as that which results in the survival of--"the fittest." We have been considering this class of questions only as a naturalist might who sought for the proper or reasonable interpretation of the problem before him, unmingled with considerations from any other source. Weightier arguments in the last resort, drawn from the intellectual and moral constitution of man, lie on a higher plane, to which it was unnecessary for our particular purpose to rise, however indispensable this be to a full presentation of the evidence of mind in Nature. To us the evidence, judged as impartially as we are capable of judging, appears convincing. But, whatever view one unconvinced may take, it cannot remain doubtful what position a theist ought to occupy. If he cannot recognize design in Nature because of evolution, he may be ranked with those of whom it was said, "Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe." How strange that a convinced theist should be so prone to associate design only with miracle! All turns, however, upon what is meant by this Nature, to which it appears more and more probable that the being and becoming--no less than the well-being and succession--of species and genera, as well as of individuals, are committed. To us it means "the world of force and movement in time and space," as Aristotle defined it--the system and totality of things in the visible universe. What is generally called Nature Prof. Tyndall names matter--a peculiar nomenclature, requiring new definitions (as he avers), inviting misunderstanding, and leaving the questions we are concerned with just where they were. For it is still to ask: whence this rich endowment of matter? Whence comes that of which all we see and know is the outcome? That to which potency may in the last resort be ascribed, Prof. Tyndall, suspending further judgment, calls mystery--using the word in one of its senses, namely, something hidden from us which we are not to seek to know. But there are also mysteries proper to be inquired into and to be reasoned about; and, although it may not be given unto us to know the mystery of causation, there can hardly be a more legitimate subject of philosophical inquiry. Most scientific men have thought themselves intellectually authorized to have an opinion about it. "For, by the primitive and very ancient men, it has been handed down in the form of myths, and thus left to later generations, that the Divine it is which holds together all Nature;" and this tradition, of which Aristotle, both naturalist and philosopher, thus nobly speaks[XIII-5]--continued through succeeding ages, and illuminated by the Light which has come into the world--may still express the worthiest thoughts of the modern scientific investigator and reasoner. FOOTNOTES: I-1. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," by Charles Darwin, M.A., Fellow of the Royal, Geological, Linnaean, etc., Societies, Author of "Journal of Researches during H. M. S. Beagle's Voyage round the World." London: John Murray. 1859. 502 pp., post 8vo. I-2. Article in this Journal, vol. xxiv., p. 305. I-3. "Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Infinitum Ens; quae formae secundum generationis inditas leges, produxere plures, at sibi semper similes."--Linn. Phil. Bot., 99, 157. I-4. Agassiz, "Essay on Classification; Contributions to Natural History," p. 132, et seq. I-5. As to this, Darwin remarks that he can only hope to see the law hereafter proved true (p. 449); and p. 338: "Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. I must follow Pictet and Huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved. Yet I fully expect to see it hereafter confirmed, at least in regard to subordinate groups, which have branched off from each other within comparatively recent times. For this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection." I-6. Op. cit., p. 131.--One or two Bridgewater Treatises, and most modern works upon natural theology, should have rendered the evidences of thought in inorganic Nature not "unexpected." I-7. Volume xvii. (2), 1854, p. 13. I-8. We suspect that this is not an ultimate fact, but a natural consequence of inheritance--the inheritance of disease or of tendency to disease, which close interbreeding perpetuates and accumulates, but wide breeding may neutralize or eliminate. I-9. The rules and processes of breeders of animals, and their results, are so familiar that they need not be particularized. Less is popularly known about the production of vegetable races. We refer our readers back to this Journal, vol. xxvii., pp. 440--442 (May, 1859), for an abstract of the papers of M. Vilmorin upon this subject. I-10. Quadrupeds of America," vol. ii., p. 239. I-11. "Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences," vol. iv., p. 178. I-12. Owen adds a third, viz., vegetative repetition; but this, in the vegetable kingdom, is simply unity of type. I-13. "Contributions to Natural History of America," vol. i., pp. 127--131. I-14. Op. cit., p. 130. II-1. To parry an adversary's thrust at a vulnerable part, or to show that it need not be fatal, is an incomplete defense. If the discussion had gone on, it might, perhaps, have been made to appear that the Darwinian hypothesis, so far from involving the idea of necessity (except in the sense that everything is of necessity), was based upon the opposite idea, that of contingency. III-1. Vide "Proceedings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science," 1859, and London Athenoeum, passim. It appears to be conceded that these "celts" or stone knives are artificial productions, and apparently of the age of the mammoth, the fossil rhinoceros, etc. III-2. See "Correspondence of M. Nickles," in American Journal of Science and Arts, for March, 1860. III-3. See Morlot, "Some General Views on Archaeology," in American Journal of Science and Arts, for January, 186o, translated from "Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise," 1859. III-4. Page 484, English edition. In the new American edition (vide Supplement, pp. 431, 432) the principal analogies which suggest the extreme view are referred to, and the remark is appended: "But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy, and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted. The case is different with the members of each great class, as the Vertebrata or Articulata; for here we have in the laws of homology, embryology, etc., some distinct evidence that all have descended from a single primordial parent." III-5. In Bibliotheque Universelle de Geneve, March, 1860. III-6. This we learn from his very interesting article, "De la Question de l'Homme Fossile," in the same (March) number of the Biblioteque Universelle. (See, also, the same author's "Note sur la Periode Quaternaire ou Diluvienne, consideree dans ses Rapports avec l'Epoque Actuelle," in the number for August, 1860, of the same periodical.) III-7. In Comptes Rendus, Academie des Sciences, February 2, 1857. III-8. Whatever it may be, it is not "the homoeopathic form of the transmutative hypothesis," as Darwin's is said to be (p. 252, American reprint), so happily that the prescription is repeated in the second (p. 259) and third (p. 271) dilutions, no doubt, on Hahnemann's famous principle, of an increase of potency at each dilution. Probably the supposed transmutation is per saltus. "Homoeopathic doses of transmutation," indeed! Well, if we really must swallow transmutation in some form or other, as this reviewer intimates, we might prefer the mild homoeopathic doses of Darwin's formula to the allopathic bolus which the Edinburgh general practitioner appears to be compounding. III-9. Vide North American Review, for April, 1860, p. 475, and Christian Examiner, for May, p. 457. III-10. Page 188, English edition. III-11. In American Journal of Science, July, 1860, pp. 147--149. III-12. In "Contributions to the Natural History of the United States," vol. i., p.128, 129. III-13. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States," vol. 1, p. 130; and American Journal of Science, July, 1860, p. 143. III-14. North American Review for April 1860, p. 506. III-15. Vide motto from Butler, prefixed to the second edition of Darwin's work. III-16. North American Review, loc. cit., p. 504. III-17. North American Review, loc. cit., p. 487, et passim. III-18. In American Journal of Science, July, 1860, p. 143. III-19. Vide article by Mr. C. Wright, in the Mathematical Monthly for May last. III-20. Vide Edinburgh Review for January, 1860, article on "Acclimatization," etc. III-21. American Journal of Science, July, 1860, p. 146. IV-1. A name which, at the close of his article, De Candolle proposes for the study of the succession of organized beings, to comprehend, therefore, palaeontology and all included under what is called geographical botany and zoology--the whole forming a science parallel to geology--the latter devoted to the history of unorganized bodies, the former, to that of organized beings, as respects origin, distribution, and succession. We are not satisfied with the word, notwithstanding the precedent of palaeontology; since ontology, the Science of being, has an established meaning as referring to mental existence--i.e., is a synonym for a department of metaphysics. IV-2. Natural History Review, January, 1862 IV-3. What the Rev. Principal Tulloch remarks in respect to the philosophy of miracles has a pertinent application here. We quote at second hand: "The stoutest advocates of interference can mean nothing more than that the Supreme Will has so moved the hidden springs of Nature that a new issue arises on given circumstances. The ordinary issue is supplanted by a higher issue. The essential facts before us are a certain set of phenomena, and a Higher Will moving them. How moving them? is a question for human definition; the answer to which does not and cannot affect the divine meaning of the change. Yet when we reflect that this Higher Will is every. where reason and wisdom, it seems a juster as well as a more comprehensive view to regard it as operating by subordination and evolution, rather than by interference or violation." IV-4. Particularly citing Flourens: "La ressemblance n'est qu'une condition secondaire; la condition essentielle est la descendance: ce n'est pas la ressemblance, c'est la succession des individus, qui fait l'espece." V-1. The phrase "Atlantic United States" is here used throughout in contradistinction to Pacific United States: to the former of course belong, botanically and geographically, the valley of the Mississippi and its tributaries up to the eastern border of the great woodless plains, which constitute an intermediate region. V-2. The tabulated list referred to was printed as an appendix to the official edition of this discourse, but is here omitted. V-3. American Journal of Science, 1867, p. 402; "Proceedings of American Academy," vol. viii., p. 244. V-4. "Memoirs of American Academy," vol. vi., pp. 377--458 (1859) V-5. Die vegetation der erde nach ihrer kilmatischen Anordnung," 1871. V-6. Reference should also be made to the extensive researches of Newberry upon the tertiary and cretaceous floras of the Western United States. See especially Prof. Newberry's paper in the Boston Journal of Natural History, vol. vii., No. 4, describing fossil plants of Vancouver's Island, etc.; his "Notes on the Later Extinct Floras of North America," etc., in "Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History," vol. ix., April, 1868; "Report on the Cretaceous and Tertiary Plants collected in Raynolds and Hayden's Yellowstone and Missouri Exploring Expedition, 1859--1860," published in 1869; and an interesting article entitled "The Ancient Lakes of Western America, their Deposits and Drainage," published in The American Naturalist, January, 1871. The only document I was able to consult was Lesquereux's "Report on the Fossil Plants," in Hayden's report of 1872. V-7. There is, at least, one instance so opportune to the present argument that it should not pass unnoticed, although I had overlooked the record until now. Onoclea sensibilis is a fern peculiar to the Atlantic United States (where it is common and wide-spread) and to Japan. Prof. Newberry identified it several years ago in a collection, obtained by Dr. Hayden, of miocene fossil plants of Dakota Territory, which is far beyond its present habitat. He moreover regards it as probably identical with a fossil specimen "described by the late Prof. E. Forbes, under the name of Filicites Hebridicus, and obtained by the Duke of Argyll from the island of Mull." V-8. "Darwinism in Morals," in Theological Review, April, 1871. VI-1. "Histoire des Sciences et des Sevants depuis deux Siecles, suivie d'autres etudes sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la Selection dans 1'Espèce Humaine, par Alphonse De Candolle." Geneve: H. Georg. 1873. "Addresses of George Bentham, President, read at the anniversary meetings of the Linnaean Society, 1862--1873." "Notes on the Classification, History, and Geographical Distribution of Compositae. By George Bentham." Separate issue from the Journal of the Linnean Society. Vol. XIII. London. 1873. "On Palaeontological Evidence of Gradual Modification of Animal Forms, read at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, April 25, 1873. By Prof. W.H. Flower." (Journal of the Royal Institution, pp. 11.) "The Distribution and Migration of Birds. Memoir presented to the National Academy of Sciences, January, 1865, abstracted in the American Journal of Science and the Arts. 1866, etc. By Spencer F. Baird." "The Story of the Earth and Man. By J.W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Montreal. London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: Harper & Brothers. 1873. Pp. 403, 12mo. VI-2. Since this article was in type, noteworthy examples of appreciative scientific judgment of the derivative hypothesis have come to hand: 1. In the opening address to the Geological Section of the British Association, at its recent meeting, by its president, the veteran Phillips, perhaps the oldest surviving geologist after Lyell; and, 2. That of Prof. Allman, President of the Biological Section. The first touches the subject briefly, but in the way of favorable suggestion; the second is a full and discriminating exposition of the reasons which seem to assure at least the provisional acceptance of the hypothesis, as a guide in all biological studies, "a key to the order and hidden forces of the world of life." VII-1. "The Theory of Evolution of Living Things, and the Application of the Principles of Evolution to Religion, considered as illustrative of the 'Wisdom and Beneficence of the Almighty.' By the Rev. George Henslow, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., etc." New York: Macmillan & Co. 1873. 12mo, pp. 220. "Systematic Theology. By Charles Hodge, D.D., Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. Vol. ii. (Part II, Anthropology.") New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1872. "Religion and Science: A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Relation of Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths Revealed in Nature and Scripture. By Joseph Le Conte, Professor of Geology and Natural History in the University of California." New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874. 12mo, pp. 324. VII-2. "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-- we can perceive that events are brought about, not by insulated interpositions of divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.--Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise. "The only distinct meaning of the world 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so--i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."--Butler's Analogy. VIII-1. "What Is Darwinism? By Charles Hodge, Princeton, N.J." New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1874. "The Doctrine of Evolution. By Alexander Winchell, LL.D., etc. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874. "Darwinism and Design; or, Creation by Evolution. By George St. Clair." London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1873. "Westminster Sermons. By the Rev. Charles Kingsley, F.L.S., F.G.S., Canon of Westminster, etc." London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1874. VIII-2. These two postulate-mottoes are quoted in full in a previous article, in No. 446 of The Nation. XI-1. "Insectivorous Plants. By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S." With Illustrations. London: John Murray. 1875. Pp. 462. New York: D. Appleton & Co. "The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants. By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S., etc." Second Edition, revised, with Illustrations. London: John Murray. 1875. Pp. 208. New York: D. Appleton & Co. XI-2. The Nation, Nos. 457, 458, 1874. It was in these somewhat light and desultory, but substantially serious, articles that some account of Mr. Darwin's observations upon the digestive powers of Drosera and Dionaea first appeared; in fact, their leading motive was to make sufficient reference to his then unpublished discoveries to guard against expected or possible claims to priority. Dr. Burdon-Sanderson's lecture, and the report in Nature, which first made them known in England, appeared later. A mistake on our part in the reading of a somewhat ambiguous sentence in a letter led to the remark, at the close of the first of those articles, that the leaf-trap of Dionaea had been paralyzed on one side in consequence of a dexterous puncture. What was communicated really related to Drosera. XI-3. A. Gray, in "Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences," vol. iv., p. 98; and American Journal of Science and the Arts, March, 1859, p. 278. XII-1. "Les Especes affines et la Theorie de l'Evolution," par Charles Naudin, Membre de l'Institut, in Bulletin de la Societe Botanique de France, tome xxi., pp. 240-272, 1874. See also Comptes Rendus, September 27 and October 4, 1875, reproduced in "Annales des Sciences Naturelles," 1876, pp. 73-81. XII-2. In noticing M. Naudin's paper in the Comptes Rendus, now reprinted in the "Annales des Sciences Naturelles," entitled "Variation desordonnee des Plantes Hybrides et Deductions qu'on peut en tirer," we were at a loss to conceive why he attributed all present variation of species to atavism, i.e., to the reappearance of ancestral characters (American Journal of Science, February, 1876). His anterior paper was not then known to us; from which it now appears that this view comes in as a part of the hypothesis of extreme plasticity and variability at the first, subsiding at length into entire fixity and persistence of character. According to which, it is assumed that the species of our time have lost all power of original variation, but can still reproduce some old ones--some reminiscences, as it were, of youthful vagaries--in the way of atavism. XIII-1. London, 1862. XIII-2. Hume, in his "Essays," anticipated this argument. But he did not rest on it. His matured convictions appear to be expressed in statements such as the following, here cited at second hand from Jackson's "Philosophy of Natural Theology," a volume to which a friend has just called our attention: "Though the stupidity of men," writes Hume, "barbarous and uninstructed, be so great that they may not see a sovereign author in the more obvious works of Nature, to which they are so much familiarized, yet it scarce seems possible that any one of good understanding should reject that idea, when once it is suggested to him. A purpose, an intention, a design, is evident in everything; and when our comprehension is so far enlarged as to contemplate the first rise of this visible system, we must adopt, with the strongest conviction, the idea of some intelligent cause or author. The uniform maxims, too, which prevail throughout the whole frame of the universe, naturally, if not necessarily, lead us to conceive this intelligence as single and undivided, where the prejudices of education oppose not so reasonable a theory. Even the contrarieties of Nature, by discovering themselves everywhere, become proofs of some consistent plan, and establish one single purpose or intention, however inexplicable and incomprehensible."---("Natural History of Religion," xv.) "In many views of the universe, and of its parts, particularly the latter, the beauty and fitness of final causes strike us with such irresistible force that all objections appear (what I believe they really are) mere cavils and sophisms."-- ("Dialogues concerning Natural Religion," Part X.) "The order and arrangement of Nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and intention of every part and organ, all these bespeak in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author."--(Ibid., Part IV.) XIII-3. See Section I, Chapter 12. XIII-4. "No single and limited good can be assigned by us as the final cause of any contrivance in Nature. The real final cause . . . is the sum of all the uses to which it is ever to be put. Any use to which a contrivance of Nature is put, we may be sure, is a part of its final cause."--(G. F. Wright, in The New-Englander, October, 1871.) XIII-5. "No single and limited good can be assigned by us as the final cause of any contrivance in Nature. The real final cause . . . is the sum of all the uses to which it is ever to be put. Any use to which a contrivance of Nature is put, we may be sure, is a part of its final cause."--(G. F. Wright, in The New-Englander, October, 1871.) 
6919	----	Branko Collin, Carlo Traverso, Charles Franks and the Distributed Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr. Thomas Henry Huxley Collected Essays (1893-1894) Vol. II Darwiniana (Edition: published in 1893) PREFACE I have entitled this volume "Darwiniana" because the pieces republished in it either treat of the ancient doctrine of Evolution, rehabilitated and placed upon a sound scientific foundation, since and in consequence of, the publication of the "Origin of Species;" or they attempt to meet the more weighty of the unsparing criticisms with which that great work was visited for several years after its appearance; or they record the impression left by the personality of Mr. Darwin on one who had the privilege and the happiness of enjoying his friendship for some thirty years; or they endeavour to sum up his work and indicate its enduring influence on the course of scientific thought. Those who take the trouble to read the first two essays, published in 1859 and 1860, will, I think, do me the justice to admit that my zeal to secure fair play for Mr. Darwin, did not drive me into the position of a mere advocate; and that, while doing justice to the greatness of the argument I did not fail to indicate its weak points. I have never seen any reason for departing from the position which I took up in these two essays; and the assertion which I sometimes meet with nowadays, that I have "recanted" or changed my opinions about Mr. Darwin's views, is quite unintelligible to me. As I have said in the seventh essay, the fact of evolution is to my mind sufficiently evidenced by palaeontology; and I remain of the opinion expressed in the second, that until selective breeding is definitely proved to give rise to varieties infertile with one another, the logical foundation of the theory of natural selection is incomplete. We still remain very much in the dark about the causes of variation; the apparent inheritance of acquired characters in some cases; and the struggle for existence within the organism, which probably lies at the bottom of both of these phenomena. Some apology is due to the reader for the reproduction of the "Lectures to Working Men" in their original state. They were taken down in shorthand by Mr. J. Aldous Mays, who requested me to allow him to print them. I was very much pressed with work at the time; and, as I could not revise the reports, which I imagined, moreover, would be of little or no interest to any but my auditors, I stipulated that a notice should be prefixed to that effect. This was done; but it did not prevent a considerable diffusion of the little book in this country and in the United States, nor its translation into more than one foreign language. Moreover Mr. Darwin often urged me to revise and expand the lectures into a systematic popular exposition of the topics of which they treat. I have more than once set about the task: but the proverb about spoiling a horn and not making a spoon, is particularly applicable to attempts to remodel a piece of work which may have served its immediate purpose well enough. So I have reprinted the lectures as they stand, with all their imperfections on their heads. It would seem that many people must have found them useful thirty years ago; and, though the sixties appear now to be reckoned by many of the rising generation as a part of the dark ages, I am not without some grounds for suspecting that there yet remains a fair sprinkling even of "philosophic thinkers" to whom it may be a profitable, perhaps even a novel, task to descend from the heights of speculation and go over the A B C of the great biological problem as it was set before a body of shrewd artisans at that remote epoch. T. H. H. Hodeslea, Eastbourne, _April 7th_, 1893. CONTENTS I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS [1859] II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES [1860] III CRITICISM ON "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1864] IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS [1869] V MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS [1871] VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY [1878] VII THE COMING OF AGE OF "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1880] VIII CHARLES DARWIN [1882] IX THE DARWIN MEMORIAL [1885] X OBITUARY [1888] XI SIX LECTURES TO WORKING MEN "ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE" [1863] I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS [1859] The hypothesis of which the present work of Mr. Darwin is but the preliminary outline, may be stated in his own language as follows:-- "Species originated by means of natural selection, or through the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life." To render this thesis intelligible, it is necessary to interpret its terms. In the first place, what is a species? The question is a simple one, but the right answer to it is hard to find, even if we appeal to those who should know most about it. It is all those animals or plants which have descended from a single pair of parents; it is the smallest distinctly definable group of living organisms; it is an eternal and immutable entity; it is a mere abstraction of the human intellect having no existence in nature. Such are a few of the significations attached to this simple word which may be culled from authoritative sources; and if, leaving terms and theoretical subtleties aside, we turn to facts and endeavour to gather a meaning for ourselves, by studying the things to which, in practice, the name of species is applied, it profits us little. For practice varies as much as theory. Let two botanists or two zoologists examine and describe the productions of a country, and one will pretty certainly disagree with the other as to the number, limits, and definitions of the species into which he groups the very same things. In these islands, we are in the habit of regarding mankind as of one species, but a fortnight's steam will land us in a country where divines and savants, for once in agreement, vie with one another in loudness of assertion, if not in cogency of proof, that men are of different species; and, more particularly, that the species negro is so distinct from our own that the Ten Commandments have actually no reference to him. Even in the calm region of entomology, where, if anywhere in this sinful world, passion and prejudice should fail to stir the mind, one learned coleopterist will fill ten attractive volumes with descriptions of species of beetles, nine-tenths of which are immediately declared by his brother beetle-mongers to be no species at all. The truth is that the number of distinguishable living creatures almost surpasses imagination. At least 100,000 such kinds of insects alone have been described and may be identified in collections, and the number of separable kinds of living things is under-estimated at half a million. Seeing that most of these obvious kinds have their accidental varieties, and that they often shade into others by imperceptible degrees, it may well be imagined that the task of distinguishing between what is permanent and what fleeting, what is a species and what a mere variety, is sufficiently formidable. But is it not possible to apply a test whereby a true species may be known from a mere variety? Is there no criterion of species? Great authorities affirm that there is--that the unions of members of the same species are always fertile, while those of distinct species are either sterile, or their offspring, called hybrids, are so. It is affirmed not only that this is an experimental fact, but that it is a provision for the preservation of the purity of species. Such a criterion as this would be invaluable; but, unfortunately, not only is it not obvious how to apply it in the great majority of cases in which its aid is needed, but its general validity is stoutly denied. The Hon. and Rev. Mr. Herbert, a most trustworthy authority, not only asserts as the result of his own observations and experiments that many hybrids are quite as fertile as the parent species, but he goes so far as to assert that the particular plant _Crinum capense_ is much more fertile when crossed by a distinct species than when fertilised by its proper pollen! On the other hand, the famous Gaertner, though he took the greatest pains to cross the Primrose and the Cowslip, succeeded only once or twice in several years; and yet it is a well-established fact that the Primrose and the Cowslip are only varieties of the same kind of plant. Again, such cases as the following are well established. The female of species A, if crossed with the male of species B, is fertile; but, if the female of B is crossed with the male of A, she remains barren. Facts of this kind destroy the value of the supposed criterion. If, weary of the endless difficulties involved in the determination of species, the investigator, contenting himself with the rough practical distinction of separable kinds, endeavours to study them as they occur in nature--to ascertain their relations to the conditions which surround them, their mutual harmonies and discordancies of structure, the bond of union of their present and their past history, he finds himself, according to the received notions, in a mighty maze, and with, at most, the dimmest adumbration of a plan. If he starts with any one clear conviction, it is that every part of a living creature is cunningly adapted to some special use in its life. Has not his Paley told him that that seemingly useless organ, the spleen, is beautifully adjusted as so much packing between the other organs? And yet, at the outset of his studies, he finds that no adaptive reason whatsoever can be given for one-half of the peculiarities of vegetable structure. He also discovers rudimentary teeth, which are never used, in the gums of the young calf and in those of the foetal whale; insects which never bite have rudimental jaws, and others which never fly have rudimental wings; naturally blind creatures have rudimental eyes; and the halt have rudimentary limbs. So, again, no animal or plant puts on its perfect form at once, but all have to start from the same point, however various the course which each has to pursue. Not only men and horses, and cats and dogs, lobsters and beetles, periwinkles and mussels, but even the very sponges and animalcules commence their existence under forms which are essentially undistinguishable; and this is true of all the infinite variety of plants. Nay, more, all living beings march, side by side, along the high road of development, and separate the later the more like they are; like people leaving church, who all go down the aisle, but having reached the door, some turn into the parsonage, others go down the village, and others part only in the next parish. A man in his development runs for a little while parallel with, though never passing through, the form of the meanest worm, then travels for a space beside the fish, then journeys along with the bird and the reptile for his fellow travellers: and only at last, after a brief companionship with the highest of the four-footed and four-handed world, rises into the dignity of pure manhood. No competent thinker of the present day dreams of explaining these indubitable facts by the notion of the existence of unknown and undiscoverable adaptations to purpose. And we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says ("On the Nature of Limbs," pp. 39, 40)--"I think it will be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of the problem." But, if the doctrine of final causes will not help us to comprehend the anomalies of living structure, the principle of adaptation must surely lead us to understand why certain living beings are found in certain regions of the world and not in others. The Palm, as we know, will not grow in our climate, nor the Oak in Greenland. The white bear cannot live where the tiger thrives, nor _vice versâ_, and the more the natural habits of animal and vegetable species are examined, the more do they seem, on the whole, limited to particular provinces. But when we look into the facts established by the study of the geographical distribution of animals and plants it seems utterly hopeless to attempt to understand the strange and apparently capricious relations which they exhibit. One would be inclined to suppose _à priori_ that every country must be naturally peopled by those animals that are fittest to live and thrive in it. And yet how, on this hypothesis, are we to account for the absence of cattle in the Pampas of South America, when those parts of the New World were discovered? It is not that they were unfit for cattle, for millions of cattle now run wild there; and the like holds good of Australia and New Zealand. It is a curious circumstance, in fact, that the animals and plants of the Northern Hemisphere are not only as well adapted to live in the Southern Hemisphere as its own autochthones, but are, in many cases, absolutely better adapted, and so overrun and extirpate the aborigines. Clearly, therefore, the species which naturally inhabit a country are not necessarily the best adapted to its climate and other conditions. The inhabitants of islands are often distinct from any other known species of animal or plants (witness our recent examples from the work of Sir Emerson Tennent, on Ceylon), and yet they have almost always a sort of general family resemblance to the animals and plants of the nearest mainland. On the other hand, there is hardly a species of fish, shell, or crab common to the opposite sides of the narrow isthmus of Panama. [Footnote: See page 60 _Note_.] Wherever we look, then, living nature offers us riddles of difficult solution, if we suppose that what we see is all that can be known of it. But our knowledge of life is not confined to the existing world. Whatever their minor differences, geologists are agreed as to the vast thickness of the accumulated strata which compose the visible part of our earth, and the inconceivable immensity of the time the lapse of which they are the imperfect but the only accessible witnesses. Now, throughout the greater part of this long series of stratified rocks are scattered, sometimes very abundantly, multitudes of organic remains, the fossilised exuviæ of animals and plants which lived and died while the mud of which the rocks are formed was yet soft ooze, and could receive and bury them. It would be a great error to suppose that these organic remains were fragmentary relics. Our museums exhibit fossil shells of immeasurable antiquity, as perfect as the day they were formed; whole skeletons without a limb disturbed; nay, the changed flesh, the developing embryos, and even the very footsteps of primæval organisms. Thus the naturalist finds in the bowels of the earth species as well defined as, and in some groups of animals more numerous than, those which breathe the upper air. But, singularly enough, the majority of these entombed species are wholly distinct from those that now live. Nor is this unlikeness without its rule and order. As a broad fact, the further we go back in time the less the buried species are like existing forms; and, the further apart the sets of extinct creatures are, the less they are like one another. In other words, there has been a regular succession of living beings, each younger set, being in a very broad and general sense, somewhat more like those which now live. It was once supposed that this succession had been the result of vast successive catastrophes, destructions, and re-creations _en masse_; but catastrophes are now almost eliminated from geological, or at least palæontological speculation; and it is admitted, on all hands, that the seeming breaks in the chain of being are not absolute, but only relative to our imperfect knowledge; that species have replaced species, not in assemblages, but one by one; and that, if it were possible to have all the phenomena of the past presented to us, the convenient epochs and formations of the geologist, though having a certain distinctness, would fade into one another with limits as undefinable as those of the distinct and yet separable colours of the solar spectrum. Such is a brief summary of the main truths which have been established concerning species. Are these truths ultimate and irresolvable facts, or are their complexities and perplexities the mere expressions of a higher law? A large number of persons practically assume the former position to be correct. They believe that the writer of the Pentateuch was empowered and commissioned to teach us scientific as well as other truth, that the account we find there of the creation of living things is simply and literally correct, and that anything which seems to contradict it is, by the nature of the case, false. All the phenomena which have been detailed are, on this view, the immediate product of a creative fiat and, consequently, are out of the domain of science altogether. Whether this view prove ultimately to be true or false, it is, at any rate, not at present supported by what is commonly regarded as logical proof, even if it be capable of discussion by reason; and hence we consider ourselves at liberty to pass it by, and to turn to those views which profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and therefore admit of being argued to their consequences. And we do this with the less hesitation as it so happens that those persons who are practically conversant with the facts of the case (plainly a considerable advantage) have always thought fit to range themselves under the latter category. The majority of these competent persons have up to the present time maintained two positions--the first, that every species is, within certain defined limits, fixed and incapable of modification; the second, that every species was originally produced by a distinct creative act. The second position is obviously incapable of proof or disproof, the direct operations of the Creator not being subjects of science; and it must therefore be regarded as a corollary from the first, the truth or falsehood of which is a matter of evidence. Most persons imagine that the arguments in favour of it are overwhelming; but to some few minds, and these, it must be confessed, intellects of no small power and grasp of knowledge, they have not brought conviction. Among these minds, that of the famous naturalist Lamarck, who possessed a greater acquaintance with the lower forms of life than any man of his day, Cuvier not excepted, and was a good botanist to boot, occupies a prominent place. Two facts appear to have strongly affected the course of thought of this remarkable man--the one, that finer or stronger links of affinity connect all living beings with one another, and that thus the highest creature grades by multitudinous steps into the lowest; the other, that an organ may be developed in particular directions by exerting itself in particular ways, and that modifications once induced may be transmitted and become hereditary. Putting these facts together, Lamarck endeavoured to account for the first by the operation of the second. Place an animal in new circumstances, says he, and its needs will be altered; the new needs will create new desires, and the attempt to gratify such desires will result in an appropriate modification of the organs exerted. Make a man a blacksmith, and his brachial muscles will develop in accordance with the demands made upon them, and in like manner, says Lamarck, "the efforts of some short-necked bird to catch fish without wetting himself have, with time and perseverance, given rise to all our herons and long-necked waders." The Lamarckian hypothesis has long since been justly condemned, and it is the established practice for every tyro to raise his heel against the carcase of the dead lion. But it is rarely either wise or instructive to treat even the errors of a really great man with mere ridicule, and in the present case the logical form of the doctrine stands on a very different footing from its substance. If species have really arisen by the operation of natural conditions, we ought to be able to find those conditions now at work; we ought to be able to discover in nature some power adequate to modify any given kind of animal or plant in such a manner as to give rise to another kind, which would be admitted by naturalists as a distinct species. Lamarck imagined that he had discovered this _vera causa_ in the admitted facts that some organs may be modified by exercise; and that modifications, once produced, are capable of hereditary transmission. It does not seem to have occurred to him to inquire whether there is any reason to believe that there are any limits to the amount of modification producible, or to ask how long an animal is likely to endeavour to gratify an impossible desire. The bird, in our example, would surely have renounced fish dinners long before it had produced the least effect on leg or neck. Since Lamarck's time, almost all competent naturalists have left speculations on the origin of species to such dreamers as the author of the "Vestiges," by whose well-intentioned efforts the Lamarckian theory received its final condemnation in the minds of all sound thinkers. Notwithstanding this silence, however, the transmutation theory, as it has been called, has been a "skeleton in the closet" to many an honest zoologist and botanist who had a soul above the mere naming of dried plants and skins. Surely, has such an one thought, nature is a mighty and consistent whole, and the providential order established in the world of life must, if we could only see it rightly, be consistent with that dominant over the multiform shapes of brute matter. But what is the history of astronomy, of all the branches of physics, of chemistry, of medicine, but a narration of the steps by which the human mind has been compelled, often sorely against its will, to recognise the operation of secondary causes in events where ignorance beheld an immediate intervention of a higher power? And when we know that living things are formed of the same elements as the inorganic world, that they act and react upon it, bound by a thousand ties of natural piety, is it probable, nay is it possible, that they, and they alone, should have no order in their seeming disorder, no unity in their seeming multiplicity, should suffer no explanation by the discovery of some central and sublime law of mutual connection? Questions of this kind have assuredly often arisen, but it might have been long before they received such expression as would have commanded the respect and attention of the scientific world, had it not been for the publication of the work which prompted this article. Its author, Mr. Darwin, inheritor of a once celebrated name, won his spurs in science when most of those now distinguished were young men, and has for the last twenty years held a place in the front ranks of British philosophers. After a circumnavigatory voyage, undertaken solely for the love of his science, Mr. Darwin published a series of researches which at once arrested the attention of naturalists and geologists; his generalisations have since received ample confirmation and now command universal assent, nor is it questionable that they have had the most important influence on the progress of science. More recently Mr. Darwin, with a versatility which is among the rarest of gifts, turned his attention to a most difficult question of zoology and minute anatomy; and no living naturalist and anatomist has published a better monograph than that which resulted from his labours. Such a man, at all events, has not entered the sanctuary with unwashed hands, and when he lays before us the results of twenty years' investigation and reflection we must listen even though we be disposed to strike. But, in reading his work, it must be confessed that the attention which might at first be dutifully, soon becomes willingly, given, so clear is the author's thought, so outspoken his conviction, so honest and fair the candid expression of his doubts. Those who would judge the book must read it: we shall endeavour only to make its line of argument and its philosophical position intelligible to the general reader in our own way. The Baker Street Bazaar has just been exhibiting its familiar annual spectacle. Straight-backed, small-headed, big-barrelled oxen, as dissimilar from any wild species as can well be imagined, contended for attention and praise with sheep of half-a-dozen different breeds and styes of bloated preposterous pigs, no more like a wild boar or sow than a city alderman is like an ourang-outang. The cattle show has been, and perhaps may again be, succeeded by a poultry show, of whose crowing and clucking prodigies it can only be certainly predicated that they will be very unlike the aboriginal _Phasianus gallus._ If the seeker after animal anomalies is not satisfied, a turn or two in Seven Dials will convince him that the breeds of pigeons are quite as extraordinary and unlike one another and their parent stock, while the Horticultural Society will provide him with any number of corresponding vegetable aberrations from nature's types. He will learn with no little surprise, too, in the course of his travels, that the proprietors and producers of these animal and vegetable anomalies regard them as distinct species, with a firm belief, the strength of which is exactly proportioned to their ignorance of scientific biology, and which is the more remarkable as they are all proud of their skill in originating such "species." On careful inquiry it is found that all these, and the many other artificial breeds or races of animals and plants, have been produced by one method. The breeder--and a skilful one must be a person of much sagacity and natural or acquired perceptive faculty--notes some slight difference, arising he knows not how, in some individuals of his stock. If he wish to perpetuate the difference, to form a breed with the peculiarity in question strongly marked, he selects such male and female individuals as exhibit the desired character, and breeds from them. Their offspring are then carefully examined, and those which exhibit the peculiarity the most distinctly are selected for breeding; and this operation is repeated until the desired amount of divergence from the primitive stock is reached. It is then found that by continuing the process of selection--always breeding, that is, from well-marked forms, and allowing no impure crosses to interfere--a race may be formed, the tendency of which to reproduce itself is exceedingly strong; nor is the limit to the amount of divergence which may be thus produced known; but one thing is certain, that, if certain breeds of dogs, or of pigeons, or of horses, were known only in a fossil state, no naturalist would hesitate in regarding them as distinct species. But in all these cases we have human interference. Without the breeder there would be no selection, and without the selection no race. Before admitting the possibility of natural species having originated in any similar way, it must be proved that there is in Nature some power which takes the place of man, and performs a selection _suâ sponte._ It is the claim of Mr. Darwin that he professes to have discovered the existence and the _modus operandi_ of this "natural selection," as he terms it; and, if he be right, the process is perfectly simple and comprehensible, and irresistibly deducible from very familiar but well nigh forgotten facts. Who, for instance, has duly reflected upon all the consequences of the marvellous struggle for existence which is daily and hourly going on among living beings? Not only does every animal live at the expense of some other animal or plant, but the very plants are at war. The ground is full of seeds that cannot rise into seedlings; the seedlings rob one another of air, light and water, the strongest robber winning the day, and extinguishing his competitors. Year after year, the wild animals with which man never interferes are, on the average, neither more nor less numerous than they were; and yet we know that the annual produce of every pair is from one to perhaps a million young; so that it is mathematically certain that, on the average, as many are killed by natural causes as are born every year, and those only escape which happen to be a little better fitted to resist destruction than those which die. The individuals of a species are like the crew of a foundered ship, and none but good swimmers have a chance of reaching the land. Such being unquestionably the necessary conditions under which living creatures exist, Mr. Darwin discovers in them the instrument of natural selection. Suppose that in the midst of this incessant competition some individuals of a species (A) present accidental variations which happen to fit them a little better than their fellows for the struggle in which they are engaged, then the chances are in favour, not only of these individuals being better nourished than the others, but of their predominating over their fellows in other ways, and of having a better chance of leaving offspring, which will of course tend to reproduce the peculiarities of their parents. Their offspring will, by a parity of reasoning, tend to predominate over their contemporaries, and there being (suppose) no room for more than one species such as A, the weaker variety will eventually be destroyed by the new destructive influence which is thrown into the scale, and the stronger will take its place. Surrounding conditions remaining unchanged, the new variety (which we may call B)--supposed, for argument's sake, to be the best adapted for these conditions which can be got out of the original stock--will remain unchanged, all accidental deviations from the type becoming at once extinguished, as less fit for their post than B itself. The tendency of B to persist will grow with its persistence through successive generations, and it will acquire all the characters of a new species. But, on the other hand, if the conditions of life change in any degree, however slight, B may no longer be that form which is best adapted to withstand their destructive, and profit by their sustaining, influence; in which case if it should give rise to a more competent variety (C), this will take its place and become a new species; and thus, by natural selection, the species B and C will be successively derived from A. That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in the distribution of living beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted by the main phenomena of life and organisation appear to us to be unquestionable; and, so far, it must be admitted to have an immense advantage over any of its predecessors. But it is quite another matter to affirm absolutely either the truth or falsehood of Mr. Darwin's views at the present stage of the inquiry. Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that state of mind which he calls "Thätige Skepsis"--active doubt. It is doubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief; and we commend this state of mind to students of species, with respect to Mr. Darwin's or any other hypothesis, as to their origin. The combined investigations of another twenty years may, perhaps, enable naturalists to say whether the modifying causes and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has satisfactorily shown to exist in Nature, are competent to produce all the effects he ascribes to them; or whether, on the other hand, he has been led to over-estimate the value of the principle of natural selection, as greatly as Lamarck over-estimated his _vera causa_ of modification by exercise. But there is, at all events, one advantage possessed by the more recent writer over his predecessor. Mr. Darwin abhors mere speculation as nature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of cases and precedents as any constitutional lawyer, and all the principles he lays down are capable of being brought to the test of observation and experiment. The path he bids us follow professes to be, not a mere airy track, fabricated of ideal cobwebs, but a solid and broad bridge of facts. If it be so, it will carry us safely over many a chasm in our knowledge, and lead us to a region free from the snares of those fascinating but barren virgins, the Final Causes, against whom a high authority has so justly warned us. "My sons, dig in the vineyard," were the last words of the old man in the fable: and, though the sons found no treasure, they made their fortunes by the grapes. II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES [1860] Mr. Darwin's long-standing and well-earned scientific eminence probably renders him indifferent to that social notoriety which passes by the name of success; but if the calm spirit of the philosopher have not yet wholly superseded the ambition and the vanity of the carnal man within him, he must be well satisfied with the results of his venture in publishing the "Origin of Species." Overflowing the narrow bounds of purely scientific circles, the "species question" divides with Italy and the Volunteers the attention of general society. Everybody has read Mr. Darwin's book, or, at least, has given an opinion upon its merits or demerits; pietists, whether lay or ecclesiastic, decry it with the mild railing which sounds so charitable; bigots denounce it with ignorant invective; old ladies of both sexes consider it a decidedly dangerous book, and even savants, who have no better mud to throw, quote antiquated writers to show that its author is no better than an ape himself; while every philosophical thinker hails it as a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism; and all competent naturalists and physiologists, whatever their opinions as to the ultimate fate of the doctrines put forth, acknowledge that the work in which they are embodied is a solid contribution to knowledge and inaugurates a new epoch in natural history. Nor has the discussion of the subject been restrained within the limits of conversation. When the public is eager and interested, reviewers must minister to its wants; and the genuine _littérateur_ is too much in the habit of acquiring his knowledge from the book he judges--as the Abyssinian is said to provide himself with steaks from the ox which carries him--to be withheld from criticism of a profound scientific work by the mere want of the requisite preliminary scientific acquirement; while, on the other hand, the men of science who wish well to the new views, no less than those who dispute their validity, have naturally sought opportunities of expressing their opinions. Hence it is not surprising that almost all the critical journals have noticed Mr. Darwin's work at greater or less length; and so many disquisitions, of every degree of excellence, from the poor product of ignorance, too often stimulated by prejudice, to the fair and thoughtful essay of the candid student of Nature, have appeared, that it seems an almost hopeless task to attempt to say anything new upon the question. But it may be doubted if the knowledge and acumen of prejudged scientific opponents, and the subtlety of orthodox special pleaders, have yet exerted their full force in mystifying the real issues of the great controversy which has been set afoot, and whose end is hardly likely to be seen by this generation; so that, at this eleventh hour, and even failing anything new, it may be useful to state afresh that which is true, and to put the fundamental positions advocated by Mr. Darwin in such a form that they may be grasped by those whose special studies lie in other directions. And the adoption of this course may be the more advisable, because, notwithstanding its great deserts, and indeed partly on account of them, the "Origin of Species" is by no means an easy book to read--if by reading is implied the full comprehension of an author's meaning. We do not speak jestingly in saying that it is Mr. Darwin's misfortune to know more about the question he has taken up than any man living. Personally and practically exercised in zoology, in minute anatomy, in geology; a student of geographical distribution, not on maps and in museums only, but by long voyages and laborious collection; having largely advanced each of these branches of science, and having spent many years in gathering and sifting materials for his present work, the store of accurately registered facts upon which the author of the "Origin of Species" is able to draw at will is prodigious. But this very superabundance of matter must have been embarrassing to a writer who, for the present, can only put forward an abstract of his views; and thence it arises, perhaps, that notwithstanding the clearness of the style, those who attempt fairly to digest the book find much of it a sort of intellectual pemmican--a mass of facts crushed and pounded into shape, rather than held together by the ordinary medium of an obvious logical bond; due attention will, without doubt, discover this bond, but it is often hard to find. Again, from sheer want of room, much has to be taken for granted which might readily enough be proved; and hence, while the adept, who can supply the missing links in the evidence from his own knowledge, discovers fresh proof of the singular thoroughness with which all difficulties have been considered and all unjustifiable suppositions avoided, at every reperusal of Mr. Darwin's pregnant paragraphs, the novice in biology is apt to complain of the frequency of what he fancies is gratuitous assumption. Thus while it may be doubted if, for some years, any one is likely to be competent to pronounce judgment on all the issues raised by Mr. Darwin, there is assuredly abundant room for him, who, assuming the humbler, though perhaps as useful, office of an interpreter between the "Origin of Species" and the public, contents himself with endeavouring to point out the nature of the problems which it discusses; to distinguish between the ascertained facts and the theoretical views which it contains; and finally, to show the extent to which the explanation it offers satisfies the requirements of scientific logic. At any rate, it is this office which we purpose to undertake in the following pages. It may be safely assumed that our readers have a general conception of the nature of the objects to which the word "species" is applied; but it has, perhaps, occurred to a few, even to those who are naturalists _ex professo_, to reflect, that, as commonly employed, the term has a double sense and denotes two very different orders of relations. When we call a group of animals, or of plants, a species, we may imply thereby, either that all these animals or plants have some common peculiarity of form or structure; or, we may mean that they possess some common functional character. That part of biological science which deals with form and structure is called Morphology--that which concerns itself with function, Physiology--so that we may conveniently speak of these two senses, or aspects, of "species"--the one as morphological, the other as physiological. Regarded from the former point of view, a species is nothing more than a kind of animal or plant, which is distinctly definable from all others, by certain constant, and not merely sexual, morphological peculiarities. Thus horses form a species, because the group of animals to which that name is applied is distinguished from all others in the world by the following constantly associated characters. They have--1, A vertebral column; 2, Mammae; 3, A placental embryo; 4, Four legs; 5, A single well-developed toe in each foot provided with a hoof; 6, A bushy tail; and 7, Callosities on the inner sides of both the fore and the hind legs. The asses, again, form a distinct species, because, with the same characters, as far as the fifth in the above list, all asses have tufted tails, and have callosities only on the inner side of the fore-legs. If animals were discovered having the general characters of the horse, but sometimes with callosities only on the fore-legs, and more or less tufted tails; or animals having the general characters of the ass, but with more or less bushy tails, and sometimes with callosities on both pairs of legs, besides being intermediate in other respects--the two species would have to be merged into one. They could no longer be regarded as morphologically distinct species, for they would not be distinctly definable one from the other. However bare and simple this definition of species may appear to be, we confidently appeal to all practical naturalists, whether zoologists, botanists, or palaeontologists, to say if, in the vast majority of cases, they know, or mean to affirm, anything more of the group of animals or plants they so denominate than what has just been stated. Even the most decided advocates of the received doctrines respecting species admit this. "I apprehend," says Professor Owen, [Footnote: "On the Osteology of the Chimpanzees and Orangs"; _Transactions of the Zoological Society_, 1858.] "that few naturalists nowadays, in describing and proposing a name for what they call 'a new _species_,' use that term to signify what was meant by it twenty or thirty years ago; that is, an originally distinct creation, maintaining its primitive distinction by obstructive generative peculiarities. The proposer of the new species now intends to state no more than he actually knows; as, for example, that the differences on which he founds the specific character are constant in individuals of both sexes, so far as observation has reached; and that they are not due to domestication or to artificially superinduced external circumstances, or to any outward influence within his cognizance; that the species is wild, or is such as it appears by Nature." If we consider, in fact, that by far the largest proportion of recorded existing species are known only by the study of their skins, or bones, or other lifeless exuviae; that we are acquainted with none, or next to none, of their physiological peculiarities, beyond those which can be deduced from their structure, or are open to cursory observation; and that we cannot hope to learn more of any of those extinct forms of life which now constitute no inconsiderable proportion of the known Flora and Fauna of the world: it is obvious that the definitions of these species can be only of a purely structural, or morphological, character. It is probable that naturalists would have avoided much confusion of ideas if they had more frequently borne the necessary limitations of our knowledge in mind. But while it may safely be admitted that we are acquainted with only the morphological characters of the vast majority of species--the functional or physiological, peculiarities of a few have been carefully investigated, and the result of that study forms a large and most interesting portion of the physiology of reproduction. The student of Nature wonders the more and is astonished the less, the more conversant he becomes with her operations; but of all the perennial miracles she offers to his inspection, perhaps the most worthy of admiration is the development of a plant or of an animal from its embryo. Examine the recently laid egg of some common animal, such as a salamander or newt. It is a minute spheroid in which the best microscope will reveal nothing but a structureless sac, enclosing a glairy fluid, holding granules in suspension. [Footnote: When this sentence was written, it was generally believed that the original nucleus of the egg (the germinal vesicle) disappeared. 1893.] But strange possibilities lie dormant in that semi-fluid globule. Let a moderate supply of warmth reach its watery cradle, and the plastic matter undergoes changes so rapid, yet so steady and purposelike in their succession, that one can only compare them to those operated by a skilled modeller upon a formless lump of clay. As with an invisible trowel, the mass is divided and subdivided into smaller and smaller portions, until it is reduced to an aggregation of granules not too large to build withal the finest fabrics of the nascent organism. And, then, it is as if a delicate finger traced out the line to be occupied by the spinal column, and moulded the contour of the body; pinching up the head at one end, the tail at the other, and fashioning flank and limb into due salamandrine proportions, in so artistic a way, that, after watching the process hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily possessed by the notion, that some more subtle aid to vision than an achromatic, would show the hidden artist, with his plan before him, striving with skilful manipulation to perfect his work. As life advances, and the young amphibian ranges the waters, the terror of his insect contemporaries, not only are the nutritious particles supplied by its prey, by the addition of which to its frame, growth takes place, laid down, each in its proper spot, and in such due proportion to the rest, as to reproduce the form, the colour, and the size, characteristic of the parental stock; but even the wonderful powers of reproducing lost parts possessed by these animals are controlled by the same governing tendency. Cut off the legs, the tail, the jaws, separately or all together, and, as Spallanzani showed long ago, these parts not only grow again, but the redintegrated limb is formed on the same type as those which were lost. The new jaw, or leg, is a newt's, and never by any accident more like that of a frog. What is true of the newt is true of every animal and of every plant; the acorn tends to build itself up again into a woodland giant such as that from whose twig it fell; the spore of the humblest lichen reproduces the green or brown incrustation which gave it birth; and at the other end of the scale of life, the child that resembled neither the paternal nor the maternal side of the house would be regarded as a kind of monster. So that the one end to which, in all living beings, the formative impulse is tending--the one scheme which the Archæus of the old speculators strives to carry out, seems to be to mould the offspring into the likeness of the parent. It is the first great law of reproduction, that the offspring tends to resemble its parent or parents, more closely than anything else. Science will some day show us how this law is a necessary consequence of the more general laws which govern matter; but, for the present, more can hardly be said than that it appears to be in harmony with them. We know that the phænomena of vitality are not something apart from other physical phænomena, but one with them; and matter and force are the two names of the one artist who fashions the living as well as the lifeless. Hence living bodies should obey the same great laws as other matter--nor, throughout Nature, is there a law of wider application than this, that a body impelled by two forces takes the direction of their resultant. But living bodies may be regarded as nothing but extremely complex bundles of forces held in a mass of matter, as the complex forces of a magnet are held in the steel by its coercive force; and, since the differences of sex are comparatively slight, or, in other words, the sum of the forces in each has a very similar tendency, their resultant, the offspring, may reasonably be expected to deviate but little from a course parallel to either, or to both. Represent the reason of the law to ourselves by what physical metaphor or analogy we will, however, the great matter is to apprehend its existence and the importance of the consequences deducible from it. For things which are like to the same are like to one another; and if, in a great series of generations, every offspring is like its parent, it follows that all the offspring and all the parents must be like one another; and that, given an original parental stock, with the opportunity of undisturbed multiplication, the law in question necessitates the production, in course of time, of an indefinitely large group, the whole of the members of which are at once very similar and are blood relations, having descended from the same parent, or pair of parents. The proof that all the members of any given group of animals, or plants, had thus descended, would be ordinarily considered sufficient to entitle them to the rank of physiological species, for most physiologists consider species to be definable as "the offspring of a single primitive stock." But though it is quite true that all those groups we call species _may_, according to the known laws of reproduction, have descended from a single stock, and though it is very likely they really have done so, yet this conclusion rests on deduction and can hardly hope to establish itself upon a basis of observation. And the primitiveness of the supposed single stock, which, after all, is the essential part of the matter, is not only a hypothesis, but one which has not a shadow of foundation, if by "primitive" be meant "independent of any other living being." A scientific definition, of which an unwarrantable hypothesis forms an essential part, carries its condemnation within itself; but, even supposing such a definition were, in form, tenable, the physiologist who should attempt to apply it in Nature would soon find himself involved in great, if not inextricable, difficulties. As we have said, it is indubitable that offspring _tend_ to resemble the parental organism, but it is equally true that the similarity attained never amounts to identity either in form or in structure. There is always a certain amount of deviation, not only from the precise characters of a single parent, but when, as in most animals and many plants, the sexes are lodged in distinct individuals, from an exact mean between the two parents. And indeed, on general principles, this slight deviation seems as intelligible as the general similarity, if we reflect how complex the co-operating "bundles of forces" are, and how improbable it is that, in any case, their true resultant shall coincide with any mean between the more obvious characters of the two parents. Whatever be its cause, however, the co-existence of this tendency to minor variation with the tendency to general similarity, is of vast importance in its bearing on the question of the origin of species. As a general rule, the extent to which an offspring differs from its parent is slight enough; but, occasionally, the amount of difference is much more strongly marked, and then the divergent offspring receives the name of a Variety. Multitudes, of what there is every reason to believe are such varieties, are known, but the origin of very few has been accurately recorded, and of these we will select two as more especially illustrative of the main features of variation. The first of them is that of the "Ancon" or "Otter" sheep, of which a careful account is given by Colonel David Humphreys, F.R.S., in a letter to Sir Joseph Banks, published in the "Philosophical Transactions" for 1813. It appears that one Seth Wright, the proprietor of a farm on the banks of the Charles River, in Massachusetts, possessed a flock of fifteen ewes and a ram of the ordinary kind. In the year 1791, one of the ewes presented her owner with a male lamb, differing, for no assignable reason, from its parents by a proportionally long body and short bandy legs, whence it was unable to emulate its relatives in those sportive leaps over the neighbours' fences, in which they were in the habit of indulging, much to the good farmer's vexation. The second case is that detailed by a no less unexceptionable authority than Réaumur, in his "Art de faire éclore les Poulets." A Maltese couple, named Kelleia, whose hands and feet were constructed upon the ordinary human model, had born to them a son, Gratio, who possessed six perfectly movable fingers on each hand, and six toes, not quite so well formed, on each foot. No cause could be assigned for the appearance of this unusual variety of the human species. Two circumstances are well worthy of remark in both these cases. In each, the variety appears to have arisen in full force, and, as it were, _per saltum_; a wide and definite difference appearing, at once, between the Ancon ram and the ordinary sheep; between the six-fingered and six-toed Gratio Kelleia and ordinary men. In neither case is it possible to point out any obvious reason for the appearance of the variety. Doubtless there were determining causes for these as for all other phenomena; but they do not appear, and we can be tolerably certain that what are ordinarily understood as changes in physical conditions, as in climate, in food, or the like, did not take place and had nothing to do with the matter. It was no case of what is commonly called adaptation to circumstances; but, to use a conveniently erroneous phrase, the variations arose spontaneously. The fruitless search after final causes leads their pursuers a long way; but even those hardy teleologists, who are ready to break through all the laws of physics in chase of their favourite will-o'-the-wisp, may be puzzled to discover what purpose could be attained by the stunted legs of Seth Wright's ram or the hexadactyle members of Gratio Kelleia. Varieties then arise we know not why; and it is more than probable that the majority of varieties have arisen in this "spontaneous" manner, though we are, of course, far from denying that they may be traced, in some cases, to distinct external influences; which are assuredly competent to alter the character of the tegumentary covering, to change colour, to increase or diminish the size of muscles, to modify constitution, and, among plants, to give rise to the metamorphosis of stamens into petals, and so forth. But however they may have arisen, what especially interests us at present is, to remark that, once in existence, many varieties obey the fundamental law of reproduction that like tends to produce like; and their offspring exemplify it by tending to exhibit the same deviation from the parental stock as themselves. Indeed, there seems to be, in many instances, a prepotent influence about a newly-arisen variety which gives it what one may call an unfair advantage over the normal descendants from the same stock. This is strikingly exemplified by the case of Gratio Kelleia, who married a woman with the ordinary pentadactyle extremities, and had by her four children, Salvator, George, André, and Marie. Of these children Salvator, the eldest boy, had six fingers and six toes, like his father; the second and third, also boys, had five fingers and five toes, like their mother, though the hands and feet of George were slightly deformed. The last, a girl, had five fingers and five toes, but the thumbs were slightly deformed. The variety thus reproduced itself purely in the eldest, while the normal type reproduced itself purely in the third, and almost purely in the second and last: so that it would seem, at first, as if the normal type were more powerful than the variety. But all these children grew up and intermarried with normal wives and husband, and then, note what took place: Salvator had four children, three of whom exhibited the hexadactyle members of their grandfather and father, while the youngest had the pentadactyle limbs of the mother and grandmother; so that here, notwithstanding a double pentadactyle dilution of the blood, the hexadactyle variety had the best of it. The same pre-potency of the variety was still more markedly exemplified in the progeny of two of the other children, Marie and George. Marie (whose thumbs only were deformed) gave birth to a boy with six toes, and three other normally formed children; but George, who was not quite so pure a pentadactyle, begot, first, two girls, each of whom had six fingers and toes; then a girl with six fingers on each hand and six toes on the right foot, but only five toes on the left; and lastly, a boy with only five fingers and toes. In these instances, therefore, the variety, as it were, leaped over one generation to reproduce itself in full force in the next. Finally, the purely pentadactyle André was the father of many children, not one of whom departed from the normal parental type. If a variation which approaches the nature of a monstrosity can strive thus forcibly to reproduce itself, it is not wonderful that less aberrant modifications should tend to be preserved even more strongly; and the history of the Ancon sheep is, in this respect, particularly instructive. With the "'cuteness" characteristic of their nation, the neighbours of the Massachusetts farmer imagined it would be an excellent thing if all his sheep were imbued with the stay-at-home tendencies enforced by Nature upon the newly-arrived ram; and they advised Wright to kill the old patriarch of his fold, and install the Ancon ram in his place. The result justified their sagacious anticipations, and coincided very nearly with what occurred to the progeny of Gratio Kelleia. The young lambs were almost always either pure Ancons, or pure ordinary sheep.[Footnote: Colonel Humphreys' statements are exceedingly explicit on this point:--. "When an Ancon ewe is impregnated by a common ram, the increase resembles wholly either the ewe or the ram. The increase of the common ewe impregnated by an Ancon ram follows entirely the one or the other, without blending any of the distinguishing and essential peculiarities of both. Frequent instances have happened where common ewes have had twins by Ancon rams, when one exhibited the complete marks and features of the ewe, the other of the ram. The contrast has been rendered singularly striking, when one short-legged and one long-legged lamb, produced at a birth, have been seen sucking the dam at the same time."--_Philosophical Transactions_, 1813, Ft. I. pp. 89, 90.] But when sufficient Ancon sheep were obtained to interbreed with one another, it was found that the offspring was always pure Ancon. Colonel Humphreys, in fact, states that he was acquainted with only "one questionable case of a contrary nature." Here, then, is a remarkable and well-established instance, not only of a very distinct race being established _per saltum_, but of that race breeding "true" at once, and showing no mixed forms, even when crossed with another breed. By taking care to select Ancons of both sexes, for breeding from, it thus became easy to establish an extremely well-marked race; so peculiar that, even when herded with other sheep, it was noted that the Ancons kept together. And there is every reason to believe that the existence of this breed might have been indefinitely protracted; but the introduction of the Merino sheep, which were not only very superior to the Ancons in wool and meat, but quite as quiet and orderly, led to the complete neglect of the new breed, so that, in 1813, Colonel Humphreys found it difficult to obtain the specimen, the skeleton of which was presented to Sir Joseph Banks. We believe that, for many years, no remnant of it has existed in the United States. Gratio Kelleia was not the progenitor of a race of six-fingered men, as Seth Wright's ram became a nation of Ancon sheep, though the tendency of the variety to perpetuate itself appears to have been fully as strong in the one case as in the other. And the reason of the difference is not far to seek. Seth Wright took care not to weaken the Ancon blood by matching his Ancon ewes with any but males of the same variety, while Gratio Kelleia's sons were too far removed from the patriarchal times to intermarry with their sisters; and his grand-children seem not to have been attracted by their six-fingered cousins. In other words, in the one example a race was produced, because, for several generations, care was taken to _select_ both parents of the breeding stock from animals exhibiting a tendency to vary in the same direction; while, in the other, no race was evolved, because no such selection was exercised. A race is a propagated variety; and as, by the laws of reproduction, offspring tend to assume the parental forms, they will be more likely to propagate a variation exhibited by both parents than that possessed by only one. There is no organ of the body of an animal which may not, and does not, occasionally, vary more or less from the normal type; and there is no variation which may not be transmitted and which, if selectively transmitted, may not become the foundation of a race. This great truth, sometimes forgotten by philosophers, has long been familiar to practical agriculturists and breeders; and upon it rest all the methods of improving the breeds of domestic animals, which, for the last century, have been followed with so much success in England. Colour, form, size, texture of hair or wool, proportions of various parts, strength or weakness of constitution, tendency to fatten or to remain lean, to give much or little milk, speed, strength, temper, intelligence, special instincts; there is not one of these characters the transmission of which is not an every-day occurrence within the experience of cattle-breeders, stock-farmers, horse-dealers, and dog and poultry fanciers. Nay, it is only the other day that an eminent physiologist, Dr. Brown-Séquard, communicated to the Royal Society his discovery that epilepsy, artificially produced in guinea-pigs, by a means which he has discovered, is transmitted to their offspring. [Footnote: Compare Weismann's _Essays Upon Heredity_, p. 310, _et seq_. 1893.] But a race, once produced, is no more a fixed and immutable entity than the stock whence it sprang; variations arise among its members, and as these variations are transmitted like any others, new races may be developed out of the pre-existing one _ad infinitum_, or, at least, within any limit at present determined. Given sufficient time and sufficiently careful selection, and the multitude of races which may arise from a common stock is as astonishing as are the extreme structural differences which they may present. A remarkable example of this is to be found in the rock-pigeon, which Mr. Darwin has, in our opinion, satisfactorily demonstrated to be the progenitor of all our domestic pigeons, of which there are certainly more than a hundred well-marked races. The most noteworthy of these races are, the four great stocks known to the "fancy" as tumblers, pouters, carriers, and fantails; birds which not only differ most singularly in size, colour, and habits, but in the form of the beak and of the skull; in the proportions of the beak to the skull; in the number of tail-feathers; in the absolute and relative size of the feet; in the presence or absence of the uropygial gland; in the number of vertebræ in the back; in short, in precisely those characters in which the genera and species of birds differ from one another. And it is most remarkable and instructive to observe, that none of these races can be shown to have been originated by the action of changes in what are commonly called external circumstances, upon the wild rock-pigeon. On the contrary, from time immemorial pigeon-fanciers have had essentially similar methods of treating their pets, which have been housed, fed, protected and cared for in much the same way in all pigeonries. In fact, there is no case better adapted than that of the pigeons to refute the doctrine which one sees put forth on high authority, that "no other characters than those founded on the development of bone for the attachment of muscles" are capable of variation. In precise contradiction of this hasty assertion, Mr. Darwin's researches prove that the skeleton of the wings in domestic pigeons has hardly varied at all from that of the wild type; while, on the other hand, it is in exactly those respects, such as the relative length of the beak and skull, the number of the vertebrae, and the number of the tail-feathers, in which muscular exertion can have no important influence, that the utmost amount of variation has taken place. We have said that the following out of the properties exhibited by physiological species would lead us into difficulties, and at this point they begin to be obvious; for if, as the result of spontaneous variation and of selective breeding, the progeny of a common stock may become separated into groups distinguished from one another by constant, not sexual, morphological characters, it is clear that the physiological definition of species is likely to clash with the morphological definition. No one would hesitate to describe the pouter and the tumbler as distinct species, if they were found fossil, or if their skins and skeletons were imported, as those of exotic wild birds commonly are--and without doubt, if considered alone, they are good and distinct morphological species. On the other hand, they are not physiological species, for they are descended from a common stock, the rock-pigeon. Under these circumstances, as it is admitted on all sides that races occur in Nature, how are we to know whether any apparently distinct animals are really of different physiological species, or not, seeing that the amount of morphological difference is no safe guide? Is there any test of a physiological species? The usual answer of physiologists is in the affirmative. It is said that such a test is to be found in the phænomena of hybridisation--in the results of crossing races, as compared with the results of crossing species. So far as the evidence goes at present, individuals, of what are certainly known to be mere races produced by selection, however distinct they may appear to be, not only breed freely together, but the offspring of such crossed races are perfectly fertile with one another. Thus, the spaniel and the greyhound, the dray-horse and the Arab, the pouter and the tumbler, breed together with perfect freedom, and their mongrels, if matched with other mongrels of the same kind, are equally fertile. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the individuals of many natural species are either absolutely infertile if crossed with individuals of other species, or, if they give rise to hybrid offspring, the hybrids so produced are infertile when paired together. The horse and the ass, for instance, if so crossed, give rise to the mule, and there is no certain evidence of offspring ever having been produced by a male and female mule. The unions of the rock-pigeon and the ring-pigeon appear to be equally barren of result. Here, then, says the physiologist, we have a means of distinguishing any two true species from any two varieties. If a male and a female, selected from each group, produce offspring, and that offspring is fertile with others produced in the same way, the groups are races and not species. If, on the other hand, no result ensues, or if the offspring are infertile with others produced in the same way, they are true physiological species. The test would be an admirable one, if, in the first place, it were always practicable to apply it, and if, in the second, it always yielded results susceptible of a definite interpretation. Unfortunately, in the great majority of cases, this touchstone for species is wholly inapplicable. The constitution of many wild animals is so altered by confinement that they will not breed even with their own females, so that the negative results obtained from crosses are of no value; and the antipathy of wild animals of different species for one another, or even of wild and tame members of the same species, is ordinarily so great, that it is hopeless to look for such unions in Nature. The hermaphrodism of most plants, the difficulty in the way of insuring the absence of their own or the proper working of other pollen, are obstacles of no less magnitude in applying the test to them. And, in both animals and plants, is super-added the further difficulty, that experiments must be continued over a long time for the purpose of ascertaining the fertility of the mongrel or hybrid progeny, as well as of the first crosses from which they spring. Not only do these great practical difficulties lie in the way of applying the hybridisation test, but even when this oracle can be questioned, its replies are sometimes as doubtful as those of Delphi. For example, cases are cited by Mr. Darwin, of plants which are more fertile with the pollen of another species than with their own; and there are others, such as certain _Fuci,_ the male element of which will fertilise the ovule of a plant of distinct species, while the males of the latter species are ineffective with the females of the first. So that, in the last-named instance, a physiologist, who should cross the two species in one way, would decide that they were true species; while another, who should cross them in the reverse way, would, with equal justice, according to the rule, pronounce them to be mere races. Several plants, which there is great reason to believe are mere varieties, are almost sterile when crossed; while both animals and plants, which have always been regarded by naturalists as of distinct species, turn out, when the test is applied, to be perfectly fertile. Again, the sterility or fertility of crosses seems to bear no relation to the structural resemblances or differences of the members of any two groups. Mr. Darwin has discussed this question with singular ability and circumspection, and his conclusions are summed up as follows, at page 276 of his work:-- "First crosses between forms sufficiently distinct to be ranked as species, and their hybrids, are very generally, but not universally, sterile. The sterility is of all degrees, and is often so slight that the two most careful experimentalists who have ever lived have come to diametrically opposite conclusions in ranking forms by this test. The sterility is innately variable in individuals of the same species, and is eminently susceptible of favourable and unfavourable conditions. The degree of sterility does not strictly follow systematic affinity, but is governed by several curious and complex laws. It is generally different and sometimes widely different, in reciprocal crosses between the same two species. It is not always equal in degree in a first cross, and in the hybrid produced from this cross. "In the same manner as in grafting trees, the capacity of one species or variety to take on another is incidental on generally unknown differences in their vegetative systems; so in crossing, the greater or less facility of one species to unite with another is incidental on unknown differences in their reproductive systems. There is no more reason to think that species have been specially endowed with various degrees of sterility to prevent them crossing and breeding in Nature, than to think that trees have been specially endowed with various and somewhat analogous degrees of difficulty in being grafted together, in order to prevent them becoming inarched in our forests. "The sterility of first crosses between pure species, which have their reproductive systems perfect, seems to depend on several circumstances; in some cases largely on the early death of the embryo. The sterility of hybrids which have their reproductive systems imperfect, and which have had this system and their whole organisation disturbed by being compounded of two distinct species, seems closely allied to that sterility which so frequently affects pure species when their natural conditions of life have been disturbed. This view is supported by a parallelism of another kind: namely, that the crossing of forms, only slightly different, is favourable to the vigour and fertility of the offspring; and that slight changes in the conditions of life are apparently favourable to the vigour and fertility of all organic beings. It is not surprising that the degree of difficulty in uniting two species, and the degree of sterility of their hybrid offspring, should generally correspond, though due to distinct causes; for both depend on the amount of difference of some kind between the species which are crossed. Nor is it surprising that the facility of effecting a first cross, the fertility of hybrids produced from it, and the capacity of being grafted together--though this latter capacity evidently depends on widely different circumstances--should all run to a certain extent parallel with the systematic affinity of the forms which are subjected to experiment; for systematic affinity attempts to express all kinds of resemblance between all species. "First crosses between forms known to be varieties, or sufficiently alike to be considered as varieties, and their mongrel offspring, are very generally, but not quite universally, fertile. Nor is this nearly general and perfect fertility surprising, when we remember how liable we are to argue in a circle with respect to varieties in a state of Nature; and when we remember that the greater number of varieties have been produced under domestication by the selection of mere external differences, and not of differences in the reproductive system. In all other respects, excluding fertility, there is a close general resemblance between hybrids and mongrels."--Pp. 276-8. We fully agree with the general tenor of this weighty passage; but forcible as are these arguments, and little as the value of fertility or infertility as a test of species may be, it must not be forgotten that the really important fact, so far as the inquiry into the origin of species goes, is, that there are such things in Nature as groups of animals and of plants, the members of which are incapable of fertile union with those of other groups; and that there are such things as hybrids, which are absolutely sterile when crossed with other hybrids. For, if such phænomena as these were exhibited by only two of those assemblages of living objects, to which the name of species (whether it be used in its physiological or in its morphological sense) is given, it would have to be accounted for by any theory of the origin of species, and every theory which could not account for it would be, so far, imperfect. Up to this point, we have been dealing with matters of fact, and the statements which we have laid before the reader would, to the best of our knowledge, be admitted to contain a fair exposition of what is at present known respecting the essential properties of species, by all who have studied the question. And whatever may be his theoretical views, no naturalist will probably be disposed to demur to the following summary of that exposition:-- Living beings, whether animals or plants, are divisible into multitudes of distinctly definable kinds, which are morphological species. They are also divisible into groups of individuals, which breed freely together, tending to reproduce their like, and are physiological species. Normally resembling their parents, the offspring of members of these species are still liable to vary; and the variation may be perpetuated by selection, as a race, which race, in many cases, presents all the characteristics of a morphological species. But it is not as yet proved that a race ever exhibits, when crossed with another race of the same species, those phænomena of hybridisation which are exhibited by many species when crossed with other species. On the other hand, not only is it not proved that all species give rise to hybrids infertile _inter se_, but there is much reason to believe that, in crossing, species exhibit every gradation from perfect sterility to perfect fertility. Such are the most essential characteristics of species. Even were man not one of them--a member of the same system and subject to the same laws--the question of their origin, their causal connexion, that is, with the other phænomena of the universe, must have attracted his attention, as soon as his intelligence had raised itself above the level of his daily wants. Indeed history relates that such was the case, and has embalmed for us the speculations upon the origin of living beings, which were among the earliest products of the dawning intellectual activity of man. In those early days positive knowledge was not to be had, but the craving after it needed, at all hazards, to be satisfied, and according to the country, or the turn of thought, of the speculator, the suggestion that all living things arose from the mud of the Nile, from a primeval egg, or from some more anthropomorphic agency, afforded a sufficient resting-place for his curiosity. The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus, and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the knowledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this day, are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the authoritative standard of fact and the criterion of the justice of scientific conclusions, in all that relates to the origin of things, and, among them, of species. In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities--whose life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new wine of Science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and the end of sound science; and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade Nature to the level of primitive Judaism. Philosophers, on the other hand, have no such aggressive tendencies. With eyes fixed on the noble goal to which "per aspera et ardua" they tend, they may, now and then, be stirred to momentary wrath by the unnecessary obstacles with which the ignorant, or the malicious, encumber, if they cannot bar, the difficult path; but why should their souls be deeply vexed? The majesty of Fact is on their side, and the elemental forces of Nature are working for them. Not a star comes to the meridian at its calculated time but testifies to the justice of their methods--their beliefs are "one with the falling rain and with the growing corn." By doubt they are established, and open inquiry is their bosom friend. Such men have no fear of traditions however venerable, and no respect for them when they become mischievous and obstructive; but they have better than mere antiquarian business in hand, and if dogmas, which ought to be fossil but are not, are not forced upon their notice, they are too happy to treat them as non-existent. * * * * * The hypotheses respecting the origin of species which profess to stand upon a scientific basis, and, as such, alone demand serious attention, are of two kinds. The one, the "special creation" hypothesis, presumes every species to have originated from one or more stocks, these not being the result of the modification of any other form of living matter--or arising by natural agencies--but being produced, as such, by a supernatural creative act. The other, the so-called "transmutation" hypothesis, considers that all existing species are the result of the modification of pre-existing species, and those of their predecessors, by agencies similar to those which at the present day produce varieties and races, and therefore in an altogether natural way; and it is a probable, though not a necessary consequence of this hypothesis, that all living beings have arisen from a single stock. With respect to the origin of this primitive stock, or stocks, the doctrine of the origin of species is obviously not necessarily concerned. The transmutation hypothesis, for example, is perfectly consistent either with the conception of a special creation of the primitive germ, or with the supposition of its having arisen, as a modification of inorganic matter, by natural causes. The doctrine of special creation owes its existence very largely to the supposed necessity of making science accord with the Hebrew cosmogony; but it is curious to observe that, as the doctrine is at present maintained by men of science, it is as hopelessly inconsistent with the Hebrew view as any other hypothesis. If there be any result which has come more clearly out of geological investigation than another, it is, that the vast series of extinct animals and plants is not divisible, as it was once supposed to be, into distinct groups, separated by sharply-marked boundaries. There are no great gulfs between epochs and formations--no successive periods marked by the appearance of plants, of water animals, and of land animals, _en masse_. Every year adds to the list of links between what the older geologists supposed to be widely separated epochs: witness the crags linking the drift with older tertiaries; the Maestricht beds linking the tertiaries with the chalk; the St. Cassian beds exhibiting an abundant fauna of mixed mesozoic and palaeozoic types, in rocks of an epoch once supposed to be eminently poor in life; witness, lastly, the incessant disputes as to whether a given stratum shall be reckoned devonian or carboniferous, silurian or devonian, cambrian or silurian. This truth is further illustrated in a most interesting manner by the impartial and highly competent testimony of M. Pictet, from whose calculations of what percentage of the genera of animals, existing in any formation, lived during the preceding formation, it results that in no case is the proportion less than _one-third_, or 33 per cent. It is the triassic formation, or the commencement of the mesozoic epoch, which has received the smallest inheritance from preceding ages. The other formations not uncommonly exhibit 60, 80, or even 94 per cent, of genera in common with those whose remains are imbedded in their predecessor. Not only is this true, but the subdivisions of each formation exhibit new species characteristic of, and found only in, them; and, in many cases, as in the lias for example, the separate beds of these subdivisions are distinguished by well-marked and peculiar forms of life. A section, a hundred feet thick, will exhibit, at different heights, a dozen species of ammonite, none of which passes beyond its particular zone of limestone, or clay, into the zone below it or into that above it; so that those who adopt the doctrine of special creation must be prepared to admit, that at intervals of time, corresponding with the thickness of these beds, the Creator thought fit to interfere with the natural course of events for the purpose of making a new ammonite. It is not easy to transplant oneself into the frame of mind of those who can accept such a conclusion as this, on any evidence short of absolute demonstration; and it is difficult to see what is to be gained by so doing, since, as we have said, it is obvious that such a view of the origin of living beings is utterly opposed to the Hebrew cosmogony. Deserving no aid from the powerful arm of Bibliolatry, then, does the received form of the hypothesis of special creation derive any support from science or sound logic? Assuredly not much. The arguments brought forward in its favour all take one form: If species were not supernaturally created, we cannot understand the facts _x_, or _y_, or _z_; we cannot understand the structure of animals or plants, unless we suppose they were contrived for special ends; we cannot understand the structure of the eye, except by supposing it to have been made to see with; we cannot understand instincts, unless we suppose animals to have been miraculously endowed with them. As a question of dialectics, it must be admitted that this sort of reasoning is not very formidable to those who are not to be frightened by consequences. It is an _argumentum ad ignorantiam_--take this explanation or be ignorant. But suppose we prefer to admit our ignorance rather than adopt a hypothesis at variance with all the teachings of Nature? Or, suppose for a moment we admit the explanation, and then seriously ask ourselves how much the wiser are we; what does the explanation explain? Is it any more than a grandiloquent way of announcing the fact, that we really know nothing about the matter? A phenomenon is explained when it is shown to be a case of some general law of Nature; but the supernatural interposition of the Creator can, by the nature of the case, exemplify no law, and if species have really arisen in this way, it is absurd to attempt to discuss their origin. Or, lastly, let us ask ourselves whether any amount of evidence which the nature of our faculties permits us to attain, can justify us in asserting that any phenomenon is out of the reach of natural causation. To this end it is obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give rise. If we knew these, and found none competent to originate species, we should have good ground for denying their origin by natural causation. Till we know them, any hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable presumption. But the hypothesis of special creation is not only a mere specious mask for our ignorance; its existence in Biology marks the youth and imperfection of the science. For what is the history of every science but the history of the elimination of the notion of creative, or other interferences, with the natural order of the phænomena which are the subject-matter of that science? When Astronomy was young "the morning stars sang together for joy," and the planets were guided in their courses by celestial hands. Now, the harmony of the stars has resolved itself into gravitation according to the inverse squares of the distances, and the orbits of the planets are deducible from the laws of the forces which allow a schoolboy's stone to break a window. The lightning was the angel of the Lord; but it has pleased Providence, in these modern times, that science should make it the humble messenger of man, and we know that every flash that shimmers about the horizon on a summer's evening is determined by ascertainable conditions, and that its direction and brightness might, if our knowledge of these were great enough, have been calculated. The solvency of great mercantile companies rests on the validity of the laws which have been ascertained to govern the seeming irregularity of that human life which the moralist bewails as the most uncertain of things; plague, pestilence, and famine are admitted, by all but fools, to be the natural result of causes for the most part fully within human control, and not the unavoidable tortures inflicted by wrathful Omnipotence upon His helpless handiwork. Harmonious order governing eternally continuous progress--the web and woof of matter and force interweaving by slow degrees, without a broken thread, that veil which lies between us and the Infinite--that universe which alone we know or can know; such is the picture which science draws of the world, and in proportion as any part of that picture is in unison with the rest, so may we feel sure that it is rightly painted. Shall Biology alone remain out of harmony with her sister sciences? Such arguments against the hypothesis of the direct creation of species as these are plainly enough deducible from general considerations; but there are, in addition, phenomena exhibited by species themselves, and yet not so much a part of their very essence as to have required earlier mention, which are in the highest degree perplexing, if we adopt the popularly accepted hypothesis. Such are the facts of distribution in space and in time; the singular phenomena brought to light by the study of development; the structural relations of species upon which our systems of classification are founded; the great doctrines of philosophical anatomy, such as that of homology, or of the community of structural plan exhibited by large groups of species differing very widely in their habits and functions. The species of animals which inhabit the sea on opposite sides of the isthmus of Panama are wholly distinct;[Footnote: Recent investigations tend to show that this statement is not strictly accurate.--1870.] the animals and plants which inhabit islands are commonly distinct from those of the neighbouring mainlands, and yet have a similarity of aspect. The mammals of the latest tertiary epoch in the Old and New Worlds belong to the same genera, or family groups, as those which now inhabit the same great geographical area. The crocodilian reptiles which existed in the earliest secondary epoch were similar in general structure to those now living, but exhibit slight differences in their vertebræ, nasal passages, and one or two other points. The guinea-pig has teeth which are shed before it is born, and hence can never subserve the masticatory purpose for which they seem contrived, and, in like manner, the female dugong has tusks which never cut the gum. All the members of the same great group run through similar conditions in their development, and all their parts, in the adult state, are arranged according to the same plan. Man is more like a gorilla than a gorilla is like a lemur. Such are a few, taken at random, among the multitudes of similar facts which modern research has established; but when the student seeks for an explanation of them from the supporters of the received hypothesis of the origin of species, the reply he receives is, in substance, of Oriental simplicity and brevity--"Mashallah! it so pleases God!" There are different species on opposite sides of the isthmus of Panama, because they were created different on the two sides. The pliocene mammals are like the existing ones, because such was the plan of creation; and we find rudimental organs and similarity of plan, because it has pleased the Creator to set before Himself a "divine exemplar or archetype," and to copy it in His works; and somewhat ill, those who hold this view imply, in some of them. That such verbal hocus-pocus should be received as science will one day be regarded as evidence of the low state of intelligence in the nineteenth century, just as we amuse ourselves with the phraseology about Nature's abhorrence of a vacuum, wherewith Torricellis compatriots were satisfied to explain the rise of water in a pump. And be it recollected that this sort of satisfaction works not only negative but positive ill, by discouraging inquiry, and so depriving man of the usufruct of one of the most fertile fields of his great patrimony, Nature. The objections to the doctrine of the origin of species by special creation which have been detailed, must have occurred, with more or less force, to the mind of every one who has seriously and independently considered the subject. It is therefore no wonder that, from time to time, this hypothesis should have been met by counter hypotheses, all as well, and some better founded than itself; and it is curious to remark that the inventors of the opposing views seem to have been led into them as much by their knowledge of geology, as by their acquaintance with biology. In fact, when the mind has once admitted the conception of the gradual production of the present physical state of our globe, by natural causes operating through long ages of time, it will be little disposed to allow that living beings have made their appearance in another way, and the speculations of De Maillet and his successors are the natural complement of Scilla's demonstration of the true nature of fossils. A contemporary of Newton and of Leibnitz, sharing therefore in the intellectual activity of the remarkable age which witnessed the birth of modern physical science, Benoît de Maillet spent a long life as a consular agent of the French Government in various Mediterranean ports. For sixteen years, in fact, he held the office of Consul-General in Egypt, and the wonderful phenomena offered by the valley of the Nile appear to have strongly impressed his mind, to have directed his attention to all facts of a similar order which came within his observation, and to have led him to speculate on the origin of the present condition of our globe and of its inhabitants. But, with all his ardour for science, De Maillet seems to have hesitated to publish views which, notwithstanding the ingenious attempts to reconcile them with the Hebrew hypothesis contained in the preface to "Telliamed," were hardly likely to be received with favour by his contemporaries. But a short time had elapsed since more than one of the great anatomists and physicists of the Italian school had paid dearly for their endeavours to dissipate some of the prevalent errors; and their illustrious pupil, Harvey, the founder of modern physiology, had not fared so well, in a country less oppressed by the benumbing influences of theology, as to tempt any man to follow his example. Probably not uninfluenced by these considerations, his Catholic majesty's Consul-General for Egypt kept his theories to himself throughout a long life, for "Telliamed," the only scientific work which is known to have proceeded from his pen, was not printed till 1735, when its author had reached the ripe age of seventy-nine; and though De Maillet lived three years longer, his book was not given to the world before 1748. Even then it was anonymous to those who were not in the secret of the anagrammatic character of its title; and the preface and dedication are so worded as, in case of necessity, to give the printer a fair chance of falling back on the excuse that the work was intended for a mere _jeu d'esprit_. The speculations of the suppositious Indian sage, though quite as sound as those of many a "Mosaic Geology," which sells exceedingly well, have no great value if we consider them by the light of modern science. The waters are supposed to have originally covered the whole globe; to have deposited the rocky masses which compose its mountains by processes comparable to those which are now forming mud, sand, and shingle; and then to have gradually lowered their level, leaving the spoils of their animal and vegetable inhabitants embedded in the strata. As the dry land appeared, certain of the aquatic animals are supposed to have taken to it, and to have become gradually adapted to terrestrial and aërial modes of existence. But if we regard the general tenor and style of the reasoning in relation to the state of knowledge of the day, two circumstances appear very well worthy of remark. The first, that De Maillet had a notion of the modifiability of living forms (though without any precise information on the subject), and how such modifiability might account for the origin of species; the second, that he very clearly apprehended the great modern geological doctrine, so strongly insisted upon by Hutton, and so ably and comprehensively expounded by Lyell, that we must look to existing causes for the explanation of past geological events. Indeed, the following passage of the preface, in which De Maillet is supposed to speak of the Indian philosopher Telliamed, his _alter ego,_ might have been written by the most philosophical uniformitarian of the present day:-- "Ce qu'il y a d'étonnant, est que pour arriver à ces connaissances il semble avoir perverti l'ordre naturel, puisqu'au lieu de s'attacher d'abord à rechercher l'origine de notre globe il a commence par travailler à s'instruire de la nature. Mais à l'entendre, ce renversement de l'ordre a été pour lui l'effet d'un génie favorable qui l'a conduit pas à pas et comme par la main aux découvertes les plus sublimes. C'est en décomposant la substance de ce globe par tine anatomie exacte de toutes ses parties qu'il a premierement appris de quelles matières il était composé et quels arrangemens ces mêmes matières observaient entre elles. Ces lumieres jointes à l'esprit de comparaison toujours nécessaire à quiconque entreprend de percer les voiles dont la nature aime à se cacher, ont servi de guide à notre philosophe pour parvenir à des connoissances plus intéressantes. Par la matière et l'arrangement de ces compositions il prétend avoir reconnu quelle est la véritable origine de ce globe que nous habitons, comment et par qui il a été formé."-Pp. xix. xx. But De Maillet was before his age, and as could hardly fail to happen to one who speculated on a zoological and botanical question before Linnæus, and on a physiological problem before Haller, he fell into great errors here and there; and hence, perhaps, the general neglect of his work. Robinet's speculations are rather behind, than in advance of, those of De Maillet; and though Linnæus may have played with the hypothesis of transmutation, it obtained no serious support until Lamarck adopted it, and advocated it with great ability in his "Philosophie Zoologique." Impelled towards the hypothesis of the transmutation of species, partly by his general cosmological and geological views; partly by the conception of a graduated, though irregularly branching, scale of being, which had arisen out of his profound study of plants and of the lower forms of animal life, Lamarck, whose general line of thought often closely resembles that of De Maillet, made a great advance upon the crude and merely speculative manner in which that writer deals with the question of the origin of living beings, by endeavouring to find physical causes competent to effect that change of one species into another, which De Maillet had only supposed to occur. And Lamarck conceived that he had found in Nature such causes, amply sufficient for the purpose in view. It is a physiological fact, he says, that organs are increased in size by action, atrophied by inaction; it is another physiological fact that modifications produced are transmissible to offspring. Change the actions of an animal, therefore, and you will change its structure, by increasing the development of the parts newly brought into use and by the diminution of those less used; but by altering the circumstances which surround it you will alter its actions, and hence, in the long run, change of circumstance must produce change of organisation. All the species of animals, therefore, are, in Lamarck's view, the result of the indirect action of changes of circumstance, upon those primitive germs which he considered to have originally arisen, by spontaneous generation, within the waters of the globe. It is curious, however, that Lamarck should insist so strongly [Footnote: See _Phil. Zoologique_, vol. i. p. 222. et seq.] as he has done, that circumstances never in any degree directly modify the form or the organisation of animals, but only operate by changing their wants and consequently their actions; for he thereby brings upon himself the obvious question, How, then, do plants, which cannot be said to have wants or actions, become modified? To this he replies, that they are modified by the changes in their nutritive processes, which are effected by changing circumstances; and it does not seem to have occurred to him that such changes might be as well supposed to take place among animals. When we have said that Lamarck felt that mere speculation was not the way to arrive at the origin of species, but that it was necessary, in order to the establishment of any sound theory on the subject, to discover by observation or otherwise, some _vera causa_, competent to give rise to them; that he affirmed the true order of classification to coincide with the order of their development one from another; that he insisted on the necessity of allowing sufficient time, very strongly; and that all the varieties of instinct and reason were traced back by him to the same cause as that which has given rise to species, we have enumerated his chief contributions to the advance of the question. On the other hand, from his ignorance of any power in Nature competent to modify the structure of animals, except the development of parts, or atrophy of them, in consequence of a change of needs, Lamarck was led to attach infinitely greater weight than it deserves to this agency, and the absurdities into which he was led have met with deserved condemnation. Of the struggle for existence, on which, as we shall see, Mr. Darwin lays such great stress, he had no conception; indeed, he doubts whether there really are such things as extinct species, unless they be such large animals as may have met their death at the hands of man; and so little does he dream of there being any other destructive causes at work, that, in discussing the possible existence of fossil shells, he asks, "Pourquoi d'ailleurs seroient-ils perdues dès que l'homme n'a pu opérer leur destruction?" ("Phil. Zool.," vol. i. p. 77.) Of the influence of selection Lamarck has as little notion, and he makes no use of the wonderful phenomena which are exhibited by domesticated animals, and illustrate its powers. The vast influence of Cuvier was employed against the Lamarckian views, and, as the untenability of some of his conclusions was easily shown, his doctrines sank under the opprobrium of scientific, as well as of theological, heterodoxy. Nor have the efforts made of late years to revive them tended to re-establish their credit in the minds of sound thinkers acquainted with the facts of the case; indeed it may be doubted whether Lamarck has not suffered more from his friends than from his foes. Two years ago, in fact, though we venture to question if even the strongest supporters of the special creation hypothesis had not, now and then, an uneasy consciousness that all was not right, their position seemed more impregnable than ever, if not by its own inherent strength, at any rate by the obvious failure of all the attempts which had been made to carry it. On the other hand, however much the few, who thought deeply on the question of species, might be repelled by the generally received dogmas, they saw no way of escaping from them save by the adoption of suppositions so little justified by experiment or by observation as to be at least equally distasteful. The choice lay between two absurdities and a middle condition of uneasy scepticism; which last, however unpleasant and unsatisfactory, was obviously the only justifiable state of mind under the circumstances. Such being the general ferment in the minds of naturalists, it is no wonder that they mustered strong in the rooms of the Linnæan Society, on the 1st of July of the year 1858, to hear two papers by authors living on opposite sides of the globe, working out their results independently, and yet professing to have discovered one and the same solution of all the problems connected with species. The one of these authors was an able naturalist, Mr. Wallace, who had been employed for some years in studying the productions of the islands of the Indian Archipelago, and who had forwarded a memoir embodying his views to Mr. Darwin, for communication to the Linnæan Society. On perusing the essay, Mr. Darwin was not a little surprised to find that it embodied some of the leading ideas of a great work which he had been preparing for twenty years, and parts of which, containing a development of the very same views, had been perused by his private friends fifteen or sixteen years before. Perplexed in what manner to do full justice both to his friend and to himself, Mr. Darwin placed the matter in the hands of Dr. Hooker and Sir Charles Lyell, by whose advice he communicated a brief abstract of his own views to the Linnæan Society, at the same time that Mr. Wallace's paper was read. Of that abstract, the work on the "Origin of Species" is an enlargement; but a complete statement of Mr. Darwin's doctrine is looked for in the large and well-illustrated work which he is said to be preparing for publication. The Darwinian hypothesis has the merit of being eminently simple and comprehensible in principle, and its essential positions may be stated in a very few words: all species have been produced by the development of varieties from common stocks; by the conversion of these, first into permanent races and then into new species, by the process of _natural selection_, which process is essentially identical with that artificial selection by which man has originated the races of domestic animals--the _struggle for existence_ taking the place of man, and exerting, in the case of natural selection, that selective action which he performs in artificial selection. The evidence brought forward by Mr. Darwin in support of his hypothesis is of three kinds. First, he endeavours to prove that species may be originated by selection; secondly, he attempts to show that natural causes are competent to exert selection; and thirdly, he tries to prove that the most remarkable and apparently anomalous phænomena exhibited by the distribution, development, and mutual relations of species, can be shown to be deducible from the general doctrine of their origin, which he propounds, combined with the known facts of geological change; and that, even if all these phænomena are not at present explicable by it, none are necessarily inconsistent with it. There cannot be a doubt that the method of inquiry which Mr. Darwin has adopted is not only rigorously in accordance with the canons of scientific logic, but that it is the only adequate method. Critics exclusively trained in classics or in mathematics, who have never determined a scientific fact in their lives by induction from experiment or observation, prate learnedly about Mr. Darwin's method, which is not inductive enough, not Baconian enough, forsooth, for them. But even if practical acquaintance with the process of scientific investigation is denied them, they may learn, by the perusal of Mr. Mill's admirable chapter "On the Deductive Method," that there are multitudes of scientific inquiries in which the method of pure induction helps the investigator but a very little way. "The mode of investigation," says Mr. Mill, "which, from the proved inapplicability of direct methods of observation and experiment, remains to us as the main source of the knowledge we possess, or can acquire, respecting the conditions and laws of recurrence of the more complex phænomena, is called, in its most general expression, the deductive method, and consists of three operations: the first, one of direct induction; the second, of ratiocination; and the third, of verification." Now, the conditions which have determined the existence of species are not only exceedingly complex, but, so far as the great majority of them are concerned, are necessarily beyond our cognisance. But what Mr. Darwin has attempted to do is in exact accordance with the rule laid down by Mr. Mill; he has endeavoured to determine certain great facts inductively, by observation and experiment; he has then reasoned from the data thus furnished; and lastly, he has tested the validity of his ratiocination by comparing his deductions with the observed facts of Nature. Inductively, Mr. Darwin endeavours to prove that species arise in a given way. Deductively, he desires to show that, if they arise in that way, the facts of distribution, development, classification, &c., may be accounted for, _i.e._ may be deduced from their mode of origin, combined with admitted changes in physical geography and climate, during an indefinite period. And this explanation, or coincidence of observed with deduced facts, is, so far as it extends, a verification of the Darwinian view. There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin's method, then; but it is another question whether he has fulfilled all the conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved, in fact, that species may be originated by selection? that there is such a thing as natural selection? that none of the phænomena exhibited by species are inconsistent with the origin of species in this way? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's view steps out of the rank of hypotheses into those of proved theories; but, so long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing that affirmation, so long, to our minds, must the new doctrine be content to remain among the former--an extremely valuable, and in the highest degree probable, doctrine, indeed the only extant hypothesis which is worth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis, and not yet the theory of species. After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural. Groups having the morphological character of species--distinct and permanent races in fact--have been so produced over and over again; but there is no positive evidence, at present, that any group of animals has, by variation and selective breeding, given rise to another group which was, even in the least degree, infertile with the first. Mr. Darwin is perfectly aware of this weak point, and brings forward a multitude of ingenious and important arguments to diminish the force of the objection. We admit the value of these arguments to their fullest extent; nay, we will go so far as to express our belief that experiments, conducted by a skilful physiologist, would very probably obtain the desired production of mutually more or less infertile breeds from a common stock, in a comparatively few years; but still, as the case stands at present, this "little rift within the lute" is not to be disguised nor overlooked. In the remainder of Mr. Darwin's argument our own private ingenuity has not hitherto enabled us to pick holes of any great importance; and judging by what we hear and read, other adventurers in the same field do not seem to have been much more fortunate. It has been urged, for instance, that in his chapters on the struggle for existence and on natural selection, Mr. Darwin does not so much prove that natural selection does occur, as that it must occur; but, in fact, no other sort of demonstration is attainable. A race does not attract our attention in Nature until it has, in all probability, existed for a considerable time, and then it is too late to inquire into the conditions of its origin. Again, it is said that there is no real analogy between the selection which takes place under domestication, by human influence, and any operation which can be effected by Nature, for man interferes intelligently. Reduced to its elements, this argument implies that an effect produced with trouble by an intelligent agent must, _à fortiori,_ be more troublesome, if not impossible, to an unintelligent agent. Even putting aside the question whether Nature, acting as she does according to definite and invariable laws, can be rightly called an unintelligent agent, such a position as this is wholly untenable. Mix salt and sand, and it shall puzzle the wisest of men, with his mere natural appliances, to separate all the grains of sand from all the grains of salt; but a shower of rain will effect the same object in ten minutes. And so, while man may find it tax all his intelligence to separate any variety which arises, and to breed selectively from it, the destructive agencies incessantly at work in Nature, if they find one variety to be more soluble in circumstances than the other, will inevitably, in the long run, eliminate it. A frequent and a just objection to the Lamarckian hypothesis of the transmutation of species is based upon the absence of transitional forms between many species. But against the Darwinian hypothesis this argument has no force. Indeed, one of the most valuable and suggestive parts of Mr. Darwin's work is that in which he proves, that the frequent absence of transitions is a necessary consequence of his doctrine, and that the stock whence two or more species have sprung, need in no respect be intermediate between these species. If any two species have arisen from a common stock in the same way as the carrier and the pouter, say, have arisen from the rock-pigeon, then the common stock of these two species need be no more intermediate between the two than the rock-pigeon is between the carrier and pouter. Clearly appreciate the force of this analogy, and all the arguments against the origin of species by selection, based on the absence of transitional forms, fall to the ground. And Mr. Darwin's position might, we think, have been even stronger than it is if he had not embarrassed himself with the aphorism, "_Natura non facit saltum_," which turns up so often in his pages. We believe, as we have said above, that Nature does make jumps now and then, and a recognition of the fact is of no small importance in disposing of many minor objections to the doctrine of transmutation. But we must pause. The discussion of Mr. Darwin's arguments in detail would lead us far beyond the limits within which we proposed, at starting, to confine this article. Our object has been attained if we have given an intelligible, however brief, account of the established facts connected with species, and of the relation of the explanation of those facts offered by Mr. Darwin to the theoretical views held by his predecessors and his contemporaries, and, above all, to the requirements of scientific logic. We have ventured to point out that it does not, as yet, satisfy all those requirements; but we do not hesitate to assert that it is as superior to any preceding or contemporary hypothesis, in the extent of observational and experimental basis on which it rests, in its rigorously scientific method, and in its power of explaining biological phenomena, as was the hypothesis of Copernicus to the speculations of Ptolemy. But the planetary orbits turned out to be not quite circular after all, and, grand as was the service Copernicus rendered to science, Kepler and Newton had to come after him. What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phænomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of "The Origin of Species" an immense debt of gratitude. We should leave a very wrong impression on the reader's mind if we permitted him to suppose that the value of that work depends wholly on the ultimate justification of the theoretical views which it contains. On the contrary, if they were disproved to-morrow, the book would still be the best of its kind--the most compendious statement of well-sifted facts bearing on the doctrine of species that has ever appeared. The chapters on Variation, on the Struggle for Existence, on Instinct, on Hybridism, on the Imperfection of the Geological Record, on Geographical Distribution, have not only no equals, but, so far as our knowledge goes, no competitors, within the range of biological literature. And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer's "Researches on Development," thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated. III CRITICISMS ON "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1864] 1. UEBER DIE DARWIN'SCHE SCHÖPFUNGSTHEORIE; EIN VORTRAG, Von A. KÖLLIKER. Leipzig, 1864. 2. EXAMINATION DU LIVRE DE M. DARWIN SUR L'ORIGINE DES ESPÈCES. Par P. FLOURENS. Paris, 1864. In the course of the present year several foreign commentaries upon Mr. Darwin's great work have made their appearance. Those who have perused that remarkable chapter of the "Antiquity of Man," in which Sir Charles Lyell draws a parallel between the development of species and that of languages, will be glad to hear that one of the most eminent philologers of Germany, Professor Schleicher, has, independently, published a most instructive and philosophical pamphlet (an excellent notice of which is to be found in the _Reader_, for February 27th of this year) supporting similar views with all the weight of his special knowledge and established authority as a linguist. Professor Haeckel, to whom Schleicher addresses himself, previously took occasion, in his splendid monograph on the _Radiolaria_,[Footnote: _Die Radiolarien: eine Monographie_, p. 231.] to express his high appreciation of, and general concordance with, Mr. Darwin's views. But the most elaborate criticisms of the "Origin of Species" which have appeared are two works of very widely different merit, the one by Professor Kölliker, the well-known anatomist and histologist of Würzburg; the other by M. Flourens, Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences. Professor Kölliker's critical essay "Upon the Darwinian Theory" is, like all that proceeds from the pen of that thoughtful and accomplished writer, worthy of the most careful consideration. It comprises a brief but clear sketch of Darwin's views, followed by an enumeration of the leading difficulties in the way of their acceptance; difficulties which would appear to be insurmountable to Professor Kölliker, inasmuch as he proposes to replace Mr. Darwin's Theory by one which he terms the "Theory of Heterogeneous Generation." We shall proceed to consider first the destructive, and secondly, the constructive portion of the essay. We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very widely from many of Professor Kölliker's remarks; and from none more thoroughly than from those in which he seeks to define what we may term the philosophical position of Darwinism. "Darwin," says Professor Kölliker, "is, in the fullest sense of the word, a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition, pp. 199, 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal has been created for its benefit, and he regards the whole series of animal forms only from this point of view." And again: "7. The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin is a mistaken one. "Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent. "The assumption that an organism exists only on account of some definite end in view, and represents something more than the incorporation of a general idea, or law, implies a one-sided conception of the universe. Assuredly, every organ has, and every organism fulfils, its end, but its purpose is not the condition of its existence. Every organism is also sufficiently perfect for the purpose it serves, and in that, at least, it is useless to seek for a cause of its improvement." It is singular how differently one and the same book will impress different minds. That which struck the present writer most forcibly on his first perusal of the "Origin of Species" was the conviction that Teleology, as commonly understood, had received its deathblow at Mr. Darwin's hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: an organ or organism (A) is precisely fitted to perform a function or purpose (B); therefore it was specially constructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration, the adaptation of all the parts of the watch to the function, or purpose, of showing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was specially contrived to that end; on the ground, that the only cause we know of, competent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is a contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that end. Suppose, however, that any one had been able to show that the watch had not been made directly by any person, but that it was the result of the modification of another watch which kept time but poorly; and that this again had proceeded from a structure which could hardly be called a watch at all--seeing that it had no figures on the dial and the hands were rudimentary; and that going back and back in time we came at last to a revolving barrel as the earliest traceable rudiment of the whole fabric. And imagine that it had been possible to show that all these changes had resulted, first, from a tendency of the structure to vary indefinitely; and secondly, from something in the surrounding world which helped all variations in the direction of an accurate time-keeper, and checked all those in other directions; then it is obvious that the force of Paley's argument would be gone. For it would be demonstrated that an apparatus thoroughly well adapted to a particular purpose might be the result of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to that end, by an intelligent agent. Now it appears to us that what we have here, for illustration's sake, supposed to be done with the watch, is exactly what the establishment of Darwin's Theory will do for the organic world. For the notion that every organism has been created as it is and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may fairly be termed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet with surrounding conditions which suit them and thrive; the many are unsuited and become extinguished. According to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of which one hits something and the rest fall wide. For the teleologist an organism exists because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for the Darwinian an organism exists because, out of many of its kind, it is the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in which it is found. Teleology implies that the organs of every organism are perfect and cannot be improved; the Darwinian theory simply affirms that they work well enough to enable the organism to hold its own against such competitors as it has met with, but admits the possibility of indefinite improvement. But an example may bring into clearer light the profound opposition between the ordinary teleological, and the Darwinian, conception. Cats catch mice, small birds and the like, very well. Teleology tells us that they do so because they were expressly constructed for so doing--that they are perfect mousing apparatuses, so perfect and so delicately adjusted that no one of their organs could be altered, without the change involving the alteration of all the rest. Darwinism affirms on the contrary, that there was no express construction concerned in the matter; but that among the multitudinous variations of the Feline stock, many of which died out from want of power to resist opposing influences, some, the cats, were better fitted to catch mice than others, whence they throve and persisted, in proportion to the advantage over their fellows thus offered to them. Far from imagining that cats exist _in order_ to catch mice well, Darwinism supposes that cats exist because they catch mice well--mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence. And if the cat type has long persisted as we know it, the interpretation of the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not that the cats have remained invariable, but that such varieties as have incessantly occurred have been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in the world than the existing stock. If we apprehend the spirit of the "Origin of Species" rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it is commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a "Teleologist in the fullest sense of the word," we should deny that he is a Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that, apart from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of Nature to recognise, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which are so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology has done good service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis. But leaving our own impressions of the "Origin of Species," and turning to those passages especially cited by Professor Kölliker, we cannot admit that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them. Darwin, if we read him rightly, does _not_ affirm that every detail in the structure of an animal has been created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199):-- "The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory--yet I fully admit that many structures are of no direct use to their possessor." And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, he concludes (p. 200):-- "Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making some little allowance for the direct action of physical conditions) may be viewed either as having been of special use to some ancestral form, or as being now of special use to the descendants of this form--either directly, or indirectly, through the complex laws of growth." But it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that every detail observed in an animal's structure is of use to it, or has been of use to its ancestors; and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that every detail of an animal's structure has been created for its benefit. On the former hypothesis, for example, the teeth of the foetal _Baltæna_ have a meaning; on the latter, none. So far as we are aware, there is not a phrase in the "Origin of Species" inconsistent with Professor Kölliker's position, that "varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent." On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary of Chap. V.):-- "Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part varies more or less from the same part in the parents... The external conditions of life, as climate and food, &c., seem to have induced some slight modifications. Habit, in producing constitutional differences, and use, in strengthening, and disuse, in weakening and diminishing organs, seem to have been more potent in their effects." And finally, as if to prevent all possible misconception, Mr. Darwin concludes his Chapter on Variation with these pregnant words:-- "Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring from their parents--and a cause for each must exist--it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection of such differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important modifications of structure, by which the innumerable beings on the face of the earth are enabled to struggle with each other, and the best adapted to survive." We have dwelt at length upon, this subject, because of its great general importance, and because we believe that Professor Kölliker's criticisms on this head are based upon a misapprehension of Mr. Darwin's views--substantially they appear to us to coincide with his own. The other objections which Professor Kölliker enumerates and discusses are the following: [Footnote: Space will not allow us to give Professor Kölliker's arguments in detail; our readers will find a full and accurate version of them in the _Reader_ for August 13th and 20th, 1864.]-- "1. No transitional forms between existing species are known; and known varieties, whether selected or spontaneous, never go so far as to establish new species." To this Professor Kölliker appears to attach some weight. He makes the suggestion that the short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological product. "2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the organic remains of earlier epochs." Upon this, Professor Kölliker remarks that the absence of transitional forms in the fossil world, though not necessarily fatal to Darwin's views, weakens his case. "3. The struggle for existence does not take place." To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kölliker, very justly, attaches no weight. "4. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and a natural selection, do not exist. "The varieties which are found arise in consequence of manifold external influences, and it is not obvious why they all, or partially, should be particularly useful. Each animal suffices for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further development. Should, however, a variety be useful and even maintain itself, there is no obvious reason why it should change any further. The whole conception of the imperfection of organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected is plainly the weakest side of Darwin's Theory, and a _pis aller_ (Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle by which to explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe, have occurred." Here again we must venture to dissent completely from Professor Kölliker's conception of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis. It appears to us to be one of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that it involves no belief in a necessary and continual progress of organisms. Again, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright, assumes no special tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and knows nothing of needs of development, or necessity of perfection. What he says is, in substance: All organisms vary. It is in the highest degree improbable that any given variety should have exactly the same relations to surrounding conditions as the parent stock. In that case it is either better fitted (when the variation may be called useful), or worse fitted, to cope with them. If better, it will tend to supplant the parent stock; if worse, it will tend to be extinguished by the parent stock. If (as is hardly conceivable) the new variety is so perfectly adapted to the conditions that no improvement upon it is possible,--it will persist, because, though it does not cease to vary, the varieties will be inferior to itself. If, as is more probable, the new variety is by no means perfectly adapted to its conditions, but only fairly well adapted to them, it will persist, so long as none of the varieties which it throws off are better adapted than itself. On the other hand, as soon as it varies in a useful way, _i.e._ when the variation is such as to adapt it more perfectly to its conditions, the fresh variety will tend to supplant the former. So far from a gradual progress towards perfection forming any necessary part of the Darwinian creed, it appears to us that it is perfectly consistent with indefinite persistence in one state, or with a gradual retrogression. Suppose, for example, a return of the glacial epoch and a spread of polar climatal conditions over the whole globe. The operation of natural selection under these circumstances would tend, on the whole, to the weeding out of the higher organisms and the cherishing of the lower forms of life. Cryptogamic vegetation would have the advantage over Phanerogamic; _Hydrozoa_ over Corals; _Crustacea_ over _Insecta_, and _Amphipoda_ and _Isopoda_ over the higher _Crustacea;_ Cetaceans and Seals over the _Primates_; the civilisation of the Esquimaux over that of the European. "5. Pelzeln has also objected that if the later organisms have proceeded from the earlier, the whole developmental series, from the simplest to the highest, could not now exist; in such a case the simpler organisms must have disappeared." To this Professor Kölliker replies, with perfect justice, that the conclusion drawn by Pelzeln does not really follow from Darwin's premises, and that, if we take the facts of Paleontology as they stand, they rather support than oppose Darwin's theory. "6. Great weight must be attached to the objection brought forward by Huxley, otherwise a warm supporter of Darwin's hypothesis, that we know of no varieties which are sterile with one another, as is the rule among sharply distinguished animal forms. "If Darwin is right, it must be demonstrated that forms may be produced by selection, which, like the present sharply distinguished animal forms, are infertile, when coupled with one another, and this has not been done." The weight of this objection is obvious; but our ignorance of the conditions of fertility and sterility, the want of carefully conducted experiments extending over long series of years, and the strange anomalies presented by the results of the cross-fertilisation of many plants, should all, as Mr. Darwin has urged, be taken into account in considering it. The seventh objection is that we have already discussed (_supra_ p. 82). The eighth and last stands as follows:-- "8. The developmental theory of Darwin is not needed to enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the complete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more perfect. "The existence of general laws of Nature explains this harmony, even if we assume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one another. Darwin forgets that inorganic nature, in which there can be no thought of genetic connexion of forms, exhibits the same regular plan, the same harmony, as the organic world; and that, to cite only one example, there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and animals." We do not feel quite sure that we seize Professor Kölliker's meaning here, but he appears to suggest that the observation of the general order and harmony which pervade inorganic nature, would lead us to anticipate a similar order and harmony in the organic world. And this is no doubt true, but it by no means follows that the particular order and harmony observed among them should be that which we see. Surely the stripes of dun horses, and the teeth of the _foetal_ _Balæna_, are not explained by the "existence of General laws of Nature." Mr. Darwin endeavours to explain the exact order of organic nature which exists; not the mere fact that there is some order. And with regard to the existence of a natural system of minerals; the obvious reply is that there may be a natural classification of any objects--of stones on a sea-beach, or of works of art; a natural classification being simply an assemblage of objects in groups, so as to express their most important and fundamental resemblances and differences. No doubt Mr. Darwin believes that those resemblances and differences upon which our natural systems or classifications of animals and plants are based, are resemblances and differences which have been produced genetically, but we can discover no reason for supposing that he denies the existence of natural classifications of other kinds. And, after all, is it quite so certain that a genetic relation may not underlie the classification of minerals? The inorganic world has not always been what we see it. It has certainly had its metamorphoses, and, very probably, a long "Entwickelungsgeschichte" out of a nebular blastema. Who knows how far that amount of likeness among sets of minerals, in virtue of which they are now grouped into families and orders, may not be the expression of the common conditions to which that particular patch of nebulous fog, which may have been constituted by their atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest sense, the descendants, was subjected? It will be obvious from what has preceded, that we do not agree with Professor Kölliker in thinking the objections which he brings forward so weighty as to be fatal to Darwin's view. But even if the case were otherwise, we should be unable to accept the "Theory of Heterogeneous Generation" which is offered as a substitute. That theory is thus stated:-- "The fundamental conception of this hypothesis is, that, under the influence of a general law of development, the germs of organisms produce others different from themselves. This might happen (1) by the fecundated ova passing, in the course of their development, under particular circumstances, into higher forms; (2) by the primitive and later organisms producing other organisms without fecundation, out of germs or eggs (Parthenogenesis)." In favour of this hypothesis, Professor Kölliker adduces the well-known facts of Agamogenesis, or "alternate generation"; the extreme dissimilarity of the males and females of many animals; and of the males, females, and neuters of those insects which live in colonies: and he defines its relations to the Darwinian theory as follows:-- "It is obvious that my hypothesis is apparently very similar to Darwin's, inasmuch as I also consider that the various forms of animals have proceeded directly from one another. My hypothesis of the creation of organisms by heterogeneous generation, however, is distinguished very essentially from Darwin's by the entire absence of the principle of useful variations and their natural selection: and my fundamental conception is this, that a great plan of development lies at the foundation of the origin of the whole organic world, impelling the simpler forms to more and more complex developments. How this law operates, what influences determine the development of the eggs and germs, and impel them to assume constantly new forms, I naturally cannot pretend to say; but I can at least adduce the great analogy of the alternation of generations. If a _Bipinnaria_, a _Brachiolaria_, a _Pluteus_, is competent to produce the Echinoderm, which is so widely different from it; if a hydroid polype can produce the higher Medusa; if the vermiform Trematode 'nurse' can develop within itself the very unlike _Cercaria_, it will not appear impossible that the egg, or ciliated embryo, of a sponge, for once, under special conditions, might become a hydroid polype, or the embryo of a Medusa, an Echinoderm." It is obvious, from, these extracts, that Professor Kölliker's hypothesis is based upon the supposed existence of a close analogy between the phænomena of Agamogenesis and the production of new species from pre-existing ones. But is the analogy a real one? We think that it is not, and, by the hypothesis cannot be. For what are the phænomena of Agamogenesis, stated generally? An impregnated egg develops into a sexless form, A; this gives rise, non-sexually, to a second form or forms, B, more or less different from A. B may multiply non-sexually again; in the simpler cases, however, it does not, but, acquiring sexual characters, produces impregnated eggs from whence A, once more, arises. No case of Agamogenesis is known in which _when A differs widely from B_, it is itself capable of sexual propagation. No case whatever is known in which the progeny of B, by sexual generation, is other than a reproduction of A. But if this be a true statement of the nature of the process of Agamogenesis, how can it enable us to comprehend the production of new species from already existing ones? Let us suppose Hyænas to have preceded Dogs, and to have produced the latter in this way. Then the Hyæna will represent A, and the Dog, B. The first difficulty that presents itself is that the Hyæna must be non-sexual, or the process will be wholly without analogy in the world of Agamogenesis. But passing over this difficulty, and supposing a male and female Dog to be produced at the same time from the Hyæna stock, the progeny of the pair, if the analogy of the simpler kinds of Agamogenesis [Footnote: If, on the contrary, we follow the analogy of the more complex forms of Agamogenesis, such as that exhibited by some _Trematoda_ and by the _Aphides_, the Hyæna must produce, non-sexually, a brood of sexless Dogs, from which other sexless Dogs must proceed. At the end of a certain number of terms of the series, the Dogs would acquire sexes and generate young; but these young would be, not Dogs, but Hyænas. In fact, we have demonstrated, in Agamogenetic phænomena, that inevitable recurrence to the original type, which is asserted to be true of variations in general, by Mr. Darwin's opponents; and which, if the assertion could be changed into a demonstration, would, in fact, be fatal to his hypothesis.] is to be followed, should be a litter, not of puppies, but of young Hyænas. For the Agamogenetic series is always, as we have seen, A:B:A:B, &c.; whereas, for the production of a new species, the series must be A:B:B:B, &c. The production of new species, or genera, is the extreme permanent divergence from the primitive stock. All known Agamogenetic processes, on the other hand, end in a complete return to the primitive stock. How then is the production of new species to be rendered intelligible by the analogy of Agamogenesis? The other alternative put by Professor Kölliker--the passage of fecundated ova in the course of their development into higher forms--would, if it occurred, be merely an extreme case of variation in the Darwinian sense, greater in degree than, but perfectly similar in kind to, that which occurred when the well-known Ancon Ram was developed from an ordinary Ewe's ovum. Indeed we have always thought that Mr. Darwin has unnecessarily hampered himself by adhering so strictly to his favourite "Natura non facit saltum." We greatly suspect that she does make considerable jumps in the way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of known forms. Strongly and freely as we have ventured to disagree with Professor Kölliker, we have always done so with regret, and we trust without violating that respect which is due, not only to his scientific eminence and to the careful study which he has devoted to the subject, but to the perfect fairness of his argumentation, and the generous appreciation of the worth of Mr. Darwin's labours which he always displays. It would be satisfactory to be able to say as much for M. Flourens. But the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences deals with Mr. Darwin as the first Napoleon would have treated an "idéologue;" and while displaying a painful weakness of logic and shallowness of information, assumes a tone of authority, which always touches upon the ludicrous, and sometimes passes the limits of good breeding. For example (p. 56):-- "M. Darwin continue: 'Aucune distinction absolue n'a été et ne peut être établie entre les espèces et les variétés.' Je vous ai déjà dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue sépare les variétés d'avec les espèces." "_Je vous ai déjà dit_; moi, M. le Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des Sciences: et vous "'Qui n'êtes rien, Pas même Académicien;' what do you mean by asserting the contrary?" Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this fashion, even by a "Perpetual Secretary." Or again, considering that if there is any one quality of Mr. Darwin's work to which friends and foes have alike borne witness, it is his candour and fairness in admitting and discussing objections, what is to be thought of M. Flourens' assertion, that "M. Darwin ne cite que les auteurs qui partagent ses opinions." (P. 40.) Once more (p. 65):-- "Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu'être frappé du talent de l'auteur. Mais quo d'idées obscures, que d'idées fausses! Quel jargon métaphysique jeté mal à propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias dès qu'elle sort des idées claires, des idées justes! Quel langage prétentieux et vide! Quelles personnifications puériles et surannées! O lucidité! 0 solidité de l'esprit Français, que devenez-vous?" "Obscure ideas," "metaphysical jargon," "pretentious and empty language," "puerile and superannuated personifications." Mr. Darwin has many and hot opponents on this side of the Channel and in Germany, but we do not recollect to have found precisely these sins in the long catalogue of those hitherto laid to his charge. It is worth while, therefore, to examine into these discoveries effected solely by the aid of the "lucidity and solidity" of the mind of M. Flourens. According to M. Flourens, Mr. Darwin's great error is that he has personified Nature (p. 10), and further that he has "imagined a natural selection: he imagines afterwards that this power of selecting (_pouvoir d'élire_) which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man. These two suppositions admitted, nothing stops him: he plays with Nature as he likes, and makes her do all he pleases." (P. 6.) And this is the way M. Flourens extinguishes natural selection: "Voyons donc encore une fois, ce qu'il peut y avoir de fondé dans ce qu'on nomme _élection naturelle_. "_L'élection naturelle_ n'est sous un autre nom que la nature. Pour un être organisé, la nature n'est que l'organisation, ni plus ni moins. "Il faudra donc aussi personnifier _l'organisation,_ et dire que _l'organisation_ choisit _l'organisation. L'élection naturelle_ est cette _forme substantielle_ dont on jouait autrefois avec tant de facilité. Aristote disait que 'Si l'art de bâtir était dans le bois, cet art agirait comme la nature.' A la place de _l'art de bâtir_ M. Darwin met _l'élection naturelle,_ et c'est tout un: l'un n'est pas plus chimérique que l'autre." (P. 31.) And this is really all that M. Flourens can make of Natural Selection. We have given the original, in fear lest a translation should be regarded as a travesty; but with the original before the reader, we may try to analyse the passage. "For an organised being, Nature is only organisation, neither more nor less." Organised beings then have absolutely no relation to inorganic nature: a plant does not depend on soil or sunshine, climate, depth in the ocean, height above it; the quantity of saline matters in water have no influence upon animal life; the substitution of carbonic acid for oxygen in our atmosphere would hurt nobody! That these are absurdities no one should know better than M. Flourens; but they are logical deductions from the assertion just quoted, and from the further statement that natural selection means only that "organisation chooses and selects organisation." For if it be once admitted (what no sane man denies) that the chances of life of any given organism are increased by certain conditions (A) and diminished by their opposites (B), then it is mathematically certain that any change of conditions in the direction of (A) will exercise a selective influence in favour of that organism, tending to its increase and multiplication, while any change in the direction of (B) will exercise a selective influence against that organism, tending to its decrease and extinction. Or, on the other hand, conditions remaining the same, let a given organism vary (and no one doubts that they do vary) in two directions: into one form (_a_) better fitted to cope with these conditions than the original stock, and a second (_b_) less well adapted to them. Then it is no less certain that the conditions in question must exercise a selective influence in favour of (_a_) and against (_b_), so that (_a_) will tend to predominance, and (_b_) to extirpation. That M. Flourens should be unable to perceive the logical necessity of these simple arguments, which lie at the foundation of all Mr. Darwin's reasoning; that he should confound an irrefragable deduction from the observed relations of organisms to the conditions which lie around them, with a metaphysical "forme substantielle," or a chimerical personification of the powers of Nature, would be incredible, were it not that other passages of his work leave no room for doubt upon the subject. "On imagine une _élection naturelle_ que, pour plus de ménagement, on me dit être _inconsciente_, sans s'apercevoir que le contresens littéral est précisément là: _élection inconsciente_." (P. 52.) "J'ai déjà dit ce qu'il faut penser de _l'élection naturelle_. Ou _l'élection naturelle_ n'est rien, ou c'est la nature: mais la nature douée _d'élection_, mais la nature personnifiée: dernière erreur du dernier siècle: Le XIXe ne fait plus de personnifications." (P. 53.) M. Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection--it is for him a contradiction in terms. Did M. Flourens ever visit one of the prettiest watering-places of "la belle France," the Baie d'Arcachon? If so, he will probably have passed through the district of the Landes, and will have had an opportunity of observing the formation of "dunes" on a grand scale. What are these "dunes"? The winds and waves of the Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great care "selected," from among an infinity of masses of silex of all shapes and sizes, which have been submitted to their action, all the grains of sand below a certain size, and have heaped them by themselves over a great area. This sand has been "unconsciously selected" from amidst the gravel in which it first lay with as much precision as if man had "consciously selected" it by the aid of a sieve. Physical Geology is full of such selections--of the picking out of the soft from the hard, of the soluble from the insoluble, of the fusible from the infusible, by natural agencies to which we are certainly not in the habit of ascribing consciousness. But that which wind and sea are to a sandy beach, the sum of influences, which we term the "conditions of existence," is to living organisms. The weak are sifted out from the strong. A frosty night "selects" the hardy plants in a plantation from among the tender ones as effectually as if it were the wind, and they, the sand and pebbles, of our illustration; or, on the other hand, as if the intelligence of a gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker organisms down. The thistle, which has spread over the Pampas, to the destruction of native plants, has been more effectually "selected" by the unconscious operation of natural conditions than if a thousand agriculturists had spent their time in sowing it. It is one of Mr. Darwin's many great services to Biological science that he has demonstrated the significance of these facts. He has shown that given variation and given change of conditions the inevitable result is the exercise of such an influence upon organisms that one is helped and another is impeded; one tends to predominate, another to disappear; and thus the living world bears within itself, and is surrounded by, impulses towards incessant change. But the truths just stated are as certain as any other physical laws, quite independently of the truth, or falsehood, of the hypothesis which Mr. Darwin has based upon them; and that Mr. Flourens, missing the substance and grasping at a shadow, should be blind to the admirable exposition of them, which Mr. Darwin has given, and see nothing there but a "dernière erreur du dernier siècle"--a personification of Nature--leads us indeed to cry with him: "O lucidité! O solidité de l'esprit Français, que devenez-vous?" M. Flourens has, in fact, utterly failed to comprehend the first principles of the doctrine which he assails so rudely. His objections to details are of the old sort, so battered and hackneyed on this side of the Channel, that not even a Quarterly Reviewer could be induced to pick them up for the purpose of pelting Mr. Darwin over again. We have Cuvier and the mummies; M. Roulin and the domesticated animals of America; the difficulties presented by hybridism and by Palæontology; Darwinism a _rifacciamento_ of De Maillet and Lamarck; Darwinism a system without a commencement, and its author bound to believe in M. Pouchet, &c. &c. How one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65-- "Je laisse M. Darwin!" But we cannot leave M. Flourens without calling our readers' attention to his wonderful tenth chapter, "De la Préexistence des Germes et de l'Epigénèse," which opens thus:-- "Spontaneous generation is only a chimaera. This point established, two hypotheses remain: that of _pre-existence_ and that of _epigenesis_. The one of these hypotheses has as little foundation as the other." (p. 163.) "The doctrine of _epigenesis_ is derived from Harvey: following by ocular inspection the development of the new being in the Windsor does, he saw each part appear successively, and taking the moment of _appearance_ for the moment of _formation_ he imagined _epigenesis_." (p. 165.) On the contrary, says M. Flourens (p. 167), "The new being is formed at a stroke (_tout d'un coup_), as a whole, instantaneously; it is not formed part by part, and at different times. It is formed at once at the single _individual_ moment at which the conjunction of the male and female elements takes place." It will be observed that M. Flourens uses language which cannot be mistaken. For him, the labours of Von Baer, of Rathke, of Coste, and their contemporaries and successors in Germany, France, and England, are non-existent: and, as Darwin "_imagina_" natural selection, so Harvey "_imagina_" that doctrine which gives him an even greater claim to the veneration of posterity than his better known discovery of the circulation of the blood. Language such as that we have quoted is, in fact, so preposterous, so utterly incompatible with anything but absolute ignorance of some of the best established facts, that we should have passed it over in silence had it not appeared to afford some clue to M. Flourens' unhesitating, _ à priori_, repudiation of all forms of the doctrine of progressive modification of living beings. He whose mind remains uninfluenced by an acquaintance with the phænomena of development, must indeed lack one of the chief motives towards the endeavour to trace a genetic relation between the different existing forms of life. Those who are ignorant of Geology, find no difficulty in believing that the world was made as it is; and the shepherd, untutored in history, sees no reason to regard the green mounds which indicate the site of a Roman camp as aught but part and parcel of the primæval hillside. So M. Flourens, who believes that embryos are formed "tout d'un coup," naturally finds no difficulty in conceiving that species came into existence in the same way. IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS [Footnote: _The Natural History of Creation_. By Dr. Ernst Haeckel. [_Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte_.--Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor an der Universität Jena.] Berlin, 1868.] [1869] Considering that Germany now takes the lead of the world in scientific investigation, and particularly in biology, Mr. Darwin must be well pleased at the rapid spread of his views among some of the ablest and most laborious of German naturalists. Among these, Professor Haeckel, of Jena, is the Coryphæus. I know of no more solid and important contributions to biology in the past seven years than Haeckel's work on the "Radiolaria," and the researches of his distinguished colleague Gegenbaur, in vertebrate anatomy; while in Haeckel's "Generelle Morphologie" there is all the force, suggestiveness, and, what I may term the systematising power, of Oken, without his extravagance. The "Generelle Morphologie" is, in fact, an attempt to put the Doctrine of Evolution, so far as it applies to the living world, into a logical form; and to work out its practical applications to their final results. The work before, us, again, may be said to be an exposition of the "Generelle Morphologie" for an educated public, consisting, as it does, of the substance of a series of lectures delivered before a mixed audience at Jena, in the session 1867-8. "The Natural History of Creation,"--or, as Professor Haeckel admits it would have been better to call his work, "The History of the Development or Evolution of Nature,"--deals, in the first six lectures, with the general and historical aspects of the question and contains a very interesting and lucid account of the views of Linnæus, Cuvier, Agassiz, Goethe, Oken, Kant, Lamarck, Lyell, and Darwin, and of the historical filiation of these philosophers. The next six lectures are occupied by a well-digested statement of Mr. Darwin's views. The thirteenth lecture discusses two topics which are not touched by Mr. Darwin, namely, the origin of the present form of the solar system, and that of living matter. Full justice is done to Kant, as the originator of that "cosmic gas theory," as the Germans somewhat quaintly call it, which is commonly ascribed to Laplace. With respect to spontaneous generation, while admitting that there is no experimental evidence in its favour, Professor Haeckel denies the possibility of disproving it, and points out that the assumption that it has occurred is a necessary part of the doctrine of Evolution. The fourteenth lecture, on "Schöpfungs-Perioden und Schöpfungs-Urkunden," answers pretty much to the famous disquisition on the "Imperfection of the Geological Record" in the "Origin of Species." The following five lectures contain the most original matter of any, being devoted to "Phylogeny," or the working out of the details of the process of Evolution in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, so as to prove the line of descent of each group of living beings, and to furnish it with its proper genealogical tree, or "phylum." The last lecture considers objections and sums up the evidence in favour of biological Evolution. I shall best testify to my sense of the value of the work thus briefly analysed if I now proceed to note down some of the more important criticisms which have been suggested to me by its perusal. I. In more than one place, Professor Haeckel enlarges upon the service which the "Origin of Species" has done, in favouring what he terms the "causal or mechanical" view of living nature as opposed to the "teleological or vitalistic" view. And no doubt it is quite true that the doctrine of Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all the commoner and coarser forms of Teleology. But perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his views offer. The Teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man or one of the higher _Vertebrata_, was made with the precise structure which it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless it is necessary to remember that there is a wider Teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution. That proposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, in the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay, potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the vapour of the breath in a cold winter's day. Consider a kitchen clock, which ticks loudly, shows the hours, minutes, and seconds, strikes, cries "cuckoo!" and perhaps shows the phases of the moon. When the clock is wound up, all the phenomena which it exhibits are potentially contained in its mechanism, and a clever clockmaker could predict all it will do after an examination of its structure. If the evolution theory is correct, the molecular structure of the cosmic gas stands in the same relation to the phenomena of the world as the structure of the clock to its phenomena. Now let us suppose a death-watch, living in the clock-case, to be a learned and intelligent student of its works. He might say, "I find here nothing but matter and force and pure mechanism from beginning to end," and he would be quite right. But if he drew the conclusion that the clock was not contrived for a purpose, he would be quite wrong. On the other hand, imagine another death-watch of a different turn of mind. He, listening to the monotonous "tick! tick!" so exactly like his own, might arrive at the conclusion that the clock was itself a monstrous sort of death-watch, and that its final cause and purpose was to tick. How easy to point to the clear relation of the whole mechanism to the pendulum, to the fact that the one thing the clock did always and without intermission was to tick, and that all the rest of its phenomena were intermittent and subordinate to ticking! For all this, it is certain that kitchen clocks are not contrived for the purpose of making a ticking noise. Thus the teleological theorist would be as wrong as the mechanical theorist, among our death-watches; and, probably, the only death-watch who would be right would be the one who should maintain that the sole thing death-watches could be sure about was the nature of the clock-works and the way they move; and that the purpose of the clock lay wholly beyond the purview of beetle faculties. Substitute "cosmic vapour" for "clock," and "molecules" for "works," and the application of the argument is obvious. The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement, of which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences; and the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe. On the other hand, if the teleologist assert that this, that, or the other result of the working of any part of the mechanism of the universe is its purpose and final cause, the mechanist can always inquire how he knows that it is more than an unessential incident--the mere ticking of the clock, which he mistakes for its function. And there seems to be no reply to this inquiry, any more than to the further, not irrational, question, why trouble one's self about matters which are out of reach, when the working of the mechanism itself, which is of infinite practical importance, affords scope for all our energies? Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name "Dysteleology," for the study of the "purposelessnesses" which are observable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however, that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in the foot of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but still stronger, argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even functional mammary glands, in male mammals. Numerous cases of "Gynæcomasty," or functionally active breasts in men, are on record, though there is no mammalian species whatever in which the male normally suckles the young. Thus, there can be little doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its dysteleological value is gone. [Footnote: The recent discovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a warning to all speculators about useless organs. 1893.] II. Professor Haeckel looks upon the causes which have led to the present diversity of living nature as twofold. Living matter, he tells us, is urged by two impulses: a centripetal, which tends to preserve and transmit the specific form, and which he identifies with heredity; and a centrifugal, which results from the tendency of external conditions to modify the organism and effect its adaptation to themselves. The internal impulse is conservative, and tends to the preservation of specific, or individual, form; the external impulse is metamorphic, and tends to the modification of specific, or individual, form. In developing his views upon this subject, Professor Haeckel introduces qualifications which disarm some of the criticisms I should have been disposed to offer; but I think that his method of stating the case has the inconvenience of tending to leave out of sight the important fact--which is a cardinal point in the Darwinian hypothesis--that the tendency to vary, in a given organism, may have nothing to do with the external conditions to which that individual organism is exposed, but may depend wholly upon internal conditions. No one, I imagine, would dream of seeking for the cause of the development of the sixth finger and toe in the famous Maltese, in the direct influence of the external conditions of his life. I conceive that both hereditary transmission and adaptation need to be analysed into their constituent conditions by the further application of the doctrine of the Struggle for Existence. It is a probable hypothesis, that what the world is to organisms in general, each organism is to the molecules of which it is composed. Multitudes of these, having diverse tendencies, are competing with one another for opportunity to exist and multiply; and the organism, as a whole, is as much the product of the molecules which are victorious as the Fauna, or Flora, of a country is the product of the victorious organic beings in it. On this hypothesis, hereditary transmission is the result of the victory of particular molecules contained in the impregnated germ. Adaptation to conditions is the result of the favouring of the multiplication of those molecules whose organising tendencies are most in harmony with such conditions. In this view of the matter, conditions are not actively productive, but are passively permissive; they do not cause variation in any given direction, but they permit and favour a tendency in that direction which already exists. It is true that, in the long run, the origin of the organic molecules themselves, and of their tendencies, is to be sought in the external world; but if we carry our inquiries as far back as this, the distinction between internal and external impulses vanishes. On the other hand, if we confine ourselves to the consideration of a single organism, I think it must be admitted that the existence of an internal metamorphic tendency must be as distinctly recognised as that of an internal conservative tendency; and that the influence of conditions is mainly, if not wholly, the result of the extent to which they favour the one, or the other, of these tendencies. III. There is only one point upon which I fundamentally and entirely disagree with Professor Haeckel, but that is the very important one of his conception of geological time, and of the meaning of the stratified rocks as records and indications of that time. Conceiving that the stratified rocks of an epoch indicate a period of depression, and that the intervals between the epochs correspond with periods of elevation of which we have no record, he intercalates between the different epochs, or periods, intervals which he terms "Ante-periods." Thus, instead of considering the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Eocene periods, as continuously successive, he interposes a period before each, as an "Antetrias-zeit," "Antejura-zeit," "Antecreta-zeit," "Anteo-cenzeit," &c. And he conceives that the abrupt changes between the Faunæ of the different formations are due to the lapse of time, of which we have no organic record, during their "Ante-periods." The frequent occurrence of strata containing assemblages of organic forms which are intermediate between those of adjacent formations, is, to my mind, fatal to this view. In the well-known St. Cassian beds, for example, Palaeozoic and Mesozoic forms are commingled, and, between the Cretaceous and the Eocene formations, there are similar transitional beds. On the other hand, in the middle of the Silurian series, extensive unconformity of the strata indicates the lapse of vast intervals of time between the deposit of successive beds, without any corresponding change in the Fauna. Professor Haeckel will, I fear, think me unreasonable, if I say that he seems to be still overshadowed by geological superstitions; and that he will have to believe in the completeness of the geological record far less than he does at present. He assumes, for example, that there was no dry land, nor any terrestrial life, before the end of the Silurian epoch, simply because, up to the present time, no indications of fresh water, or terrestrial organisms, have been found in rocks of older date. And, in speculating upon the origin of a given group, he rarely goes further back than the "Ante-period," which precedes that in which the remains of animals belonging to that group are found. Thus, as fossil remains of the majority of the groups of _Reptilia_ are first found in the Trias, they are assumed to have originated in the "Antetriassic" period, or between the Permian and Triassic epochs. I confess this is wholly incredible to me. The Permian and the Triassic deposits pass completely into one another; there is no sort of discontinuity answering to an unrecorded "Antetrias"; and, what is more, we have evidence of immensely extensive dry land during the formation of these deposits. We know that the dry land of the Trias absolutely teemed with reptiles of all groups except Pterodactyles, Snakes, and perhaps Tortoises; there is every probability that true Birds existed, and _Mammalia_ certainly did. Of the inhabitants of the Permian dry land, on the contrary, all that have left a record are a few lizards. Is it conceivable that these last should really represent the whole terrestrial population of that time, and that the development of Mammals, of Birds, and of the highest forms of Reptiles, should have been crowded into the time during which the Permian conditions quietly passed away, and the Triassic conditions began? Does not any such supposition become in the highest degree improbable, when, in the terrestrial or fresh-water Labyrinthodonts, which lived on the land of the Carboniferous epoch, as well as on that of the Trias, we have evidence that one form of terrestrial life persisted, throughout all these ages, with no important modification? For my part, having regard to the small amount of modification (except in the way of extinction) which the Crocodilian, Lacertilian, and Chelonian _Reptilia_ have undergone, from the older Mesozoic times to the present day, I cannot but put the existence of the common stock from which they sprang far back in the Palæozoic epoch; and I should apply a similar argumentation to all other groups of animals. [The remainder of this essay contains a discussion of questions of taxonomy and phylogeny, which is now antiquated. I have reprinted the considerations about the reconciliation of Teleology with Morphology, about "Dysteleology," and about the struggle for existence within the organism, because it has happened to me to be charged with overlooking them. In discussing Teleology, I ought to have pointed out, as I have done elsewhere (_Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, vol. ii. p. 202), that Paley "proleptically accepted the modern doctrine of Evolution," (_Natural Theology_, chap. xxiii.). 1893.] V MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS [Footnote: _Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection_. By A. R. Wallace. 1870.--2. _The Genesis of Species_. By St. George Mivart, F.R.S. Second Edition. 1871.--3. _Darwin's Descent of Man_. Quarterly Review, July 1871.] [1871] The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade from the date of the publication of the "Origin of Species"--and whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that, in a dozen years, the "Origin of Species" has worked as complete a revolution in biological science as the "Principia" did in astronomy--and it has done so, because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contains "an essentially new creative thought." [Footnote: Helmholtz: _Ueber das Ziel und die Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft_. Eröffnungsrede für die Naturforscherversammlung zu Innsbruck. 1869.] And as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which, at first, characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism. Instead of abusive nonsense, which merely discredited its writers, we read essays, which are, at worst, more or less intelligent and appreciative; while, sometimes, like that which appeared in the "North British Review" for 1867, they have a real and permanent value. The several publications of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart contain discussions of some of Mr. Darwin's views, which are worthy of particular attention, not only on account of the acknowledged scientific competence of these writers, but because they exhibit an attention to those philosophical questions which underlie all physical science, which is as rare as it is needful. And the same may be said of an article in the "Quarterly Review" for July 1871, the comparison of which with an article in the same Review for July 1860, is perhaps the best evidence which can be brought forward of the change which has taken place in public opinion on "Darwinism." The Quarterly Reviewer admits "the certainty of the action of natural selection" (p. 49); and further allows that there is an _à priori_ probability in favour of the evolution of man from some lower animal form, if these lower animal forms themselves have arisen by evolution. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart go much further than this. They are as stout believers in evolution as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace denies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that process of natural selection which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to have been sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while Mr. Mivart, admitting that natural selection has been one of the conditions of the evolution of the animals below man, maintains that natural selection must, even in their case, have been supplemented by "some other cause"--of the nature of which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is less of a Darwinian than Mr. Wallace, for he has less faith in the power of natural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace, because Mr. Wallace thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent--a sort of supernatural Sir John Sebright--to produce even the animal frame of man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he comes to man's soul. Thus there is a considerable divergence between Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart. On the other hand, there are some curious similarities between Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer, and these are sometimes so close, that, if Mr. Mivart thought it worth while, I think he might make out a good case of plagiarism against the Reviewer, who studiously abstains from quoting him. Both the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr. Darwin with being, "like so many other physicists," entangled in a radically false metaphysical system, and with setting at nought the first principles of both philosophy and religion. Both enlarge upon the necessity of a sound philosophical basis, and both, I venture to add, make a conspicuous exhibition of its absence. The Quarterly Reviewer believes that man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread," and Mr. Mivart has expressed the opinion that there is more difference between man and an ape than there is between an ape and a piece of granite. [Footnote: See the _Tablet_ for March 11, 1871.] And even when Mr. Mivart (p. 86) trips in a matter of anatomy, and creates a difficulty for Mr. Darwin out of a supposed close similarity between the eyes of fishes and cephalopods, which (as Gegenbaur and others have clearly shown) does not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer adopts the argument without hesitation (p. 66). There is another important point, however, in which it is hard to say whether Mr. Mivart diverges from the Quarterly Reviewer or not. The Reviewer declares that Mr. Darwin has, "with needless opposition, set at nought the first principles of both philosophy and religion" (p. 90). It looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr. Darwin's views being false, the opposition to "religion" which flows from them must be needless. But I suspect this is not the right view of the meaning of the passage, as Mr. Mivart, from whom the Quarterly Reviewer plainly draws so much inspiration, tells us that "the consequences which have been drawn from evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are in fact illegitimate" (p. 5). I may assume, then, that the Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit that there is no necessary opposition between "evolution whether exclusively Darwinian or not," and religion. But then, what do they mean by this last much-abused term? On this point the Quarterly Reviewer is silent. Mr. Mivart, on the contrary, is perfectly explicit, and the whole tenor of his remarks leaves no doubt that by "religion" he means theology; and by theology, that particular variety of the great Proteus, which is expounded by the doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, and held by the members of that religious community to be the sole form of absolute truth and of saving faith. According to Mr. Mivart, the greatest and most orthodox authorities upon matters of Catholic doctrine agree in distinctly asserting "derivative creation" or evolution; "and thus their teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require" (p. 305). I confess that this bold assertion interested me more than anything else in Mr. Mivart's book. What little knowledge I possessed of Catholic doctrine, and of the influence exerted by Catholic authority in former times, had not led me to expect that modern science was likely to find a warm welcome within the pale of the greatest and most consistent of theological organisations. And my astonishment reached its climax when I found Mr. Mivart citing Father Suarez as his chief witness in favour of the scientific freedom enjoyed by Catholics--the popular repute of that learned theologian and subtle casuist not being such as to make his works a likely place of refuge for liberality of thought. But in these days, when Judas Iscariot and Robespierre, Henry VIII. and Catiline, have all been shown to be men of admirable virtue, far in advance of their age, and consequently the victims of vulgar prejudice, it was obviously possible that Jesuit Suarez might be in like case. And, spurred by Mr. Mivart's unhesitating declaration, I hastened to acquaint myself with such of the works of the great Catholic divine as bore upon the question, hoping, not merely to acquaint myself with the true teachings of the infallible Church, and free myself of an unjust prejudice; but, haply, to enable myself, at a pinch, to put some Protestant bibliolater to shame, by the bright example of Catholic freedom from the trammels of verbal inspiration. I regret to say that my anticipations have been cruelly disappointed. But the extent to which my hopes have been crushed can only be fully appreciated by citing, in the first place, those passages of Mr. Mivart's work by which they were excited. In his introductory chapter I find the following passages:-- "The prevalence of this theory [of evolution] need alarm no one, for it is, without any doubt, perfectly consistent with the strictest and most orthodox Christian [Footnote: It should be observed that Mr. Mivart employs the term 'Christian' as if it were the equivalent of 'Catholic.'] theology" (p. 5). "Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they have not devoted much time to the study of Christian philosophy; but they have no right to assume or accept without careful examination, as an unquestioned fact, that in that philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between the two ideas 'creation' and 'evolution,' as applied to organic forms. "It is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that many distinguished Christian thinkers have accepted, and do accept, both ideas, _i.e._ both 'creation' and 'evolution.' "As much as ten years ago an eminently Christian writer observed: 'The creationist theory does not necessitate the perpetual search after manifestations of miraculous power and perpetual "catastrophes." Creation is not a miraculous interference with the laws of Nature, but the very institution of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion they admitted, without difficulty, the most surprising origin of living creatures, provided it took place by _law_. They held that when God said, "Let the waters produce," "Let the earth produce," He conferred forces on the elements of earth and water which enabled them naturally to produce the various species of organic beings. This power, they thought, remains attached to the elements throughout all time.' The same writer quotes St. Augustin and St. Thomas Aquinas, to the effect that, 'in the institution of Nature, we do not look for miracles, but for the laws of Nature.' And, again, St. Basil speaks of the continued operation of natural laws in the production of all organisms. "So much for the writers of early and mediæval times. As to the present day, the author can confidently affirm that there are many as well versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department of natural knowledge, who would not be disturbed by the thorough demonstration of his theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least painfully affected at witnessing the generation of animals of complex organisation by the skilful artificial arrangement of natural forces, and the production, in the future, of a fish by means analogous to those by which we now produce urea. "And this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena, though by no means actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided for in the old philosophy centuries before Darwin, or even centuries before Bacon, and that their place in the system can be at once assigned them without even disturbing its order or marring its harmony. "Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned, however much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern writers. In proof of this, it may be observed that perhaps no post-mediæval theologian has a wider reception amongst Christians throughout the world than Suarez, who has a separate section [Footnote: Suarez, _Metaphysica_. Edition Vivés. Paris, 1868, vol. i Disput. xv. § 2.] in opposition to those who maintain the distinct creation of the various kinds--or substantial forms--of organic life" (pp. 19-21). Still more distinctly does Mr. Mivart express himself in the same sense, in his last chapter, entitled "Theology and Evolution" (pp. 302-5). "It appears, then, that Christian thinkers are perfectly free to accept the general evolution theory. But are there any theological authorities to justify this view of the matter? "Now, considering how extremely recent are these biological speculations, it might hardly be expected _à priori_ that writers of earlier ages should have given expression to doctrines harmonising in any degree with such very modern views; nevertheless, this is certainly the case, and it would be easy to give numerous examples. It will be better, however, to cite one or two authorities of weight. Perhaps no writer of the earlier Christian ages could be quoted whose authority is more generally recognised than that of St. Augustin. The same may be said of the mediæval period for St. Thomas Aquinas: and since the movement of Luther, Suarez may be taken as an authority, widely venerated, and one whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. "It must be borne in mind that for a considerable time even after the last of these writers no one had disputed the generally received belief as to the small age of the world, or at least of the kinds of animals and plants inhabiting it. It becomes, therefore, much more striking if views formed under such a condition of opinion are found to harmonise with modern ideas concerning 'Creation' and organic Life. "Now St. Augustin insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely derivative sense in which God's creation of organic forms is to be understood; that is, that God created them by conferring on the material world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions." Mr. Mivart then cites certain passages from St. Augustin, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Cornelius à Lapide, and finally adds:-- "As to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv. sec. 2, No. 9, p. 508, t. i. edition Vivés, Paris; also Nos. 13-15. Many other references to the same effect could easily be given, but these may suffice. "It is then evident that ancient and most venerable theological authorities distinctly assert derivative creation, and thus their teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require." It will be observed that Mr. Mivart refers solely to Suarez's fifteenth Disputation, though he adds, "Many other references to the same effect could easily be given." I shall look anxiously for these references in the third edition of the "Genesis of Species." For the present, all I can say is, that I have sought in vain, either in the fifteenth Disputation, or elsewhere, for any passage in Suarez's writings which, in the slightest degree, bears out Mr. Mivart's views as to his opinions. [Footnote: The edition of Suarez's _Disputationes_ from which the following citations are given, is Birckmann's, in two volumes folio, and is dated 1680.] The title of this fifteenth Disputation is "De causa formali substantiali," and the second section of that Disputation (to which Mr. Mivart refers) is headed, "Quomodo possit forma substantialis fieri in materia et ex materia?" The problem which Suarez discusses in this place may be popularly stated thus: According to the scholastic philosophy every natural body has two components--the one its "matter" (_materia prima_), the other its "substantial form" (_forma substantialis_). Of these the matter is everywhere the same, the matter of one body being indistinguishable from the matter of any other body. That which differentiates any one natural body from all others is its substantial form, which inheres in the matter of that body, as the human soul inheres in the matter of the frame of man, and is the source of all the activities and other properties of the body. Thus, says Suarez, if water is heated, and the source of heat is then removed, it cools again. The reason of this is that there is a certain "_intimius principium_" in the water, which brings it back to the cool condition when the external impediment to the existence of that condition is removed. This _intimius principium_ is the "substantial form" of the water. And the substantial form of the water is not only the cause (_radix_) of the coolness of the water, but also of its moisture, of its density, and of all its other properties. It will thus be seen that "substantial forms" play nearly the same part in the scholastic philosophy as "forces" do in modern science; the general tendency of modern thought being to conceive all bodies as resolvable into material particles and forces, in virtue of which last these particles assume those dispositions and exercise those powers which are characteristic of each particular kind of matter. But the Schoolmen distinguished two kinds of substantial forms, the one spiritual and the other material. The former division is represented by the human soul, the _anima rationalis_; and they affirm as a matter, not merely of reason, but of faith, that every human soul is created out of nothing, and by this act of creation is endowed with the power of existing for all eternity, apart from the _materia prima_ of which the corporeal frame of man is composed. And the _anima rationalis_, once united with the _materia prima_ of the body, becomes its substantial form, and is the source of all the powers and faculties of man--of all the vital and sensitive phenomena which he exhibits--just as the substantial form of water is the source of all its qualities. The "material substantial forms" are those which inform all other natural bodies except that of man; and the object of Suarez in the present Disputation, is to show that the axiom "_ex nihilo nihil fit_," though not true of the substantial form of man, is true of the substantial forms of all other bodies, the endless mutations of which constitute the ordinary course of nature. The origin of the difficulty which he discusses is easily comprehensible. Suppose a piece of bright iron to be exposed to the air. The existence of the iron depends on the presence within it of a substantial form, which is the cause of its properties, _e.g._ brightness, hardness, weight. But, by degrees, the iron becomes converted into a mass of rust, which is dull, and soft, and light, and, in all other respects, is quite different from the iron. As, in the scholastic view, this difference is due to the rust being informed by a new substantial form, the grave problem arises, how did this new substantial form come into being? Has it been created? or has it arisen by the power of natural causation? If the former hypothesis is correct, then the axiom, "_ex nihilo nihil fit_," is false, even in relation to the ordinary course of nature, seeing that such mutations of matter as imply the continual origin of new substantial forms are occurring every moment. But the harmonisation of Aristotle with theology was as dear to the Schoolmen, as the smoothing down the differences between Moses and science is to our Broad Churchmen, and they were proportionably unwilling to contradict one of Aristotle's fundamental propositions. Nor was their objection to flying in the face of the Stagirite likely to be lessened by the fact that such flight landed them in flat Pantheism. So Father Suarez fights stoutly for the second hypothesis; and I quote the principal part of his argumentation as an exquisite specimen of that speech which is a "darkening of counsel." "13. Secundo de omnibus aliis formis substantialibus [sc. materialibus] dicendum est non fieri proprie ex nihilo, sed ex potentia præjacentis materiæ educi: ideoque in effectione harum formarum nil fieri contra illud axioma, _Ex nihilo nihil fit_, si recte intelligatur. Hæc assertio sumitur ex Aristotele 1. Physicorum per totum et libro 7. Metaphyss. et ex aliis auctoribus, quos statim referam. Et declaratur breviter, nam fieri ex nihilo duo dicit, unum est fieri absolute et simpliciter, aliud est quod talis effectio fit ex nihilo. Primum propriè dicitur de re subsistente, quia ejus est fieri, cujus est esse: id autem proprie quod subsistit et habet esse; nam quod alteri adjacet, potius est quo aliud est. Ex hac ergo parte, formæ substantiales materiales non fiunt ex nihilo, quia proprie non fiunt. Atque hanc rationem reddit Divus Thomas 1 parte, quæstione 45, articulo 8, et quæstione 90, articulo 2, et ex dicendis magis explicabitur. Sumendo ergo ipsum _fieri_ in hac proprietate et rigore, sic fieri ex nihilo est fieri secundum se totum, id est nulla sui parte præsupposita, ex quo fiat. Et hac ratione res naturales dum de novo fiunt, non fiunt ex nihilo, quia fiunt ex præsupposita materia, ex qua componuntur, et ita non fiunt, secundum se totæ, sed secundum aliquid sui. Formæ autem harum rerum, quamvis revera totam suam entitatem de novo accipiant, quam antea non habebant, quia vero ipsæ non fiunt, ut dictum est, ideo neque ex nihilo fiunt. Attamen, quia latiori modo sumendo verbum illud _fieri_ negari non potest: quin forma facta sit, eo modo quo nunc est, et antea non erat, ut etiam probat ratio dubitandi posita in principio sectionis, ideo addendum est, sumpto _fieri_ in hac amplitudine, fieri ex nihilo non tamen negare habitudinem materialis causæ intrinsecè componentis id quod fit, sed etiam habitudinem causæ materialis per se causantis et sustentantis formam quæ fit, seu confit. Diximus enim in superioribus materiam et esse causam compositi et formæ dependentis ab illa: ut res ergo dicatur ex nihilo fieri uterque modus causalitatis negari debet; et eodem sensu accipiendum est illud axioma, ut sit verum: _Ex nihilo nihil fit_, scilicet virtute agentis naturalis et finiti nihil fieri, nisi ex præsupposito subjecto per se concurrente, et ad compositum et ad formam, si utrumque suo modo ab eodem agente fiat. Ex his ergo rectè concluditur, formas substantiales materiales non fieri ex nihilo, quia fiunt ex materia, quæ in suo genere per se concurrit, et influit ad esse, et fieri talium formarum; quia, sicut esse non possunt nisi affixae materiæ, a qua sustententur in esse: ita nec fieri possunt, nisi earum effectio et penetratio in eadem materia sustentetur. Et hæc est propria et per se differentia inter effectionem ex nihilo, et ex aliquo, propter quam, ut infra ostendemus, prior modus efficiendi superat vim finitam naturaliam agentium, non vero posterior. "14. Ex his etiam constat, proprie de his formis dici non creari, sed educi de potentia materiæ." [Footnote: Suarez, _loc. cit._ Disput. xv. § ii.] If I may venture to interpret these hard sayings, Suarez conceives that the evolution of substantial forms in the ordinary course of nature, is conditioned not only by the existence of the _materia prima_, but also by a certain "concurrence and influence" which that _materia_ exerts; and every new substantial form being thus conditioned, and in part, at any rate, caused, by a pre-existing something, cannot be said to be created out of nothing. But as the whole tenor of the context shows, Suarez applies this argumentation merely to the evolution of material substantial forms in the ordinary course of nature. How the substantial forms of animals and plants primarily originated, is a question to which, so far as I am able to discover, he does not so much as allude in his "Metaphysical Disputations." Nor was there any necessity that he should do so, inasmuch as he has devoted a separate treatise of considerable bulk to the discussion of all the problems which arise out of the account of the Creation which is given in the Book of Genesis. And it is a matter of wonderment to me that Mr. Mivart, who somewhat sharply reproves "Mr. Darwin and others" for not acquainting themselves with the true teachings of his Church, should allow himself to be indebted to a heretic like myself for a knowledge of the existence of that "Tractatus de opere sex Dierum," [Footnote: _Tractatus de opere sex Dierum, seu de Universi Creatione, quatenus sex diebus perfecta esse, in libro Genesis cap. i. refertur, et praesertim de productione hominis in statu innocentiae._ Ed. Birckmann, 1622.] in which the learned Father, of whom he justly speaks, as "an authority widely venerated, and whose orthodoxy has never been questioned," directly opposes all those opinions for which Mr. Mivart claims the shelter of his authority. In the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first book of this treatise, Suarez inquires in what sense the word "day," as employed in the first chapter of Genesis, is to be taken. He discusses the views of Philo and of Augustin on this question, and rejects them. He suggests that the approval of their allegorising interpretations by St. Thomas Aquinas, merely arose out of St. Thomas's modesty, and his desire not to seem openly to controvert St. Augustin--"voluisse Divus Thomas pro sua modestia subterfugere vim argumenti potius quam aperte Augustinum inconstantiæ arguere." Finally, Suarez decides that the writer of Genesis meant that the term "day" should be taken in its natural sense; and he winds up the discussion with the very just and natural remark that "it is not probable that God, in inspiring Moses to write a history of the Creation which was to be believed by ordinary people, would have made him use language, the true meaning of which it is hard to discover, and still harder to believe." [Footnote: "Propter hæc ergo sententia illa Augustini et propter nimiam obscuritatem et subtilitatem ejus difficilis creditu est: quia verisimile non est Deum inspirasse Moysi, ut historiam de creatione mundi ad fidem totius populi adeo necessariam per nomina dierum explicaret, quorum significatio vix inveniri et difficillime ab aliquo credi posset." (_Loc. cit._ Lib. I. cap. xi. 42.)] And in chapter xii. 3, Suarez further observes:-- "Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis est illa communis, quod verba Scripturæ non sunt ad metaphoras transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogit, vel ex ipsa scriptura constet, et maximè in historica narratione et ad instructionem fidei pertinente: sed hæc ratio non minus cogit ad intelligendum propriè dierum numerum, quam diei qualitatem, QUIA NON MINUS UNO MODO QUAM ALIO DESTRUITUR SINCERITAS, IMO ET VERITAS HISTORIÆ. Secundo hoc valde confirmant alia Scripturæ loca, in quibus hi sex dies tanquam veri, et inter se distincti commemorantur, ut Exod. 20 dicitur, _Sex diebus operabis et facies omnia opera tua, septimo autem die Sabbatum Domini Dei tui est_. Et infra: _Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus cælum et terram et mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt_, et idem repetitur in cap. 31. In quibus locis sermonis proprietas colligi potest tum ex æquiparatione, nam cum dicitur: _sex diebus operabis_, propriissimè intelligitur: tum quia non est verisimile, potuisse populum intelligere verba illa in alio sensu, et è contrario incredibile est, Deum in suis præceptis tradendis illis verbis ad populum fuisse loquutum, quibus deciperetur, falsum sensum concipiendo, si Deus non per sex veros dies opera sua fecisset." These passages leave no doubt that this great doctor of the Catholic Church, of unchallenged authority and unspotted orthodoxy, not only declares it to be Catholic doctrine that the work of creation took place in the space of six natural days; but that he warmly repudiates, as inconsistent with our knowledge of the Divine attributes, the supposition that the language which Catholic faith requires the believer to hold that God inspired, was used in any other sense than that which He knew it would convey to the minds of those to whom it was addressed. And I think that in this repudiation Father Suarez will have the sympathy of every man of common uprightness, to whom it is certainly "incredible" that the Almighty should have acted in a manner which He would esteem dishonest and base in a man. But the belief that the universe was created in six natural days is hopelessly inconsistent with the doctrine of evolution, in so far as it applies to the stars and planetary bodies; and it can be made to agree with a belief in the evolution of living beings only by the supposition that the plants and animals, which are said to have been created on the third, fifth, and sixth days, were merely the primordial forms, or rudiments, out of which existing plants and animals have been evolved; so that, on these days, plants and animals were not created actually, but only potentially. The latter view is that held by Mr. Mivart, who follows St. Augustin, and implies that he has the sanction of Suarez. But, in point of fact, the latter great light of orthodoxy takes no small pains to give the most explicit and direct contradiction to all such imaginations, as the following passages prove. In the first place, as regards plants, Suarez discusses the problem:-- "_Quomodo herba virens et cætera vegetabilia hoc_ [_tertio_] _die fuerint producta_. [Footnote: _Loc. cit._ Lib. II. cap. vii. et viii. 1, 32, 35.] "Præcipua enim difficultas hîc est, quam attingit Div. Thomas 1, par. qu. 69, art. 2, an hæc productio plantarum hoc die facta intelligenda sit de productione ipsarum in proprio esse actuali et formali (ut sic rem explicerem) vel de productione tantum in semine et in potentia. Nam Divus Augustinus libro quinto Genes, ad liter. cap. 4 et 5 et libro 8, cap. 3, posteriorem partem tradit, dicens, terram in hoc die accepisse virtutem germinandi omnia vegetabilia quasi concepto omnium illorum semine, non tamen statim vegetabilia omnia produxisse. Quod primo suadet verbis illis capitis secundi. _In die quo fecit Deus cælum et terram et omne virgultum agri priusquam germinaret_. Quomodo enim potuerunt virgulta fieri antequam terra germinaret nisi quia causaliter prius et quasi in radice, seu in semine facta sunt, et postea in actu producta? Secundo confirmari potest, quia verbum illud _germinet terra_ optimè exponitur potestativè ut sic dicam, id est accipiat terra vim germinandi. Sicut in eodem capite dicitur _crescite et multiplicamini_. Tertio potest confirmari, quia actualis productio vegetabilium non tam ad opus creationis, quam ad opus propagationis pertinet, quod postea factum est. Et hanc sententiam sequitur Eucherius lib. 1, in Gen. cap. 11, et illi faveat Glossa, interli. Hugo. et Lyran. dum verbum _germinet_ dicto modo exponunt. NIHILOMINUS CONTRARIA SENTENTIA TENENDA EST: SCILICET, PRODUXISSE DEUM HOC DIE HERBAM, ARBORES, ET ALIA VEGETABILIA ACTU IN PROPRIA SPECIE ET NATURA. Hæc est communis sententia Patrum.--Basil. homil. 5; Exæmer. Ambros. lib. 3; Exæmer. cap. 8, 11, et 16; Chrysost. homil. 5 in Gen. Damascene. lib. 2 de Fid. cap. 10; Theodor. Cyrilli. Bedæ, Glossæ ordinariæ et aliorum in Gen. Et idem sentit Divus Thomas, _supra_, solvens argumenta Augustini, quamvis propter reverentiam ejus quasi problematicè semper procedat. Denique idem sentiunt omnes qui in his operibus veram successionem et temporalem distinctionem agnoscant." Secondly, with respect to animals, Suarez is no less decided:-- "_De animalium ratione carentium productione quinto et sexto die facta_. [Footnote: _Loc. cit_. Lib. II. cap. vii. et viii. 1, 32, 35.] "32. Primo ergo nobis certum sit hæc animantia non in virtute tantum aut in semine, sed actu, et in seipsis, facta fuisse his diebus in quibus facta narrantur. Quanquam Augustinus lib. 3, Gen. ad liter, cap. 5 in sua persistens sententia contrarium sentire videatur." But Suarez proceeds to refute Augustin's opinions at great length, and his final judgment may be gathered from the following passage:-- "35. Tertio dicendum est, hæc animalia omnia his diebus producta esse, IN PERFECTO STATU, IN SINGULIS INDIVIDUIS, SEU SPECIEBUS SUIS, JUXTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE NATURAM.... ITAQUE FUERUNT OMNIA CREATA INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS MEMBRIS PERFECTA." As regards the creation of animals and plants, therefore, it is clear that Suarez, so far from "distinctly asserting derivative creating," denies it as distinctly and positively as he can; that he is at much pains to refute St. Augustin's opinions; that he does not hesitate to regard the faint acquiescence of St. Thomas Aquinas in the views of his brother saint as a kindly subterfuge on the part of Divus Thomas; and that he affirms his own view to be that which is supported by the authority of the Fathers of the Church. So that, when Mr. Mivart tells us that Catholic theology is in harmony with all that modern science can possibly require; that "to the general theory of evolution, and to the special Darwinian form of it, no exception ... need be taken on the ground of orthodoxy;" and that "law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention, was the Patristic ideal of creation," we have to choose between his dictum, as a theologian, and that of a great light of his Church, whom he himself declares to be "widely venerated as an authority, and whose orthodoxy has never been questioned." But Mr. Mivart does not hesitate to push his attempt to harmonise science with Catholic orthodoxy to its utmost limit; and, while assuming that the soul of man "arises from immediate and direct creation," he supposes that his body was "formed at first (as now in each separate individual) by derivative, or secondary creation, through natural laws" (p. 331). This means, I presume, that an animal, having the corporeal form and bodily powers of man, may have been developed out of some lower form of life by a process of evolution; and that, after this anthropoid animal had existed for a longer or shorter time, God made a soul by direct creation, and put it into the manlike body, which, heretofore, had been devoid of that _anima rationalis_, which is supposed to be man's distinctive character. This hypothesis is incapable of either proof or disproof, and therefore may be true; but if Suarez is any authority, it is not Catholic doctrine. "Nulla est in homine forma educta de potentia materiæ," [Footnote: Disput. xv. § x. No. 27.] is a dictum which is absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine of the natural evolution of any vital manifestation of the human body. Moreover, if man existed as an animal before he was provided with a rational soul, he must, in accordance with the elementary requirements of the philosophy in which Mr. Mivart delights, have possessed a distinct sensitive and vegetative soul, or souls. Hence, when the "breath of life" was breathed into the manlike animal's nostrils, he must have already been a living and feeling creature. But Suarez particularly discusses this point, and not only rejects Mr. Mivart's view, but adopts language of very theological strength regarding it. "Possent præterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. _Formavit Deus hominem ex limo terræ et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ et factus est homo in animam viventem_: ille enim spiritus, quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER EADEM FACTUS EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS. "Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generali quæ est Constantinopolitana IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. _Apparet quosdam in tantum impietatis venisse ut homines duas animas habere dogmatizent: talis igitur impietatis inventores et similes sapientes, cum Vetus et Novum Testamentum omnesque Ecclesiæ patres unam animam rationalem hominem habere asseverent, Sancta et universalis Synodus anathematizat_." [FOOTNOTE: Disput. xv. "De causa formali substantiali," § x. No. 24.] Moreover, if the animal nature of man was the result of evolution, so must that of woman have been. But the Catholic doctrine, according to Suarez, is that woman was, in the strictest and most literal sense of the words, made out of the rib of man. "Nihilominus sententia Catholica est, verba illa Scripturæ esse ad literam intelligenda. AC PROINDE VERE, AC REALITER, TULISSE DEUM COSTAM ADAMÆ, ET, EX ILLA, CORPUS EVÆ FORMASSE." [Footnote: _Tractatus de Opere_, Lib. III. "De hominis creatione," cap. ii. No. 3.] Nor is there any escape in the supposition that some woman existed before Eve, after the fashion of the Lilith of the rabbis; since Suarez qualifies that notion, along with some other Judaic imaginations, as simply "damnabilis." [Footnote: _Ibid_. Lib. III. cap. iv. Nos. 8 and 9] After the perusal of the "Tractatus de Opere" it is, in fact, impossible to admit that Suarez held any opinion respecting the origin of species, except such as is consistent with the strictest and most literal interpretation of the words of Genesis. For Suarez, it is Catholic doctrine, that the world was made in six natural days. On the first of these days the _materia prima_ was made out of nothing, to receive afterwards those "substantial forms" which moulded it into the universe of things; on the third day, the ancestors of all living plants suddenly came into being, full-grown, perfect, and possessed of all the properties which now distinguish them; while, on the fifth and sixth days, the ancestors of all existing animals were similarly caused to exist in their complete and perfect state, by the infusion of their appropriate material substantial forms into the matter which had already been created. Finally, on the sixth day, the _anima rationalis_--that rational and immortal substantial form which is peculiar to man--was created out of nothing, and "breathed into" a mass of matter which, till then, was mere dust of the earth, and so man arose. But the species man was represented by a solitary male individual, until the Creator took out one of his ribs and fashioned it into a female. This is the view of the "Genesis of Species" held by Suarez to be the only one consistent with Catholic faith: it is because he holds this view to be Catholic that he does not hesitate to declare St. Augustin unsound, and St. Thomas Aquinas guilty of weakness, when the one swerved from this view and the other tolerated the deviation. And, until responsible Catholic authority--say, for example, the Archbishop of Westminster--formally declares that Suarez was wrong, and that Catholic priests are free to teach their flocks that the world was _not_ made in six natural days, and that plants and animals were _not_ created in their perfect and complete state, but have been evolved by natural processes through long ages from certain germs in which they were potentially contained, I, for one, shall feel bound to believe that the doctrines of Suarez are the only ones which are sanctioned by Infallible Authority, as represented by the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that they are as absolutely denied and repudiated by Scientific Authority, as represented by Reason and Fact. The question whether the earth and the immediate progenitors of its present living population were made in six natural days or not is no longer one upon which two opinions can be held. The fact that it did not so come into being stands upon as sound a basis as any fact of history whatever. It is not true that existing plants and animals came into being within three days of the creation of the earth out of nothing, for it is certain that innumerable generations of other plants and animals lived upon the earth before its present population. And when, Sunday after Sunday, men who profess to be our instructors in righteousness read out the statement, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is," in innumerable churches, they are either propagating what they may easily know, and, therefore, are bound to know, to be falsities; or, if they use the words in some non-natural sense, they fall below the moral standard of the much-abused Jesuit. Thus far the contradiction between Catholic verity and Scientific verity is complete and absolute, quite independently of the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of evolution. But, for those who hold the doctrine of evolution, all the Catholic verities about the creation of living beings must be no less false. For them, the assertion that the progenitors of all existing plants were made on the third day, of animals on the fifth and sixth days, in the forms they now present, is simply false. Nor can they admit that man was made suddenly out of the dust of the earth; while it would be an insult to ask an evolutionist whether he credits the preposterous fable respecting the fabrication of woman to which Suarez pins his faith. If Suarez has rightly stated Catholic doctrine, then is evolution utter heresy. And such I believe it to be. In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church. No doubt, Mr. Mivart, like other putters of new wine into old bottles, is actuated by motives which are worthy of respect, and even of sympathy; but his attempt has met with the fate which the Scripture prophesies for all such. Catholic theology, like all theologies which are based upon the assumption of the truth of the account of the origin of things given in the Book of Genesis, being utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of evolution, the student of science, who is satisfied that the evidence upon which the doctrine of evolution rests, is incomparably stronger and better than that upon which the supposed authority of the Book of Genesis rests, will not trouble himself further with these theologies, but will confine his attention to such arguments against the view he holds as are based upon purely scientific data--and by scientific data I do not merely mean the truths of physical, mathematical, or logical science, but those of moral and metaphysical science. For by science I understand all knowledge which rests upon evidence and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our assent to ordinary scientific propositions. And if any one is able to make good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and sound reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology will take its place as a part of science. The present antagonism between theology and science does not arise from any assumption by the men of science that all theology must necessarily be excluded from science, but simply because they are unable to allow that reason and morality have two weights and two measures; and that the belief in a proposition, because authority tells you it is true, or because you wish to believe it, which is a high crime and misdemeanour when the subject matter of reasoning is of one kind, becomes under the _alias_ of "faith" the greatest of all virtues when the subject matter of reasoning is of another kind. The Bishop of Brechin said well the other day:--"Liberality in religion--I do not mean tender and generous allowances for the mistakes of others--is only unfaithfulness to truth." [Footnote: Charge at the Diocesan Synod of Brechin. _Scotsman_, Sept. 14, 1871.] And, with the same qualification, I venture to paraphrase the Bishop's dictum: "Ecclesiasticism in science is only unfaithfulness to truth." Elijah's great question, "Will you serve God or Baal? Choose ye," is uttered audibly enough in the ears of every one of us as we come to manhood. Let every man who tries to answer it seriously ask himself whether he can be satisfied with the Baal of authority, and with all the good things his worshippers are promised in this world and the next. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse himself with such scientific implements as authority tells him are safe and will not cut his fingers; but let him not imagine he is, or can be, both a true son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science. And, on the other hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appears to him in its true colours, as mere private judgment _in excelsis_, and if he have the courage to stand alone, face to face with the abyss of the eternal and unknowable, let him be content, once for all, not only to renounce the good things promised by "Infallibility," but even to bear the bad things which it prophesies; content to follow reason and fact in singleness and honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure faith that a hell of honest men will, to him, be more endurable than a paradise full of angelic shams. Mr. Mivart asserts that "without a belief in a personal God there is no religion worthy of the name." This is a matter of opinion. But it may be asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the worship of a personal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must have used language studiously calculated to deceive His creatures and worshippers, is "no religion worthy of the name." "Incredible est, Deum illis verbis ad populum fuisse locutum quibus deciperetur," is a verdict in which, for once, Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy moral sense of all mankind. Having happily got quit of the theological aspect of evolution, the supporter of that great truth who turns to the scientific objections which are brought against it by recent criticism, finds, to his relief, that the work before him is greatly lightened by the spontaneous retreat of the enemy from nine-tenths of the territory which he occupied ten years ago. Even the Quarterly Reviewer not only abstains from venturing to deny that evolution has taken place, but he openly admits that Mr. Darwin has forced on men's minds "a recognition of the probability, if not more, of evolution, and of the certainty of the action of natural selection" (p. 49). I do not quite see, myself, how, if the action of natural selection is _certain_, the occurrence of evolution is only _probable_; inasmuch as the development of a new species by natural selection is, so far as it goes, evolution. However, it is not worth while to quarrel with the precise terms of a sentence which shows that the high water mark of intelligence among those most respectable of Britons, the readers of the _Quarterly Review_, has now reached such a level that the next tide may lift them easily and pleasantly on the once-dreaded shore of evolution. Nor, having got there, do they seem likely to stop, until they have reached the inmost heart of that great region, and accepted the ape ancestry of, at any rate, the body of man. For the Reviewer admits that Mr. Darwin can be said to have established: "That if the various kinds of lower animals have been evolved one from the other by a process of natural generation or evolution, then it becomes highly probable, _a priori_, that man's body has been similarly evolved; but this, in such a case, becomes equally probable from the admitted fact that he is an animal at all" (p. 65). From the principles laid down in the last sentence it would follow that if man were constructed upon a plan as different from that of any other animal as that of a sea-urchin is from that of a whale, it would be "equally probable" that he had been developed from some other animal as it is now, when we know that for every bone, muscle, tooth, and even pattern of tooth, in man, there is a corresponding bone, muscle, tooth, and pattern of tooth, in an ape. And this shows one of two things--either that the Quarterly Reviewer's notions of probability are peculiar to himself, or that he has such an overpowering faith in the truth of evolution that no extent of structural break between one animal and another is sufficient to destroy his conviction that evolution has taken place. But this by the way. The importance of the admission that there is nothing in man's physical structure to interfere with his having been evolved from an ape is not lessened because it is grudgingly made and inconsistently qualified. And instead of jubilating over the extent of the enemy's retreat, it will be more worth while to lay siege to his last stronghold--the position that there is a distinction in kind between the mental faculties of man and those of brutes, and that in consequence of this distinction in kind no gradual progress from the mental faculties of the one to those of the other can have taken place. The Quarterly Reviewer entrenches himself within formidable-looking psychological outworks, and there is no getting at him without attacking them one by one. He begins by laying down the following proposition. "'Sensation' is not 'thought,' and no amount of the former would constitute the most rudimentary condition of the latter, though sensations supply the conditions for the existence of 'thought' or 'knowledge'" (p. 67). This proposition is true, or not, according to the sense in which the word "thought" is employed. Thought is not uncommonly used in a sense co-extensive with consciousness, and, especially, with those states of consciousness we call memory. If I recall the impression made by a colour or an odour, and distinctly remember blueness or muskiness, I may say with perfect propriety that I "think of" blue or musk; and, so long as the thought lasts, it is simply a faint reproduction of the state of consciousness to which I gave the name in question, when it first became known to me as a sensation. Now, if that faint reproduction of a sensation, which we call the memory of it, is properly termed a thought, it seems to me to be a somewhat forced proceeding to draw a hard and fast line of demarcation between thoughts and sensations. If sensations are not rudimentary thoughts, it may be said that some thoughts are rudimentary sensations. No amount of sound constitutes an echo, but for all that no one would pretend that an echo is something of totally different nature from a sound. Again, nothing can be looser, or more inaccurate, than the assertion that "sensations supply the conditions for the existence of thought or knowledge." If this implies that sensations supply the conditions for the existence of our memory of sensations or of our thoughts about sensations, it is a truism which it is hardly worth while to state so solemnly. If it implies that sensations supply anything else, it is obviously erroneous. And if it means, as the context would seem to show it does, that sensations are the subject-matter of all thought or knowledge, then it is no less contrary to fact, inasmuch as our emotions, which constitute a large part of the subject-matter of thought or of knowledge, are not sensations. More eccentric still is the Quarterly Reviewer's next piece of psychology. "Altogether, we may clearly distinguish at least six kinds of action to which the nervous system ministers:-- "I. That in which impressions received result in appropriate movements without the intervention of sensation or thought, as in the cases of injury above given.--This is the reflex action of the nervous system. "II. That in which stimuli from without result in sensations through the agency of which their due effects are wrought out.--Sensation. "III. That in which impressions received result in sensations which give rise to the observation of sensible objects.--Sensible perception. "IV. That in which sensations and perceptions continue to coalesce, agglutinate, and combine in more or less complex aggregations, according to the laws of the association of sensible perceptions.--Association. "The above four groups contain only indeliberate operations, consisting, as they do at the best, but of mere _presentative_ sensible ideas in no way implying any reflective or _representative_ faculty. Such actions minister to and form _Instinct_. Besides these, we may distinguish two other kinds of mental action, namely:-- "V. That in which sensations and sensible perceptions are reflected on by thought, and recognised as our own, and we ourselves recognised by ourselves as affected and perceiving.--Self-consciousness. "VI. That in which we reflect upon our sensations or perceptions, and ask what they are, and why they are.--Reason. "These two latter kinds of action are deliberate operations, performed, as they are, by means of representative ideas implying the use of a _reflective representative_ faculty. Such actions distinguish the _intellect_ or rational faculty. Now, we assert that possession in perfection of all the first four (_presentative_) kinds of action by no means implies the possession of the last two (_representative_) kinds. All persons, we think, must admit the truth of the following proposition:-- "Two faculties are distinct, not in degree but _in kind_, if we may possess the one in perfection without that fact implying that we possess the other also. Still more will this be the case if the two faculties tend to increase in an inverse ratio. Yet this is the distinction between the _instinctive_ and the _intellectual_ parts of man's nature. "As to animals, we fully admit that they may possess all the first four groups of actions--that they may have, so to speak, mental images of sensible objects combined in all degrees of complexity, as governed by the laws of association. We deny to them, on the other hand, the possession of the last two kinds of mental action. We deny them, that is, the power of reflecting on their own existences, or of inquiring into the nature of objects and their causes. We deny that they know that they know or know themselves in knowing. In other words, we deny them _reason_. The possession of the presentative faculty, as above explained, in no way implies that of the reflective faculty; nor does any amount of direct operation imply the power of asking the reflective question before mentioned, as to 'what' and 'why.'" (_Loc. cit_. pp. 67, 68.) Sundry points are worthy of notice in this remarkable account of the intellectual powers. In the first place the Reviewer ignores emotion and volition, though they are no inconsiderable "kinds of action to which the nervous system ministers," and memory has a place in his classification only by implication. Secondly, we are told that the second "kind of action to which the nervous system ministers" is "that in which stimuli from without result in sensations through the agency of which their due effects are wrought out.--Sensation." Does this really mean that, in the writer's opinion, "sensation" is the "agent" by which the "due effect" of the stimulus, which gives rise to sensation, is "wrought out"? Suppose somebody runs a pin into me. The "due effect" of that particular stimulus will probably be threefold; namely, a sensation of pain, a start, and an interjectional expletive. Does the Quarterly Reviewer really think that the "sensation" is the "agent" by which the other two phenomena are wrought out? But these matters are of little moment to anyone but the Reviewer and those persons who may incautiously take their physiology, or psychology, from him. The really interesting point is this, that when he fully admits that animals "may possess all the first four groups of actions," he grants all that is necessary for the purposes of the evolutionist. For he hereby admits that in animals "impressions received result in sensations which give rise to the observation of sensible objects," and that they have what he calls "sensible perception." Nor was it possible to help the admission; for we have as much reason to ascribe to animals, as we have to attribute to our fellow-men, the power, not only of perceiving external objects as external, and thus practically recognizing the difference between the self and the not-self; but that of distinguishing between like and unlike, and between simultaneous and successive things. When a gamekeeper goes out coursing with a greyhound in leash, and a hare crosses the field of vision, he becomes the subject of those states of consciousness we call visual sensation, and that is all he receives from without. Sensation, as such, tells him nothing whatever about the cause of these states of consciousness; but the thinking faculty instantly goes to work upon the raw material of sensation furnished to it through the eye, and gives rise to a train of thoughts. First comes the thought that there is an object at a certain distance; then arises another thought--the perception of the likeness between the states of consciousness awakened by this object to those presented by memory, as, on some former occasion, called up by a hare; this is succeeded by another thought of the nature of an emotion--namely, the desire to possess the hare; then follows a longer or shorter train of other thoughts, which end in a volition and an act--the loosing of the greyhound from the leash. These several thoughts are the concomitants of a process which goes on in the nervous system of the man. Unless the nerve-elements of the retina, of the optic nerve, of the brain, of the spinal cord, and of the nerves of the arms, went through certain physical changes in due order and correlation, the various states of consciousness which have been enumerated would not make their appearance. So that in this, as in all other intellectual operations, we have to distinguish two sets of successive changes--one in the physical basis of consciousness, and the other in consciousness itself; one set which may, and doubtless will, in course of time, be followed through all their complexities by the anatomist and the physicist, and one of which only the man himself can have immediate knowledge. As it is very necessary to keep up a clear distinction between these two processes, let the one be called _neurosis_, and the other _psychosis_. When the gamekeeper was first trained to his work every step in the process of neurosis was accompanied by a corresponding step in that of psychosis, or nearly so. He was conscious of seeing something, conscious of making sure it was a hare, conscious of desiring to catch it, and therefore to loose the greyhound at the right time, conscious of the acts by which he let the dog out of the leash. But with practice, though the various steps of the neurosis remain--for otherwise the impression on the retina would not result in the loosing of the dog--the great majority of the steps of the psychosis vanish, and the loosing of the dog follows unconsciously, or as we say, without thinking about it, upon the sight of the hare. No one will deny that the series of acts which originally intervened between the sensation and the letting go of the dog were, in the strictest sense, intellectual and rational operations. Do they cease to be so when the man ceases to be conscious of them? That depends upon what is the essence and what the accident of those operations, which, taken together, constitute ratiocination. Now ratiocination is resolvable into predication, and predication consists in marking, in some way, the existence, the co-existence, the succession, the likeness and unlikeness, of things or their ideas. Whatever does this, reasons; and if a machine produces the effects of reason, I see no more ground for denying to it the reasoning power, because it is unconscious, than I see for refusing to Mr. Babbage's engine the title of a calculating machine on the same grounds. Thus it seems to me that a gamekeeper reasons, whether he is conscious or unconscious, whether his reasoning is carried on by neurosis alone, or whether it involves more or less psychosis. And if this is true of the gamekeeper, it is also true of the greyhound. The essential resemblances in all points of structure and function, so far as they can be studied, between the nervous system of the man and that of the dog, leave no reasonable doubt that the processes which go on in the one are just like those which take place in the other. In the dog, there can be no doubt that the nervous matter which lies between the retina and the muscles undergoes a series of changes, precisely analogous to those which, in the man, give rise to sensation, a train of thought, and volition. Whether this neurosis is accompanied by such psychosis as ours it is impossible to say; but those who deny that the nervous changes, which, in the dog, correspond with those which underlie thought in a man, are accompanied by consciousness, are equally bound to maintain that those nervous changes in the dog, which correspond with those which underlie sensation in a man, are also unaccompanied by consciousness. In other words, if there is no ground for believing that a dog thinks, neither is there any for believing that he feels. As is well known, Descartes boldly faced this dilemma, and maintained that all animals were mere machines and entirely devoid of consciousness. But he did not deny, nor can anyone deny, that in this case they are reasoning machines, capable of performing all those operations which are performed by the nervous system of man when he reasons. For even supposing that in man, and in man only, psychosis is superadded to neurosis--the neurosis which is common to both man and animal gives their reasoning processes a fundamental unity. But Descartes' position is open to very serious objections if the evidence that animals feel is insufficient to prove that they really do so. What is the value of the evidence which leads one to believe that one's fellow-man feels? The only evidence in this argument of analogy is the similarity of his structure and of his actions to one's own. And if that is good enough to prove that one's fellow-man feels, surely it is good enough to prove that an ape feels. For the differences of structure and function between men and apes are utterly insufficient to warrant the assumption that while men have those states of consciousness we call sensations apes have nothing of the kind. Moreover, we have as good evidence that apes are capable of emotion and volition as we have that men other than ourselves are. But if apes possess three out of the four kinds of states of consciousness which we discover in ourselves, what possible reason is there for denying them the fourth? If they are capable of sensation, emotion, and volition, why are they to be denied thought (in the sense of predication)? No answer has ever been given to these questions. And as the law of continuity is as much opposed, as is the common sense of mankind, to the notion that all animals are unconscious machines, it may safely be assumed that no sufficient answer ever will be given to them. There is every reason to believe that consciousness is a function of nervous matter, when that nervous matter has attained a certain degree of organisation, just as we know the other "actions to which the nervous system ministers," such as reflex action and the like, to be. As I have ventured to state my view of the matter elsewhere, "our thoughts are the expression of molecular changes in that matter of life which is the source of our other vital phenomena." Mr. Wallace objects to this statement in the following terms:-- "Not having been able to find any clue in Professor Huxley's writings to the steps by which he passes from those vital phenomena, which consist only, in their last analysis, of movements by particles of matter, to those other phenomena which we term thought, sensation, or consciousness; but, knowing that so positive an expression of opinion from him will have great weight with many persons, I shall endeavour to show, with as much brevity as is compatible with clearness, that this theory is not only incapable of proof, but is also, as it appears to me, inconsistent with accurate conceptions of molecular physics." With all respect for Mr. Wallace, it appears to me that his remarks are entirely beside the question. I really know nothing whatever, and never hope to know anything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to states of consciousness is effected; and I entirely agree with the sense of the passage which he quotes from Professor Tyndall, apparently imagining that it is in opposition to the view I hold. All that I have to say is, that, in my belief, consciousness and molecular action are capable of being expressed by one another, just as heat and mechanical action are capable of being expressed in terms of one another. Whether we shall ever be able to express consciousness in foot-pounds, or not, is more than I will venture to say; but that there is evidence of the existence of some correlation between mechanical motion and consciousness, is as plain as anything can be. Suppose the poles of an electric battery to be connected by a platinum wire. A certain intensity of the current gives rise in the mind of a bystander to that state of consciousness we call a "dull red light"--a little greater intensity to another which we call a "bright red light;" increase the intensity, and the light becomes white; and, finally, it dazzles, and a new state of consciousness arises, which we term pain. Given the same wire and the same nervous apparatus, and the amount of electric force required to give rise to these several states of consciousness will be the same, however often the experiment is repeated. And as the electric force, the light waves, and the nerve-vibrations caused by the impact of the light-waves on the retina, are all expressions of the molecular changes which are taking place in the elements of the battery; so consciousness is, in the same sense, an expression of the molecular changes which take place in that nervous matter, which is the organ of consciousness. And, since this, and any number of similar examples that may be required, prove that one form of consciousness, at any rate, is, in the strictest sense, the expression of molecular change, it really is not worth while to pursue the inquiry, whether a fact so easily established is consistent with any particular system of molecular physics or not. Mr. Wallace, in fact, appears to me to have mixed up two very distinct propositions: the one, the indisputable truth that consciousness is correlated with molecular changes in the organ of consciousness; the other, that the nature of that correlation is known, or can be conceived, which is quite another matter. Mr. Wallace, presumably, believes in that correlation of phenomena which we call cause and effect as firmly as I do. But if he has ever been able to form the faintest notion how a cause gives rise to its effect, all I can say is that I envy him. Take the simplest case imaginable--suppose a ball in motion to impinge upon another ball at rest. I know very well, as a matter of fact, that the ball in motion will communicate some of its motion to the ball at rest, and that the motion of the two balls, after collision, is precisely correlated with the masses of both balls and the amount of motion of the first. But how does this come about? In what manner can we conceive that the _vis viva_ of the first ball passes into the second? I confess I can no more form any conception of what happens in this case, than I can of what takes place when the motion of particles of my nervous matter, caused by the impact of a similar ball gives rise to the state of consciousness I call pain. In ultimate analysis everything is incomprehensible, and the whole object of science is simply to reduce the fundamental incomprehensibilities to the smallest possible number. But to return to the Quarterly Reviewer. He admits that animals have "mental images of sensible objects, combined in all degrees of complexity, as governed by the laws of association." Presumably, by this confused and imperfect statement the Reviewer means to admit more than the words imply. For mental images of sensible objects, even though "combined in all degrees of complexity," are, and can be, nothing more than mental images of sensible objects. But judgments, emotions, and volitions cannot by any possibility be included under the head of "mental images of sensible objects." If the greyhound had no better mental endowment than the Reviewer allows him, he might have the "mental image" of the "sensible object"--the hare--and that might be combined with the mental images of other sensible objects, to any degree of complexity, but he would have no power of judging it to be at a certain distance from him; no power of perceiving its similarity to his memory of a hare; and no desire to get at it. Consequently he would stand stock still, and the noble art of coursing would have no existence. On the other hand, as that art is largely practised, it follows that greyhounds alone possess a number of mental powers, the existence of which, in any animal, is absolutely denied by the Quarterly Reviewer. Finally, what are the mental powers which he reserves as the especial prerogative of man? They are two. First, the recognition of "ourselves by ourselves as affected and perceiving.--Self-consciousness." Secondly. "The reflection upon our sensations and perceptions, and asking what they are and why they are.--Reason." To the faculty defined in the last sentence, the Reviewer, without assigning the least ground for thus departing from both common usage and technical propriety, applies the name of reason. But if man is not to be considered a reasoning being, unless he asks what his sensations and perceptions are, and why they are, what is a Hottentot, or an Australian "black-fellow"; or what the "swinked hedger" of an ordinary agricultural district? Nay, what becomes of an average country squire or parson? How many of these worthy persons who, as their wont is, read the _Quarterly Review_, would do other than stand agape, if you asked them whether they had ever reflected what their sensations and perceptions are and why they are? So that if the Reviewer's new definition of reason be correct, the majority of men, even among the most civilised nations, are devoid of that supreme characteristic of manhood. And if it be as absurd as I believe it to be, then, as reason is certainly not self-consciousness, and since it, as certainly, is one of the "actions to which the nervous system ministers," we must, if the Reviewer's classification is to be adopted, seek it among those four faculties which he allows animals to possess. And thus, for the second time, he really surrenders, while seeming to defend, his position. The Quarterly Reviewer, as we have seen, lectures the evolutionists upon their want of knowledge of philosophy altogether. Mr. Mivart is not less pained at Mr. Darwin's ignorance of moral science. It is grievous to him that Mr. Darwin (and _nous autres_) should not have grasped the elementary distinction between material and formal morality; and he lays down as an axiom, of which no tyro ought to be ignorant, the position that "acts, unaccompanied by mental acts of conscious will directed towards the fulfilment of duty," are "absolutely destitute of the most incipient degree of real or formal goodness." Now this may be Mr. Mivart's opinion, but it is a proposition which really does not stand on the footing of an undisputed axiom. Mr. Mill denies it in his work on Utilitarianism. The most influential writer of a totally opposed school, Mr. Carlyle, is never weary of denying it, and upholding the merit of that virtue which is unconscious; nay, it is, to my understanding, extremely hard to reconcile Mr. Mivart's dictum with that noble summary of the whole duty of man--"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." According to Mr. Mivart's definition, the man who loves God and his neighbour, and, out of sheer love and affection for both, does all he can to please them, is, nevertheless, destitute of a particle of real goodness. And it further happens that Mr. Darwin, who is charged by Mr. Mivart with being ignorant of the distinction between material and formal goodness, discusses the very question at issue in a passage which is well worth reading (vol. i. p. 87), and also comes to a conclusion opposed to Mr. Mivart's axiom. A proposition which has been so much disputed and repudiated, should, under no circumstances, have been thus confidently assumed to be true. For myself, I utterly reject it, inasmuch as the logical consequence of the adoption of any such principle is the denial of all moral value to sympathy and affection. According to Mr. Mivart's axiom, the man who, seeing another struggling in the water, leaps in at the risk of his own life to save him, does that which is "destitute of the most incipient degree of real goodness," unless, as he strips off his coat, he says to himself, "Now, mind, I am going to do this because it is my duty and for no other reason;" and the most beautiful character to which humanity can attain, that of the man who does good without thinking about it, because he loves justice and mercy and is repelled by evil, has no claim on our moral approbation. The denial that a man acts morally because he does not think whether he does so or not, may be put upon the same footing as the denial of the title of an arithmetician to the calculating boy, because he did not know how he worked his sums. If mankind ever generally accept and act upon Mr. Mivart's axiom, they will simply become a set of most unendurable prigs; but they never have accepted it, and I venture to hope that evolution has nothing so terrible in store for the human race. But if an action, the motive of which is nothing but affection or sympathy, may be deserving of moral approbation and really good, who that has ever had a dog of his own will deny that animals are capable of such actions? Mr. Mivart indeed says:--"It may be safely affirmed, however, that there is no trace in brutes of any actions simulating morality which are not explicable by the fear of punishment, by the hope of pleasure, or by personal affection" (p. 221). But it may be affirmed, with equal truth, that there is no trace in men of any actions which are not traceable to the same motives. If a man does anything, he does it either because he fears to be punished if he does not do it, or because he hopes to obtain pleasure by doing it, or because he gratifies his affections [Footnote: In separating pleasure and the gratification of affection, I simply follow Mr. Mivart without admitting the justice of the separation.] by doing it. Assuming the position of the absolute moralists, let it be granted that there is a perception of right and wrong innate in every man. This means, simply, that when certain ideas are presented to his mind, the feeling of approbation arises; and when certain others, the feeling of disapprobation. To do your duty is to earn the approbation of your conscience, or moral sense; to fail in your duty is to feel its disapprobation, as we all say. Now, is approbation a pleasure or a pain? Surely a pleasure. And is disapprobation a pleasure or a pain? Surely a pain. Consequently, all that is really meant by the absolute moralists is that there is, in the very nature of man, something which enables him to be conscious of these particular pleasures and pains. And when they talk of immutable and eternal principles of morality, the only intelligible sense which I can put upon the words, is that the nature of man being what it is, he always has been, and always will be, capable of feeling these particular pleasures and pains. _À priori,_ I have nothing to say against this proposition. Admitting its truth, I do not see how the moral faculty is on a different footing from any of the other faculties of man. If I choose to say that it is an immutable and eternal law of human nature that "ginger is hot in the mouth," the assertion has as much foundation of truth as the other, though I think it would be expressed in needlessly pompous language. I must confess that I have never been able to understand why there should be such a bitter quarrel between the intuitionists and the utilitarians. The intuitionist is, after all, only a utilitarian who believes that a particular class of pleasures and pains has an especial importance, by reason of its foundation in the nature of man, and its inseparable connection with his very existence as a thinking being. And as regards the motive of personal affection: Love, as Spinoza profoundly says, is the association of pleasure with that which is loved. [Footnote: "Nempe, Amor nihil aliud est, quam Lætitia, concomitante idea causæ externæ."--_Ethices_, III. xiii.] Or, to put it to the common sense of mankind, is the gratification of affection a pleasure or a pain? Surely a pleasure. So that whether the motive which leads us to perform an action is the love of our neighbour, or the love of God, it is undeniable that pleasure enters into that motive. Thus much in reply to Mr. Mivart's arguments. I cannot but think that it is to be regretted that he ekes them out by ascribing to the doctrines of the philosophers with whom he does not agree, logical consequences which have been over and over again proved not to flow from them: and when reason fails him, tries the effect of an injurious nickname. According to the views of Mr. Spencer, Mr. Mill, and Mr. Darwin, Mr. Mivart tells us, "_virtue is a mere kind of retrieving:_" and, that we may not miss the point of the joke, he puts it in italics. But what if it is? Does that make it less virtue? Suppose I say that sculpture is a "mere way" of stone-cutting, and painting a "mere way" of daubing canvas, and music a "mere way" of making a noise, the statements are quite true; but they only show that I see no other method of depreciating some of the noblest aspects of humanity than that of using language in an inadequate and misleading sense about them. And the peculiar inappropriateness of this particular nickname to the views in question, arises from the circumstance which Mr. Mivart would doubtless have recollected, if his wish to ridicule had not for the moment obscured his judgment--that whether the law of evolution applies to man or not, that of hereditary transmission certainly does. Mr. Mivart will hardly deny that a man owes a large share of the moral tendencies which he exhibits to his ancestors; and the man who inherits a desire to steal from a kleptomaniac, or a tendency to benevolence from a Howard, is, so far as he illustrates hereditary transmission, comparable to the dog who inherits the desire to fetch a duck out of the water from his retrieving sire. So that, evolution, or no evolution, moral qualities are comparable to a "kind of retrieving;" though the comparison, if meant for the purposes of casting obloquy on evolution, does not say much for the fairness of those who make it. The Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart base their objections to the evolution of the mental faculties of man from those of some lower animal form upon what they maintain to be a difference in kind between the mental and moral faculties of men and brutes; and I have endeavoured to show, by exposing the utter unsoundness of their philosophical basis, that these objections are devoid of importance. The objections which Mr. Wallace brings forward to the doctrine of the evolution of the mental faculties of man from those of brutes by natural causes, are of a different order, and require separate consideration. If I understand him rightly, he by no means doubts that both the bodily and the mental faculties of man have been evolved from those of some lower animal; but he is of opinion that some agency beyond that which has been concerned in the evolution of ordinary animals has been operative in the case of man. "A superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms." [Footnote: "The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man" (_loc. cit._ p. 359).] I understand this to mean that, just as the rock-pigeon has been produced by natural causes, while the evolution of the tumbler from the blue rock has required the special intervention of the intelligence of man, so some anthropoid form may have been evolved by variation and natural selection; but it could never have given rise to man, unless some superior intelligence had played the part of the pigeon-fancier. According to Mr. Wallace, "whether we compare the savage with the higher developments of man, or with the brutes around him, we are alike driven to the conclusion, that, in his large and well-developed brain, he possesses an organ quite disproportioned to his requirements" (p. 343); and he asks, "What is there in the life of the savage but the satisfying of the cravings of appetite in the simplest and easiest way? What thoughts, idea, or actions are there that raise him many grades above the elephant or the ape?" (p. 342.) I answer Mr. Wallace by citing a remarkable passage which occurs in his instructive paper on "Instinct in Man and Animals." "Savages make long journeys in many directions, and, their whole faculties being directed to the subject, they gain a wide and accurate knowledge of the topography, not only of their own district, but of all the regions round about. Every one who has travelled in a new direction communicates his knowledge to those who have travelled less, and descriptions of routes and localities, and minute incidents of travel, form one of the main staples of conversation around the evening fire. Every wanderer or captive from another tribe adds to the store of information, and, as the very existence of individuals and of whole families and tribes depends upon the completeness of this knowledge, all the acute perceptive faculties of the adult savage are directed to acquiring and perfecting it. The good hunter or warrior thus comes to know the bearing of every hill and mountain range, the directions and junctions of all the streams, the situation of each tract characterised by peculiar vegetation, not only within the area he has himself traversed, but perhaps for a hundred miles around it. His acute observation enables him to detect the slightest undulations of the surface, the various changes of subsoil and alterations in the character of the vegetation that would be quite imperceptible to a stranger. His eye is always open to the direction in which he is going; the mossy side of trees, the presence of certain plants under the shade of rocks, the morning and evening flight of birds, are to him indications of direction almost as sure as the sun in the heavens" (pp. 207, 208). I have seen enough of savages to be able to declare that nothing can be more admirable than this description of what a savage has to learn. But it is incomplete. Add to all this the knowledge which a savage is obliged to gain of the properties of plants, of the characters and habits of animals, and of the minute indications by which their course is discoverable: consider that even an Australian can make excellent baskets and nets, and neatly fitted and beautifully balanced spears; that he learns to use these so as to be able to transfix a quartern loaf at sixty yards; and that very often, as in the case of the American Indians, the language of a savage exhibits complexities which a well-trained European finds it difficult to master: consider that every time a savage tracks his game he employs a minuteness of observation, and an accuracy of inductive and deductive reasoning which, applied to other matters, would assure some reputation to a man of science, and I think we need ask no further why he possesses such a fair supply of brains. In complexity and difficulty, I should say that the intellectual labour of a "good hunter or warrior" considerably exceeds that of an ordinary Englishman. The Civil Service Examiners are held in great terror by young Englishmen; but even their ferocity never tempted them to require a candidate to possess such a knowledge of a parish as Mr. Wallace justly points out savages may possess of an area a hundred miles or more in diameter. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that a savage has more brains than seems proportioned to his wants, all that can be said is that the objection to natural selection, if it be one, applies quite as strongly to the lower animals. The brain of a porpoise is quite wonderful for its mass, and for the development of the cerebral convolutions. And yet since we have ceased to credit the story of Arion, it is hard to believe that porpoises are much troubled with intellect: and still more difficult is it to imagine that their big brains are only a preparation for the advent of some accomplished cetacean of the future. Surely, again, a wolf must have too much brains, or else how is it that a dog with only the same quantity and form of brain is able to develop such singular intelligence? The wolf stands to the dog in the same relation as the savage to the man; and, therefore, if Mr. Wallace's doctrine holds good, a higher power must have superintended the breeding up of wolves from some inferior stock, in order to prepare them to become dogs. Mr. Wallace further maintains that the origin of some of man's mental faculties by the preservation of useful variations is not possible. Such, for example, are "the capacity to form ideal conceptions of space and time, of eternity and infinity; the capacity for intense artistic feelings of pleasure in form, colour, and composition; and for those abstract notions of form and number which render geometry and arithmetic possible." "How," he asks, "were all or any of these faculties first developed, when they could have been of no possible use to man in his early stages of barbarism?" Surely the answer is not far to seek. The lowest savages are as devoid of any such conceptions as the brutes themselves. What sort of conceptions of space and time, of form and number, can be possessed by a savage who has not got so far as to be able to count beyond five or six, who does not know how to draw a triangle or a circle, and has not the remotest notion of separating the particular quality we call form, from the other qualities of bodies? None of these capacities are exhibited by men, unless they form part of a tolerably advanced society. And, in such a society, there are abundant conditions by which a selective influence is exerted in favour of those persons who exhibit an approximation towards the possession of these capacities. The savage who can amuse his fellows by telling a good story over the nightly fire, is held by them in esteem and rewarded, in one way or another, for so doing--in other words, it is an advantage to him to possess this power. He who can carve a paddle, or the figure-head of a canoe better, similarly profits beyond his duller neighbour. He who counts a little better than others, gets most yams when barter is going on, and forms the shrewdest estimate of the numbers of an opposing tribe. The experience of daily life shows that the conditions of our present social existence exercise the most extraordinarily powerful selective influence in favour of novelists, artists, and strong intellects of all kinds; and it seems unquestionable that all forms of social existence must have had the same tendency, if we consider the indisputable facts that even animals possess the power of distinguishing form and number, and that they are capable of deriving pleasure from particular forms and sounds. If we admit, as Mr. Wallace does, that the lowest savages are not raised "many grades above the elephant and the ape;" and if we further admit, as I contend must be admitted, that the conditions of social life tend, powerfully, to give an advantage to those individuals who vary in the direction of intellectual or æsthetic excellence, what is there to interfere with the belief that these higher faculties, like the rest, owe their development to natural selection? Finally, with respect to the development of the moral sense out of the simple feelings of pleasure and pain, liking and disliking, with which the lower animals are provided, I can find nothing in Mr. Wallace's reasonings which has not already been met by Mr. Mill, Mr. Spencer, or Mr. Darwin. I do not propose to follow the Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart through the long string of objections in matters of detail which they bring against Mr. Darwin's views. Every one who has considered the matter carefully will be able to ferret out as many more "difficulties"; but he will also, I believe, fail as completely as they appear to me to have done, in bringing forward any fact which is really contradictory of Mr. Darwin's views. Occasionally, too, their objections and criticisms are based upon errors of their own. As, for example, when Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer insist upon the resemblances between the eyes of _Cephalopoda_ and _Vertebrata_, quite forgetting that there are striking and altogether fundamental differences between them; or when the Quarterly Reviewer corrects Mr. Darwin for saying that the gibbons, "without having been taught, can walk or run upright with tolerable quickness, though they move awkwardly, and much less securely than man." The Quarterly Reviewer says, "This is a little misleading, inasmuch as it is not stated that this upright progression is effected by placing the enormously long arms behind the head, or holding them out backwards as a balance in progression." Now, before carping at a small statement like this, the Quarterly Reviewer should have made sure that he was quite right. But he happens to be quite wrong. I suspect he got his notion of the manner in which a gibbon walks from a citation in "Man's Place in Nature." But at that time I had not seen a gibbon walk. Since then I have, and I can testify that nothing can be more precise than Mr. Darwin's statement. The gibbon I saw walked without either putting his arms behind his head or holding them out backwards. All he did was to touch the ground with the outstretched fingers of his long arms now and then, just as one sees a man who carries a stick, but does not need one, touch the ground with it as he walks along. Again, a large number of the objections brought forward by Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer apply to evolution in general, quite as much as to the particular form of that doctrine advocated by Mr. Darwin; or, to their notions of Mr. Darwin's views and not to what they really are. An excellent example of this class of difficulties is to be found in Mr. Mivart's chapter on "Independent Similarities of Structure." Mr. Mivart says that these cannot be explained by an "absolute and pure Darwinian," but "that an innate power and evolutionary law, aided by the corrective action of natural selection, should have furnished like needs with like aids, is not at all improbable" (p. 82). I do not exactly know what Mr. Mivart means by an "absolute and pure Darwinian;" indeed Mr. Mivart makes that creature hold so many singular opinions that I doubt if I can ever have seen one alive. But I find nothing in his statement of the view which he imagines to be originated by himself, which is really inconsistent with what I understand to be Mr. Darwin's views. I apprehend that the foundation of the theory of natural selection is the fact that living bodies tend incessantly to vary. This variation is neither indefinite, nor fortuitous, nor does it take place in all directions, in the strict sense of these words. Accurately speaking, it is not indefinite, nor does it take place in all directions, because it is limited by the general characters of the type to which the organism exhibiting the variation belongs. A whale does not tend to vary in the direction of producing feathers, nor a bird in the direction of developing whalebone. In popular language there is no harm in saying that the waves which break upon the sea-shore are indefinite, fortuitous, and break in all directions. In scientific language, on the contrary, such a statement would be a gross error, inasmuch as every particle of foam is the result of perfectly definite forces, operating according to no less definite laws. In like manner, every variation of a living form, however minute, however apparently accidental, is inconceivable except as the expression of the operation of molecular forces or "powers" resident within the organism. And, as these forces certainly operate according to definite laws, their general result is, doubtless, in accordance with some general law which subsumes them all. And there appears to be no objection to call this an "evolutionary law." But nobody is the wiser for doing so, or has thereby contributed, in the least degree, to the advance of the doctrine of evolution, the great need of which is a theory of variation. When Mr. Mivart tells us that his "aim has been to support the doctrine that these species have been evolved by ordinary _natural laws_ (for the most part unknown), aided by the _subordinate_ action of 'natural selection'" (pp. 332-3), he seems to be of opinion that his enterprise has the merit of novelty. All I can say is that I have never had the slightest notion that Mr. Darwin's aim is in any way different from this. If I affirm that "species have been evolved by variation [Footnote: Including under this head hereditary transmission.] (a natural process, the laws of which are for the most part unknown), aided by the subordinate action of natural selection," it seems to me that I enunciate a proposition which constitutes the very pith and marrow of the first edition of the "Origin of Species." And what the evolutionist stands in need of just now, is not an iteration of the fundamental principle of Darwinism, but some light upon the questions, What are the limits of variation? and, If a variety has arisen, can that variety be perpetuated, or even intensified, when selective conditions are indifferent, or perhaps unfavourable to its existence? I cannot find that Mr. Darwin has ever been very dogmatic in answering these questions. Formerly, he seems to have inclined to reply to them in the negative, while now his inclination is the other way. Leaving aside those broad questions of theology, philosophy, and ethics, by the discussion of which neither the Quarterly Reviewer nor Mr. Mivart can be said to have damaged Darwinism--whatever else they have injured--this is what their criticisms come to. They confound a struggle for some rifle-pits with an assault on the fortress. In some respects, finally, I can only characterise the Quarterly Reviewer's treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and unbecoming. Language of this strength requires justification, and on that ground I add the remarks which follow. The Quarterly Reviewer opens his essay by a careful enumeration of all those points upon which, during the course of thirteen years of incessant labour, Mr. Darwin has modified his opinions. It has often and justly been remarked, that what strikes a candid student of Mr. Darwin's works is not so much his industry, his knowledge, or even the surprising fertility of his inventive genius; but that unswerving truthfulness and honesty which never permit him to hide a weak place, or gloss over a difficulty, but lead him, on all occasions, to point out the weak places in his own armour, and even sometimes, it appears to me, to make admissions against himself which are quite unnecessary. A critic who desires to attack Mr. Darwin has only to read his works with a desire to observe, not their merits, but their defects, and he will find, ready to hand, more adverse suggestions than are likely ever to have suggested themselves to his own sharpness, without Mr. Darwin's self-denying aid. Now this quality of scientific candour is not so common that it needs to be discouraged; and it appears to me to deserve other treatment than that adopted by the Quarterly Reviewer, who deals with Mr. Darwin as an Old Bailey barrister deals with a man against whom he wishes to obtain a conviction, _per fas aut nefas_, and opens his case by endeavouring to create a prejudice against the prisoner in the minds of the jury. In his eagerness to carry out this laudable design, the Quarterly Reviewer cannot even state the history of the doctrine of natural selection without an oblique and entirely unjustifiable attempt to depreciate Mr. Darwin. "To Mr. Darwin," says he, "and (through Mr. Wallace's reticence) to Mr. Darwin alone, is due the credit of having first brought it prominently forward and demonstrated its truth." No one can less desire than I do, to throw a doubt upon Mr. Wallace's originality, or to question his claim to the honour of being one of the originators of the doctrine of natural selection; but the statement that Mr. Darwin has the sole credit of originating the doctrine because of Mr. Wallace's reticence is simply ridiculous. The proof of this is, in the first place, afforded by Mr. Wallace himself, whose noble freedom from petty jealousy in this matter smaller folk would do well to imitate, and who writes thus:--"I have felt all my life, and I still feel, the most sincere satisfaction that Mr. Darwin had been at work long before me and that it was not left for me to attempt to write the 'Origin of Species.' I have long since measured my own strength, and know well that it would be quite unequal to that task." So that if there was any reticence at all in the matter, it was Mr. Darwin's reticence during the long twenty years of study which intervened between the conception and the publication of his theory, which gave Mr. Wallace the chance of being an independent discoverer of the importance of natural selection. And, finally, if it be recollected that Mr. Darwin's and Mr. Wallace's essays were published simultaneously in the "Journal of the Linnæan Society" for 1858, it follows that the Reviewer, while obliquely depreciating Mr. Darwin's deserts, has in reality awarded to him a priority which, in legal strictness, does not exist. Mr. Mivart, whose opinions so often concur with those of the Quarterly Reviewer, puts the case in a way, which I much regret to be obliged to say, is, in my judgment, quite as incorrect; though the injustice may be less glaring. He says that the theory of natural selection is, in general, exclusively associated with the name of Mr. Darwin, "on account of the noble self-abnegation of Mr. Wallace." As I have said, no one can honour Mr. Wallace more than I do, both for what he has done and for what he has not done, in his relation to Mr. Darwin. And perhaps nothing is more creditable to him than his frank declaration that he could not have written such a work as the "Origin of Species." But, by this declaration, the person most directly interested in the matter repudiates, by anticipation, Mr. Mivart's suggestion that Mr. Darwin's eminence is more or less due to Mr. Wallace's modesty. VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY [1878] In the former half of the eighteenth century, the term "evolution" was introduced into biological writings, in order to denote the mode in which some of the most eminent physiologists of that time conceived that the generations of living things took place; in opposition to the hypothesis advocated, in the preceding century, by Harvey in that remarkable work [Footnote: The _Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium_, which Dr. George Ent extracted from him and published in 1651.] which would give him a claim to rank among the founders of biological science, even had he not been the discoverer of the circulation of the blood. One of Harvey's prime objects is to defend and establish, on the basis of direct observation, the opinion already held by Aristotle; that, in the higher animals at any rate, the formation of the new organism by the process of generation takes place, not suddenly, by simultaneous accretion of rudiments of all, or of the most important, of the organs of the adult; nor by sudden metamorphosis of a formative substance into a miniature of the whole, which subsequently grows; but by _epigenesis_, or successive differentiation of a relatively homogeneous rudiment into the parts and structures which are characteristic of the adult. "Et primò, quidem, quoniam per _epigenesin_ sive partium superexorientium additamentum pullum fabricari certum est: quænam pars ante alias omnes exstruatur, et quid de illa ejusque generandi modo observandum veniat, dispiciemus. Ratum sane est et in ovo manifestè apparet quod _Aristoteles_ de perfectorum animalium generatione enuntiat: nimirum, non omnes partes simul fieri, sed ordine aliam post aliam; primùmque existere particulam genitalem, cujus virtute postea (tanquam ex principio quodam) reliquæ omnes partes prosiliant. Qualem in plantarum seminibus (fabis, putà, aut glandibus) gemmam sive apicem protuberantem cernimus, totius futuræ arboris principium. _Estque hæc particula, velut filius emancipatus seorsumquc collocatus, et principium per se vivens; unde postea, membrorum ordo describitur; et quæcunque ad absolvendum animal pertinent, disponuntur._ [Footnote: _De Generatione Animalium_, lib. ii. cap. x.] Quoniam enim _nulla pars se ipsam generat; sed postquam generata est, se ipsam jam auget; ideo eam primùm oriri necesse est, quæ principium augendi contineat (sive enim planta, sive animal est, æque omnibus inest quod vim habeat vegetandi, sive nutriendi_), [Footnote: _De Generatione_, lib. ii. cap. iv.] simulque reliquas omnes partes suo quamque ordine distinguat et formet; proindeque in eadem primogenita particula anima primario inest, sensus, motusque, et totius vitæ auctor et principium." (Exercitatio 51.) Harvey proceeds to contrast this view with that of the "Medici," or followers of Hippocrates and Galen, who, "badly philosophising," imagined that the brain, the heart, and the liver were simultaneously first generated in the form of vesicles; and, at the same time, while expressing his agreement with Aristotle in the principle of epigenesis, he maintains that it is the blood which is the primal generative part, and not, as Aristotle thought, the heart. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, the doctrine of epigenesis, thus advocated by Harvey, was controverted, on the ground of direct observation, by Malpighi, who affirmed that the body of the chick is to be seen in the egg, before the _punctum sanguineum_ makes it appearance. But, from this perfectly correct observation a conclusion which is by no means warranted was drawn; namely, that the chick, as a whole, really exists in the egg antecedently to incubation; and that what happens in the course of the latter process is no addition of new parts, "alias post alias natas," as Harvey puts it, but a simple expansion, or unfolding, of the organs which already exist, though they are too small and inconspicuous to be discovered. The weight of Malpighi's observations therefore fell into the scale of that doctrine which Harvey terms _metamorphosis_, in contradistinction to epigenesis. The views of Malpighi were warmly welcomed, on philosophical grounds, by Leibnitz, [Footnote: "Cependant, pour revenir aux formes ordinaires ou aux âmes matérielles, cette durée qu'il leur faut attribuer à la place de celle qu'on avoit attribuée aux atomes pourroit faire douter si elles ne vont pas de corps en corps; ce qui seroit la métempsychose, à peu près comme quelques philosophes ont cru la transmission du mouvement et celle des espèces. Mais cette imagination est bien éloignée de la nature des choses. Il n'y a point de tel passage; et c'est ici où les transformations de Messieurs Swammerdam, Malpighi, et Leewenhoek, qui sont des plus excellens observateurs de notre tems, sont venues à mon secours, et m'ont fait admettre plus aisément, que l'animal, et toute autre substance organisée ne commence point lorsque nous le croyons, et que sa generation apparente n'est qu'une développement et une espèce d'augmentation. Aussi ai je remarqué que l'auteur de la _Recherche de la Verité_, M. Regis, M. Hartsoeker, et d'autres habiles hommes n'ont pas été fort éloignés de ce sentiment." Leibnitz, _Système Nouveau de la Nature_, 1695. The doctrine of "Embôitement" is contained in the _Considérations sur le Principe de Vie_, 1705; the preface to the _Theodicée_, 1710; and the _Principes de la Nature et de la Grace_ (§ 6), 1718.] who found in them a support to his hypothesis of monads, and by Malebranche; [Footnote: "Il est vrai que la pensée la plus raisonnable et la plus conforme à l'experience sur cette question très difficile de la formation du foetus; c'est que les enfans sont déja presque tout formés avant même l'action par laquelle ils sont conçus; et que leurs mères ne font que leur donner l'accroissement ordinaire dans le temps de la grossesse." _De la Recherche de la Verité_, livre ii. chap. vii. p. 334, 7th ed., 1721.] while, in the middle of the eighteenth century, not only speculative considerations, but a great number of new and interesting observations on the phenomena of generation, led the ingenious Bonnet, and Haller, [Footnote: The writer is indebted to Dr. Allen Thomson for reference to the evidence contained in a note to Haller's edition of Boerhaave's _Prælectiones Academicæ_, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 497, published in 1744, that Haller originally advocated epigenesis.] the first physiologist of the age, to adopt, advocate, and extend them. Bonnet affirms that, before fecundation, the hen's egg contains an excessively minute but complete chick; and that fecundation and incubation simply cause this germ to absorb nutritious matters, which are deposited in the interstices of the elementary structures of which the miniature chick, or germ, is made up. The consequence of this intussusceptive growth is the "development" or "evolution" of the germ into the visible bird. Thus an organised individual (_tout organisé_) "is a composite body consisting of the original, or _elementary_, parts and of the matters which have been associated with them by the aid of nutrition;" so that, if these matters could be extracted from the individual (_tout_), it would, so to speak, become concentrated in a point, and would thus be restored to its primitive condition of a _germ_; "just as by extracting from a bone the calcareous substance which is the source of its hardness, it is reduced to its primitive state of gristle or membrane." [Footnote: _Considérations sur les Corps organisés, chap. x.] "Evolution" and "development" are, for Bonnet, synonymous terms; and since by "evolution" he means simply the expansion of that which was invisible into visibility, he was naturally led to the conclusion, at which Leibnitz had arrived by a different line of reasoning, that no such thing as generation, in the proper sense of the word, exists in Nature. The growth of an organic being is simply a process of enlargement as a particle of dry gelatine may be swelled up by the intussusception of water; its death is a shrinkage, such as the swelled jelly might undergo on desiccation. Nothing really new is produced in the living world, but the germs which develop have existed since the beginning of things; and nothing really dies, but, when what we call death takes place, the living thing shrinks back into its germ state. [Footnote: Bonnet had the courage of his opinions, and in the _Palingénésie Philosophique_, part vi. chap, iv., he develops a hypothesis which he terms "évolution naturelle;" and which, making allowance for his peculiar views of the nature of generation, bears no small resemblance to what is understood by "evolution" at the present day:-- "Si la volonté divine a créé par un seul Acte l'Universalité des êtres, d'où venoient ces plantes et ces animaux dont Moyse nous decrit la Production au troisieme et au cinquieme jour du renouvellement de notre monde? "Abuserois-je de la liberté de conjectures si je disois, que les Plantes et les Animaux qui existent aujourd'hui sont parvenus par une sorte d'evolution naturelle des Etres organises qui peuplaient ce premier Monde, sorti immédiatement des MAINS du CREATEUR?... "Ne supposons que trois révolutions. La Terre vient de sortir des MAINS du CREATEUR. Des causes preparées par sa SAGESSE font développer de toutes parts les Germes. Les Etres organisés commencent à jouir de l'existence. Ils étoient probablement alors bien différens de ce qu'ils sont aujourd'hui. Ils l'etoient autant que ce premier Monde différoit de celui que nous habitons. Nous manquons de moyens pour juger de ces dissemblances, et peut-être que le plus habile Naturaliste qui auroit été placé dans ce premier Monde y auroit entièrement méconnu nos Plantes et nos Animaux."] The two parts of Bonnet's hypothesis, namely, the doctrine that all living things proceed from pre-existing germs, and that these contain, one inclosed within the other, the germs of all future living things, which is the hypothesis of "_emboîtement_;" and the doctrine that every germ contains in miniature all the organs of the adult, which is the hypothesis of evolution or development, in the primary senses of these words, must be carefully distinguished. In fact, while holding firmly by the former, Bonnet more or less modified the latter in his later writings, and, at length, he admits that a "germ" need not be an actual miniature of the organism; but that it may be merely an "original preformation" capable of producing the latter. [Footnote: "Ce mot (germe) ne désignera pas seulement un corps organisé _réduit en petit_; il désignera encore toute espèce de _préformation originelle dont un Tout organique peut résulter comme de son principe immédiat."--Palingénésie Philosophique_, part X. chap. II.] But, thus defined, the germ is neither more nor less than the "particula genitalis" of Aristotle, or the "primordium vegetale" or "ovum" of Harvey; and the "evolution" of such a germ would not be distinguishable from "epigenesis." Supported by the great authority of Haller, the doctrine of evolution, or development, prevailed throughout the whole of the eighteenth century, and Cuvier appears to have substantially adopted Bonnet's later views, though probably he would not have gone all lengths in the direction of "emboîtement." In a well-known note to Laurillard's "Éloge," prefixed to the last edition of the "Ossemens fossiles," the "radical de l'être" is much the same thing as Aristotle's "particula genitalis" and Harvey's "ovum." [Footnote: "M. Cuvier considérant que tous les êtres organisés sont dérivés de parens, et ne voyant dans la nature aucune force capable de produire l'organisation, croyait à la pré-existence des germes; non pas à la pré-existence d'un être tout formé, puisqu'il est bien évident que ce n'est que par des développemens successifs que l'être acquiert sa forme; mais, si l'on peut s'exprimer ainsi, à la pré-existence du _radical de l'être_, radical qui existe avant que la série des évolutions ne commence, et qui remonte certainement, suivant la belle observation de Bonnet, à plusieurs generations."--Laurillard, _Éloge de Cuvier_, note 12.] Bonnet's eminent contemporary, Buffon, held nearly the same views with respect to the nature of the germ, and expresses them even more confidently. "Ceux qui ont cru que le coeur étoit le premier formé, se sont trompés; ceux qui disent que c'est le sang se trompent aussi: tout est formé en même temps. Si l'on ne consulte que l'observation, le poulet se voit dans l'oeuf avant qu'il ait été couvé." [Footnote: _Histoire Naturelle_, tom. ii. ed. ii. 1750, p. 350.] "J'ai ouvert une grande quantité d'oeufs à differens temps avant et après l'incubation, et je me suis convaincu par mes yeux que le poulet existe en entier dans le milieu de la cicatricule au moment qu'il sort du corps de la poule." [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 351.] The "moule intérieur" of Buffon is the aggregate of elementary parts which constitute the individual, and is thus the equivalent of Bonnet's germ, [Footnote: See particularly Buffon, _l. c._ p. 41.] as defined in the passage cited above. But Buffon further imagined that innumerable "molecules organiques" are dispersed throughout the world, and that alimentation consists in the appropriation by the parts of an organism of those molecules which are analogous to them. Growth, therefore, was, on this hypothesis, a process partly of simple evolution, and partly of what has been termed "syngenesis." Buffon's opinion is, in fact, a sort of combination of views, essentially similar to those of Bonnet, with others, somewhat similar to those of the "Medici" whom Harvey condemns. The "molecules organiques" are physical equivalents of Leibnitz's "monads." It is a striking example of the difficulty of getting people to use their own powers of investigation accurately, that this form of the doctrine of evolution should have held its ground so long; for it was thoroughly and completely exploded, not long after its enunciation, by Casper Friederich Wolff, who in his "Theoria Generationis," published in 1759, placed the opposite theory of epigenesis upon the secure foundation of fact, from which it has never been displaced. But Wolff had no immediate successors. The school of Cuvier was lamentably deficient in embryologists; and it was only in the course of the first thirty years of the present century, that Prévost and Dumas in France, and, later on, Döllinger, Pander, Von Bär, Rathke, and Remak in Germany, founded modern embryology; while, at the same time, they proved the utter incompatibility of the hypothesis of evolution, as formulated by Bonnet and Haller, with easily demonstrable facts. Nevertheless, though the conceptions originally denoted by "evolution" and "development" were shown to be untenable, the words retained their application to the process by which the embryos of living beings gradually make their appearance; and the terms "Development," "Entwickelung," and "Evolutio," are now indiscriminately used for the series of genetic changes exhibited by living beings, by writers who would emphatically deny that "Development" or "Entwickelung" or "Evolutio," in the sense in which these words were usually employed by Bonnet or by Haller, ever occurs. Evolution, or development, is, in fact, at present employed in biology as a general name for the history of the steps by which any living being has acquired the morphological and the physiological characters which distinguish it. As civil history may be divided into biography, which is the history of individuals, and universal history, which is the history of the human race, so evolution falls naturally into two categories--the evolution of the individual, and the evolution of the sum of living beings. It will be convenient to deal with the modern doctrine of evolution under these two heads. I. _The Evolution of the Individual_. No exception is at this time, known to the general law, established upon an immense multitude of direct observations, that every living thing is evolved from a particle of matter in which no trace of the distinctive characters of the adult form of that living thing is discernible. This particle is termed a _germ_. Harvey [Footnote: _Execitationes de Generatione_. Ex. 62, "Ovum esse primordium commune omnibus animalibus."] says-- "Omnibus viventibus primordium insit, ex quo et a quo proveniant. Liceat hoc nobis _primordium vegetale_ nominare; nempe substantiam quandam corpoream vitam habentem potentiâ; vel quoddam per se existens, quod aptum sit, in vegetativam formam, ab interno principio operante, mutari. Quale nempe primordium, ovum est et plantarum semen; tale etiam viviparorum conceptus, et insectorum _vermis_ ab Aristotele dictus: diversa scilicet diversorum viventium primordia." The definition of a germ as "matter potentially alive, and having within itself the tendency to assume a definite living form," appears to meet all the requirements of modern science. For, notwithstanding it might be justly questioned whether a germ is not merely potentially, but rather actually, alive, though its vital manifestations are reduced to a minimum, the term "potential" may fairly be used in a sense broad enough to escape the objection. And the qualification of "potential" has the advantage of reminding us that the great characteristic of the germ is not so much what it is, but what it may, under suitable conditions, become. Harvey shared the belief of Aristotle--whose writings he so often quotes and of whom he speaks as his precursor and model, with the generous respect with which one genuine worker should regard another--that such germs may arise by a process of "equivocal generation" out of not-living matter; and the aphorism so commonly ascribed to him, "_omne vivum ex ovo_" and which is indeed a fair summary of his reiterated assertions, though incessantly employed against the modern advocates of spontaneous generation, can be honestly so used only by those who have never read a score of pages of the "Exercitationes." Harvey, in fact, believed as implicitly as Aristotle did in the equivocal generation of the lower animals. But, while the course of modern investigation has only brought out into greater prominence the accuracy of Harvey's conception of the nature and mode of development of germs, it has as distinctly tended to disprove the occurrence of equivocal generation, or abiogenesis, in the present course of nature. In the immense majority of both plants and animals, it is certain that the germ is not merely a body in which life is dormant or potential, but that it is itself simply a detached portion of the substance of a pre-existing living body; and the evidence has yet to be adduced which will satisfy any cautious reasoner that "omne vivum ex vivo" is not as well-established a law of the existing course of nature as "omne vivum ex ovo." In all instances which have yet been investigated, the substance of this germ has a peculiar chemical composition, consisting of at fewest four elementary bodies, viz., carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, united into the ill-defined compound known as protein, and associated with much water, and very generally, if not always, with sulphur and phosphorus in minute proportions. Moreover, up to the present time, protein is known only as a product and constituent of living matter. Again, a true germ is either devoid of any structure discernible by optical means, or, at most, it is a simple nucleated cell. [Footnote: In some cases of sexless multiplication the germ is a cell-aggregate--if we call germ only that which is already detached from the parent organism.] In all cases the process of evolution consists in a succession of changes of the form, structure, and functions of the germ, by which it passes, step by step, from an extreme simplicity, or relative homogeneity, of visible structure, to a greater or less degree of complexity or heterogeneity; and the course of progressive differentiation is usually accompanied by growth, which is effected by intussusception. This intussusception, however, is a very different process from that imagined either by Buffon or by Bonnet. The substance by the addition of which the germ is enlarged is in no case simply absorbed, ready-made, from the not-living world and packed between the elementary constituents of the germ, as Bonnet imagined; still less does it consist of the "molecules organiques" of Buffon. The new material is, in great measure, not only absorbed but assimilated, so that it becomes part and parcel of the molecular structure of the living body into which it enters. And, so far from the fully developed organism being simply the germ _plus_ the nutriment which it has absorbed, it is probable that the adult contains neither in form, nor in substance, more than an inappreciable fraction of the constituents of the germ, and that it is almost, if not wholly, made up of assimilated and metamorphosed nutriment. In the great majority of cases, at any rate, the full-grown organism becomes what it is by the absorption of not-living matter, and its conversion into living matter of a specific type. As Harvey says (Ex. 45), all parts of the body are nourished "ab eodem succo alibili, aliter aliterque cambiato," "ut plantæ omnes ex eodem communi nutrimento (sive rore seu terræ humore)." In all animals and plants above the lowest the germ is a nucleated cell, using that term in its broadest sense; and the first step in the process of the evolution of the individual is the division of this cell into two or more portions. The process of division is repeated, until the organism, from being unicellular, becomes multicellular. The single cell becomes a cell-aggregate; and it is to the growth and metamorphosis of the cells of the cell-aggregate thus produced, that all the organs and tissues of the adult owe their origin. In certain animals belonging to every one of the chief groups into which the _Metazoa_ are divisible, the cells of the cell-aggregate which results from the process of yelk-division, and which is termed a _morula_, diverge from one another in such a manner as to give rise to a central space, around which they dispose themselves as a coat or envelope; and thus the morula becomes a vesicle filled with fluid, the _planula_. The wall of the planula is next pushed in on one side, or invaginated, whereby it is converted into a double-walled sac with an opening, the _blastopore_, which leads into the cavity lined by the inner wall. This cavity is the primitive alimentary cavity or _archenteron_; the inner or invaginated layer is the _hypoblast_; the outer the _epiblast_; and the embryo, in this stage, is termed a _gastrula_. In all the higher animals a layer of cells makes its appearance between the hypoblast and the epiblast, and is termed the _mesoblast_. In the further course of development the epiblast becomes the ectoderm or epidermic layer of the body; the hypoblast becomes the epithelium of the middle portion of the alimentary canal; and the mesoblast gives rise to all the other tissues, except the central nervous system, which originates from an ingrowth of the epiblast. With more or less modification in detail, the embryo has been observed to pass through these successive evolutional stages in sundry Sponges, Coelenterates, Worms, Echinoderms, Tunicates, Arthropods, Mollusks, and Vertebrates; and there are valid reasons for the belief that all animals of higher organisation than the _Protozoa_, agree in the general character of the early stages of their individual evolution. Each, starting from the condition of a simple nucleated cell, becomes a cell-aggregate; and this passes through a condition which represents the gastrula stage, before taking on the features distinctive of the group to which it belongs. Stated in this form, the "gastræa theory" of Haeckel appears to the present writer to be one of most important and best founded of recent generalisations. So far as individual plants and animals are concerned, therefore, evolution is not a speculation but a fact; and it takes place by epigenesis. "Animal...per _epigenesin_ procreatur, materiam simul attrahit, parat, concoquit, et eâdem utitur; formatur simul et augetur ... primum futuri corporis concrementum ... prout augetur, dividitur sensim et distinguitur in partes, non simul omnes, sed alias post alias natas, et ordine quasque suo emergentes." [Footnote: Harvey, _Exercitationes de Generatione_. Ex. 45, "Quænam sit pulli materia et quomodo fiat in Ovo."] In these words, by the divination of genius, Harvey, in the seventeenth century, summed up the outcome of the work of all those who, with appliances he could not dream of, are continuing his labours in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, though the doctrine of epigenesis, as understood by Harvey, has definitively triumphed over the doctrine of evolution, as understood by his opponents of the eighteenth century, it is not impossible that, when the analysis of the process of development is carried still further, and the origin of the molecular components of the physically gross, though sensibly minute, bodies which we term germs is traced, the theory of development will approach more nearly to metamorphosis than to epigenesis. Harvey thought that impregnation influenced the female organism as a contagion; and that the blood, which he conceived to be the first rudiment of the germ, arose in the clear fluid of the "colliquamentum" of the ovum by a process of concrescence, as a sort of living precipitate. We now know, on the contrary, that the female germ or ovum, in all the higher animals and plants, is a body which possesses the structure of a nucleated cell; that impregnation consists in the fusion of the substance [Footnote: [At any rate of the nuclei of the two germ-cells. 1893]] of another more or less modified nucleated cell, the male germ, with the ovum; and that the structural components of the body of the embryo are all derived, by a process of division, from the coalesced male and female germs. Hence it is conceivable, and indeed probable, that every part of the adult contains molecules, derived both from the male and from the female parent; and that, regarded as a mass of molecules, the entire organism may he compared to a web of which the warp is derived from the female and the woof from the male. And each of these may constitute one individuality, in the same sense as the whole organism is one individual, although the matter of the organism has been constantly changing. The primitive male and female molecules may play the part of Buffon's "moules organiques," and mould the assimilated nutriment, each according to its own type, into innumerable new molecules. From this point of view the process, which, in its superficial aspect, is epigenesis, appears in essence, to be evolution, in the modified sense adopted in Bonnet's later writings; and development is merely the expansion of a potential organism or "original preformation" according to fixed laws. II. _The Evolution of the Sum of Living Beings_. The notion that all the kinds of animals and plants may have come into existence by the growth and modification of primordial germs is as old as speculative thought; but the modern scientific form of the doctrine can be traced historically to the influence of several converging lines of philosophical speculation and of physical observation, none of which go farther back than the seventeenth century. These are:-- 1. The enunciation by Descartes of the conception that the physical universe, whether living or not living, is a mechanism, and that, as such, it is explicable on physical principles. 2. The observation of the gradations of structure, from extreme simplicity to very great complexity, presented by living things, and of the relation of these graduated forms to one another. 3. The observation of the existence of an analogy between the series of gradations presented by the species which compose any great group of animals or plants, and the series of embryonic conditions of the highest members of that group. 4. The observation that large groups of species of widely different habits present the same fundamental plan of structure; and that parts of the same animal or plant, the functions of which are very different, likewise exhibit modifications of a common plan. 5. The observation of the existence of structures, in a rudimentary and apparently useless condition, in one species of a group, which are fully developed and have definite functions in other species of the same group. 6. The observation of the effects of varying conditions in modifying living organisms. 7. The observation of the facts of geographical distribution. 8. The observation of the facts of the geological succession of the forms of life. 1. Notwithstanding the elaborate disguise which fear of the powers that were led Descartes to throw over his real opinions, it is impossible to read the "Principes de la Philosophie" without acquiring the conviction that this great philosopher held that the physical world and all things in it, whether living or not living, have originated by a process of evolution, due to the continuous operation of purely physical causes, out of a primitive relatively formless matter. [Footnote: As Buffon has well said:--"L'idée de ramener l'explication de tous les phénomènes à des principes mecaniques est assurement grande et belle, ce pas est le plus hardi qu'on peut faire en philosophie, et c'est Descartes qui l'a fait."--_l. c._ p. 50.] The following passage is especially instructive:-- "Et tant s'en faut que je veuille que l'on croie toutes les choses que j'écrirai, que même je pretends en proposer ici quelques unes que je crois absolument être fausses; à savoir, je ne doute point quo le monde n'ait été créé au commencement avec autant de perfection qu'il eu a; en sorte que le soleil, la terre, la lune, et les étoiles ont été dès lors; et que la terre n'a pas eu seulement en soi les semences des plantes, mais que les plantes même en ont couvert une partie; et qu' Adam et Eve n'ont pas été créés enfans mais en âge d'hommes parfaits. La religion chrétienne veut que nous le croyons ainsi, et la raison naturelle nous persuade entièrement cette vérité; car si nous considérons la toute puissance de Dieu, nous devons juger que tout ce qu'il a fait a eu dès le commencement toute la perfection qu'il devoit avoir. Mais néanmoins, comme on connôitroit beaucoup mieux quelle a été la nature d'Adam et celle des arbres de Paradis si on avoit examiné comment les enfants se forment peu à peu dans le ventre de leurs mères et comment les plantes sortent de leurs semences, que si on avoit seulement considéré quels ils ont été quand Dieu les a créés: tout de même, nous ferons mieux entendre quelle est généralement la nature de toutes les choses qui sont au monde si nous pouvons imaginer quelques principes qui soient fort intelligibles et fort simples, desquels nous puissions voir clairement que les astres et la terre et enfin tout ce monde visible auroit pu être produit ainsi que de quelques semences (bien que, nous sachions qu'il n'a pas été produit en cette façon) que si nous la decrivions seulement comme il est, ou bien comme nous croyons qu'il a été créé. Et parceque je pense avoir trouvé des principes qui sont tels, je tacherai ici de les expliquer." [Footnote: _Principes de la Philosophie_, Troisième partie, § 45.] If we read between the lines of this singular exhibition of force of one kind and weakness of another, it is clear that Descartes believed that he had divined the mode in which the physical universe had been evolved; and the "Traité de l'Homme," and the essay "Sur les Passions" afford abundant additional evidence that he sought for, and thought he had found, an explanation of the phenomena of physical life by deduction from purely physical laws. Spinoza abounds in the same sense, and is as usual perfectly candid-- "Naturæ leges et regulæ, secundum quas omnia fiunt et ex unis formis in alias mutantur, sunt ubique et semper eadem." [Footnote: _Ethices_, Pars tertia, Præfatio.] Leibnitz's doctrine of continuity necessarily led him in the same direction; and, of the infinite multitude of monads with which he peopled the world, each is supposed to be the focus of an endless process of evolution and involution. In the "Protogæa," xxvi., Leibnitz distinctly suggests the mutability of species-- "Alii mirantur in saxis passim species videri quas vel in orbe cognito, vel saltem in vicinis locis frustra quæras. 'Ita Cornua Ammonis,' quæ ex nautilorum numero habeantur, passim et forma et magnitudine (nam et pedali diametro aliquando reperiuntur) ab omnibus illis naturis discrepare dicunt, quas præbet mare. Sed quis absconditos ejus recessus aut subterraneas abyssos pervestigavit? quam multa nobis animalia antea ignota offert novus orbis? Et credibile est per magnas illas conversiones etiam animalium species plurimum immutatas." Thus, in the end of the seventeenth century, the seed was sown which has, at intervals, brought forth recurrent crops of evolutional hypotheses, based, more or less completely, on general reasonings. Among the earliest of these speculations is that put forward by Benoit de Maillet in his "Telliamed," which, though printed in 1735, was not published until twenty-three years later. Considering that this book was written before the time of Haller, or Bonnet, or Linnæus, or Hutton, it surely deserves more respectful consideration than it usually receives. For De Maillet not only has a definite conception of the plasticity of living things, and of the production of existing species by the modification of their predecessors; but he clearly apprehends the cardinal maxim of modern geological science, that the explanation of the structure of the globe is to be sought in the deductive application to geological phenomena of the principles established inductively by the study of the present course of nature. Somewhat later, Maupertuis [Footnote: _Système de la Nature_. "Essai sur la Formation des Corps Organisés," 1751, xiv.] suggested a curious hypothesis as to the causes of variation, which he thinks may be sufficient to account for the origin of all animals from a single pair. Robinet [Footnote: _Considérations Philosophiques sur la gradation naturelle des formes de l'être; ou les essais de la nature qui apprend a faire l'homme,_ 1768.] followed out much the same line of thought as De Maillet, but less soberly; and Bonnet's speculations in the "Palingénésie," which appeared in 1769, have already been mentioned. Buffon (1753-1778), at first a partisan of the absolute immutability of species, subsequently appears to have believed that larger or smaller groups of species have been produced by the modification of a primitive stock; but he contributed nothing to the general doctrine of evolution. Erasmus Darwin ("Zoonomia," 1794), though a zealous evolutionist, can hardly be said to have made any real advance on his predecessors; and, notwithstanding that Goethe (1791-4) had the advantage of a wide knowledge of morphological facts, and a true insight into their signification, while he threw all the power of a great poet into the expression of his conceptions, it may be questioned whether he supplied the doctrine of evolution with a firmer scientific basis than it already possessed. Moreover, whatever the value of Goethe's labours in that field, they were not published before 1820, long after evolutionism had taken a new departure from the works of Treviranus and Lamarck--the first of its advocates who were equipped for their task with the needful large and accurate knowledge of the phenomena of life, as a whole. It is remarkable that each of these writers seems to have been led, independently and contemporaneously, to invent the same name of "Biology" for the science of the phenomena of life; and thus, following Buffon, to have recognised the essential unity of these phenomena, and their contradistinction from those of inanimate nature. And it is hard to say whether Lamarck or Treviranus has the priority in propounding the main thesis of the doctrine of evolution; for though the first volume of Treviranus's "Biologie" appeared only in 1802, he says, in the preface to his later work, the "Erscheinungen und Gesetze des organischen Lebens," dated 1831, that he wrote the first volume of the "Biologie" "nearly five-and-thirty years ago," or about 1796. Now, in 1794, there is evidence that Lamarck held doctrines which present a striking contrast to those which are to be found in the "Philosophie Zoologique," as the following passages show:-- "685. Quoique mon unique objet dans cet article n'ait été que de traiter de la cause physique de l'entretien de la vie des êtres organiques, malgré cela j'ai osé avancer en débutant, que l'existence de ces êtres étonnants n'appartiennent nullement à la nature; que tout ce qu'on peut entendre par le mot _nature_, ne pouvoit donner la vie, c'est-à-dire, que toutes les qualités de la matière, jointes à toutes les circonstances possibles, et même à l'activité répandue dans l'univers, ne pouvaient point produire un être muni du mouvement organique, capable de reproduire son semblable, et sujet à la mort. "686. Tous les individus de cette nature, qui existent, proviennent d'individus semblables qui tous ensemble constituent l'espèce entière. Or, je crois qu'il est aussi impossible à l'homme de connôitre la cause physique du premier individu de chaque espèce, que d'assigner aussi physiquement la cause de l'existence de la matière ou de l'univers entier. C'est au moins ce que le résultat de mes connaissances et de mes réflexions me portent à penser. S'il existe beaucoup de variétés produites par l'effet des circonstances, ces variétés ne denaturent point les espèces; mais on se trompe, sans doute souvent, en indiquant comme espèce, ce qui n'est que variété; et alors je sens que cette erreur peut tirer à conséquence dans les raisonnements que l'on fait sur cette matière." [Footnote: _Recherches sur les causes des principaux faits physiques_, par J.B. Lamarck. Paris. Seconde année de la République. In the preface, Lamarck says that the work was written in 1776, and presented to the Academy in 1780; but it was not published before 17994, and, at that time, it presumably expressed Lamarck's mature views. It would be interesting to know what brought about the change of opinion manifested in the _Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants_, published only seven years later.] The first three volumes of Treviranus's "Biologie," which contain his general views of evolution, appeared between 1802 and 1805. The "Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants," in which the outlines of Lamarck's doctrines are given, was published in 1802, but the full development of his views, in the "Philosophie Zoologique," did not take place until 1809. The "Biologie" and the "Philosophie Zoologique" are both very remarkable productions, and are still worthy of attentive study, but they fell upon evil times. The vast authority of Cuvier was employed in support of the traditionally respectable hypotheses of special creation and of catastrophism; and the wild speculations of the "Discours sur les Révolutions de la Surface du Globe" were held to be models of sound scientific thinking, while the really much more sober and philosophical hypotheses of the "Hydrogeologie" were scouted. For many years it was the fashion to speak of Lamarck with ridicule, while Treviranus was altogether ignored. Nevertheless, the work had been done. The conception of evolution was henceforward irrepressible, and it incessantly reappears, in one shape or another, [Footnote: See the "Historical Sketch" prefixed to the last edition of the _Origin of Species_.] up to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace published their "Theory of Natural Selection." The "Origin of Species" appeared in 1859; and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that, henceforward, the doctrine of evolution has assumed a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed. In the "Origin of Species," and in his other numerous and important contributions to the solution of the problem of biological evolution, Mr. Darwin confines himself to the discussion of the causes which have brought about the present condition of living matter, assuming such matter to have once come into existence. On the other hand, Mr. Spencer [Footnote: _First Principles_. and _Principles of Biology_, 1860-1864.] and Professor Haeckel [Footnote: _Generelle Marphologie_, 1866.] have dealt with the whole problem of evolution. The profound and vigorous writings of Mr. Spencer embody the spirit of Descartes in the knowledge of our own day, and may be regarded as the "Principes de la Philosophie" of the nineteenth century; while, whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of evolution and to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science. If we seek for the reason of the difference between the scientific position of the doctrine of evolution a century ago, and that which it occupies now, we shall find it in the great accumulation of facts, the several classes of which have been enumerated above, under the second to the eighth heads. For those which are grouped under the second to the seventh of these classes, respectively, have a clear significance on the hypothesis of evolution, while they are unintelligible if that hypothesis be denied. And those of the eighth group are not only unintelligible without the assumption of evolution, but can be proved never to be discordant with that hypothesis, while, in some cases, they are exactly such as the hypothesis requires. The demonstration of these assertions would require a volume, but the general nature of the evidence on which they rest may be briefly indicated. 2. The accurate investigation of the lowest forms of animal life, commenced by Leeuwenhoek and Swammerdam, and continued by the remarkable labours of Reaumur, Trembley, Bonnet, and a host of other observers, in the latter part of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuries, drew the attention of biologists to the gradation in the complexity of organisation which is presented by living beings, and culminated in the doctrine of the "échelle des êtres," so powerfully and clearly stated by Bonnet; and, before him, adumbrated by Locke and by Leibnitz. In the then state of knowledge, it appeared that all the species of animals and plants could be arranged in one series; in such a manner that, by insensible gradations, the mineral passed into the plant, the plant into the polype, the polype into the worm, and so, through gradually higher forms of life, to man, at the summit of the animated world. But, as knowledge advanced, this conception ceased to be tenable in the crude form in which it was first put forward. Taking into account existing animals and plants alone, it became obvious that they fell into groups which were more or less sharply separated from one another; and, moreover, that even the species of a genus can hardly ever be arranged in linear series. Their natural resemblances and differences are only to be expressed by disposing them as if they were branches springing from a common hypothetical centre. Lamarck, while affirming the verbal proposition that animals form a single series, was forced by his vast acquaintance with the details of zoology to limit the assertion to such a series as may be formed out of the abstractions constituted by the common characters of each group. [Footnote: "Il s'agit donc de prouver que la série qui constitue l'échelle animale réside essentiellement dans la distribution des masses principales qui la composent et non dans celle des espèces ni même toujours dans celle des genres."--_Philosophie Zoologique_. chap. v.] Cuvier on anatomical, and Von Baer on embryological grounds, made the further step of proving that, even in this limited sense, animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to any of the others. The conclusions enunciated by Cuvier and Von Baer have been confirmed, in principle, by all subsequent research into the structure of animals and plants. But the effect of the adoption of these conclusions has been rather to substitute a new metaphor for that of Bonnet than to abolish the conception expressed by it. Instead of regarding living things as capable of arrangement in one series like the steps of a ladder, the results of modern investigation compel us to dispose them as if they were the twigs and branches of a tree. The ends of the twigs represent individuals, the smallest groups of twigs species, larger groups genera, and so on, until we arrive at the source of all these ramifications of the main branch, which is represented by a common plan of structure. At the present moment, it is impossible to draw up any definition, based on broad anatomical or developmental characters, by which any one of Cuvier's great groups shall be separated from all the rest. On the contrary, the lower members of each tend to converge towards the lower members of all the others. The same may be said of the vegetable world. The apparently clear distinction between flowering and flowerless plants has been broken down by the series of gradations between the two exhibited by the _Lycopodiaceæ, Rhizocarpeæ_, and _Gymnospermeæ_. The groups of _Fungi_, _Lichenes_, and _Algæ_ have completely run into one another, and, when the lowest forms of each are alone considered, even the animal and vegetable kingdoms cease to have a definite frontier. If it is permissible to speak of the relations of living forms to one another metaphorically, the similitude chosen must undoubtedly be that of a common root, whence two main trunks, one representing the vegetable and one the animal world, spring; and, each dividing into a few main branches, these subdivide into multitudes of branchlets and these into smaller groups of twigs. As Lamarck has well said--[Footnote: _Philosophie Zoologique_, première partie, chap. iii.] "Il n'y a que ceux qui se sont longtemps et fortement occupés de la détermination des espèces, et qui ont consulté de riches collections, qui peuvent savoir jusqu'à quel point les _espèces_, parmi les corps vivants se fondent les unes dans les autres, et qui ont pu se convaincre que, dans les parties où nous voyons des _espèces_ isolès, cela n'est ainsi que parcequ'il nous en manque d'autres qui en sont plus voisines et que nous n'avons pas encore recueillies. "Je ne veux pas dire pour cela que les animaux qui existent forment une série très-simple et partout également nuancée; mais je dis qu'ils forment une série ramense, irréguliérement graduée et qui n'a point de discontinuité dans ses parties, ou qui, du moins, n'en a toujours pas eu, s'il est vrai que, par suite de quelques espèces perdues, il s'en trouve quelque part. Il en resulte que les _espèces_ qui terminent chaque rameau de la série générale tiennent, au moins d'un côté, à d'autres espèces voisines qui se nuancent avec elles. Voilà ce que l'état bien connu des choses me met maintenant à portée de demontrer. Je n'ai besoin d'aucune hypothèse ni d'aucune supposition pour cela: j'en atteste tous les naturalistes observateurs." 3. In a remarkable essay [Footnote: "Entwurf einer Darstellung der zwischen dem Embryozustände der höheren Thiere und dem permanenten der niederen stattfindenden Parallele," _Beyträge zur Vergleichenden Anatomie_, Bd. ii. 1811.] Meckel remarks-- "There is no good physiologist who has not been struck by the observation that the original form of all organisms is one and the same, and that out of this one form, all, the lowest as well as the highest, are developed in such a manner that the latter pass through the permanent forms of the former as transitory stages. Aristotle, Haller, Harvey, Kielmeyer, Autenrieth, and many others, have either made this observation incidentally, or, especially the latter, have drawn particular attention to it, and deduced therefrom results of permanent importance for physiology." Meckel proceeds to exemplify the thesis, that the lower forms of animals represent stages in the course of the development of the higher, with a large series of illustrations. After comparing the Salamanders and the perennibranchiate _Urodela_ with the Tadpoles and the Frogs, and enunciating the law that the more highly any animal is organised the more quickly does it pass through the lower stages, Meckel goes on to say-- "From these lowest Vertebrata to the highest, and to the highest forms among these, the comparison between the embryonic conditions of the higher animals and the adult states of the lower can be more completely and thoroughly instituted than if the survey is extended to the Invertebrata, inasmuch as the latter are in many respects constructed upon an altogether too dissimilar type; indeed they often differ from one another far more than the lowest vertebrate does from the highest mammal; yet the following pages will show that the comparison may also be extended to them with interest. In fact, there is a period when, as Aristotle long ago said, the embryo of the highest animal has the form of a mere worm; and, devoid of internal and external organisation, is merely an almost structureless lump of polype substance. Notwithstanding the origin of organs, it still for a certain time, by reason of its want of an internal bony skeleton, remains worm and mollusk, and only later enters into the series of the Vertebrata, although traces of the vertebral column even in the earliest periods testify its claim to a place in that series."--_Op, cit_ pp. 4, 5. If Meckel's proposition is so far qualified, that the comparison of adult with embryonic forms is restricted within the limits of one type of organisation; and, if it is further recollected that the resemblance between the permanent lower form and the embryonic stage of a higher form is not special but general, it is in entire accordance with modern embryology; although there is no branch of biology which has grown so largely, and improved its methods so much, since Meckel's time, as this. In its original form, the doctrine of "arrest of development," as advocated by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Serres, was no doubt an overstatement of the case. It is not true, for example, that a fish is a reptile arrested in its development, or that a reptile was ever a fish: but it is true that the reptile embryo, at one stage of its development, is an organism which, if it had an independent existence, must be classified among fishes; and all the organs of the reptile pass, in the course of their development, through conditions which are closely analogous to those which are permanent in some fishes. 4. That branch of biology which is termed Morphology is a commentary upon, and expansion of, the proposition that widely different animals or plants, and widely different parts of animals or plants, are constructed upon the same plan. From the rough comparison of the skeleton of a bird with that of a man by Belon, in the sixteenth century (to go no farther back), down to the theory of the limbs and the theory of the skull at the present day; or, from the first demonstration of the homologies of the parts of a flower by C. F. Wolff, to the present elaborate analysis of the floral organs, morphology exhibits a continual advance towards the demonstration of a fundamental unity among the seeming diversities of living structures. And this demonstration has been completed by the final establishment of the cell theory, which involves the admission of a primitive conformity, not only of all the elementary structures in animals and plants respectively, but of those in the one of these great divisions of living things with those in the other. No _à priori_ difficulty can be said to stand in the way of evolution, when it can be shown that all animals and all plants proceed by modes of development, which are similar in principle, from a fundamental protoplasmic material. 5. The innumerable cases of structures, which are rudimentary and apparently useless, in species, the close allies of which possess well-developed and functionally important homologous structures, are readily intelligible on the theory of evolution, while it is hard to conceive their _raison d'être_ on any other hypothesis. However, a cautious reasoner will probably rather explain such cases deductively from the doctrine of evolution than endeavour to support the doctrine of evolution by them. For it is almost impossible to prove that any structure, however rudimentary, is useless--that is to say, that it plays no part whatever in the economy; and, if it is in the slightest degree useful, there is no reason why, on the hypothesis of direct creation, it should not have been created. Nevertheless, double-edged as is the argument from rudimentary organs, there is probably none which has produced a greater effect in promoting the general acceptance of the theory of evolution. 6. The older advocates of evolution sought for the causes of the process exclusively in the influence of varying conditions, such as climate and station, or hybridisation, upon living forms. Even Treviranus has got no farther than this point. Lamarck introduced the conception of the action of an animal on itself as a factor in producing modification. Starting from the well-known fact that the habitual use of a limb tends to develop the muscles of the limb, and to produce a greater and greater facility in using it, he made the general assumption that the effort of an animal to exert an organ in a given direction tends to develop the organ in that direction. But a little consideration showed that, though Lamarck had seized what, as far it goes, is a true cause of modification, it is a cause the actual effects of which are wholly inadequate to account for any considerable modification in animals, and which can have no influence at all in the vegetable world; and probably nothing contributed so much to discredit evolution, in the early part of this century, as the floods of easy ridicule which were poured upon this part of Lamarck's speculation. The theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, was suggested by Wells in 1813, and further elaborated by Matthew in 1831. But the pregnant suggestions of these writers remained practically unnoticed and forgotten, until the theory was independently devised and promulgated by Darwin and Wallace in 1858, and the effect of its publication was immediate and profound. Those who were unwilling to accept evolution, without better grounds than such as are offered by Lamarck, or the author of that particularly unsatisfactory book, the "Vestiges of the Natural History of the Creation," and who therefore preferred to suspend their judgment on the question, found in the principle of selective breeding, pursued in all its applications with marvellous knowledge and skill by Mr. Darwin, a valid explanation of the occurrence of varieties and races; and they saw clearly that, if the explanation would apply to species, it would not only solve the problem of their evolution, but that it would account for the facts of teleology, as well as for those of morphology; and for the persistence of some forms of life unchanged through long epochs of time, while others undergo comparatively rapid metamorphosis. How far "natural selection" suffices for the production of species remains to be seen. Few can doubt that, if not the whole cause, it is a very important factor in that operation; and that it must play a great part in the sorting out of varieties into those which are transitory and those which are permanent. But the causes and conditions of variation have yet to be thoroughly explored; and the importance of natural selection will not be impaired, even if further inquiries should prove that variability is definite, and is determined in certain directions rather than in others, by conditions inherent in that which varies. It is quite conceivable that every species tends to produce varieties of a limited number and kind, and that the effect of natural selection is to favour the development of some of these, while it opposes the development of others along their predetermined lines of modification. 7. No truths brought to light by biological investigation were better calculated to inspire distrust of the dogmas intruded upon science in the name of theology, than those which relate to the distribution of animals and plants on the surface of the earth. Very skilful accommodation was needful, if the limitation of sloths to South America, and of the ornithorhynchus to Australia, was to be reconciled with the literal interpretation of the history of the deluge; and with the establishment of the existence of distinct provinces of distribution, any serious belief in the peopling of the world by migration from Mount Ararat came to an end. Under these circumstances, only one alternative was left for those who denied the occurrence of evolution--namely, the supposition that the characteristic animals and plants of each great province were created as such, within the limits in which we find them. And as the hypothesis of "specific centres," thus formulated, was heterodox from the theological point of view, and unintelligible under its scientific aspect, it may be passed over without further notice, as a phase of transition from the creational to the evolutional hypothesis. 8. In fact, the strongest and most conclusive arguments in favour of evolution are those which are based upon the facts of geographical, taken in conjunction with those of geological, distribution. Both Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace lay great stress on the close relation which obtains between the existing fauna of any region and that of the immediately antecedent geological epoch in the same region; and rightly, for it is in truth inconceivable that there should be no genetic connection between the two. It is possible to put into words the proposition that all the animals and plants of each geological epoch were annihilated and that a new set of very similar forms was created for the next epoch; but it may be doubted if any one who ever tried to form a distinct mental image of this process of spontaneous generation on the grandest scale, ever really succeeded in realising it. Within the last twenty years, the attention of the best palæontologists has been withdrawn from the hodman's work of making "new species" of fossils, to the scientific task of completing our knowledge of individual species, and tracing out the succession of the forms presented by any given type in time. Those who desire to inform themselves of the nature and extent of the evidence bearing on these questions may consult the works of Rütimeyer, Gaudry, Kowalewsky, Marsh, and the writer of the present article. It must suffice, in this place, to say that the successive forms of the Equine type have been fully worked out; while those of nearly all the other existing types of Ungulate mammals and of the _Carnivora_ have been almost as closely followed through the Tertiary deposits; the gradations between birds and reptiles have been traced; and the modifications undergone by the _Crocodilia_, from the Triassic epoch to the present day, have been demonstrated. On the evidence of palæontology, the evolution of many existing forms of animal life from their predecessors is no longer an hypothesis, but an historical fact; it is only the nature of the physiological factors to which that evolution is due which is still open to discussion. [At page 209, the reference to Erasmus Darwin does not do justice to that ingenious writer, who, in the 39th section of the _Zoonomia_, clearly and repeatedly enunciates the theory of the inheritance of acquired modifications. For example "From their first rudiment, or primordium, to the termination of their lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations; which are in part produced by their own exertions in consequence of their desires and aversions, of their pleasures and their pains, or of irritation, or of associations; and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity." _Zoonomia_ I., p. 506. 1893.] VII THE COMING OF AGE OF "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1880] Many of you will be familiar with the aspect of this small green-covered book. It is a copy of the first edition of the "Origin of Species," and bears the date of its production--the 1st of October 1859. Only a few months, therefore, are needed to complete the full tale of twenty-one years since its birthday. Those whose memories carry them back to this time will remember that the infant was remarkably lively, and that a great number of excellent persons mistook its manifestations of a vigorous individuality for mere naughtiness; in fact there was a very pretty turmoil about its cradle. My recollections of the period are particularly vivid, for, having conceived a tender affection for a child of what appeared to me to be such remarkable promise, I acted for some time in the capacity of a sort of under-nurse, and thus came in for my share of the storms which threatened the very life of the young creature. For some years it was undoubtedly warm work; but considering how exceedingly unpleasant the apparition of the newcomer must have been to those who did not fall in love with him at first sight, I think it is to the credit of our age that the war was not fiercer, and that the more bitter and unscrupulous forms of opposition died away as soon as they did. I speak of this period as of something past and gone, possessing merely an historical, I had almost said an antiquarian interest. For, during the second decade of the existence of the "Origin of Species," opposition, though by no means dead, assumed a different aspect. On the part of all those who had any reason to respect themselves, it assumed a thoroughly respectful character. By this time, the dullest began to perceive that the child was not likely to perish of any congenital weakness or infantile disorder, but was growing into a stalwart personage, upon whom mere goody scoldings and threatenings with the birch-rod were quite thrown away. In fact, those who have watched the progress of science within the last ten years will bear me out to the full, when I assert that there is no field of biological inquiry in which the influence of the "Origin of Species" is not traceable; the foremost men of science in every country are either avowed champions of its leading doctrines, or at any rate abstain from opposing them; a host of young and ardent investigators seek for and find inspiration and guidance in Mr. Darwin's great work; and the general doctrine of evolution, to one side of which it gives expression, obtains, in the phenomena of biology, a firm base of operations whence it may conduct its conquest of the whole realm of Nature. History warns us, however, that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of the "Origin of Species," with as little reflection, and it may be with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries, twenty years ago, rejected them. Against any such a consummation let us all devoutly pray; for the scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. Now the essence of the scientific spirit is criticism. It tells us that whenever a doctrine claims our assent we should reply, Take it if you can compel it. The struggle for existence holds as much in the intellectual as in the physical world. A theory is a species of thinking, and its right to exist is coextensive with its power of resisting extinction by its rivals. From this point of view, it appears to me that it would be but a poor way of celebrating the Coming of Age of the "Origin of Species," were I merely to dwell upon the facts, undoubted and remarkable as they are, of its far-reaching influence and of the great following of ardent disciples who are occupied in spreading and developing its doctrines. Mere insanities and inanities have before now swollen to portentous size in the course of twenty years. Let us rather ask this prodigious change in opinion to justify itself: let us inquire whether anything has happened since 1859, which will explain, on rational grounds, why so many are worshipping that which they burned, and burning that which they worshipped. It is only in this way that we shall acquire the means of judging whether the movement we have witnessed is a mere eddy of fashion, or truly one with the irreversible current of intellectual progress, and, like it, safe from retrogressive reaction. Every belief is the product of two factors: the first is the state of the mind to which the evidence in favour of that belief is presented; and the second is the logical cogency of the evidence itself. In both these respects, the history of biological science during the last twenty years appears to me to afford an ample explanation of the change which has taken place; and a brief consideration of the salient events of that history will enable us to understand why, if the "Origin of Species" appeared now, it would meet with a very different reception from that which greeted it in 1859. One-and-twenty years ago, in spite of the work commenced by Hutton and continued with rare skill and patience by Lyell, the dominant view of the past history of the earth was catastrophic. Great and sudden physical revolutions, wholesale creations and extinctions of living beings, were the ordinary machinery of the geological epic brought into fashion by the misapplied genius of Cuvier. It was gravely maintained and taught that the end of every geological epoch was signalised by a cataclysm, by which every living being on the globe was swept away, to be replaced by a brand-new creation when the world returned to quiescence. A scheme of nature which appeared to be modelled on the likeness of a succession of rubbers of whist, at the end of each of which the players upset the table and called for a new pack, did not seem to shock anybody. I may be wrong, but I doubt if, at the present time, there is a single responsible representative of these opinions left. The progress of scientific geology has elevated the fundamental principle of uniformitarianism, that the explanation of the past is to be sought in the study of the present, into the position of an axiom; and the wild speculations of the catastrophists, to which we all listened with respect a quarter of a century ago, would hardly find a single patient hearer at the present day. No physical geologist now dreams of seeking, outside the range of known natural causes, for the explanation of anything that happened millions of years ago, any more than he would be guilty of the like absurdity in regard to current events. The effect of this change of opinion upon biological speculation is obvious. For, if there have been no periodical general physical catastrophes, what brought about the assumed general extinctions and re-creations of life which are the corresponding biological catastrophes? And, if no such interruptions of the ordinary course of nature have taken place in the organic, any more than in the inorganic, world, what alternative is there to the admission of evolution? The doctrine of evolution in biology is the necessary result of the logical application of the principles of uniformitarianism to the phenomena of life. Darwin is the natural successor of Hutton and Lyell, and the "Origin of Species" the logical sequence of the "Principles of Geology." The fundamental doctrine of the "Origin of Species," as of all forms of the theory of evolution applied to biology, is "that the innumerable species, genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent." [Footnote: _Origin of Species_, ed. I, p. 457.] And, in view of the facts of geology, it follows that all living animals and plants "are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch." [Footnote: _Origin of Species_, p. 458.] It is an obvious consequence of this theory of descent with modification, as it is sometimes called, that all plants and animals, however different they may now be, must, at one time or other, have been connected by direct or indirect intermediate gradations, and that the appearance of isolation presented by various groups of organic beings must be unreal. No part of Mr. Darwin's work ran more directly counter to the prepossessions of naturalists twenty years ago than this. And such prepossessions were very excusable, for there was undoubtedly a great deal to be said, at that time, in favour of the fixity of species and of the existence of great breaks, which there was no obvious or probable means of filling up, between various groups of organic beings. For various reasons, scientific and unscientific, much had been made of the hiatus between man and the rest of the higher mammalia, and it is no wonder that issue was first joined on this part of the controversy. I have no wish to revive past and happily forgotten controversies; but I must state the simple fact that the distinctions in the cerebral and other characters, which were so hotly affirmed to separate man from all other animals in 1860, have all been demonstrated to be non-existent, and that the contrary doctrine is now universally accepted and taught. But there were other cases in which the wide structural gaps asserted to exist between one group of animals and another were by no means fictitious; and, when such structural breaks were real, Mr. Darwin could account for them only by supposing that the intermediate forms which once existed had become extinct. In a remarkable passage he says-- "We may thus account even for the distinctness of whole classes from each other--for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate animals--by the belief that many animal forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes." [Footnote: _Origin of Species_, p. 431.] Adverse criticism made merry over such suggestions as these. Of course it was easy to get out of the difficulty by supposing extinction; but where was the slightest evidence that such intermediate forms between birds and reptiles as the hypothesis required ever existed? And then probably followed a tirade upon this terrible forsaking of the paths of "Baconian induction." But the progress of knowledge has justified Mr. Darwin to an extent which could hardly have been anticipated. In 1862, the specimen of _Archæopteryx_, which, until the last two or three years, has remained unique, was discovered; and it is an animal which, in its feathers and the greater part of its organisation, is a veritable bird, while, in other parts, it is as distinctly reptilian. In 1868, I had the honour of bringing under your notice, in this theatre, the results of investigations made, up to that time, into the anatomical characters of certain ancient reptiles, which showed the nature of the modifications in virtue of which the type of the quadrupedal reptile passed into that of a bipedal bird; and abundant confirmatory evidence of the justice of the conclusions which I then laid before you has since come to light. In 1875, the discovery of the toothed birds of the cretaceous formation in North America by Professor Marsh completed the series of transitional forms between birds and reptiles, and removed Mr. Darwin's proposition that "many animal forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes," from the region of hypothesis to that of demonstrable fact. In 1859, there appeared to be a very sharp and clear hiatus between vertebrated and invertebrated animals, not only in their structure, but, what was more important, in their development. I do not think that we even yet know the precise links of connection between the two; but the investigations of Kowalewsky and others upon the development of _Amphioxus_ and of the _Tunicata_ prove, beyond a doubt, that the differences which were supposed to constitute a barrier between the two are non-existent. There is no longer any difficulty in understanding how the vertebrate type may have arisen from the invertebrate, though the full proof of the manner in which the transition was actually effected may still be lacking. Again, in 1859, there appeared to be a no less sharp separation between the two great groups of flowering and flowerless plants. It is only subsequently that the series of remarkable investigations inaugurated by Hofmeister has brought to light the extraordinary and altogether unexpected modifications of the reproductive apparatus in the _Lycopodiaceæ_, the _Rhizocarpeæ_, and the _Gymnospermeæ_, by which the ferns and the mosses are gradually connected with the Phanerogamic division of the vegetable world. So, again, it is only since 1859 that we have acquired that wealth of knowledge of the lowest forms of life which demonstrates the futility of any attempt to separate the lowest plants from the lowest animals, and shows that the two kingdoms of living nature have a common borderland which belongs to both, or to neither. Thus it will be observed that the whole tendency of biological investigation, since 1859, has been in the direction of removing the difficulties which the apparent breaks in the series created at that time; and the recognition of gradation is the first step towards the acceptance of evolution. As another great factor in bringing about the change of opinion which has taken place among naturalists, I count the astonishing progress which has been made in the study of embryology. Twenty years ago, not only were we devoid of any accurate knowledge of the mode of development of many groups of animals and plants, but the methods of investigation were rude and imperfect. At the present time, there is no important group of organic beings the development of which has not been carefully studied; and the modern methods of hardening and section-making enable the embryologist to determine the nature of the process, in each case, with a degree of minuteness and accuracy which is truly astonishing to those whose memories carry them back to the beginnings of modern histology. And the results of these embryological investigations are in complete harmony with the requirements of the doctrine of evolution. The first beginnings of all the higher forms of animal life are similar, and however diverse their adult conditions, they start from a common foundation. Moreover, the process of development of the animal or the plant from its primary egg, or germ, is a true process of evolution--a progress from almost formless to more or less highly organised matter, in virtue of the properties inherent in that matter. To those who are familiar with the process of development, all _a priori_ objections to the doctrine of biological evolution appear childish. Any one who has watched the gradual formation of a complicated animal from the protoplasmic mass, which constitutes the essential element of a frog's or a hen's egg, has had under his eyes sufficient evidence that a similar evolution of the whole animal world from the like foundation is, at any rate, possible. Yet another product of investigation has largely contributed to the removal of the objections to the doctrine of evolution current in 1859. It is the proof afforded by successive discoveries that Mr. Darwin did not over-estimate the imperfection of the geological record. No more striking illustration of this is needed than a comparison of our knowledge of the mammalian fauna of the Tertiary epoch in 1859 with its present condition. M. Gaudry's researches on the fossils of Pikermi were published in 1868, those of Messrs. Leidy, Marsh, and Cope, on the fossils of the Western Territories of America, have appeared almost wholly since 1870, those of M. Filhol on the phosphorites of Quercy in 1878. The general effect of these investigations has been to introduce to us a multitude of extinct animals, the existence of which was previously hardly suspected; just as if zoologists were to become acquainted with a country, hitherto unknown, as rich in novel forms of life as Brazil or South Africa once were to Europeans. Indeed, the fossil fauna of the Western Territories of America bid fair to exceed in interest and importance all other known Tertiary deposits put together; and yet, with the exception of the case of the American tertiaries, these investigations have extended over very limited areas; and, at Pikermi, were confined to an extremely small space. Such appear to me to be the chief events in the history of the progress of knowledge during the last twenty years, which account for the changed feeling with which the doctrine of evolution is at present regarded by those who have followed the advance of biological science, in respect of those problems which bear indirectly upon that doctrine. But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence in favour of evolution can be furnished only by palæontology. The geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must, when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a negative answer: if evolution has taken place, there will its mark be left; if it has not taken place, there will lie its refutation. What was the state of matters in 1859? Let us hear Mr. Darwin, who may be trusted always to state the case against himself as strongly as possible. "On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and plausible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory." [Footnote: _Origin of Species_, ed. 1, p. 463.] Nothing could have been more useful to the opposition than this characteristically candid avowal, twisted as it immediately was into an admission that the writer's views were contradicted by the facts of palæontology. But, in fact, Mr. Darwin made no such admission. What he says in effect is, not that palæontological evidence is against him, but that it is not distinctly in his favour; and, without attempting to attenuate the fact, he accounts for it by the scantiness and the imperfection of that evidence. What is the state of the case now, when, as we have seen, the amount of our knowledge respecting the mammalia of the Tertiary epoch is increased fifty-fold, and in some directions even approaches completeness? Simply this, that, if the doctrine of evolution had not existed, palaeontologists must have invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of the remains of the Tertiary mammalia which have been brought to light since 1859. Among the fossils of Pikermi, Gaudry found the successive stages by which the ancient civets passed into the more modern hyænas; through the Tertiary deposits of Western America, Marsh tracked the successive forms by which the ancient stock of the horse has passed into its present form; and innumerable less complete indications of the mode of evolution of other groups of the higher mammalia have been obtained. In the remarkable memoir on the phosphorites of Quercy, to which I have referred, M. Filhol describes no fewer than seventeen varieties of the genus _Cynodictis_, which fill up all the interval between the viverine animals and the bear-like dog _Amphicyon_; nor do I know any solid ground of objection to the supposition that, in this _Cynodictis-Amphicyon_ group, we have the stock whence all the Viveridæ, Felidæ, Hyænidæ, Canidæ, and perhaps the Procyonidæ and Ursidæ, of the present fauna have been evolved. On the contrary, there is a great deal to be said in favour. In the course of summing up his results, M. Filhol observes:-- "During the epoch of the phosphorites, great changes took place in animal forms, and almost the same types as those which now exist became defined from one another. "Under the influence of natural conditions of which we have no exact knowledge, though traces of them are discoverable, species have been modified in a thousand ways: races have arisen which, becoming fixed, have thus produced a corresponding number of secondary species." In 1859, language of which this is an unintentional paraphrase, occurring in the "Origin of Species," was scouted as wild speculation; at present, it is a sober statement of the conclusions to which an acute and critically-minded investigator is led by large and patient study of the facts of palæontology. I venture to repeat what I have said before, that so far as the animal world is concerned, evolution is no longer a speculation, but a statement of historical fact. It takes its place alongside of those accepted truths which must be reckoned with by philosophers of all schools. Thus when, on the first day of October next, "The Origin of Species" comes of age, the promise of its youth will be amply fulfilled; and we shall be prepared to congratulate the venerated author of the book, not only that the greatness of his achievement and its enduring influence upon the progress of knowledge have won him a place beside our Harvey; but, still more, that, like Harvey, he has lived long enough to outlast detraction and opposition, and to see the stone that the builders rejected become the head-stone of the corner. VIII CHARLES DARWIN [_Nature_, April 27th, 1882] Very few, even among those who have taken the keenest interest in the progress of the revolution in natural knowledge set afoot by the publication of "The Origin of Species," and who have watched, not without astonishment, the rapid and complete change which has been effected both inside and outside the boundaries of the scientific world in the attitude of men's minds towards the doctrines which are expounded in that great work, can have been prepared for the extraordinary manifestation of affectionate regard for the man, and of profound reverence for the philosopher, which followed the announcement, on Thursday last, of the death of Mr. Darwin. Not only in these islands, where so many have felt the fascination of personal contact with an intellect which had no superior, and with a character which was even nobler than the intellect; but, in all parts of the civilised world, it would seem that those whose business it is to feel the pulse of nations and to know what interests the masses of mankind, were well aware that thousands of their readers would think the world the poorer for Darwin's death, and would dwell with eager interest upon every incident of his history. In France, in Germany, in Austro-Hungary, in Italy, in the United States, writers of all shades of opinion, for once unanimous, have paid a willing tribute to the worth of our great countryman, ignored in life by the official representatives of the kingdom, but laid in death among his peers in Westminster Abbey by the will of the intelligence of the nation. It is not for us to allude to the sacred sorrows of the bereaved home at Down; but it is no secret that, outside that domestic group, there are many to whom Mr. Darwin's death is a wholly irreparable loss. And this not merely because of his wonderfully genial, simple, and generous nature; his cheerful and animated conversation, and the infinite variety and accuracy of his information; but because the more one knew of him, the more he seemed the incorporated ideal of a man of science. Acute as were his reasoning powers, vast as was his knowledge, marvellous as was his tenacious industry, under physical difficulties which would have converted nine men out of ten into aimless invalids; it was not these qualities, great as they were, which impressed those who were admitted to his intimacy with involuntary veneration, but a certain intense and almost passionate honesty by which all his thoughts and actions were irradiated, as by a central fire. It was this rarest and greatest of endowments which kept his vivid imagination and great speculative powers within due bounds; which compelled him to undertake the prodigious labours of original investigation and of reading, upon which his published works are based; which made him accept criticisms and suggestions from anybody and everybody, not only without impatience, but with expressions of gratitude sometimes almost comically in excess of their value; which led him to allow neither himself nor others to be deceived by phrases, and to spare neither time nor pains in order to obtain clear and distinct ideas upon every topic with which he occupied himself. One could not converse with Darwin without being reminded of Socrates. There was the same desire to find some one wiser than himself; the same belief in the sovereignty of reason; the same ready humour; the same sympathetic interest in all the ways and works of men. But instead of turning away from the problems of Nature as hopelessly insoluble, our modern philosopher devoted his whole life to attacking them in the spirit of Heraclitus and of Democritus, with results which are the substance of which their speculations were anticipatory shadows. The due appreciation, or even enumeration, of these results is neither practicable nor desirable at this moment. There is a time for all things--a time for glorying in our ever-extending conquests over the realm of Nature, and a time for mourning over the heroes who have led us to victory. None have fought better, and none have been more fortunate, than Charles Darwin. He found a great truth trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots, and ridiculed by all the world; he lived long enough to see it, chiefly by his own efforts, irrefragably established in science, inseparably incorporated with the common thoughts of men, and only hated and feared by those who would revile, but dare not. What shall a man desire more than this? Once more the image of Socrates rises unbidden, and the noble peroration of the "Apology" rings in our ears as if it were Charles Darwin's farewell:-- "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die and you to live. Which is the better, God only knows." IX THE DARWIN MEMORIAL [June 9th, 1885] _Address by the President of the Royal Society, in the name of the Memorial Committee, on handing over the statue of Darwin to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, as representative of the Trustees of the British Museum_. YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS,--It is now three years since the announcement of the death of our famous countryman, Charles Darwin, gave rise to a manifestation of public feeling, not only in these realms, but throughout the civilised world, which, if I mistake not, is without precedent in the modest annals of scientific biography. The causes of this deep and wide outburst of emotion are not far to seek. We had lost one of these rare ministers and interpreters of Nature whose names mark epochs in the advance of natural knowledge. For, whatever be the ultimate verdict of posterity upon this or that opinion which Mr. Darwin has propounded; whatever adumbrations or anticipations of his doctrines may be found in the writings of his predecessors; the broad fact remains that, since the publication and by reason of the publication, of "The Origin of Species" the fundamental conceptions and the aims of the students of living Nature have been completely changed. From that work has sprung a great renewal, a true "instauratio magna" of the zoological and botanical sciences. But the impulse thus given to scientific thought rapidly spread beyond the ordinarily recognised limits of biology. Psychology, Ethics, Cosmology were stirred to their foundations, and the "Origin of Species" proved itself to be the fixed point which the general doctrine of evolution needed in order to move the world. "Darwinism," in one form or another, sometimes strangely distorted and mutilated, became an everyday topic of men's speech, the object of an abundance both of vituperation and of praise, more often than of serious study. It is curious now to remember how largely, at first, the objectors predominated; but considering the usual fate of new views, it is still more curious to consider for how short a time the phase of vehement opposition lasted. Before twenty years had passed, not only had the importance of Mr. Darwin's work been fully recognised, but the world had discerned the simple, earnest, generous character of the man, that shone through every page of his writings. I imagine that reflections such as these swept through the minds alike of loving friends and of honourable antagonists when Mr. Darwin died; and that they were at one in the desire to honour the memory of the man who, without fear and without reproach, had successfully fought the hardest intellectual battle of these days. It was in satisfaction of these just and generous impulses that our great naturalist's remains were deposited in Westminster Abbey; and that, immediately afterwards, a public meeting, presided over by my lamented predecessor, Mr. Spottiswoode, was held in the rooms of the Royal Society, for the purpose of considering what further step should be taken towards the same end. It was resolved to invite subscriptions, with the view of erecting a statue of Mr. Darwin in some suitable locality; and to devote any surplus to the advancement of the biological sciences. Contributions at once flowed in from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and the British Colonies, no less than from all parts of the three kingdoms; and they came from all classes of the community. To mention one interesting case, Sweden sent in 2296 subscriptions "from all sorts of people," as the distinguished man of science who transmitted them wrote, "from the bishop to the seamstress, and in sums from five pounds to two pence." The Executive Committee has thus been enabled to carry out the objects proposed. A "Darwin Fund" has been created, which is to be held in trust by the Royal Society, and is to be employed in the promotion of biological research. The execution of the statue was entrusted to Mr. Boehm; and I think that those who had the good fortune to know Mr. Darwin personally will admire the power of artistic divination which has enabled the sculptor to place before us so very characteristic a likeness of one whom he had not seen. It appeared to the Committee that, whether they regarded Mr. Darwin's career or the requirements of a work of art, no site could be so appropriate as this great hall, and they applied to the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to erect it in its present position. That permission was most cordially granted, and I am desired to tender the best thanks of the Committee to the Trustees for their willingness to accede to our wishes. I also beg leave to offer the expression of our gratitude to your Royal Highness for kindly consenting to represent the Trustees to-day. It only remains for me, your Royal Highness, my Lords and Gentlemen, Trustees of the British Museum, in the name of the Darwin Memorial Committee, to request you to accept this statue of Charles Darwin. We do not make this request for the mere sake of perpetuating a memory; for so long as men occupy themselves with the pursuit of truth, the name of Darwin runs no more risk of oblivion than does that of Copernicus, or that of Harvey. Nor, most assuredly, do we ask you to preserve the statue in its cynosural position in this entrance-hall of our National Museum of Natural History as evidence that Mr. Darwin's views have received your official sanction; for science does not recognise such sanctions, and commits suicide when it adopts a creed. No; we beg you to cherish this Memorial as a symbol by which, as generation after generation of students of Nature enter yonder door, they shall be reminded of the ideal according to which they must shape their lives, if they would turn to the best account the opportunities offered by the great institution under your charge. X OBITUARY [Footnote: From the Obituary Notices of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, vol. 44.] [1888] Charles Robert Darwin was the fifth child and second son of Robert Waring Darwin and Susannah Wedgwood, and was born on the 12th February, 1809, at Shrewsbury, where his father was a physician in large practice. Mrs. Robert Darwin died when her son Charles was only eight years old, and he hardly remembered her. A daughter of the famous Josiah Wedgwood, who created a new branch of the potter's art, and established the great works of Etruria, could hardly fail to transmit important mental and moral qualities to her children; and there is a solitary record of her direct influence in the story told by a schoolfellow, who remembers Charles Darwin "bringing a flower to school, and saying that his mother had taught him how, by looking at the inside of the blossom, the name of the plant could be discovered." (I., p. 28. [Footnote: The references throughout this notice are to the _Life and Letters_, unless the contrary is expressly stated.]) The theory that men of genius derive their qualities from their mothers, however, can hardly derive support from Charles Darwin's case, in the face of the patent influence of his paternal forefathers. Dr. Darwin, indeed, though a man of marked individuality of character, a quick and acute observer, with much practical sagacity, is said not to have had a scientific mind. But when his son adds that his father "formed a theory for almost everything that occurred" (I., p. 20), he indicates a highly probable source for that inability to refrain from forming an hypothesis on every subject which he confesses to be one of the leading characteristics of his own mind, some pages further on (I., p. 103). Dr. R. W. Darwin, again, was the third son of Erasmus Darwin, also a physician of great repute, who shared the intimacy of Watt and Priestley, and was widely known as the author of "Zoonomia," and other voluminous poetical and prose works which had a great vogue in the latter half of the eighteenth century. The celebrity which they enjoyed was in part due to the attractive style (at least according to the taste of that day) in which the author's extensive, though not very profound, acquaintance with natural phenomena was set forth; but in a still greater degree, probably, to the boldness of the speculative views, always ingenious and sometimes fantastic, in which he indulged. The conception of evolution set afoot by De Maillet and others, in the early part of the century, not only found a vigorous champion in Erasmus Darwin, but he propounded an hypothesis as to the manner in which the species of animals and plants have acquired their characters, which is identical in principle with that subsequently rendered famous by Lamarck. That Charles Darwin's chief intellectual inheritance came to him from the paternal side, then, is hardly doubtful. But there is nothing to show that he was, to any sensible extent, directly influenced by his grandfather's biological work. He tells us that a perusal of the "Zoonomia" in early life produced no effect upon him, although he greatly admired it; and that, on reading it again, ten or fifteen years afterwards, he was much disappointed, "the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given." But with his usual anxious candour he adds, "Nevertheless, it is probable that the hearing, rather early in life, such views maintained and praised, may have favoured my upholding them, in a different form, in my 'Origin of Species.'" (I., p. 38.) Erasmus Darwin was in fact an anticipator of Lamarck, and not of Charles Darwin; there is no trace in his works of the conceptions by the addition of which his grandson metamorphosed the theory of evolution as applied to living things and gave it a new foundation. Charles Darwin's childhood and youth afforded no intimation that he would he, or do, anything out of the common run. In fact, the prognostications of the educational authorities into whose hands he first fell were most distinctly unfavourable; and they counted the only boy of original genius who is known to have come under their hands as no better than a dunce. The history of the educational experiments to which Darwin was subjected is curious, and not without a moral for the present generation. There were four of them, and three were failures. Yet it cannot be said that the materials on which the pedagogic powers operated were other than good. In his boyhood Darwin was strong, well-grown, and active, taking the keen delight in field sports and in every description of hard physical exercise which is natural to an English country-bred lad; and, in respect of things of the mind, he was neither apathetic, nor idle, nor one-sided. The "Autobiography" tells us that he "had much zeal for whatever interested" him, and he was interested in many and very diverse topics. He could work hard, and liked a complex subject better than an easy one. The "clear geometrical proofs" of Euclid delighted him. His interest in practical chemistry, carried out in an extemporised laboratory, in which he was permitted to assist by his elder brother, kept him late at work, and earned him the nickname of "gas" among his schoolfellows. And there could have been no insensibility to literature in one who, as a boy, could sit for hours reading Shakespeare, Milton, Scott, and Byron; who greatly admired some of the Odes of Horace; and who, in later years, on board the "Beagle," when only one book could be carried on an expedition, chose a volume of Milton for his companion. Industry, intellectual interests, the capacity for taking pleasure in deductive reasoning, in observation, in experiment, no less than in the highest works of imagination: where these qualities are present any rational system of education should surely be able to make something of them. Unfortunately for Darwin, the Shrewsbury Grammar School, though good of its kind, was an institution of a type universally prevalent in this country half a century ago, and by no means extinct at the present day. The education given was "strictly classical," "especial attention" being "paid to verse-making," while all other subjects, except a little ancient geography and history, were ignored. Whether, as in some famous English schools at that date and much later, elementary arithmetic was also left out of sight does not appear; but the instruction in Euclid which gave Charles Darwin so much satisfaction was certainly supplied by a private tutor. That a boy, even in his leisure hours, should permit himself to be interested in any but book-learning seems to have been regarded as little better than an outrage by the head master, who thought it his duty to administer a public rebuke to young Darwin for wasting his time on such a contemptible subject as chemistry. English composition and literature, modern languages, modern history, modern geography, appear to have been considered to be as despicable as chemistry. For seven long years Darwin got through his appointed tasks; construed without cribs, learned by rote whatever was demanded, and concocted his verses in approved schoolboy fashion. And the result, as it appeared to his mature judgment, was simply negative. "The school as a means of education to me was simply a blank." (I. p. 32.) On the other hand, the extraneous chemical exercises, which the head master treated so contumeliously, are gratefully spoken of as the "best part" of his education while at school. Such is the judgment of the scholar on the school; as might be expected, it has its counterpart in the judgment of the school on the scholar. The collective intelligence of the staff of Shrewsbury School could find nothing but dull mediocrity in Charles Darwin. The mind that found satisfaction in knowledge, but very little in mere learning; that could appreciate literature, but had no particular aptitude for grammatical exercises; appeared to the "strictly classical" pedagogue to be no mind at all. As a matter of fact, Darwin's school education left him ignorant of almost all the things which it would have been well for him to know, and untrained in all the things it would have been useful for him to be able to do, in after life. Drawing, practice in English composition, and instruction in the elements of the physical sciences, would not only have been infinitely valuable to him in reference to his future career, but would have furnished the discipline suited to his faculties, whatever that career might be. And a knowledge of French and German, especially the latter, would have removed from his path obstacles which he never fully overcame. Thus, starved and stunted on the intellectual side, it is not surprising that Charles Darwin's energies were directed towards athletic amusements and sport, to such an extent, that even his kind and sagacious father could be exasperated into telling him that "he cared for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." (I. p. 32.) It would be unfair to expect even the wisest of fathers to have foreseen that the shooting and the rat-catching, as training in the ways of quick observation and in physical endurance, would prove more valuable than the construing and verse-making to his son, whose attempt, at a later period of his Life, to persuade himself "that shooting was almost an intellectual employment: it required so much skill to judge where to find most game, and to hunt the dogs well" (I. p. 43), was by no means so sophistical as he seems to have been ready to admit. In 1825, Dr. Darwin came to the very just conclusion that his son Charles would do no good by remaining at Shrewsbury School, and sent him to join his elder brother Erasmus, who was studying medicine at Edinburgh, with the intention that the younger son should also become a medical practitioner. Both sons, however, were well aware that their inheritance would relieve them from the urgency of the struggle for existence which most professional men have to face; and they seemed to have allowed their tastes, rather than the medical curriculum, to have guided their studies. Erasmus Darwin was debarred by constant ill-health from seeking the public distinction which his high intelligence and extensive knowledge would, under ordinary circumstances, have insured. He took no great interest in biological subjects, but his companionship must have had its influence on his brother. Still more was exerted by friends like Coldstream and Grant, both subsequently well-known zoologists (and the latter an enthusiastic Lamarckian), by whom Darwin was induced to interest himself in marine zoology. A notice of the ciliated germs of _Flustra_, communicated to the Plinian Society in 1826, was the first fruits of Darwin's half century of scientific work. Occasional attendance at the Wernerian Society brought him into relation with that excellent ornithologist the elder Macgillivray, and enabled him to see and hear Audubon. Moreover, he got lessons in bird-stuffing from a negro, who had accompanied the eccentric traveller Waterton in his wanderings, before settling in Edinburgh. No doubt Darwin picked up a great deal of valuable knowledge during his two years' residence in Scotland; but it is equally clear that next to none of it came through the regular channels of academic education. Indeed, the influence of the Edinburgh professoriate appears to have been mainly negative, and in some cases deterrent; creating in his mind, not only a very low estimate of the value of lectures, but an antipathy to the subjects which had been the occasion of the boredom inflicted upon him by their instrumentality. With the exception of Hope, the Professor of Chemistry, Darwin found them all "intolerably dull." Forty years afterwards he writes of the lectures of the Professor of Materia Medica that they were "fearful to remember." The Professor of Anatomy made his lectures "as dull as he was himself," and he must have been very dull to have wrung from his victim the sharpest personal remark recorded as his. But the climax seems to have been attained by the Professor of Geology and Zoology, whose prælections were so "incredibly dull" that they produced in their hearer the somewhat rash determination never "to read a book on geology or in any way to study the science" so long as he lived. (I. p. 41.) There is much reason to believe that the lectures in question were eminently qualified to produce the impression which they made; and there can be little doubt, that Darwin's conclusion that his time was better employed in reading than in listening to such lectures was a sound one. But it was particularly unfortunate that the personal and professorial dulness of the Professor of Anatomy, combined with Darwin's sensitiveness to the disagreeable concomitants of anatomical work, drove him away from the dissecting room. In after life, he justly recognised that this was an "irremediable evil" in reference to the pursuits he eventually adopted; indeed, it is marvellous that he succeeded in making up for his lack of anatomical discipline, so far as his work on the Cirripedes shows he did. And the neglect of anatomy had the further unfortunate result that it excluded him from the best opportunity of bringing himself into direct contact with the facts of nature which the University had to offer. In those days, almost the only practical scientific work accessible to students was anatomical, and the only laboratory at their disposal the dissecting room. We may now console ourselves with the reflection that the partial evil was the general good. Darwin had already shown an aptitude for practical medicine (I. p. 37); and his subsequent career proved that he had the making of an excellent anatomist. Thus, though his horror of operations would probably have shut him off from surgery, there was nothing to prevent him (any more than the same peculiarity prevented his father) from passing successfully through the medical curriculum and becoming, like his father and grandfather, a successful physician, in which case "The Origin of Species" would not have been written. Darwin has jestingly alluded to the fact that the shape of his nose (to which Captain Fitzroy objected), nearly prevented his embarkation in the "Beagle"; it may be that the sensitiveness of that organ secured him for science. At the end of two years' residence in Edinburgh it hardly needed Dr. Darwin's sagacity to conclude that a young man, who found nothing but dulness in professorial lucubrations, could not bring himself to endure a dissecting room, fled from operations, and did not need a profession as a means of livelihood, was hardly likely to distinguish himself as a student of medicine. He therefore made a new suggestion, proposing that his son should enter an English University and qualify for the ministry of the Church. Charles Darwin found the proposal agreeable, none the less, probably, that a good deal of natural history and a little shooting were by no means held, at that time, to be incompatible with the conscientious performance of the duties of a country clergyman. But it is characteristic of the man, that he asked time for consideration, in order that he might satisfy himself that he could sign the Thirty-nine Articles with a clear conscience. However, the study of "Pearson on the Creeds" and a few other books of divinity soon assured him that his religious opinions left nothing to be desired on the score of orthodoxy, and he acceded to his father's proposition. The English University selected was Cambridge; but an unexpected obstacle arose from the fact that, within the two years which had elapsed, since the young man who had enjoyed seven years of the benefit of a strictly classical education had left school, he had forgotten almost everything he had learned there, "even to some few of the Greek letters." (I. p. 46.) Three months with a tutor, however, brought him back to the point of translating Homer and the Greek Testament "with moderate facility," and Charles Darwin commenced the third educational experiment of which he was the subject, and was entered on the books of Christ's College in October 1827. So far as the direct results of the academic training thus received are concerned, the English University was not more successful than the Scottish. "During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and as at school." (I. p. 46.) And yet, as before, there is ample evidence that this negative result cannot be put down to any native defect on the part of the scholar. Idle and dull young men, or even young men who being neither idle nor dull, are incapable of caring for anything but some hobby, do not devote themselves to the thorough study of Paley's "Moral Philosophy," and "Evidences of Christianity"; nor are their reminiscences of this particular portion of their studies expressed in terms such as the following: "The logic of this book [the 'Evidences'] and, as I may add, of his 'Natural Theology' gave me as much delight as did Euclid." (I. p. 47.) The collector's instinct, strong in Darwin from his childhood, as is usually the case in great naturalists, turned itself in the direction of Insects during his residence at Cambridge. In childhood it had been damped by the moral scruples of a sister, as to the propriety of catching and killing insects for the mere sake of possessing them, but now it broke out afresh, and Darwin became an enthusiastic beetle collector. Oddly enough he took no scientific interest in beetles, not even troubling himself to make out their names; his delight lay in the capture of a species which turned out to be rare or new, and still more in finding his name, as captor, recorded in print. Evidently, this beetle-hunting hobby had little to do with science, but was mainly a new phase of the old and undiminished love of sport. In the intervals of beetle-catching, when shooting and hunting were not to be had, riding across country answered the purpose. These tastes naturally threw the young undergraduate among a set of men who preferred hard riding: to hard reading, and wasted the midnight oil upon other pursuits than that of academic distinction. A superficial observer might have had some grounds to fear that Dr. Darwin's wrathful prognosis might yet be verified. But if the eminently social tendencies of a vigorous and genial nature sought an outlet among a set of jovial sporting friends, there were other and no less strong proclivities which brought him into relation with associates of a very different stamp. Though almost without ear and with a very defective memory for music, Darwin was so strongly and pleasurably affected by it that he became a member of a musical society; and an equal lack of natural capacity for drawing did not prevent him from studying good works of art with much care. An acquaintance with even the rudiments of physical science was no part of the requirements for the ordinary Cambridge degree. But there were professors both of Geology and of Botany whose lectures were accessible to those who chose to attend them. The occupants of these chairs, in Darwin's time, were eminent men and also admirable lecturers in their widely different styles. The horror of geological lectures which Darwin had acquired at Edinburgh, unfortunately prevented him from going within reach of the fervid eloquence of Sedgwick; but he attended the botanical course, and though he paid no serious attention to the subject, he took great delight in the country excursions, which Henslow so well knew how to make both pleasant and instructive. The Botanical Professor was, in fact, a man of rare character and singularly extensive acquirements in all branches of natural history. It was his greatest pleasure to place his stores of knowledge at the disposal of the young men who gathered about him, and who found in him, not merely an encyclopedic teacher but a wise counsellor, and, in case of worthiness, a warm friend. Darwin's acquaintance with him soon ripened into a friendship which was terminated only by Henslow's death in 1861, when his quondam pupil gave touching expression to his sense of what he owed to one whom he calls (in one of his letters) his "dear old master in Natural History." (II. p. 217.) It was by Henslow's advice that Darwin was led to break the vow he had registered against making an acquaintance with geology; and it was through Henslow's good offices with Sedgwick that he obtained the opportunity of accompanying the Geological Professor on one of his excursions in Wales. He then received a certain amount of practical instruction in Geology, the value of which he subsequently warmly acknowledged. (I. p. 237.) In another direction, Henslow did him an immense, though not altogether intentional service, by recommending him to buy and study the recently published first volume of Lyell's "Principles." As an orthodox geologist of the then dominant catastrophic school, Henslow accompanied his recommendation with the admonition on no account to adopt Lyell's general views. But the warning fell on deaf ears, and it is hardly too much to say that Darwin's greatest work is the outcome of the unflinching application to Biology of the leading idea and the method applied in the "Principles" to geology. [Footnote: "After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject [of the origin of species]." (I. p. 83.) See also the dedication of the second edition of the _Journal of a Naturalist_]. Finally, it was through Henslow, and at his suggestion, that Darwin was offered the appointment to the "Beagle" as naturalist. During the latter part of Darwin's residence at Cambridge the prospect of entering the Church, though the plan was never formally renounced, seems to have grown very shadowy. Humboldt's "Personal Narrative," and Herschel's "Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy," fell in his way and revealed to him his real vocation. The impression made by the former work was very strong. "My whole course of life," says Darwin in sending a message to Humboldt, "is due to having read and re-read, as a youth, his personal narrative." (I. p. 336.) The description of Teneriffe inspired Darwin with such a strong desire to visit the island, that he took some steps towards going there--inquiring about ships, and so on. But, while this project was fermenting, Henslow, who had been asked to recommend a naturalist for Captain Fitzroy's projected expedition, at once thought of his pupil. In his letter of the 24th August, 1831, he says: "I have stated that I consider you to be the best qualified person I know of who is likely to undertake such a situation. I state this--not on the supposition of your being a _finished_ naturalist, but as amply qualified for collecting, observing, and noting anything worthy to be noted in Natural History.... The voyage is to last two years, and if you take plenty of books with you, anything you please may be done." (I. p. 193.) The state of the case could not have been better put. Assuredly the young naturalist's theoretical and practical scientific training had gone no further than might suffice for the outfit of an intelligent collector and note-taker. He was fully conscious of the fact, and his ambition hardly rose above the hope that he should bring back materials for the scientific "lions" at home of sufficient excellence to prevent them from turning and rending him. (I. p. 248.) But a fourth educational experiment was to be tried. This time Nature took him in hand herself and showed him the way by which, to borrow Henslow's prophetic phrase, "anything he pleased might be done." The conditions of life presented by a ship-of-war of only 242 tons burthen, would not, _primâ facie_, appear to be so favourable to intellectual development as those offered by the cloistered retirement of Christ's College. Darwin had not even a cabin to himself; while, in addition to the hindrances and interruptions incidental to sea-life, which can be appreciated only by those who have had experience of them, sea-sickness came on whenever the little ship was "lively"; and, considering the circumstances of the cruise, that must have been her normal state. Nevertheless, Darwin found on board the "Beagle" that which neither the pedagogues of Shrewsbury, nor the professoriate of Edinburgh, nor the tutors of Cambridge had managed to give him. "I have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training or education of my mind (I. p. 61);" and in a letter written as he was leaving England, he calls the voyage on which he was starting, with just insight, his "second life." (I. p. 214.) Happily for Darwin's education, the school time of the "Beagle" lasted five years instead of two; and the countries which the ship visited were singularly well fitted to provide him with object-lessons, on the nature of things, of the greatest value. While at sea, he diligently collected, studied, and made copious notes upon the surface Fauna. But with no previous training in dissection, hardly any power of drawing, and next to no knowledge of comparative anatomy, his occupation with work of this kind--notwithstanding all his zeal and industry--resulted, for the most part, in a vast accumulation of useless manuscript. Some acquaintance with the marine _Crustacea_, observations on _Planariæ_ and on the ubiquitous _Sagitta_, seem to have been the chief results of a great amount of labour in this direction. It was otherwise with the terrestrial phenomena which came under the voyager's notice: and Geology very soon took her revenge for the scorn which the much-bored Edinburgh student had poured upon her. Three weeks after leaving England the ship touched land for the first time at St. Jago, in the Cape de Verd Islands, and Darwin found his attention vividly engaged by the volcanic phenomena and the signs of upheaval which the island presented. His geological studies had already indicated the direction in which a great deal might be done, beyond collecting; and it was while sitting beneath a low lava cliff on the shore of this island, that a sense of his real capability first dawned upon Darwin, and prompted the ambition to write a book on the geology of the various countries visited. (I. p. 66.) Even at this early date, Darwin must have thought much on geological topics, for he was already convinced of the superiority of Lyell's views to those entertained by the catastrophists [Footnote: "I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, which I studied attentively; and the book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verd Islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating Geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read "-(I. p. 62.)]; and his subsequent study of the tertiary deposits and of the terraced gravel beds of South America was eminently fitted to strengthen that conviction. The letters from South America contain little reference to any scientific topic except geology; and even the theory of the formation of coral reefs was prompted by the evidence of extensive and gradual changes of level afforded by the geology of South America; "No other work of mine," he says, "was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the West Coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef. I had, therefore, only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs." (I. p. 70.) In 1835, when starting from Lima for the Galapagos, he recommends his friend, W. D. Fox, to take up geology:--"There is so much larger a field for thought than in the other branches of Natural History. I am become a zealous disciple of Mr. Lyell's views, as made known in his admirable book. Geologising in South America, I am tempted to carry parts to a greater extent even than he does. Geology is a capital science to begin with, as it requires nothing but a little reading, thinking, and hammering." (I. p. 263.) The truth of the last statement, when it was written, is a curious mark of the subsequent progress of geology. Even so late as 1836, Darwin speaks of being "much more inclined for geology than the other branches of Natural History." (I. p. 275.) At the end of the letter to Mr. Fox, however, a little doubt is expressed whether zoological studies might not, after all, have been more profitable; and an interesting passage in the "Autobiography" enables us to understand the origin of this hesitation. "During the voyage of the 'Beagle' I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely-allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards over the continent; and, thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos Archipelago, and, more especially, by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; some of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. "It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me. But it was equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor the will of the organisms (especially in the case of plants) could account for the innumerable cases in which organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of life; for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes. I had always been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have been modified." (I. p. 82.) The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas with one another, were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible. [Footnote: I am indebted to Mr. F. Darwin for the knowledge of a letter addressed by his father to Dr. Otto Zacharias in 1877 which contains the following paragraph, confirmatory of the view expressed above: "When I was on board the _Beagle_, I believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836, I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species, so that in July, 1837, I opened a note-book to record any facts which might bear on the question. But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed."] "In July opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter) origin of all my views." (I. p. 276.) From March, 1837, then, Darwin, not without many misgivings and fluctuations of opinion, inclined towards transmutation as a provisional hypothesis. Three months afterwards he is hard at work collecting facts for the purpose of testing the hypothesis; and an almost apologetic passage in a letter to Lyell shows that, already, the attractions of biology are beginning to predominate over those of geology. "I have lately been sadly tempted to be idle--[Footnote: Darwin generally uses the word "idle" in a peculiar sense. He means by it working hard at something he likes when he ought to be occupied with a less attractive subject. Though it sounds paradoxical, there is a good deal to be said in favour of this view of pleasant work.]that is, as far as pure Geology is concerned--by the delightful number of new views which have been coming in thickly and steadily--on the classification and affinities and instincts of animals--bearing on the question of species. Note-book after note-book has been filled with facts which begin to group themselves _clearly_ under sub-laws." (I. p. 298.) The problem which was to be Darwin's chief subject of occupation for the rest of his life thus presented itself, at first, mainly under its distributional aspect. Why do species present certain relations in space and in time? Why are the animals and plants of the Galapagos Archipelago so like those of South America and yet different from them? Why are those of the several islets more or less different from one another? Why are the animals of the latest geological epoch in South America similar in _facies_ to those which exist in the same region at the present day, and yet specifically or generically different? The reply to these questions, which was almost universally received fifty years ago, was that animals and plants were created such as they are; and that their present distribution, at any rate so far as terrestrial organisms are concerned, has been effected by the migration of their ancestors from the region in which the ark stranded after the subsidence of the deluge. It is true that the geologists had drawn attention to a good many tolerably serious difficulties in the way of the diluvial part of this hypothesis, no less than to the supposition that the work of creation had occupied only a brief space of time. But even those, such as Lyell, who most strenuously argued in favour of the sufficiency of natural causes for the production of the phenomena of the inorganic world, held stoutly by the hypothesis of creation in the case of those of the world of life. For persons who were unable to feel satisfied with the fashionable doctrine, there remained only two alternatives--the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, and that of descent with modification. The former was simply the creative hypothesis with the creator left out; the latter had already been propounded by De Maillet and Erasmus Darwin, among others; and, later, systematically expounded by Lamarck. But in the eyes of the naturalist of the "Beagle" (and, probably, in those of most sober thinkers), the advocates of transmutation had done the doctrine they expounded more harm than good. Darwin's opinion of the scientific value of the "Zoonomia" has already been mentioned. His verdict on Lamarck is given in the following passage of a letter to Lyell (March, 1863):-- "Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather, before Lamarck and others, propounded the _obvious_ view that if species were not created separately they must have descended from other species, and I can see nothing else in common between the "Origin" and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember to my surprise) I gained nothing." "But," adds Darwin with a little touch of banter, "I know you rank it higher, which is curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief." (III. p. 14; see also p. 16, "to me it was an absolutely useless book.") Unable to find any satisfactory theory of the process of descent with modification in the works of his predecessors, Darwin proceeded to lay the foundations of his own views independently; and he naturally turned, in the first place, to the only certainly known examples of descent with modification, namely, those which are presented by domestic animals and cultivated plants. He devoted himself to the study of these cases with a thoroughness to which none of his predecessors even remotely approximated; and he very soon had his reward in the discovery "that selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of animals and plants." (I. p. 83.) This was the first step in Darwin's progress, though its immediate result was to bring him face to face with a great difficulty. "But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me." (I. p. 83.) The key to this mystery was furnished by the accidental perusal of the famous essay of Malthus "On Population" in the autumn of 1838. The necessary result of unrestricted multiplication is competition for the means of existence. The success of one competitor involves the failure of the rest, that is, their extinction; and this "selection" is dependent on the better adaptation of the successful competitor to the conditions of the competition. Variation occurs under natural, no less than under artificial, conditions. Unrestricted multiplication implies the competition of varieties and the selection of those which are relatively best adapted to the conditions. Neither Erasmus Darwin, nor Lamarck, had any inkling of the possibility of this process of "natural selection"; and though it had been foreshadowed by Wells in 1813, and more fully stated by Matthew in 1831, the speculations of the latter writer remained unknown to naturalists until after the publication of the "Origin of Species." Darwin found in the doctrine of the selection of favourable variations by natural causes, which thus presented itself to his mind, not merely a probable theory of the origin of the diverse species of living forms, but that explanation of the phenomena of adaptation, which previous speculations had utterly failed to give. The process of natural selection is, in fact, dependent on adaptation--it is all one, whether one says that the competitor which survives is the "fittest" or the "best adapted." And it was a perfectly fair deduction that even the most complicated adaptations might result from the summation of a long series of simple favourable variations. Darwin notes as a serious defect in the first sketch of his theory that he had omitted to consider one very important problem, the solution of which did not occur to him till some time afterwards. "This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified.... The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature." (I. p. 84.) It is curious that so much importance should be attached to this supplementary idea. It seems obvious that the theory of the origin of species by natural selection necessarily involves the divergence of the forms selected. An individual which varies, _ipso facto_ diverges from the type of its species; and its progeny, in which the variation becomes intensified by selection, must diverge still more, not only from the parent stock, but from any other race of that stock starting from, a variation of a different character. The selective process could not take place unless the selected variety was either better adapted to the conditions than the original stock, or adapted to other conditions than the original stock. In the first case, the original stock would be sooner or later extirpated; in the second, the type, as represented by the original stock and the variety, would occupy more diversified stations than it did before. The theory, essentially such as it was published fourteen years later, was written out in 1844, and Darwin was so fully convinced of the importance of his work, as it then stood, that he made special arrangements for its publication in case of his death. But it is a singular example of reticent fortitude, that, although for the next fourteen years the subject never left his mind, and during the latter half of that period he was constantly engaged in amassing facts bearing upon it from wide reading, a colossal correspondence, and a long series of experiments, only two or three friends were cognisant of his views. To the outside world he seemed to have his hands quite sufficiently full of other matters. In 1844, he published his observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of the "Beagle." In 1845, a largely remodelled edition of his "Journal" made its appearance, and immediately won, as it has ever since held, the favour of both the scientific and the unscientific public. In 1846, the "Geological Observations in South America" came out, and this book was no sooner finished than Darwin set to work upon the Cirripedes. He was led to undertake this long and heavy task, partly by his desire to make out the relations of a very anomalous form which he had discovered on the coast of Chili; and partly by a sense of "presumption in accumulating facts and speculating on the subject of variation without having worked out my due share of species." (II. p. 31.) The eight or nine years of labour, which resulted in a monograph of first-rate importance in systematic zoology (to say nothing of such novel points as the discovery of complemental males), left Darwin no room to reproach himself on this score, and few will share his "doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time." (I. p. 82.) In science no man can safely speculate about the nature and relation of things with which he is unacquainted at first hand, and the acquirement of an intimate and practical knowledge of the process of species-making and of all the uncertainties which underlie the boundaries between species and varieties, drawn by even the most careful and conscientious systematists [Footnote: "After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished." (II. p. 40.) Is there any naturalist provided with a logical sense and a large suite of specimens, who has not undergone pangs of the sort described in this vigorous paragraph, which might, with advantage, be printed on the title-page of every systematic monograph as a warning to the uninitiated?] were of no less importance to the author of the "Origin of Species" than was the bearing of the Cirripede work upon "the principles of a natural classification." (I. p. 81.) No one, as Darwin justly observes, has a "right to examine the question of species who has not minutely described many." (II. p. 39.) In September, 1854, the Cirripede work was finished, "ten thousand barnacles" had been sent "out of the house, all over the world," and Darwin had the satisfaction of being free to turn again to his "old notes on species." In 1855, he began to breed pigeons, and to make observations on the effects of use and disuse, experiments on seeds, and so on, while resuming his industrious collection of facts, with a view "to see how far they favour or are opposed to the notion that wild species are mutable or immutable. I mean with my utmost power to give all arguments and facts on both sides. I have a _number_ of people helping me every way, and giving me most valuable assistance; but I often doubt whether the subject will not quite overpower me." (II. p. 49.) Early in 1856, on Lyell's advice, Darwin began to write out his views on the origin of species on a scale three or four times as extensive as that of the work published in 1859. In July of the same year he gave a brief sketch of his theory in a letter to Asa Gray; and, in the year 1857, his letters to his correspondents show him to be busily engaged on what he calls his "big book." (II. pp. 85, 94.) In May, 1857, Darwin writes to Wallace: "I am now preparing my work [on the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from each other] for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that, though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for two years." (II. p. 95.) In December, 1857, he writes, in the course of a long letter to the same correspondent, "I am extremely glad to hear that you are attending to distribution in accordance with theoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation there is no good and original observation." (II. p. 108.) [Footnote: The last remark contains a pregnant truth, but it must be confessed it hardly squares with the declaration in the _Autobiography_, (I. p. 83), that he worked on "true Baconian principles."] In June, 1858, he received from Mr. Wallace, then in the Malay Archipelago, an "Essay on the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type," of which Darwin says, "If Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms stand now as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send it to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if ever it will have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory." (II. p. 116.) Thus, Darwin's first impulse was to publish Wallace's essay without note or comment of his own. But, on consultation with Lyell and Hooker, the latter of whom had read the sketch of 1844, they suggested, as an undoubtedly more equitable course, that extracts from the MS. of 1844 and from the letter to Dr. Asa Gray should be communicated to the Linnean Society along with Wallace's essay. The joint communication was read on July 1, 1858, and published under the title "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." This was followed, on Darwin's part, by the composition of a summary account of the conclusions to which his twenty years' work on the species question had led him. It occupied him for thirteen months, and appeared in November, 1859, under the title "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life." It is doubtful if any single book, except the "Principia," ever worked so great and so rapid a revolution in science, or made so deep an impression on the general mind. It aroused a tempest of opposition and met with equally vehement support, and it must be added that no book has been more widely and persistently misunderstood by both friends and foes. In 1861, Darwin remarks to a correspondent, "You understand my book perfectly, and that I find a very rare event with my critics." (I. p. 313.) The immense popularity which the "Origin" at once acquired was no doubt largely due to its many points of contact with philosophical and theological questions in which every intelligent man feels a profound interest; but a good deal must be assigned to a somewhat delusive simplicity of style, which tends to disguise the complexity and difficulty of the subject, and much to the wealth of information on all sorts of curious problems of natural history, which is made accessible to the most unlearned reader. But long occupation with the work has led the present writer to believe that the "Origin of Species" is one of the hardest of books to master; [Footnote: He is comforted to find that probably the best qualified judge among all the readers of the _Origin_ in 1859 was of the same opinion. Sir J. Hooker writes, "It is the very hardest book to read, to full profit, that I ever tried." (II. p. 242.)] and he is justified in this conviction by observing that although the "Origin" has been close on thirty years before the world, the strangest misconceptions of the essential nature of the theory therein advocated are still put forth by serious writers. Although, then, the present occasion is not suitable for any detailed criticism of the theory, or of the objections which have been brought against it, it may not be out of place to endeavour to separate the substance of the theory from its accidents; and to show that a variety not only of hostile comments, but of friendly would-be improvements lose their _raison d'être_ to the careful student. Observation proves the existence among all living beings of phenomena of three kinds, denoted by the terms heredity, variation, and multiplication. Progeny tend to resemble their parents; nevertheless all their organs and functions are susceptible of departing more or less from the average parental character; and their number is in excess of that of their parents. Severe competition for the means of living, or the struggle for existence, is a necessary consequence of unlimited multiplication; while selection, or the preservation of favourable variations and the extinction of others, is a necessary consequence of severe competition. "Favourable variations" are those which are better adapted to surrounding conditions. It follows, therefore, that every variety which is selected into a species is so favoured and preserved in consequence of being, in some one or more respects, better adapted to its surroundings than its rivals. In other words, every species which exists, exists in virtue of adaptation, and whatever accounts for that adaptation accounts for the existence of the species. To say that Darwin has put forward a theory of the adaptation of species, but not of their origin, is therefore to misunderstand the first principles of the theory. For, as has been pointed out, it is a necessary consequence of the theory of selection that every species must have some one or more structural or functional peculiarities, in virtue of the advantage conferred by which, it has fought through the crowd of its competitors and achieved a certain duration. In this sense, it is true that every species has been "originated" by selection. There is another sense, however, in which it is equally true that selection originates nothing. "Unless profitable variations ... occur natural selection can do nothing" ("Origin," Ed. I. p. 82). "Nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur" (_ibid_., p. 108). "What applies to one animal will apply throughout time to all animals--that is, if they vary--for otherwise natural selection can do nothing. So it will be with plants" (_ibid_., p. 113). Strictly speaking, therefore, the origin of species in general lies in variation; while the origin of any particular species lies, firstly, in the occurrence, and secondly, in the selection and preservation of a particular variation. Clearness on this head will relieve one from the necessity of attending to the fallacious assertion that natural selection is a _deus ex machinâ_, or occult agency. Those, again, who confuse the operation of the natural causes which bring about variation and selection with what they are pleased to call "chance" can hardly have read the opening paragraph of the fifth chapter of the "Origin" (Ed. I, p. 131): "I have sometimes spoken as if the variations ... had been due to chance. This is of course a wholly incorrect expression, but it seems to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." Another point of great importance to the right comprehension of the theory, is, that while every species must needs have some adaptive advantageous characters to which it owes its preservation by selection, it may possess any number of others which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, but indifferent, or even slightly disadvantageous. (_Ibid_., p. 81.) For variations take place, not merely in one organ or function at a time, but in many; and thus an advantageous variation, which gives rise to the selection of a new race or species, may be accompanied by others which are indifferent, but which are just as strongly hereditary as the advantageous variations. The advantageous structure is but one product of a modified general constitution which may manifest itself by several other products; and the selective process carries the general constitution along with the advantageous special peculiarity. A given species of plant may owe its existence to the selective adaptation of its flowers to insect fertilisers; but the character of its leaves may be the result of variations of an indifferent character. It is the origin of variations of this kind to which Darwin refers in his frequent reference to what he calls "laws of correlation of growth" or "correlated variation." These considerations lead us further to see the inappropriateness of the objections raised to Darwin's theory on the ground that natural selection does not account for the first commencements of useful organs. But it does not pretend to do so. The source of such commencements is necessarily to be sought in different variations, which remain unaffected by selection until they have taken such a form as to become utilisable in the struggle for existence. It is not essential to Darwin's theory that anything more should be assumed than the facts of heredity, variation, and unlimited multiplication; and the validity of the deductive reasoning as to the effect of the last (that is, of the struggle for existence which it involves) upon the varieties resulting from the operation of the former. Nor is it essential that one should take up any particular position in regard to the mode of variation, whether, for example, it takes place _per saltum_ or gradually; whether it is definite in character or indefinite. Still less are those who accept the theory bound to any particular views as to the causes of heredity or of variation. That Darwin held strong opinions on some or all of these points may be quite true; but, so far as the theory is concerned, they must be regarded as _obiter dicta_. With respect to the causes of variation, Darwin's opinions are, from first to last, put forward altogether tentatively. In the first edition of the "Origin," he attributes the strongest influence to changes in the conditions of life of parental organisms, which he appears to think act on the germ through the intermediation of the sexual organs. He points out, over and over again, that habit, use, disuse, and the direct influence of conditions have some effect, but he does not think it great, and he draws attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between effects of these agencies and those of selection. There is, however, one class of variations which he withdraws from the direct influence of selection, namely, the variations in the fertility of the sexual union of more or less closely allied forms. He regards less fertility, or more or less complete sterility, as "incidental to other acquired differences." (_Ibid_., p. 245.) Considering the difficulties which surround the question of the causes of variation, it is not to be wondered at, that Darwin should have inclined, sometimes, rather more to one and, sometimes, rather more to another of the possible alternatives. There is little difference between the last edition of the "Origin" (1872) and the first on this head. In 1876, however, he writes to Moritz Wagner, "In my opinion, the greatest error which I have committed has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environments, i.e., food, climate, &c., independently of natural selection. ...When I wrote the 'Origin,' and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence, and your case of the Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which I have heard." (III, p. 159.) But there is really nothing to prevent the most tenacious adherent to the theory of natural selection from taking any view he pleases as to the importance of the direct influence of conditions and the hereditary transmissibility of the modifications which they produce. In fact, there is a good deal to be said for the view that the so-called direct influence of conditions is itself a case of selection. Whether the hypothesis of Pangenesis be accepted or rejected, it can hardly be doubted that the struggle for existence goes on not merely between distinct organisms, but between the physiological units of which each organism is composed, and that changes in external conditions favour some and hinder others. After a short stay in Cambridge, Darwin resided in London for the first five years which followed his return to England; and for three years, he held the post of Secretary to the Geological Society, though he shared to the full his friend Lyell's objection to entanglement in such engagements. In fact, he used to say in later life, more than half in earnest, that he gave up hoping for work from men who accepted official duties and, especially, Government appointments. Happily for him, he was exempted from the necessity of making any sacrifice of this kind, but an even heavier burden was laid upon him. During the earlier half of his voyage Darwin retained the vigorous health of his boyhood, and indeed proved himself to be exceptionally capable of enduring fatigue and privation. An anomalous but severe disorder, which laid him up for several weeks at Valparaiso in 1834, however, seems to have left its mark on his constitution; and, in the later years of his London life, attacks of illness, usually accompanied by severe vomiting and great prostration of strength, became frequent. As he grew older, a considerable part of every day, even at his best times, was spent in misery; while, not unfrequently, months of suffering rendered work of any kind impossible. Even Darwin's remarkable tenacity of purpose and methodical utilisation of every particle of available energy could not have enabled him to achieve a fraction of the vast amount of labour he got through, in the course of the following forty years, had not the wisest and the most loving care unceasingly surrounded him from the time of his marriage in 1839. As early as 1842, the failure of health was so marked that removal from London became imperatively necessary; and Darwin purchased a house and grounds at Down, a solitary hamlet in Kent, which was his home for the rest of his life. Under the strictly regulated conditions of a valetudinarian existence, the intellectual activity of the invalid might have put to shame most healthy men; and, so long as he could hold his head up, there was no limit to the genial kindness of thought and action for all about him. Those friends who were privileged to share the intimate life of the household at Down have an abiding memory of the cheerful restfulness which pervaded and characterised it. After mentioning his settlement at Down, Darwin writes in his Autobiography:-- "My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me, for the time, forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort. I have, therefore, nothing to record during the rest of my life, except the publication of my several books." (I, p. 79.) Of such works published subsequently to 1859, several are monographic discussions of topics briefly dealt with in the "Origin," which, it must always be recollected, was considered by the author to be merely an abstract of an _opus majus_. The earliest of the books which may be placed in this category, "On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects," was published in 1862, and whether we regard its theoretical significance, the excellence of the observations and the ingenuity of the reasonings which it records, or the prodigious mass of subsequent investigation of which it has been the parent, it has no superior in point of importance. The conviction that no theory of the origin of species could be satisfactory which failed to offer an explanation of the way in which mechanisms involving adaptations of structure and function to the performance of certain operations are brought about, was, from the first, dominant in Darwin's mind. As has been seen, he rejected Lamarck's views because of their obvious incapacity to furnish such an explanation in the case of the great majority of animal mechanisms, and in that of all those presented by the vegetable world. So far back as 1793, the wonderful work of Sprengel had established, beyond any reasonable doubt, the fact that, in a large number of cases, a flower is a piece of mechanism the object of which is to convert insect visitors into agents of fertilisation. Sprengel's observations had been most undeservedly neglected and well-nigh forgotten; but Robert Brown having directed Darwin's attention to them in 1841, he was attracted towards the subject, and verified many of Sprengel's statements. (III, p. 258.) It may be doubted whether there was a living botanical specialist, except perhaps Brown, who had done as much. If, however, adaptations of this kind were to be explained by natural selection, it was necessary to show that the plants which were provided with mechanisms for ensuring the aid of insects as fertilisers, were by so much the better fitted to compete with their rivals. This Sprengel had not done. Darwin had been attending to cross fertilisation in plants so far back as 1839, from having arrived, in the course of his speculations on the origin of species, at the conviction "that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant" (I, p. 90). The further development of his views on the importance of cross fertilisation appears to have taken place between this time and 1857, when he published his first papers on the fertilisation of flowers in the "Gardener's Chronicle." If the conclusion at which he ultimately arrived, that cross fertilisation is favourable to the fertility of the parent and to the vigour of the offspring, is correct, then it follows that all those mechanisms which hinder self-fertilisation and favour crossing must be advantageous in the struggle for existence; and, the more perfect the action of the mechanism, the greater the advantage. Thus the way lay open for the operation of natural selection in gradually perfecting the flower as a fertilisation-trap. Analogous reasoning applies to the fertilising insect. The better its structure is adapted to that of the trap, the more will it be able to profit by the bait, whether of honey or of pollen, to the exclusion of its competitors. Thus, by a sort of action and reaction, a two-fold series of adaptive modifications will be brought about. In 1865, the important bearing of this subject on his theory led Darwin to commence a great series of laborious and difficult experiments on the fertilisation of plants, which occupied him for eleven years, and furnished him with the unexpectedly strong evidence in favour of the influence of crossing which he published in 1876, under the title of "The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom." Incidentally, as it were, to this heavy piece of work, he made the remarkable series of observations on the different arrangements by which crossing is favoured and, in many cases, necessitated, which appeared in the work on "The Different Forms of Flowers in Plants of the same Species" in 1877. In the course of the twenty years during which Darwin was thus occupied in opening up new regions of investigation to the botanist and showing the profound physiological significance of the apparently meaningless diversities of floral structure, his attention was keenly alive to any other interesting phenomena of plant life which came in his way. In his correspondence, he not unfrequently laughs at himself for his ignorance of systematic botany; and his acquaintance with vegetable anatomy and physiology was of the slenderest. Nevertheless, if any of the less common features of plant life came under his notice, that imperious necessity of seeking for causes which nature had laid upon him, impelled, and indeed compelled, him to inquire the how and the why of the fact, and its bearing on his general views. And as, happily, the atavic tendency to frame hypotheses was accompanied by an equally strong need to test them by well-devised experiments, and to acquire all possible information before publishing his results, the effect was that he touched no topic without elucidating it. Thus the investigation of the operations of insectivorous plants, embodied in the work on that topic published in 1875, was started fifteen years before, by a passing observation made during one of Darwin's rare holidays. "In the summer of 1860, I was idling and resting near Hartfield, where two species of Drosera abound; and I noticed that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I carried home some plants, and on giving them some insects saw the movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it possible that the insects were caught for some special purpose. Fortunately, a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing a large number of leaves in various nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous fluids of equal density; and as soon as I found that the former alone excited energetic movements, it was obvious that here was a fine new field for investigation." (I, p. 95.) The researches thus initiated led to the proof that plants are capable of secreting a digestive fluid like that of animals, and of profiting by the result of digestion; whereby the peculiar apparatuses of the insectivorous plants were brought within the scope of natural selection. Moreover, these inquiries widely enlarged our knowledge of the manner in which stimuli are transmitted in plants, and opened up a prospect of drawing closer the analogies between the motor processes of plants and those of animals. So with respect to the books on "Climbing Plants" (1875), and on the "Power of Movement in Plants" (1880), Darwin says;-- "I was led to take up this subject by reading a short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He sent me some seeds, and on raising some plants I was so much fascinated and perplexed by the revolving movements of the tendrils and stems, which movements are really very simple, though appearing at first sight very complex, that I procured various other kinds of climbing plants and studied the whole subject.... Some of the adaptations displayed by climbing plants are as beautiful as those of orchids for ensuring cross-fertilisation." (I, p. 93.) In the midst of all this amount of work, remarkable alike for its variety and its importance, among plants, the animal kingdom was by no means neglected. A large moiety of "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" (1868), which contains the _pièces justificatives_ of the first chapter of the "Origin," is devoted to domestic animals, and the hypothesis of "pangenesis" propounded in the second volume applies to the whole living world. In the "Origin" Darwin throws out some suggestions as to the causes of variation, but he takes heredity, as it is manifested by individual organisms, for granted, as an ultimate fact; pangenesis is an attempt to account for the phenomena of heredity in the organism, on the assumption that the physiological units of which the organism is composed give off gemmules, which, in virtue of heredity, tend to reproduce the unit from which they are derived. That Darwin had the application of his theory to the origin of the human species clearly in his mind in 1859, is obvious from a passage in the first edition of "The Origin of Species." (Ed. I, p. 488.) "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." It is one of the curiosities of scientific literature, that, in the face of this plain declaration, its author should have been charged with concealing his opinions on the subject of the origin of man. But he reserved the full statement of his views until 1871, when the "Descent of Man" was published. The "Expression of the Emotions" (originally intended to form only a chapter in the "Descent of Man") grew into a separate volume, which appeared in 1872. Although always taking a keen interest in geology, Darwin naturally found no time disposable for geological work, even had his health permitted it, after he became seriously engaged with the great problem of species. But the last of his labours is, in some sense, a return to his earliest, inasmuch as it is an expansion of a short paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years before, and, as he says, "revived old geological thoughts" (I, p. 98). In fact, "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms," affords as striking an example of the great results produced by the long-continued operation of small causes as even the author of the "Principles of Geology" could have desired. In the early months of 1882 Darwin's health underwent a change for the worse; attacks of giddiness and fainting supervened, and on the 19th of April he died. On the 24th, his remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, in accordance with the general feeling that such a man as he should not go to the grave without some public recognition of the greatness of his work. Mr. Darwin became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1839; one of the Royal Medals was awarded to him in 1853, and he received the Copley Medal in 1864. The "Life and Letters," edited with admirable skill and judgment by Mr. Francis Darwin, gives a full and singularly vivid presentment of his father's personal character, of his mode of work, and of the events of his life. In the present brief obituary notice, the writer has attempted nothing more than to select and put together those facts which enable us to trace the intellectual evolution of one of the greatest of the many great men of science whose names adorn the long roll of the Fellows of the Royal Society. XI ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE [_Six Lectures to Working Men_.--1863.] I. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF ORGANIC NATURE When it was my duty to consider what subject I would select for the six lectures which I shall now have the pleasure of delivering to you, it occurred to me that I could not do better than endeavour to put before you in a true light, or in what I might perhaps with more modesty call, that which I conceive myself to be the true light, the position of a book which has been more praised and more abused, perhaps, than any book which has appeared for some years;--I mean Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species." That work, I doubt not, many of you have read; for I know the inquiring spirit which is rife among you. At any rate, all of you will have heard of it,--some by one kind of report and some by another kind of report; the attention of all and the curiosity of all have been probably more or less excited on the subject of that work. All I can do, and all I shall attempt to do, is to put before you that kind of judgment which has been formed by a man, who, of course, is liable to judge erroneously; but, at any rate, of one whose business and profession it is to form judgments upon questions of this nature. And here, as it will always happen when dealing with an extensive subject, the greater part of my course--if, indeed, so small a number of lectures can be properly called a course--must be devoted to preliminary matters, or rather to a statement of those facts and of those principles which the work itself dwells upon, and brings more or less directly before us. I have no right to suppose that all or any of you are naturalists; and, even if you were, the misconceptions and misunderstandings prevalent even among naturalists, on these matters, would make it desirable that I should take the course I now propose to take,--that I should start from the beginning,--that I should endeavour to point out what is the existing state of the organic world--that I should point out its past condition,--that I should state what is the precise nature of the undertaking which Mr. Darwin has taken in hand; that I should endeavour to show you what are the only methods by which that undertaking can be brought to an issue, and to point out to you how far the author of the work in question has satisfied those conditions, how far he has not satisfied them, how far they are satisfiable by man, and how far they are not satisfiable by man. To-night, in taking up the first part of the question, I shall endeavour to put before you a sort of broad notion of our knowledge of the condition of the living world. There are many ways of doing this. I might deal with it pictorially and graphically. Following the example of Humboldt in his "Aspects of Nature," I might endeavour to point out the infinite variety of organic life in every mode of its existence, with reference to the variations of climate and the like; and such an attempt would be fraught with interest to us all; but considering the subject before us, such a course would not be that best calculated to assist us. In an argument of this kind we must go further and dig deeper into the matter; we must endeavour to look into the foundations of living Nature, if I may so say, and discover the principles involved in some of her most secret operations. I propose, therefore, in the first place, to take some ordinary animal with which you are all familiar, and by easily comprehensible and obvious examples drawn from it, to show what are the kind of problems which living beings in general lay before us; and I shall then show you that the same problems are laid open to us by all kinds of living beings. But, first, let me say in what sense I have used the words "organic nature." In speaking of the causes which lead to our present knowledge of organic nature, I have used it almost as an equivalent of the word "living," and for this reason,--that in almost all living beings you can distinguish several distinct portions set apart to do particular things and work in a particular way. These are termed "organs," and the whole together is called "organic." And as it is universally characteristic of them, the term "organic" has been very conveniently employed to denote the whole of living nature,--the whole of the plant world, and the whole of the animal world. Few animals can be more familiar to you than that whose skeleton is shown on our diagram. You need not bother yourselves with this "_Equus caballus_" written under it; that is only the Latin name of it, and does not make it any better. It simply means the common horse. Suppose we wish to understand all about the horse. Our first object must be to study the structure of the animal. The whole of his body is inclosed within a hide, a skin covered with hair; and if that hide or skin be taken off, we find a great mass of flesh, or what is technically called muscle, being the substance which by its power of contraction enables the animal to move. These muscles move the hard parts one upon the other, and so give that strength and power of motion which renders the horse so useful to us in the performance of those services in which we employ him. And then, on separating and removing the whole of this skin and flesh, you have a great series of bones, hard structures, bound together with ligaments, and forming the skeleton which is represented here. In that skeleton there are a number of parts to be recognised. The long series of bones, beginning from the skull and ending in the tail, is called the spine, and those in front are the ribs; and then there are two pairs of limbs, one before and one behind; and there are what we all know as the fore-legs and the hind-legs. If we pursue our researches into the interior of this animal, we find within the framework of the skeleton a great cavity, or rather, I should say, two great cavities,--one cavity beginning in the skull and running through the neck-bones, along the spine, and ending in the tail, containing the brain and the spinal marrow, which are extremely important organs. The second great cavity, commencing with the mouth, contains the gullet, the stomach, the long intestine, and all the rest of those internal apparatus which are essential for digestion; and then in the same great cavity, there are lodged the heart and all the great vessels going from it; and, besides that, the organs of respiration--the lungs: and then the kidneys, and the organs of reproduction, and so on. Let us now endeavour to reduce this notion of a horse that we now have, to some such kind of simple expressions as can be at once, and without difficulty, retained in the mind, apart from all minor details. If I make a transverse section, that is, if I were to saw a dead horse across, I should find that, if I left out the details, and supposing I took my section through the anterior region, and through the fore-limbs, I should have here this kind of section of the body (Fig. 1). [Illustration: Fig. 1] Here would be the upper part of the animal--that great mass of bones that we spoke of as the spine (_a_, Fig. 1). Here I should have the alimentary canal (_b_, Fig. 1). Here I should have the heart (_c_, Fig. 1); and then you see, there would be a kind of double tube, the whole being inclosed within the hide; the spinal marrow would be placed in the upper tube (_a_, Fig. 1), and in the lower tube (_d d_, Fig. 1), there would be the alimentary canal (_b_), and the heart (_e_); and here I shall have the legs proceeding from each side. For simplicity's sake, I represent them merely as stumps (_e e_, Fig. 1). Now that is a horse--as mathematicians would say--reduced to its most simple expression. Carry that in your minds, if you please, as a simplified idea of the structure of the horse. The considerations which I have now put before you belong to what we technically call the "Anatomy" of the horse. Now, suppose we go to work upon these several parts,--flesh and hair, and skin and bone, and lay open these various organs with our scalpels, and examine them by means of our magnifying-glasses, and see what we can make of them. We shall find that the flesh is made up of bundles of strong fibres The brain and nerves, too, we shall find are made up of fibres, and these queer-looking things that are called ganglionic corpuscles. If we take a slice of the bone and examine it, we shall find that it is very like this diagram of a section of the bone of on ostrich, though differing, of course, in some details; and if we take any part whatsoever of the tissue, and examine it, we shall find it all has a minute structure, visible only under the microscope. All these parts constitute microscopic anatomy or "Histology." These parts are constantly being changed; every part is constantly growing, decaying, and being replaced during the life of the animal. The tissue is constantly replaced by new material; and if you go back to the young state of the tissue in the case of muscle, or in the case of skin, or any of the organs I have mentioned, you will find that they all come under the same condition. Every one of these microscopic filaments and fibres (I now speak merely of the general character of the whole process)--every one of these parts--could be traced down to some modification of a tissue which can be readily divided into little particles of fleshy matter, of that substance which is composed of the chemical elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, having such a shape as this (Fig. 2). These particles, into which all primitive tissues break up, are called cells. If I were to make a section of a piece of the skin of my hand, I should find that it was made up of these cells. If I examine the fibres which form the various organs of all living animals, I should find that all of them, at one time or other, had been formed out of a substance consisting of similar elements; so that you see, just as we reduced the whole body in the gross to that sort of simple expression given in Fig. 1, so we may reduce the whole of the microscopic structural elements to a form of even greater simplicity; just as the plan of the whole body may be so represented in a sense (Fig. 1), so the primary structure of every tissue may be represented by a mass of cells (Fig. 2). [Illustration: Fig. 2.] Having thus, in this sort of general way, sketched to you what I may call, perhaps, the architecture of the body of the horse (what we term technically its Morphology), I must now turn to another aspect. A horse is not a mere dead structure: it is an active, living, working machine. Hitherto we have, as it were, been looking at a steam-engine with the fires out, and nothing in the boiler; but the body of the living animal is a beautifully-formed active machine, and every part has its different work to do in the working of that machine, which is what we call its life. The horse, if you see him after his day's work is done, is cropping the grass in the fields, as it may be, or munching the oats in his stable. What is he doing? His jaws are working as a mill--and a very complex mill too--grinding the corn, or crushing the grass to a pulp. As soon as that operation has taken place, the food is passed down to the stomach, and there it is mixed with the chemical fluid called the gastric juice, a substance which has the peculiar property of making soluble and dissolving out the nutritious matter in the grass, and leaving behind those parts which are not nutritious; so that you have, first, the mill, then a sort of chemical digester; and then the food, thus partially dissolved, is carried back by the muscular contractions of the intestines into the hinder parts of the body, while the soluble portions are taken up into the blood. The blood is contained in a vast system of pipes, spreading through the whole body, connected with a force-pump,--the heart,--which, by its position and by the contractions of its valves, keeps the blood constantly circulating in one direction, never allowing it to rest; and then, by means of this circulation of the blood, laden as it is with the products of digestion, the skin, the flesh, the hair, and every other part of the body, draws from it that which it wants, and every one of these organs derives those materials which are necessary to enable it to do its work. The action of each of these organs, the performance of each of these various duties, involve in their operation a continual absorption of the matters necessary for their support, from the blood and a constant formation of waste products, which are returned to the blood, and conveyed by it to the lungs and the kidneys, which are organs that have allotted to them the office of extracting, separating, and getting rid of these waste products; and thus the general nourishment, labour, and repair of the whole machine are kept up with order and regularity. But not only is it a machine which feeds and appropriates to its own support the nourishment necessary to its existence--it is an engine for locomotive purposes. The horse desires to go from one place to another; and to enable it to do this, it has those strong contractile bundles of muscles attached to the bones of its limbs, which are put in motion by means of a sort of telegraphic apparatus formed by the brain and the great spinal cord running through the spine or backbone; and to this spinal cord are attached a number of fibres termed nerves, which proceed to all parts of the structure. By means of these the eyes, nose, tongue, and skin--all the organs of perception--transmit impressions or sensations to the brain, which acts as a sort of great central telegraph-office, receiving impressions and sending messages to all parts of the body, and putting in motion the muscles necessary to accomplish any movement that maybe desired. So that you have here an extremely complex and beautifully-proportioned machine, with all its parts working harmoniously together towards one common object--the preservation of the life of the animal. Now, note this: the horse makes up its waste by feeding, and its food is grass or oats, or perhaps other vegetable products; therefore, in the long run, the source of all this complex machinery lies in the vegetable kingdom. But where does the grass, or the oat, or any other plant obtain this nourishing food-producing material? At first it is a little seed, which soon begins to draw into itself from the earth and the surrounding air matters which in themselves contain no vital properties whatever; it absorbs into its own substance water, an inorganic body; it draws into its substance carbonic acid, an inorganic matter; and ammonia, another inorganic matter, found in the air; and then, by some wonderful chemical process, the details of which chemists do not yet understand, though they are near foreshadowing them, it combines them into one substance, which is known to us as "Protein," a complex compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, which alone possesses the property of manifesting vitality and of permanently supporting animal life. So that, you see, the waste products of the animal economy, the effete materials which are continually being thrown off by all living beings, in the form of organic matters, are constantly replaced by supplies of the necessary repairing and rebuilding materials drawn from the plants, which in their turn manufacture them, so to speak, by a mysterious combination of those same inorganic materials. Let us trace out the history of the horse in another direction. After a certain time, as the result of sickness or disease, the effect of accident, or the consequence of old age, sooner or later, the animal dies. The multitudinous operations of this beautiful mechanism flag in their performance, the horse loses its vigour, and after passing through the curious series of changes comprised in its formation and preservation, it finally decays, and ends its life by going back into that inorganic world from which all but an inappreciable fraction of its substance was derived. Its bones become mere carbonate and phosphate of lime; the matter of its flesh, and of its other parts, becomes, in the long run, converted into carbonic acid, into water, and into ammonia. You will now, perhaps, understand the curious relation of the animal with the plant, of the organic with the inorganic world, which is shown in this diagram. [Illustration: Inorganic World Fig. 3.] The plant gathers these inorganic materials together and makes them up into its own substance. The animal eats the plant and appropriates the nutritious portions to its own sustenance, rejects and gets rid of the useless matters; and, finally, the animal itself dies, and its whole body is decomposed and returned into the inorganic world. There is thus a constant circulation from one to the other, a continual formation of organic life from inorganic matters, and as constant a return of the matter of living bodies to the inorganic world; so that the materials of which our bodies are composed are largely, in all probability, the substances which constituted the matter of long extinct creations, but which have in the interval constituted a part of the inorganic world. Thus we come to the conclusion, strange at first sight, that the MATTER constituting the living world is identical with that which forms the inorganic world. And not less true is it that, remarkable as are the powers or, in other words, as are the FORCES which are exerted by living beings, yet all these forces are either identical with those which exist in the inorganic world, or they are convertible into them; I mean in just the same sense as the researches of physical philosophers have shown that heat is convertible into electricity, that electricity is convertible into magnetism, magnetism into mechanical force or chemical force, and any one of them with the other, each being measurable in terms of the other,--even so, I say, that great law is applicable to the living world. Consider why is the skeleton of this horse capable of supporting the masses of flesh and the various organs forming the living body, unless it is because of the action of the same forces of cohesion which combines together the particles of matter composing this piece of chalk? What is there in the muscular contractile power of the animal but the force which is expressible, and which is in a certain sense convertible, into the force of gravity which it overcomes? Or, if you go to more hidden processes, in what does the process of digestion differ from those processes which are carried on in the laboratory of the chemist? Even if we take the most recondite and most complex operations of animal life--those of the nervous system, these of late years have been shown to be--I do not say identical in any sense with the electrical processes--but this has been shown, that they are in some way or other associated with them; that is to say, that every amount of nervous action is accompanied by a certain amount of electrical disturbance in the particles of the nerves in which that nervous action is carried on. In this way the nervous action is related to electricity in the same way that heat is related to electricity; and the same sort of argument which demonstrates the two latter to be related to one another shows that the nervous forces are correlated to electricity; for the experiments of M. Dubois Reymond and others have shown that whenever a nerve is in a state of excitement, sending a message to the muscles or conveying an impression to the brain, there is a disturbance of the electrical condition of that nerve which does not exist at other times; and there are a number of other facts and phenomena of that sort; so that we come to the broad conclusion that not only as to living matter itself, but as to the forces that matter exerts, there is a close relationship between the organic and the inorganic world--the difference between them arising from the diverse combination and disposition of identical forces, and not from any primary diversity, so far as we can see. I said just now that the horse eventually died and became converted into the same inorganic substances from whence all but an inappreciable fraction of its substance demonstrably originated, so that the actual wanderings of matter are as remarkable as the transmigrations of the soul fabled by Indian tradition. But before death has occurred, in the one sex or the other, and in fact in both, certain products or parts of the organism have been set free, certain parts of the organisms of the two sexes have come into contact with one another, and from that conjunction, from that union which then takes place, there results the formation of a new being. At stated times the mare, from a particular part of the interior of her body, called the ovary, gets rid of a minute particle of matter comparable in all essential respects with that which we called a cell a little while since, which cell contains a kind of nucleus in its centre, surrounded by a clear space and by a viscid mass of protein substance (Fig. 2); and though it is different in appearance from the eggs which we are mostly acquainted with, it is really an egg. After a time this minute particle of matter, which may only be a small fraction of a grain in weight, undergoes a series of changes,--wonderful, complex changes. Finally, upon its surface there is fashioned a little elevation, which afterwards becomes divided and marked by a groove. The lateral boundaries of the groove extend upwards and downwards, and at length give rise to a double tube. In the upper and smaller tube the spinal marrow and brain are fashioned; in the lower, the alimentary canal and heart; and at length two pairs of buds shoot out at the sides of the body, and they are the rudiments of the limbs. In fact a true drawing of a section of the embryo in this state would in all essential respects resemble that diagram of a horse reduced to its simplest expression, which I first placed before you (Fig. 1). Slowly and gradually these changes take place. The whole of the body, at first, can be broken up into "cells," which become in one place metamorphosed into muscle,--in another place into gristle and bone,--in another place into fibrous tissue,--and in another into hair; every part becoming gradually and slowly fashioned, as if there were an artificer at work in each of these complex structures that I have mentioned. This embryo, as it is called, then passes into other conditions. I should tell you that there is a time when the embryos of neither dog, nor horse, nor porpoise, nor monkey, nor man, can be distinguished by any essential feature one from the other; there is a time when they each and all of them resemble this one of the dog. But as development advances, all the parts acquire their speciality, till at length you have the embryo converted into the form of the parent from which it started. So that you see, this living animal, this horse, begins its existence as a minute particle of nitrogenous matter, which, being supplied with nutriment (derived, as I have shown, from the inorganic world), grows up according to the special type and construction of its parents, works and undergoes a constant waste, and that waste is made good by nutriment derived from the inorganic world; the waste given off in this way being directly added to the inorganic world. Eventually the animal itself dies, and, by the process of decomposition, its whole body is returned to those conditions of inorganic matter in which its substance originated. This, then, is that which is true of every living form, from the lowest plant to the highest animal--to man himself. You might define the life of every one in exactly the same terms as those which I have now used; the difference between the highest and the lowest being simply in the complexity of the developmental changes, the variety of the structural forms, and the diversity of the physiological functions which are exerted by each. If I were to take an oak tree, as a specimen of the plant world, I should find that it originated in an acorn, which, too, commenced in a cell; the acorn is placed in the ground, and it very speedily begins to absorb the inorganic matters I have named, adds enormously to its bulk, and we can see it, year after year, extending itself upward and downward, attracting and appropriating to itself inorganic materials, which it vivifies, and eventually, as it ripens, gives off its own proper acorns, which again run the same course. But I need not multiply examples,--from the highest to the lowest the essential features of life are the same as I have described in each of these cases. So much, then, for these particular features of the organic world, which you can understand and comprehend, so long as you confine yourself to one sort of living being, and study that only. But, as you know, horses are not the only living creatures in the world; and again, horses, like all other animals, have certain limits--are confined to a certain area on the surface of the earth on which we live,--and, as that is the simpler matter, I may take that first. In its wild state, and before the discovery of America, when the natural state of things was interfered with by the Spaniards, the horse was only to be found in parts of the earth which are known to geographers as the Old World; that is to say, you might meet with horses in Europe, Asia, or Africa; but there were none in Australia, and there were none whatsoever in the whole continent of America, from Labrador down to Cape Horn. This is an empirical fact, and it is what is called, stated in the way I have given it you, the "Geographical Distribution" of the horse. Why horses should be found in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and not in America, is not obvious; the explanation that the conditions of life in America are unfavourable to their existence, and that, therefore, they had not been created there, evidently does not apply; for when the invading Spaniards, or our own yeomen farmers, conveyed horses to these countries for their own use, they were found to thrive well and multiply very rapidly; and many are even now running wild in those countries, and in a perfectly natural condition. Now, suppose we were to do for every animal what we have here done for the horse,--that is, to mark off and distinguish the particular district or region to which each belonged; and supposing we tabulated all these results, that would be called the Geographical Distribution of animals, while a corresponding study of plants would yield as a result the Geographical Distribution of plants. I pass on from that now, as I merely wished to explain to you what I meant by the use of the term "Geographical Distribution." As I said, there is another aspect, and a much more important one, and that is, the relations of the various animals to one another. The horse is a very well-defined matter-of-fact sort of animal, and we are all pretty familiar with its structure. I dare say it may have struck you, that it resembles very much no other member of the animal kingdom, except perhaps the zebra or the ass. But let me ask you to look along these diagrams. Here is the skeleton of the horse, and here the skeleton of the dog. You will notice that we have in the horse a skull, a backbone and ribs, shoulder-blades and haunch-bones. In the fore-limb, one upper arm-bone, two fore arm-bones, wrist-bones (wrongly called knee), and middle hand-bones, ending in the three bones of a finger, the last of which is sheathed in the horny hoof of the fore-foot: in the hind-limb, one thigh-bone, two leg-bones, ankle-bones, and middle foot-bones, ending in the three bones of a toe, the last of which is encased in the hoof of the hind-foot. Now turn to the dog's skeleton. We find identically the same bones, but more of them, there being more toes in each foot, and hence more toe-bones. Well, that is a very curious thing! The fact is that the dog and the horse--when one gets a look at them without the outward impediments of the skin--are found to be made in very much the same sort of fashion. And if I were to make a transverse section of the dog, I should find the same organs that I have already shown you as forming parts of the horse. Well, here is another skeleton--that of a kind of lemur--you see he has just the same bones; and if I were to make a transverse section of it, it would be just the same again. In your mind's eye turn him round, so as to put his backbone in a position inclined obliquely upwards and forwards, just as in the next three diagrams, which represent the skeletons of an orang, a chimpanzee, and a gorilla, and you find you have no trouble in identifying the bones throughout; and lastly turn to the end of the series, the diagram representing a man's skeleton, and still you find no great structural feature essentially altered. There are the same bones in the same relations. From the horse we pass on and on, with gradual steps until we arrive at last at the highest known forms. On the other hand, take the other line of diagrams, and pass from the horse downwards in the scale to this fish; and still, though the modifications are vastly greater, the essential framework of the organisation remains unchanged. Here, for instance, is a porpoise: here is its strong backbone, with the cavity running through it, which contains the spinal cord; here are the ribs, here the shoulder-blade; here is the little short upper-arm bone, here are the two forearm bones, the wrist-bone, and the finger-bones. Strange, is it not, that the porpoise should have in this queer-looking affair--its flapper (as it is called), the same fundamental elements as the fore-leg of the horse or the dog, or the ape or man; and here you will notice a very curious thing,--the hinder limbs are absent. Now, let us make another jump. Let us go to the codfish: here you see is the forearm, in this large pectoral fin--carrying your mind's eye onward from the flapper of the porpoise. And here you have the hinder limbs restored in the shape of these ventral fins. If I were to make a transverse section of this, I should find just the same organs that we have before noticed. So that, you see, there comes out this strange conclusion as the result of our investigations, that the horse, when examined and compared with other animals, is found by no means to stand alone in Nature; but that there are an enormous number of other creatures which have backbones, ribs, and legs, and other parts arranged in the same general manner, and in all their formation exhibiting the same broad peculiarities. I am sure that you cannot have followed me even in this extremely elementary exposition of the structural relations of animals, without seeing what I have been driving at all through, which is, to show you that, step by step, naturalists have come to the idea of a unity of plan, or conformity of construction, among animals which appeared at first sight to be extremely dissimilar. And here you have evidence of such a unity of plan among all the animals which have backbones, and which we technically call _Vertebrata_. But there are multitudes of other animals, such as crabs, lobsters, spiders, and so on, which we term _Annulosa_. In these I could not point out to you the parts that correspond with those of the horse,--the backbone, for instance,--as they are constructed upon a very different principle, which is also common to all of them; that is to say, the lobster, the spider, and the centipede, have a common plan running through their whole arrangement, in just the same way that the horse, the dog, and the porpoise assimilate to each other. Yet other creatures--whelks, cuttlefishes, oysters, snails, and all their tribe (_Mollusca_)--resemble one another in the same way, but differ from both _Vertebrata_ and _Annulosa_; and the like is true of the animals called _Coelenterata_ (Polypes) and _Protozoa_ (animalcules and sponges). Now, by pursuing this sort of comparison, naturalists have arrived at the conviction that there are,--some think five, and some seven,--but certainly not more than the latter number--and perhaps it is simpler to assume five--distinct plans or constructions in the whole of the animal world; and that the hundreds of thousands of species of creatures on the surface of the earth, are all reducible to those five, or, at most, seven, plans of organisation. But can we go no further than that? When one has got so far, one is tempted to go on a step and inquire whether we cannot go back yet further and bring down the whole to modifications of one primordial unit. The anatomist cannot do this; but if he call to his aid the study of development, he can do it. For we shall find that, distinct as those plans are, whether it be a porpoise or man, or lobster, or any of those other kinds I have mentioned, every one begins its existence with one and the same primitive form,--that of the egg, consisting, as we have seen, of a nitrogenous substance, having a small particle or nucleus in the centre of it. Furthermore, the earlier changes of each are substantially the same. And it is in this that lies that true "unity of organisation" of the animal kingdom which has been guessed at and fancied for many years; but which it has been left to the present time to be demonstrated by the careful study of development. But is it possible to go another step further still, and to show that in the same way the whole of the organic world is reducible to one primitive condition of form? Is there among the plants the same primitive form of organisation, and is that identical with that of the animal kingdom? The reply to that question, too, is not uncertain or doubtful. It is now proved that every plant begins its existence under the same form; that is to say, in that of a cell--a particle of nitrogenous matter having substantially the same conditions. So that if you trace back the oak to its first germ, or a man, or a horse, or lobster, or oyster, or any other animal you choose to name, you shall find each and all of these commencing their existence in forms essentially similar to each other; and, furthermore, that the first processes of growth, and many of the subsequent modifications, are essentially the same in principle in almost all. In conclusion, let me, in a few words, recapitulate the positions which I have laid down. And you must understand that I have not been talking mere theory; I have been speaking of matters which are as plainly demonstrable as the commonest propositions of Euclid--of facts that must form the basis of all speculations and beliefs in Biological science. We have gradually traced down all organic forms, or, in other words, we have analysed the present condition of animated nature, until we found that each species took its origin in a form similar to that under which all the others commenced their existence. We have found the whole of the vast array of living forms with which we are surrounded, constantly growing, increasing, decaying and disappearing; the animal constantly attracting, modifying, and applying to its sustenance the matter of the vegetable kingdom, which derived its support from the absorption and conversion of inorganic matter. And so constant and universal is this absorption, waste, and reproduction, that it may be said with perfect certainty that there is left in no one of our bodies at the present moment a millionth part of the matter of which they were originally formed! We have seen, again, that not only is the living matter derived from the inorganic world, but that the forces of that matter are all of them correlative with and convertible into those of inorganic nature. This, for our present purposes, is the best view of the present condition of organic nature which I can lay before you: it gives you the great outlines of a vast picture, which you must fill up by your own study. In the next lecture I shall endeavour in the same way to go back into the past, and to sketch in the same broad manner the history of life in epochs preceding our own. II. THE PAST CONDITION OF ORGANIC NATURE In the lecture which I delivered last Monday evening, I endeavoured to sketch in a very brief manner, but as well as the time at my disposal would permit, the present condition of organic nature, meaning by that large title simply an indication of the great, broad, and general principles which are to be discovered by those who look attentively at the phenomena of organic nature as at present displayed. The general result of our investigations might be summed up thus: we found that the multiplicity of the forms of animal life, great as that may be, may be reduced to a comparatively few primitive plans or types of construction; that a further study of the development of those different forms revealed to us that they were again reducible, until we at last brought the infinite diversity of animal, and even vegetable life, down to the primordial form of a single cell. We found that our analysis of the organic world, whether animals or plants, showed, in the long run, that they might both be reduced into, and were, in fact, composed of, the same constituents. And we saw that the plant obtained the materials constituting its substance by a peculiar combination of matters belonging entirely to the inorganic world; that, then, the animal was constantly appropriating the nitrogenous matters of the plant to its own nourishment, and returning them back to the inorganic world, in what we spoke of as its waste; and that finally, when the animal ceased to exist, the constituents of its body were dissolved and transmitted to that inorganic world whence they had been at first abstracted. Thus we saw in both the blade of grass and the horse but the same elements differently combined and arranged. We discovered a continual circulation going on,--the plant drawing in the elements of inorganic nature and combining them into food for the animal creation; the animal borrowing from the plant the matter for its own support, giving off during its life products which returned immediately to the inorganic world; and that, eventually, the constituent materials of the whole structure of both animals and plants were thus returned to their original source: there was a constant passage from one state of existence to another, and a returning back again. Lastly, when we endeavoured to form some notion of the nature of the forces exercised by living beings, we discovered that they--if not capable of being subjected to the same minute analysis as the constituents of those beings themselves--that they were correlative with--that they were the equivalents of the forces of inorganic nature--that they were, in the sense in which the term is now used, convertible with them. That was our general result. And now, leaving the Present, I must endeavour in the same manner to put before you the facts that are to be discovered in the Past history of the living world, in the past conditions of organic nature. We have, to-night, to deal with the facts of that history--a history involving periods of time before which our mere human records sink into utter insignificance--a history the variety and physical magnitude of whose events cannot even be foreshadowed by the history of human life and human phenomena--a history of the most varied and complex character. We must deal with the history, then, in the first place, as we should deal with all other histories. The historical student knows that his first business should be to inquire into the validity of his evidence, and the nature of the record in which the evidence is contained, that he may be able to form a proper estimate of the correctness of the conclusions which have been drawn from that evidence. So, here we must pass, in the first place, to the consideration of a matter which may seem foreign to the question under discussion. We must dwell upon the nature of the records, and the credibility of the evidence they contain; we must look to the completeness or incompleteness of those records themselves, before we turn to that which they contain and reveal. The question of the credibility of the history, happily for us, will not require much consideration, for, in this history, unlike those of human origin, there can be no cavilling, no differences as to the reality and truth of the facts of which it is made up; the facts state themselves, and are laid out clearly before us. But, although one of the greatest difficulties of the historical student is cleared out of our path, there are other difficulties--difficulties in rightly interpreting the facts as they are presented to us--which may be compared with the greatest difficulties of any other kinds of historical study. What is this record of the past history of the globe, and what are the questions which are involved in an inquiry into its completeness or incompleteness? That record is composed of mud; and the question which we have to investigate this evening resolves itself into a question of the formation of mud. You may think, perhaps, that this is a vast step--of almost from the sublime to the ridiculous--from the contemplation of the history of the past ages of the world's existence to the consideration of the history of the formation of mud! But, in Nature, there is nothing mean and unworthy of attention; there is nothing ridiculous or contemptible in any of her works; and this inquiry, you will soon see, I hope, takes us to the very root and foundations of our subject. How, then, is mud formed? Always, with some trifling exceptions, which I need not consider now--always, as the result of the action of water, wearing down and disintegrating the surface of the earth and rocks with which it comes in contact--pounding and grinding it down, and carrying the particles away to places where they cease to be disturbed by this mechanical action, and where they can subside and rest. For the ocean, urged by winds, washes, as we know, a long extent of coast, and every wave, loaded as it is with particles of sand and gravel as it breaks upon the shore, does something towards the disintegrating process. And thus, slowly but surely, the hardest rocks are gradually ground down to a powdery substance; and the mud thus formed, coarser or finer, as the case may be, is carried by the rush of the tides, or currents, till it reaches the comparatively deeper parts of the ocean, in which it can sink to the bottom, that is, to parts where there is a depth of about fourteen or fifteen fathoms, a depth at which the water is, usually, nearly motionless, and in which, of course, the finer particles of this detritus, or mud as we call it, sinks to the bottom. Or, again, if you take a river, rushing down from its mountain sources, brawling over the stones and rocks that intersect its path, loosening, removing, and carrying with it in its downward course the pebbles and lighter matters from its banks, it crushes and pounds down the rocks and earths in precisely the same way as the wearing action of the sea waves. The matters forming the deposit are torn from the mountain-side and whirled impetuously into the valley, more slowly over the plain, thence into the estuary, and from the estuary they are swept into the sea. The coarser and heavier fragments are obviously deposited first, that is, as soon as the current begins to lose its force by becoming amalgamated with the stiller depths of the ocean, but the finer and lighter particles are carried further on, and eventually deposited in a deeper and stiller portion of the ocean. It clearly follows from this that mud gives us a chronology; for it is evident that supposing this, which I now sketch, to be the sea bottom, and supposing this to be a coast-line; from the washing action of the sea upon the rock, wearing and grinding it down into a sediment of mud, the mud will be carried down, and, at length, deposited in the deeper parts of this sea bottom, where it will form a layer; and then, while that first layer is hardening, other mud which is coming from the same source will, of course, be carried to the same place; and, as it is quite impossible for it to get beneath the layer already there, it deposits itself above it, and forms another layer, and in that way you gradually have layers of mud constantly forming and hardening one above the other, and conveying a record of time. It is a necessary result of the operation of the law of gravitation that the uppermost layer shall be the youngest and the lowest the oldest, and that the different beds shall be older at any particular point or spot in exactly the ratio of their depth from the surface. So that if they were upheaved afterwards, and you had a series of these different layers of mud, converted into sandstone, or limestone, as the case might be, you might be sure that the bottom layer was deposited first, and that the upper layers were formed afterwards. Here, you see, is the first step in the history--these layers of mud give us an idea of time. The whole surface of the earth,--I speak broadly, and leave out minor qualifications,--is made up of such layers of mud, so hard, the majority of them, that we call them rock whether limestone or sandstone, or other varieties of rock. And, seeing that every part of the crust of the earth is made up in this way, you might think that the determination of the chronology, the fixing of the time which it has taken to form this crust is a comparatively simple matter. Take a broad average, ascertain how fast the mud is deposited upon the bottom of the sea, or in the estuary of rivers; take it to be an inch, or two, or three inches a year, or whatever you may roughly estimate it at; then take the total thickness of the whole series of stratified rocks, which geologists estimate at twelve or thirteen miles, or about seventy thousand feet, make a sum in short division, divide the total thickness by that of the quantity deposited in one year, and the result will, of course, give you the number of years which the crust has taken to form. Truly, that looks a very simple process! It would be so except for certain difficulties, the very first of which is that of finding how rapidly sediments are deposited; but the main difficulty--a difficulty which renders any certain calculations of such a matter out of the question--is this, the sea-bottom on which the deposit takes place is continually shifting. Instead of the surface of the earth being that stable, fixed thing that it is popularly believed to be, being, in common parlance, the very emblem of fixity itself, it is incessantly moving, and is, in fact, as unstable as the surface of the sea, except that its undulations are infinitely slower and enormously higher and deeper. Now, what is the effect of this oscillation? Take the case to which I have previously referred. The finer or coarser sediments that are carried down by the current of the river, will only be carried out a certain distance, and eventually, as we have already seen, on reaching the stiller part of the ocean, will be deposited at the bottom. [Illustration: Fig. 4.] Let C _y_ (Fig. 4) be the sea-bottom, _y_ D the shore, _x y_ the sea-level, then the coarser deposit will subside over the region B, the finer over A, while beyond A there will be no deposit at all; and, consequently, no record will be kept, simply because no deposit is going on. Now, suppose that the whole land, C, D, which we have regarded as stationary, goes down, as it does so, both A and B go further out from the shore, which will be at _y1_; _x1_, _y1_, being the new sea-level. The consequence will be that the layer of mud (A), being now, for the most part, further than the force of the current is strong enough to convey even the finest _débris_, will, of course, receive no more deposits, and having attained a certain thickness will now grow no thicker. We should be misled in taking the thickness of that layer, whenever it may be exposed to our view, as a record of time in the manner in which we are now regarding this subject, as it would give us only an imperfect and partial record: it would seem to represent too short a period of time. Suppose, on the other hand, that the land (C D) had gone on rising slowly and gradually--say an inch or two inches in the course of a century,--what would be the practical effect of that movement? Why, that the sediment A and B which has been already deposited, would eventually be brought nearer to the shore-level and again subjected to the wear and tear of the sea; and directly the sea begins to act upon it, it would of course soon cut up and carry it way, to a greater or less extent, to be re-deposited further out. Well, as there is, in all probability, not one single spot on the whole surface of the earth, which has not been up and down in this way a great many times, it follows that the thickness of the deposits formed at any particular spot cannot be taken (even supposing we had at first obtained correct data as to the rate at which they took place), as affording reliable information as to the period of time occupied in its deposit. So that you see it is absolutely necessary from these facts, seeing that our record entirely consists of accumulations of mud, superimposed one on the other; seeing in the next place that any particular spots on which accumulations have occurred, have been constantly moving up and down, and sometimes out of the reach of a deposit, and at other times its own deposit broken up and carried away, it follows that our record must be in the highest degree imperfect, and we have hardly a trace left of thick deposits, or any definite knowledge of the area that they occupied, in a great many cases. And mark this! That supposing even that the whole surface of the earth had been accessible to the geologist,--that man had had access to every part of the earth, and had made sections of the whole, and put them all together,--even then his record must of necessity be imperfect. But to how much has man really access? If you will look at this map you will see that it represents the proportion of the sea to the earth: this coloured part indicates all the dry land, and this other portion is the water. You will notice at once that the water covers three-fifths of the whole surface of the globe, and has covered it in the same manner ever since man has kept any record of his own observations, to say nothing of the minute period during which he has cultivated geological inquiry. So that three-fifths of the surface of the earth is shut out from us because it is under the sea. Let us look at the other two-fifths, and see what are the countries in which anything that may be termed searching geological inquiry has been carried out: a good deal of France, Germany, and Great Britain and Ireland, bits of Spain, of Italy, and of Russia, have been examined, but of the whole great mass of Africa, except parts of the southern extremity, we know next to nothing; little bits of India, but of the greater part of the Asiatic continent nothing; bits of the Northern American States and of Canada, but of the greater part of the continent of North America, and in still larger proportion, of South America, nothing! Under these circumstances, it follows that even with reference to that kind of imperfect information which we can possess, it is only of about the ten-thousandth part of the accessible parts of the earth that has been examined properly. Therefore, it is with justice that the most thoughtful of those who are concerned in these inquiries insist continually upon the imperfection of the geological record; for, I repeat, it is absolutely necessary, from the nature of things, that that record should be of the most fragmentary and imperfect character. Unfortunately this circumstance has been constantly forgotten. Men of science, like young colts in a fresh pasture, are apt to be exhilarated on being turned into a new field of inquiry, to go off at a hand-gallop, in total disregard of hedges and ditches, to lose sight of the real limitation of their inquiries, and to forget the extreme imperfection of what is really known. Geologists have imagined that they could tell us what was going on at all parts of the earth's surface during a given epoch; they have talked of this deposit being contemporaneous with that deposit, until, from our little local histories of the changes at limited spots of the earth's surface, they have constructed a universal history of the globe as full of wonders and portents as any other story of antiquity. But what does this attempt to construct a universal history of the globe imply? It implies that we shall not only have a precise knowledge of the events which have occurred at any particular point, but that we shall be able to say what events, at any one spot, took place at the same time with those at other spots. Let us see how far that is in the nature of things practicable. Suppose that here I make a section of the Lake of Killarney, and here the section of another lake--that of Loch Lomond in Scotland for instance. The rivers that flow into them are constantly carrying down deposits of mud, and beds, or strata, are being as constantly formed, one above the other, at the bottom of those lakes. Now, there is not a shadow of doubt that in these two lakes the lower beds are all older than the upper--there is no doubt about that; but what does _this_ tell us about the age of any given bed in Loch Lomond, as compared with that of any given bed in the Lake of Killarney? It is, indeed, obvious that if any two sets of deposits are separated and discontinuous, there is absolutely no means whatever given you by the nature of the deposit of saying whether one is much younger or older than the other; but you may say, as many have said and think, that the case is very much altered if the beds which we are comparing are continuous. Suppose two beds of mud hardened into rock,--A and B--are seen in section. (Fig. 5.) [Illustration: Fig. 5.] Well, you say, it is admitted that the lowermost bed is always the older. Very well; B, therefore, is older than A. No doubt, _as a whole_, it is so; or if any parts of the two beds which are in the same vertical line are compared, it is so. But suppose you take what seems a very natural step further, and say that the part _a_ of the bed A is younger than the part _b_ of the bed B. Is this sound reasoning? If you find any record of changes taking place at _b_, did they occur before any events which took place while _a_ was being deposited? It looks all very plain sailing, indeed, to say that they did; and yet there is no proof of anything of the kind. As the former Director of this Institution, Sir H. De la Beche, long ago showed, this reasoning may involve an entire fallacy. It is extremely possible that _a_ may have been deposited ages before _b_. It is very easy to understand how that can be. To return to Fig. 4; when A and B were deposited, they were _substantially_ contemporaneous; A being simply the finer deposit, and B the coarser of the same detritus or waste of land. Now suppose that that sea-bottom goes down (as shown in Fig. 4), so that the first deposit is carried no farther than _a_, forming the bed A1, and the coarse no farther than _b_, forming the bed B1, the result will be the formation of two continuous beds, one of fine sediment (A A1) over-lapping another of coarse sediment (B B1). Now suppose the whole sea-bottom is raised up, and a section exposed about the point A1; no doubt, _at this spot_, the upper bed is younger than the lower. But we should obviously greatly err if we concluded that the mass of the upper bed at A was younger than the lower bed at B; for we have just seen that they are contemporaneous deposits. Still more should we be in error if we supposed the upper bed at A to be younger than the continuation of the lower bed at B1; for A was deposited long before B1. In fine, if, instead of comparing immediately adjacent parts of two beds, one of which lies upon another, we compare distant parts, it is quite possible that the upper may be any number of years older than the under, and the under any number of years younger than the upper. Now you must not suppose that I put this before you for the purpose of raising a paradoxical difficulty; the fact is, that the great mass of deposits have taken place in sea-bottoms which are gradually sinking, and have been formed under the very conditions I am here supposing. Do not run away with the notion that this subverts the principle I laid down at first. The error lies in extending a principle which is perfectly applicable to deposits in the same vertical line to deposits which are not in that relation to one another. It is in consequence of circumstances of this kind, and of others that I might mention to you, that our conclusions on and interpretations of the record are really and strictly only valid so long as we confine ourselves to one vertical section. I do not mean to tell you that there are no qualifying circumstances, so that, even in very considerable areas, we may safely speak of conformably superimposed beds being older or younger than others at many different points. But we can never be quite sure in coming to that conclusion, and especially we cannot be sure if there is any break in their continuity, or any very great distance between the points to be compared. Well now, so much for the record itself,--so much for its imperfections,--so much for the conditions to be observed in interpreting it, and its chronological indications, the moment we pass beyond the limits of a vertical linear section. Now let us pass from the record to that which it contains,--from the book itself to the writing and the figures on its pages. This writing and these figures consist of remains of animals and plants which, in the great majority of cases, have lived and died in the very spot in which we now find them, or at least in the immediate vicinity. You must all of you be aware--and I referred to the fact in my last lecture--that there are vast numbers of creatures living at the bottom of the sea. These creatures, like all others, sooner or later die, and their shells and hard parts lie at the bottom; and then the fine mud which is being constantly brought down by rivers and the action of the wear and tear of the sea, covers them over and protects them from any further change or alteration; and, of course, as in process of time the mud becomes hardened and solidified, the shells of these animals are preserved and firmly imbedded in the limestone or sandstone which is being thus formed. You may see in the galleries of the Museum up stairs specimens of limestones in which such fossil remains of existing animals are imbedded. There are some specimens in which turtles' eggs have been imbedded in calcareous sand, and before the sun had hatched the young turtles, they became covered over with calcareous mud, and thus have been preserved and fossilised. Not only does this process of imbedding and fossilisation occur with marine and other aquatic animals and plants, but it affects those land animals and plants which are drifted away to sea, or become buried in bogs or morasses; and the animals which have been trodden down by their fellows and crushed in the mud at the river's bank, as the herd have come to drink. In any of these cases, the organisms may be crushed or be mutilated, before or after putrefaction, in such a manner that perhaps only a part will be left in the form in which it reaches us. It is, indeed, a most remarkable fact, that it is quite an exceptional case to find a skeleton of any one of all the thousands of wild land animals that we know are constantly being killed, or dying in the course of nature: they are preyed on and devoured by other animals, or die in places where their bodies are not afterwards protected by mud. There are other animals existing on the sea, the shells of which form exceedingly large deposits. You are probably aware that before the attempt was made to lay the Atlantic telegraphic cable, the Government employed vessels in making a series of very careful observations and soundings of the bottom of the Atlantic; and although, as we must all regret, that up to the present time that project has not succeeded, we have the satisfaction of knowing that it yielded some most remarkable results to science. The Atlantic Ocean had to be sounded right across, to depths of several miles in some places, and the nature of its bottom was carefully ascertained. Well, now, a space of about 1,000 miles wide from east to west, and I do not exactly know how many from north to south, but at any rate 600 or 700 miles, was carefully examined, and it was found that over the whole of that immense area an excessively fine chalky mud is being deposited; and this deposit is entirely made up of animals whose hard parts are deposited in this part of the ocean, and are doubtless gradually acquiring solidity and becoming metamorphosed into a chalky limestone. Thus, you see, it is quite possible in this way to preserve unmistakable records of animal and vegetable life. Whenever the sea-bottom, by some of those undulations of the earth's crust that I have referred to, becomes up-heaved, and sections or borings are made, or pits are dug, then we become able to examine the contents and constituents of these ancient sea-bottoms, and find out what manner of animals lived at that period. Now it is a very important consideration in its bearing on the completeness of the record, to inquire how far the remains contained in these fossiliferous limestones are able to convey anything like an accurate or complete account of the animals which were in existence at the time of its formation. Upon that point we can form a very clear judgment, and one in which there is no possible room for any mistake. There are of course a great number of animals--such as jellyfishes, and other animals--without any hard parts, of which we cannot reasonably expect to find any traces whatever: there is nothing of them to preserve. Within a very short time, you will have noticed, after they are removed from the water, they dry up to a mere nothing; certainly they are not of a nature to leave any very visible traces of their existence on such bodies as chalk or mud. Then again, look at land animals; it is, as I have said, a very uncommon thing to find a land animal entire after death. Insects and other carnivorous animals very speedily pull them to pieces, putrefaction takes place, and so, out of the hundreds of thousands that are known to die every year, it is the rarest thing in the world to see one imbedded in such a way that its remains would be preserved for a lengthened period. Not only is this the case, but even when animal remains have been safely imbedded, certain natural agents may wholly destroy and remove them. Almost all the hard parts of animals--the bones and so on--are composed chiefly of phosphate of lime and carbonate of lime. Some years ago, I had to make an inquiry into the nature of some very curious fossils sent to me from the North of Scotland. Fossils are usually hard bony structures that have become imbedded in the way I have described, and have gradually acquired the nature and solidity of the body with which they are associated; but in this case I had a series of _holes_ in some pieces of rock, and nothing else. Those holes, however, had a certain definite shape about them, and when I got a skilful workman to make castings of the interior of these holes, I found that they were the impressions of the joints of a backbone and of the armour of a great reptile, twelve or more feet long. This great beast had died and got buried in the sand; the sand had gradually hardened over the bones, but remained porous. Water had trickled through it, and that water being probably charged with a superfluity of carbonic acid, had dissolved all the phosphate and carbonate of lime, and the bones themselves had thus decayed and entirely disappeared; but as the sandstone happened to have consolidated by that time, the precise shape of the bones was retained. If that sandstone had remained soft a little longer, we should have known nothing whatsoever of the existence of the reptile whose bones it had encased. How certain it is that a vast number of animals which have existed at one period on this earth have entirely perished, and left no trace whatever of their forms, may be proved to you by other considerations. There are large tracts of sandstone in various parts of the world, in which nobody has yet found anything but footsteps. Not a bone of any description, but an enormous number of traces of footsteps. There is no question about them. There is a whole valley in Connecticut covered with these footsteps, and not a single fragment of the animals which made them have yet been found. Let me mention another case while upon that matter, which is even more surprising than those to which I have yet referred. There is a limestone formation near Oxford, at a place called Stonesfield, which has yielded the remains of certain very interesting mammalian animals, and up to this time, if I recollect rightly, there have been found seven specimens of its lower jaws, and not a bit of anything else, neither limb-bones nor skull, nor any part whatever; not a fragment of the whole system! Of course, it would be preposterous to imagine that the beasts had nothing else but a lower jaw! The probability is, as Dr. Buckland showed, as the result of his observations on dead dogs in the river Thames, that the lower jaw, not being secured by very firm ligaments to the bones of the head, and being a weighty affair, would easily be knocked off, or might drop away from the body as it floated in water in a state of decomposition. The jaw would thus be deposited immediately, while the rest of the body would float and drift away altogether, ultimately reaching the sea, and perhaps becoming destroyed. The jaw becomes covered up and preserved in the river silt, and thus it comes that we have such a curious circumstance as that of the lower jaws in the Stonesfield slates. So that, you see, faulty as these layers of stone in the earth's crust are, defective as they necessarily are as a record, the account of contemporaneous vital phenomena presented by them is, by the necessity of the case, infinitely more defective and fragmentary. It was necessary that I should put all this very strongly before you, because, otherwise, you might have been led to think differently of the completeness of our knowledge by the next facts I shall state to you. The researches of the last three-quarters of a century have, in truth, revealed a wonderful richness of organic life in those rocks. Certainly not fewer than thirty or forty thousand different species of fossils have been discovered. You have no more ground for doubting that these creatures really lived and died at or near the places in which we find them than you have for like scepticism about a shell on the sea-shore. The evidence is as good in the one case as in the other. Our next business is to look at the general character of these fossil remains, and it is a subject which will be requisite to consider carefully; and the first point for us is to examine how much the extinct _Flora_ and _Fauna_ as a _whole_--disregarding altogether the _succession_ of their constituents, of which I shall speak afterwards--differ from the _Flora_ and _Fauna_ of the present day;--how far they differ in what we _do_ know about them, leaving altogether out of consideration speculations based upon what we _do not_ know. I strongly imagine that if it were not for the peculiar appearance that fossilised animals have, any of you might readily walk through a museum which contains fossil remains mixed up with those of the present forms of life, and I doubt very much whether your uninstructed eyes would lead you to see any vast or wonderful difference between the two. If you looked closely, you would notice, in the first place, a great many things very like animals with which you are acquainted now: you would see differences of shape and proportion, but on the whole a close similarity. I explained what I meant by ORDERS the other day, when I described the animal kingdom as being divided into sub-kingdoms, classes and orders. If you divide the animal kingdom into orders you will find that there are above one hundred and twenty. The number may vary on one side or the other, but this is a fair estimate. That is the sum total of the orders of all the animals which we know now, and which have been known in past times, and left remains behind. Now, how many of those are absolutely extinct? That is to say, how many of these orders of animals have lived at a former period of the world's history but have at present no representatives? That is the sense in which I meant to use the word "extinct." I mean that those animals did live on this earth at one time, but have left no one of their kind with us at the present moment. So that estimating the number of extinct animals is a sort of way of comparing the past creation as a whole with the present as a whole. Among the mammalia and birds there are none extinct; but when we come to the reptiles there is a most wonderful thing: out of the eight orders, or thereabouts, which you can make among reptiles, one-half are extinct. These diagrams of the plesiosaurus, the ichthyosaurus, the pterodactyle, give you a notion of some of these extinct reptiles. And here is a cast of the pterodactyle and bones of the ichthyosaurus and the plesiosaurus, just as fresh-looking as if it had been recently dug up in a churchyard. Thus, in the reptile class, there are no less than half of the orders which are absolutely extinct. If we turn to the _Amphibia_, there was one extinct order, the Labyrinthodonts, typified by the large salamander-like beast shown in this diagram. No order of fishes is known to be extinct. Every fish that we find in the strata--to which I have been referring--can be identified and placed in one of the orders which exist at the present day. There is not known to be a single ordinal form of insect extinct. There are only two orders extinct among the _Crustacea_. There is not known to be an extinct order of these creatures, the parasitic and other worms; but there are two, not to say three, absolutely extinct orders of this class, the _Echinodermata_; out of all the orders of the _Coelenterata_ and _Protozoa_ only one, the Rugose Corals. So that, you see, out of somewhere about 120 orders of animals, taking them altogether, you will not, at the outside estimate, find above ten or a dozen extinct. Summing up all the order of animals which have left remains behind them, you will not find above ten or a dozen which cannot be arranged with those of the present day; that is to say, that the difference does not amount to much more than ten per cent.: and the proportion of extinct orders of plants is still smaller. I think that that is a very astounding a most astonishing fact: seeing the enormous epochs of time which have elapsed during the constitution of the surface of the earth as it at present exists, it is, indeed, a most astounding thing that the proportion of extinct ordinal types should be so exceedingly small. But now, there is another point of view in which we must look at this past creation. Suppose that we were to sink a vertical pit through the floor beneath us, and that I could succeed in making a section right through in the direction of New Zealand, I should find in each of the different beds through which I passed the remains of animals which I should find in that stratum and not in the others. First, I should come upon beds of gravel or drift containing the bones of large animals, such as the elephant, rhinoceros, and cave tiger. Rather curious things to fall across in Piccadilly! If I should dig lower still, I should come upon a bed of what we call the London clay, and in this, as you will see in our galleries up stairs, are found remains of strange cattle, remains of turtles, palms, and large tropical fruits; with shell-fish such as you see the like of now only in tropical regions. If I went below that, I should come upon the chalk, and there I should find something altogether different, the remains of ichthyosauria and pterodactyles, and ammonites, and so forth. I do not know what Mr. Godwin Austin would say comes next, but probably rocks containing more ammonites, and more ichthyosauria and plesiosauria, with a vast number of other things; and under that I should meet with yet older rocks containing numbers of strange shells and fishes; and in thus passing from the surface to the lowest depths of the earth's crust, the forms of animal life and vegetable life which I should meet with in the successive beds would, looking at them broadly, be the more different the further that I went down. Or, in other words, inasmuch as we started with the clear principle, that in a series of naturally-disposed mud beds the lowest are the oldest, we should come to this result, that the further we go back in time the more difference exists between the animal and vegetable life of an epoch and that which now exists. That was the conclusion to which I wished to bring you at the end of this lecture. III. THE METHOD BY WHICH THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT AND PAST CONDITIONS OF ORGANIC NATURE ARE TO BE DISCOVERED;--THE ORIGINATION OF LIVING BEINGS In the two preceding lectures I have endeavoured to indicate to you the extent of the subject-matter of the inquiry upon which we are engaged; and having thus acquired some conception of the past and present phenomena of organic nature, I must now turn to that which constitutes the great problem which we have set before ourselves;--I mean, the question of what knowledge we have of the causes of these phenomena of organic nature, and how such knowledge is obtainable. Here, on the threshold of the inquiry, an objection meets us. There are in the world a number of extremely worthy, well-meaning persons, whose judgments and opinions are entitled to the utmost respect on account of their sincerity, who are of opinion that vital phenomena, and especially all questions relating to the origin of vital phenomena, are questions quite apart from the ordinary run of inquiry, and are, by their very nature, placed out of our reach. They say that all these phenomena originated miraculously, or in some way totally different from the ordinary course of nature, and that therefore they conceive it to be futile, not to say presumptuous, to attempt to inquire into them. To such sincere and earnest persons, I would only say, that a question of this kind is not to be shelved upon theoretical or speculative grounds. You may remember the story of the Sophist who demonstrated to Diogenes in the most complete and satisfactory manner that he could not walk; that, in fact, all motion was an impossibility; and that Diogenes refuted him by simply getting up and walking round his tub. So, in the same way, the man of science replies to objections of this kind, by simply getting up and walking onward, and showing what science has done and is doing---by pointing to that immense mass of facts which have been ascertained as systematised under the forms of the great doctrines of morphology, of development, of distribution, and the like. He sees an enormous mass of facts and laws relating to organic beings, which stand on the same good sound foundation as every other natural law. With this mass of facts and laws before us, therefore, seeing that, as far as organic matters have hitherto been accessible and studied, they have shown themselves capable of yielding to scientific investigation, we may accept this as proof that order and law reign there as well as in the rest of Nature. The man of science says nothing to objectors of this sort, but supposes that we can and shall walk to a knowledge of the origin of organic nature, in the same way that we have walked to a knowledge of the laws and principles of the inorganic world. But there are objectors who say the same from ignorance and ill-will. To such I would reply that the objection comes ill from them, and that the real presumption, I may almost say the real blasphemy, in this matter, is in the attempt to limit that inquiry into the causes of phenomena, which is the source of all human blessings, and from which has sprung all human prosperity and progress; for, after all, we can accomplish comparatively little; the limited range of our own faculties bounds us on every side,--the field of our powers of observation is small enough, and he who endeavours to narrow the sphere of our inquiries is only pursuing a course that is likely to produce the greatest harm to his fellow-men. But now, assuming, as we all do, I hope, that these phenomena are properly accessible to inquiry, and setting out upon our search into the causes of the phenomena of organic nature, or at any rate, setting out to discover how much we at present know upon these abstruse matters, the question arises as to what is to be our course of proceeding, and what method we must lay down for our guidance. I reply to that question, that our method must be exactly the same as that which is pursued in any other scientific inquiry, the method of scientific investigation being the same for all orders of facts and phenomena whatsoever. I must dwell a little on this point, for I wish you to leave this room with a very clear conviction that scientific investigation is not, as many people seem to suppose, some kind of modern black art. I say that you might easily gather this impression from the manner in which many persons speak of scientific inquiry, or talk about inductive and deductive philosophy, or the principles of the "Baconian philosophy." I do protest that, of the vast number of cants in this world, there are none, to my mind, so contemptible as the pseudo-scientific cant which is talked about the "Baconian philosophy." To hear people talk about the great Chancellor--and a very great man he certainly was,--you would think that it was he who had invented science, and that there was no such thing as sound reasoning before the time of Queen Elizabeth! Of course you say, that cannot possibly be true; you perceive, on a moment's reflection, that such an idea is absurdly wrong, and yet, so firmly rooted is this sort of impression,--I cannot call it an idea, or conception,--the thing is too absurd to be entertained,--but so completely does it exist at the bottom of most men's minds, that this has been a matter of observation with me for many years past. There are many men who, though knowing absolutely nothing of the subject with which they may be dealing, wish, nevertheless, to damage the author of some view with which they think fit to disagree. What they do, then, is not to go and learn something about the subject, which one would naturally think the best way of fairly dealing with it; but they abuse the originator of the view they question, in a general manner, and wind up by saying that, "After all, you know, the principles and method of this author are totally opposed to the canons of the Baconian philosophy." Then everybody applauds, as a matter of course, and agrees that it must be so. But if you were to stop them all in the middle of their applause, you would probably find that neither the speaker nor his applauders could tell you how or in what way it was so; neither the one nor the other having the slightest idea of what they mean when they speak of the "Baconian philosophy." You will understand, I hope, that I have not the slightest desire to join in the outcry against either the morals, the intellect, or the great genius of Lord Chancellor Bacon. He was undoubtedly a very great man, let people say what they will of him; but notwithstanding all that he did for philosophy, it would be entirely wrong to suppose that the methods of modern scientific inquiry originated with him, or with his age; they originated with the first man, whoever he was; and indeed existed long before him, for many of the essential processes of reasoning are exerted by the higher order of brutes as completely and effectively as by ourselves. We see in many of the brute creation the exercise of one, at least, of the same powers of reasoning as that which we ourselves employ. The method of scientific investigation is nothing but the expression of the necessary mode of working of the human mind. It is simply the mode at which all phenomena are reasoned about, rendered precise and exact. There is no more difference, but there is just the same kind of difference, between the mental operations of a man of science and those of an ordinary person, as there is between the operations and methods of a baker or of a butcher weighing out his goods in common scales, and the operations of a chemist in performing a difficult and complex analysis by means of his balance and finely-graduated weights. It is not that the action of the scales in the one case, and the balance in the other, differ in the principles of their construction or manner of working; but the beam of one is set on an infinitely finer axis than the other, and of course turns by the addition of a much smaller weight. You will understand this better, perhaps, if I give you some familiar example. You have all heard it repeated, I dare say, that men of science work by means of induction and deduction, and that by the help of these operations, they, in a sort of sense, wring from Nature certain other things, which are called natural laws, and causes, and that out of these, by some cunning skill of their own, they build up hypotheses and theories. And it is imagined by many, that the operations of the common mind can be by no means compared with these processes, and that they have to be acquired by a sort of special apprenticeship to the craft. To hear all these large words, you would think that the mind of a man of science must be constituted differently from that of his fellow men; but if you will not be frightened by terms, you will discover that you are quite wrong, and that all these terrible apparatus are being used by yourselves every day and every hour of your lives. There is a well-known incident in one of Molière's plays, where the author makes the hero express unbounded delight on being told that he had been talking prose during the whole of his life. In the same way, I trust, that you will take comfort, and be delighted with yourselves, on the discovery that you have been acting on the principles of inductive and deductive philosophy during the same period. Probably there is not one here who has not in the course of the day had occasion to set in motion a complex train of reasoning, of the very same kind, though differing of course in degree, as that which a scientific man goes through in tracing the causes of natural phenomena. A very trivial circumstance will serve to exemplify this. Suppose you go into a fruiterer's shop, wanting an apple,--you take up one, and, on biting it, you find it is sour; you look at it, and see that it is hard and green. You take up another one, and that too is hard, green, and sour. The shopman offers you a third; but, before biting it, you examine it, and find that it is hard and green, and you immediately say that you will not have it, as it must be sour, like those that you have already tried. Nothing can be more simple than that, you think; but if you will take the trouble to analyse and trace out into its logical elements what has been done by the mind, you will be greatly surprised. In the first place, you have performed the operation of induction. You found that, in two experiences, hardness and greenness in apples went together with sourness. It was so in the first case, and it was confirmed by the second. True, it is a very small basis, but still it is enough to make an induction from; you generalise the facts, and you expect to find sourness in apples where you get hardness and greenness. You found upon that a general law, that all hard and green apples are sour; and that, so far as it goes, is a perfect induction. Well, having got your natural law in this way, when you are offered another apple which you find is hard and green, you say, "All hard and green apples are sour; this apple is hard and green, therefore this apple is sour." That train of reasoning is what logicians call a syllogism, and has all its various parts and terms,--its major premiss, its minor premiss, and its conclusion. And, by the help of further reasoning, which, if drawn out, would have to be exhibited in two or three other syllogisms, you arrive at your final determination, "I will not have that apple." So that, you see, you have, in the first place, established a law by induction, and upon that you have founded a deduction, and reasoned out the special conclusion of the particular case. Well now, suppose, having got your law, that at some time afterwards, you are discussing the qualities of apples with a friend: you will say to him, "It is a very curious thing,--but I find that all hard and green apples are sour!" Your friend says to you, "But how do you know that?" You at once reply, "Oh, because I have tried them over and over again, and have always found them to be so." Well, if we were talking science instead of common sense, we should call that an experimental verification. And, if still opposed, you go further, and say, "I have heard from the people in Somersetshire and Devonshire, where a large number of apples are grown, that they have observed the same thing. It is also found to be the case in Normandy, and in North America. In short, I find it to be the universal experience of mankind wherever attention has been directed to the subject." Whereupon, your friend, unless he is a very unreasonable man, agrees with you, and is convinced that you are quite right in the conclusion you have drawn. He believes, although perhaps he does not know he believes it, that the more extensive verifications are,--that the more frequently experiments have been made, and results of the same kind arrived at,--that the more varied the conditions under which the same results are attained, the more certain is the ultimate conclusion, and he disputes the question no further. He sees that the experiment has been tried under all sorts of conditions, as to time, place, and people, with the same result; and he says with you, therefore, that the law you have laid down must be a good one, and he must believe it. In science we do the same thing;--the philosopher exercises precisely the same faculties, though in a much more delicate manner. In scientific inquiry it becomes a matter of duty to expose a supposed law to every possible kind of verification, and to take care, moreover, that this is done intentionally, and not left to a mere accident, as in the case of the apples. And in science, as in common life, our confidence in a law is in exact proportion to the absence, of variation in the result of our experimental verifications. For instance, if you let go your grasp of an article you may have in your hand, it will immediately fall to the ground. That is a very common verification of one of the best established laws of nature--that of gravitation. The method by which men of science establish the existence of that law is exactly the same as that by which we have established the trivial proposition about the sourness of hard and green apples. But we believe it in such an extensive, thorough, and unhesitating manner because the universal experience of mankind verifies it, and we can verify it ourselves at any time; and that is the strongest possible foundation on which any natural law can rest. So much, then, by way of proof that the method of establishing laws in science is exactly the same as that pursued in common life. Let us now turn to another matter (though really it is but another phase of the same question), and that is, the method by which, from the relations of certain phenomena, we prove that some stand in the position of causes towards the others. I want to put the case clearly before you, and I will therefore show you what I mean by another familiar example. I will suppose that one of you, on coming down in the morning to the parlour of your house, finds that a tea-pot and some spoons which had been left in the room on the previous evening are gone,--the window is open, and you observe the mark of a dirty hand on the window-frame, and perhaps, in addition to that, you notice the impress of a hob-nailed shoe on the gravel outside. All these phenomena have struck your attention instantly, and before two seconds have passed you say, "Oh, somebody has broken open the window, entered the room, and run off with the spoons and the tea-pot!" That speech is out of your mouth in a moment. And you will probably add, "I know there has; I am quite sure of it!" You mean to say exactly what you know; but in reality you are giving expression to what is, in all essential particulars, an hypothesis. You do not _know_ it at all; it is nothing but an hypothesis rapidly framed in your own mind. And it is an hypothesis founded on a long train of inductions and deductions. What are those inductions and deductions, and how have you got at this hypothesis? You have observed, in the first place, that the window is open; but by a train of reasoning involving many inductions and deductions, you have probably arrived long before at the general law--and a very good one it is--that windows do not open of themselves; and you therefore conclude that something has opened the window. A second general law that you have arrived at in the same way is, that tea-pots and spoons do not go out of a window spontaneously, and you are satisfied that, as they are not now where you left them, they have been removed. In the third place, you look at the marks on the window-sill, and the shoe-marks outside, and you say that in all previous experience the former kind of mark has never been produced by anything else but the hand of a human being; and the same experience shows that no other animal but man at present wears shoes with hob-nails in them such as would produce the marks in the gravel. I do not know, even if we could discover any of those "missing links" that are talked about, that they would help us to any other conclusion! At any rate the law which states our present experience is strong enough for my present purpose. You next reach the conclusion, that as these kinds of marks have not been left by any other animals than men, or are liable to be formed in any other way than by a man's hand and shoe, the marks in question have been formed by a man in that way. You have, further, a general law, founded on observation and experience, and that, too, is, I am sorry to say, a very universal and unimpeachable one,--that some men are thieves; and you assume at once from all these premisses--and that is what constitutes your hypothesis--that the man who made the marks outside and on the window-sill, opened the window, got into the room, and stole your tea-pot and spoons. You have now arrived at a _vera causa_;--you have assumed a cause which, it is plain, is competent to produce all the phenomena you have observed. You can explain all these phenomena only by the hypothesis of a thief. But that is a hypothetical conclusion, of the justice of which you have no absolute proof at all; it is only rendered highly probable by a series of inductive and deductive reasonings. I suppose your first action, assuming that you are a man of ordinary common sense, and that you have established this hypothesis to your own satisfaction, will very likely be to go off for the police, and set them on the track of the burglar, with the view to the recovery of your property. But just as you are starting with this object, some person comes in, and on learning what you are about, says, "My good friend, you are going on a great deal too fast. How do you know that the man who really made the marks took the spoons? It might have been a monkey that took them, and the man may have merely looked in afterwards." You would probably reply, "Well, that is all very well, but you see it is contrary to all experience of the way tea-pots and spoons are abstracted; so that, at any rate, your hypothesis is less probable than mine." While you are talking the thing over in this way, another friend arrives, one of that good kind of people that I was talking of a little while ago. And he might say, "Oh, my dear sir, you are certainly going on a great deal too fast. You are most presumptuous. You admit that all these occurrences took place when you were fast asleep, at a time when you could not possibly have known anything about what was taking place. How do you know that the laws of Nature are not suspended during the night? It may be that there has been some kind of supernatural interference in this case." In point of fact, he declares that your hypothesis is one of which you cannot at all demonstrate the truth, and that you are by no means sure that the laws of Nature are the same when you are asleep as when you are awake. Well, now, you cannot at the moment answer that kind of reasoning. You feel that your worthy friend has you somewhat at a disadvantage. You will feel perfectly convinced in your own mind, however, that you are quite right, and you say to him, "My good friend, I can only be guided by the natural probabilities of the case, and if you will be kind enough to stand aside and permit me to pass, I will go and fetch the police." Well, we will suppose that your journey is successful, and that by good luck you meet with a policeman; that eventually the burglar is found with your property on his person, and the marks correspond to his hand and to his boots. Probably any jury would consider those facts a very good experimental verification of your hypothesis, touching the cause of the abnormal phenomena observed in your parlour, and would act accordingly. Now, in this suppositious case, I have taken phenomena of a very common kind, in order that you might see what are the different steps in an ordinary process of reasoning, if you will only take the trouble to analyse it carefully. All the operations I have described, you will see, are involved in the mind of any man of sense in leading him to a conclusion as to the course he should take in order to make good a robbery and punish the offender. I say that you are led, in that case, to your conclusion by exactly the same train of reasoning as that which a man of science pursues when he is endeavouring to discover the origin and laws of the most occult phenomena. The process is, and always must be, the same; and precisely the same mode of reasoning was employed by Newton and Laplace in their endeavours to discover and define the causes of the movements of the heavenly bodies, as you, with your own common sense, would employ to detect a burglar. The only difference is, that the nature of the inquiry being more abstruse, every step has to be most carefully watched, so that there may not be a single crack or flaw in your hypothesis. A flaw or crack in many of the hypotheses of daily life may be of little or no moment as affecting the general correctness of the conclusions at which we may arrive; but, in a scientific inquiry, a fallacy, great or small, is always of importance, and is sure to be in the long run constantly productive of mischievous, if not fatal results. Do not allow yourselves to be misled by the common notion that an hypothesis is untrustworthy simply because it is an hypothesis. It is often urged, in respect to some scientific conclusion, that, after all, it is only an hypothesis. But what more have we to guide us in nine-tenths of the most important affairs of daily life than hypotheses, and often very ill-based ones? So that in science, where the evidence of an hypothesis is subjected to the most rigid examination, we may rightly pursue the same course. You may have hypotheses and hypotheses. A man may say, if he likes, that the moon is made of green cheese: that is an hypothesis. But another man, who has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and availed himself of the most powerful telescopes and the results of the observations of others, declares that in his opinion it is probably composed of materials very similar to those of which our own earth is made up: and that is also only an hypothesis. But I need not tell you that there is an enormous difference in the value of the two hypotheses. That one which is based on sound scientific knowledge is sure to have a corresponding value; and that which is a mere hasty random guess is likely to have but little value. Every great step in our progress in discovering causes has been made in exactly the same way as that which I have detailed to you. A person observing the occurrence of certain facts and phenomena asks, naturally enough, what process, what kind of operation known to occur in Nature applied to the particular case, will unravel and explain the mystery? Hence you have the scientific hypothesis; and its value will be proportionate to the care and completeness with which its basis had been tested and verified. It is in these matters as in the commonest affairs of practical life: the guess of the fool will be folly, while the guess of the wise man will contain wisdom. In all cases, you see that the value of the result depends on the patience and faithfulness with which the investigator applies to his hypothesis every possible kind of verification. I dare say I may have to return to this point by and by; but having dealt thus far with our logical methods, I must now turn to something which, perhaps, you may consider more interesting, or, at any rate, more tangible. But in reality there are but few things that can be more important for you to understand than the mental processes and the means by which we obtain scientific conclusions and theories. [Footnote: Those who wish to study fully the doctrines of which I have endeavoured to give some rough-and-ready illustrations, must read Mr. John Stuart Mill's _System of Logic_.] Having granted that the inquiry is a proper one, and having determined on the nature of the methods we are to pursue and which only can lead to success, I must now turn to the consideration of our knowledge of the nature of the processes which have resulted in the present condition of organic nature. Here, let me say at once, lest some of you misunderstand me, that I have extremely little to report. The question of how the present condition of organic nature came about, resolves itself into two questions. The first is: How has organic or living matter commenced its existence? And the second is: How has it been perpetuated? On the second question I shall have more to say hereafter. But on the first one, what I now have to say will be for the most part of a negative character. If you consider what kind of evidence we can have upon this matter, it will resolve itself into two kinds. We may have historical evidence and we may have experimental evidence. It is, for example, conceivable, that inasmuch as the hardened mud which forms a considerable portion of the thickness of the earth's crust contains faithful records of the past forms of life, and inasmuch as these differ more and more as we go further down,--it is possible and conceivable that we might come to some particular bed or stratum which should contain the remains of those creatures with which organic life began upon the earth. And if we did so, and if such forms of organic life were preservable, we should have what I would call historical evidence of the mode in which organic life began upon this planet. Many persons will tell you, and indeed you will find it stated in many works on geology, that this has been done, and that we really possess such a record; there are some who imagine that the earliest forms of life of which we have as yet discovered any record, are in truth the forms in which animal life began upon the globe. The grounds on which they base that supposition are these:--That if you go through the enormous thickness of the earth's crust and get down to the older rocks, the higher vertebrate animals--the quadrupeds, birds, and fishes--cease to be found; beneath them you find only the invertebrate animals; and in the deepest and lowest rocks those remains become scantier and scantier, not in any very gradual progression, however, until, at length, in what are supposed to be the oldest rocks, the animal remains which are found are almost always confined to four forms--_Oldhamia_, whose precise nature is not known, whether plant or animal; _Lingula_, a kind of mollusc; _Trilobites_, a crustacean animal, having the same essential plan of construction, though differing in many details from a lobster or crab; and _Hymenocaris_, which is also a crustacean. So that you have all the _Fauna_ reduced, at this period, to four forms: one a kind of animal or plant that we know nothing about, and three undoubted animals--two crustaceans and one mollusc. I think, considering the organisation of these mollusca and crustacea, and looking at their very complex nature, that it does indeed require a very strong imagination to conceive that these were the first created of all living things. And you must take into consideration the fact that we have not the slightest proof that these which we call the oldest beds are really so: I repeat, we have not the slightest proof of it. When you find in some places that in an enormous thickness of rocks there are but very scanty traces of life, or absolutely none at all; and that in other parts of the world rocks of the very same formation are crowded with the records of living forms, I think it is impossible to place any reliance on the supposition, or to feel one's self justified in supposing that these are the forms in which life first commenced. I have not time here to enter upon the technical grounds upon which I am led to this conclusion,--that could hardly be done properly in half a dozen lectures on that part alone:--I must content myself with saying that I do not at all believe that these are the oldest forms of life. I turn to the experimental side to see what evidence we have there. To enable us to say that we know anything about the experimental origination of organisation and life, the investigator ought to be able to take inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, ammonia, water, and salines, in any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to build them up into protein matter, and then that protein matter ought to begin to live in an organic form. That, nobody has done as yet, and I suspect it will be a long while before anybody does do it. But the thing is by no means so impossible as it looks; for the researches of modern chemistry have shown us--I won't say the road towards it, but, if I may so say, they have shown the finger-post pointing to the road that may lead to it. It is not many years ago--and you must recollect that Organic Chemistry is a young science, not above a couple of generations old, you must not expect too much of it,--it is not many years ago since it was said to be perfectly impossible to fabricate any organic compound; that is to say, any non-mineral compound which is to be found in an organised being. It remained so for a very long period; but it is now a considerable number of years since a distinguished foreign chemist contrived to fabricate urea, a substance of a very complex character, which forms one of the waste products of animal structures. And of late years a number of other compounds, such as butyric acid, and others, have been added to the list. I need not tell you that chemistry is an enormous distance from the goal I indicate; all I wish to point out to you is, that it is by no means safe to say that that goal may not be reached one day. It may be that it is impossible for us to produce the conditions requisite to the origination of life; but we must speak modestly about the matter, and recollect that Science has put her foot upon the bottom round of the ladder. Truly he would be a bold man who would venture to predict where she will be fifty years hence. There is another inquiry which bears indirectly upon this question, and upon which I must say a few words. You are all of you aware of the phenomena of what is called spontaneous generation. Our forefathers, down to the seventeenth century, or thereabouts, all imagined, in perfectly good faith, that certain vegetable and animal forms gave birth, in the process of their decomposition, to insect life. Thus, if you put a piece of meat in the sun, and allowed it to putrefy, they conceived that the grubs which soon began to appear were the result of the action of a power of spontaneous generation which the meat contained. And they could give you receipts for making various animal and vegetable preparations which would produce particular kinds of animals. A very distinguished Italian naturalist, named Redi, took up the question, at a time when everybody believed in it; among others our own great Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood. You will constantly find his name quoted, however, as an opponent of the doctrine of spontaneous generation; but the fact is, and you will see it if you will take the trouble to look into his works, Harvey believed it as profoundly as any man of his time; but he happened to enunciate a very curious proposition--that every living thing came from an _egg_; he did not mean to use the word in the sense in which we now employ it, he only meant to say that every living thing originated in a little rounded particle of organised substance; and it is from this circumstance, probably, that the notion of Harvey having opposed the doctrine originated. Then came Redi, and he proceeded to upset the doctrine in a very simple manner. He merely covered the piece of meat with some very fine gauze, and then he exposed it to the same conditions. The result of this was that no grubs or insects were produced; he proved that the grubs originated from the insects who came and deposited their eggs in the meat, and that they were hatched by the heat of the sun. By this kind of inquiry he thoroughly upset the doctrine of spontaneous generation, for his time at least. Then came the discovery and application of the microscope to scientific inquiries, which showed to naturalists that besides the organisms which they already knew as living beings and plants, there were an immense number of minute things which could be obtained apparently almost at will from decaying vegetable and animal forms. Thus, if you took some ordinary black pepper or some hay, and steeped it in water, you would find in the course of a few days that the water had become impregnated with an immense number of animalcules swimming about in all directions. From facts of this kind naturalists were led to revive the theory of spontaneous generation. They were headed here by an English naturalist,--Needham,--and afterwards in France by the learned Buffon. They said that these things were absolutely begotten in the water of the decaying substances out of which the infusion was made. It did not matter whether you took animal or vegetable matter, you had only to steep it in water and expose it, and you would soon have plenty of animalcules. They made an hypothesis about this which was a very fair one. They said, this matter of the animal world, or of the higher plants, appears to be dead, but in reality it has a sort of dim life about it, which, if it is placed under fair conditions, will cause it to break up into the forms of these little animalcules, and they will go through their lives in the same way as the animal or plant of which they once formed a part. The question now became very hotly debated. Spallanzani, an Italian naturalist, took up opposite views to those of Needham and Buffon, and by means of certain experiments he showed that it was quite possible to stop the process by boiling the water, and closing the vessel in which it was contained. "Oh!" said his opponents; "but what do you know you may be doing when you heat the air over the water in this way? You may be destroying some property of the air requisite for the spontaneous generation of the animalcules." However, Spallanzani's views were supposed to be upon the right side, and those of the others fell into discredit; although the fact was that Spallanzani had not made good his views. Well, then, the subject continued to be revived from time to time, and experiments were made by several persons; but these experiments were not altogether satisfactory. It was found that if you put an infusion in which animalcules would appear if it were exposed to the air into a vessel and boiled it, and then sealed up the mouth of the vessel, so that no air, save such as had been heated to 212°, could reach its contents, that then no animalcules would be found; but if you took the same vessel and exposed the infusion to the air, then you would get animalcules. Furthermore, it was found that if you connected the mouth of the vessel with a red-hot tube in such a way that the air would have to pass through the tube before reaching the infusion, that then you would get no animalcules. Yet another thing was noticed: if you took two flasks containing the same kind of infusion, and left one entirely exposed to the air, and in the mouth of the other placed a ball of cotton wool, so that the air would have to filter itself through it before reaching the infusion, that then, although you might have plenty of animalcules in the first flask, you would certainly obtain none from the second. These experiments, you see, all tended towards one conclusion--that the infusoria were developed from little minute spores or eggs which were constantly floating in the atmosphere, and which lose their power of germination if subjected to heat. But one observer now made another experiment, which seemed to go entirely the other way, and puzzled him altogether. He took some of this boiled infusion that I have been speaking of, and by the use of a mercurial bath--a kind of trough used in laboratories--he deftly inverted a vessel containing the infusion into the mercury, so that the latter reached a little beyond the level of the mouth of the _inverted_ vessel. You see that he thus had a quantity of the infusion shut off from any possible communication with the outer air by being inverted upon a bed of mercury. He then prepared some pure oxygen and nitrogen gases, and passed them by means of a tube going from the outside of the vessel, up through the mercury into the infusion; so that he thus had it exposed to a perfectly pure atmosphere of the same constituents as the external air. Of course, he expected he would get no infusorial animalcules at all in that infusion; but, to his great dismay and discomfiture, he found he almost always did get them. Furthermore, it has been found that experiments made in the manner described above answer well with most infusions; but that if you fill the vessel with boiled milk, and then stop the neck with cotton-wool, you _will_ have infusoria. So that you see there were two experiments that brought you to one kind of conclusion, and three to another; which was a most unsatisfactory state of things to arrive at in a scientific inquiry. Some few years after this, the question began to be very hotly discussed in France. There was M. Pouchet, a professor at Rouen, a very learned man, but certainly not a very rigid experimentalist. He published a number of experiments of his own, some of which were very ingenious, to show that if you went to work in a proper way, there was a truth in the doctrine of spontaneous generation. Well, it was one of the most fortunate things in the world that M. Pouchet took up this question, because it induced a distinguished French chemist, M. Pasteur, to take up the question on the other side; and he has certainly worked it out in the most perfect manner. I am glad to say, too, that he has published his researches in time to enable me to give you an account of them. He verified all the experiments which I have just mentioned to you--and then finding those extraordinary anomalies, as in the case of the mercury bath and the milk, he set himself to work to discover their nature. In the case of milk he found it to be a question of temperature. Milk in a fresh state is slightly alkaline; and it is a very curious circumstance, but this very slight degree of alkalinity seems to have the effect of preserving the organisms which fall into it from the air from being destroyed at a temperature of 212°, which is the boiling point. But if you raise the temperature 10° when you boil it, the milk behaves like everything else; and if the air with which it comes in contact, after being boiled at this temperature, is passed through a red-hot tube, you will not get a trace of organisms. He then turned his attention to the mercury bath, and found on examination that the surface of the mercury was almost always covered with a very fine dust. He found that even the mercury itself was positively full of organic matters; that from being constantly exposed to the air, it had collected an immense number of these infusorial organisms from the air. Well, under these circumstances he felt that the case was quite clear, and that the mercury was not what it had appeared to M. Schwann to be,--a bar to the admission of these organisms; but that, in reality, it acted as a reservoir from which the infusion was immediately supplied with the large quantity that had so puzzled him. But not content with explaining the experiments of others, M. Pasteur went to work to satisfy himself completely. He said to himself: "If my view is right, and if, in point of fact, all these appearances of spontaneous generation are altogether due to the falling of minute germs suspended in the atmosphere,--why, I ought not only to be able to show the germs, but I ought to be able to catch and sow them, and produce the resulting organisms." He, accordingly, constructed a very ingenious apparatus to enable him to accomplish the trapping of the "_germ dust_" in the air. He fixed in the window of his room a glass tube, in the centre of which he had placed a ball of gun-cotton, which, as you all know, is ordinary cotton-wool, which, from having been steeped in strong acid, is converted into a substance of great explosive power. It is also soluble in alcohol and ether. One end of the glass tube was, of course, open to the external air; and at the other end of it he placed an aspirator, a contrivance for causing a current of the external air to pass through the tube. He kept this apparatus going for four-and-twenty hours, and then removed the _dusted_ gun-cotton, and dissolved it in alcohol and ether. He then allowed this to stand for a few hours, and the result was, that a very fine dust was gradually deposited at the bottom of it. That dust, on being transferred to the stage of a microscope, was found to contain an enormous number of starch grains. You know that the materials of our food and the greater portion of plants are composed of starch, and we are constantly making use of it in a variety of ways, so that there is always a quantity of it suspended in the air. It is these starch grains which form many of those bright specks that we see dancing in a ray of light sometimes. But besides these, M. Pasteur found also an immense number of other organic substances such as spores of fungi, which had been floating about in the air and had got caged in this way. He went farther, and said to himself, "If these really are the things that give rise to the appearance of spontaneous generation, I ought to be able to take a ball of this dusted gun-cotton and put it into one of my vessels, containing that boiled infusion which has been kept away from the air, and in which no infusoria are at present developed, and then, if I am right, the introduction of this gun-cotton will give rise to organisms." Accordingly, he took one of these vessels of infusion, which had been kept eighteen months, without the least appearance of life in it, and by a most ingenious contrivance, he managed to break it open and introduce such a ball of gun-cotton, without allowing the infusion or the cotton ball to come into contact with any air but that which had been subjected to a red heat, and in twenty-four hours he had the satisfaction of finding all the indications of what had been hitherto called spontaneous generation. He had succeeded in catching the germs and developing organisms in the way ho had anticipated. It now struck him that the truth of his conclusions might be demonstrated without all the apparatus he had employed. To do this, he took some decaying animal or vegetable substance, such as urine, which is an extremely decomposable substance, or the juice of yeast, or perhaps some other artificial preparation, and filled a vessel having a long tubular neck with it. He then boiled the liquid and bent that long neck into an S shape or zig-zag, leaving it open at the end. The infusion then gave no trace of any appearance of spontaneous generation, however long it might be left, as all the germs in the air were deposited in the beginning of the bent neck. He then cut the tube close to the vessel, and allowed the ordinary air to have free and direct access; and the result of that was the appearance of organisms in it, as soon as the infusion had been allowed to stand long enough to allow of the growth of those it received from the air, which was about forty-eight hours. The result of M. Pasteur's experiments proved, therefore, in the most conclusive manner, that all the appearances of spontaneous generation arose from nothing more than the deposition of the germs of organisms which were constantly floating in the air. To this conclusion, however, the objection was made, that if that were the cause, then the air would contain such an enormous number of these germs, that it would be a continual fog. But M. Pasteur replied that they are not there in anything like the number we might suppose, and that an exaggerated view has been held on that subject; he showed that the chances of animal or vegetable life appearing in infusions, depend entirely on the conditions under which they are exposed. If they are exposed to the ordinary atmosphere around us, why, of course, you may have organisms appearing early. But, on the other hand, if they are exposed to air at a great height, or in some very quiet cellar, you will often not find a single trace of life. So that M. Pasteur arrived at last at the clear and definite result, that all these appearances are like the case of the worms in the piece of meat, which was refuted by Redi, simply germs carried by the air and deposited in the liquids in which they afterwards appear. For my own part, I conceive that, with the particulars of M. Pasteur's experiments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his conclusions; and that the doctrine of spontaneous generation has received a final _coup de grâce_. You, of course, understand that all this in no way interferes with the _possibility_ of the fabrication of organic matters by the direct method to which I have referred, remote as that possibility may be. IV. THE PERPETUATION OF LIVING BEINGS, HEREDITARY TRANSMISSION AND VARIATION The inquiry which we undertook, at our last meeting, into the state of our knowledge of the causes of the phenomena of organic nature,--of the past and of the present,--resolved itself into two subsidiary inquiries: the first was, whether we know anything, either historically or experimentally, of the mode of origin of living beings; the second subsidiary inquiry was, whether, granting the origin, we know anything about the perpetuation and modifications of the forms of organic beings. The reply which I had to give to the first question was altogether negative, and the chief result of my last lecture was, that, neither historically nor experimentally, do we at present know anything whatsoever about the origin of living forms. We saw that, historically, we are not likely to know anything about it, although we may perhaps learn something experimentally; but that at present we are an enormous distance from the goal I indicated. I now, then, take up the next question, What do we know of the reproduction, the perpetuation, and the modifications of the forms of living beings, supposing that we have put the question as to their origination on one side, and have assumed that at present the causes of their origination are beyond us, and that we know nothing about them? Upon this question the state of our knowledge is extremely different; it is exceedingly large: and, if not complete, our experience is certainly most extensive. It would be impossible to lay it all before you, and the most I can do, or need do to-night, is to take up the principal points and put them before you with such prominence as may subserve the purposes of our present argument. The method of the perpetuation of organic beings is of two kinds,--the non-sexual and the sexual. In the first the perpetuation takes place from and by a particular act of an individual organism, which sometimes may not be classed as belonging to any sex at all. In the second case, it is in consequence of the mutual action and interaction of certain portions of the organisms of usually two distinct individuals,--the male and the female. The cases of non-sexual perpetuation are by no means so common as the cases of sexual perpetuation; and they are by no means so common in the animal as in the vegetable world. You are all probably familiar with the fact, as a matter of experience, that you can propagate plants by means of what are called "cuttings"; for example, that by taking a cutting from a geranium plant, and rearing it properly, by supplying it with light and warmth and nourishment from the earth, it grows up and takes the form of its parent, having all the properties and peculiarities of the original plant. Sometimes this process, which the gardener performs artificially, takes place naturally; that is to say, a little bulb, or portion of the plant, detaches itself, drops off, and becomes capable of growing as a separate thing. That is the case with many bulbous plants, which throw off in this way secondary bulbs, which are lodged in the ground and become developed into plants. This is a non-sexual process, and from it results the repetition or reproduction of the form of the original being from which the bulb proceeds. Among animals the same thing takes place. Among the lower forms of animal life, the infusorial animalculæ we have already spoken of throw off certain portions, or break themselves up in various directions, sometimes transversely or sometimes longitudinally; or they may give off buds, which detach themselves and develop into their proper forms. There is the common fresh-water polype, for instance, which multiplies itself in this way. Just in the same way as the gardener is able to multiply and reproduce the peculiarities and characters of particular plants by means of cuttings, so can the physiological experimentalist--as was shown by the Abbé Trembley many years ago--so can he do the same thing with many of the lower forms of animal life. M. de Trembley showed that you could take a polype and cut it into two, or four, or many pieces, mutilating it in all directions, and the pieces would still grow up and reproduce completely the original form of the animal. These are all cases of non-sexual multiplication, and there are other instances, and still more extraordinary ones, in which this process takes place naturally, in a more hidden, a more recondite kind of way. You are all of you familiar with that little green insect, the _Aphis_ or blight, as it is called. These little animals, during a very considerable part of their existence, multiply themselves by means of a kind of internal budding, the buds being developed into essentially non-sexual animals, which are neither male nor female; they become converted into young _Aphides_, which repeat the process, and their offspring after them, and so on again; you may go on for nine or ten, or even twenty or more successions; and there is no very good reason to say how soon it might terminate, or how long it might not go on if the proper conditions of warmth and nourishment were kept up. Sexual reproduction is quite a distinct matter. Here, in all these cases, what is required is the detachment of two portions of the parental organisms, which portions we know as the egg or the spermatozoon. In plants it is the ovule and the pollen-grain, as in the flowering plants, or the ovule and the antherozooid, as in the flowerless. Among all forms of animal life, the spermatozoa proceed from the male sex, and the egg is the product of the female. Now, what is remarkable about this mode of reproduction is this, that the egg by itself, or the spermatozoa by themselves, are unable to assume the parental form; but if they be brought into contact with one another, the effect of the mixture of organic substances proceeding from two sources appears to confer an altogether new vigour to the mixed product. This process is brought about, as we all know, by the sexual intercourse of the two sexes, and is called the act of impregnation. The result of this act on the part of the male and female is, that the formation of a new being is set up in the ovule or egg; this ovule or egg soon begins to be divided and subdivided, and to be fashioned into various complex organs, and eventually to develop into the form of one of its parents, as I explained in the first lecture. These are the processes by which the perpetuation of organic beings is secured. Why there should be the two modes--why this re-invigoration should be required on the part of the female element we do not know; but it is most assuredly the fact, and it is presumable, that, however long the process of non-sexual multiplication could be continued--I say there is good reason to believe that it would come to an end if a new commencement were not obtained by a conjunction of the two sexual elements. That character which is common to these two distinct processes is this, that, whether we consider the reproduction, or perpetuation, or modification of organic beings as they take place non-sexually, or as they may take place sexually--in either case, I say, the offspring has a constant tendency to assume, speaking generally, the character of the parent. As I said just now, if you take a slip of a plant, and tend it with care, it will eventually grow up and develop into a plant like that from which it had sprung; and this tendency is so strong that, as gardeners know, this mode of multiplying by means of cuttings is the only secure mode of propagating very many varieties of plants; the peculiarity of the primitive stock seems to be better preserved if you propagate it by means of a slip than if you resort to the sexual mode. Again, in experiments upon the lower animals, such as the polype, to which I have referred, it is most extraordinary that, although cut up into various pieces, each particular piece will grow up into the form of the primitive stock; the head, if separated, will reproduce the body and the tail; and if you cut off the tail, you will find that that will reproduce the body and all the rest of the members, without in any way deviating from the plan of the organism from which these portions have been detached. And so far does this go, that some experimentalists have carefully examined the lower orders of animals,--among them the Abbé Spallanzani, who made a number of experiments upon snails and salamanders,--and have found that they might mutilate them to an incredible extent; that you might cut off the jaw or the greater part of the head, or the leg or the tail, and repeat the experiment several times, perhaps cutting off the same member again and again; and yet each of those types would be reproduced according to the primitive type: Nature making no mistake, never putting on a fresh kind of leg, or head, or tail, but always tending to repeat and to return to the primitive type. It is the same in sexual reproduction: it is a matter of perfectly common experience, that the tendency on the part of the offspring always is, speaking broadly, to reproduce the form of the parents. The proverb has it that the thistle does not bring forth grapes; so, among ourselves, there is always a likeness, more or less marked and distinct, between children and their parents. That is a matter of familiar and ordinary observation. We notice the same thing occurring in the cases of the domestic animals--dogs, for instance, and their offspring. In all these cases of propagation and perpetuation, there seems to be a tendency in the offspring to take the characters of the parental organisms. To that tendency a special name is given--and as I may very often use it, I will write it up here on this black-board that you may remember it--it is called _Atavism_; it expresses this tendency to revert to the ancestral type, and comes from the Latin word _atavus_, ancestor. Well, this _Atavism_ which I shall speak of, is, as I said before, one of the most marked and striking tendencies of organic beings; but, side by side with this hereditary tendency there is an equally distinct and remarkable tendency to variation. The tendency to reproduce the original stock has, as it were, its limits, and side by side with it there is a tendency to vary in certain directions, as if there were two opposing powers working upon the organic being, one tending to take it in a straight line, and the other tending to make it diverge from that straight line, first to one side and then to the other. So that you see these two tendencies need not precisely contradict one another, as the ultimate result may not always be very remote from what would have been the case if the line had been quite straight. This tendency to variation is less marked in that mode of propagation which takes place non-sexually; it is in that mode that the minor characters of animal and vegetable structures are most completely preserved. Still, it will happen sometimes, that the gardener, when he has planted a cutting of some favourite plant, will find, contrary to his expectation, that the slip grows up a little different from the primitive stock--that it produces flowers of a different colour or make, or some deviation in one way or another. This is what is called the "sporting" of plants. In animals the phenomena of non-sexual propagation are so obscure, that at present we cannot be said to know much about them; but if we turn to that mode of perpetuation which results from the sexual process, then we find variation a perfectly constant occurrence, to a certain extent; and, indeed, I think that a certain amount of variation from the primitive stock is the necessary result of the method of sexual propagation itself; for, inasmuch as the thing propagated proceeds from two organisms of different sexes and different makes and temperaments, and as the offspring is to be either of one sex or the other, it is quite clear that it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it would be of no sex at all; it cannot be an exact intermediate form between that of each of its parents--it must deviate to one side or the other. You do not find that the male follows the precise type of the male parent, nor does the female always inherit the precise characteristics of the mother,--there is always a proportion of the female character in the male offspring, and of the male character in the female offspring. That must be quite plain to all of you who have looked at all attentively on your own children or those of your neighbours; you will have noticed how very often it may happen that the son shall exhibit the maternal type of character, or the daughter possess the characteristics of the father's family. There are all sorts of intermixtures and intermediate conditions between the two, where complexion, or beauty, or fifty other different peculiarities belonging to either side of the house, are reproduced in other members of the same family. Indeed, it is sometimes to be remarked in this kind of variation, that the variety belongs, strictly speaking, to neither of the immediate parents; you will see a child in a family who is not like either its father or its mother; but some old person who knew its grandfather or grandmother, or, it may be, an uncle, or, perhaps, even a more distant relative will see a great similarity between the child and one of these. In this way it constantly happens that the characteristic of some previous member of the family comes out and is reproduced and recognised in the most unexpected manner. But apart from that matter of general experience, there are some cases which put that curious mixture in a very clear light. You are aware that the offspring of the ass and the horse, or rather of the he-ass and the mare, is what is called a mule; and, on the other hand, the offspring of the stallion and the she-ass is what is called a hinny. It is a very rare thing in this country to see a hinny. I never saw one myself; but they have been very carefully studied. Now, the curious thing is this, that although you have the same elements in the experiment in each case, the offspring is entirely different in character, according as the male influence comes from the ass or the horse. Where the ass is the male, as in the case of the mule, you find that the head is like that of the ass, that the ears are long, the tail is tufted at the end, the feet are small, and the voice is an unmistakable bray; these are all points of similarity to the ass; but, on the other hand, the barrel of the body and the cut of the neck are much more like those of the mare. Then, if you look at the hinny,--the result of the union of the stallion and the she-ass, then you find it is the horse that has the predominance; that the head is more like that of the horse, the ears are shorter, the legs coarser, and the type is altogether altered; while the voice, instead of being a bray, is the ordinary neigh of the horse. Here, you see, is a most curious thing: you take exactly the same elements, ass and horse, but you combine the sexes in a different manner, and the result is modified accordingly. You have in this case, however, a result which is not general and universal--there is usually an important preponderance, but not always on the same side. Here, then, is one intelligible, and, perhaps, necessary cause of variation: the fact, that there are two sexes sharing in the production of the offspring, and that the share taken by each is different and variable, not only for each combination, but also for different members of the same family. Secondly, there is a variation, to a certain extent--though, in all probability, the influence of this cause has been very much exaggerated--but there is no doubt that variation is produced, to a certain extent, by what are commonly known as external conditions,--such as temperature, food, warmth, and moisture. In the long run, every variation depends, in some sense, upon external conditions, seeing that everything has a cause of its own. I use the term "external conditions" now in the sense in which it is ordinarily employed: certain it is, that external conditions have a definite effect. You may take a plant which has single flowers, and by dealing with the soil, and nourishment, and so on, you may by and by convert single flowers into double flowers, and make thorns shoot out into branches. You may thicken or make various modifications in the shape of the fruit. In animals, too, you may produce analogous changes in this way, as in the case of that deep bronze colour which persons rarely lose after having passed any length of time in tropical countries. You may also alter the development of the muscles very much, by dint of training; all the world knows that exercise has a great effect in this way; we always expect to find the arm of a blacksmith hard and wiry, and possessing a large development of the brachial muscles. No doubt training, which is one of the forms of external conditions, converts what are originally only instructions, teachings, into habits, or, in other words, into organisations, to a great extent; but this second cause of variation cannot be considered to be by any means a large one. The third cause that I have to mention, however, is a very extensive one. It is one that, for want of a better name, has been called "spontaneous variation"; which means that when we do not know anything about the cause of phenomena, we call it spontaneous. In the orderly chain of causes and effects in this world, there are very few things of which it can be said with truth that they are spontaneous. Certainly not in these physical matters--in these there is nothing of the kind--everything depends on previous conditions. But when we cannot trace the cause of phenomena, we call them spontaneous. Of these variations, multitudinous as they are, but little is known with perfect accuracy. I will mention to you some two or three cases, because they are very remarkable in themselves, and also because I shall want to use them afterwards. Réaumur, a famous French naturalist, a great many years ago, in an essay which he wrote upon the art of hatching chickens--which was indeed a very curious essay--had occasion to speak of variations and monstrosities. One very remarkable case had come under his notice of a variation in the form of a human member, in the person of a Maltese, of the name of Gratio Kelleia, who was born with six fingers upon each hand, and the like number of toes to each of his feet. That was a case of spontaneous variation. Nobody knows why he was born with that number of fingers and toes, and as we don't know, we call it a case of "spontaneous" variation. There is another remarkable case also. I select these, because they happen to have been observed and noted very carefully at the time. It frequently happens that a variation occurs, but the persons who notice it do not take any care in noting down the particulars, until at length, when inquiries come to be made, the exact circumstances are forgotten; and hence, multitudinous as may be such "spontaneous" variations, it is exceedingly difficult to get at the origin of them. The second case is one of which you may find the whole details in the "Philosophical Transactions" for the year 1813, in a paper communicated by Colonel Humphrey to the President of the Royal Society--"On a new Variety in the Breed of Sheep," giving an account of a very remarkable breed of sheep, which at one time was well known in the northern states of America, and which went by the name of the Ancon or the Otter breed of sheep. In the year 1791, there was a farmer of the name of Seth Wright in Massachusetts, who had a flock of sheep, consisting of a ram and, I think, of some twelve or thirteen ewes. Of this flock of ewes, one at the breeding-time bore a lamb which was very singularly formed; it had a very long body, very short legs, and those legs were bowed. I will tell you by and by how this singular variation in the breed of sheep came to be noted, and to have the prominence that it now has. For the present, I mention only these two cases; but the extent of variation in the breed of animals is perfectly obvious to any one who has studied natural history with ordinary attention, or to any person who compares animals with others of the same kind. It is strictly true that there are never any two specimens which are exactly alike; however similar, they will always differ in some certain particular. Now let us go back to Atavism--to the hereditary tendency I spoke of. What will come of a variation when you breed from it, when Atavism comes, if I may say so, to intersect variation? The two cases of which I have mentioned the history give a most excellent illustration of what occurs. Gratio Kelleia, the Maltese, married when he was twenty-two years of age, and, as I suppose there were no six-fingered ladies in Malta, he married an ordinary five-fingered person. The result of that marriage was four children; the first, who was christened Salvator, had six fingers and six toes, like his father; the second was George, who had five fingers and toes, but one of them was deformed, showing a tendency to variation; the third was Andrè; he had five fingers and five toes, quite perfect; the fourth was a girl, Marie; she had five fingers and five toes, but her thumbs were deformed, showing a tendency toward the sixth. These children grew up, and when they came to adult years, they all married, and of course it happened that they all married five-fingered and five-toed persons. Now let us see what were the results. Salvator had four children; they were two boys, a girl, and another boy; the first two boys and the girl were six-fingered and six-toed like their grandfather; the fourth boy had only five fingers and five toes. George had only four children; there were two girls with six fingers and six toes; there was one girl with six fingers and five toes on the right side, and five fingers and five toes on the left side, so that she was half and half. The last, a boy, had five fingers and five toes. The third, Andrè, you will recollect, was perfectly well-formed, and he had many children whose hands and feet were all regularly developed. Marie, the last, who, of course, married a man who had only five fingers, had four children; the first, a boy, was born with six toes, but the other three were normal. Now observe what very extraordinary phenomena are presented here. You have an accidental variation giving rise to what you may call a monstrosity; you have that monstrosity or variation diluted in the first instance by an admixture with a female of normal construction, and you would naturally expect that, in the results of such an union, the monstrosity, if repeated, would be in equal proportion with the normal type; that is to say, that the children would be half and half, some taking the peculiarity of the father, and the others being of the purely normal type of the mother; but you see we have a great preponderance of the abnormal type. Well, this comes to be mixed once more with the pure, the normal type, and the abnormal is again produced in large proportion, notwithstanding the second dilution. Now what would have happened if these abnormal types had intermarried with each other; that is to say, suppose the two boys of Salvator had taken it into their heads to marry their first cousins, the two first girls of George, their uncle? You will remember that these are all of the abnormal type of their grandfather. The result would probably have been, that their offspring would have been in every case a further development of that abnormal type. You see it is only in the fourth, in the person of Marie, that the tendency, when it appears but slightly in the second generation, is washed out in the third, while the progeny of Andrè, who escaped in the first instance, escape altogether. We have in this case a good example of nature's tendency to the perpetuation of a variation. Here it is certainly a variation which earned with it no use or benefit; and yet you see the tendency to perpetuation may be so strong, that, notwithstanding a great admixture of pure blood, the variety continues itself up to the third generation, which is largely marked with it. In this case, as I have said, there was no means of the second generation intermarrying with any but five-fingered persons, and the question naturally suggests itself, What would have been the result of such marriage? Réaumur narrates this case only as far as the third generation. Certainly it would have been an exceedingly curious thing if we could have traced this matter any further; had the cousins intermarried, a six-fingered variety of the human race might have been set up. To show you that this supposition is by no means an unreasonable one, let me now point out what took place in the case of Seth Wright's sheep, where it happened to be a matter of moment to him to obtain a breed or raise a flock of sheep like that accidental variety that I have described--and I will tell you why. In that part of Massachusetts where Seth Wright was living, the fields were separated by fences, and the sheep, which were very active and robust, would roam abroad, and without much difficulty jump over these fences into other people's farms. As a matter of course, this exuberant activity on the part of the sheep constantly gave rise to all sorts of quarrels, bickerings, and contentions among the farmers of the neighbourhood; so it occurred to Seth Wright, who was, like his successors, more or less 'cute, that if he could get a stock of sheep like those with the bandy legs, they would not be able to jump over the fences so readily; and he acted upon that idea. He killed his old ram, and as soon as the young one arrived at maturity, he bred altogether from it. The result was even more striking than in the human experiment which I mentioned just now. Colonel Humphreys testifies that it always happened that the offspring were either pure Ancons or pure ordinary sheep; that in no case was there any mixing of the Ancons with the others. In consequence of this, in the course of a very few years, the farmer was able to get a very considerable flock of this variety, and a large number of them were spread throughout Massachusetts. Most unfortunately, however--I suppose it was because they were so common--nobody took enough notice of them to preserve their skeletons; and although Colonel Humphreys states that he sent a skeleton to the President of the Royal Society at the same time that he forwarded his paper, I am afraid that the variety has entirely disappeared; for a short time after these sheep had become prevalent in that district, the Merino sheep were introduced; and as their wool was much more valuable, and as they were a quiet race of sheep, and showed no tendency to trespasser jump over fences, the Otter breed of sheep, the wool of which was inferior to that of the Merino, was gradually allowed to die out. You see that these facts illustrate perfectly well what may be done if you take care to breed from stocks that are similar to each other. After having got a variation, if, by crossing a variation with the original stock, you multiply that variation, and then take care to keep that variation distinct from the original stock, and make them breed together,--then you may almost certainly produce a race whose tendency to continue the variation is exceedingly strong. This is what is called "selection"; and it is by exactly the same process as that by which Seth Wright bred his Ancon sheep, that our breeds of cattle, dogs, and fowls are obtained. There are some possibilities of exception, but still, speaking broadly, I may say that this is the way in which all our varied races of domestic animals have arisen; and you must understand that it is not one peculiarity or one characteristic alone in which animals may vary. There is not a single peculiarity or characteristic of any kind, bodily or mental, in which offspring may not vary to a certain extent from the parent and other animals. Among ourselves this is well known. The simplest physical peculiarity is mostly reproduced. I know a case of a woman who has the lobe of one of her ears a little flattened. An ordinary observer might scarcely notice it, and yet every one of her children has an approximation to the same peculiarity to some extent. If you look at the other extreme, too, the gravest diseases, such as gout, scrofula, and consumption, may be handed down with just the same certainty and persistence as we noticed in the perpetuation of the bandy legs of the Ancon sheep. However, these facts are best illustrated in animals, and the extent of the variation, as is well known, is very remarkable in dogs. For example, there are some dogs very much smaller than others; indeed, the variation is so enormous that probably the smallest dog would be about the size of the head of the largest; there are very great variations in the structural forms not only of the skeleton but also in the shape of the skull, and in the proportions of the face and the disposition of the teeth. The Pointer, the Retriever, Bulldog, and the Terrier differ very greatly, and yet there is every reason to believe that every one of these races has arisen from the same source,--that all the most important races have arisen by this selective breeding from accidental variation. A still more striking case of what may be done by selective breeding, and it is a better case, because there is no chance of that partial infusion of error to which I alluded, has been studied very carefully by Mr. Darwin,--the case of the domestic pigeons. I dare say there may be some among you who may be pigeon _fanciers_, and I wish you to understand that in approaching the subject, I would speak with all humility and hesitation, as I regret to say that I am not a pigeon fancier. I know it is a great art and mystery, and a thing upon which a man must not speak lightly; but I shall endeavour, as far as my understanding goes, to give you a summary of the published and unpublished information which I have gained from Mr. Darwin. Among the enormous variety,--I believe there are somewhere about a hundred and fifty kinds of pigeons,--there are four kinds which may be selected as representing the extremest divergences of one kind from another. Their names are the Carrier, the Pouter, the Fantail, and the Tumbler. In these large diagrams that I have here they are each represented in their relative sizes to each other. This first one is the Carrier; you will notice this large excrescence on its beak; it has a comparatively small head; there is a bare space round the eyes; it has a long neck, a very long beak, very strong legs, large feet, long wings, and so on. The second one is the Pouter, a very large bird, with very long legs and beak. It is called the Pouter because it is in the habit of causing its gullet to swell up by inflating it with air. I should tell you that all pigeons have a tendency to do this at times, but in the Pouter it is carried to an enormous extent. The birds appear to be quite proud of their power of swelling and puffing themselves out in this way; and I think it is about as droll a sight as you can well see to look at a cage full of these pigeons puffing and blowing themselves out in this ridiculous manner. This diagram is a representation of the third kind I mentioned--the Fantail. It is, you see, a small bird, with exceedingly small legs and a very small beak. It is most curiously distinguished by the size and extent of its tail, which, instead of containing twelve feathers, may have many more,--say thirty, or even more--I believe there are some with as many as forty-two. This bird has a curious habit of spreading out the feathers of its tail in such a way that they reach forward and touch its head; and if this can be accomplished, I believe it is looked upon as a point of great beauty. But here is the last great variety,--the Tumbler; and of that great variety, one of the principal kinds, and one most prized, is the specimen represented here--the short-faced Tumbler. Its beak, you see, is reduced to a mere nothing. Just compare the beak of this one and that of the first one, the Carrier--I believe the orthodox comparison of the head and beak of a thoroughly well-bred Tumbler is to stick an oat into a cherry, and that will give you the proper relative proportions of the beak and head. The feet and legs are exceedingly small, and the bird appears to be quite a dwarf when placed side by side with this great Carrier. These are differences enough in regard to their external appearance; but these differences are by no means the whole or even the most important of the differences which obtain between these birds. There is hardly a single point of their structure which has not become more or less altered; and to give you an idea of how extensive these alterations are, I have here some very good skeletons, for which I am indebted to my friend, Mr. Tegetmeier, a great authority in these matters; by means of which, if you examine them by and by, you will be able to see the enormous difference in their bony structures. I had the privilege, some time ago, of access to some important MSS. of Mr. Darwin, who, I may tell you, has taken very great pains and spent much valuable time and attention on the investigation of these variations, and getting together all the facts that bear upon them. I obtained from these MSS. the following summary of the differences between the domestic breeds of pigeons; that is to say, a notification of the various points in which their organisation differs. In the first place, the back of the skull may differ a good deal, and the development of the bones of the face may vary a great deal; the back varies a good deal; the shape of the lower jaw varies; the tongue varies very greatly, not only in correlation to the length and size of the beak, but it seems also to have a kind of independent variation of its own. Then the amount of naked skin round the eyes, and at the base of the beak, may vary enormously; so may the length of the eyelids, the shape of the nostrils, and the length of the neck. I have already noticed the habit of blowing out the gullet, so remarkable in the Pouter, and comparatively so in the others. There are great differences, too, in the size of the female and the male, the shape of the body, the number and width of the processes of the ribs, the development of the ribs, and the size, shape, and development of the breastbone. We may notice, too--and I mention the fact because it has been disputed by what is assumed to be high authority,--the variation in the number of the sacral vertebrae. The number of these varies from eleven to fourteen, and that without any diminution in the number of the vertebrae of the back or of the tail. Then the number and position of the tail-feathers may vary enormously, and so may the number of the primary and secondary feathers of the wings. Again, the length of the feet and of the beak,--although they have no relation to each other, yet appear to go together,--that is, you have a long beak wherever you have long feet. There are differences also in the periods of the acquirement of the perfect plumage--the size and shape of the eggs--the nature of flight, and the powers of flight--so-called _"homing"_ birds having enormous flying powers; [Footnote: The _"Carrier,"_ I learn from Mr. Tegetmeier, does not _carry_; a high-bred bird of this breed being but a poor flier. The birds which fly long distances, and come home--"homing" birds-and are consequently used as carriers, are not "carriers" in the fancy sense.] while, on the other hand, the little Tumbler is so called because of its extraordinary faculty of turning head over heels in the air, instead of pursuing a direct course. And, lastly, the dispositions and voices of the birds may vary. Thus the case of the pigeons shows you that there is hardly a single particular--whether of instinct, or habit, or bony structure, or of plumage--of either the internal economy or the external shape, in which some variation or change may not take place, which, by selective breeding, may become perpetuated, and form the foundation of, and give rise to, a new race. If you carry in your mind's eye these four varieties of pigeons, you will bear with you as good a notion as you can have, perhaps, of the enormous extent to which a deviation from a primitive type may be carried by means of this process of selective breeding. V. THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE AS AFFECTING THE PERPETUATION OF LIVING BEINGS In the last Lecture I endeavoured to prove to you that, while, as a general rule, organic beings tend to reproduce their kind, there is in them, also, a constantly recurring tendency to vary--to vary to a greater or to a less extent. Such a variety, I pointed out to you, might arise from causes which we do not understand; we therefore called it spontaneous; and it might come into existence as a definite and marked thing, without any gradations between itself and the form which preceded it. I further pointed out, that such a variety having once arisen, might be perpetuated to some extent, and indeed to a very marked extent, without any direct interference, or without any exercise of that process which we called selection. And then I stated further, that by such selection, when exercised artificially--if you took care to breed only from those forms which presented the same peculiarities of any variety which had arisen in this manner--the variation might be perpetuated, as far as we can see, indefinitely. The next question, and it is an important one for us, is this: Is there any limit to the amount of variation from the primitive stock which can be produced by this process of selective breeding? In considering this question, it will be useful to class the characteristics, in respect of which organic beings vary, under two heads: we may consider structural characteristics, and we may consider physiological characteristics. In the first place, as regards structural characteristics, I endeavoured to show you, by the skeletons which I had upon the table, and by reference to a great many well-ascertained facts, that the different breeds of Pigeons, the Carriers, Pouters, and Tumblers, might vary in any of their internal and important structural characters to a very great degree; not only might there be changes in the proportions of the skull, and the characters of the feet and beaks, and so on; but that there might be an absolute difference in the number of the vertebrae of the back, as in the sacral vertebras of the Pouter; and so great is the extent of the variation in these and similar characters that I pointed out to you, by reference to the skeletons and the diagrams, that these extreme varieties may absolutely differ more from one another in their structural characters than do what naturalists call distinct SPECIES of pigeons; that is to say, that they differ so much in structure that there is a greater difference between the Pouter and the Tumbler than there is between such wild and distinct forms as the Rock Pigeon or the Ring Pigeon, or the Ring Pigeon and the Stock Dove; and indeed the differences are of greater value than this, for the structural differences between these domesticated pigeons are such as would be admitted by a naturalist, supposing he knew nothing at all about their origin, to entitle them to constitute even distinct genera. As I have used this term SPECIES, and shall probably use it a good deal, I had better perhaps devote a word or two to explaining what I mean by it. Animals and plants are divided into groups, which become gradually smaller, beginning with a KINGDOM, which is divided into SUB-KINGDOMS; then come the smaller divisions called PROVINCES; and so on from a PROVINCE to a CLASS, from a CLASS to an ORDER, from ORDERS to FAMILIES, and from these to GENERA, until we come at length to the smallest groups of animals which can be defined one from the other by constant characters, which are not sexual; and these are what naturalists call SPECIES in practice, whatever they may do in theory. If, in a state of nature, you find any two groups of living beings, which are separated one from the other by some constantly-recurring characteristic, I don't care how slight and trivial, so long as it is defined and constant, and does not depend on sexual peculiarities, then all naturalists agree in calling them two species; that is what is meant by the use of the word species--that is to say, it is, for the practical naturalist, a mere question of structural differences. [Footnote: I lay stress here on the _practical_ signification of "Species." Whether a physiological test between species exist or not, it is hardly ever applicable by the practical naturalist.] We have seen now--to repeat this point once more, and it is very essential that we should rightly understand it--we have seen that breeds, known to have been derived from a common stock by selection, may be as different in their structure from the original stock as species may be distinct from each other. But is the like true of the physiological characteristics of animals? Do the physiological differences of varieties amount in degree to those observed between forms which naturalists call distinct species? This is a most important point for us to consider. As regards the great majority of physiological characteristics, there is no doubt that they are capable of being developed, increased, and modified by selection. There is no doubt that breeds may be made as different as species in many physiological characters. I have already pointed out to you very briefly the different habits of the breeds of Pigeons, all of which depend upon their physiological peculiarities--as the peculiar habit of tumbling, in the Tumbler--the peculiarities of flight, in the "homing" birds--the strange habit of spreading out the tail, and walking in a peculiar fashion, in the Fantail--and, lastly, the habit of blowing out the gullet, so characteristic of the Pouter. These are all due to physiological modifications, and in all these respects these birds differ as much from each other as any two ordinary species do. So with Dogs in their habits and instincts. It is a physiological peculiarity which leads the Greyhound to chase its prey by sight--that enables the Beagle to track it by the scent--that impels the Terrier to its rat-hunting propensity--and that leads the Retriever to its habit of retrieving. These habits and instincts are all the results of physiological differences and peculiarities, which have been developed from a common stock, at least there is every reason to believe so. But it is a most singular circumstance, that while you may run through almost the whole series of physiological processes, without finding a check to your argument, you come at last to a point where you do find a check, and that is in the reproductive processes. For there is a most singular circumstance in respect to natural species--at least about some of them--and it would be sufficient for the purposes of this argument if it were true of only one of them, but there is, in fact, a great number of such cases--and that is, that, similar as they may appear to be to mere races or breeds, they present a marked peculiarity in the reproductive process. If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have offspring of the like kind, and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result, and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring; there is no check. But if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be to each other, and make them breed together, you will find a check, with some modifications and exceptions, however, which I shall speak of presently. If you cross two such species with each other, then--although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross, yet, if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing, which are what are called HYBRIDS--that is, if you couple a male and a female hybrid--then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all; there will be no result whatsoever. The reason of this is quite obvious in some cases; the male hybrids, although possessing all the external appearances and characteristics of perfect animals, are physiologically imperfect and deficient in the structural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to generation. It is said to be invariably the case with the male mule, the cross between the Ass and the Mare; and hence it is, that, although crossing the Horse with the Ass is easy enough, and is constantly done, as far as I am aware, if you take two mules, a male and a female, and endeavour to breed from them, you get no offspring whatever; no generation will take place. This is what is called the sterility of the hybrids between two distinct species. You see that this is a very extraordinary circumstance; one does not see why it should be. The common teleological explanation is, that it is to prevent the impurity of the blood resulting from the crossing of one species with another, but you see it does not in reality do anything of the kind. There is nothing in this fact that hybrids cannot breed with each other, to establish such a theory; there is nothing to prevent the Horse breeding with the Ass, or the Ass with the Horse. So that this explanation breaks down, as a great many explanations of this kind do, that are only founded on mere assumptions. Thus you see that there is a great difference between "mongrels," which are crosses between distinct races, and "hybrids," which are crosses between distinct species. The mongrels are, so far as we know, fertile with one another. But between species, in many cases, you cannot succeed in obtaining even the first cross; at any rate it is quite certain that the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another. Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may be, which distinguishes natural species of animals. Can we find any approximation to this in the different races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative one. As far as we know at present, there is nothing approximating to this check. In crossing the breeds between the Fantail and the Pouter, the Carrier and the Tumbler, or any other variety or race you may name--so far as we know at present--there is no difficulty in breeding together the mongrels. Take the Carrier and the Fantail, for instance, and let them represent the Horse and the Ass in the case of distinct species; then you have, as the result of their breeding, the Carrier-Fantail mongrel,--we will say the male and female mongrel,--and, as far as we know, these two when crossed would not be less fertile than the original cross, or than Carrier with Carrier. Here, you see, is a physiological contrast between the races produced by selective modification and natural species. I shall inquire into the value of this fact, and of some modifying circumstances by and by; for the present I merely put it broadly before you. But while considering this question of the limitations of species, a word must be said about what is called RECURRENCE--the tendency of races which have been developed by selective breeding from varieties to return to their primitive type. This is supposed by many to put an absolute limit to the extent of selective and all other variations. People say, "It is all very well to talk about producing these different races, but you know very well that if you turned all these birds wild, these Pouters, and Carriers, and so on, they would all return to their primitive stock." This is very commonly assumed to be a fact, and it is an argument that is commonly brought forward as conclusive; but if you will take the trouble to inquire into it rather closely, I think you will find that it is not worth very much. The first question of course is, Do they thus return to the primitive stock? And commonly as the thing is assumed and accepted, it is extremely difficult to get anything like good evidence of it. It is constantly said, for example, that if domesticated Horses are turned wild, as they have been in some parts of Asia Minor and South America, that they return at once to the primitive stock from which they were bred. But the first answer that you make to this assumption is, to ask who knows what the primitive stock was; and the second answer is, that in that case the wild Horses of Asia Minor ought to be exactly like the wild Horses of South America. If they are both like the same thing, they ought manifestly to be like each other! The best authorities, however, tell you that it is quite different. The wild Horse of Asia is said to be of a dun colour, with a largish head, and a great many other peculiarities; while the best authorities on the wild Horses of South America tell you that there is no similarity between their wild Horses and those of Asia Minor; the cut of their heads is very different, and they are commonly chestnut or bay-coloured. It is quite clear, therefore, that as by these facts there ought to have been two primitive stocks, they go for nothing in support of the assumption that races recur to one primitive stock, and so far as this evidence is concerned, it falls to the ground. Suppose for a moment that it were so, and that domesticated races, when turned wild, did return to some common condition, I cannot see that this would prove much more than that similar conditions are likely to produce similar results; and that when you take back domesticated animals into what we call natural conditions, you do exactly the same thing as if you carefully undid all the work you had gone through, for the purpose of bringing the animal from its wild to its domesticated state. I do not see anything very wonderful in the fact, if it took all that trouble to get it from a wild state, that it should go back into its original state as soon as you removed the conditions which produced the variation to the domesticated form. There is an important fact, however, forcibly brought forward by Mr. Darwin, which has been noticed in connection with the breeding of domesticated pigeons; and it is, that however different these breeds of pigeons may be from each other, and we have already noticed the great differences in these breeds, that if, among any of those variations, you chance to have a blue pigeon turn up, it will be sure to have the black bars across the wings, which are characteristic of the original wild stock, the Rock Pigeon. Now, this is certainly a very remarkable circumstance; but I do not see myself how it tells very strongly either one way or the other. I think, in fact, that this argument in favour of recurrence to the primitive type might prove a great deal too much for those who so constantly bring it forward. For example, Mr. Darwin has very forcibly urged, that nothing is commoner than if you examine a dun horse--and I had an opportunity of verifying this illustration lately while in the islands of the West Highlands, where there are a great many dun horses--to find that horse exhibit a long black stripe down his back, very often stripes on his shoulder, and very often stripes on his legs. I, myself, saw a pony of this description a short time ago, in a baker's cart, near Rothesay, in Bute: it had the long stripe down the back, and stripes on the shoulders and legs, just like those of the Ass, the Quagga, and the Zebra. Now, if we interpret the theory of recurrence as applied to this case, might it not be said that here was a case of a variation exhibiting the characters and conditions of an animal occupying something like an intermediate position between the Horse, the Ass, the Quagga, and the Zebra, and from which these had been developed? In the same way with regard even to Man. Every anatomist will tell you that there is nothing commoner, in dissecting the human body, than to meet with what are called muscular variations--that is, if you dissect two bodies very carefully, you will probably find that the modes of attachment and insertion of the muscles are not exactly the same in both, there being great peculiarities in the mode in which the muscles are arranged; and it is very singular, that in some dissections of the human body you will come upon arrangements of the muscles very similar indeed to the same parts in the Apes. Is the conclusion in that case to be, that this is like the black bars in the case of the Pigeon, and that it indicates a recurrence to the primitive type from which the animals have been probably developed? Truly, I think that the opponents of modification and variation had better leave the argument of recurrence alone, or it may prove altogether too strong for them. To sum up,--the evidence as far as we have gone is against the argument as to any limit to divergences, so far as structure is concerned; and in favour of a physiological limitation. By selective breeding we can produce structural divergences as great as those of species, but we cannot produce equal physiological divergences. For the present I leave the question there. Now, the next problem that lies before us--and it is an extremely important one--is this: Does this selective breeding occur in nature? Because, if there is no proof of it, all that I have been telling you goes for nothing in accounting for the origin of species. Are natural causes competent to play the part of selection in perpetuating varieties? Here we labour under very great difficulties. In the last lecture I had occasion to point out to you the extreme difficulty of obtaining evidence even of the first origin of those varieties which we know to have occurred in domesticated animals. I told you, that almost always the origin of these varieties is overlooked, so that I could only produce two or three cases, as that of Gratio Kelleia and of the Ancon sheep. People forget, or do not take notice of them until they come to have a prominence; and if that is true of artificial cases, under our own eyes, and in animals in our own care, how much more difficult it must be to have at first hand good evidence of the origin of varieties in nature! Indeed, I do not know that it is possible by direct evidence to prove the origin of a variety in nature, or to prove selective breeding; but I will tell you what we can prove--and this comes to the same thing--that varieties exist in nature within the limits of species, and, what is more, that when a variety has come into existence in nature, there are natural causes and conditions, which are amply competent to play the part of a selective breeder; and although that is not quite the evidence that one would like to have--though it is not direct testimony--yet it is exceeding good and exceedingly powerful evidence in its way. As to the first point, of varieties existing among natural species, I might appeal to the universal experience of every naturalist, and of any person who has ever turned any attention at all to the characteristics of plants and animals in a state of nature; but I may as well take a few definite cases, and I will begin with Man himself. I am one of those who believe that, at present, there is no evidence whatever for saying, that mankind sprang originally from any more than a single pair; I must say, that I cannot see any good ground whatever, or even any tenable sort of evidence, for believing that there is more than one species of Man. Nevertheless, as you know, just as there are numbers of varieties in animals, so there are remarkable varieties of men. I speak not merely of those broad and distinct variations which you see at a glance. Everybody, of course, knows the difference between a Negro and a white man, and can tell a Chinaman from an Englishman. They each have peculiar characteristics of colour and physiognomy; but you must recollect that the characters of these races go very far deeper--they extend to the bony structure, and to the characters of that most important of all organs to us--the brain; so that, among men belonging to different races, or even within the same race, one man shall have a brain a third, or half, or even seventy per cent, bigger than another; and if you take the whole range of human brains, you will find a variation in some cases of a hundred per cent. Apart from these variations in the size of the brain, the characters of the skull vary. Thus if I draw the figures of a Mongol and of a Negro head on the blackboard, in the case of the last the breadth would be about seven-tenths, and in the other it would be nine-tenths of the total length. So that you see there is abundant evidence of variation among men in their natural condition. And if you turn to other animals there is just the same thing. The fox, for example, which has a very large geographical distribution all over Europe, and parts of Asia, and on the American Continent, varies greatly. There are mostly large foxes in the North, and smaller ones in the South. In Germany alone the foresters reckon some eight different sorts. Of the tiger, no one supposes that there is more than one species; they extend from the hottest parts of Bengal, into the dry, cold, bitter steppes of Siberia, into a latitude of 50°,--so that they may even prey upon the reindeer. These tigers have exceedingly different characteristics, but still they all keep their general features, so that there is no doubt as to their being tigers. The Siberian tiger has a thick fur, a small mane, and a longitudinal stripe down the back, while the tigers of Java and Sumatra differ in many important respects from the tigers of Northern Asia. So lions vary; so birds vary; and so, if you go further back and lower down in creation, you find that fishes vary. In different streams, in the same country even, you will find the trout to be quite different to each other and easily recognisable by those who fish in the particular streams. There is the same differences in leeches; leech collectors can easily point out to you the differences and the peculiarities which you yourself would probably pass by; so with fresh-water mussels; so, in fact, with every animal you can mention. In plants there is the same kind of variation. Take such a case even as the common bramble. The botanists are all at war about it; some of them wanting to make out that there are many species of it, and others maintaining that they are but many varieties of one species; and they cannot settle to this day which is a species and which is a variety! So that there can be no doubt whatsoever that any plant and any animal may vary in nature; that varieties may arise in the way I have described--as spontaneous varieties--and that those varieties may be perpetuated in the same way that I have shown you spontaneous varieties are perpetuated; I say, therefore, that there can be no doubt as to the origin and perpetuation of varieties in nature. But the question now is:--Does selection take place in nature? Is there anything like the operation of man in exercising selective breeding, taking place in nature? You will observe that, at present, I say nothing about species; I wish to confine myself to the consideration of the production of those natural races which everybody admits to exist. The question is, whether in nature there are causes competent to produce races, just in the same way as man is able to produce by selection, such races of animals as we have already noticed. When a variety has arisen, the CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE are such as to exercise an influence which is exactly comparable to that of artificial selection. By Conditions of Existence I mean two things--there are conditions which are furnished by the physical, the inorganic world, and there are conditions of existence which are furnished by the organic world. There is, in the first place, CLIMATE; under that head I include only temperature and the varied amount of moisture of particular places. In the next place there is what is technically called STATION, which means--given the climate, the particular kind of place in which an animal or a plant lives or grows; for example, the station of a fish is in the water, of a fresh-water fish in fresh water; the station of a marine fish is in the sea, and a marine animal may have a station higher or deeper. So again with land animals: the differences in their stations are those of different soils and neighbourhoods; some being best adapted to a calcareous, and others to an arenaceous soil. The third condition of existence is FOOD, by which I mean food in the broadest sense, the supply of the materials necessary to the existence of an organic being; in the case of a plant the inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and the earthy salts or salines; in the case of the animal the inorganic and organic matters, which we have seen they require; then these are all, at least the first two, what we may call the inorganic or physical conditions of existence. Food takes a mid-place, and then come the organic conditions; by which I mean the conditions which depend upon the state of the rest of the organic creation, upon the number and kind of living beings, with which an animal is surrounded. You may class these under two heads: there are organic beings, which operate as _opponents_, and there are organic beings which operate as _helpers_ to any given organic creature. The opponents may be of two kinds: there are the _indirect opponents_, which are what we may call _rivals_; and there are the _direct opponents_, those which strive to destroy the creature; and these we call _enemies_. By rivals I mean, of course, in the case of plants, those which require for their support the same kind of soil and station, and, among animals, those which require the same kind of station, or food, or climate; those are the indirect opponents; the direct opponents are, of course, those which prey upon an animal or vegetable. The _helpers_ may also be regarded as direct and indirect: in the case of a carnivorous animal, for example, a particular herbaceous plant may, in multiplying, be an indirect helper, by enabling the herbivora on which the carnivore preys to get more food, and thus to nourish the carnivore more abundantly; the direct helper may be best illustrated by reference to some parasitic creature, such as the tape-worm. The tape-worm exists in the human intestines, so that the fewer there are of men the fewer there will be of tape-worms, other things being alike. It is a humiliating reflection, perhaps, that we may be classed as direct helpers to the tape-worm, but the fact is so: we can all see that if there were no men there would be no tape-worms. It is extremely difficult to estimate, in a proper way, the importance and the working of the Conditions of Existence. I do not think there were any of us who had the remotest notion of properly estimating them until the publication of Mr. Darwin's work, which has placed them before us with remarkable clearness; and I must endeavour, as far as I can in my own fashion, to give you some notion of how they work. We shall find it easiest to take a simple case, and one as free as possible from every kind of complication. I will suppose, therefore, that all the habitable part of this globe--the dry land, amounting to about 51,000,000 square miles--I will suppose that the whole of that dry land has the same climate, and that it is composed of the same kind of rock or soil, so that there will be the same station everywhere; we thus get rid of the peculiar influence of different climates and stations. I will then imagine that there shall be but one organic being in the world, and that shall be a plant. In this we start fair. Its food is to be carbonic acid, water and ammonia, and the saline matters in the soil, which are, by the supposition, everywhere alike. We take one single plant, with no opponents, no helpers, and no rivals; it is to be a "fair field, and no favour." Now, I will ask you to imagine further that it shall be a plant which shall produce every year fifty seeds, which is a very moderate number for a plant to produce; and that, by the action of the winds and currents, these seeds shall be equally and gradually distributed over the whole surface of the land. I want you now to trace out what will occur, and you will observe that I am not talking fallaciously any more than a mathematician does when he expounds his problem. If you show that the conditions of your problem are such as may actually occur in Nature and do not transgress any of the known laws of Nature in working out your proposition, then you are as safe in the conclusion you arrive at as is the mathematician in arriving at the solution of his problem. In science, the only way of getting rid of the complications with which a subject of this kind is environed, is to work in this deductive method. What will be the result, then? I will suppose that every plant requires one square foot of ground to live upon; and the result will be that, in the course of nine years, the plant will have occupied every single available spot in the whole globe! I have chalked upon the blackboard the figures by which I arrive at the result:-- Plants. Plants. 1 x 50 in 1st year = 50 50 x 50 " 2nd " = 2,500 2,500 x 50 " 3rd " = 125,000 125,000 x 50 " 4th " = 6,250,000 6,250,000 x 50 " 5th " = 312,500,000 312,500,000 x 50 " 6th " = 15,625,000,000 15,625,000,000 x 50 " 7th " = 781,250,000,000 781,250,000,000 x 50 " 8th " = 39,062,500,000,000 39,062,500,000,000 x 50 " 9th " = 1,953,125,000,000,000 51,000,000 square miles--the ) dry surface of the earth x ) 27,878,400--the number of ) = sq. ft. 1,421,798,400,000,000 sq. ft. in 1 sq. mile ) --------------------- being 531,326,600,000,000 square feet less than would be required at the end of the ninth year. You will see from this that, at the end of the first year the single plant will have produced fifty more of its kind; by the end of the second year these will have increased to 2,500; and so on, in succeeding years, you get beyond even trillions; and I am not at all sure that I could tell you what the proper arithmetical denomination of the total number really is; but, at any rate, you will understand the meaning of all those noughts. Then you see that, at the bottom, I have taken the 51,000,000 of square miles, constituting the surface of the dry land; and as the number of square feet are placed under and subtracted from the number of seeds that would be produced in the ninth year, you can see at once that there would be an immense number more of plants than there would be square feet of ground for their accommodation. This is certainly quite enough to prove my point; that between the eighth and ninth year after being planted the single plant would have stocked the whole available surface of the earth. This is a thing which is hardly conceivable--it seems hardly imaginable--yet it is so. It is indeed simply the law of Malthus exemplified. Mr. Malthus was a clergyman, who worked out this subject most minutely and truthfully some years ago; he showed quite clearly--and although he was much abused for his conclusions at the time, they have never yet been disproved and never will be--he showed that in consequence of the increase in the number of organic beings in a geometrical ratio, while the means of existence cannot be made to increase in the same ratio, that there must come a time when the number of organic beings will be in excess of the power of production of nutriment, and that thus some check must arise to the further increase of those organic beings. At the end of the ninth year we have seen that each plant would not be able to get its full square foot of ground, and at the end of another year it would have to share that space with fifty others the produce of the seeds which it would give off. What, then, takes place? Every plant grows up, flourishes, occupies its square foot of ground, and gives off its fifty seeds; but notice this, that out of this number only one can come to anything; there is thus, as it were, forty-nine chances to one against its growing up; it depends upon the most fortuitous circumstances whether any one of these fifty seeds shall grow up and flourish, or whether it shall die and perish. This is what Mr. Darwin has drawn attention to, and called the "STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE"; and I have taken this simple case of a plant because some people imagine that the phrase seems to imply a sort of fight. I have taken this plant and shown you that this is the result of the ratio of the increase, the necessary result of the arrival of a time coming for every species when exactly as many members must be destroyed as are born; that is the inevitable ultimate result of the rate of production. Now, what is the result of all this? I have said that there are forty-nine struggling against every one; and it amounts to this, that the smallest possible start given to any one seed may give it an advantage which will enable it to get ahead of all the others; anything that will enable any one of these seeds to germinate six hours before any of the others will, other things being alike, enable it to choke them out altogether. I have shown you that there is no particular in which plants will not vary from each other; it is quite possible that one of our imaginary plants may vary in such a character as the thickness of the integument of its seeds; it might happen that one of the plants might produce seeds having a thinner integument, and that would enable the seeds of that plant to germinate a little quicker than those of any of the others, and those seeds would most inevitably extinguish the forty-nine times as many that were struggling with them. I have put it in this way, but you see the practical result of the process is the same as if some person had nurtured the one and destroyed the other seeds. It does not matter how the variation is produced, so long as it is once allowed to occur. The variation in the plant once fairly started tends to become hereditary and reproduce itself; the seeds would spread themselves in the same way and take part in the struggle with the forty-nine hundred, or forty-nine thousand, with which they might be exposed. Thus, by degrees, this variety with some slight organic change or modification, must spread itself over the whole surface of the habitable globe, and extirpate or replace the other kinds. That is what is meant by NATURAL SELECTION; that is the kind of argument by which it is perfectly demonstrable that the conditions of existence may play exactly the same part for natural varieties as man does for domesticated varieties. No one doubts at all that particular circumstances may be more favourable for one plant and less so for another, and the moment you admit that, you admit the selective power of nature. Now, although I have been putting a hypothetical case, you must not suppose that I have been reasoning hypothetically. There are plenty of direct experiments which bear out what we may call the theory of natural selection; there is extremely good authority for the statement that if you take the seed of mixed varieties of wheat and sow it, collecting the seed next year and sowing it again, at length you will find that out of all your varieties only two or three have lived, or perhaps even only one. There were one or two varieties which were best fitted to get on, and they have killed out the other kinds in just the same way and with just the same certainty as if you had taken the trouble to remove them. As I have already said, the operation of nature is exactly the same as the artificial operation of man. But if this be true of that simple case, which I put before you, where there is nothing but the rivalry of one member of a species with others, what must be the operation of selective conditions, when you recollect as a matter of fact, that for every species of animal or plant there are fifty or a hundred species which might all, more or less, be comprehended in the same climate, food, and station;--that every plant has multitudinous animals which prey upon it, and which are its direct opponents; and that these have other animals preying upon them,--that every plant has its indirect helpers in the birds that scatter abroad its seed, and the animals that manure it with their dung;--I say, when these things are considered, it seems impossible that any variation which may arise in a species in nature should not tend in some way or other either to be a little better or worse than the previous stock; if it is a little better it will have an advantage over and tend to extirpate the latter in this crush and struggle; and if it is a little worse it will itself be extirpated. I know nothing that more appropriately expresses this, than the phrase, "the struggle for existence "; because it brings before your minds, in a vivid sort of way, some of the simplest possible circumstances connected with it. When a struggle is intense there must be some who are sure to be trodden down, crushed, and overpowered by others; and there will be some who just manage to get through only by the help of the slightest accident. I recollect reading an account of the famous retreat of the French troops, under Napoleon, from Moscow. Worn out, tired, and dejected, they at length came to a great river over which there was but one bridge for the passage of the vast army. Disorganised and demoralised as that army was, the struggle must certainly have been a terrible one--every one heeding only himself, and crushing through the ranks and treading down his fellows. The writer of the narrative, who was himself one of those who were fortunate enough to succeed in getting over, and not among the thousands who were left behind or forced into the river, ascribed his escape to the fact that he saw striding onward through the mass a great strong fellow,--one of the French Cuirassiers, who had on a large blue cloak-and he had enough presence of mind to catch and retain a hold of this strong man's cloak. He says, "I caught hold of his cloak, and although he swore at me and cut at and struck me by turns, and at last, when he found he could not shake me off, fell to entreating me to leave go or I should prevent him from escaping, besides not assisting myself, I still kept tight hold of him, and would not quit my grasp until he had at last dragged me through." Here you see was a case of selective saving--if we may so term it--depending for its success on the strength of the cloth of the Cuirassier's cloak. It is the same in nature; every species has its bridge of Beresina; it has to fight its way through and struggle with other species; and when well-nigh overpowered, it may be that the smallest chance, something in its colour, perhaps--the minutest circumstance--will turn the scale one way or the other. Suppose that by a variation of the black race it had produced the white man at any time--you know that the Negroes are said to believe this to have been the case, and to imagine that Cain was the first white man, and that we are his descendants--suppose that this had ever happened, and that the first residence of this human being was on the West Coast of Africa. There is no great structural difference between the white man and the Negro, and yet there is something so singularly different in the constitution of the two, that the malarias of that country, which do not hurt the black at all, cut off and destroy the white. Then you see there would have been a selective operation performed; if the white man had risen in that way, he would have been selected out and removed by means of the malaria. Now there really is a very curious case of selection of this sort among pigs, and it is a case of selection of colour too. In the woods of Florida there are a great many pigs, and it is a very curious thing that they are all black, every one of them. Professor Wyman was there some years ago, and on noticing no pigs but these black ones, he asked some of the people how it was that they had no white pigs, and the reply was that in the woods of Florida there was a root which they called the Paint Root, and that if the white pigs were to eat any of it, it had the effect of making their hoofs crack, and they died, but if the black pigs ate any of it, it did not hurt them at all. Here was a very simple case of natural selection. A skilful breeder could not more carefully develop the black breed of pigs, and weed out all the white pigs, than the Paint Root does. To show you how remarkably indirect may be such natural selective agencies as I have referred to, I will conclude by noticing a case mentioned by Mr. Darwin, and which is certainly one of the most curious of its kind. It is that of the Humble Bee. It has been noticed that there are a great many more humble bees in the neighbourhood of towns, than out in the open country; and the explanation of the matter is this: the humble bees build nests, in which they store their honey and deposit the larvæ and eggs. The field mice are amazingly fond of the honey and larvæ; therefore, wherever there are plenty of field mice, as in the country, the humble bees are kept down; but in the neighbourhood of towns, the number of cats which prowl about the fields eat up the field mice, and of course the more mice they eat up the less there are to prey upon the larvæ of the bees--the cats are therefore the INDIRECT HELPERS of the bees. [Footnote: The humble bees, on the other hand, are direct helpers of some plants, such as the heartsease and red clover, which are fertilised by the visits of the bees; and they are indirect helpers of the numerous insects which are more or less completely supported by the heartsease and red clover.] Coming back a step farther we may say that the old maids are also indirect friends of the humble bees, and indirect enemies of the field mice, as they keep the cats which eat up the latter! This is an illustration somewhat beneath the dignity of the subject, perhaps, but it occurs to me in passing, and with it I will conclude this lecture. VI. A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE POSITION OF MR. DARWIN'S WORK, "ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES," IN RELATION TO THE COMPLETE THEORY OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE In the preceding five lectures I have endeavoured to give you an account of those facts, and of those reasonings from facts, which form the data upon which all theories regarding the causes of the phenomena of organic nature must be based. And, although I have had frequent occasion to quote Mr. Darwin--as all persons hereafter, in speaking upon these subjects, will have occasion to quote his famous book on the "Origin of Species,"--you must yet remember that, wherever I have quoted him, it has not been upon theoretical points, or for statements in any way connected with his particular speculations, but on matters of fact, brought forward by himself, or collected by himself, and which appear incidentally in his book. If a man _will_ make a book, professing to discuss a single question, an encyclopædia, I cannot help it. Now, having had an opportunity of considering in this sort of way the different statements bearing upon all theories whatsoever, I have to lay before you, as fairly as I can, what is Mr. Darwin's view of the matter and what position his theories hold, when judged by the principles which I have previously laid down, as deciding our judgments upon all theories and hypotheses. I have already stated to you that the inquiry respecting the causes of the phenomena of organic nature resolves itself into two problems--the first being the question of the origination of living or organic beings; and the second being the totally distinct problem of the modification and perpetuation of organic beings when they have already come into existence. The first question Mr. Darwin does not touch; he does not deal with it at all; but he says:--"Given the origin of organic matter--supposing its creation to have already taken place, my object is to show in consequence of what laws and what demonstrable properties of organic matter, and of its environments, such states of organic nature as those with which we are acquainted must have come about." This, you will observe, is a perfectly legitimate proposition; every person has a right to define the limits of the inquiry which he sets before himself; and yet it is a most singular thing that in all the multifarious, and, not unfrequently, ignorant attacks which have been made upon the "Origin of Species," there is nothing which has been more speciously criticised than this particular limitation. If people have nothing else to urge against the book, they say--"Well, after all, you see Mr. Darwin's explanation of the 'Origin of Species' is not good for much, because, in the long run, he admits that he does not know how organic matter began to exist. But if you admit any special creation for the first particle of organic matter you may just as well admit it for all the rest; five hundred or five thousand distinct creations are just as intelligible, and just as little difficult to understand, as one." The answer to these cavils is two-fold. In the first place, all human inquiry must stop somewhere; all our knowledge and all our investigation cannot take us beyond the limits set by the finite and restricted character of our faculties, or destroy the endless unknown, which accompanies, like its shadow, the endless procession of phenomena. So far as I can venture to offer an opinion on such a matter, the purpose of our being in existence, the highest object that human beings can set before themselves, is not the pursuit of any such chimera as the annihilation of the unknown; but it is simply the unwearied endeavour to remove its boundaries a little further from our little sphere of action. I wonder if any historian would for a moment admit the objection, that it is preposterous to trouble ourselves about the history of the Roman Empire, because we do not know anything positive about the origin and first building of the city of Rome! Would it be a fair objection to urge, respecting the sublime discoveries of a Newton, or a Kepler, those great philosophers, whose discoveries have been of the profoundest benefit and service to all men--to say to them--"After all that you have told us as to how the planets revolve, and how they are maintained in their orbits, you cannot tell us what is the cause of the origin of the sun, moon, and stars. So what is the use of what you have done?" Yet these objections would not be one whit more preposterous than the objections which have been made to the "Origin of Species." Mr. Darwin, then, had a perfect right to limit his inquiry as he pleased, and the only question for us--the inquiry being so limited--is to ascertain whether the method of his inquiry is sound or unsound; whether he has obeyed the canons which must guide and govern all investigation, or whether he has broken them; and it was because our inquiry this evening is essentially limited to that question, that I spent a good deal of time in a former lecture (which, perhaps some of you thought might have been better employed), in endeavouring to illustrate the method and nature of scientific inquiry in general. We shall now have to put in practice the principles that I then laid down. I stated to you in substance, if not in words, that wherever there are complex masses of phenomena to be inquired into, whether they be phenomena of the affairs of daily life, or whether they belong to the more abstruse and difficult problems laid before the philosopher, our course of proceeding in unravelling that complex chain of phenomena with a view to get at its cause, is always the same; in all cases we must invent an hypothesis; we must place before ourselves some more or less likely supposition respecting that cause; and then, having assumed an hypothesis, having supposed a cause for the phenomena in question, we must endeavour, on the one hand, to demonstrate our hypothesis, or, on the other, to upset and reject it altogether, by testing it in three ways. We must, in the first place, be prepared to prove that the supposed causes of the phenomena exist in nature; that they are what the logicians call _vera causæ_--true causes;--in the next place, we should be prepared to show that the assumed causes of the phenomena are competent to produce such phenomena as those which we wish to explain by them; and in the last place, we ought to be able to show that no other known causes are competent to produce these phenomena. If we can succeed in satisfying these three conditions we shall have demonstrated our hypothesis; or rather I ought to say we shall have proved it as far as certainty is possible for us; for, after all, there is no one of our surest convictions which may not be upset, or at any rate modified by a further accession of knowledge. It was because it satisfied these conditions that we accepted the hypothesis as to the disappearance of the tea-pot and spoons in the case I supposed in a previous lecture; we found that our hypothesis on that subject was tenable and valid, because the supposed cause existed in nature, because it was competent to account for the phenomena, and because no other known cause was competent to account for them; and it is upon similar grounds that any hypothesis you choose to name is accepted in science as tenable and valid. What is Mr. Darwin's hypothesis? As I apprehend it--for I have put it into a shape more convenient for common purposes than I could find _verbatim_ in his book--as I apprehend it, I say, it is, that all the phenomena of organic nature, past and present, result from, or are caused by, the inter-action of those properties of organic matter, which we have called ATAVISM and VARIABILITY, with the CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE, or, in other words,--given the existence of organic matter, its tendency to transmit its properties, and its tendency occasionally to vary; and, lastly, given the conditions of existence by which organic matter is surrounded--that these put together are the causes of the Present and of the Past conditions of ORGANIC NATURE. Such is the hypothesis as I understand it. Now let us see how it will stand the various tests which I laid down just now. In the first place, do these supposed causes of the phenomena exist in nature? Is it the fact that, in nature, these properties of organic matter--atavism and variability--and those phenomena which we have called the conditions of existence,--is it true that they exist? Well, of course, if they do not exist, all that I have told you in the last three or four lectures must be incorrect, because I have been attempting to prove that they do exist, and I take it that there is abundant evidence that they do exist; so far, therefore, the hypothesis does not break down. But in the next place comes a much more difficult inquiry:--Are the causes indicated competent to give rise to the phenomena of organic nature? I suspect that this is indubitable to a certain extent. It is demonstrable, I think, as I have endeavoured to show you, that they are perfectly competent to give rise to all the phenomena which are exhibited by RACES in nature. Furthermore, I believe that they are quite competent to account for all that we may call purely structural phenomena which are exhibited by SPECIES in nature. On that point also I have already enlarged somewhat. Again, I think that the causes assumed are competent to account for most of the physiological characteristics of species, and I not only think that they are competent to account for them, but I think that they account for many things which otherwise remain wholly unaccountable and inexplicable, and I may say incomprehensible. For a full exposition of the grounds on which this conviction is based, I must refer you to Mr. Darwin's work; all that I can do now is to illustrate what I have said by two or three cases taken almost at random. I drew your attention, on a previous evening, to the facts which are embodied in our systems of Classification, which are the results of the examination and comparison of the different members of the animal kingdom one with another. I mentioned that the whole of the animal kingdom is divisible into five sub-kingdoms; that each of these sub-kingdoms is again divisible into provinces; that each province may be divided into classes, and the classes into the successively smaller groups, orders, families, genera, and species. Now, in each of these groups the resemblance in structure among the members of the group is closer in proportion as the group is smaller. Thus, a man and a worm are members of the animal kingdom in virtue of certain apparently slight though really fundamental resemblances which they present. But a man and a fish are members of the same sub-kingdom _Vertebrata_, because they are much more like one another than either of them is to a worm, or a snail, or any member of the other sub-kingdoms. For similar reasons men and horses are arranged as members of the same Class, _Mammalia_; men and apes as members of the same Order, _Primates_; and if there were any animals more like men than they were like any of the apes, and yet different from men in important and constant particulars of their organisation, we should rank them as members of the same Family, or of the same Genus, but as of distinct Species. That it is possible to arrange all the varied forms of animals into groups, having this sort of singular subordination one to the other, is a very remarkable circumstance; but, as Mr. Darwin remarks, this is a result which is quite to be expected, if the principles which he lays down be correct. Take the case of the races which are known to be produced by the operation of atavism and variability, and the conditions of existence which check and modify these tendencies. Take the case of the pigeons that I brought before you: there it was shown that they might be all classed as belonging to some one of five principal divisions, and that within these divisions other subordinate groups might be formed. The members of these groups are related to one another in just the same way as the genera of a family, and the groups themselves as the families of an order, or the orders of a class; while all have the same sort of structural relations with the wild rock-pigeon, as the members of any great natural group have with a real or imaginary typical form. Now, we know that all varieties of pigeons of every kind have arisen by a process of selective breeding from a common stock, the rock-pigeon; hence, you see, that if all species of animals have proceeded from some common stock, the general character of their structural relations, and of our systems of classification, which express those relations, would be just what we find them to be. In other words, the hypothetical cause is, so far, competent to produce effects similar to those of the real cause. Take, again, another set of very remarkable facts,--the existence of what are called rudimentary organs, organs for which we can find no obvious use, in the particular animal economy in which they are found, and yet which are there. Such are the splint-like bones in the leg of the horse, which I here show you, and which correspond with bones which belong to certain toes and fingers in the human hand and foot. In the horse you see they are quite rudimentary, and bear neither toes nor fingers; so that the horse has only one "finger" in his fore-foot and one "toe" in his hind-foot. But it is a very curious thing that the animals closely allied to the horse show more toes than he; as the rhinoceros, for instance: he has these extra toes well formed, and anatomical facts show very clearly that he is very closely related to the horse indeed. So we may say that animals, in an anatomical sense nearly related to the horse, have those parts which are rudimentary in him fully developed. Again, the sheep and the cow have no cutting-teeth, but only a hard pad in the upper jaw. That is the common characteristic of ruminants in general. But the calf has in its upper jaw some rudiments of teeth which never are developed, and never play the part of teeth at all. Well, if you go back in time, you find some of the older, now extinct, allies of the ruminants have well-developed teeth in their upper jaws; and at the present day the pig (which is in structure closely connected with ruminants) has well-developed teeth in its upper jaw; so that here is another instance of organs well-developed and very useful, in one animal, represented by rudimentary organs, for which we can discover no purpose whatsoever in another closely allied animal. The whalebone whale, again, has horny "whalebone" plates in its mouth, and no teeth; but the young foetal whale before it is born has teeth in its jaws; they, however, are never used, and they never come to anything. But other members of the group to which the whale belongs have well-developed teeth in both jaws. Upon any hypothesis of special creation, facts of this kind appear to me to be entirely unaccountable and inexplicable, but they cease to be so if you accept Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, and see reason for believing that the whalebone whale and the whale with teeth in its mouth both sprang from a whale that had teeth, and that the teeth of the foetal whale are merely remnants--recollections, if we may so say--of the extinct whale. So in the case of the horse and the rhinoceros: suppose that both have descended by modification from some earlier form which had the normal number of toes, and the persistence of the rudimentary bones which no longer support toes in the horse becomes comprehensible. In the language that we speak in England, and in the language of the Greeks, there are identical verbal roots, or elements entering into the composition of words. That fact remains unintelligible so long as we suppose English and Greek to be independently created tongues; but when it is shown that both languages are descended from one original, we give an explanation of that resemblance. In the same way the existence of identical structural roots, if I may so term them, entering into the composition of widely different animals, is striking evidence in favour of the descent of those animals from a common original. To turn to another kind of illustration:--If you regard the whole series of stratified rocks--that enormous thickness of sixty or seventy thousand feet that I have mentioned before, constituting the only record we have of a most prodigious lapse of time, that time being, in all probability, but a fraction of that of which we have no record;--if you observe in these successive strata of rocks successive groups of animals arising and dying out, a constant succession, giving you the same kind of impression, as you travel from one group of strata to another, as you would have in travelling from one country to another;--when you find this constant succession of forms, their traces obliterated except to the man of science--when you look at this wonderful history, and ask what it means, it is only a paltering with words if you are offered the reply--"They were so created." But if, on the other hand, you look on all forms of organised beings as the results of the gradual modification of a primitive type, the facts receive a meaning, and you see that these older conditions are the necessary predecessors of the present. Viewed in this light the facts of palaeontology receive a meaning--upon any other hypothesis I am unable to see, in the slightest degree, what knowledge or signification we are to draw out of them. Again, note as bearing upon the same point, the singular likeness which obtains between the successive Faunæ and Floræ, whose remains are preserved on the rocks: you never find any great and enormous difference between the immediately successive Faunæ and Floræ, unless you have reason to believe there has also been a great lapse of time or a great change of conditions. The animals, for instance, of the newest tertiary rocks, in any part of the world, are always, and without exception, found to be closely allied with those which now live in that part of the world. For example, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, the large mammals are at present rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, elephants, lions, tigers, oxen, horses, &c.; and if you examine the newest tertiary deposits, which contain the animals and plants which immediately preceded those which now exist in the same country, you do not find gigantic specimens of ant-eaters and kangaroos, but you find rhinoceroses, elephants, lions, tigers, &c.,--of different species to those now living--but still their close allies. If you turn to South America, where, at the present day, we have great sloths and armadilloes and creatures of that kind, what do you find in the newest tertiaries? You find the great sloth-like creature, the _Megatherium_, and the great armadillo, the _Glyptodon_, and so on. And if you go to Australia you find the same law holds good, namely, that that condition of organic nature which has preceded the one which now exists, presents differences perhaps of species, and of genera, but that the great types of organic structure are the same as those which now flourish. What meaning has this fact upon any other hypothesis or supposition than one of successive modification? But if the population of the world, in any age, is the result of the gradual modification of the forms which peopled it in the preceding age--if that has been the case, it is intelligible enough; because we may expect that the creature that results from the modification of an elephantine mammal shall be something like an elephant, and the creature which is produced by the modification of an armadillo-like mammal shall be like an armadillo. Upon that supposition, I say, the facts are intelligible; upon any other, that I am aware of, they are not. So far, the facts of palæontology are consistent with almost any form of the doctrine of progressive modification; they would not be absolutely inconsistent with the wild speculations of De Maillet, or with the less objectionable hypothesis of Lamarck. But Mr. Darwin's views have one peculiar merit; and that is, that they are perfectly consistent with an array of facts which are utterly inconsistent with, and fatal to, any other hypothesis of progressive modification which has yet been advanced. It is one remarkable peculiarity of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis that it involves no necessary progression or incessant modification, and that it is perfectly consistent with the persistence for any length of time of a given primitive stock, contemporaneously with its modifications. To return to the case of the domestic breeds of pigeons, for example; you have the dove-cot pigeon, which closely resembles the rock pigeon, from which they all started, existing at the same time with the others. And if species are developed in the same way in nature, a primitive stock and its modifications may, occasionally, all find the conditions fitted for their existence; and though they come into competition, to a certain extent, with one another, the derivative species may not necessarily extirpate the primitive one, or _vice versa_. Now palæontology shows us many facts which are perfectly harmonious with these observed effects of the process by which Mr. Darwin supposes species to have originated, but which appear to me to be totally inconsistent with any other hypothesis which has been proposed. There are some groups of animals and plants, in the fossil world, which have been said to belong to "persistent types," because they have persisted, with very little change indeed, through a very great range of time, while everything about them has changed largely. There are families of fishes whose type of construction has persisted all the way from the carboniferous strata right up to the cretaceous; and others which have lasted through almost the whole range of the secondary rocks, and from the lias to the older tertiaries. It is something stupendous this--to consider a genus lasting without essential modifications through all this enormous lapse of time while almost everything else was changed and modified. Thus I have no doubt that Mr. Darwin's hypothesis will be found competent to explain the majority of the phenomena exhibited by species in nature; but in an earlier lecture I spoke cautiously with respect to its power of explaining all the physiological peculiarities of species. There is, in fact, one set of these peculiarities which the theory of selective modification, as it stands at present, is not wholly competent to explain, and that is the group of phenomena which I mentioned to you under the name of Hybridism, and which I explained to consist in the sterility of the offspring of certain species when crossed one with another. It matters not one whit whether this sterility is universal, or whether it exists only in a single case. Every hypothesis is bound to explain, or, at any rate, not be inconsistent with, the whole of the facts which it professes to account for; and if there is a single one of these facts which can be shown to be inconsistent with (I do not merely mean inexplicable by, but contrary to) the hypothesis, the hypothesis falls to the ground,--it is worth nothing. One fact with which it is positively inconsistent is worth as much, and as powerful in negativing the hypothesis, as five hundred. If I am right in thus defining the obligations of an hypothesis, Mr. Darwin, in order to place his views beyond the reach of all possible assault, ought to be able to demonstrate the possibility of developing from a particular stock by selective breeding, two forms, which should either be unable to cross one with another, or whose cross-bred offspring should be infertile with one another. For, you see, if you have not done that you have not strictly fulfilled all the conditions of the problem; you have not shown that you can produce, by the cause assumed, all the phenomena which you have in nature. Here are the phenomena of Hybridism staring you in the face, and you cannot say, "I can, by selective modification, produce these same results." Now, it is admitted on all hands that, at present, so far as experiments have gone, it has not been found possible to produce this complete physiological divergence by selective breeding. I stated this very clearly before, and I now refer to the point, because, if it could be proved, not only that this _has_ not been done, but that it _cannot_ be done; if it could be demonstrated that it is impossible to breed selectively, from any stock, a form which shall not breed with another, produced from the same stock; and if we were shown that this must be the necessary and inevitable results of all experiments, I hold that Mr. Darwin's hypothesis would be utterly shattered. But has this been done? or what is really the state of the case? It is simply that, so far as we have gone yet with our breeding, we have not produced from a common stock two breeds which are not more or less fertile with one another. I do not know that there is a single fact which would justify any one in saying that any degree of sterility has been observed between breeds absolutely known to have been produced by selective breeding from a common stock. On the other hand, I do not know that there is a single fact which can justify any one in asserting that such sterility cannot be produced by proper experimentation. For my own part, I see every reason to believe that it may, and will be so produced. For, as Mr. Darwin has very properly urged, when we consider the phenomena of sterility, we find they are most capricious; we do not know what it is that the sterility depends on. There are some animals which will not breed in captivity; whether it arises from the simple fact of their being shut up and deprived of their liberty, or not, we do not know, but they certainly will not breed. What an astounding thing this is, to find one of the most important of all functions annihilated by mere imprisonment! So, again, there are cases known of animals which have been thought by naturalists to be undoubted species, which have yielded perfectly fertile hybrids; while there are other species which present what everybody believes to be varieties [Footnote: And as I conceive with very good reason; but if any objector urges that we cannot prove that they have been produced by artificial or natural selection, the objection must be admitted--ultra-sceptical as it is. But in science, scepticism is a duty.] which are more or less infertile with one another. There are other cases which are truly extraordinary; there is one, for example, which has been carefully examined,--of two kinds of sea-weed, of which the male element of the one, which we may call A, fertilises the female element of the other, B; while the male element of B will not fertilise the female element of A; so that, while the former experiment seems to show us that they are _varieties_, the latter leads to the conviction that they are _species_. When we see how capricious and uncertain this sterility is, how unknown the conditions on which it depends, I say that we have no right to affirm that those conditions will not be better understood by and by, and we have no ground for supposing that we may not be able to experiment so as to obtain that crucial result which I mentioned just now. So that though Mr. Darwin's hypothesis does not completely extricate us from this difficulty at present, we have not the least right to say it will not do so. There is a wide gulf between the thing you cannot explain and the thing that upsets you altogether. There is hardly any hypothesis in this world which has not some fact in connection with it which has not been explained, but that is a very different affair to a fact that entirely opposes your hypothesis; in this case all you can say is, that your hypothesis is in the same position as a good many others. Now, as to the third test, that there are no other causes competent to explain the phenomena, I explained to you that one should be able to say of an hypothesis, that no other known causes than those supposed by it are competent to give rise to the phenomena. Here, I think, Mr. Darwin's view is pretty strong. I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin's. I do not know of any proposition that has been put before us with the intention of explaining the phenomena of organic nature, which has in its favour a thousandth part of the evidence which may be adduced in favour of Mr. Darwin's views. Whatever may be the objections to his views, certainly all other theories are absolutely out of court. Take the Lamarckian hypothesis, for example. Lamarck was a great naturalist, and to a certain extent went the right way to work; he argued from what was undoubtedly a true cause of some of the phenomena of organic nature. He said it is a matter of experience that an animal may be modified more or less in consequence of its desires and consequent actions. Thus, if a man exercise himself as a blacksmith, his arms will become strong and muscular; such organic modification is a result of this particular action and exercise. Lamarck thought that by a very simple supposition based on this truth he could explain the origin of the various animal species: he said, for example, that the short-legged birds which live on fish had been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish without wetting their feathers, and so stretching their legs more and more through successive generations. If Lamarck could have shown experimentally that even races of animals could be produced in this way, there might have been some ground for his speculations. But he could show nothing of the kind, and his hypothesis has pretty well dropped into oblivion, as it deserved to do. I said in an earlier lecture that there are hypotheses and hypotheses, and when people tell you that Mr. Darwin's strongly-based hypothesis is nothing but a mere modification of Lamarck's, you will know what to think of their capacity for forming a judgment on this subject. But you must recollect that when I say I think it is either Mr. Darwin's hypothesis or nothing; that either we must take his view, or look upon the whole of organic nature as an enigma, the meaning of which is wholly hidden from us; you must understand that I mean that I accept it provisionally, in exactly the same way as I accept any other hypothesis. Men of science do not pledge themselves to creeds; they are bound by articles of no sort; there is not a single belief that it is not a bounden duty with them to hold with a light hand and to part with cheerfully, the moment it is really proved to be contrary to any fact, great or small. And if, in course of time I see good reasons for such a proceeding, I shall have no hesitation in coming before you, and pointing out any change in my opinion without finding the slightest occasion to blush for so doing. So I say that we accept this view as we accept any other, so long as it will help us, and we feel bound to retain it only so long as it will serve our great purpose--the improvement of Man's estate and the widening of his knowledge. The moment this, or any other conception, ceases to be useful for these purposes, away with it to the four winds; we care not what becomes of it! But to say truth, although it has been my business to attend closely to the controversies roused by the publication of Mr. Darwin's book, I think that not one of the enormous mass of objections and obstacles which have been raised is of any very great value, except that sterility case which I brought before you just now. All the rest are misunderstandings of some sort, arising either from prejudice, or want of knowledge, or still more from want of patience and care in reading the work. For you must recollect that it is not a book to be read with as much ease as its pleasant style may lead you to imagine. You spin through it as if it were a novel the first time you read it, and think you know all about it; the second time you read it you think you know rather less about it; and the third time, you are amazed to find how little you have really apprehended its vast scope and objects. I can positively say that I never take it up without finding in it some new view, or light, or suggestion that I have not noticed before. That is the best characteristic of a thorough and profound book; and I believe this feature of the "Origin of Species" explains why so many persons have ventured to pass judgment and criticisms upon it which are by no means worth the paper they are written on. Before concluding these lectures there is one point to which I must advert--though, as Mr. Darwin has said nothing about man in his book, it concerns myself rather than him;--for I have strongly maintained on sundry occasions that if Mr. Darwin's views are sound, they apply as much to man as to the lower mammals, seeing that it is perfectly demonstrable that the structural differences which separate man from the apes are not greater than those which separate some apes from others. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the world that the argument which applies to the improvement of the horse from an earlier stock, or of ape from ape, applies to the improvement of man from some simpler and lower stock than man. There is not a single faculty--functional or structural, moral, intellectual, or instinctive, there--is no faculty whatever that is not capable of improvement; there is no faculty whatsoever which does not depend upon structure, and as structure tends to vary, it is capable of being improved. Well, I have taken a good deal of pains at various times to prove this, and I have endeavoured to meet the objections of those who maintain, that the structural differences between man and the lower animals are of so vast a character and enormous extent, that even if Mr. Darwin's views are correct, you cannot imagine this particular modification to take place. It is, in fact, an easy matter to prove that, so far as structure is concerned, man differs to no greater extent from the animals which are immediately below him than these do from other members of the same order. Upon the other hand, there is no one who estimates more highly than I do the dignity of human nature, and the width of the gulf in intellectual and moral matters which lies between man and the whole of the lower creation. But I find this very argument brought forward vehemently by some. "You say that man has proceeded from a modification of some lower animal, and you take pains to prove that the structural differences which are said to exist in his brain do not exist at all, and you teach that all functions, intellectual, moral, and others, are the expression or the result, in the long run, of structures, and of the molecular forces which they exert." It is quite true that I do so. "Well, but," I am told at once, somewhat triumphantly, "you say in the same breath that there is a great moral and intellectual chasm between man and the lower animals. How is this possible when you declare that moral and intellectual characteristics depend on structure, and yet tell us that there is no such gulf between the structure of man and that of the lower animals?" I think that objection is based upon a misconception of the real relations which exist between structure and function, between mechanism and work. Function is the expression of molecular forces and arrangements no doubt; but, does it follow from this, that variation in function so depends upon variation in structure that the former is always exactly proportioned to the latter? If there is no such relation, if the variation in function which follows on a variation in structure may be enormously greater than the variation of the structure, then, you see, the objection falls to the ground. Take a couple of watches--made by the same maker, and as completely alike as possible; set them upon the table, and the function of each--which is its rate of going--will be performed in the same manner, and you shall be able to distinguish no difference between them; but let me take a pair of pincers, and if my hand is steady enough to do it, let me just lightly crush together the bearings of the balance-wheel, or force to a slightly different angle the teeth of the escapement of one of them, and of course you know the immediate result will be that the watch, so treated, from that moment will cease to go. But what proportion is there between the structural alteration and the functional result? Is it not perfectly obvious that the alteration is of the minutest kind, yet that, slight as it is, it has produced an infinite difference in the performance of the functions of these two instruments? Well, now, apply that to the present question. What is it that constitutes and makes man what he is? What is it but his power of language--that language giving him the means of recording his experience--making every generation somewhat wiser than its predecessor--more in accordance with the established order of the universe? What is it but this power of speech, of recording experience, which enables men to be men--looking before and after and, in some dim sense, understanding the working of this wondrous universe--and which distinguishes man from the whole of the brute world? I say that this functional difference is vast, unfathomable, and truly infinite in its consequences; and I say at the same time, that it may depend upon structural differences which shall be absolutely inappreciable to us with our present means of investigation. What is this very speech that we are talking about? I am speaking to you at this moment, but if you were to alter, in the minutest degree, the proportion of the nervous forces now active in the two nerves which supply the muscles of my glottis, I should become suddenly dumb. The voice is produced only so long as the vocal chords are parallel; and these are parallel only so long as certain muscles contract with exact equality; and that again depends on the equality of action of those two nerves I spoke of. So that a change of the minutest kind in the structure of one of these nerves, or in the structure of the part in which it originates, or of the supply of blood to that part, or of one of the muscles to which it is distributed, might render all of us dumb. But a race of dumb men, deprived of all communication with those who could speak, would be little indeed removed from the brutes. And the moral and intellectual difference between them and ourselves would be practically infinite, though the naturalist should not be able to find a single shadow of even specific structural difference. But let me dismiss this question now, and, in conclusion, let me say that you may go away with it as my mature conviction, that Mr. Darwin's work is the greatest contribution which has been made to biological science since the publication of the "Regne Animal" of Cuvier, and since that of the "History of Development," of Von Baer. I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part it still remains one of the greatest encyclopaedias of biological doctrine that any one man ever brought forth; and I believe that, if you take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations. END OF VOL. II 
38629	----	Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the original illustrations. See 38629-h.htm or 38629-h.zip: (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38629/38629-h/38629-h.htm) or (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38629/38629-h.zip) CHARLES DARWIN: HIS LIFE TOLD IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHAPTER, AND IN A SELECTED SERIES OF HIS PUBLISHED LETTERS. Edited by His Son, FRANCIS DARWIN, F.R.S. With a Portrait. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. 1908. [Illustration: _Elliot & Fry, Photo._ _Walker & Cockerell, ph. sc._ Ch. Darwin] Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Limited, London and Beccles. TO DR. HOLLAND, ST. MORITZ. _13th July, 1892._ DEAR HOLLAND, This book is associated in my mind with St. Moritz (where I worked at it), and therefore with you. I inscribe your name on it, not only in token of my remembrance of your many acts of friendship, but also as a sign of my respect for one who lives a difficult life well. Yours gratefully, FRANCIS DARWIN. "For myself I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; ... as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture. So I thought my nature had a kind of familiarity and relationship with Truth."--BACON. (Proem to the _Interpretatio Naturæ_.) PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1892). In preparing this volume, which is practically an abbreviation of the _Life and Letters_ (1887), my aim has been to retain as far as possible the personal parts of those volumes. To render this feasible, large numbers of the more purely scientific letters are omitted, or represented by the citation of a few sentences.[1] In certain periods of my father's life the scientific and the personal elements run a parallel course, rising and falling together in their degree of interest. Thus the writing of the _Origin of Species_, and its publication, appeal equally to the reader who follows my father's career from interest in the man, and to the naturalist who desires to know something of this turning point in the history of Biology. This part of the story has therefore been told with nearly the full amount of available detail. In arranging my material I have followed a roughly chronological sequence, but the character and variety of my father's researches make a strictly chronological order an impossibility. It was his habit to work more or less simultaneously at several subjects. Experimental work was often carried on as a refreshment or variety, while books entailing reasoning and the marshalling of large bodies of facts were being written. Moreover many of his researches were dropped only to be resumed after years had elapsed. Thus a chronological record of his work would be a patchwork, from which it would be difficult to disentangle the history of any given subject. The Table of Contents will show how I have tried to avoid this result. It will be seen, for instance, that after Chapter VIII. a break occurs; the story turns back from 1854 to 1831 in order that the Evolutionary chapters which follow may tell a continuous story. In the same way the Botanical Work which occupied so much of my father's time during the latter part of his life is treated separately in Chapters XVI. and XVII. With regard to Chapter IV., in which I have attempted to give an account of my father's manner of working, I may be allowed to say that I acted as his assistant during the last eight years of his life, and had therefore an opportunity of knowing something of his habits and methods. My acknowledgments are gladly made to the publishers of the _Century Magazine_, who have courteously given me the use of one of their illustrations for the heading of Chapter IV. FRANCIS DARWIN. WYCHFIELD, CAMBRIDGE, _August, 1892_. FOOTNOTE: [1] I have not thought it necessary to indicate all the omissions in the abbreviated letters. NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION. It is pleasure to me to acknowledge the kindness of Messrs. Elliott & Fry in allowing me to reproduce the fine photograph which appears as the frontispiece to the present issue. FRANCIS DARWIN. WYCHFIELD, CAMBRIDGE, _April, 1902_. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE I.--The Darwins 1 II.--Autobiography 5 III.--Religion 55 IV.--Reminiscences 66 V.--Cambridge Life--The Appointment to the _Beagle_: 1828-1831 104 VI.--The Voyage: 1831-1836 124 VII.--London and Cambridge: 1836-1842 140 VIII.--Life at Down: 1842-1854 150 IX.--The Foundations of the _Origin of Species_: 1831-1844 165 X.--The Growth of the _Origin of Species_: 1843-1858 173 XI.--The Writing of the _Origin of Species_, June 1858, to November 1859 185 XII.--The Publication of the _Origin of Species_, October to December 1859 206 XIII.--The _Origin of Species_--Reviews and Criticisms--Adhesions and Attacks: 1860 223 XIV.--The Spread of Evolution: 1861-1871 245 XV.--Miscellanea--Revival of Geological Work--The Vivisection Question--Honours 281 XVI.--The Fertilisation of Flowers 297 XVII.--Climbing Plants--Power of Movement in Plants--Insectivorous Plants--Kew Index of Plant Names 313 XVIII.--Conclusion 325 APPENDICES. APPENDIX I.--The Funeral in Westminster Abbey 329 II.--Portraits 331 INDEX 333 [Illustration: --led to comprehend two affinities. [illeg] My theory would give zest to recent & fossil Comparative Anatomy, it would lead to study of instincts, heredity & mind heredity, whole metaphysics - it would lead to closest examination of hybridity & generation, causes of change in order to know what we have come from & to what we tend - to what circumstances favour crossing & what prevents it; this & direct examination of direct passages of [species (crossed out)] structures in species, might lead to laws of change, which would then be main object of study, to guide our [past (crossed out)] speculations] CHARLES DARWIN. CHAPTER I. THE DARWINS. Charles Robert Darwin was the second son of Dr. Robert Waring Darwin, of Shrewsbury, where he was born on February 12, 1809. Dr. Darwin was a son of Erasmus Darwin, sometimes described as a poet, but more deservedly known as physician and naturalist. Charles Darwin's mother was Susannah, daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, the well-known potter of Etruria, in Staffordshire. If such speculations are permissible, we may hazard the guess that Charles Darwin inherited his sweetness of disposition from the Wedgwood side, while the character of his genius came rather from the Darwin grandfather.[2] Robert Waring Darwin was a man of well-marked character. He had no pretensions to being a man of science, no tendency to generalise his knowledge, and though a successful physician he was guided more by intuition and everyday observation than by a deep knowledge of his subject. His chief mental characteristics were his keen powers of observation, and his knowledge of men, qualities which led him to "read the characters and even the thoughts of those whom he saw even for a short time." It is not therefore surprising that his help should have been sought, not merely in illness, but in cases of family trouble and sorrow. This was largely the case, and his wise sympathy, no less than his medical skill, obtained for him a strong influence over the lives of a large number of people. He was a man of a quick, vivid temperament, with a lively interest in even the smaller details in the lives of those with whom he came in contact. He was fond of society, and entertained a good deal, and with his large practice and many friends, the life at Shrewsbury must have been a stirring and varied one--very different in this respect to the later home of his son at Down.[3] We have a miniature of his wife, Susannah, with a remarkably sweet and happy face, bearing some resemblance to the portrait of her father painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds; a countenance expressive of the gentle and sympathetic nature which Miss Meteyard ascribes to her.[4] She died July 15, 1817, thirty-two years before her husband, whose death occurred on November 13, 1848. Dr. Darwin lived before his marriage for two or three years on St. John's Hill, afterwards at the Crescent, where his eldest daughter Marianne was born, lastly at the "Mount," in the part of Shrewsbury known as Frankwell, where the other children were born. This house was built by Dr. Darwin about 1800, it is now in the possession of Mr. Spencer Phillips, and has undergone but little alteration. It is a large, plain, square, red-brick house, of which the most attractive feature is the pretty green-house, opening out of the morning-room. The house is charmingly placed, on the top of a steep bank leading down to the Severn. The terraced bank is traversed by a long walk, leading from end to end, still called "the Doctor's Walk." At one point in this walk grows a Spanish chestnut, the branches of which bend back parallel to themselves in a curious manner, and this was Charles Darwin's favourite tree as a boy, where he and his sister Catharine had each their special seat. The Doctor took great pleasure in his garden, planting it with ornamental trees and shrubs, and being especially successful with fruit trees; and this love of plants was, I think, the only taste kindred to natural history which he possessed. Charles Darwin had the strongest feeling of love and respect for his father's memory. His recollection of everything that was connected with him was peculiarly distinct, and he spoke of him frequently, generally prefacing an anecdote with some such phrase as, "My father, who was the wisest man I ever knew," &c. It was astonishing how clearly he remembered his father's opinions, so that he was able to quote some maxim or hint of his in many cases of illness. As a rule he put small faith in doctors, and thus his unlimited belief in Dr. Darwin's medical instinct and methods of treatment was all the more striking. His reverence for him was boundless, and most touching. He would have wished to judge everything else in the world dispassionately, but anything his father had said was received with almost implicit faith. His daughter, Mrs. Litchfield, remembers him saying that he hoped none of his sons would ever believe anything because he said it, unless they were themselves convinced of its truth--a feeling in striking contrast with his own manner of faith. A visit which Charles Darwin made to Shrewsbury in 1869 left on the mind of the daughter who accompanied him a strong impression of his love for his old home. The tenant of the Mount at the time, showed them over the house, and with mistaken hospitality remained with the party during the whole visit. As they were leaving, Charles Darwin said, with a pathetic look of regret, "If I could have been left alone in that green-house for five minutes, I know I should have been able to see my father in his wheel-chair as vividly as if he had been there before me." Perhaps this incident shows what I think is the truth, that the memory of his father he loved the best, was that of him as an old man. Mrs. Litchfield has noted down a few words which illustrate well his feeling towards his father. She describes him as saying with the most tender respect, "I think my father was a little unjust to me when I was young; but afterwards, I am thankful to think I became a prime favourite with him." She has a vivid recollection of the expression of happy reverie that accompanied these words, as if he were reviewing the whole relation, and the remembrance left a deep sense of peace and gratitude. Dr. Darwin had six children, of whom none are now living: Marianne, married Dr. Henry Parker; Caroline, married Josiah Wedgwood; Erasmus Alvey; Susan, died unmarried; Charles Robert; Catharine, married Rev. Charles Langton. The elder son, Erasmus, was born in 1804, and died unmarried at the age of seventy-seven. His name, not known to the general public, may be remembered from a few words of description occurring in Carlyle's _Reminiscences_ (vol. ii. p. 208). A truer and more sympathetic sketch of his character, by his cousin, Miss Julia Wedgwood, was published in the _Spectator_, September 3, 1881. There was something pathetic in Charles Darwin's affection for his brother Erasmus, as if he always recollected his solitary life, and the touching patience and sweetness of his nature. He often spoke of him as "Poor old Ras," or "Poor dear old Philos." I imagine Philos (Philosopher) was a relic of the days when they worked at chemistry in the tool-house at Shrewsbury--a time of which he always preserved a pleasant memory. Erasmus was rather more than four years older than Charles Darwin, so that they were not long together at Cambridge, but previously at Edinburgh they shared the same lodgings, and after the Voyage they lived for a time together in Erasmus' house in Great Marlborough Street. In later years Erasmus Darwin came to Down occasionally, or joined his brother's family in a summer holiday. But gradually it came about that he could not, through ill health, make up his mind to leave London, and thus they only saw each other when Charles Darwin went for a week at a time to his brother's house in Queen Anne Street. This brief sketch of the family to which Charles Darwin belonged may perhaps suffice to introduce the reader to the autobiographical chapter which follows. FOOTNOTES: [2] See Charles Darwin's biographical sketch of his grandfather, prefixed to Ernst Krause's _Erasmus Darwin_. (Translated from the German by W. S. Dallas, 1878.) Also Miss Meteyard's _Life of Josiah Wedgwood_. [3] The above passage is, by permission of Messrs. Smith & Elder, taken from my article _Charles Darwin_, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. [4] _A Group of Englishmen_, by Miss Meteyard, 1871. CHAPTER II. AUTOBIOGRAPHY. [My father's autobiographical recollections, given in the present chapter, were written for his children,--and written without any thought that they would ever be published. To many this may seem an impossibility; but those who knew my father will understand how it was not only possible, but natural. The autobiography bears the heading, _Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character_, and ends with the following note:--"Aug. 3, 1876. This sketch of my life was begun about May 28th at Hopedene,[5] and since then I have written for nearly an hour on most afternoons." It will easily be understood that, in a narrative of a personal and intimate kind written for his wife and children, passages should occur which must here be omitted; and I have not thought it necessary to indicate where such omissions are made. It has been found necessary to make a few corrections of obvious verbal slips, but the number of such alterations has been kept down to the minimum.--F. D] A German Editor having written to me for an account of the development of my mind and character with some sketch of my autobiography, I have thought that the attempt would amuse me, and might possibly interest my children or their children. I know that it would have interested me greatly to have read even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my grandfather, written by himself, and what he thought and did, and how he worked. I have attempted to write the following account of myself, as if I were a dead man in another world looking back at my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life is nearly over with me. I have taken no pains about my style of writing. I was born at Shrewsbury on February 12th, 1809, and my earliest recollection goes back only to when I was a few months over four years old, when we went to near Abergele for sea-bathing, and I recollect some events and places there with some little distinctness. My mother died in July 1817, when I was a little over eight years old, and it is odd that I can remember hardly anything about her except her deathbed, her black velvet gown, and her curiously constructed work-table. In the spring of this same year I was sent to a day-school in Shrewsbury, where I stayed a year. I have been told that I was much slower in learning than my younger sister Catherine, and I believe that I was in many ways a naughty boy. By the time I went to this day-school[6] my taste for natural history, and more especially for collecting, was well developed. I tried to make out the names of plants, and collected all sorts of things, shells, seals, franks, coins, and minerals. The passion for collecting which leads a man to be a systematic naturalist, a virtuoso, or a miser, was very strong in me, and was clearly innate, as none of my sisters or brother ever had this taste. One little event during this year has fixed itself very firmly in my mind, and I hope that it has done so from my conscience having been afterwards sorely troubled by it; it is curious as showing that apparently I was interested at this early age in the variability of plants! I told another little boy (I believe it was Leighton,[7] who afterwards became a well-known lichenologist and botanist), that I could produce variously coloured polyanthuses and primroses by watering them with certain coloured fluids, which was of course a monstrous fable, and had never been tried by me. I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father's trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of stolen fruit.[8] I must have been a very simple little fellow when I first went to the school. A boy of the name of Garnett took me into a cake shop one day, and bought some cakes for which he did not pay, as the shopman trusted him. When we came out I asked him why he did not pay for them, and he instantly answered, "Why, do you not know that my uncle left a great sum of money to the town on condition that every tradesman should give whatever was wanted without payment to any one who wore his old hat and moved [it] in a particular manner?" and he then showed me how it was moved. He then went into another shop where he was trusted, and asked for some small article, moving his hat in the proper manner, and of course obtained it without payment. When we came out he said, "Now if you like to go by yourself into that cake-shop (how well I remember its exact position), I will lend you my hat, and you can get whatever you like if you move the hat on your head properly." I gladly accepted the generous offer, and went in and asked for some cakes, moved the old hat, and was walking out of the shop, when the shopman made a rush at me, so I dropped the cakes and ran for dear life, and was astonished by being greeted with shouts of laughter by my false friend Garnett. I can say in my own favour that I was as a boy humane, but I owed this entirely to the instruction and example of my sisters. I doubt indeed whether humanity is a natural or innate quality. I was very fond of collecting eggs, but I never took more than a single egg out of a bird's nest, except on one single occasion, when I took all, not for their value, but from a sort of bravado. I had a strong taste for angling, and would sit for any number of hours on the bank of a river or pond watching the float; when at Maer[9] I was told that I could kill the worms with salt and water, and from that day I never spitted a living worm, though at the expense probably of some loss of success. Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters. I remember clearly only one other incident during this year whilst at Mr. Case's daily school,--namely, the burial of a dragoon soldier; and it is surprising how clearly I can still see the horse with the man's empty boots and carbine suspended to the saddle, and the firing over the grave. This scene deeply stirred whatever poetic fancy there was in me.[10] In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler's great school in Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years till Midsummer 1825, when I was sixteen years old. I boarded at this school, so that I had the great advantage of living the life of a true schoolboy; but as the distance was hardly more than a mile to my home, I very often ran there in the longer intervals between the callings over and before locking up at night. This, I think, was in many ways advantageous to me by keeping up home affections and interests. I remember in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided. I have heard my father and elder sister say that I had, as a very young boy, a strong taste for long solitary walks; but what I thought about I know not. I often became quite absorbed, and once, whilst returning to school on the summit of the old fortifications round Shrewsbury, which had been converted into a public foot-path with no parapet on one side, I walked off and fell to the ground, but the height was only seven or eight feet. Nevertheless, the number of thoughts which passed through my mind during this very short, but sudden and wholly unexpected fall, was astonishing, and seem hardly compatible with what physiologists have, I believe, proved about each thought requiring quite an appreciable amount of time. Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr. Butler's school, as it was strictly classical, nothing else being taught, except a little ancient geography and history. The school as a means of education to me was simply a blank. During my whole life I have been singularly incapable of mastering any language. Especial attention was paid to verse-making, and this I could never do well. I had many friends, and got together a good collection of old verses, which by patching together, sometimes aided by other boys, I could work into any subject. Much attention was paid to learning by heart the lessons of the previous day; this I could effect with great facility, learning forty or fifty lines of Virgil or Homer, whilst I was in morning chapel; but this exercise was utterly useless, for every verse was forgotten in forty-eight hours. I was not idle, and with the exception of versification, generally worked conscientiously at my classics, not using cribs. The sole pleasure I ever received from such studies, was from some of the odes of Horace, which I admired greatly. When I left the school I was for my age neither high nor low in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect. To my deep mortification my father once said to me, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family." But my father, who was the kindest man I ever knew, and whose memory I love with all my heart, must have been angry and somewhat unjust when he used such words. Looking back as well as I can at my character during my school life, the only qualities which at this period promised well for the future, were, that I had strong and diversified tastes, much zeal for whatever interested me, and a keen pleasure in understanding any complex subject or thing. I was taught Euclid by a private tutor, and I distinctly remember the intense satisfaction which the clear geometrical proofs gave me. I remember with equal distinctness the delight which my uncle (the father of Francis Galton) gave me by explaining the principle of the vernier of a barometer. With respect to diversified tastes, independently of science, I was fond of reading various books, and I used to sit for hours reading the historical plays of Shakespeare, generally in an old window in the thick walls of the school. I read also other poetry, such as Thomson's _Seasons_, and the recently published poems of Byron and Scott. I mention this because later in life I wholly lost, to my great regret, all pleasure from poetry of any kind, including Shakespeare. In connection with pleasure from poetry, I may add that in 1822 a vivid delight in scenery was first awakened in my mind, during a riding tour on the borders of Wales, and this has lasted longer than any other æsthetic pleasure. Early in my school-days a boy had a copy of the _Wonders of the World_, which I often read, and disputed with other boys about the veracity of some of the statements; and I believe that this book first gave me a wish to travel in remote countries, which was ultimately fulfilled by the voyage of the _Beagle_. In the latter part of my school life I became passionately fond of shooting; I do not believe that any one could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands. This taste long continued, and I became a very good shot. When at Cambridge I used to practice throwing up my gun to my shoulder before a looking glass to see that I threw it up straight. Another and better plan was to get a friend to wave about a lighted candle, and then to fire at it with a cap on the nipple, and if the aim was accurate the little puff of air would blow out the candle. The explosion of the cap caused a sharp crack, and I was told that the tutor of the college remarked, "What an extraordinary thing it is, Mr. Darwin seems to spend hours in cracking a horse-whip in his room, for I often hear the crack when I pass under his windows." I had many friends amongst the schoolboys, whom I loved dearly, and I think that my disposition was then very affectionate. With respect to science, I continued collecting minerals with much zeal, but quite unscientifically--all that I cared about was a new-named mineral, and I hardly attempted to classify them. I must have observed insects with some little care, for when ten years old (1819) I went for three weeks to Plas Edwards on the sea-coast in Wales, I was very much interested and surprised at seeing a large black and scarlet Hemipterous insect, many moths (Zygoena), and a Cicindela, which are not found in Shropshire. I almost made up my mind to begin collecting all the insects which I could find dead, for on consulting my sister, I concluded that it was not right to kill insects for the sake of making a collection. From reading White's _Selborne_, I took much pleasure in watching the habits of birds, and even made notes on the subject. In my simplicity, I remember wondering why every gentleman did not become an ornithologist. Towards the close of my school life, my brother worked hard at chemistry, and made a fair laboratory with proper apparatus in the tool-house in the garden, and I was allowed to aid him as a servant in most of his experiments. He made all the gases and many compounds, and I read with care several books on chemistry, such as Henry and Parkes' _Chemical Catechism_. The subject interested me greatly, and we often used to go on working till rather late at night. This was the best part of my education at school, for it showed me practically the meaning of experimental science. The fact that we worked at chemistry somehow got known at school, and as it was an unprecedented fact, I was nicknamed "Gas." I was also once publicly rebuked by the head-master, Dr. Butler, for thus wasting my time on such useless subjects; and he called me very unjustly a "poco curante," and as I did not understand what he meant, it seemed to me a fearful reproach. As I was doing no good at school, my father wisely took me away at a rather earlier age than usual, and sent me (October 1825) to Edinburgh[11] University with my brother, where I stayed for two years or sessions. My brother was completing his medical studies, though I do not believe he ever really intended to practise, and I was sent there to commence them. But soon after this period I became convinced from various small circumstances that my father would leave me property enough to subsist on with some comfort, though I never imagined that I should be so rich a man as I am; but my belief was sufficient to check any strenuous effort to learn medicine. The instruction at Edinburgh was altogether by lectures, and these were intolerably dull, with the exception of those on chemistry by Hope; but to my mind there are no advantages and many disadvantages in lectures compared with reading. Dr. Duncan's lectures on Materia Medica at 8 o'clock on a winter's morning are something fearful to remember. Dr. Munro made his lectures on human anatomy as dull as he was himself, and the subject disgusted me. It has proved one of the greatest evils in my life that I was not urged to practise dissection, for I should soon have got over my disgust, and the practice would have been invaluable for all my future work. This has been an irremediable evil, as well as my incapacity to draw. I also attended regularly the clinical wards in the hospital. Some of the cases distressed me a good deal, and I still have vivid pictures before me of some of them; but I was not so foolish as to allow this to lessen my attendance. I cannot understand why this part of my medical course did not interest me in a greater degree; for during the summer before coming to Edinburgh, I began attending some of the poor people, chiefly children and women in Shrewsbury: I wrote down as full an account as I could of the case with all the symptoms, and read them aloud to my father, who suggested further inquiries and advised me what medicines to give, which I made up myself. At one time I had at least a dozen patients, and I felt a keen interest in the work.[12] My father, who was by far the best judge of character whom I ever knew, declared that I should make a successful physician,--meaning by this, one who would get many patients. He maintained that the chief element of success was exciting confidence; but what he saw in me which convinced him that I should create confidence I know not. I also attended on two occasions the operating theatre in the hospital at Edinburgh, and saw two very bad operations, one on a child, but I rushed away before they were completed. Nor did I ever attend again, for hardly any inducement would have been strong enough to make me do so; this being long before the blessed days of chloroform. The two cases fairly haunted me for many a long year. My brother stayed only one year at the University, so that during the second year I was left to my own resources; and this was an advantage, for I became well acquainted with several young men fond of natural science. One of these was Ainsworth, who afterwards published his travels in Assyria; he was a Wernerian geologist, and knew a little about many subjects. Dr. Coldstream[13] was a very different young man, prim, formal, highly religious, and most kind-hearted; he afterwards published some good zoological articles. A third young man was Hardie, who would, I think, have made a good botanist, but died early in India. Lastly, Dr. Grant, my senior by several years, but how I became acquainted with him I cannot remember; he published some first-rate zoological papers, but after coming to London as Professor in University College, he did nothing more in science, a fact which has always been inexplicable to me. I knew him well; he was dry and formal in manner, with much enthusiasm beneath this outer crust. He one day, when we were walking together, burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind. I had previously read the _Zoonomia_ of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me. Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my _Origin of Species_. At this time I admired greatly the _Zoonomia_; but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given. Drs. Grant and Coldstream attended much to marine Zoology, and I often accompanied the former to collect animals in the tidal pools, which I dissected as well as I could. I also became friends with some of the Newhaven fishermen, and sometimes accompanied them when they trawled for oysters, and thus got many specimens. But from not having had any regular practice in dissection, and from possessing only a wretched microscope, my attempts were very poor. Nevertheless I made one interesting little discovery, and read, about the beginning of the year 1826, a short paper on the subject before the Plinian Society. This was that the so-called ova of Flustra had the power of independent movement by means of cilia, and were in fact larvæ. In another short paper, I showed that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of _Fucus loreus_ were the egg-cases of the worm-like _Pontobdella muricata_. The Plinian Society[14] was encouraged and, I believe, founded by Professor Jameson: it consisted of students, and met in an underground room in the University for the sake of reading papers on natural science and discussing them. I used regularly to attend, and the meetings had a good effect on me in stimulating my zeal and giving me new congenial acquaintances. One evening a poor young man got up, and after stammering for a prodigious length of time, blushing crimson, he at last slowly got out the words, "Mr. President, I have forgotten what I was going to say." The poor fellow looked quite overwhelmed, and all the members were so surprised that no one could think of a word to say to cover his confusion. The papers which were read to our little society were not printed, so that I had not the satisfaction of seeing my paper in print; but I believe Dr. Grant noticed my small discovery in his excellent memoir on Flustra. I was also a member of the Royal Medical Society, and attended pretty regularly; but as the subjects were exclusively medical, I did not much care about them. Much rubbish was talked there, but there were some good speakers, of whom the best was the [late] Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. Dr. Grant took me occasionally to the meetings of the Wernerian Society, where various papers on natural history were read, discussed, and afterwards published in the Transactions. I heard Audubon deliver there some interesting discourses on the habits of N. American birds, sneering somewhat unjustly at Waterton. By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. Mr. Leonard Horner also took me once to a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, where I saw Sir Walter Scott in the chair as President, and he apologised to the meeting as not feeling fitted for such a position. I looked at him and at the whole scene with some awe and reverence, and I think it was owing to this visit during my youth, and to my having attended the Royal Medical Society, that I felt the honour of being elected a few years ago an honorary member of both these Societies, more than any other similar honour. If I had been told at that time that I should one day have been thus honoured, I declare that I should have thought it as ridiculous and improbable, as if I had been told that I should be elected King of England. During my second year at Edinburgh I attended Jameson's lectures on Geology and Zoology, but they were incredibly dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to read a book on Geology, or in any way to study the science. Yet I feel sure that I was prepared for a philosophical treatment of the subject; for an old Mr. Cotton, in Shropshire, who knew a good deal about rocks, had pointed out to me two or three years previously a well-known large erratic boulder in the town of Shrewsbury, called the "bell-stone;" he told me that there was no rock of the same kind nearer than Cumberland or Scotland, and he solemnly assured me that the world would come to an end before any one would be able to explain how this stone came where it now lay. This produced a deep impression on me, and I meditated over this wonderful stone. So that I felt the keenest delight when I first read of the action of icebergs in transporting boulders, and I gloried in the progress of Geology. Equally striking is the fact that I, though now only sixty-seven years old, heard the Professor, in a field lecture at Salisbury Craigs, discoursing on a trap-dyke, with amygdaloidal margins and the strata indurated on each side, with volcanic rocks all around us, say that it was a fissure filled with sediment from above, adding with a sneer that there were men who maintained that it had been injected from beneath in a molten condition. When I think of this lecture, I do not wonder that I determined never to attend to Geology. From attending Jameson's lectures, I became acquainted with the curator of the museum, Mr. Macgillivray, who afterwards published a large and excellent book on the birds of Scotland. I had much interesting natural-history talk with him, and he was very kind to me. He gave me some rare shells, for I at that time collected marine mollusca, but with no great zeal. My summer vacations during these two years were wholly given up to amusements, though I always had some book in hand, which I read with interest. During the summer of 1826, I took a long walking tour with two friends with knapsacks on our backs through North Wales. We walked thirty miles most days, including one day the ascent of Snowdon. I also went with my sister a riding tour in North Wales, a servant with saddle-bags carrying our clothes. The autumns were devoted to shooting, chiefly at Mr. Owen's, at Woodhouse, and at my Uncle Jos's,[15] at Maer. My zeal was so great that I used to place my shooting-boots open by my bed-side when I went to bed, so as not to lose half a minute in putting them on in the morning; and on one occasion I reached a distant part of the Maer estate, on the 20th of August for black-game shooting, before I could see: I then toiled on with the gamekeeper the whole day through thick heath and young Scotch firs. I kept an exact record of every bird which I shot throughout the whole season. One day when shooting at Woodhouse with Captain Owen, the eldest son, and Major Hill, his cousin, afterwards Lord Berwick, both of whom I liked very much, I thought myself shamefully used, for every time after I had fired and thought that I had killed a bird, one of the two acted as if loading his gun, and cried out, "You must not count that bird, for I fired at the same time," and the gamekeeper, perceiving the joke, backed them up. After some hours they told me the joke, but it was no joke to me, for I had shot a large number of birds, but did not know how many, and could not add them to my list, which I used to do by making a knot in a piece of string tied to a button-hole. This my wicked friends had perceived. How I did enjoy shooting! but I think that I must have been half-consciously ashamed of my zeal, for I tried to persuade myself that shooting was almost an intellectual employment; it required so much skill to judge where to find most game and to hunt the dogs well. One of my autumnal visits to Maer in 1827 was memorable from meeting there Sir J. Mackintosh, who was the best converser I ever listened to. I heard afterwards with a glow of pride that he had said, "There is something in that young man that interests me." This must have been chiefly due to his perceiving that I listened with much interest to everything which he said, for I was as ignorant as a pig about his subjects of history, politics, and moral philosophy. To hear of praise from an eminent person, though no doubt apt or certain to excite vanity, is, I think, good for a young man, as it helps to keep him in the right course. My visits to Maer during these two or three succeeding years were quite delightful, independently of the autumnal shooting. Life there was perfectly free; the country was very pleasant for walking or riding; and in the evening there was much very agreeable conversation, not so personal as it generally is in large family parties, together with music. In the summer the whole family used often to sit on the steps of the old portico with the flower-garden in front, and with the steep wooded bank opposite the house reflected in the lake, with here and there a fish rising or a water-bird paddling about. Nothing has left a more vivid picture on my mind than these evenings at Maer. I was also attached to and greatly revered my Uncle Jos; he was silent and reserved, so as to be a rather awful man; but he sometimes talked openly with me. He was the very type of an upright man, with the clearest judgment. I do not believe that any power on earth could have made him swerve an inch from what he considered the right course. I used to apply to him in my mind the well-known ode of Horace, now forgotten by me, in which the words "nec vultus tyranni, &c.,"[16] come in. _Cambridge_, 1828-1831.--After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with great care _Pearson on the Creed_, and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father's wish ever formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the _Beagle_ as naturalist. If the phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretaries of a German psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photograph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discussion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of reverence developed enough for ten priests. As it was decided that I should be a clergyman, it was necessary that I should go to one of the English universities and take a degree; but as I had never opened a classical book since leaving school, I found to my dismay, that in the two intervening years, I had actually forgotten, incredible as it may appear, almost everything which I had learnt, even to some few of the Greek letters. I did not therefore proceed to Cambridge at the usual time in October, but worked with a private tutor in Shrewsbury, and went to Cambridge after the Christmas vacation, early in 1828. I soon recovered my school standard of knowledge, and could translate easy Greek books, such as Homer and the Greek Testament, with moderate facility. During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade. With respect to Classics I did nothing except attend a few compulsory college lectures, and the attendance was almost nominal. In my second year I had to work for a month or two to pass the Little-Go, which I did easily. Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up Paley's _Evidences of Christianity_, and his _Moral Philosophy_. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the _Evidences_ with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may add, of his _Natural Theology_, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt, and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation. By answering well the examination questions in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably in Classics, I gained a good place among the [Greek: oi polloi] or crowd of men who do not go in for honours. Oddly enough, I cannot remember how high I stood, and my memory fluctuates between the fifth, tenth, or twelfth, name on the list.[17] Public lectures on several branches were given in the University, attendance being quite voluntary; but I was so sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend Sedgwick's eloquent and interesting lectures. Had I done so I should probably have become a geologist earlier than I did. I attended, however, Henslow's lectures on Botany, and liked them much for their extreme clearness, and the admirable illustrations; but I did not study botany. Henslow used to take his pupils, including several of the older members of the University, field, excursions, on foot or in coaches, to distant places, or in a barge down the river, and lectured on the rarer plants and animals which were observed. These excursions were delightful. Although, as we shall presently see, there were some redeeming features in my life at Cambridge, my time was sadly wasted there, and worse than wasted. From my passion for shooting and for hunting, and, when this failed, for riding across country, I got into a sporting set, including some dissipated low-minded young men. We used often to dine together in the evening, though these dinners often included men of a higher stamp, and we sometimes drank too much, with jolly singing and playing at cards afterwards. I know that I ought to feel ashamed of days and evenings thus spent, but as some of my friends were very pleasant, and we were all in the highest spirits, I cannot help looking back to these times with much pleasure.[18] But I am glad to think that I had many other friends of a widely different nature. I was very intimate with Whitley,[19] who was afterwards Senior Wrangler, and we used continually to take long walks together. He inoculated me with a taste for pictures and good engravings, of which I bought some. I frequently went to the Fitzwilliam Gallery, and my taste must have been fairly good, for I certainly admired the best pictures, which I discussed with the old curator. I read also with much interest Sir Joshua Reynolds' book. This taste, though not natural to me, lasted for several years, and many of the pictures in the National Gallery in London gave me much pleasure; that of Sebastian del Piombo exciting in me a sense of sublimity. I also got into a musical set, I believe by means of my warm-hearted friend, Herbert,[20] who took a high wrangler's degree. From associating with these men, and hearing them play, I acquired a strong taste for music, and used very often to time my walks so as to hear on week days the anthem in King's College Chapel. This gave me intense pleasure, so that my backbone would sometimes shiver. I am sure that there was no affectation or mere imitation in this taste, for I used generally to go by myself to King's College, and I sometimes hired the chorister boys to sing in my rooms. Nevertheless I am so utterly destitute of an ear, that I cannot perceive a discord, or keep time and hum a tune correctly; and it is a mystery how I could possibly have derived pleasure from music. My musical friends soon perceived my state, and sometimes amused themselves by making me pass an examination, which consisted in ascertaining how many tunes I could recognise, when they were played rather more quickly or slowly than usual. 'God save the King,' when thus played, was a sore puzzle. There was another man with almost as bad an ear as I had, and strange to say he played a little on the flute. Once I had the triumph of beating him in one of our musical examinations. But no pursuit at Cambridge was followed with nearly so much eagerness or gave me so much pleasure as collecting beetles. It was the mere passion for collecting, for I did not dissect them, and rarely compared their external characters with published descriptions, but got them named anyhow. I will give a proof of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! it ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one. I was very successful in collecting, and invented two new methods; I employed a labourer to scrape, during the winter, moss off old trees and place it in a large bag, and likewise to collect the rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds are brought from the fens, and thus I got some very rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem published than I did at seeing, in Stephens' _Illustrations of British Insects_, the magic words, "captured by C. Darwin, Esq." I was introduced to entomology by my second cousin, W. Darwin Fox, a clever and most pleasant man, who was then at Christ's College, and with whom I became extremely intimate. Afterwards I became well acquainted, and went out collecting, with Albert Way of Trinity, who in after years became a well-known archaeologist; also with H. Thompson,[21] of the same College, afterwards a leading agriculturist, chairman of a great railway, and Member of Parliament. It seems, therefore, that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication of future success in life! I am surprised what an indelible impression many of the beetles which I caught at Cambridge have left on my mind. I can remember the exact appearance of certain posts, old trees and banks where I made a good capture. The pretty _Panagæus crux-major_ was a treasure in those days, and here at Down I saw a beetle running across a walk, and on picking it up instantly perceived that it differed slightly from _P. crux-major_, and it turned out to be _P. quadripunctatus_, which is only a variety or closely allied species, differing from it very slightly in outline. I had never seen in those old days Licinus alive, which to an uneducated eye hardly differs from many of the black Carabidous beetles; but my sons found here a specimen, and I instantly recognised that it was new to me; yet I had not looked at a British beetle for the last twenty years. I have not yet mentioned a circumstance which influenced my whole career more than any other. This was my friendship with Professor Henslow. Before coming up to Cambridge, I had heard of him from my brother as a man who knew every branch of science, and I was accordingly prepared to reverence him. He kept open house once every week[22] when all under-graduates and some older members of the University, who were attached to science, used to meet in the evening. I soon got, through Fox, an invitation, and went there regularly. Before long I became well acquainted with Henslow, and during the latter half of my time at Cambridge took long walks with him on most days; so that I was called by some of the dons "the man who walks with Henslow;" and in the evening I was very often asked to join his family dinner. His knowledge was great in botany, entomology, chemistry, mineralogy, and geology. His strongest taste was to draw conclusions from long-continued minute observations. His judgment was excellent, and his whole mind well-balanced; but I do not suppose that any one would say that he possessed much original genius. He was deeply religious, and so orthodox, that he told me one day he should be grieved if a single word of the Thirty-nine Articles were altered. His moral qualities were in every way admirable. He was free from every tinge of vanity or other petty feeling; and I never saw a man who thought so little about himself or his own concerns. His temper was imperturbably good, with the most winning and courteous manners; yet, as I have seen, he could be roused by any bad action to the warmest indignation and prompt action. I once saw in his company in the streets of Cambridge almost as horrid a scene as could have been witnessed during the French Revolution. Two body-snatchers had been arrested, and whilst being taken to prison had been torn from the constable by a crowd of the roughest men, who dragged them by their legs along the muddy and stony road. They were covered from head to foot with mud, and their faces were bleeding either from having been kicked or from the stones; they looked like corpses, but the crowd was so dense that I got only a few momentary glimpses of the wretched creatures. Never in my life have I seen such wrath painted on a man's face as was shown by Henslow at this horrid scene. He tried repeatedly to penetrate the mob; but it was simply impossible. He then rushed away to the mayor, telling me not to follow him, but to get more policemen. I forget the issue, except that the two men were got into the prison without being killed. Henslow's benevolence was unbounded, as he proved by his many excellent schemes for his poor parishioners, when in after years he held the living of Hitcham. My intimacy with such a man ought to have been, and I hope was, an inestimable benefit. I cannot resist mentioning a trifling incident, which showed his kind consideration. Whilst examining some pollen-grains on a damp surface, I saw the tubes exserted, and instantly rushed off to communicate my surprising discovery to him. Now I do not suppose any other professor of botany could have helped laughing at my coming in such a hurry to make such a communication. But he agreed how interesting the phenomenon was, and explained its meaning, but made me clearly understand how well it was known; so I left him not in the least mortified, but well pleased at having discovered for myself so remarkable a fact, but determined not to be in such a hurry again to communicate my discoveries. Dr. Whewell was one of the older and distinguished men who sometimes visited Henslow, and on several occasions I walked home with him at night. Next to Sir J. Mackintosh he was the best converser on grave subjects to whom I ever listened. Leonard Jenyns,[23] who afterwards published some good essays in Natural History, often stayed with Henslow, who was his brother-in-law. I visited him at his parsonage on the borders of the Fens [Swaffham Bulbeck], and had many a good walk and talk with him about Natural History. I became also acquainted with several other men older than me, who did not care much about science, but were friends of Henslow. One was a Scotchman, brother of Sir Alexander Ramsay, and tutor of Jesus College; he was a delightful man, but did not live for many years. Another was Mr. Dawes, afterwards Dean of Hereford, and famous for his success in the education of the poor. These men and others of the same standing, together with Henslow, used sometimes to take distant excursions into the country, which I was allowed to join, and they were most agreeable. Looking back, I infer that there must have been something in me a little superior to the common run of youths, otherwise the above-mentioned men, so much older than me and higher in academical position, would never have allowed me to associate with them. Certainly I was not aware of any such superiority, and I remember one of my sporting friends, Turner, who saw me at work with my beetles, saying that I should some day be a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the notion seemed to me preposterous. During my last year at Cambridge, I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's _Personal Narrative_. This work, and Sir J. Herschel's _Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy_, stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two. I copied out from Humboldt long passages about Teneriffe, and read them aloud on one of the above-mentioned excursions, to (I think) Henslow, Ramsay, and Dawes, for on a previous occasion I had talked about the glories of Teneriffe, and some of the party declared they would endeavour to go there; but I think they were only half in earnest. I was, however, quite in earnest, and got an introduction to a merchant in London to enquire about ships; but the scheme was, of course, knocked on the head by the voyage of the _Beagle_. My summer vacations were given up to collecting beetles, to some reading, and short tours. In the autumn my whole time was devoted to shooting, chiefly at Woodhouse and Maer, and sometimes with young Eyton of Eyton. Upon the whole the three years which I spent at Cambridge were the most joyful in my happy life; for I was then in excellent health, and almost always in high spirits. As I had at first come up to Cambridge at Christmas, I was forced to keep two terms after passing my final examination, at the commencement of 1831; and Henslow then persuaded me to begin the study of geology. Therefore on my return to Shropshire I examined sections, and coloured a map of parts round Shrewsbury. Professor Sedgwick intended to visit North Wales in the beginning of August to pursue his famous geological investigations amongst the older rocks, and Henslow asked him to allow me to accompany him.[24] Accordingly he came and slept at my father's house. A short conversation with him during this evening produced a strong impression on my mind. Whilst examining an old gravel-pit near Shrewsbury, a labourer told me that he had found in it a large worn tropical Volute shell, such as may be seen on chimney-pieces of cottages; and as he would not sell the shell, I was convinced that he had really found it in the pit. I told Sedgwick of the fact, and he at once said (no doubt truly) that it must have been thrown away by some one into the pit; but then added, if really embedded there it would be the greatest misfortune to geology, as it would overthrow all that we know about the superficial deposits of the Midland Counties. These gravel-beds belong in fact to the glacial period, and in after years I found in them broken arctic shells. But I was then utterly astonished at Sedgwick not being delighted at so wonderful a fact as a tropical shell being found near the surface in the middle of England. Nothing before had ever made me thoroughly realise, though I had read various scientific books, that science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them. Next morning we started for Llangollen, Conway, Bangor, and Capel Curig. This tour was of decided use in teaching me a little how to make out the geology of a country. Sedgwick often sent me on a line parallel to his, telling me to bring back specimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map. I have little doubt that he did this for my good, as I was too ignorant to have aided him. On this tour I had a striking instance how easy it is to overlook phenomena, however conspicuous, before they have been observed by any one. We spent many hours in Cwm Idwal, examining all the rocks with extreme care, as Sedgwick was anxious to find fossils in them; but neither of us saw a trace of the wonderful glacial phenomena all around us; we did not notice the plainly scored rocks, the perched boulders, the lateral and terminal moraines. Yet these phenomena are so conspicuous that, as I declared in a paper published many years afterwards in the _Philosophical Magazine_,[25] a house burnt down by fire did not tell its story more plainly than did this valley. If it had still been filled by a glacier, the phenomena would have been less distinct than they now are. At Capel Curig I left Sedgwick and went in a straight line by compass and map across the mountains to Barmouth, never following any track unless it coincided with my course. I thus came on some strange wild places, and enjoyed much this manner of travelling. I visited Barmouth to see some Cambridge friends who were reading there, and thence returned to Shrewsbury and to Maer for shooting; for at that time I should have thought myself mad to give up the first days of partridge-shooting for geology or any other science. _Voyage of the 'Beagle': from December 27, 1831, to October 2, 1836._ On returning home from my short geological tour in North Wales, I found a letter from Henslow, informing me that Captain Fitz-Roy was willing to give up part of his own cabin to any young man who would volunteer to go with him without pay as naturalist to the Voyage of the _Beagle_. I have given, as I believe, in my MS. Journal an account of all the circumstances which then occurred; I will here only say that I was instantly eager to accept the offer, but my father strongly objected, adding the words, fortunate for me, "If you can find any man of common-sense who advises you to go I will give my consent." So I wrote that evening and refused the offer. On the next morning I went to Maer to be ready for September 1st, and whilst out shooting, my uncle[26] sent for me, offering to drive me over to Shrewsbury and talk with my father, as my uncle thought it would be wise in me to accept the offer. My father always maintained that [my uncle] was one of the most sensible men in the world, and he at once consented in the kindest manner. I had been rather extravagant at Cambridge, and to console my father, said, "that I should be deuced clever to spend more than my allowance whilst on board the _Beagle_;" but he answered with a smile, "But they tell me you are very clever." Next day I started for Cambridge to see Henslow, and thence to London to see Fitz-Roy, and all was soon arranged. Afterwards, on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy, I heard that I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected on account of the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater, and was convinced that he could judge of a man's character by the outline of his features; and he doubted whether any one with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage. But I think he was afterwards well satisfied that my nose had spoken falsely. Fitz-Roy's character was a singular one, with very many noble features: he was devoted to his duty, generous to a fault, bold, determined, and indomitably energetic, and an ardent friend to all under his sway. He would undertake any sort of trouble to assist those whom he thought deserved assistance. He was a handsome man, strikingly like a gentleman, with highly-courteous manners, which resembled those of his maternal uncle, the famous Lord Castlereagh, as I was told by the Minister at Rio. Nevertheless he must have inherited much in his appearance from Charles II., for Dr. Wallich gave me a collection of photographs which he had made, and I was struck with the resemblance of one to Fitz-Roy; and on looking at the name, I found it Ch. E. Sobieski Stuart, Count d'Albanie,[27] a descendant of the same monarch. Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him. His character was in several respects one of the most noble which I have ever known. The voyage of the _Beagle_ has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career; yet it depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle offering to drive me thirty miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose. I have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training or education of my mind; I was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history, and thus my powers of observation were improved, though they were always fairly developed. The investigation of the geology of all the places visited was far more important, as reasoning here comes into play. On first examining a new district, nothing can appear more hopeless than the chaos of rocks; but by recording the stratification and nature of the rocks and fossils at many points, always reasoning and predicting what will be found elsewhere, light soon begins to dawn on the district, and the structure of the whole becomes more or less intelligible. I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, which I studied attentively; and the book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read. Another of my occupations was collecting animals of all classes, briefly describing and roughly dissecting many of the marine ones; but from not being able to draw, and from not having sufficient anatomical knowledge, a great pile of MS. which I made during the voyage has proved almost useless. I thus lost much time, with the exception of that spent in acquiring some knowledge of the Crustaceans, as this was of service when in after years I undertook a monograph of the Cirripedia. During some part of the day I wrote my Journal, and took much pains in describing carefully and vividly all that I had seen; and this was good practice. My Journal served also, in part, as letters to my home, and portions were sent to England whenever there was an opportunity. The above various special studies were, however, of no importance compared with the habit of energetic industry and of concentrated attention to whatever I was engaged in, which I then acquired. Everything about which I thought or read was made to bear directly on what I had seen or was likely to see; and this habit of mind was continued during the five years of the voyage. I feel sure that it was this training which has enabled me to do whatever I have done in science. Looking backwards, I can now perceive how my love for science gradually preponderated over every other taste. During the first two years my old passion for shooting survived in nearly full force, and I shot myself all the birds and animals for my collection; but gradually I gave up my gun more and more, and finally altogether, to my servant, as shooting interfered with my work, more especially with making out the geological structure of a country. I discovered, though unconsciously and insensibly, that the pleasure of observing and reasoning was a much higher one than that of skill and sport. That my mind became developed through my pursuits during the voyage is rendered probable by a remark made by my father, who was the most acute observer whom I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in phrenology; for on first seeing me after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters, and exclaimed, "Why, the shape of his head is quite altered." To return to the voyage. On September 11th (1831), I paid a flying visit with Fitz-Roy to the _Beagle_ at Plymouth. Thence to Shrewsbury to wish my father and sisters a long farewell. On October 24th I took up my residence at Plymouth, and remained there until December 27th, when the _Beagle_ finally left the shores of England for her circumnavigation of the world. We made two earlier attempts to sail, but were driven back each time by heavy gales. These two months at Plymouth were the most miserable which I ever spent, though I exerted myself in various ways. I was out of spirits at the thought of leaving all my family and friends for so long a time, and the weather seemed to me inexpressibly gloomy. I was also troubled with palpitation and pain about the heart, and like many a young ignorant man, especially one with a smattering of medical knowledge, was convinced that I had heart disease. I did not consult any doctor, as I fully expected to hear the verdict that I was not fit for the voyage, and I was resolved to go at all hazards. I need not here refer to the events of the voyage--where we went and what we did--as I have given a sufficiently full account in my published Journal. The glories of the vegetation of the Tropics rise before my mind at the present time more vividly than anything else; though the sense of sublimity, which the great deserts of Patagonia and the forest-clad mountains of Tierra del Fuego excited in me, has left an indelible impression on my mind. The sight of a naked savage in his native land is an event which can never be forgotten. Many of my excursions on horseback through wild countries, or in the boats, some of which lasted several weeks, were deeply interesting; their discomfort and some degree of danger were at that time hardly a drawback, and none at all afterwards. I also reflect with high satisfaction on some of my scientific work, such as solving the problem of coral islands, and making out the geological structure of certain islands, for instance, St. Helena. Nor must I pass over the discovery of the singular relations of the animals and plants inhabiting the several islands of the Galapagos archipelago, and of all of them to the inhabitants of South America. As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in Natural Science. But I was also ambitious to take a fair place among scientific men,--whether more ambitious or less so than most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion. The geology of St. Jago is very striking, yet simple: a stream of lava formerly flowed over the bed of the sea, formed of triturated recent shells and corals, which it has baked into a hard white rock. Since then the whole island has been upheaved. But the line of white rock revealed to me a new and important fact, namely, that there had been afterwards subsidence round the craters, which had since been in action, and had poured forth lava. It then first dawned on me that I might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight. That was a memorable hour to me, and how distinctly I can call to mind the low cliff of lava beneath which I rested, with the sun glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and with living corals in the tidal pools at my feet. Later in the voyage, Fitz-Roy asked me to read some of my Journal, and declared it would be worth publishing; so here was a second book in prospect! Towards the close of our voyage I received a letter whilst at Ascension, in which my sisters told me that Sedgwick had called on my father, and said that I should take a place among the leading scientific men. I could not at the time understand how he could have learnt anything of my proceedings, but I heard (I believe afterwards) that Henslow had read some of the letters which I wrote to him before the Philosophical Society of Cambridge,[28] and had printed them for private distribution. My collection of fossil bones, which had been sent to Henslow, also excited considerable attention amongst palæontologists. After reading this letter, I clambered over the mountains of Ascension with a bounding step and made the volcanic rocks resound under my geological hammer. All this shows how ambitious I was; but I think that I can say with truth that in after years, though I cared in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much about the general public. I do not mean to say that a favourable review or a large sale of my books did not please me greatly, but the pleasure was a fleeting one, and I am sure that I have never turned one inch out of my course to gain fame. _From my return to England (October 2, 1836) to my marriage (January 29, 1839)._ These two years and three months wore the most active ones which I ever spent, though I was occasionally unwell, and so lost some time. After going backwards and forwards several times between Shrewsbury, Maer, Cambridge, and London, I settled in lodgings at Cambridge[29] on December 13th, where all my collections were under the care of Henslow. I stayed here three months, and got my minerals and rocks examined by the aid of Professor Miller. I began preparing my _Journal of Travels_, which was not hard work, as my MS. Journal had been written with care, and my chief labour was making an abstract of my more interesting scientific results. I sent also, at the request of Lyell, a short account of my observations on the elevation of the coast of Chili to the Geological Society.[30] On March 7th, 1837, I took lodgings in Great Marlborough Street in London, and remained there for nearly two years, until I was married. During these two years I finished my Journal, read several papers before the Geological Society, began preparing the MS. for my _Geological Observations_, and arranged for the publication of the _Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle_. In July I opened my first note-book for facts in relation to the _Origin of Species_, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years. During these two years I also went a little into society, and acted as one of the honorary secretaries of the Geological Society. I saw a great deal of Lyell. One of his chief characteristics was his sympathy with the work of others, and I was as much astonished as delighted at the interest which he showed when, on my return to England, I explained to him my views on coral reefs. This encouraged me greatly, and his advice and example had much influence on me. During this time I saw also a good deal of Robert Brown; I used often to call and sit with him during his breakfast on Sunday mornings, and he poured forth a rich treasure of curious observations and acute remarks, but they almost always related to minute points, and he never with me discussed large or general questions in science. During these two years I took several short excursions as a relaxation, and one longer one to the parallel roads of Glen Roy, an account of which was published in the _Philosophical Transactions_.[31] This paper was a great failure, and I am ashamed of it. Having been deeply impressed with what I had seen of the elevation of the land in South America, I attributed the parallel lines to the action of the sea; but I had to give up this view when Agassiz propounded his glacier-lake theory. Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion. As I was not able to work all day at science, I read a good deal during these two years on various subjects, including some metaphysical books; but I was not well fitted for such studies. About this time I took much delight in Wordsworth's and Coleridge's poetry; and can boast that I read the _Excursion_ twice through. Formerly Milton's _Paradise Lost_ had been my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the voyage of the _Beagle_, when I could take only a single volume, I always chose Milton. _From my marriage, January 29, 1839, and residence in Upper Gower Street, to our leaving London and settling at Down, September 14, 1842._ [After speaking of his happy married life, and of his children, he continues:] During the three years and eight months whilst we resided in London, I did less scientific work, though I worked as hard as I possibly could, than during any other equal length of time in my life. This was owing to frequently recurring unwellness, and to one long and serious illness. The greater part of my time, when I could do anything, was devoted to my work on _Coral Reefs_, which I had begun before my marriage, and of which the last proof-sheet was corrected on May 6th, 1842. This book, though a small one, cost me twenty months of hard work, as I had to read every work on the islands of the Pacific and to consult many charts. It was thought highly of by scientific men, and the theory therein given is, I think, now well established. No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this, for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of South America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with denudation and the deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of corals. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls. Besides my work on coral-reefs, during my residence in London, I read before the Geological Society papers on the Erratic Boulders of South America,[32] on Earthquakes,[33] and on the Formation by the Agency of Earth-worms of Mould.[34] I also continued to superintend the publication of the _Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle_. Nor did I ever intermit collecting facts bearing on the origin of species; and I could sometimes do this when I could do nothing else from illness. In the summer of 1842 I was stronger than I had been for some time, and took a little tour by myself in North Wales, for the sake of observing the effects of the old glaciers which formerly filled all the larger valleys. I published a short account of what I saw in the _Philosophical Magazine_.[35] This excursion interested me greatly, and it was the last time I was ever strong enough to climb mountains or to take long walks such as are necessary for geological work. During the early part of our life in London, I was strong enough to go into general society, and saw a good deal of several scientific men and other more or less distinguished men. I will give my impressions with respect to some of them, though I have little to say worth saying. I saw more of Lyell than of any other man, both before and after my marriage. His mind was characterised, as it appeared to me, by clearness, caution, sound judgment, and a good deal of originality. When I made any remark to him on Geology, he never rested until he saw the whole case clearly, and often made me see it more clearly than I had done before. He would advance all possible objections to my suggestion, and even after these were exhausted would long remain dubious. A second characteristic was his hearty sympathy with the work of other scientific men.[36] On my return from the voyage of the _Beagle_, I explained to him my views on coral-reefs, which differed from his, and I was greatly surprised and encouraged by the vivid interest which he showed. His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind. He was very kind-hearted, and thoroughly liberal in his religious beliefs, or rather disbeliefs; but he was a strong theist. His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, though he had gained much fame by opposing Lamarck's views, and this after he had grown old. He reminded me that I had many years before said to him, when discussing the opposition of the old school of geologists to his new views, "What a good thing it would be if every scientific man was to die when sixty years old, as afterwards he would be sure to oppose all new doctrines." But he hoped that now he might be allowed to live. The science of Geology is enormously indebted to Lyell--more so, as I believe, than to any other man who ever lived. When [I was] starting on the voyage of the _Beagle_, the sagacious Henslow, who, like all other geologists, believed at that time in successive cataclysms, advised me to get and study the first volume of the _Principles_, which had then just been published, but on no account to accept the views therein advocated. How differently would any one now speak of the _Principles_! I am proud to remember that the first place, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde Archipelago, in which I geologised, convinced me of the infinite superiority of Lyell's views over those advocated in any other work known to me. The powerful effects of Lyell's works could formerly be plainly seen in the different progress of the science in France and England. The present total oblivion of Elie de Beaumont's wild hypotheses, such as his _Craters of Elevation_ and _Lines of Elevation_ (which latter hypothesis I heard Sedgwick at the Geological Society lauding to the skies), may be largely attributed to Lyell. I saw a good deal of Robert Brown, "facile Princeps Botanicorum," as he was called by Humboldt. He seemed to me to be chiefly remarkable for the minuteness of his observations and their perfect accuracy. His knowledge was extraordinarily great, and much died with him, owing to his excessive fear of ever making a mistake. He poured out his knowledge to me in the most unreserved manner, yet was strangely jealous on some points. I called on him two or three times before the voyage of the _Beagle_, and on one occasion he asked me to look through a microscope and describe what I saw. This I did, and believe now that it was the marvellous currents of protoplasm in some vegetable cell. I then asked him what I had seen; but he answered me, "That is my little secret." He was capable of the most generous actions. When old, much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him. This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific penuriousness or jealousy. I may here mention a few other eminent men whom I have occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the Cape of Good Hope and afterwards at his London house. I saw him, also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to. I once met at breakfast, at Sir R. Murchison's house, the illustrious Humboldt, who honoured me by expressing a wish to see me. I was a little disappointed with the great man, but my anticipations probably were too high. I can remember nothing distinctly about our interview, except that Humboldt was very cheerful and talked much. X.[37] reminds me of Buckle, whom I once met at Hensleigh Wedgwood's. I was very glad to learn from [Buckle] his system of collecting facts. He told me that he bought all the books which he read, and made a full index to each, of the facts which he thought might prove serviceable to him, and that he could always remember in what book he had read anything, for his memory was wonderful. I asked him how at first he could judge what facts would be serviceable, and he answered that he did not know, but that a sort of instinct guided him. From this habit of making indices, he was enabled to give the astonishing number of references on all sorts of subjects which may be found in his _History of Civilisation_. This book I thought most interesting, and read it twice, but I doubt whether his generalisations are worth anything. Buckle was a great talker; and I listened to him, saying hardly a word, nor indeed could I have done so, for he left no gaps. When Mrs. Farrer began to sing, I jumped up and said that I must listen to her. After I had moved away, he turned round to a friend, and said (as was overheard by my brother), "Well, Mr. Darwin's books are much better than his conversation." Of other great literary men, I once met Sydney Smith at Dean Milman's house. There was something inexplicably amusing in every word which he uttered. Perhaps this was partly due to the expectation of being amused. He was talking about Lady Cork, who was then extremely old. This was the lady who, as he said, was once so much affected by one of his charity sermons, that she _borrowed_ a guinea from a friend to put in the plate. He now said, "It is generally believed that my dear old friend Lady Cork has been overlooked"; and he said this in such a manner that no one could for a moment doubt that he meant that his dear old friend had been overlooked by the devil. How he managed to express this I know not. I likewise once met Macaulay at Lord Stanhope's (the historian's) house, and as there was only one other man at dinner, I had a grand opportunity of hearing him converse, and he was very agreeable. He did not talk at all too much, nor indeed could such a man talk too much, as long as he allowed others to turn the stream of his conversation, and this he did allow. Lord Stanhope once gave me a curious little proof of the accuracy and fulness of Macaulay's memory. Many historians used often to meet at Lord Stanhope's house; and, in discussing various subjects, they would sometimes differ from Macaulay, and formerly they often referred to some book to see who was right; but latterly, as Lord Stanhope noticed, no historian ever took this trouble, and whatever Macaulay said was final. On another occasion I met at Lord Stanhope's house one of his parties of historians and other literary men, and amongst them were Motley and Grote. After luncheon I walked about Chevening Park for nearly an hour with Grote, and was much interested by his conversation and pleased by the simplicity and absence of all pretension in his manners. Long ago I dined occasionally with the old Earl, the father of the historian. He was a strange man, but what little I knew of him I liked much. He was frank, genial, and pleasant. He had strongly-marked features, with a brown complexion, and his clothes, when I saw him, were all brown. He seemed to believe in everything which was to others utterly incredible. He said one day to me, "Why don't you give up your fiddle-faddle of geology and zoology, and turn to the occult sciences?" The historian, then Lord Mahon, seemed shocked at such a speech to me, and his charming wife much amused. The last man whom I will mention is Carlyle, seen by me several times at my brother's house and two or three times at my own house. His talk was very racy and interesting, just like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother's, where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of silence. After dinner, Babbage, in his grimmest manner, thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence. Carlyle sneered at almost every one: One day in my house he called Grote's _History_ "a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it." I always thought, until his _Reminiscences_ appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent, yet benevolent man, and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real, though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and men--far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another question. He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained he could, of Goethe's views on light. He thought it a most ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research. Whilst living in London, I attended as regularly as I could the meetings of several scientific societies, and acted as secretary to the Geological Society. But such attendance, and ordinary society, suited my health so badly that we resolved to live in the country, which we both preferred and have never repented of. _Residence at Down, from September 14, 1842, to the present time, 1876._ After several fruitless searches in Surrey and elsewhere, we found this house and purchased it. I was pleased with the diversified appearance of the vegetation proper to a chalk district, and so unlike what I had been accustomed to in the Midland counties; and still more pleased with the extreme quietness and rusticity of the place. It is not, however, quite so retired a place as a writer in a German periodical makes it, who says that my house can be approached only by a mule-track! Our fixing ourselves here has answered admirably in one way which we did not anticipate, namely, by being very convenient for frequent visits from our children. Few persons can have lived a more retired life than we have done. Besides short visits to the houses of relations, and occasionally to the seaside or elsewhere, we have gone nowhere. During the first part of our residence we went a little into society, and received a few friends here; but my health almost always suffered from the excitement, violent shivering and vomiting attacks being thus brought on. I have therefore been compelled for many years to give up all dinner-parties; and this has been somewhat of a deprivation to me, as such parties always put me into high spirits. From the same cause I have been able to invite here very few scientific acquaintances. My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work, and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort. I have therefore nothing to record during the rest of my life, except the publication of my several books. Perhaps a few details how they arose may be worth giving. _My several Publications._--In the early part of 1844, my observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of the _Beagle_ were published. In 1845, I took much pains in correcting a new edition of my _Journal of Researches_, which was originally published in 1839 as part of Fitz-Roy's work. The success of this my first literary child always tickles my vanity more than that of any of my other books. Even to this day it sells steadily in England and the United States, and has been translated for the second time into German, and into French and other languages. This success of a book of travels, especially of a scientific one, so many years after its first publication, is surprising. Ten thousand copies have been sold in England of the second edition. In 1846 my _Geological Observations on South America_ were published. I record in a little diary, which I have always kept, that my three geological books (_Coral Reefs_ included) consumed four and a half years' steady work; "and now it is ten years since my return to England. How much time have I lost by illness?" I have nothing to say about these three books except that to my surprise new editions have lately been called for.[38] In October, 1846, I began to work on 'Cirripedia' (Barnacles). When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, which burrowed into shells of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole reception. Lately an allied burrowing genus has been found on the shores of Portugal. To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms: and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group. I worked steadily on the subject for the next eight years, and ultimately published two thick volumes,[39] describing all the known living species, and two thin quartos on the extinct species. I do not doubt that Sir E. Lytton Bulwer had me in his mind when he introduced in one of his novels a Professor Long, who had written two huge volumes on limpets. Although I was employed during eight years on this work, yet I record in my diary that about two years out of this time was lost by illness. On this account I went in 1848 for some months to Malvern for hydropathic treatment, which did me much good, so that on my return home I was able to resume work. So much was I out of health that when my dear father died on November 13th, 1848, I was unable to attend his funeral or to act as one of his executors. My work on the Cirripedia possesses, I think, considerable value, as besides describing several new and remarkable forms, I made out the homologies of the various parts--I discovered the cementing apparatus, though I blundered dreadfully about the cement glands--and lastly I proved the existence in certain genera of minute males complemental to and parasitic on the hermaphrodites. This latter discovery has at last been fully confirmed; though at one time a German writer was pleased to attribute the whole account to my fertile imagination. The Cirripedes form a highly varying and difficult group of species to class; and my work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the _Origin of Species_ the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time. From September 1854 I devoted my whole time to arranging my huge pile of notes, to observing, and to experimenting in relation to the transmutation of species. During the voyage of the _Beagle_ I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me. But it was equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor the will of the organisms (especially in the case of plants) could account for the innumerable cases in which organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of life--for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes. I had always been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have been modified. After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject. My first note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders and gardeners, and by extensive reading. When I see the list of books of all kinds which I read and abstracted, including whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at my industry. I soon perceived that selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of animals and plants. But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me. In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on _Population_, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess. But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature. Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my _Origin of Species_; yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had collected, and I got through about half the work on this scale. But my plans were overthrown, for early in the summer of 1858 Mr. Wallace, who was then in the Malay archipelago, sent me an essay _On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type_; and this essay contained exactly the same theory as mine. Mr. Wallace expressed the wish that if I thought well of his essay, I should send it to Lyell for perusal. The circumstances under which I consented at the request of Lyell and Hooker to allow of an abstract from my MS., together with a letter to Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857, to be published at the same time with Wallace's Essay, are given in the _Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society_, 1858, p. 45. I was at first very unwilling to consent, as I thought Mr. Wallace might consider my doing so unjustifiable, for I did not then know how generous and noble was his disposition. The extract from my MS. and the letter to Asa Gray had neither been intended for publication, and were badly written. Mr. Wallace's essay, on the other hand, was admirably expressed and quite clear. Nevertheless, our joint productions excited very little attention, and the only published notice of them which I can remember was by Professor Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old. This shows how necessary it is that any new view should be explained at considerable length in order to arouse public attention. In September 1858 I set to work by the strong advice of Lyell and Hooker to prepare a volume on the transmutation of species, but was often interrupted by ill-health, and short visits to Dr. Lane's delightful hydropathic establishment at Moor Park. I abstracted the MS. begun on a much larger scale in 1856, and completed the volume on the same reduced scale. It cost me thirteen months and ten days' hard labour. It was published under the title of the _Origin of Species_, in November 1859. Though considerably added to and corrected in the later editions, it has remained substantially the same book. It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the first highly successful. The first small edition of 1250 copies was sold on the day of publication, and a second edition of 3000 copies soon afterwards. Sixteen thousand copies have now (1876) been sold in England; and considering how stiff a book it is, this is a large sale. It has been translated into almost every European tongue, even into such languages as Spanish, Bohemian, Polish, and Russian. It has also, according to Miss Bird, been translated into Japanese,[40] and is there much studied. Even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, showing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament! The reviews were very numerous; for some time I collected all that appeared on the _Origin_ and on my related books, and these amount (excluding newspaper reviews) to 265; but after a time I gave up the attempt in despair. Many separate essays and books on the subject have appeared; and in Germany a catalogue or bibliography on "Darwinismus" has appeared every year or two. The success of the _Origin_ may, I think, be attributed in large part to my having long before written two condensed sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I had, also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer. It has sometimes been said that the success of the _Origin_ proved "that the subject was in the air," or "that men's minds were prepared for it." I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species. Even Lyell and Hooker, though they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by Natural selection, but signally failed. What I believe was strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were stored in the minds of naturalists ready to take their proper places as soon as any theory which would receive them was sufficiently explained. Another element in the success of the book was its moderate size; and this I owe to the appearance of Mr. Wallace's essay; had I published on the scale in which I began to write in 1856, the book would have been four or five times as large as the _Origin_, and very few would have had the patience to read it. I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it, for I cared very little whether men attributed most originality to me or Wallace; and his essay no doubt aided in the reception of the theory. I was forestalled in only one important point, which my vanity has always made me regret, namely, the explanation by means of the Glacial period of the presence of the same species of plants and of some few animals on distant mountain summits and in the arctic regions. This view pleased me so much that I wrote it out _in extenso_, and I believe that it was read by Hooker some years before E. Forbes published his celebrated memoir[41] on the subject. In the very few points in which we differed, I still think that I was in the right. I have never, of course, alluded in print to my having independently worked out this view. Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the _Origin_, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class. No notice of this point was taken, as far as I remember, in the early reviews of the _Origin_, and I recollect expressing my surprise on this head in a letter to Asa Gray. Within late years several reviewers have given the whole credit to Fritz Müller and Häckel, who undoubtedly have worked it out much more fully, and in some respects more correctly than I did. I had materials for a whole chapter on the subject, and I ought to have made the discussion longer; for it is clear that I failed to impress my readers; and he who succeeds in doing so deserves, in my opinion, all the credit. This leads me to remark that I have almost always been treated honestly by my reviewers, passing over those without scientific knowledge as not worthy of notice. My views have often been grossly misrepresented, bitterly opposed and ridiculed, but this has been generally done, as I believe, in good faith. On the whole I do not doubt that my works have been over and over again greatly overpraised. I rejoice that I have avoided controversies, and this I owe to Lyell, who many years ago, in reference to my geological works, strongly advised me never to get entangled in a controversy, as it rarely did any good and caused a miserable loss of time and temper. Whenever I have found out that I have blundered, or that my work has been imperfect, and when I have been contemptuously criticised, and even when I have been overpraised, so that I have felt mortified, it has been my greatest comfort to say hundreds of times to myself that "I have worked as hard and as well as I could, and no man can do more than this." I remember when in Good Success Bay, in Tierra del Fuego, thinking (and, I believe, that I wrote home to the effect) that I could not employ my life better than in adding a little to Natural Science. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like, but they cannot destroy this conviction. During the two last months of 1859 I was fully occupied in preparing a second edition of the _Origin_, and by an enormous correspondence. On January 1st, 1860, I began arranging my notes for my work on the _Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_; but it was not published until the beginning of 1868; the delay having been caused partly by frequent illnesses, one of which lasted seven months, and partly by being tempted to publish on other subjects which at the time interested me more. On May 15th, 1862, my little book on the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, which cost me ten months' work, was published: most of the facts had been slowly accumulated during several previous years. During the summer of 1839, and, I believe, during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant. I attended to the subject more or less during every subsequent summer; and my interest in it was greatly enhanced by having procured and read in November 1841, through the advice of Robert Brown, a copy of C. K. Sprengel's wonderful book, _Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur_. For some years before 1862 I had specially attended to the fertilisation of our British orchids; and it seemed to me the best plan to prepare as complete a treatise on this group of plants as well as I could, rather than to utilise the great mass of matter which I had slowly collected with respect to other plants. My resolve proved a wise one; for since the appearance of my book, a surprising number of papers and separate works on the fertilisation of all kinds of flowers have appeared; and these are far better done than I could possibly have effected. The merits of poor old Sprengel, so long overlooked, are now fully recognised many years after his death. During the same year I published in the _Journal of the Linnean Society_, a paper _On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition of Primula_, and during the next five years, five other papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants. I had noticed in 1838 or 1839 the dimorphism of _Linum flavum_, and had at first thought that it was merely a case of unmeaning variability. But on examining the common species of Primula, I found that the two forms were much too regular and constant to be thus viewed. I therefore became almost convinced that the common cowslip and primrose were on the high-road to become dioecious;--that the short pistil in the one form, and the short stamens in the other form were tending towards abortion. The plants were therefore subjected under this point of view to trial; but as soon as the flowers with short pistils fertilised with pollen from the short stamens, were found to yield more seeds than any other of the four possible unions, the abortion-theory was knocked on the head. After some additional experiment, it became evident that the two forms, though both were perfect hermaphrodites, bore almost the same relation to one another as do the two sexes of an ordinary animal. With Lythrum we have the still more wonderful case of three forms standing in a similar relation to one another. I afterwards found that the offspring from the union of two plants belonging to the same forms presented a close and curious analogy with hybrids from the union of two distinct species. In the autumn of 1864 I finished a long paper on _Climbing Plants_, and sent it to the Linnean Society. The writing of this paper cost me four months: but I was so unwell when I received the proof-sheets that I was forced to leave them very badly and often obscurely expressed. The paper was little noticed, but when in 1875 it was corrected and published as a separate book it sold well. I was led to take up this subject by reading a short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He sent me seeds, and on raising some plants I was so much fascinated and perplexed by the revolving movements of the tendrils and stems, which movements are really very simple, though appearing at first sight very complex, that I procured various other kinds of climbing plants, and studied the whole subject. I was all the more attracted to it, from not being at all satisfied with the explanation which Henslow gave us in his lectures, about twining plants, namely, that they had a natural tendency to grow up in a spire. This explanation proved quite erroneous. Some of the adaptations displayed by climbing plants are as beautiful as those of Orchids for ensuring cross-fertilisation. My _Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_ was begun, as already stated, in the beginning of 1860, but was not published until the beginning of 1868. It was a big book, and cost me four years and two months' hard labour. It gives all my observations and an immense number of facts collected from various sources, about our domestic productions. In the second volume the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, &c., are discussed, as far as our present state of knowledge permits. Towards the end of the work I give my well-abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value; but if any one should hereafter be led to make observations by which some such hypothesis could be established, I shall have done good service, as an astonishing number of isolated facts can be thus connected together and rendered intelligible. In 1875 a second and largely corrected edition, which cost me a good deal of labour, was brought out. My _Descent of Man_ was published in February 1871. As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in the _Origin of Species_ the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honourable man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that by the work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." It would have been useless, and injurious to the success of the book to have paraded, without giving any evidence, my conviction with respect to his origin. But when I found that many naturalists fully accepted the doctrine of the evolution of species, it seemed to me advisable to work up such notes as I possessed, and to publish a special treatise on the origin of man. I was the more glad to do so, as it gave me an opportunity of fully discussing sexual selection--a subject which had always greatly interested me. This subject, and that of the variation of our domestic productions, together with the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, and the intercrossing of plants, are the sole subjects which I have been able to write about in full, so as to use all the materials which I have collected. The _Descent of Man_ took me three years to write, but then as usual some of this time was lost by ill-health, and some was consumed by preparing new editions and other minor works. A second and largely corrected edition of the _Descent_ appeared in 1874. My book on the _Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals_ was published in the autumn of 1872. I had intended to give only a chapter on the subject in the _Descent of Man_, but as soon as I began to put my notes together, I saw that it would require a separate treatise. My first child was born on December 27th, 1839, and I at once commenced to make notes on the first dawn of the various expressions which he exhibited, for I felt convinced, even at this early period, that the most complex and fine shades of expression must all have had a gradual and natural origin. During the summer of the following year, 1840, I read Sir C. Bell's admirable work on expression, and this greatly increased the interest which I felt in the subject, though I could not at all agree with his belief that various muscles had been specially created for the sake of expression. From this time forward I occasionally attended to the subject, both with respect to man and our domesticated animals. My book sold largely; 5267 copies having been disposed of on the day of publication. In the summer of 1860 I was idling and resting near Hartfield, where two species of [Sundew] abound; and I noticed that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I carried home some plants, and on giving them insects saw the movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it probable that the insects were caught for some special purpose. Fortunately a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing a large number of leaves in various nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous fluids of equal density; and as soon as I found that the former alone excited energetic movements, it was obvious that here was a fine new field for investigation. During subsequent years, whenever I had leisure, I pursued my experiments, and my book on _Insectivorous Plants_ was published in July 1875--that is sixteen years after my first observations. The delay in this case, as with all my other books, has been a great advantage to me; for a man after a long interval can criticise his own work, almost as well as if it were that of another person. The fact that a plant should secrete, when properly excited, a fluid containing an acid and ferment, closely analogous to the digestive fluid of an animal, was certainly a remarkable discovery. During this autumn of 1876 I shall publish on the _Effects of Cross-and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom_. This book will form a complement to that on the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, in which I showed how perfect were the means for cross-fertilisation, and here I shall show how important are the results. I was led to make, during eleven years, the numerous experiments recorded in this volume, by a mere accidental observation; and indeed it required the accident to be repeated before my attention was thoroughly aroused to the remarkable fact that seedlings of self-fertilised parentage are inferior, even in the first generation, in height and vigour to seedlings of cross-fertilised parentage. I hope also to republish a revised edition of my book on Orchids, and hereafter my papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants, together with some additional observations on allied points which I never have had time to arrange. My strength will then probably be exhausted, and I shall be ready to exclaim "Nunc dimittis." _Written May 1st, 1881._--_The Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation_ was published in the autumn of 1876; and the results there arrived at explain, as I believe, the endless and wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one plant to another of the same species. I now believe, however, chiefly from the observations of Hermann Müller, that I ought to have insisted more strongly than I did on the many adaptations for self-fertilisation; though I was well aware of many such adaptations. A much enlarged edition of my _Fertilisation of Orchids_ was published in 1877. In this same year _The Different Forms of Flowers, &c._, appeared, and in 1880 a second edition. This book consists chiefly of the several papers on Hetero-styled flowers originally published by the Linnean Society, corrected, with much new matter added, together with observations on some other cases in which the same plant bears two kinds of flowers. As before remarked, no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers. The results of crossing such flowers in an illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as bearing on the sterility of hybrids; although these results have been noticed by only a few persons. In 1879, I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause's _Life of Erasmus Darwin_ published, and I added a sketch of his character and habits from material in my possession. Many persons have been much interested by this little life, and I am surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold. In 1880 I published, with [my son] Frank's assistance our _Power of Movement in Plants_. This was a tough piece of work. The book bears somewhat the same relation to my little book on _Climbing Plants_, which _Cross-Fertilisation_ did to the _Fertilisation of Orchids_; for in accordance with the principle of evolution it was impossible to account for climbing plants having been developed in so many widely different groups unless all kinds of plants possess some slight power of movement of an analogous kind. This I proved to be the case; and I was further led to a rather wide generalisation, viz., that the great and important classes of movements, excited by light, the attraction of gravity, &c., are all modified forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation. It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings; and I therefore felt an especial pleasure in showing how many and what admirably well adapted movements the tip of a root possesses. I have now (May 1, 1881) sent to the printers the MS. of a little book on _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms_. This is a subject of but small importance; and I know not whether it will interest any readers,[42] but it has interested me. It is the completion of a short paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and has revived old geological thoughts. I have now mentioned all the books which I have published, and these have been the milestones in my life, so that little remains to be said. I am not conscious of any change in my mind during the last thirty years, excepting in one point presently to be mentioned; nor, indeed, could any change have been expected unless one of general deterioration. But my father lived to his eighty-third year with his mind as lively as ever it was, and all his faculties undimmed; and I hope that I may die before my mind fails to a sensible extent. I think that I have become a little more skilful in guessing right explanations and in devising experimental tests; but this may probably be the result of mere practice, and of a larger store of knowledge. I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time; but it has had the compensating advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of others. There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mind leading me to put at first my statement or proposition in a wrong or awkward form. Formerly I used to think about my sentences before writing them down; but for several years I have found that it saves time to scribble in a vile hand, whole pages as quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and then correct deliberately. Sentences thus scribbled down are often better ones than I could have written deliberately. Having said thus much about my manner of writing, I will add that with my large books I spend a good deal of time over the general arrangement of the matter. I first make the rudest outline in two or three pages, and then a larger one in several pages, a few words or one word standing for a whole discussion or series of facts. Each one of these headings is again enlarged and often transferred before I begin to write _in extenso_. As in several of my books facts observed by others have been very extensively used, and as I have always had several quite distinct subjects in hand at the same time, I may mention that I keep from thirty to forty large portfolios, in cabinets with labelled shelves, into which I can at once put a detached reference or memorandum. I have bought many books, and at their ends I make an index of all the facts that concern my work; or, if the book is not my own, write out a separate abstract, and of such abstracts I have a large drawer full. Before beginning on any subject I look to all the short indexes and make a general and classified index, and by taking the one or more proper portfolios I have all the information collected during my life ready for use. I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did. On the other hand, novels, which are works of the imagination, though not of a very high order, have been for years a wonderful relief and pleasure to me, and I often bless all novelists. A surprising number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if moderately good, and if they do not end unhappily--against which a law ought to be passed. A novel, according to my taste, does not come into the first class unless it contains some person whom one can thoroughly love, and if a pretty woman all the better. This curious and lamentable loss of the higher æsthetic tastes is all the odder, as books on history, biographies, and travels (independently of any scientific facts which they may contain), and essays on all sorts of subjects interest me as much as ever they did. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better constituted than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature. My books have sold largely in England, have been translated into many languages, and passed through several editions in foreign countries. I have heard it said that the success of a work abroad is the best test of its enduring value. I doubt whether this is at all trustworthy; but judged by this standard my name ought to last for a few years. Therefore it may be worth while to try to analyse the mental qualities and the conditions on which my success has depended; though I am aware that no man can do this correctly. I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am therefore a poor critic: a paper or book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is only after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My power to follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited; and therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or mathematics. My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or read something opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing, or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I can generally recollect where to search for my authority. So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of poetry. Some of my critics have said, "Oh, he is a good observer, but he has no power of reasoning!" I do not think that this can be true, for the _Origin of Species_ is one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men. No one could have written it without having some power of reasoning. I have a fair share of invention, and of common sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or doctor must have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree. On the favourable side of the balance, I think that I am superior to the common run of men in noticing things which easily escape attention, and in observing them carefully. My industry has been nearly as great as it could have been in the observation and collection of facts. What is far more important, my love of natural science has been steady and ardent. This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have had the strongest desire to understand or explain whatever I observed,--that is, to group all facts under some general laws. These causes combined have given me the patience to reflect or ponder for any number of years over any unexplained problem. As far as I can judge, I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in this manner, for with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot remember a single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time to be given up or greatly modified. This has naturally led me to distrust greatly, deductive reasoning in the mixed sciences. On the other hand, I am not very sceptical,--a frame of mind which I believe to be injurious to the progress of science. A good deal of scepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, [but] I have met with not a few men, who, I feel sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly serviceable. In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I have known. A gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good local botanist) wrote to me from the Eastern counties that the seeds or beans of the common field-bean had this year everywhere grown on the wrong side of the pod. I wrote back, asking for further information, as I did not understand what was meant; but I did not receive any answer for a very long time. I then saw in two newspapers, one published in Kent and the other in Yorkshire, paragraphs stating that it was a most remarkable fact that "the beans this year had all grown on the wrong side." So I thought there must be some foundation for so general a statement. Accordingly, I went to my gardener, an old Kentish man, and asked him whether he had heard anything about it, and he answered, "Oh, no, sir, it must be a mistake, for the beans grow on the wrong side only on leap-year." I then asked him how they grew in common years and how on leap-years, but soon found that he knew absolutely nothing of how they grew at any time, but he stuck to his belief. After a time I heard from my first informant, who, with many apologies, said that he should not have written to me had he not heard the statement from several intelligent farmers; but that he had since spoken again to every one of them, and not one knew in the least what he had himself meant. So that here a belief--if indeed a statement with no definite idea attached to it can be called a belief--had spread over almost the whole of England without any vestige of evidence. I have known in the course of my life only three intentionally falsified statements, and one of these may have been a hoax (and there have been several scientific hoaxes) which, however, took in an American Agricultural Journal. It related to the formation in Holland of a new breed of oxen by the crossing of distinct species of Bos (some of which I happen to know are sterile together), and the author had the impudence to state that he had corresponded with me, and that I had been deeply impressed with the importance of his result. The article was sent to me by the editor of an English Agricultural Journal, asking for my opinion before republishing it. A second case was an account of several varieties, raised by the author from several species of Primula, which had spontaneously yielded a full complement of seed, although the parent plants had been carefully protected from the access of insects. This account was published before I had discovered the meaning of heterostylism, and the whole statement must have been fraudulent, or there was neglect in excluding insects so gross as to be scarcely credible. The third case was more curious: Mr. Huth published in his book on 'Consanguineous Marriage' some long extracts from a Belgian author, who stated that he had interbred rabbits in the closest manner for very many generations, without the least injurious effects. The account was published in a most respectable Journal, that of the Royal Society of Belgium; but I could not avoid feeling doubts--I hardly know why, except that there were no accidents of any kind, and my experience in breeding animals made me think this improbable. So with much hesitation I wrote to Professor Van Beneden, asking him whether the author was a trustworthy man. I soon heard in answer that the Society had been greatly shocked by discovering that the whole account was a fraud.[43] The writer had been publicly challenged in the journal to say where he had resided and kept his large stock of rabbits while carrying on his experiments, which must have consumed several years, and no answer could be extracted from him. My habits are methodical, and this has been of not a little use for my particular line of work. Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement. Therefore, my success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been--the love of science--unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject--industry in observing and collecting facts--and a fair share of invention as well as of common-sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some important points. FOOTNOTES: [5] The late Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey. [6] Kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel in the High Street. Mrs. Darwin was a Unitarian and attended Mr. Case's chapel, and my father as a little boy went there with his elder sisters. But both he and his brother were christened and intended to belong to the Church of England; and after his early boyhood he seems usually to have gone to church and not to Mr. Case's. It appears (_St. James's Gazette_, December 15, 1883) that a mural tablet has been erected to his memory in the chapel, which is now known as the "Free Christian Church."--F. D. [7] Rev. W. A. Leighton remembers his bringing a flower to school and saying that his mother had taught him how by looking at the inside of the blossom the name of the plant could be discovered. Mr. Leighton goes on, "This greatly roused my attention and curiosity, and I inquired of him repeatedly how this could be done?"--but his lesson was naturally enough not transmissible.--F. D. [8] His father wisely treated this tendency not by making crimes of the fibs, but by making light of the discoveries.--F. D. [9] The house of his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood, the younger. [10] It is curious that another Shrewsbury boy should have been impressed by this military funeral; Mr. Gretton, in his _Memory's Harkback_, says that the scene is so strongly impressed on his mind that he could "walk straight to the spot in St. Chad's churchyard where the poor fellow was buried." The soldier was an Inniskilling Dragoon, and the officer in command had been recently wounded at Waterloo, where his corps did good service against the French Cuirassiers. [11] He lodged at Mrs. Mackay's, 11, Lothian Street. What little the records of Edinburgh University can reveal has been published in the _Edinburgh Weekly Dispatch_, May 22, 1888; and in the _St. James's Gazette_, February 16, 1888. From the latter journal it appears that he and his brother Erasmus made more use of the library than was usual among the students of their time. [12] I have heard him call to mind the pride he felt at the results of the successful treatment of a whole family with tartar emetic.--F. D. [13] Dr. Coldstream died September 17, 1863; see Crown 16mo. Book Tract. No. 19 of the Religious Tract Society (no date). [14] The society was founded in 1823, and expired about 1848 (_Edinburgh Weekly Dispatch_, May 22, 1888). [15] Josiah Wedgwood, the son of the founder of the Etruria Works. [16] Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni Mente quatit solida. [17] Tenth in the list of January 1831. [18] I gather from some of my father's contemporaries that he has exaggerated the Bacchanalian nature of those parties.--F. D. [19] Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy in Durham University. [20] The late John Maurice Herbert, County Court Judge of Cardiff and the Monmouth Circuit. [21] Afterwards Sir H. Thompson, first baronet. [22] The _Cambridge Ray Club_, which in 1887 attained its fiftieth anniversary, is the direct descendant of these meetings, having been founded to fill the blank caused by the discontinuance, in 1836, of Henslow's Friday evenings. See Professor Babington's pamphlet, _The Cambridge Ray Club_, 1887. [23] Mr. Jenyns (now Blomefield) described the fish for the _Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle_; and is author of a long series of papers, chiefly Zoological. In 1887 he printed, for private circulation, an autobiographical sketch, _Chapters in my Life_, and subsequently some (undated) addenda. The well-known Soame Jenyns was cousin to Mr. Jenyns' father. [24] In connection with this tour my father used to tell a story about Sedgwick: they had started from their inn one morning, and had walked a mile or two, when Sedgwick suddenly stopped, and vowed that he would return, being certain "that damned scoundrel" (the waiter) had not given the chambermaid the sixpence intrusted to him for the purpose. He was ultimately persuaded to give up the project, seeing that there was no reason for suspecting the waiter of perfidy.--F. D. [25] _Philosophical Magazine_, 1842. [26] Josiah Wedgwood. [27] The Count d'Albanie's claim to Royal descent has been shown to be baaed on a myth. See the _Quarterly Review_, 1847, vol. lxxxi. p. 83; also Hayward's _Biographical and Critical Essays_, 1873, vol. ii. p. 201. [28] Read at the meeting held November 16, 1835, and printed in a pamphlet of 31 pp. for distribution among the members of the Society. [29] In Fitzwilliam Street. [30] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ ii. 1838, pp. 416-449. [31] 1839, pp. 39-82. [32] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ iii. 1842. [33] _Geolog. Trans._ v. 1840. [34] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ ii. 1838. [35] _Philosophical Magazine_, 1842. [36] The slight repetition here observable is accounted for by the notes on Lyell, &c., having been added in April, 1881, a few years after the rest of the _Recollections_ were written.--F. D. [37] A passage referring to X. is here omitted.--F. D. [38] _Geological Observations_, 2nd Edit. 1876. _Coral Reefs_, 2nd Edit. 1874 [39] Published by the Ray Society. [40] Miss Bird is mistaken, as I learn from Professor Mitsukuri.--F. D. [41] _Geolog. Survey Mem._, 1846. [42] Between November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies were sold.--F. D. [43] The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth relied were pointed out in a slip inserted in all the unsold copies of his book, _The Marriage of near Kin_.--F. D. CHAPTER III. RELIGION. My father in his published works was reticent on the matter of religion, and what he has left on the subject was not written with a view to publication.[44] I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He felt strongly that a man's religion is an essentially private matter, and one concerning himself alone. This is indicated by the following extract from a letter of 1879:--[45] "What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates.... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He naturally shrank from wounding the sensibilities of others in religious matters, and he was also influenced by the consciousness that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought. That he felt this caution to apply to himself in the matter of religion is shown in a letter to Dr. F. E. Abbott, of Cambridge, U.S. (September 6, 1871). After explaining that the weakness arising from bad health prevented him from feeling "equal to deep reflection, on the deepest subject which can fill a man's mind," he goes on to say: "With respect to my former notes to you, I quite forget their contents. I have to write many letters, and can reflect but little on what I write; but I fully believe and hope that I have never written a word, which at the time I did not think; but I think you will agree with me, that anything which is to be given to the public ought to be maturely weighed and cautiously put. It never occurred to me that you would wish to print any extract from my notes: if it had, I would have kept a copy. I put 'private' from habit, only as yet partially acquired, from some hasty notes of mine having been printed, which were not in the least degree worth printing, though otherwise unobjectionable. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that my former note to you would be worth sending to me, with any part marked which you desire to print; but if you like to do so, I will at once say whether I should have any objection. I feel in some degree unwilling to express myself publicly on religious subjects, as I do not feel that I have thought deeply enough to justify any publicity." What follows is from another letter to Dr. Abbott (November 16, 1871), in which my father gives more fully his reasons for not feeling competent to write on religious and moral subjects:-- "I can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your request that I should become a contributor to the _Index_, and am much obliged for the draft. I fully, also, subscribe to the proposition that it is the duty of every one to spread what he believes to be the truth; and I honour you for doing so, with so much devotion and zeal. But I cannot comply with your request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in your eyes ungracious. My health is very weak: I _never_ pass 24 hours without many hours of discomfort, when I can do nothing whatever. I have thus, also, lost two whole consecutive months this season. Owing to this weakness, and my head being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects requiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials. At no time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have done in science has solely been by long pondering, patience and industry. "Now I have never systematically thought much on religion in relation to science, or on morals in relation to society; and without steadily keeping my mind on such subjects for a long period, I am really incapable of writing anything worth sending to the _Index_." He was more than once asked to give his views on religion, and he had, as a rule, no objection to doing so in a private letter. Thus, in answer to a Dutch student, he wrote (April 2, 1873):-- "I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest. "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father's family, who wrote:-- "Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all. "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God." This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my father, and received from him the following reply:-- "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,--nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat abbreviated, from a part of the Autobiography, written in 1876, in which my father gives the history of his religious views:-- "During these two years[46] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the _Beagle_ I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, _i.e._ 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,--is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible. "By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,--and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,--that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;--by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. "But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress. "Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the _Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants_,[47] and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered. "But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness. "Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking, and in the propagation of the species, &c.; or by both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary, they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner, through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,--in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances. "That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection. "At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. "Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music. "With respect to immortality, nothing, shows me [so clearly] how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful. "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the _Origin of Species_, and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt--can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." The following letters repeat to some extent what is given above from the _Autobiography_. The first one refers to _The Boundaries of Science: a Dialogue_, published in _Macmillan's Magazine_, for July 1861. _C. D. to Miss Julia Wedgwood_, July 11 [1861]. Some one has sent us _Macmillan_, and I must tell you how much I admire your Article, though at the same time I must confess that I could not clearly follow you in some parts, which probably is in main part due to my not being at all accustomed to metaphysical trains of thought. I think that you understand my book[48] perfectly, and that I find a very rare event with my critics. The ideas in the last page have several times vaguely crossed my mind. Owing to several correspondents, I have been led lately to think, or rather to try to think, over some of the chief points discussed by you. But the result has been with me a maze--something like thinking on the origin of evil, to which you allude. The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray and some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray would compare with the raindrops[49] which do not fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilise it) as having been providentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man's amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or any one, admits [that] these variations are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (of course not accidental as to their cause or origin), then I can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which the beautifully-adapted woodpecker has been formed as providentially designed. For it would be easy to imagine the enlarged crop of the pouter, or tail of the fantail, as of some use to birds, in a state of nature, having peculiar habits of life. These are the considerations which perplex me about design; but whether you will care to hear them, I know not. On the subject of design, he wrote (July 1860) to Dr. Gray: "One word more on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this _designedly_. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God _designedly_ killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I can't and don't. If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat is designed, I see no good reason to believe that their _first_ birth or production should be necessarily designed." _C. D. to W. Graham._ Down, July 3rd, 1881. DEAR SIR,--I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably-written _Creed of Science_, though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation--and no doubt of the conservation of energy--of the atomic theory, &c., &c., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness, existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.[50] But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think second, third, and fourth-rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused. I beg leave to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully and obliged. Darwin spoke little on these subjects, and I can contribute nothing from my own recollection of his conversation which can add to the impression here given of his attitude towards Religion.[51] Some further idea of his views may, however, be gathered from occasional remarks in his letters. FOOTNOTES: [44] As an exception, may be mentioned, a few words of concurrence with Dr. Abbott's _Truths for the Times_, which my father allowed to be published in the _Index_. [45] Addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by him in his _Aspects of Scepticism_, 1883. [46] October 1836 to January 1839. [47] My father asks whether we are to believe that the forms are preordained of the broken fragments of rock which are fitted together by man to build his houses. If not, why should we believe that the variations of domestic animals or plants are preordained for the sake of the breeder? "But if we give up the principle in one case, ... no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."--_Variation of Animals and Plants_, 1st Edit. vol. ii. p. 431.--F. D. [48] The _Origin of Species_. [49] Dr. Gray's rain-drop metaphor occurs in the Essay, _Darwin and his Reviewers_ (_Darwiniana_, p. 157): "The whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon the vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture is furnished by the ocean, is raised by the sun's heat from the ocean's surface, and is wafted inland by the winds. But what multitudes of rain-drops fall back into the ocean--are as much without a final cause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing! Does it therefore follow that the rains which are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity were not designed to support vegetable and animal life?" [50] The Duke of Argyll (_Good Words_, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. " ... in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, and upon _The Earthworms_, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature--I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'" [51] Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet (_The Religious Views of Charles Darwin_, Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" are practically equivalent--that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (p. 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs. [Illustration: THE STUDY AT DOWN.[52]] CHAPTER IV. REMINISCENCES OF MY FATHER'S EVERYDAY LIFE. It is my wish in the present chapter to give some idea of my father's everyday life. It has seemed to me that I might carry out this object in the form of a rough sketch of a day's life at Down, interspersed with such recollections as are called up by the record. Many of these recollections, which have a meaning for those who knew my father, will seem colourless or trifling to strangers. Nevertheless, I give them in the hope that they may help to preserve that impression of his personality which remains on the minds of those who knew and loved him--an impression at once so vivid and so untranslatable into words. Of his personal appearance (in these days of multiplied photographs) it is hardly necessary to say much. He was about six feet in height, but scarcely looked so tall, as he stooped a good deal; in later days he yielded to the stoop; but I can remember seeing him long ago swinging back his arms to open out his chest, and holding himself upright with a jerk. He gave one the idea that he had been active rather than strong; his shoulders were not broad for his height, though certainly not narrow. As a young man he must have had much endurance, for on one of the shore excursions from the _Beagle_, when all were suffering from want of water, he was one of the two who were better able than the rest to struggle on in search of it. As a boy he was active, and could jump a bar placed at the height of the "Adam's apple" in his neck. He walked with a swinging action, using a stick heavily shod with iron, which he struck loudly against the ground, producing as he went round the "Sand-walk" at Down, a rhythmical click which is with all of us a very distinct remembrance. As he returned from the midday walk, often carrying the waterproof or cloak which had proved too hot, one could see that the swinging step was kept up by something of an effort. Indoors his step was often slow and laboured, and as he went upstairs in the afternoon he might be heard mounting the stairs with a heavy footfall, as if each step were an effort. When interested in his work he moved about quickly and easily enough, and often in the midst of dictating he went eagerly into the hall to get a pinch of snuff, leaving the study door open, and calling out the last words of his sentence as he left the room. In spite of his activity, he had, I think, no natural grace or neatness of movement. He was awkward with his hands, and was unable to draw at all well.[53] This he always regretted, and he frequently urged the paramount necessity to a young naturalist of making himself a good draughtsman. He could dissect well under the simple microscope, but I think it was by dint of his great patience and carefulness. It was characteristic of him that he thought any little bit of skilful dissection something almost superhuman. He used to speak with admiration of the skill with which he saw Newport dissect a humble bee, getting out the nervous system with a few cuts of a pair of fine scissors. He used to consider cutting microscopic sections a great feat, and in the last year of his life, with wonderful energy, took the pains to learn to cut sections of roots and leaves. His hand was not steady enough to hold the object to be cut, and he employed a common microtome, in which the pith for holding the object was clamped, and the razor slid on a glass surface. He used to laugh at himself, and at his own skill in section-cutting, at which he would say he was "speechless with admiration." On the other hand, he must have had accuracy of eye and power of co-ordinating his movements, since he was a good shot with a gun as a young man, and as a boy was skilful in throwing. He once killed a hare sitting in the flower-garden at Shrewsbury by throwing a marble at it, and, as a man, he killed a cross-beak with a stone. He was so unhappy at having uselessly killed the cross-beak that he did not mention it for years, and then explained that he should never have thrown at it if he had not felt sure that his old skill had gone from him. His beard was full and almost untrimmed, the hair being grey and white, fine rather than coarse, and wavy or frizzled. His moustache was somewhat disfigured by being cut short and square across. He became very bald, having only a fringe of dark hair behind. His face was ruddy in colour, and this perhaps made people think him less of an invalid than he was. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (June 13, 1849), "Every one tells me that I look quite blooming and beautiful; and most think I am shamming, but you have never been one of those." And it must be remembered that at this time he was miserably ill, far worse than in later years. His eyes were bluish grey under deep overhanging brows, with thick, bushy projecting eye-brows. His high forehead was deeply wrinkled, but otherwise his face was not much marked or lined. His expression showed no signs of the continual discomfort he suffered. When he was excited with pleasant talk his whole manner was wonderfully bright and animated, and his face shared to the full in the general animation. His laugh was a free and sounding peal, like that of a man who gives himself sympathetically and with enjoyment to the person and the thing which have amused him. He often used some sort of gesture with his laugh, lifting up his hands or bringing one down with a slap. I think, generally speaking, he was given to gesture, and often used his hands in explaining anything (_e.g._ the fertilisation of a flower) in a way that seemed rather an aid to himself than to the listener. He did this on occasions when most people would illustrate their explanations by means of a rough pencil sketch. He wore dark clothes, of a loose and easy fit. Of late years he gave up the tall hat even in London, and wore a soft black one in winter, and a big straw hat in summer. His usual out-of-doors dress was the short cloak in which Elliot and Fry's photograph[54] represents him, leaning against the pillar of the verandah. Two peculiarities of his indoor dress were that he almost always wore a shawl over his shoulders, and that he had great loose cloth boots lined with fur which he could slip on over his indoor shoes. He rose early, and took a short turn before breakfast, a habit which began when he went for the first time to a water-cure establishment, and was preserved till almost the end of his life. I used, as a little boy, to like going out with him, and I have a vague sense of the red of the winter sunrise, and a recollection of the pleasant companionship, and a certain honour and glory in it. He used to delight me as a boy by telling me how, in still earlier walks, on dark winter mornings, he had once or twice met foxes trotting home at the dawning. After breakfasting alone about 7.45, he went to work at once, considering the 1½ hour between 8 and 9.30 one of his best working times. At 9.30 he came in to the drawing-room for his letters--rejoicing if the post was a light one and being sometimes much worried if it was not. He would then hear any family letters read aloud as he lay on the sofa. The reading aloud, which also included part of a novel, lasted till about half-past ten, when he went back to work till twelve or a quarter past. By this time he considered his day's work over, and would often say, in a satisfied voice, "_I've_ done a good day's work." He then went out of doors whether it was wet or fine; Polly, his white terrier, went with him in fair weather, but in rain she refused or might be seen hesitating in the verandah, with a mixed expression of disgust and shame at her own want of courage; generally, however, her conscience carried the day, and as soon as he was evidently gone she could not bear to stay behind. My father was always fond of dogs, and as a young man had the power of stealing away the affections of his sister's pets; at Cambridge, he won the love of his cousin W. D. Fox's dog, and this may perhaps have been the little beast which used to creep down inside his bed and sleep at the foot every night. My father had a surly dog, who was devoted to him, but unfriendly to every one else, and when he came back from the _Beagle_ voyage, the dog remembered him, but in a curious way, which my father was fond of telling. He went into the yard and shouted in his old manner; the dog rushed out and set off with him on his walk, showing no more emotion or excitement than if the same thing had happened the day before, instead of five years ago. This story is made use of in the _Descent of Man_, 2nd Edit. p. 74. In my memory there were only two dogs which had much connection with my father. One was a large black and white half-bred retriever, called Bob, to which we, as children, were much devoted. He was the dog of whom the story of the "hot-house face" is told in the _Expression of the Emotions_. But the dog most closely associated with my father was the above-mentioned Polly, a rough, white fox-terrier. She was a sharp-witted, affectionate dog; when her master was going away on a journey, she always discovered the fact by the signs of packing going on in the study, and became low-spirited accordingly. She began, too, to be excited by seeing the study prepared for his return home. She was a cunning little creature, and used to tremble or put on an air of misery when my father passed, while she was waiting for dinner, just as if she knew that he would say (as he did often say) that "she was famishing." My father used to make her catch biscuits off her nose, and had an affectionate and mock-solemn way of explaining to her before-hand that she must "be a very good girl." She had a mark on her back where she had been burnt, and where the hair had re-grown red instead of white, and my father used to commend her for this tuft of hair as being in accordance with his theory of pangenesis; her father had been a red bull-terrier, thus the red hair appearing after the burn showed the presence of latent red gemmules. He was delightfully tender to Polly, and never showed any impatience at the attentions she required, such as to be let in at the door, or out at the verandah window, to bark at "naughty people," a self-imposed duty she much enjoyed. She died, or rather had to be killed, a few days after his death.[55] My father's mid-day walk generally began by a call at the greenhouse, where he looked at any germinating seeds or experimental plants which required a casual examination, but he hardly ever did any serious observing at this time. Then he went on for his constitutional--either round the "Sand-walk," or outside his own grounds in the immediate neighbourhood of the house. The "Sand-walk" was a narrow strip of land 1½ acre in extent, with a gravel-walk round it. On one side of it was a broad old shaw with fair-sized oaks in it, which made a sheltered shady walk; the other side was separated from a neighbouring grass field by a low quickset hedge, over which you could look at what view there was, a quiet little valley losing itself in the upland country towards the edge of the Westerham hill, with hazel coppice and larch plantation, the remnants of what was once a large wood, stretching away to the Westerham high road. I have heard my father say that the charm of this simple little valley was a decided factor in his choice of a home. The Sand-walk was planted by my father with a variety of trees, such as hazel, alder, lime, hornbeam, birch, privet, and dogwood, and with a long line of hollies all down the exposed side. In earlier times he took a certain number of turns every day, and used to count them by means of a heap of flints, one of which he kicked out on the path each time he passed. Of late years I think he did not keep to any fixed number of turns, but took as many as he felt strength for. The Sand-walk was our play-ground as children, and here we continually saw my father as he walked round. He liked to see what we were doing, and was ever ready to sympathize in any fun that was going on. It is curious to think how, with regard to the Sand-walk in connection with my father, my earliest recollections coincide with my latest; it shows the unvarying character of his habits. Sometimes when alone he stood still or walked stealthily to observe birds or beasts. It was on one of these occasions that some young squirrels ran up his back and legs, while their mother barked at them in an agony from the tree. He always found birds' nests even up to the last years of his life, and we, as children, considered that he had a special genius in this direction. In his quiet prowls he came across the less common birds, but I fancy he used to conceal it from me as a little boy, because he observed the agony of mind which I endured at not having seen the siskin or goldfinch, or some other of the less common birds. He used to tell us how, when he was creeping noiselessly along in the "Big-Woods," he came upon a fox asleep in the daytime, which was so much astonished that it took a good stare at him before it ran off. A Spitz dog which accompanied him showed no sign of excitement at the fox, and he used to end the story by wondering how the dog could have been so faint-hearted. Another favourite place was "Orchis Bank," above the quiet Cudham valley, where fly- and musk-orchis grew among the junipers, and Cephalanthera and Neottia under the beech boughs; the little wood "Hangrove," just above this, he was also fond of, and here I remember his collecting grasses, when he took a fancy to make out the names of all the common kinds. He was fond of quoting the saying of one of his little boys, who, having found a grass that his father had not seen before, had it laid by his own plate during dinner, remarking, "I are an extraordinary grass-finder!" My father much enjoyed wandering idly in the garden with my mother or some of his children, or making one of a party, sitting on a bench on the lawn; he generally sat, however, on the grass, and I remember him often lying under one of the big lime-trees, with his head on the green mound at its foot. In dry summer weather, when we often sat out, the fly-wheel of the well was commonly heard spinning round, and so the sound became associated with those pleasant days. He used to like to watch us playing at lawn-tennis, and often knocked up a stray ball for us with the curved handle of his stick. Though he took no personal share in the management of the garden, he had great delight in the beauty of flowers--for instance, in the mass of Azaleas which generally stood in the drawing-room. I think he sometimes fused together his admiration of the structure of a flower and of its intrinsic beauty; for instance, in the case of the big pendulous pink and white flowers of Diclytra. In the same way he had an affection, half-artistic, half-botanical, for the little blue Lobelia. In admiring flowers, he would often laugh at the dingy high-art colours, and contrast them with the bright tints of nature. I used to like to hear him admire the beauty of a flower; it was a kind of gratitude to the flower itself, and a personal love for its delicate form and colour. I seem to remember him gently touching a flower he delighted in; it was the same simple admiration that a child might have. He could not help personifying natural things. This feeling came out in abuse as well as in praise--_e.g._ of some seedlings--"The little beggars are doing just what I don't want them to." He would speak in a half-provoked, half-admiring way of the ingenuity of the leaf of a Sensitive Plant in screwing itself out of a basin of water in which he had tried to fix it. One might see the same spirit in his way of speaking of Sundew, earthworms, &c.[56] Within my memory, his only outdoor recreation, besides walking, was riding; this was taken up at the recommendation of Dr. Bence Jones, and we had the luck to find for him the easiest and quietest cob in the world, named "Tommy." He enjoyed these rides extremely, and devised a series of short rounds which brought him home in time for lunch. Our country is good for this purpose, owing to the number of small valleys which give a variety to what in a flat country would be a dull loop of road. I think he felt surprised at himself, when he remembered how bold a rider he had been, and how utterly old age and bad health had taken away his nerve. He would say that riding prevented him thinking much more effectually than walking--that having to attend to the horse gave him occupation sufficient to prevent any really hard thinking. And the change of scene which it gave him was good for spirits and health. If I go beyond my own experience, and recall what I have heard him say of his love for sport, &c., I can think of a good deal, but much of it would be a repetition of what is contained in his _Recollections_. He was fond of his gun as quite a boy, and became a good shot; he used to tell how in South America he killed twenty-three snipe in twenty-four shots. In telling the story he was careful to add that he thought they were not quite so wild as English snipe. Luncheon at Down came after his mid-day walk; and here I may say a word or two about his meals generally. He had a boy-like love of sweets, unluckily for himself, since he was constantly forbidden to take them. He was not particularly successful in keeping the "vows," as he called them, which he made against eating sweets, and never considered them binding unless he made them aloud. He drank very little wine, but enjoyed and was revived by the little he did drink. He had a horror of drinking, and constantly warned his boys that any one might be led into drinking too much. I remember, in my innocence as a small boy, asking him if he had been ever tipsy; and he answered very gravely that he was ashamed to say he had once drunk too much at Cambridge. I was much impressed, so that I know now the place where the question was asked. After his lunch he read the newspaper, lying on the sofa in the drawing-room. I think the paper was the only non-scientific matter which he read to himself. Everything else, novels, travels, history, was read aloud to him. He took so wide an interest in life, that there was much to occupy him in newspapers, though he laughed at the wordiness of the debates, reading them, I think, only in abstract. His interest in politics was considerable, but his opinion on these matters was formed rather by the way than with any serious amount of thought. After he had read his paper, came his time for writing letters. These, as well as the MS. of his books, were written by him as he sat in a huge horse-hair chair by the fire, his paper supported on a board resting on the arms of the chair. When he had many or long letters to write, he would dictate them from a rough copy; these rough copies were written on the backs of manuscript or of proof-sheets, and were almost illegible, sometimes even to himself. He made a rule of keeping all letters that he received; this was a habit which he learnt from his father, and which he said had been of great use to him. Many letters were addressed to him by foolish, unscrupulous people, and all of these received replies. He used to say that if he did not answer them, he had it on his conscience afterwards, and no doubt it was in great measure the courtesy with which he answered every one which produced the widespread sense of his kindness of nature which was so evident on his death. He was considerate to his correspondents in other and lesser things--for instance, when dictating a letter to a foreigner, he hardly ever failed to say to me, "You'd better try and write well, as it's to a foreigner." His letters were generally written on the assumption that they would be carelessly read; thus, when he was dictating, he was careful to tell me to make an important clause begin with an obvious paragraph, "to catch his eye," as he often said. How much he thought of the trouble he gave others by asking questions, will be well enough shown by his letters. He had a printed form to be used in replying to troublesome correspondents, but he hardly ever used it; I suppose he never found an occasion that seemed exactly suitable. I remember an occasion on which it might have been used with advantage. He received a letter from a stranger stating that the writer had undertaken to uphold Evolution at a debating society, and that being a busy young man, without time for reading, he wished to have a sketch of my father's views. Even this wonderful young man got a civil answer, though I think he did not get much material for his speech. His rule was to thank the donors of books, but not of pamphlets. He sometimes expressed surprise that so few thanked him for his books which he gave away liberally; the letters that he did receive gave him much pleasure, because he habitually formed so humble an estimate of the value of all his works, that he was genuinely surprised at the interest which they excited. In money and business matters he was remarkably careful and exact. He kept accounts with great care, classifying them, and balancing at the end of the year like a merchant. I remember the quick way in which he would reach out for his account-book to enter each cheque paid, as though he were in a hurry to get it entered before he had forgotten it. His father must have allowed him to believe that he would be poorer than he really was, for some of the difficulty experienced over finding a house in the country must have arisen from the modest sum he felt prepared to give. Yet he knew, of course, that he would be in easy circumstances, for in his _Recollections_ he mentions this as one of the reasons for his not having worked at medicine with so much zeal as he would have done if he had been obliged to gain his living. He had a pet economy in paper, but it was rather a hobby than a real economy. All the blank sheets of letters received were kept in a portfolio to be used in making notes; it was his respect for paper that made him write so much on the backs of his old MS., and in this way, unfortunately, he destroyed large parts of the original MS. of his books. His feeling about paper extended to waste paper, and he objected, half in fun, to the habit of throwing a spill into the fire after it had been used for lighting a candle. He had a great respect for pure business capacity, and often spoke with admiration of a relative who had doubled his fortune. And of himself would often say in fun that what he really _was_ proud of was the money he had saved. He also felt satisfaction in the money he made by his books. His anxiety to save came in great measure from his fears that his children would not have health enough to earn their own livings, a foreboding which fairly haunted him for many years. And I have a dim recollection of his saying, "Thank God, you'll have bread and cheese," when I was so young that I was inclined to take it literally. When letters were finished, about three in the afternoon, he rested in his bedroom, lying on the sofa, smoking a cigarette, and listening to a novel or other book not scientific. He only smoked when resting, whereas snuff was a stimulant, and was taken during working hours. He took snuff for many years of his life, having learnt the habit at Edinburgh as a student. He had a nice silver snuff-box given him by Mrs. Wedgwood, of Maer, which he valued much--but he rarely carried it, because it tempted him to take too many pinches. In one of his early letters he speaks of having given up snuff for a month, and describes himself as feeling "most lethargic, stupid, and melancholy." Our former neighbour and clergyman, Mr. Brodie Innes, tells me that at one time my father made a resolve not to take snuff, except away from home, "a most satisfactory arrangement for me," he adds, "as I kept a box in my study, to which there was access from the garden without summoning servants, and I had more frequently, than might have been otherwise the case, the privilege of a few minutes' conversation with my dear friend." He generally took snuff from a jar on the hall-table, because having to go this distance for a pinch was a slight check; the clink of the lid of the snuff-jar was a very familiar sound. Sometimes when he was in the drawing-room, it would occur to him that the study fire must be burning low, and when one of us offered to see after it, it would turn out that he also wished to get a pinch of snuff. Smoking he only took to permanently of late years, though on his Pampas rides he learned to smoke with the Gauchos, and I have heard him speak of the great comfort of a cup of _maté_ and a cigarette when he halted after a long ride and was unable to get food for some time. He came down at four o'clock to dress for his walk, and he was so regular that one might be quite certain it was within a few minutes of four when his descending steps were heard. From about half-past four to half-past five he worked; then he came to the drawing-room, and was idle till it was time (about six) to go up for another rest with novel-reading and a cigarette. Latterly he gave up late dinner, and had a simple tea at half-past seven (while we had dinner), with an egg or a small piece of meat. After dinner he never stayed in the room, and used to apologise by saying he was an old woman who must be allowed to leave with the ladies. This was one of the many signs and results of his constant weakness and ill-health. Half an hour more or less conversation would make to him the difference of a sleepless night and of the loss perhaps of half the next day's work. After dinner he played backgammon with my mother, two games being played every night. For many years a score of the games which each won was kept, and in this score he took the greatest interest. He became extremely animated over these games, bitterly lamenting his bad luck and exploding with exaggerated mock-anger at my mother's good fortune. After playing backgammon he read some scientific book to himself, either in the drawing-room, or, if much talking was going on, in the study. In the evening--that is, after he had read as much as his strength would allow, and before the reading aloud began--he would often lie on the sofa and listen to my mother playing the piano. He had not a good ear, yet in spite of this he had a true love of fine music. He used to lament that his enjoyment of music had become dulled with age, yet within my recollection his love of a good tune was strong. I never heard him hum more than one tune, the Welsh song "Ar hyd y nos," which he went through correctly; he used also, I believe, to hum a little Otaheitan song. From his want of ear he was unable to recognise a tune when he heard it again, but he remained constant to what he liked, and would often say, when an old favourite was played, "That's a fine thing; what is it?" He liked especially parts of Beethoven's symphonies and bits of Handel. He was sensitive to differences in style, and enjoyed the late Mrs. Vernon Lushington's playing intensely, and in June 1881, when Hans Richter paid a visit at Down, he was roused to strong enthusiasm by his magnificent performance on the piano. He enjoyed good singing, and was moved almost to tears by grand or pathetic songs. His niece Lady Farrer's singing of Sullivan's "Will he come" was a never-failing enjoyment to him. He was humble in the extreme about his own taste, and correspondingly pleased when he found that others agreed with him. He became much tired in the evenings, especially of late years, and left the drawing-room about ten, going to bed at half-past ten. His nights were generally bad, and he often lay awake or sat up in bed for hours, suffering much discomfort. He was troubled at night by the activity of his thoughts, and would become exhausted by his mind working at some problem which he would willingly have dismissed. At night, too, anything which had vexed or troubled him in the day would haunt him, and I think it was then that he suffered if he had not answered some troublesome correspondent. The regular readings, which I have mentioned, continued for so many years, enabled him to get through a great deal of the lighter kinds of literature. He was extremely fond of novels, and I remember well the way in which he would anticipate the pleasure of having a novel read to him as he lay down or lighted his cigarette. He took a vivid interest both in plot and characters, and would on no account know beforehand how a story finished; he considered looking at the end of a novel as a feminine vice. He could not enjoy any story with a tragical end; for this reason he did not keenly appreciate George Eliot, though he often spoke, warmly in praise of _Silas Marner_. Walter Scott, Miss Austen, and Mrs. Gaskell were read and re-read till they could be read no more. He had two or three books in hand at the same time--a novel and perhaps a biography and a book of travels. He did not often read out-of-the-way or old standard books, but generally kept to the books of the day obtained from a circulating library. His literary tastes and opinions were not on a level with the rest of his mind. He himself, though he was clear as to what he thought good, considered that in matters of literary tastes he was quite outside the pale, and often spoke of what those within it liked or disliked, as if they formed a class to which he had no claim to belong. In all matters of art he was inclined to laugh at professed critics and say that their opinions were formed by fashion. Thus in painting, he would say how in his day every one admired masters who are now neglected. His love of pictures as a young man is almost a proof that he must have had an appreciation of a portrait as a work of art, not as a likeness. Yet he often talked laughingly of the small worth of portraits, and said that a photograph was worth any number of pictures, as if he were blind to the artistic quality in a painted portrait. But this was generally said in his attempts to persuade us to give up the idea of having his portrait painted, an operation very irksome to him. This way of looking at himself as an ignoramus in all matters of art, was strengthened by the absence of pretence, which was part of his character. With regard to questions of taste, as well as to more serious things he had the courage of his opinions. I remember, however, an instance that sounds like a contradiction to this: when he was looking at the Turners in Mr. Ruskin's bedroom, he did not confess, as he did afterwards, that he could make out absolutely nothing of what Mr. Ruskin saw in them. But this little pretence was not for his own sake, but for the sake of courtesy to his host. He was pleased and amused when subsequently Mr. Ruskin brought him some photographs of pictures (I think Vandyke portraits), and courteously seemed to value my father's opinion about them. Much of his scientific reading was in German, and this was a serious labour to him; in reading a book after him, I was often struck at seeing, from the pencil-marks made each day where he left off, how little he could read at a time. He used to call German the "Verdammte," pronounced as if in English. He was especially indignant with Germans, because he was convinced that they could write simply if they chose, and often praised Professor Hildebrand of Freiburg for writing German which was as clear as French. He sometimes gave a German sentence to a friend, a patriotic German lady, and used to laugh at her if she did not translate it fluently. He himself learnt German simply by hammering away with a dictionary; he would say that his only way was to read a sentence a great many times over, and at last the meaning occurred to him. When he began German long ago, he boasted of the fact (as he used to tell) to Sir J. Hooker, who replied, "Ah, my dear fellow, that's nothing; I've begun it many times." In spite of his want of grammar, he managed to get on wonderfully with German, and the sentences that he failed to make out were generally difficult ones. He never attempted to speak German correctly, but pronounced the words as though they were English; and this made it not a little difficult to help him, when he read out a German sentence and asked for a translation. He certainly had a bad ear for vocal sounds, so that he found it impossible to perceive small differences in pronunciation. His wide interest in branches of science that were not specially his own was remarkable. In the biological sciences his doctrines make themselves felt so widely that there was something interesting to him in most departments. He read a good deal of many quite special works, and large parts of text books, such as Huxley's _Invertebrate Anatomy_, or such a book as Balfour's _Embryology_, where the detail, at any rate, was not specially in his own line. And in the case of elaborate books of the monograph type, though he did not make a study of them, yet he felt the strongest admiration for them. In the non-biological sciences he felt keen sympathy with work of which he could not really judge. For instance, he used to read nearly the whole of _Nature_, though so much of it deals with mathematics and physics. I have often heard him say that he got a kind of satisfaction in reading articles which (according to himself) he could not understand. I wish I could reproduce the manner in which he would laugh at himself for it. It was remarkable, too, how he kept up his interest in subjects at which he had formerly worked. This was strikingly the case with geology. In one of his letters to Mr. Judd he begs him to pay him a visit, saying that since Lyell's death he hardly ever gets a geological talk. His observations, made only a few years before his death, on the upright pebbles in the drift at Southampton, and discussed in a letter to Sir A. Geikie, afford another instance. Again, in his letters to Dr. Dohrn, he shows how his interest in barnacles remained alive. I think it was all due to the vitality and persistence of his mind--a quality I have heard him speak of as if he felt that he was strongly gifted in that respect. Not that he used any such phrases as these about himself, but he would say that he had the power of keeping a subject or question more or less before him for a great many years. The extent to which he possessed this power appears when we consider the number of different problems which he solved, and the early period at which some of them began to occupy him. It was a sure sign that he was not well when he was idle at any times other than his regular resting hours; for, as long as he remained moderately well, there was no break in the regularity of his life. Week-days and Sundays passed by alike, each with their stated intervals of work and rest. It is almost impossible, except for those who watched his daily life, to realise how essential to his well-being was the regular routine that I have sketched: and with what pain and difficulty anything beyond it was attempted. Any public appearance, even of the most modest kind, was an effort to him. In 1871 he went to the little village church for the wedding of his elder daughter, but he could hardly bear the fatigue of being present through the short service. The same may be said of the few other occasions on which he was present at similar ceremonies. I remember him many years ago at a christening; a memory which has remained with me, because to us children his being at church was an extraordinary occurrence. I remember his look most distinctly at his brother Erasmus's funeral, as he stood in the scattering of snow, wrapped in a long black funeral cloak, with a grave look of sad reverie. When, after an absence of many years, he attended a meeting of the Linnean Society, it was felt to be, and was in fact, a serious undertaking; one not to be determined on without much sinking of heart, and hardly to be carried into effect without paying a penalty of subsequent suffering. In the same way a breakfast-party at Sir James Paget's, with some of the distinguished visitors to the Medical Congress (1881), was to him a severe exertion. The early morning was the only time at which he could make any effort of the kind, with comparative impunity. Thus it came about that the visits he paid to his scientific friends in London were by preference made as early as ten in the morning. For the same reason he started on his journeys by the earliest possible train, and used to arrive at the houses of relatives in London when they were beginning their day. He kept an accurate journal of the days on which he worked and those on which his ill health prevented him from working, so that it would be possible to tell how many were idle days in any given year. In this journal--a little yellow Letts's Diary, which lay open on his mantel-piece, piled on the diaries of previous years--he also entered the day on which he started for a holiday and that of his return. The most frequent holidays were visits of a week to London, either to his brother's house (6 Queen Anne Street), or to his daughter's (4 Bryanston Street). He was generally persuaded by my mother to take these short holidays, when it became clear from the frequency of "bad days," or from the swimming of his head, that he was being overworked. He went unwillingly, and tried to drive hard bargains, stipulating, for instance, that he should come home in five days instead of six. The discomfort of a journey to him was, at least latterly, chiefly in the anticipation, and in the miserable sinking feeling from which he suffered immediately before the start; even a fairly long journey, such as that to Coniston, tired him wonderfully little, considering how much an invalid he was; and he certainly enjoyed it in an almost boyish way, and to a curious degree. Although, as he has said, some of his æsthetic tastes had suffered a gradual decay, his love of scenery remained fresh and strong. Every walk at Coniston was a fresh delight, and he was never tired of praising the beauty of the broken hilly country at the head of the lake. Besides these longer holidays, there were shorter visits to various relatives--to his brother-in-law's house, close to Leith Hill, and to his son near Southampton. He always particularly enjoyed rambling over rough open country, such as the commons near Leith Hill and Southampton, the heath-covered wastes of Ashdown Forest, or the delightful "Rough" near the house of his friend Sir Thomas Farrer. He never was quite idle even on these holidays, and found things to observe. At Hartfield he watched Drosera catching insects, &c.; at Torquay he observed the fertilisation of an orchid (_Spiranthes_), and also made out the relations of the sexes in Thyme. He rejoiced at his return home after his holidays, and greatly enjoyed the welcome he got from his dog Polly, who would get wild with excitement, panting, squeaking, rushing round the room, and jumping on and off the chairs; and he used to stoop down, pressing her face to his, letting her lick him, and speaking to her with a peculiarly tender, caressing voice. My father had the power of giving to these summer holidays a charm which was strongly felt by all his family. The pressure of his work at home kept him at the utmost stretch of his powers of endurance, and when released from it, he entered on a holiday with a youthfulness of enjoyment that made his companionship delightful; we felt that we saw more of him in a week's holiday than in a month at home. Besides the holidays which I have mentioned, there were his visits to water-cure establishments. In 1849, when very ill, suffering from constant sickness, he was urged by a friend to try the water-cure, and at last agreed to go to Dr. Gully's establishment at Malvern. His letters to Mr. Fox show how much good the treatment did him; he seems to have thought that he had found a cure for his troubles, but, like all other remedies, it had only a transient effect on him. However, he found it, at first, so good for him, that when he came home he built himself a douche-bath, and the butler learnt to be his bathman. He was too, a frequent patient at Dr. Lane's water-cure establishment, Moor Park, near Aldershot, visits to which he always looked back with pleasure. Some idea of his relation to his family and his friends may be gathered from what has gone before; it would be impossible to attempt a complete account of these relationships, but a slightly fuller outline may not be out of place. Of his married life I cannot speak, save in the briefest manner. In his relationship towards my mother, his tender and sympathetic nature was shown in its most beautiful aspect. In her presence he found his happiness, and through her, his life--which might have been overshadowed by gloom--became one of content and quiet gladness. The _Expression of the Emotions_ shows how closely he watched his children; it was characteristic of him that (as I have heard him tell), although he was so anxious to observe accurately the expression of a crying child, his sympathy with the grief spoiled his observation. His note-book, in which are recorded sayings of his young children, shows his pleasure in them. He seemed to retain a sort of regretful memory of the childhoods which had faded away, and thus he wrote in his _Recollections_:--"When you were very young it was my delight to play with you all, and I think with a sigh that such days can never return." I quote, as showing the tenderness of his nature, some sentences from an account of his little daughter Annie, written a few days after her death:-- "Our poor child, Annie, was born in Gower Street, on March 2, 1841, and expired at Malvern at mid-day on the 23rd of April, 1851. "I write these few pages, as I think in after years, if we live, the impressions now put down will recall more vividly her chief characteristics. From whatever point I look back at her, the main feature in her disposition which at once rises before me, is her buoyant joyousness, tempered by two other characteristics, namely, her sensitiveness, which might easily have been overlooked by a stranger, and her strong affection. Her joyousness and animal spirits radiated from her whole countenance, and rendered every movement elastic and full of life and vigour. It was delightful and cheerful to behold her. Her dear face now rises before me, as she used sometimes to come running downstairs with a stolen pinch of snuff for me, her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure. Even when playing with her cousins, when her joyousness almost passed into boisterousness, a single glance of my eye, not of displeasure (for I thank God I hardly ever cast one on her), but of want of sympathy, would for some minutes alter her whole countenance. "The other point in her character, which made her joyousness and spirits so delightful, was her strong affection, which was of a most clinging, fondling nature. When quite a baby, this showed itself in never being easy without touching her mother, when in bed with her; and quite lately she would, when poorly, fondle for any length of time one of her mother's arms. When very unwell, her mother lying down beside her, seemed to soothe her in a manner quite different from what it would have done to any of our other children. So, again, she would at almost any time spend half-an-hour in arranging my hair, 'making it,' as she called it, 'beautiful,' or in smoothing, the poor dear darling, my collar or cuffs--in short, in fondling me. "Besides her joyousness thus tempered, she was in her manners remarkably cordial, frank, open, straightforward, natural, and without any shade of reserve. Her whole mind was pure and transparent. One felt one knew her thoroughly and could trust her. I always thought, that come what might, we should have had, in our old age, at least one loving soul, which nothing could have changed. All her movements were vigorous, active, and usually graceful. When going round the Sand-walk with me, although I walked fast, yet she often used to go before, pirouetting in the most elegant way, her dear face bright all the time with the sweetest smiles. Occasionally she had a pretty coquettish manner towards me, the memory of which is charming. She often used exaggerated language, and when I quizzed her by exaggerating what she had said, how clearly can I now see the little toss of the head, and exclamation of 'Oh, papa, what a shame of you!' In the last short illness, her conduct in simple truth was angelic. She never once complained; never became fretful; was ever considerate of others, and was thankful in the most gentle, pathetic manner for everything done for her. When so exhausted that she could hardly speak, she praised everything that was given her, and said some tea 'was beautifully good.' When I gave her some water, she said, 'I quite thank you;' and these, I believe, were the last precious words ever addressed by her dear lips to me. "We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age. She must have known how we loved her. Oh, that she could now know how deeply, how tenderly, we do still and shall ever love her dear joyous face! Blessings on her![57] "April 30, 1851." We, his children, all took especial pleasure in the games he played at with us, and in his stories, which, partly on account of their rarity, were considered specially delightful. The way he brought us up is shown by a little story about my brother Leonard, which my father was fond of telling. He came into the drawing-room and found Leonard dancing about on the sofa, to the peril of the springs, and said, "Oh, Lenny, Lenny, that's against all rules," and received for answer, "Then I think you'd better go out of the room." I do not believe he ever spoke an angry word to any of his children in his life; but I am certain that it never entered our heads to disobey him. I well remember one occasion when my father reproved me for a piece of carelessness; and I can still recall the feeling of depression which came over me, and the care which he took to disperse it by speaking to me soon afterwards with especial kindness. He kept up his delightful, affectionate manner towards us all his life. I sometimes wonder that he could do so, with such an undemonstrative race as we are; but I hope he knew how much we delighted in his loving words and manner. He allowed his grown-up children to laugh with and at him, and was generally speaking on terms of perfect equality with us. He was always full of interest about each one's plans or successes. We used to laugh at him, and say he would not believe in his sons, because, for instance, he would be a little doubtful about their taking some bit of work for which he did not feel sure that they had knowledge enough. On the other hand, he was only too much inclined to take a favourable view of our work. When I thought he had set too high a value on anything that I had done, he used to be indignant and inclined to explode in mock anger. His doubts were part of his humility concerning what was in any way connected with himself; his too favourable view of our work was due to his sympathetic nature, which made him lenient to every one. He kept up towards his children his delightful manner of expressing his thanks; and I never wrote a letter, or read a page aloud to him, without receiving a few kind words of recognition. His love and goodness towards his little grandson Bernard were great; and he often spoke of the pleasure it was to him to see "his little face opposite to him" at luncheon. He and Bernard used to compare their tastes; _e.g._, in liking brown sugar better than white, &c.; the result being, "We always agree, don't we?" My sister writes:-- "My first remembrances of my father are of the delights of his playing with us. He was passionately attached to his own children, although he was not an indiscriminate child-lover. To all of us he was the most delightful play-fellow, and the most perfect sympathiser. Indeed it is impossible adequately to describe how delightful a relation his was to his family, whether as children or in their later life. "It is a proof of the terms on which we were, and also of how much he was valued as a play-fellow, that one of his sons when about four years old tried to bribe him with sixpence to come and play in working hours. "He must have been the most patient and delightful of nurses. I remember the haven of peace and comfort it seemed to me when I was unwell, to be tucked up on the study sofa, idly considering the old geological map hung on the wall. This must have been in his working hours, for I always picture him sitting in the horse hair arm chair by the corner of the fire. "Another mark of his unbounded patience was the way in which we were suffered to make raids into the study when we had an absolute need of sticking plaster, string, pins, scissors, stamps, foot rule, or hammer. These and other such necessaries were always to be found in the study, and it was the only place where this was a certainty. We used to feel it wrong to go in during work time; still, when the necessity was great, we did so. I remember his patient look when he said once, 'Don't you think you could not come in again, I have been interrupted very often.' We used to dread going in for sticking plaster, because he disliked to see that we had cut ourselves, both for our sakes and on account of his acute sensitiveness to the sight of blood. I well remember lurking about the passage till he was safe away, and then stealing in for the plaster. "Life seems to me, as I look back upon it, to have been very regular in those early days, and except relations (and a few intimate friends), I do not think any one came to the house. After lessons, we were always free to go where we would, and that was chiefly in the drawing-room and about the garden, so that we were very much with both my father and mother. We used to think it most delightful when he told us any stories about the _Beagle_, or about early Shrewsbury days--little bits about school life and his boyish tastes. "He cared for all our pursuits and interests, and lived our lives with us in a way that very few fathers do. But I am certain that none of us felt that this intimacy interfered the least with our respect and obedience. Whatever he said was absolute truth and law to us. He always put his whole mind into answering any of our questions. One trifling instance makes me feel how he cared for what we cared for. He had no special taste for cats, but yet he knew and remembered the individualities of my many cats, and would talk about the habits and characters of the more remarkable ones years after they had died. "Another characteristic of his treatment of his children was his respect for their liberty, and for their personality. Even as quite a little girl, I remember rejoicing in this sense of freedom. Our father and mother would not even wish to know what we were doing or thinking unless we wished to tell. He always made us feel that we were each of us creatures whose opinions and thoughts were valuable to him, so that whatever there was best in us came out in the sunshine of his presence. "I do not think his exaggerated sense of our good qualities, intellectual or moral, made us conceited, as might perhaps have been expected, but rather more humble and grateful to him. The reason being no doubt that the influence of his character, of his sincerity and greatness of nature, had a much deeper and more lasting effect than any small exaltation which his praises or admiration may have caused to our vanity."[58] As head of a household he was much loved and respected; he always spoke to servants with politeness, using the expression, "would you be so good," in asking for anything. He was hardly ever angry with his servants; it shows how seldom this occurred, that when, as a small boy, I overheard a servant being scolded, and my father speaking angrily, it impressed me as an appalling circumstance, and I remember running up stairs out of a general sense of awe. He did not trouble himself about the management of the garden, cows, &c. He considered the horses so little his concern, that he used to ask doubtfully whether he might have a horse and cart to send to Keston for Sundew, or to the Westerham nurseries for plants, or the like. As a host my father had a peculiar charm: the presence of visitors excited him, and made him appear to his best advantage. At Shrewsbury, he used to say, it was his father's wish that the guests should be attended to constantly, and in one of the letters to Fox he speaks of the impossibility of writing a letter while the house was full of company. I think he always felt uneasy at not doing more for the entertainment of his guests, but the result was successful; and, to make up for any loss, there was the gain that the guests felt perfectly free to do as they liked. The most usual visitors were those who stayed from Saturday till Monday; those who remained longer were generally relatives, and were considered to be rather more my mother's affair than his. Besides these visitors, there were foreigners and other strangers, who came down for luncheon and went away in the afternoon. He used conscientiously to represent to them the enormous distance of Down from London, and the labour it would be to come there, unconsciously taking for granted that they would find the journey as toilsome as he did himself. If, however, they were not deterred, he used to arrange their journeys for them, telling them when to come, and practically when to go. It was pleasant to see the way in which he shook hands with a guest who was being welcomed for the first time; his hand used to shoot out in a way that gave one the feeling that it was hastening to meet the guest's hands. With old friends his hand came down with a hearty swing into the other hand in a way I always had satisfaction in seeing. His good-bye was chiefly characterised by the pleasant way in which he thanked his guests, as he stood at the hall-door, for having come to see him. These luncheons were successful entertainments, there was no drag or flagging about them, my father was bright and excited throughout the whole visit. Professor De Candolle has described a visit to Down, in his admirable and sympathetic sketch of my father.[59] He speaks of his manner as resembling that of a "savant" of Oxford or Cambridge. This does not strike me as quite a good comparison; in his ease and naturalness there was more of the manner of some soldiers; a manner arising from total absence of pretence or affectation. It was this absence of pose, and the natural and simple way in which he began talking to his guests, so as to get them on their own lines, which made him so charming a host to a stranger. His happy choice of matter for talk seemed to flow out of his sympathetic nature, and humble, vivid interest in other people's work. To some, I think, he caused actual pain by his modesty; I have seen the late Francis Balfour quite discomposed by having knowledge ascribed to himself on a point about which my father claimed to be utterly ignorant. It is difficult to seize on the characteristics of my father's conversation. He had more dread than have most people of repeating his stories, and continually said, "You must have heard me tell," or "I daresay I've told you." One peculiarity he had, which gave a curious effect to his conversation. The first few words of a sentence would often remind him of some exception to, or some reason against, what he was going to say; and this again brought up some other point, so that the sentence would become a system of parenthesis within parenthesis, and it was often impossible to understand the drift of what he was saying until he came to the end of his sentence. He used to say of himself that he was not quick enough to hold an argument with any one, and I think this was true. Unless it was a subject on which he was just then at work, he could not get the train of argument into working order quickly enough. This is shown even in his letters; thus, in the case of two letters to Professor Semper about the effect of isolation, he did not recall the series of facts he wanted until some days after the first letter had been sent off. When puzzled in talking, he had a peculiar stammer on the first word of a sentence. I only recall this occurring with words beginning with w; possibly he had a special difficulty with this letter, for I have heard him say that as a boy he could not pronounce w, and that sixpence was offered him if he could say "white wine," which he pronounced "rite rine." Possibly he may have inherited this tendency from Erasmus Darwin who stammered.[60] He sometimes combined his metaphors in a curious way, using such a phrase as "holding on like life,"--a mixture of "holding on for his life," and "holding on like grim death." It came from his eager way of putting emphasis into what he was saying. This sometimes gave an air of exaggeration where it was not intended; but it gave, too, a noble air of strong and generous conviction; as, for instance, when he gave his evidence before the Royal Commission on vivisection, and came out with his words about cruelty, "It deserves detestation and abhorrence." When he felt strongly about any similar question, he could hardly trust himself to speak, as he then easily became angry, a thing which he disliked excessively. He was conscious that his anger had a tendency to multiply itself in the utterance, and for this reason dreaded (for example) having to reprove a servant. It was a proof of the modesty of his manner of talking, that when, for instance, a number of visitors came over from Sir John Lubbock's for a Sunday afternoon call, he never seemed to be preaching or lecturing, although he had so much of the talk to himself. He was particularly charming when "chaffing" any one, and in high spirits over it. His manner at such times was light-hearted and boyish, and his refinement of nature came out most strongly. So, when he was talking to a lady who pleased and amused him, the combination of raillery and deference in his manner was delightful to see. There was a personal dignity about him, which the most familiar intercourse did not diminish. One felt that he was the last person with whom anyone would wish to take a liberty, nor do I remember an instance of such a thing occurring to him. When my father had several guests he managed them well, getting a talk with each, or bringing two or three together round his chair. In these conversations there was always a good deal of fun, and, speaking generally, there was either a humorous turn in his talk, or a sunny geniality which served instead. Perhaps my recollection of a pervading element of humour is the more vivid, because the best talks were with Mr. Huxley, in whom there is the aptness which is akin to humour, even when humour itself is not there. My father enjoyed Mr. Huxley's humour exceedingly, and would often say, "What splendid fun Huxley is!" I think he probably had more scientific argument (of the nature of a fight) with Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker. He used to say that it grieved him to find that for the friends of his later life he had not the warm affection of his youth. Certainly in his early letters from Cambridge he gives proofs of strong friendship for Herbert and Fox; but no one except himself would have said that his affection for his friends was not, throughout life, of the warmest possible kind. In serving a friend he would not spare himself, and precious time and strength were willingly given. He undoubtedly had, to an unusual degree, the power of attaching his friends to him. He had many warm friendships, but to Sir Joseph Hooker he was bound by ties of affection stronger than we often see among men. He wrote in his _Recollections_, "I have known hardly any man more lovable than Hooker." His relationship to the village people was a pleasant one; he treated them, one and all, with courtesy, when he came in contact with them, and took an interest in all relating to their welfare. Some time after he came to live at Down he helped to found a Friendly Club, and served as treasurer for thirty years. He took much trouble about the club, keeping its accounts with minute and scrupulous exactness, and taking pleasure in its prosperous condition. Every Whit-Monday the club marched round with band and banner and paraded on the lawn in front of the house. There he met them, and explained to them their financial position in a little speech seasoned with a few well-worn jokes. He was often unwell enough to make even this little ceremony an exertion, but I think he never failed to meet them. He was also treasurer of the Coal Club, which gave him a certain amount of work, and he acted for some years as a County Magistrate. With regard to my father's interest in the affairs of the village, Mr. Brodie Innes has been so good as to give me his recollections:-- "On my becoming Vicar of Down in 1846, we became friends, and so continued till his death. His conduct towards me and my family was one of unvarying kindness, and we repaid it by warm affection. "In all parish matters he was an active assistant; in matters connected with the schools, charities, and other business, his liberal contribution was ever ready, and in the differences which at times occurred in that, as in other parishes, I was always sure of his support. He held that where there was really no important objection, his assistance should be given to the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances best, and was chiefly responsible." His intercourse with strangers was marked with scrupulous and rather formal politeness, but in fact he had few opportunities of meeting strangers, and the quiet life he led at Down made him feel confused in a large gathering; for instance, at the Royal Society's _soirées_ he felt oppressed by the numbers. The feeling that he ought to know people, and the difficulty he had in remembering faces in his latter years, also added to his discomfort on such occasions. He did not realise that he would be recognised from his photographs, and I remember his being uneasy at being obviously recognised by a stranger at the Crystal Palace Aquarium. I must say something of his manner of working: a striking characteristic was his respect for time; he never forgot how precious it was. This was shown, for instance, in the way in which he tried to curtail his holidays; also, and more clearly, with respect to shorter periods. He would often say, that saving the minutes was the way to get work done; he showed this love of saving the minutes in the difference he felt between a quarter of an hour and ten minutes' work; he never wasted a few spare minutes from thinking that it was not worth while to set to work. I was often struck by his way of working up to the very limit of his strength, so that he suddenly stopped in dictating, with the words, "I believe I mustn't do any more." The same eager desire not to lose time was seen in his quick movements when at work. I particularly remember noticing this when he was making an experiment on the roots of beans, which required some care in manipulation; fastening the little bits of card upon the roots was done carefully and necessarily slowly, but the intermediate movements were all quick; taking a fresh bean, seeing that the root was healthy, impaling it on a pin, fixing it on a cork, and seeing that it was vertical, &c.; all these processes were performed with a kind of restrained eagerness. He gave one the impression of working with pleasure, and not with any drag. I have an image, too, of him as he recorded the result of some experiment, looking eagerly at each root, &c., and then writing with equal eagerness. I remember the quick movement of his head up and down as he looked from the object to the notes. He saved a great deal of time through not having to do things twice. Although he would patiently go on repeating experiments where there was any good to be gained, he could not endure having to repeat an experiment which ought, if complete care had been taken, to have told its story at first--and this gave him a continual anxiety that the experiment should not be wasted; he felt the experiment to be sacred, however slight a one it was. He wished to learn as much as possible from an experiment, so that he did not confine himself to observing the single point to which the experiment was directed, and his power of seeing a number of other things was wonderful. I do not think he cared for preliminary or rough observations intended to serve as guides and to be repeated. Any experiment done was to be of some use, and in this connection I remember how strongly he urged the necessity of keeping the notes of experiments which failed, and to this rule he always adhered. In the literary part of his work he had the same horror of losing time, and the same zeal in what he was doing at the moment, and this made him careful not to be obliged unnecessarily to read anything a second time. His natural tendency was to use simple methods and few instruments. The use of the compound microscope has much increased since his youth, and this at the expense of the simple one. It strikes us nowadays as extraordinary that he should have had no compound microscope when he went his _Beagle_ voyage; but in this he followed the advice of Robert Brown, who was an authority in such matters. He always had a great liking for the simple microscope, and maintained that nowadays it was too much neglected, and that one ought always to see as much as possible with the simple before taking to the compound microscope. In one of his letters he speaks on this point, and remarks that he suspects the work of a man who never uses the simple microscope. His dissecting table was a thick board, let into a window of the study; it was lower than an ordinary table, so that he could not have worked at it standing; but this, from wishing to save his strength, he would not have done in any case. He sat at his dissecting-table on a curious low stool which had belonged to his father, with a seat revolving on a vertical spindle, and mounted on large castors, so that he could turn easily from side to side. His ordinary tools, &c., were lying about on the table, but besides these a number of odds and ends were kept in a round table full of radiating drawers, and turning on a vertical axis, which stood close by his left side, as he sat at his microscope-table. The drawers were labelled, "best tools," "rough tools," "specimens," "preparations for specimens," &c. The most marked peculiarity of the contents of these drawers was the care with which little scraps and almost useless things were preserved; he held the well-known belief, that if you threw a thing away you were sure to want it directly--and so things accumulated. If any one had looked at his tools, &c., lying on the table, he would have been struck by an air of simpleness, make-shift, and oddity. At his right hand were shelves, with a number of other odds and ends, glasses, saucers, tin biscuit boxes for germinating seeds, zinc labels, saucers full of sand, &c., &c. Considering how tidy and methodical he was in essential things, it is curious that he bore with so many make-shifts: for instance, instead of having a box made of a desired shape, and stained black inside, he would hunt up something like what he wanted and get it darkened inside with shoe-blacking; he did not care to have glass covers made for tumblers in which he germinated seeds, but used broken bits of irregular shape, with perhaps a narrow angle sticking uselessly out on one side. But so much of his experimenting was of a simple kind, that he had no need for any elaboration, and I think his habit in this respect was in great measure due to his desire to husband his strength, and not waste it on inessential things. His way of marking objects may here be mentioned. If he had a number of things to distinguish, such as leaves, flowers, &c., he tied threads of different colours round them. In particular he used this method when he had only two classes of objects to distinguish; thus in the case of crossed and self-fertilised flowers, one set would be marked with black and one with white thread, tied round the stalk of the flower. I remember well the look of two sets of capsules, gathered and waiting to be weighed, counted, &c., with pieces of black and of white thread to distinguish the trays in which they lay. When he had to compare two sets of seedlings, sowed in the same pot, he separated them by a partition of zinc-plate; and the zinc-label, which gave the necessary details about the experiment, was always placed on a certain side, so that it became instinctive with him to know without reading the label which were the "crossed" and which the "self-fertilised." His love of each particular experiment, and his eager zeal not to lose the fruit of it, came out markedly in these crossing experiments--in the elaborate care he took not to make any confusion in putting capsules into wrong trays, &c. &c. I can recall his appearance as he counted seeds under the simple microscope with an alertness not usually characterising such mechanical work as counting. I think he personified each seed as a small demon trying to elude him by getting into the wrong heap, or jumping away altogether; and this gave to the work the excitement of a game. He had great faith in instruments, and I do not think it naturally occurred to him to doubt the accuracy of a scale, a measuring glass, &c. He was astonished when we found that one of his micrometers differed from the other. He did not require any great accuracy in most of his measurements, and had not good scales; he had an old three-foot rule, which was the common property of the household, and was constantly being borrowed, because it was the only one which was certain to be in its place--unless, indeed, the last borrower had forgotten to put it back. For measuring the height of plants, he had a seven-foot deal rod, graduated by the village carpenter. Latterly he took to using paper scales graduated to millimeters. I do not mean by this account of his instruments that any of his experiments suffered from want of accuracy in measurement, I give them as examples of his simple methods and faith in others--faith at least in instrument-makers, whose whole trade was a mystery to him. A few of his mental characteristics, bearing especially on his mode of working, occur to me. There was one quality of mind which seemed to be of special and extreme advantage in leading him to make discoveries. It was the power of never letting exceptions pass unnoticed. Everybody notices a fact as an exception when it is striking or frequent, but he had a special instinct for arresting an exception. A point apparently slight and unconnected with his present work is passed over by many a man almost unconsciously with some half-considered explanation, which is in fact no explanation. It was just these things that he seized on to make a start from. In a certain sense there is nothing special in this procedure, many discoveries being made by means of it. I only mention it because, as I watched him at work, the value of this power to an experimenter was so strongly impressed upon me. Another quality which was shown in his experimental work, was his power of sticking to a subject; he used almost to apologise for his patience, saying that he could not bear to be beaten, as if this were rather a sign of weakness on his part. He often quoted the saying, "It's dogged as does it;" and I think doggedness expresses his frame of mind almost better than perseverance. Perseverance seems hardly to express his almost fierce desire to force the truth to reveal itself. He often said that it was important that a man should know the right point at which to give up an inquiry. And I think it was his tendency to pass this point that inclined him to apologise for his perseverance, and gave the air of doggedness to his work. He often said that no one could be a good observer unless he was an active theoriser. This brings me back to what I said about his instinct for arresting exceptions: it was as though he were charged with theorising power ready to flow into any channel on the slightest disturbance, so that no fact, however small, could avoid releasing a stream of theory, and thus the fact became magnified into importance. In this way it naturally happened that many untenable theories occurred to him; but fortunately his richness of imagination was equalled by his power of judging and condemning the thoughts that occurred to him. He was just to his theories, and did not condemn them unheard; and so it happened that he was willing to test what would seem to most people not at all worth testing. These rather wild trials he called "fool's experiments," and enjoyed extremely. As an example I may mention that finding the seed-leaves of a kind of sensitive plant, to be highly sensitive to vibrations of the table, he fancied that they might perceive the vibrations of sound, and therefore made me play my bassoon close to a plant.[61] The love of experiment was very strong in him, and I can remember the way he would say, "I shan't be easy till I have tried it," as if an outside force were driving him. He enjoyed experimenting much more than work which only entailed reasoning, and when he was engaged on one of his books which required argument and the marshalling of facts, he felt experimental work to be a rest or holiday. Thus, while working upon the _Variations of Animals and Plants_ in 1860-61, he made out the fertilisation of Orchids, and thought himself idle for giving so much time to them. It is interesting to think that so important a piece of research should have been undertaken and largely worked out as a pastime in place of more serious work. The letters to Hooker of this period contain expressions such as, "God forgive me for being so idle; I am quite sillily interested in the work." The intense pleasure he took in understanding the adaptations for fertilisation is strongly shown in these letters. He speaks in one of his letters of his intention of working at Sundew as a rest from the _Descent of Man_. He has described in his _Recollections_ the strong satisfaction he felt in solving the problem of heterostylism.[62] And I have heard him mention that the Geology of South America gave him almost more pleasure than anything else. It was perhaps this delight in work requiring keen observation that made him value praise given to his observing powers almost more than appreciation of his other qualities. For books he had no respect, but merely considered them as tools to be worked with. Thus he did not bind them, and even when a paper book fell to pieces from use, as happened to Müller's _Befruchtung_, he preserved it from complete dissolution by putting a metal clip over its back. In the same way he would cut a heavy book in half, to make it more convenient to hold. He used to boast that he had made Lyell publish the second edition of one of his books in two volumes, instead of in one, by telling him how he had been obliged to cut it in half. Pamphlets were often treated even more severely than books, for he would tear out, for the sake of saving room, all the pages except the one that interested him. The consequence of all this was, that his library was not ornamental, but was striking from being so evidently a working collection of books. He was methodical in his manner of reading books and pamphlets bearing on his own work. He had one shelf on which were piled up the books he had not yet read, and another to which they were transferred after having been read, and before being catalogued. He would often groan over his unread books, because there were so many which he knew he should never read. Many a book was at once transferred to the other heap, marked with a cypher at the end, to show that it contained no passages for reference, or inscribed, perhaps, "not read," or "only skimmed." The books accumulated in the "read" heap until the shelves overflowed, and then, with much lamenting, a day was given up to the cataloguing. He disliked this work, and as the necessity of undertaking the work became imperative, would often say, in a voice of despair, "We really must do these books soon." In each book, as he read it, he marked passages bearing on his work. In reading a book or pamphlet, &c., he made pencil-lines at the side of the page, often adding short remarks, and at the end made a list of the pages marked. When it was to be catalogued and put away, the marked pages were looked at, and so a rough abstract of the book was made. This abstract would perhaps be written under three or four headings on different sheets, the facts being sorted out and added to the previously collected facts in the different subjects. He had other sets of abstracts arranged, not according to subject, but according to the periodicals from which they were taken. When collecting facts on a large scale, in earlier years, he used to read through, and make abstracts, in this way, of whole series of journals. In some of his early letters he speaks of filling several note-books with facts for his book on species; but it was certainly early that he adopted his plan of using portfolios, as described in the _Recollections_.[63] My father and M. de Candolle were mutually pleased to discover that they had adopted the same plan of classifying facts. De Candolle describes the method in his _Phytologie_, and in his sketch of my father mentions the satisfaction he felt in seeing it in action at Down. Besides these portfolios, of which there are some dozens full of notes, there are large bundles of MS. marked "used" and put away. He felt the value of his notes, and had a horror of their destruction by fire. I remember, when some alarm of fire had happened, his begging me to be especially careful, adding very earnestly, that the rest of his life would be miserable if his notes and books were destroyed. He shows the same feeling in writing about the loss of a manuscript, the purport of his words being, "I have a copy, or the loss would have killed me." In writing a book he would spend much time and labour in making a skeleton or plan of the whole, and in enlarging and sub-classing each heading, as described in his _Recollections_. I think this careful arrangement of the plan was not at all essential to the building up of his argument, but for its presentment, and for the arrangement of his facts. In his _Life of Erasmus Darwin_, as it was first printed in slips, the growth of the book from a skeleton was plainly visible. The arrangement was altered afterwards, because it was too formal and categorical, and seemed to give the character of his grandfather rather by means of a list of qualities than as a complete picture. It was only within the last few years that he adopted a plan of writing which he was convinced suited him best, and which is described in the _Recollections_; namely, writing a rough copy straight off without the slightest attention to style. It was characteristic of him that he felt unable to write with sufficient want of care if he used his best paper, and thus it was that he wrote on the backs of old proofs or manuscript. The rough copy was then reconsidered, and a fair copy was made. For this purpose he had foolscap paper ruled at wide intervals, the lines being needed to prevent him writing so closely that correction became difficult. The fair copy was then corrected, and was recopied before being sent to the printers. The copying was done by Mr. E. Norman, who began this work many years ago when village schoolmaster at Down. My father became so used to Mr. Norman's handwriting, that he could not correct manuscript, even when clearly written out by one of his children, until it had been recopied by Mr. Norman. The MS., on returning from Mr. Norman, was once more corrected, and then sent off to the printers. Then came the work of revising and correcting the proofs, which my father found especially wearisome. When the book was passing through the "slip" stage he was glad to have corrections and suggestions from others. Thus my mother looked over the proofs of the _Origin_. In some of the later works my sister, Mrs. Litchfield, did much of the correction. After my sister's marriage perhaps most of the work fell to my share. My sister, Mrs. Litchfield, writes:-- "This work was very interesting in itself, and it was inexpressibly exhilarating to work for him. He was so ready to be convinced that any suggested alteration was an improvement, and so full of gratitude for the trouble taken. I do not think that he ever forgot to tell me what improvement he thought I had made, and he used almost to excuse himself if he did not agree with any correction. I think I felt the singular modesty and graciousness of his nature through thus working for him in a way I never should otherwise have done." Perhaps the commonest corrections needed were of obscurities due to the omission of a necessary link in the reasoning, evidently omitted through familiarity with the subject. Not that there was any fault in the sequence of the thoughts, but that from familiarity with his argument he did not notice when the words failed to reproduce his thought. He also frequently put too much matter into one sentence, so that it had to be cut up into two. On the whole, I think the pains which my father took over the literary part of the work was very remarkable. He often laughed or grumbled at himself for the difficulty which he found in writing English, saying, for instance, that if a bad arrangement of a sentence was possible, he should be sure to adopt it. He once got much amusement and satisfaction out of the difficulty which one of the family found in writing a short circular. He had the pleasure of correcting and laughing at obscurities, involved sentences, and other defects, and thus took his revenge for all the criticism he had himself to bear with. He would quote with astonishment Miss Martineau's advice to young authors, to write straight off and send the MS. to the printer without correction. But in some cases he acted in a somewhat similar manner. When a sentence became hopelessly involved, he would ask himself, "now what _do_ you want to say?" and his answer written down, would often disentangle the confusion. His style has been much praised; on the other hand, at least one good judge has remarked to me that it is not a good style. It is, above all things, direct and clear; and it is characteristic of himself in its simplicity bordering on naïveté, and in its absence of pretence. He had the strongest disbelief in the common idea that a classical scholar must write good English; indeed, he thought that the contrary was the case. In writing, he sometimes showed the same tendency to strong expressions that he did in conversation. Thus in the _Origin_, p. 440, there is a description of a larval cirripede, "with six pairs of beautifully constructed natatory legs, a pair of magnificent compound eyes, and extremely complex antennæ." We used to laugh at him for this sentence, which we compared to an advertisement. This tendency to give himself up to the enthusiastic turn of his thought, without fear of being ludicrous appears elsewhere in his writings. His courteous and conciliatory tone towards his reader is remarkable, and it must be partly this quality which revealed his personal sweetness of character to so many who had never seen him. I have always felt it to be a curious fact, that he who has altered the face of Biological Science, and is in this respect the chief of the moderns, should have written and worked in so essentially a non-modern spirit and manner. In reading his books one is reminded of the older naturalists rather than of any modern school of writers. He was a Naturalist in the old sense of the word, that is, a man who works at many branches of science, not merely a specialist in one. Thus it is, that, though he founded whole new divisions of special subjects--such as the fertilisation of flowers, insectivorous plants, &c.--yet even in treating these very subjects he does not strike the reader as a specialist. The reader feels like a friend who is being talked to by a courteous gentleman, not like a pupil being lectured by a professor. The tone of such a book as the _Origin_ is charming, and almost pathetic; it is the tone of a man who, convinced of the truth of his own views, hardly expects to convince others; it is just the reverse of the style of a fanatic, who tries to force belief on his readers. The reader is never scorned for any amount of doubt which he may be imagined to feel, and his scepticism is treated with patient respect. A sceptical reader, or perhaps even an unreasonable reader, seems to have been generally present to his thoughts. It was in consequence of this feeling, perhaps, that he took much trouble over points which he imagined would strike the reader, or save him trouble, and so tempt him to read. For the same reason he took much interest in the illustrations of his books, and I think rated rather too highly their value. The illustrations for his earlier books were drawn by professional artists. This was the case in _Animals and Plants_, the _Descent of Man_, and the _Expression of the Emotions_. On the other hand, _Climbing Plants_, _Insectivorous Plants_, the _Movements of Plants_, and _Forms of Flowers_, were, to a large extent, illustrated by some of his children--my brother George having drawn by far the most. It was delightful to draw for him, as he was enthusiastic in his praise of very moderate performances. I remember well his charming manner of receiving the drawings of one of his daughters-in-law, and how he would finish his words of praise by saying, "Tell A----, Michael Angelo is nothing to it." Though he praised so generously, he always looked closely at the drawing, and easily detected mistakes or carelessness. He had a horror of being lengthy, and seems to have been really much annoyed and distressed when he found how the _Variations of Animals and Plants_ was growing under his hands. I remember his cordially agreeing with 'Tristram Shandy's' words, "Let no man say, 'Come, I'll write a duodecimo.'" His consideration for other authors was as marked a characteristic as his tone towards his reader. He speaks of all other authors as persons deserving of respect. In cases where, as in the case of ----'s experiments on Drosera, he thought lightly of the author, he speaks of him in such a way that no one would suspect it. In other cases he treats the confused writings of ignorant persons as though the fault lay with himself for not appreciating or understanding them. Besides this general tone of respect, he had a pleasant way of expressing his opinion on the value of a quoted work, or his obligation for a piece of private information. His respectful feeling was not only admirable, but was I think of practical use in making him ready to consider the ideas and observations of all manner of people. He used almost to apologise for this, and would say that he was at first inclined to rate everything too highly. It was a great merit in his mind that, in spite of having so strong a respectful feeling towards what he read, he had the keenest of instincts as to whether a man was trustworthy or not. He seemed to form a very definite opinion as to the accuracy of the men whose books he read; and employed this judgment in his choice of facts for use in argument or as illustrations. I gained the impression that he felt this power of judging of a man's trustworthiness to be of much value. He had a keen feeling of the sense of honour that ought to reign among authors, and had a horror of any kind of laxness in quoting. He had a contempt for the love of honour and glory, and in his letters often blames himself for the pleasure he took in the success of his books, as though he were departing from his ideal--a love of truth and carelessness about fame. Often, when writing to Sir J. Hooker what he calls a boasting letter, he laughs at himself for his conceit and want of modesty. A wonderfully interesting letter is given in Chapter X. bequeathing to my mother, in case of his death, the care of publishing the manuscript of his first essay on evolution. This letter seems to me full of an intense desire that his theory should succeed as a contribution to knowledge, and apart from any desire for personal fame. He certainly had the healthy desire for success which a man of strong feelings ought to have. But at the time of the publication of the _Origin_ it is evident that he was overwhelmingly satisfied with the adherence of such men as Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, and Asa Gray, and did not dream of or desire any such general fame as that to which he attained. Connected with his contempt for the undue love of fame, was an equally strong dislike of all questions of priority. The letters to Lyell, at the time of the _Origin_, show the anger he felt with himself for not being able to repress a feeling of disappointment at what he thought was Mr. Wallace's forestalling of all his years of work. His sense of literary honour comes out strongly in these letters; and his feeling about priority is again shown in the admiration expressed in his _Recollections_ of Mr. Wallace's self-annihilation. His feeling about reclamations, including answers to attacks and all kinds of discussions, was strong. It is simply expressed in a letter to Falconer (1863): "If I ever felt angry towards you, for whom I have a sincere friendship, I should begin to suspect that I was a little mad. I was very sorry about your reclamation, as I think it is in every case a mistake and should be left to others. Whether I should so act myself under provocation is a different question." It was a feeling partly dictated by instinctive delicacy, and partly by a strong sense of the waste of time, energy, and temper thus caused. He said that he owed his determination not to get into discussions[64] to the advice of Lyell,--advice which he transmitted to those among his friends who were given to paper warfare. If the character of my father's working life is to be understood, the conditions of ill-health, under which he worked, must be constantly borne in mind. He bore his illness with such uncomplaining patience, that even his children can hardly, I believe, realise the extent of his habitual suffering. In their case the difficulty is heightened by the fact that, from the days of their earliest recollections, they saw him in constant ill-health,--and saw him, in spite of it, full of pleasure in what pleased them. Thus, in later life, their perception of what he endured had to be disentangled from the impression produced in childhood by constant genial kindness under conditions of unrecognised difficulty. No one indeed, except my mother, knows the full amount of suffering he endured, or the full amount of his wonderful patience. For all the latter years of his life she never left him for a night; and her days were so planned that all his resting hours might be shared with her. She shielded him from every avoidable annoyance, and omitted nothing that might save him trouble, or prevent him becoming overtired, or that might alleviate the many discomforts of his ill-health. I hesitate to speak thus freely of a thing so sacred as the life-long devotion which prompted all this constant and tender care. But it is, I repeat, a principal feature of his life, that for nearly forty years he never knew one day of the health of ordinary men, and that thus his life was one long struggle against the weariness and strain of sickness. And this cannot be told without speaking of the one condition which enabled him to bear the strain and fight out the struggle to the end. FOOTNOTES: [52] From the _Century Magazine_, January 1883. [53] The figure in _Insectivorous Plants_ representing the aggregated cell-contents was drawn by him. [54] _Life and Letters_, vol. iii. frontispiece. [55] The basket in which she usually lay curled up near the fire in his study is faithfully represented in Mr. Parson's drawing given at the head of the chapter. [56] Cf. Leslie Stephen's _Swift_, 1882, p. 200, where Swift's inspection of the manners and customs of servants are compared to my father's observations on worms, "The difference is," says Mr. Stephen, "that Darwin had none but kindly feelings for worms." [57] The words, "A good and dear child," form the descriptive part of the inscription on her gravestone. See the _Athenæum_, Nov. 26, 1887. [58] Some pleasant recollections of my father's life at Down, written by our friend and former neighbour, Mrs. Wallis Nash, have been published in the _Overland Monthly_ (San Francisco), October 1890. [59] _Darwin considéré au point de vue des causes de son succès_ (Geneva, 1882). [60] My father related a Johnsonian answer of Erasmus Darwin's: "Don't you find it very inconvenient stammering, Dr. Darwin?" "No, Sir, because I have time to think before I speak, and don't ask impertinent questions." [61] This is not so much an example of superabundant theorising from a small cause as of his wish to test the most improbable ideas. [62] That is to say, the sexual relations in such plants as the cowslip. [63] The racks in which the portfolios were placed are shown in the illustration at the head of the chapter, in the recess at the right-hand side of the fire-place. [64] He departed from his rule in his "Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker, _Colaptes campestris_," _Proc. Zool. Soc._, 1870, p. 705: also in a letter published in the _Athenæum_ (1863, p. 554), in which case he afterwards regretted that he had not remained silent. His replies to criticisms, in the latter editions of the _Origin_, can hardly be classed as infractions of his rule. CHAPTER V. CAMBRIDGE LIFE.--THE APPOINTMENT TO THE 'BEAGLE.' My father's Cambridge life comprises the time between the Lent Term, 1828, when he came up to Christ's College as a Freshman, and the end of the May Term, 1831, when he took his degree[65] and left the University. He "kept" for a term or two in lodgings, over Bacon[66] the tobacconist's; not, however, over the shop in the Market Place, so well known to Cambridge men, but in Sydney Street. For the rest of his time he had pleasant rooms on the south side of the first court of Christ's.[67] What determined the choice of this college for his brother Erasmus and himself I have no means of knowing. Erasmus the elder, their grandfather, had been at St. John's, and this college might have been reasonably selected for them, being connected with Shrewsbury School. But the life of an undergraduate at St. John's seems, in those days, to have been a troubled one, if I may judge from the fact that a relative of mine migrated thence to Christ's to escape the harassing discipline of the place. Darwin seems to have found no difficulty in living at peace with all men in and out of office at Lady Margaret's elder foundation. The impression of a contemporary of my father's is that Christ's in their day was a pleasant, fairly quiet college, with some tendency towards "horsiness"; many of the men made a custom of going to Newmarket during the races, though betting was not a regular practice. In this they were by no means discouraged by the Senior Tutor, Mr. Shaw, who was himself generally to be seen on the Heath on these occasions. Nor were the ecclesiastical authorities of the College over strict. I have heard my father tell how at evening chapel the Dean used to read alternate verses of the Psalms, without making even a pretence of waiting for the congregation to take their share. And when the Lesson was a lengthy one, he would rise and go on with the Canticles after the scholar had read fifteen or twenty verses. It is curious that my father often spoke of his Cambridge life as if it had been so much time wasted,[68] forgetting that, although the set studies of the place were barren enough for him, he yet gained in the highest degree the best advantages of a University life--the contact with men and an opportunity for mental growth. It is true that he valued at its highest the advantages which he gained from associating with Professor Henslow and some others, but he seemed to consider this as a chance outcome of his life at Cambridge, not an advantage for which _Alma Mater_ could claim any credit. One of my father's Cambridge friends was the late Mr. J. M. Herbert, County Court Judge for South Wales, from whom I was fortunate enough to obtain some notes which help us to gain an idea of how my father impressed his contemporaries. Mr. Herbert writes:-- "It would be idle for me to speak of his vast intellectual powers ... but I cannot end this cursory and rambling sketch without testifying, and I doubt not all his surviving college friends would concur with me, that he was the most genial, warm-hearted, generous, and affectionate of friends; that his sympathies were with all that was good and true; and that he had a cordial hatred for everything false, or vile, or cruel, or mean, or dishonourable. He was not only great, but pre-eminently good, and just, and lovable." Two anecdotes told by Mr. Herbert show that my father's feeling for suffering, whether of man or beast, was as strong in him as a young man as it was in later years: "Before he left Cambridge he told me that he had made up his mind not to shoot any more; that he had had two days' shooting at his friend's, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse; and that on the second day, when going over some of the ground they had beaten on the day before, he picked up a bird not quite dead, but lingering from a shot it had received on the previous day; and that it had made and left such a painful impression on his mind, that he could not reconcile it to his conscience to continue to derive pleasure from a sport which inflicted such cruel suffering." To realise the strength of the feeling that led to this resolve, we must remember how passionate was his love of sport. We must recall the boy shooting his first snipe,[69] and trembling with excitement so that he could hardly reload his gun. Or think of such a sentence as, "Upon my soul, it is only about a fortnight to the 'First,' then if there is a bliss on earth that is it."[70] His old college friends agree in speaking with affectionate warmth of his pleasant, genial temper as a young man. From what they have been able to tell me, I gain the impression of a young man overflowing with animal spirits--leading a varied healthy life--not over-industrious in the set studies of the place, but full of other pursuits, which were followed with a rejoicing enthusiasm. Entomology, riding, shooting in the fens, suppers and card-playing, music at King's Chapel, engravings at the Fitzwilliam Museum, walks with Professor Henslow--all combined to fill up a happy life. He seems to have infected others with his enthusiasm. Mr. Herbert relates how, while on a reading-party at Barmouth, he was pressed into the service of "the science"--as my father called collecting beetles:-- "He armed me with a bottle of alcohol, in which I had to drop any beetle which struck me as not of a common kind. I performed this duty with some diligence in my constitutional walks; but, alas! my powers of discrimination seldom enabled mo to secure a prize--the usual result, on his examining the contents of my bottle, being an exclamation, 'Well, old Cherbury'[71] (the nickname he gave me, and by which he usually addressed me), 'none of these will do.'" Again, the Rev. T. Butler, who was one of the Barmouth reading-party in 1828, says: "He inoculated me with a taste for Botany which has stuck by me all my life." Archdeacon Watkins, another old college friend of my father's, remembered him unearthing beetles in the willows between Cambridge and Grantchester, and speaks of a certain beetle the remembrance of whose name is "Crux major."[72] How enthusiastically must my father have exulted over this beetle to have impressed its name on a companion so that he remembers it after half a century! He became intimate with Henslow, the Professor of Botany, and through him with some other older members of the University. "But," Mr. Herbert writes, "he always kept up the closest connection with the friends of his own standing; and at our frequent social gatherings--at breakfast, wine or supper parties--he was ever one of the most cheerful, the most popular, and the most welcome." My father formed one of a club for dining once a week, called the Glutton Club, the members, besides himself and Mr. Herbert (from whom I quote), being Whitley of St. John's, now Honorary Canon of Durham;[73] Heaviside of Sydney, now Canon of Norwich; Lovett Cameron of Trinity, sometime vicar of Shoreham; R. Blane of Trinity,[74] who held a high post during the Crimean war, H. Lowe[75] (afterwards Sherbrooke) of Trinity Hall; and F. Watkins of Emmanuel, afterwards Archdeacon of York. The origin of the club's name seems already to have become involved in obscurity; it certainly implied no unusual luxury in the weekly gatherings. At any rate, the meetings seemed to have been successful, and to have ended with "a game of mild vingt-et-un." Mr. Herbert speaks strongly of my father's love of music, and adds, "What gave him the greatest delight was some grand symphony or overture of Mozart's or Beethoven's, with their full harmonies." On one occasion Herbert remembers "accompanying him to the afternoon service at King's, when we heard a very beautiful anthem. At the end of one of the parts, which was exceedingly impressive, he turned round to me and said, with a deep sigh, 'How's your backbone?'" He often spoke in later years of a feeling of coldness or shivering in his back on hearing beautiful music. Besides a love of music, he had certainly at this time a love of fine literature; and Mr. Cameron tells me that my father took much pleasure in Shakespeare readings carried on in his rooms at Christ's. He also speaks of Darwin's "great liking for first-class line engravings, especially those of Raphael Morghen and Müller; and he spent hours in the Fitzwilliam Museum in looking over the prints in that collection." My father's letters to Fox show how sorely oppressed he felt by the reading for an examination. His despair over mathematics must have been profound, when he expresses a hope that Fox's silence is due to "your being ten fathoms deep in the Mathematics; and if you are, God help you, for so am I, only with this difference, I stick fast in the mud at the bottom, and there I shall remain." Mr. Herbert says: "He had, I imagine, no natural turn for mathematics, and he gave up his mathematical reading before he had mastered the first part of algebra, having had a special quarrel with Surds and the Binomial Theorem." We get some evidence from my father's letters to Fox of his intention of going into the Church. "I am glad," he writes,[76] "to hear that you are reading divinity. I should like to know what books you are reading, and your opinions about them; you need not be afraid of preaching to me prematurely." Mr. Herbert's sketch shows how doubts arose in my father's mind as to the possibility of his taking Orders. He writes, "We had an earnest conversation about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his asking me, with reference to the question put by the Bishop in the Ordination Service, 'Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, &c.,' whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my saying I could not, he said, 'Neither can I, and therefore I cannot take orders.'" This conversation appears to have taken place in 1829, and if so, the doubts here expressed must have been quieted, for in May 1830, he speaks of having some thoughts of reading divinity with Henslow. The greater number of his Cambridge letters are addressed by my father to his cousin, William Darwin Fox. My father's letters show clearly enough how genuine the friendship was. In after years, distance, large families, and ill-health on both sides, checked the intercourse; but a warm feeling of friendship remained. The correspondence was never quite dropped and continued till Mr. Fox's death in 1880. Mr. Fox took orders, and worked as a country clergyman until forced by ill-health to leave his living in Delamere Forest. His love of natural history was strong, and he became a skilled fancier of many kinds of birds, &c. The index to _Animals and Plants_, and my father's later correspondence, show how much help he received from his old College friend. _C. D. to J. M. Herbert._ September 14, 1828.[77] MY DEAR OLD CHERBURY,--I am about to fulfil my promise of writing to you, but I am sorry to add there is a very selfish motive at the bottom. I am going to ask you a great favour, and you cannot imagine how much you will oblige me by procuring some more specimens of some insects which I dare say I can describe. In the first place, I must inform you that I have taken some of the rarest of the British Insects, and their being found near Barmouth, is quite unknown to the Entomological world: I think I shall write and inform some of the crack entomologists. But now for business. _Several_ more specimens, if you can procure them without much trouble, of the following insects:--The violet-black coloured beetle, found on Craig Storm,[78] under stones, also a large smooth black one very like it; a bluish metallic-coloured dung-beetle, which is _very_ common on the hill-sides; also, if you _would_ be so very kind as to cross the ferry, and you will find a great number under the stones on the waste land of a long, smooth, jet-black beetle (a great many of these); also, in the same situation, a very small pinkish insect, with black spots, with a curved thorax projecting beyond the head; also, upon the marshy land over the ferry, near the sea, under old sea weed, stones, &c., you will find a small yellowish transparent beetle, with two or four blackish marks on the back. Under these stones there are two sorts, one much darker than the other; the lighter coloured is that which I want. These last two insects are _excessively rare_, and you will really _extremely_ oblige me by taking all this trouble pretty soon. Remember me most kindly to Butler,[79] tell him of my success, and I dare say both of you will easily recognise these insects. I hope his caterpillars go on well. I think many of the Chrysalises are well worth keeping. I really am quite ashamed [of] so long a letter all about my own concerns; but do return good for evil, and send me a long account of all your proceedings. In the first week I killed seventy-five head of game--a very contemptible number--but there are very few birds. I killed, however, a brace of black game. Since then I have been staying at the Fox's, near Derby; it is a very pleasant house, and the music meeting went off very well. I want to hear how Yates likes his gun, and what use he has made of it. If the bottle is not large you can buy another for me, and when you pass through Shrewsbury you can leave these treasures, and I hope, if you possibly can, you will stay a day or two with me, as I hope I need not say how glad I shall be to see you again. Fox remarked what deuced good natured fellows your friends at Barmouth must be; and if I did not know that you and Butler were so, I would not think of giving you so much trouble. In the following January we find him looking forward with pleasure to the beginning of another year of his Cambridge life: he writes to Fox, who had passed his examination:-- "I do so wish I were now in Cambridge (a very selfish wish, however, as I was not with you in all your troubles and misery), to join in all the glory and happiness, which dangers gone by can give. How we would talk, walk, and entomologise! Sappho should be the best of bitches, and Dash, of dogs; then should be 'peace on earth, good will to men,'--which, by the way, I always think the most perfect description of happiness that words can give." Later on in the Lent term he writes to Fox:-- "I am leading a quiet everyday sort of a life; a little of Gibbon's History in the morning, and a good deal of _Van John_ in the evening; this, with an occasional ride with Simcox and constitutional with Whitley, makes up the regular routine of my days. I see a good deal both of Herbert and Whitley, and the more I see of them increases every day the respect I have for their excellent understandings and dispositions. They have been giving some very gay parties, nearly sixty men there both evenings." _C. D. to W. D. Fox._ Christ's College, April 1 [1829]. MY DEAR FOX--In your letter to Holden you are pleased to observe "that of all the blackguards you ever met with I am the greatest." Upon this observation I shall make no remarks, excepting that I must give you all due credit for acting on it most rigidly. And now I should like to know in what one particular are you less of a blackguard than I am? You idle old wretch, why have you not answered my last letter, which I am sure I forwarded to Clifton nearly three weeks ago? If I was not really very anxious to hear what you are doing, I should have allowed you to remain till you thought it worth while to treat me like a gentleman. And now having vented my spleen in scolding you, and having told you, what you must know, how very much and how anxiously I want to hear how you and your family are getting on at Clifton, the purport of this letter is finished. If you did but know how often I think of you, and how often I regret your absence, I am sure I should have heard from you long enough ago. I find Cambridge rather stupid, and as I know scarcely any one that walks, and this joined with my lips not being quite so well, has reduced me to a sort of hybernation.... I have caught Mr. Harbour[80] letting ---- have the first pick of the beetles; accordingly we have made our final adieus, my part in the affecting scene consisted in telling him he was a d----d rascal, and signifying I should kick him down the stairs if ever he appeared in my rooms again. It seemed altogether mightily to surprise the young gentleman. I have no news to tell you; indeed, when a correspondence has been broken off like ours has been, it is difficult to make the first start again. Last night there was a terrible fire at Linton, eleven miles from Cambridge. Seeing the reflection so plainly in the sky, Hall, Woodyeare, Turner, and myself thought we would ride and see it. We set out at half-past nine, and rode like incarnate devils there, and did not return till two in the morning. Altogether it was a most awful sight. I cannot conclude without telling you, that of all the blackguards I ever met with, you are the greatest and the best. In July 1829 he had written to Fox:-- "I must read for my Little-go. Graham smiled and bowed so very civilly, when he told me that he was one of the six appointed to make the examination stricter, and that they were determined this would make it a very different thing from any previous examination, that from all this I am sure it will be the very devil to pay amongst all idle men and entomologists." But things were not so bad as he feared, and in March 1830, he could write to the same correspondent:-- "I am through my Little-go!!! I am too much exalted to humble myself by apologising for not having written before. But I assure you before I went in, and when my nerves were in a shattered and weak condition, your injured person often rose before my eyes and taunted me with my idleness. But I am through, through, through. I could write the whole sheet full with this delightful word. I went in yesterday, and have just heard the joyful news. I shall not know for a week which class I am in. The whole examination is carried on in a different system. It has one grand advantage--being over in one day. They are rather strict, and ask a wonderful number of questions. And now I want to know something about your plans; of course you intend coming up here: what fun we will have together; what beetles we will catch; it will do my heart good to go once more together to some of our old haunts. I have two very promising pupils in Entomology, and we will make regular campaigns into the Fens. Heaven protect the beetles and Mr. Jenyns, for we won't leave him a pair in the whole country. My new Cabinet is come down, and a gay little affair it is." In August he was diligently amusing himself in North Wales, finding no time to write to Fox, because:-- "This is literally the first idle day I have had to myself; for on the rainy days I go fishing, on the good ones entomologising." November found him preparing for his degree, of which process he writes dolefully:-- "I have so little time at present, and am so disgusted by reading, that I have not the heart to write to anybody. I have only written once home since I came up. This must excuse me for not having answered your three letters, for which I am really very much obliged.... "I have not stuck an insect this term, and scarcely opened a case. If I had time I would have sent you the insects which I have so long promised; but really I have not spirits or time to do anything. Reading makes me quite desperate; the plague of getting up all my subjects is next thing to intolerable, Henslow is my tutor, and a most _admirable_ one he makes; the hour with him is the pleasantest in the whole day. I think he is quite the most perfect man I ever met with. I have been to some very pleasant parties there this term. His good-nature is unbounded." The new year brought relief, and on January 23, 1831, he wrote to tell Fox that he was through his examination. "I do not know why the degree should make one so miserable, both before and afterwards. I recollect you were sufficiently wretched before, and I can assure [you], I am now; and what makes it the more ridiculous is, I know not what about. I believe it is a beautiful provision of nature to make one regret the less leaving so pleasant a place as Cambridge; and amongst all its pleasures--I say it for once and for all--none so great as my friendship with you. I sent you a newspaper yesterday, in which you will see what a good place--tenth--I have got in the Poll. As for Christ's, did you ever see such a college for producing Captains and Apostles?[81] There are no men either at Emmanuel or Christ's plucked. Cameron is gulfed,[82] together with other three Trinity scholars! My plans are not at all settled. I think I shall keep this term, and then go and economise at Shrewsbury, return and take my degree. "A man may be excused for writing so much about himself when he has just passed the examination; so you must excuse [me]. And on the same principle do you write a letter brimful of yourself and plans." THE APPOINTMENT TO THE 'BEAGLE.' In a letter addressed to Captain Fitz-Roy, before the _Beagle_ sailed, my father wrote, "What a glorious day the 4th of November[83] will be to me--my second life will then commence, and it shall be as a birthday for the rest of my life." Foremost in the chain of circumstances which led to his appointment to the _Beagle_, was his friendship with Professor Henslow, of which the autobiography gives a sufficient account.[84] An extract from a pocket-book, in which Darwin briefly recorded the chief events of his life, gives the history of his introduction to that science which was so soon to be his chief occupation--geology. "1831. _Christmas._--Passed my examination for B.A. degree and kept the two following terms. During these months lived much with Professor Henslow, often dining with him and walking with him; became slightly acquainted with several of the learned men in Cambridge, which much quickened the zeal which dinner parties and hunting had not destroyed. In the spring Henslow persuaded me to think of Geology, and introduced me to Sedgwick. During Midsummer geologized a little in Shropshire." This geological work was doubtless of importance as giving him some practical experience, and perhaps of more importance in helping to give him some confidence in himself. In July of the same year, 1831, he was "working like a tiger" at Geology, and trying to make a map of Shropshire, but not finding it "as easy as I expected." In writing to Henslow about the same time, he gives some account of his work:-- "I have been working at so many things that I have not got on much with geology. I suspect the first expedition I take, clinometer and hammer in hand, will send me back very little wiser and a good deal more puzzled than when I started. As yet I have only indulged in hypotheses, but they are such powerful ones that I suppose, if they were put into action but for one day, the world would come to an end." He was evidently most keen to get to work with Sedgwick, who had promised to take him on a geological tour in North Wales, for he wrote to Henslow: "I have not heard from Professor Sedgwick, so I am afraid he will not pay the Severn formations a visit. I hope and trust you did your best to urge him." My father has given in his _Recollections_ some account of this Tour; there too we read of the projected excursion to the Canaries. In April 1831, he writes to Fox: "At present I talk, think, and dream of a scheme I have almost hatched of going to the Canary Islands. I have long had a wish of seeing tropical scenery and vegetation, and, according to Humboldt, Teneriffe is a very pretty specimen." And again in May: "As for my Canary scheme, it is rash of you to ask questions; my other friends most sincerely wish me there, I plague them so with talking about tropical scenery, &c. Eyton will go next summer, and I am learning Spanish." Later on in the summer the scheme took more definite form, and the date seems to have been fixed for June 1832. He got information in London about passage-money, and in July was working at Spanish and calling Fox "un grandìsimo lebron," in proof of his knowledge of the language. But even then he seems to have had some doubts about his companions' zeal, for he writes to Henslow (July 27, 1831): "I hope you continue to fan your Canary ardour. I read and re-read Humboldt;[85] do you do the same. I am sure nothing will prevent us seeing the Great Dragon Tree." Geological work and Teneriffe dreams carried him through the summer, till on returning from Barmouth for the sacred 1st of September, he received the offer of appointment as Naturalist to the _Beagle_. The following extract from the pocket-book will be a help in reading the letters:-- "Returned to Shrewsbury at end of August. Refused offer of voyage. "_September._--Went to Maer, returned with Uncle Jos. to Shrewsbury, thence to Cambridge. London. "_11th._--Went with Captain Fitz-Roy in steamer to Plymouth to see the _Beagle_. "_22nd._--Returned to Shrewsbury, passing through Cambridge. "_October 2nd._--Took leave of my home. Stayed in London. "_24th._--Reached Plymouth. "_October and November._--These months very miserable. "_December 10th._--Sailed, but were obliged to put back. "_21st._--Put to sea again, and were driven back. "_27th._--Sailed from England on our Circumnavigation." _George Peacock[86] to J. S. Henslow_ [1831]. MY DEAR HENSLOW--Captain Fitz-Roy is going out to survey the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego, and afterwards to visit many of the South Sea Islands, and to return by the Indian Archipelago. The vessel is fitted out expressly for scientific purposes, combined with the survey; it will furnish, therefore, a rare opportunity for a naturalist, and it would be a great misfortune that it should be lost. An offer has been made to me to recommend a proper person to go out as a naturalist with this expedition; he will be treated with every consideration. The Captain is a young man of very pleasing manners (a nephew of the Duke of Grafton), of great zeal in his profession, and who is very highly spoken of; if Leonard Jenyns could go, what treasures he might bring home with him, as the ship would be placed at his disposal whenever his inquiries made it necessary or desirable. In the absence of so accomplished a naturalist, is there any person whom you could strongly recommend? he must be such a person as would do credit to our recommendation. Do think of this subject; it would be a serious loss to the cause of natural science if this fine opportunity was lost. The contents of the foregoing letter were communicated to Darwin by Henslow (August 24th, 1831):-- "I have been asked by Peacock, who will read and forward this to you from London, to recommend him a Naturalist as companion to Captain Fitz-Roy, employed by Government to survey the southern extremity of America. I have stated that I consider you to be the best qualified person I know of who is likely to undertake such a situation. I state this not in the supposition of your being a _finished_ naturalist, but as amply qualified for collecting, observing, and noting anything worthy to be noted in Natural History. Peacock has the appointment at his disposal, and if he cannot find a man willing to take the office, the opportunity will probably be lost. Captain Fitz-Roy wants a man (I understand) more as a companion than a mere collector, and would not take any one, however good a naturalist, who was not recommended to him likewise as a _gentleman_. Particulars of salary, &c., I know nothing. The voyage is to last two years, and if you take plenty of books with you, anything you please may be done. You will have ample opportunities at command. In short, I suppose there never was a finer chance for a man of zeal and spirit; Captain Fitz-Roy is a young man. What I wish you to do is instantly to come and consult with Peacock (at No. 7 Suffolk Street, Pall Mall East, or else at the University Club), and learn further particulars. Don't put on any modest doubts or fears about your disqualifications, for I assure you I think you are the very man they are in search of; so conceive yourself to be tapped on the shoulder by your bum-bailiff and affectionate friend, J. S. HENSLOW." On the strength of Henslow's recommendation, Peacock offered the post to Darwin, who wrote from Shrewsbury to Henslow (August 30, 1831): "Mr. Peacock's letter arrived on Saturday, and I received it late yesterday evening. As far as my own mind is concerned, I should, I think _certainly_, most gladly have accepted the opportunity which you so kindly have offered me. But my father, although he does not decidedly refuse me, gives such strong advice against going, that I should not be comfortable if I did not follow it. "My father's objections are these: the unfitting me to settle down as a Clergyman, my little habit of seafaring, _the shortness of the time_, and the chance of my not suiting Captain Fitz-Roy. It is certainly a very serious objection, the very short time for all my preparations, as not only body but mind wants making up for such an undertaking. But if it had not been for my father I would have taken all risks. What was the reason that a Naturalist was not long ago fixed upon? I am very much obliged for the trouble you have had about it; there certainly could not have been a better opportunity.... "Even if I was to go, my father disliking would take away all energy, and I should want a good stock of that. Again I must thank you, it adds a little to the heavy but pleasant load of gratitude which I owe to you." The following letter was written by Darwin from Maer, the house of his uncle Josiah Wedgwood the younger. It is plain that at first he intended to await a written reply from Dr. Darwin, and that the expedition to Shrewsbury, mentioned in the _Autobiography_, was an afterthought. [Maer] August 31 [1831]. MY DEAR FATHER--I am afraid I am going to make you again very uncomfortable. But, upon consideration, I think you will excuse me once again stating my opinions on the offer of the voyage. My excuse and reason is the different way all the Wedgwoods view the subject from what you and my sisters do. I have given Uncle Jos[87] what I fervently trust is an accurate and full list of your objections, and he is kind enough to give his opinions on all. The list and his answers will be enclosed. But may I beg of you one favour, it will be doing me the greatest kindness, if you will send me a decided answer, yes or no? If the latter, I should be most ungrateful if I did not implicitly yield to your better judgment, and to the kindest indulgence you have shown me all through my life; and you may rely upon it I will never mention the subject again. If your answer should be yes; I will go directly to Henslow and consult deliberately with him, and then come to Shrewsbury. The danger appears to me and all the Wedgwoods not great. The expense can not be serious, and the time I do not think, anyhow, would be more thrown away than if I stayed at home. But pray do not consider that I am so bent on going that I would for one _single moment_ hesitate, if you thought that after a short period you should continue uncomfortable. I must again state I cannot think it would unfit me hereafter for a steady life. I do hope this letter will not give you much uneasiness. I send it by the car to-morrow morning; if you make up your mind directly will you send me an answer on the following day by the same means? If this letter should not find you at home, I hope you will answer as soon as you conveniently can. I do not know what to say about Uncle Jos' kindness; I never can forget how he interests himself about me. Believe me, my dear father, your affectionate son, CHARLES DARWIN. Here follow the objections above referred to:-- "(1.) Disreputable to my character as a Clergyman hereafter. "(2.) A wild scheme. "(3.) That they must have offered to many others before me the place of Naturalist. "(4.) And from its not being accepted there must be some serious objection to the vessel or expedition. "(5.) That I should never settle down to a steady life hereafter. "(6.) That my accommodations would be most uncomfortable. "(7.) That you [_i.e._ Dr. Darwin] should consider it as again changing my profession. "(8.) That it would be a useless undertaking." Josiah Wedgwood having demolished this curious array of argument, and the Doctor having been converted, Darwin left home for Cambridge. On his arrival at the Red Lion he sent a messenger to Henslow with the following note (September 2nd):-- "I am just arrived; you will guess the reason. My father has changed his mind. I trust the place is not given away. I am very much fatigued, and am going to bed. I dare say you have not yet got my second letter. How soon shall I come to you in the morning? Send a verbal answer." _C. D. to Miss Susan Darwin._ Cambridge [September 4, 1831]. ... The whole of yesterday I spent with Henslow, thinking of what is to be done, and that I find is a great deal. By great good luck I know a man of the name of Wood, nephew of Lord Londonderry. He is a great friend of Captain Fitz-Roy, and has written to him about me. I heard a part of Captain Fitz-Roy's letter, dated some time ago, in which he says: 'I have a right good set of officers, and most of my men have been there before.' It seems he has been there for the last few years; he was then second in command with the same vessel that he has now chosen. He is only twenty-three years old, but [has] seen a deal of service, and won the gold medal at Portsmouth. The Admiralty say his maps are most perfect. He had choice of two vessels, and he chose the smallest. Henslow will give me letters to all travellers in town whom he thinks may assist me. ... I write as if it was settled, but Henslow tells me _by no means_ to make up my mind till I have had long conversations with Captains Beaufort and Fitz-Roy. Good-bye. You will hear from me constantly. Direct 17 Spring Gardens. _Tell nobody_ in Shropshire yet. Be sure not. I was so tired that evening I was in Shrewsbury that I thanked none of you for your kindness half so much as I felt. Love to my father. The reason I don't want people told in Shropshire: in case I should not go, it will make it more flat. At this stage of the transaction, a hitch occurred. Captain Fitz-Roy, it seems, wished to take a friend (Mr. Chester) as companion on the voyage, and accordingly wrote to Cambridge in such a discouraging strain, that Darwin gave up hope and hardly thought it worth his while to go to London (September 5). Fortunately, however, he did go, and found that Mr. Chester could not leave England. When the physiognomical, or nose-difficulty (Autobiography, p. 26.) occurred, I have no means of knowing: for at this interview Fitz-Roy was evidently well-disposed towards him. My father wrote:-- "He offers me to go shares in everything in his cabin if I like to come, and every sort of accommodation I can have, but they will not be numerous. He says nothing would be so miserable for him as having me with him if I was uncomfortable, as in a small vessel we must be thrown together, and thought it his duty to state everything in the worst point of view. I think I shall go on Sunday to Plymouth to see the vessel. "There is something most extremely attractive in his manners and way of coming straight to the point. If I live with him, he says I must live poorly--no wine, and the plainest dinners. The scheme is not certainly so good as Peacock describes. Captain Fitz-Roy advises me not [to] make up my mind quite yet, but that, seriously, he thinks it will have much more pleasure than pain for me.... "The want of room is decidedly the most serious objection; but Captain Fitz-Roy (probably owing to Wood's letter) seems determined to make me [as] comfortable as he possibly can. I like his manner of proceeding. He asked me at once, 'Shall you bear being told that I want the cabin to myself--when I want to be alone? If we treat each other this way, I hope we shall suit; if not, probably we should wish each other at the devil.'" _C. D. to Miss Susan Darwin._ London [September 6, 1831]. MY DEAR SUSAN--Again I am going to trouble you. I suspect, if I keep on at this rate, you will sincerely wish me at Tierra del Fuego, or any other Terra, but England. First, I will give my commissions. Tell Nancy to make me some twelve instead of eight shirts. Tell Edward to send me up in my carpet-bag (he can slip the key in the bag tied to some string), my slippers, a pair of lightish walking-shoes, my Spanish books, my new microscope (about six inches long and three or four deep), which must have cotton stuffed inside; my geological compass; my father knows that; a little book, if I have got it in my bed room--_Taxidermy_. Ask my father if he thinks there would be any objection to my taking arsenic for a little time, as my hands are not quite well, and I have always observed that if I once get them well, and change my manner of living about the same time, they will generally remain well. What is the dose? Tell Edward my gun is dirty. What is Erasmus's direction? Tell me if you think there is time to write and to receive an answer before I start, as I should like particularly to know what he thinks about it. I suppose you do not know Sir J. Mackintosh's direction? I write all this as if it was settled, but it is not more than it was, excepting that from Captain Fitz-Roy wishing me so much to go, and, from his kindness, I feel a predestination I shall start. I spent a very pleasant evening with him yesterday. He must be more than twenty-three years old; he is of a slight figure, and a dark but handsome edition of Mr. Kynaston, and, according to my notions, pre-eminently good manners. He is all for economy, excepting on one point--viz., fire-arms. He recommends me strongly to get a case of pistols like his, which cost £60!! and never to go on shore anywhere without loaded ones, and he is doubting about a rifle; he says I cannot appreciate the luxury of fresh meat here. Of course I shall buy nothing till everything is settled; but I work all day long at my lists, putting in and striking out articles. This is the first really cheerful day I have spent since I received the letter, and it all is owing to the sort of involuntary confidence I place in my _beau ideal_ of a Captain. We stop at Teneriffe. His object is to stop at as many places as possible. He takes out twenty chronometers, and it will be a "sin" not to settle the longitude. He tells me to get it down in writing at the Admiralty that I have the free choice to leave as soon and whenever I like. I daresay you expect I shall turn back at the Madeira; if I have a morsel of stomach left, I won't give up. Excuse my so often troubling and writing: the one is of great utility, the other a great amusement to me. Most likely I shall write to-morrow. Answer by return of post. Love to my father, dearest Susan. _C. D. to J. S. Henslow._ Devonport [November 15, 1831]. MY DEAR HENSLOW--The orders are come down from the Admiralty, and everything is finally settled. We positively sail the last day of this month, and I think before that time the vessel will be ready. She looks most beautiful, even a landsman must admire her. _We_ all think her the most perfect vessel ever turned out of the Dockyard. One thing is certain, no vessel has been fitted out so expensively, and with so much care. Everything that can be made so is of mahogany, and nothing can exceed the neatness and beauty of all the accommodations. The instructions are very general, and leave a great deal to the Captain's discretion and judgment, paying a substantial as well as a verbal compliment to him.... No vessel ever left England with such a set of Chronometers, viz. twenty-four, all very good ones. In short, everything is well, and I have only now to pray for the sickness to moderate its fierceness, and I shall do very well. Yet I should not call it one of the very best opportunities for natural history that has ever occurred. The absolute want of room is an evil that nothing can surmount. I think L. Jenyns did very wisely in not coming, that is judging from my own feelings, for I am sure if I had left college some few years, or been those years older I _never_ could have endured it. The officers (excepting the Captain) are like the freshest freshmen, that is in their manners, in everything else widely different. Remember me most kindly to him, and tell him if ever he dreams in the night of palm-trees, he may in the morning comfort himself with the assurance that the voyage would not have suited him. I am much obliged for your advice, _de Mathematicis_. I suspect when I am struggling with a triangle, I shall often wish myself in your room, and as for those wicked sulky surds, I do not know what I shall do without you to conjure them. My time passes away very pleasantly. I know one or two pleasant people, foremost of whom is Mr. Thunder-and-lightning Harris,[88] whom I dare say you have heard of. My chief employment is to go on board the _Beagle_, and try to look as much like a sailor as I can. I have no evidence of having taken in man, woman or child. I am going to ask you to do one more commission, and I trust it will be the last. When I was in Cambridge, I wrote to Mr. Ash, asking him to send my College account to my father, after having subtracted about £30 for my furniture. This he has forgotten to do, and my father has paid the bill, and I want to have the furniture-money transmitted to my father. Perhaps you would be kind enough to speak to Mr. Ash. I have cost my father so much money, I am quite ashamed of myself. I will write once again before sailing, and perhaps you will write to me before then. Believe me, yours affectionately, _C. D. to J. S. Henslow._ Devonport [December 3, 1831]. MY DEAR HENSLOW--It is now late in the evening, and to-night I am going to sleep on board. On Monday we most certainly sail, so you may guess in what a desperate state of confusion we are all in. If you were to hear the various exclamations of the officers, you would suppose we had scarcely had a week's notice. I am just in the same way taken all _aback_, and in such a bustle I hardly know what to do. The number of things to be done is infinite. I look forward even to sea-sickness with something like satisfaction, anything must be better than this state of anxiety. I am very much obliged for your last kind and affectionate letter. I always like advice from you, and no one whom I have the luck to know is more capable of giving it than yourself. Recollect, when you write, that I am a sort of _protégé_ of yours, and that it is your bounden duty to lecture me. I will now give you my direction: it is at first, Rio; but if you will send me a letter on the first Tuesday (when the packet sails) in February, directed to Monte Video, it will give me very great pleasure: I shall so much enjoy hearing a little Cambridge news. Poor dear old _Alma Mater_! I am a very worthy son in as far as affection goes. I have little more to write about.... I cannot end this without telling you how cordially I feel grateful for the kindness you have shown me during my Cambridge life. Much of the pleasure and utility which I may have derived from it is owing to you. I long for the time when we shall again meet, and till then believe me, my dear Henslow, Your affectionate and obliged friend, CH. DARWIN. FOOTNOTES: [65] "On Tuesday last Charles Darwin, of Christ's College, was admitted B.A."--_Cambridge Chronicle_, Friday, April 29th, 1831. [66] Readers of Calverley (another Christ's man) will remember his tobacco poem ending "Hero's to thee, Bacon." [67] The rooms are on the first floor, on the west side of the middle staircase. A medallion (given by my brother) has recently been let into the wall of the sitting-room. [68] For instance in a letter to Hooker (1817):--"Many thanks for your welcome note from Cambridge, and I am glad you like my _Alma Mater_, which I despise heartily as a place of education, but love from many most pleasant recollections." [69] Autobiography p. 10. [70] From a letter to W. D. Fox. [71] No doubt in allusion to the title of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. [72] _Panagæus crux-major._ [73] Formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy at Durham University. [74] Blane was afterwards, I believe, in the Life Guards; he was in the Crimean War, and afterwards Military Attaché at St. Petersburg. I am indebted to Mr. Hamilton for information about some of my father's contemporaries. [75] Brother of Lord Sherbrooke. [76] March 18, 1829. [77] The postmark being Derby seems to show that the letter was written from his cousin, W. D. Fox's house, Osmaston, near Derby. [78] The top of the hill immediately behind Barmouth was called Craig-Storm, a hybrid Cambro-English word. [79] Rev. T. Butler, a son of the former head master of Shrewsbury School. [80] No doubt a paid collector. [81] The "Captain" is at the head of the "Poll": the "Apostles" are the last twelve in the Mathematical Tripos. [82] For an explanation of the word "gulfed" or "gulphed," see Mr. W. W. Rouse Balls' interesting _History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge_ (1889), p. 160. [83] The _Beagle_ should have started on Nov. 4, but was delayed until Dec. 27. [84] See, too, a sketch by my father of his old master, in the Rev. L. Blomefield's _Memoir of Professor Henslow_. [85] The copy of Humboldt given by Henslow to my father, which is in my possession, is a double memento of the two men--the author and the donor, who so greatly influenced his life. [86] Formerly Dean of Ely, and Lowndean Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge. [87] Josiah Wedgwood. [88] William Snow Harris, the Electrician. [Illustration: THE 'BEAGLE' LAID ASHORE, RIVER SANTA CRUZ.] CHAPTER VI. THE VOYAGE. "There is a natural good-humoured energy in his letters just like himself."--From a letter of Dr. R. W. Darwin's to Professor Henslow. The object of the _Beagle_ voyage is briefly described in my father's _Journal of Researches_, p. 1, as being "to complete the Survey of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, commenced under Captain King in 1826 to 1830; to survey the shores of Chile, Peru, and some islands in the Pacific; and to carry a chain of chronometrical measurements round the world." The _Beagle_ is described[89] as a well-built little vessel, of 235 tons, rigged as a barque, and carrying six guns. She belonged to the old class of ten-gun brigs, which were nicknamed "coffins," from their liability to go down in severe weather. They were very "deep-waisted," that is, their bulwarks were high in proportion to their size, so that a heavy sea breaking over them might be highly dangerous. Nevertheless, she had already lived through five years' work, in the most stormy regions in the world, under Commanders Stokes and Fitz-Roy without a serious accident. When re-commissioned in 1831 for her second voyage, she was found (as I learned from the late Admiral Sir James Sulivan) to be so rotten that she had practically to be rebuilt, and it was this that caused the long delay in refitting. She was fitted out for the expedition with all possible care: to quote my father's description, written from Devonport, November 17, 1831: "Everybody, who can judge, says it is one of the grandest voyages that has almost ever been sent out. Everything is on a grand scale.... In short, everything is as prosperous as human means can make it." The twenty-four chronometers and the mahogany fittings seem to have been especially admired, and are more than once alluded to. Owing to the smallness of the vessel, every one on board was cramped for room, and my father's accommodation seems to have been narrow enough. Yet of this confined space he wrote enthusiastically, September 17, 1831:--"When I wrote last, I was in great alarm about my cabin. The cabins were not then marked out, but when I left they were, and mine is a capital one, certainly next best to the Captain's and remarkably light. My companion most luckily, I think, will turn out to be the officer whom I shall like best. Captain Fitz-Roy says he will take care that one corner is so fitted up that I shall be comfortable in it and shall consider it my home, but that also I shall have the run of his. My cabin is the drawing one; and in the middle is a large table, on which we two sleep in hammocks. But for the first two months there will be no drawing to be done, so that it will be quite a luxurious room, and a good deal larger than the Captain's cabin." My father used to say that it was the absolute necessity of tidiness in the cramped space on the _Beagle_ that helped "to give him his methodical habits of working." On the _Beagle_, too, he would say, that he learned what he considered the golden rule for saving time; _i.e._, taking care of the minutes. In a letter to his sister (July 1832), he writes contentedly of his manner of life at sea:--"I do not think I have ever given you an account of how the day passes. We breakfast at eight o'clock. The invariable maxim is to throw away all politeness--that is, never to wait for each other, and bolt off the minute one has done eating, &c. At sea, when the weather is calm, I work at marine animals, with which the whole ocean abounds. If there is any sea up I am either sick or contrive to read some voyage or travels. At one we dine. You shore-going people are lamentably mistaken about the manner of living on board. We have never yet (nor shall we) dined off salt meat. Rice and peas and _calavanses_ are excellent vegetables, and, with good bread, who could want more? Judge Alderson could not be more temperate, as nothing but water comes on the table. At five we have tea." The crew of the _Beagle_ consisted of Captain Fitz-Roy, "Commander and Surveyor," two lieutenants, one of whom (the first lieutenant) was the late Captain Wickham, Governor of Queensland; the late Admiral Sir James Sulivan, K.C.B., was the second lieutenant. Besides the master and two mates, there was an assistant-surveyor, the late Admiral Lort Stokes. There were also a surgeon, assistant-surgeon, two midshipmen, master's mate, a volunteer (1st class), purser, carpenter, clerk, boatswain, eight marines, thirty-four seamen, and six boys. There are not now (1892) many survivors of my father's old ship-mates. Admiral Mellersh, and Mr. Philip King, of the Legislative Council of Sydney, are among the number. Admiral Johnson died almost at the same time as my father. My father retained to the last a most pleasant recollection of the voyage of the _Beagle_, and of the friends he made on board her. To his children their names were familiar, from his many stories of the voyage, and we caught his feeling of friendship for many who were to us nothing more than names. It is pleasant to know how affectionately his old companions remember him. Sir James Sulivan remained, throughout my father's lifetime, one of his best and truest friends. He writes:--"I can confidently express my belief that during the five years in the _Beagle_, he was never known to be out of temper, or to say one unkind or hasty word _of_ or _to_ any one. You will therefore readily understand how this, combined with the admiration of his energy and ability, led to our giving him the name of 'the dear old Philosopher.'"[90] Admiral Mellersh writes to me:--"Your father is as vividly in my mind's eye as if it was only a week ago that I was in the _Beagle_ with him; his genial smile and conversation can never be forgotten by any who saw them and heard them. I was sent on two or three occasions away in a boat with him on some of his scientific excursions, and always looked forward to these trips with great pleasure, an anticipation that, unlike many others, was always realised. I think he was the only man I ever knew against whom I never heard a word said; and as people when shut up in a ship for five years are apt to get cross with each other, that is saying a good deal." Admiral Stokes, Mr. King, Mr. Usborne, and Mr. Hamond, all speak of their friendship with him in the same warm-hearted way. Captain Fitz-Roy was a strict officer, and made himself thoroughly respected both by officers and men. The occasional severity of his manner was borne with because every one on board knew that his first thought was his duty, and that he would sacrifice anything to the real welfare of the ship. My father writes, July 1834: "We all jog on very well together, there is no quarrelling on board, which is something to say. The Captain keeps all smooth by rowing every one in turn." My father speaks of the officers as a fine determined set of men, and especially of Wickham, the first lieutenant, as a "glorious fellow." The latter being responsible for the smartness and appearance of the ship strongly objected to Darwin littering the decks, and spoke of specimens as "d----d beastly devilment," and used to add, "If I were skipper, I would soon have you and all your d----d mess out of the place." A sort of halo of sanctity was given to my father by the fact of his dining in the Captain's cabin, so that the midshipmen used at first to call him "Sir," a formality, however, which did not prevent his becoming fast friends with the younger officers. He wrote about the year 1861 or 1862 to Mr. P. G. King, M.L.C., Sydney, who, as before stated, was a midshipman on board the _Beagle_:--"The remembrance of old days, when we used to sit and talk on the booms of the _Beagle_, will always, to the day of my death, make me glad to hear of your happiness and prosperity." Mr. King describes the pleasure my father seemed to take "in pointing out to me as a youngster the delights of the tropical nights, with their balmy breezes eddying out of the sails above us, and the sea lighted up by the passage of the ship through the never-ending streams of phosphorescent animalculæ." It has been assumed that his ill-health in later years was due to his having suffered so much from sea-sickness. This he did not himself believe, but rather ascribed his bad health to the hereditary fault which took shape as gout in some of the past generations. I am not quite clear as to how much he actually suffered from sea-sickness; my impression is distinct that, according to his own memory, he was not actually ill after the first three weeks, but constantly uncomfortable when the vessel pitched at all heavily. But, judging from his letters, and from the evidence of some of the officers, it would seem that in later years he forgot the extent of the discomfort. Writing June 3, 1836, from the Cape of Good Hope, he says: "It is a lucky thing for me that the voyage is drawing to its close, for I positively suffer more from sea-sickness now than three years ago." _C. D. to R. W. Darwin._ Bahia, or San Salvador, Brazil. [February 8, 1832.] I find after the first page I have been writing to my sisters. MY DEAR FATHER--I am writing this on the 8th of February, one day's sail past St. Jago (Cape de Verd), and intend taking the chance of meeting with a homeward-bound vessel somewhere about the equator. The date, however, will tell this whenever the opportunity occurs. I will now begin from the day of leaving England, and give a short account of our progress. We sailed, as you know, on the 27th of December, and have been fortunate enough to have had from that time to the present a fair and moderate breeze. It afterwards proved that we had escaped a heavy gale in the Channel, another at Madeira, and another on [the] Coast of Africa. But in escaping the gale, we felt its consequence--a heavy sea. In the Bay of Biscay there was a long and continuous swell, and the misery I endured from sea-sickness is far beyond what I ever guessed at. I believe you are curious about it. I will give you all my dear-bought experience. Nobody who has only been to sea for twenty-four hours has a right to say that sea-sickness is even uncomfortable. The real misery only begins when you are so exhausted that a little exertion makes a feeling of faintness come on. I found nothing but lying in my hammock did me any good. I must especially except your receipt of raisins, which is the only food that the stomach will bear. On the 4th of January we were not many miles from Madeira, but as there was a heavy sea running, and the island lay to windward, it was not thought worth while to beat up to it. It afterwards has turned out it was lucky we saved ourselves the trouble. I was much too sick even to get up to see the distant outline. On the 6th, in the evening, we sailed into the harbour of Santa Cruz. I now first felt even moderately well, and I was picturing to myself all the delights of fresh fruit growing in beautiful valleys, and reading Humboldt's description of the island's glorious views, when perhaps you may nearly guess at our disappointment, when a small pale man informed us we must perform a strict quarantine of twelve days. There was a death-like stillness in the ship till the Captain cried "up jib," and we left this long wished-for place. We were becalmed for a day between Teneriffe and the Grand Canary, and here I first experienced any enjoyment. The view was glorious. The Peak of Teneriffe was seen amongst the clouds like another world. Our only drawback was the extreme wish of visiting this glorious island. From Teneriffe to St. Jago the voyage was extremely pleasant. I had a net astern the vessel which caught great numbers of curious animals, and fully occupied my time in my cabin, and on deck the weather was so delightful and clear, that the sky and water together made a picture. On the 16th we arrived at Port Praya, the capital of the Cape de Verds, and there we remained twenty-three days, viz. till yesterday, the 7th of February. The time has flown away most delightfully, indeed nothing can be pleasanter; exceedingly busy, and that business both a duty and a great delight. I do not believe I have spent one half-hour idly since leaving Teneriffe. St. Jago has afforded me an exceedingly rich harvest in several branches of Natural History. I find the descriptions scarcely worth anything of many of the commoner animals that inhabit the Tropics. I allude, of course, to those of the lower classes. Geologising in a volcanic country is most delightful; besides the interest attached to itself, it leads you into most beautiful and retired spots. Nobody but a person fond of Natural History can imagine the pleasure of strolling under cocoa-nuts in a thicket of bananas and coffee-plants, and an endless number of wild flowers. And this island, that has given me so much instruction and delight, is reckoned the most uninteresting place that we perhaps shall touch at during our voyage. It certainly is generally very barren, but the valleys are more exquisitely beautiful, from the very contrast. It is utterly useless to say anything about the scenery; it would be as profitable to explain to a blind man colours, as to a person who has not been out of Europe, the total dissimilarity of a tropical view. Whenever I enjoy anything, I always either look forward to writing it down, either in my log-book (which increases in bulk), or in a letter; so you must excuse raptures, and those raptures badly expressed. I find my collections are increasing wonderfully, and from Rio I think I shall be obliged to send a cargo home. All the endless delays which we experienced at Plymouth have been most fortunate, as I verily believe no person ever went out better provided for collecting and observing in the different branches of Natural History. In a multitude of counsellors I certainly found good. I find to my great surprise that a ship is singularly comfortable for all sorts of work. Everything is so close at hand, and being cramped makes one so methodical, that in the end I have been a gainer. I already have got to look at going to sea as a regular quiet place, like going back to home after staying away from it. In short, I find a ship a very comfortable house, with everything you want, and if it was not for sea-sickness the whole world would be sailors. I do not think there is much danger of Erasmus setting the example, but in case there should be, he may rely upon it he does not know one-tenth of the sufferings of sea-sickness. I like the officers much more than I did at first, especially Wickham, and young King and Stokes, and indeed all of them. The Captain continues steadily very kind, and does everything in his power to assist me. We see very little of each other when in harbour, our pursuits lead us in such different tracks. I never in my life met with a man who could endure nearly so great a share of fatigue. He works incessantly, and when apparently not employed, he is thinking. If he does not kill himself, he will during this voyage do a wonderful quantity of work.... _February 26th._--About 280 miles from Bahia. We have been singularly unlucky in not meeting with any homeward-bound vessels, but I suppose [at] Bahia we certainly shall be able to write to England. Since writing the first part of [this] letter nothing has occurred except crossing the Equator, and being shaved. This most disagreeable operation, consists in having your face rubbed with paint and tar, which forms a lather for a saw which represents the razor, and then being half drowned in a sail filled with salt water. About 50 miles north of the line we touched at the rocks of St. Paul; this little speck (about ¼ of a mile across) in the Atlantic has seldom been visited. It is totally barren, but is covered by hosts of birds; they were so unused to men that we found we could kill plenty with stones and sticks. After remaining some hours on the island, we returned on board with the boat loaded with our prey.[91] From this we went to Fernando Noronha, a small island where the [Brazilians] send their exiles. The landing there was attended with so much difficulty owing [to] a heavy surf that the Captain determined to sail the next day after arriving. My one day on shore was exceedingly interesting, the whole island is one single wood so matted together by creepers that it is very difficult to move out of the beaten path. I find the Natural History of all these unfrequented spots most exceedingly interesting, especially the geology. I have written this much in order to save time at Bahia. Decidedly the most striking thing in the Tropics is the novelty of the vegetable forms. Cocoa-nuts could well be imagined from drawings, if you add to them a graceful lightness which no European tree partakes of. Bananas and plantains are exactly the same as those in hothouses, the acacias or tamarinds are striking from the blueness of their foliage; but of the glorious orange trees, no description, no drawings, will give any just idea; instead of the sickly green of our oranges, the native ones exceed the Portugal laurel in the darkness of their tint, and infinitely exceed it in beauty of form. Cocoa-nuts, papaws, the light-green bananas, and oranges, loaded with fruit, generally surround the more luxuriant villages. Whilst viewing such scenes, one feels the impossibility that any description should come near the mark, much less be over-drawn. _March 1st._--Bahia, or San Salvador. I arrived at this place on the 28th of February, and am now writing this letter after having in real earnest strolled in the forests of the new world. No person could imagine anything so beautiful as the ancient town of Bahia, it is fairly embosomed in a luxuriant wood of beautiful trees, and situated on a steep bank, and overlooks the calm waters of the great bay of All Saints. The houses are white and lofty, and, from the windows being narrow and long, have a very light and elegant appearance. Convents, porticos, and public buildings, vary the uniformity of the houses; the bay is scattered over with large ships; in short, and what can be said more, it is one of the finest views in the Brazils. But the exquisite glorious pleasure of walking amongst such flowers, and such trees, cannot be comprehended but by those who have experienced it.[92] Although in so low a latitude the locality is not disagreeably hot, but at present it is very damp, for it is the rainy season. I find the climate as yet agrees admirably with me; it makes me long to live quietly for some time in such a country. If you really want to have [an idea] of tropical countries, study Humboldt. Skip the scientific parts, and commence after leaving Teneriffe. My feelings amount to admiration the more I read him.... This letter will go on the 5th, and I am afraid will be some time before it reaches you; it must be a warning how in other parts of the world you may be a long time without hearing. A year might by accident thus pass. About the 12th we start for Rio, but we remain some time on the way in sounding the Albrolhos shoals.... We have beat all the ships in manoeuvring, so much so that the commanding officer says we need not follow his example; because we do everything better than his great ship. I begin to take great interest in naval points, more especially now, as I find they all say we are the No. 1 in South America. I suppose the Captain is a most excellent officer. It was quite glorious to-day how we beat the _Samarang_ in furling sails. It is quite a new thing for a "sounding ship" to beat a regular man-of-war; and yet the _Beagle_ is not at all a particular ship. Erasmus will clearly perceive it when he hears that in the night I have actually sat down in the sacred precincts of the quarter deck. You must excuse these queer letters, and recollect they are generally written in the evening after my day's work. I take more pains over my log-book, so that eventually you will have a good account of all the places I visit. Hitherto the voyage has answered _admirably_ to me, and yet I am now more fully aware of your wisdom in throwing cold water on the whole scheme; the chances are so numerous of [its] turning out quite the reverse; to such an extent do I feel this, that if my advice was asked by any person on a similar occasion, I should be very cautious in encouraging him. I have not time to write to anybody else, so send to Maer to let them know, that in the midst of the glorious tropical scenery, I do not forget how instrumental they were in placing me there. I will not rapturise again, but I give myself great credit in not being crazy out of pure delight. Give my love to every soul at home, and to the Owens. I think one's affections, like other good things, flourish and increase in these tropical regions. The conviction that I am walking in the New World is even yet marvellous in my own eyes, and I daresay it is little less so to you, the receiving a letter from a son of yours in such a quarter. Believe me, my dear father, your most affectionate son. The _Beagle_ letters give ample proof of his strong love of home, and all connected with it, from his father down to Nancy, his old nurse, to whom he sometimes sends his love. His delight in home-letters is shown in such passages as:--"But if you knew the glowing, unspeakable delight, which I felt at being certain that my father and all of you were well, only four months ago, you would not grudge the labour lost in keeping up the regular series of letters." "You would be surprised to know how entirely the pleasure in arriving at a new place depends on letters." "I saw the other day a vessel sail for England; it was quite dangerous to know how easily I might turn deserter. As for an English lady, I have almost forgotten what she is--something very angelic and good." "I have just received a bundle more letters. I do not know how to thank you all sufficiently. One from Catherine, February 8th, another from Susan, March 3rd, together with notes from Caroline and from my father; give my best love to my father. I almost cried for pleasure at receiving it; it was very kind thinking of writing to me. My letters are both few, short, and stupid in return for all yours; but I always ease my conscience, by considering the Journal as a long letter." Or again--his longing to return in words like these:--"It is too delightful to think that I shall see the leaves fall and hear the robin sing next autumn at Shrewsbury. My feelings are those of a school-boy to the smallest point; I doubt whether ever boy longed for his holidays as much as I do to see you all again. I am at present, although nearly half the world is between me and home, beginning to arrange what I shall do, where I shall go during the first week." "No schoolboys ever sung the half-sentimental and half-jovial strain of 'dulce domum' with more fervour than we all feel inclined to do. But the whole subject of 'dulce domum,' and the delight of seeing one's friends, is most dangerous, it must infallibly make one very prosy or very boisterous. Oh, the degree to which I long to be once again living quietly with not one single novel object near me! No one can imagine it till he has been whirled round the world during five long years in a ten-gun brig." The following extracts may serve to give an idea of the impressions now crowding on him, as well as of the vigorous delight with which he plunged into scientific work. May 18, 1832, to Henslow:-- "Here [Rio], I first saw a tropical forest in all its sublime grandeur--nothing but the reality can give any idea how wonderful, how magnificent the scene is. If I was to specify any one thing I should give the pre-eminence to the host of parasitical plants. Your engraving is exactly true, but under-rates rather than exaggerates the luxuriance. I never experienced such intense delight. I formerly admired Humboldt, I now almost adore him; he alone gives any notion of the feelings which are raised in the mind on first entering the Tropics. I am now collecting fresh-water and land animals; if what was told me in London is true, viz., that there are no small insects in the collections from the Tropics, I tell Entomologists to look out and have their pens ready for describing. I have taken as minute (if not more so) as in England, Hydropori, Hygroti, Hydrobii, Pselaphi, Staphylini, Curculio, &c. &c. It is exceedingly interesting observing the difference of genera and species from those which I know; it is however much less than I had expected. I am at present red-hot with spiders; they are very interesting, and if I am not mistaken I have already taken some new genera. I shall have a large box to send very soon to Cambridge, and with that I will mention some more natural history particulars." "One great source of perplexity to me is an utter ignorance whether I note the right facts, and whether they are of sufficient importance to interest others. In the one thing collecting I cannot go wrong." "Geology carries the day: it is like the pleasure of gambling. Speculating, on first arriving, what the rocks may be, I often mentally cry out 3 to 1 tertiary against primitive; but the latter have hitherto won all the bets. So much for the grand end of my voyage: in other respects things are equally flourishing. My life, when at sea, is so quiet, that to a person who can employ himself, nothing can be pleasanter; the beauty of the sky and brilliancy of the ocean together make a picture. But when on shore, and wandering in the sublime forests, surrounded by views more gorgeous than even Claude ever imagined, I enjoy a delight which none but those who have experienced it can understand. At our ancient snug breakfasts, at Cambridge, I little thought that the wide Atlantic would ever separate us; but it is a rare privilege that with the body, the feelings and memory are not divided. On the contrary, the pleasantest scenes in my life, many of which have been in Cambridge, rise from the contrast of the present, the more vividly in my imagination. Do you think any diamond beetle will ever give me so much pleasure as our old friend _crux-major_?... It is one of my most constant amusements to draw pictures of the past; and in them I often see you and poor little Fan. Oh, Lord, and then old Dash poor thing! Do you recollect how you all tormented me about his beautiful tail?"--[From a letter to Fox.] To his sister, June 1833:-- "I am quite delighted to find the hide of the Megatherium has given you all some little interest in my employments. These fragments are not, however, by any means the most valuable of the geological relics. I trust and believe that the time spent in this voyage, if thrown away for all other respects, will produce its full worth in Natural History; and it appears to me the doing what _little_ we can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life as one can in any likelihood pursue. It is more the result of such reflections (as I have already said) than much immediate pleasure which now makes me continue the voyage, together with the glorious prospect of the future, when passing the Straits of Magellan, we have in truth the world before us." To Fox, July 1835:-- "I am glad to hear you have some thoughts of beginning Geology. I hope you will; there is so much larger a field for thought than in the other branches of Natural History. I am become a zealous disciple of Mr. Lyell's views, as known in his admirable book. Geologising in South America, I am tempted to carry parts to a greater extent even than he does. Geology is a capital science to begin, as it requires nothing but a little reading, thinking, and hammering. I have a considerable body of notes together; but it is a constant subject of perplexity to me, whether they are of sufficient value for all the time I have spent about them, or whether animals would not have been of more certain value." In the following letter to his sister Susan he gives an account,--adapted to the non-geological mind,--of his South American work:-- Valparaiso, April 23, 1835. MY DEAR SUSAN--I received, a few days since, your letter of November; the three letters which I before mentioned are yet missing, but I do not doubt they will come to life. I returned a week ago from my excursion across the Andes to Mendoza. Since leaving England I have never made so successful a journey; it has, however, been very expensive. I am sure my father would not regret it, if he could know how deeply I have enjoyed it: it was something more than enjoyment; I cannot express the delight which I felt at such a famous winding-up of all my geology in South America. I literally could hardly sleep at nights for thinking over my day's work. The scenery was so new, and so majestic; everything at an elevation of 12,000 feet bears so different an aspect from that in a lower country. I have seen many views more beautiful, but none with so strongly marked a character. To a geologist, also, there are such manifest proofs of excessive violence; the strata of the highest pinnacles are tossed about like the crust of a broken pie. I do not suppose any of you can be much interested in geological details, but I will just mention my principal results:--Besides understanding to a certain extent the description and manner of the force which has elevated this great line of mountains, I can clearly demonstrate that one part of the double line is of an age long posterior to the other. In the more ancient line, which is the true chain of the Andes, I can describe the sort and order of the rocks which compose it. These are chiefly remarkable by containing a bed of gypsum nearly 2000 feet thick--a quantity of this substance I should think unparalleled in the world. What is of much greater consequence, I have procured fossil shells (from an elevation of 12,000 feet). I think an examination of these will give an approximate age to these mountains, as compared to the strata of Europe. In the other line of the Cordilleras there is a strong presumption (in my own mind, conviction) that the enormous mass of mountains, the peaks of which rise to 13,000 and 14,000 feet, are so very modern as to be contemporaneous with the plains of Patagonia (or about with the _upper_ strata of the Isle of Wight). If this result shall be considered as proved,[93] it is a very important fact in the theory of the formation of the world; because, if such wonderful changes have taken place so recently in the crust of the globe, there can be no reason for supposing former epochs of excessive violence.... Another feature in his letters is the surprise and delight with which he hears of his collections and observations being of some use. It seems only to have gradually occurred to him that he would ever be more than a collector of specimens and facts, of which the great men were to make use. And even as to the value of his collections he seems to have had much doubt, for he wrote to Henslow in 1834: "I really began to think that my collections were so poor that you were puzzled what to say; the case is now quite on the opposite tack, for you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow it shall not be spared." Again, to his sister Susan in August, 1836:-- "Both your letters were full of good news; especially the expressions which you tell me Professor Sedgwick[94] used about my collections. I confess they are deeply gratifying--I trust one part at least will turn out true, and that I shall act as I now think--as a man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life. Professor Sedgwick mentioning my name at all gives me hopes that he will assist me with his advice, of which, in my geological questions, I stand much in need." Occasional allusions to slavery show us that his feeling on this subject was at this time as strong as in later life[95]:-- "The Captain does everything in his power to assist me, and we get on very well, but I thank my better fortune he has not made me a renegade to Whig principles. I would not be a Tory, if it was merely on account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian nations--Slavery." "I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place. There is at Rio a man (I know not his title) who has a large salary to prevent (I believe) the landing of slaves; he lives at Botofogo, and yet that was the bay where, during my residence, the greater number of smuggled slaves were landed. Some of the Anti-Slavery people ought to question about his office; it was the subject of conversation at Rio amongst the lower English...." _C. D. to J. S. Henslow._ Sydney [January, 1836]. MY DEAR HENSLOW--This is the last opportunity of communicating with you before that joyful day when I shall reach Cambridge. I have very little to say: but I must write if it is only to express my joy that the last year is concluded, and that the present one, in which the _Beagle_ will return, is gliding onward. We have all been disappointed here in not finding even a single letter; we are, indeed, rather before our expected time, otherwise I dare say, I should have seen your handwriting. I must feed upon the future, and it is beyond bounds delightful to feel the certainty that within eight months I shall be residing once again most quietly in Cambridge. Certainly, I never was intended for a traveller; my thoughts are always rambling over past or future scenes; I cannot enjoy the present happiness for anticipating the future, which is about as foolish as the dog who dropped the real bone for its shadow.... I must return to my old resource and think of the future, but that I may not become more prosy, I will say farewell till the day arrives, when I shall see my Master in Natural History, and can tell him how grateful I feel for his kindness and friendship. Believe me, dear Henslow, ever yours most faithfully. _C. D. to J. S. Henslow._ Shrewsbury [October, 6 1836]. MY DEAR HENSLOW--I am sure you will congratulate me on the delight of once again being home. The _Beagle_ arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached Shrewsbury yesterday morning. I am exceedingly anxious to see you, and as it will be necessary in four or five days to return to London to get my goods and chattels out of the _Beagle_, it appears to me my best plan to pass through Cambridge. I want your advice on many points; indeed I am in the clouds, and neither know what to do or where to go. My chief puzzle is about the geological specimens--who will have the charity to help me in describing their mineralogical nature? Will you be kind enough to write to me one line by _return of post_, saying whether you are now at Cambridge? I am doubtful till I hear from Captain Fitz-Roy whether I shall not be obliged to start before the answer can arrive, but pray try the chance. My dear Henslow, I do long to see you; you have been the kindest friend to me that ever man possessed. I can write no more, for I am giddy with joy and confusion. Farewell for the present, Yours most truly obliged. After his return and settlement in London, he began to realise the value of what he had done, and wrote to Captain Fitz-Roy--"However others may look back to the _Beagle's_ voyage, now that the small disagreeable parts are well-nigh forgotten, I think it far the _most fortunate circumstance in my life_ that the chance afforded by your offer of taking a Naturalist fell on me. I often have the most vivid and delightful pictures of what I saw on board the _Beagle_[96] pass before my eyes. These recollections, and what I learnt on Natural History, I would not exchange for twice ten thousand a year." FOOTNOTES: [89] _Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle_, vol. i. introduction xii. The illustration at the head of the chapter is from vol. ii. of the same work. [90] His other nickname was "The Flycatcher." I have heard my father tell how he overheard the boatswain of the _Beagle_ showing another boatswain over the ship, and pointing out the officers: "That's our first lieutenant; that's our doctor; that's our flycatcher." [91] "There was such a scene here. Wickham (1st Lieutenant) and I were the only two who landed with guns and geological hammers, &c. The birds by myriads were too close to shoot; we then tried stones, but at last, _proh pudor!_ my geological hammer was the instrument of death. We soon loaded the boat with birds and eggs. Whilst we were so engaged, the men in the boat were fairly fighting with the sharks for such magnificent fish as you could not see in the London market. Our boat would have made a fine subject for Snyders, such a medley of game it contained."--From a letter to Herbert. [92] "My mind has been, since leaving England, in a perfect hurricane of delight and astonishment."--_C. D. to Fox_, May 1832, from Botofogo Bay. [93] The importance of these results has been fully recognized by geologists. [94] Sedgwick wrote (November 7, 1835) to Dr. Butler, the head master of Shrewsbury School:--"He is doing admirable work in South America, and has already sent home a collection above all price. It was the best thing in the world for him that he went out on the voyage of discovery. There was some risk of his turning out an idle man, but his character will now be fixed, and if God spares his life he will have a great name among the naturalists of Europe...."--I am indebted to my friend Mr. J. W. Clark, the biographer of Sedgwick, for the above extract. [95] Compare the following passage from a letter (Aug. 25, 1845) addressed to Lyell, who had touched on slavery in his _Travels in North America._ "I was delighted with your letter in which you touch on Slavery; I wish the same feelings had been apparent in your published discussion. But I will not write on this subject, I should perhaps annoy you, and most certainly myself. I have exhaled myself with a paragraph or two in my Journal on the sin of Brazilian slavery; you perhaps will think that it is in answer to you; but such is not the case. I have remarked on nothing which I did not hear on the coast of South America. My few sentences, however, are merely an explosion of feeling. How could you relate so placidly that atrocious sentiment about separating children from their parents; and in the next page speak of being distressed at the whites not having prospered; I assure you the contrast made me exclaim out. But I have broken my intention, and so no more on this odious deadly subject." It is fair to add that the "atrocious sentiments" were not Lyell's but those of a planter. [96] According to the _Japan Weekly Mail_, as quoted in _Nature_, March 8, 1888, the _Beagle_ is in use as a training ship at Yokosuka, in Japan. Part of the old ship is, I am glad to think, in my possession, in the form of a box (which I owe to the kindness of Admiral Mellersh) made out of her main cross-tree. CHAPTER VII. LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. 1836-1842. The period illustrated in the present chapter includes the years between Darwin's return from the voyage of the _Beagle_ and his settling at Down. It is marked by the gradual appearance of that weakness of health which ultimately forced him to leave London and take up his abode for the rest of his life in a quiet country house. There is no evidence of any intention of entering a profession after his return from the voyage, and early in 1840 he wrote to Fitz-Roy: "I have nothing to wish for, excepting stronger health to go on with the subjects to which I have joyfully determined to devote my life." These two conditions--permanent ill-health and a passionate love of scientific work for its own sake--determined thus early in his career, the character of his whole future life. They impelled him to lead a retired life of constant labour, carried on to the utmost limits of his physical power, a life which signally falsified his melancholy prophecy:--"It has been a bitter mortification for me to digest the conclusion that the 'race is for the strong,' and that I shall probably do little more, but be content to admire the strides others make in science." The end of the last chapter saw my father safely arrived at Shrewsbury on October 4, 1836, "after an absence of five years and two days." He wrote to Fox: "You cannot imagine how gloriously delightful my first visit was at home; it was worth the banishment." But it was a pleasure that he could not long enjoy, for in the last days of October he was at Greenwich unpacking specimens from the _Beagle_. As to the destination of the collections he writes, somewhat despondingly, to Henslow:-- "I have not made much progress with the great men. I find, as you told me, that they are all overwhelmed with their own business. Mr. Lyell has entered, in the _most_ good-natured manner, and almost without being asked, into all my plans. He tells me, however, the same story, that I must do all myself. Mr. Owen seems anxious to dissect some of the animals in spirits, and, besides these two, I have scarcely met any one who seems to wish to possess any of my specimens. I must except Dr. Grant, who is willing to examine some of the corallines. I see it is quite unreasonable to hope for a minute that any man will undertake the examination of a whole order. It is clear the collectors so much outnumber the real naturalists that the latter have no time to spare. "I do not even find that the Collections care for receiving the unnamed specimens. The Zoological Museum[97] is nearly full, and upwards of a thousand specimens remain unmounted. I dare say the British Museum would receive them, but I cannot feel, from all I hear, any great respect even for the present state of that establishment. Your plan will be not only the best, but the only one, namely, to come down to Cambridge, arrange and group together the different families, and then wait till people, who are already working in different branches, may want specimens.... "I have forgotten to mention Mr. Lonsdale,[98] who gave me a most cordial reception, and with whom I had much most interesting conversation. If I was not much more inclined for geology than the other branches of Natural History, I am sure Mr. Lyell's and Lonsdale's kindness ought to fix me. You cannot conceive anything more thoroughly good-natured than the heart-and-soul manner in which he put himself in my place and thought what would be best to do." A few days later he writes more cheerfully: "I became acquainted with Mr. Bell,[99] who, to my surprise, expressed a good deal of interest about my crustacea and reptiles, and seems willing to work at them. I also heard that Mr. Broderip would be glad to look over the South American shells, so that things flourish well with me." Again, on November 6:-- "All my affairs, indeed, are most prosperous; I find there are plenty who will undertake the description of whole tribes of animals, of which I know nothing." As to his Geological Collection he was soon able to write: "I [have] disposed of the most important part [of] my collections, by giving all the fossil bones to the College of Surgeons, casts of them will be distributed, and descriptions published. They are very curious and valuable; one head belonged to some gnawing animal, but of the size of a Hippopotamus! Another to an ant-eater of the size of a horse!" My father's specimens included (besides the above-mentioned Toxodon and Scelidotherium) the remains of Mylodon, Glossotherium, another gigantic animal allied to the ant-eater, and Macrauchenia. His discovery of these remains is a matter of interest in itself, but it has a special importance as a point in his own life, his speculation on the extinction of these extraordinary creatures[100] and on their relationship to living forms having formed one of the chief starting-points of his views on the origin of species. This is shown in the following extract from his Pocket Book for this year (1837): "In July opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter), origin of all my views." His affairs being thus so far prosperously managed he was able to put into execution his plan of living at Cambridge, where he settled on December 10th, 1836. "Cambridge," he writes, "yet continues a very pleasant, but not half so merry a place as before. To walk through the courts of Christ's College, and not know an inhabitant of a single room, gave one a feeling half melancholy. The only evil I found in Cambridge was its being too pleasant: there was some agreeable party or another every evening, and one cannot say one is engaged with so much impunity there as in this great city."[101] Early in the spring of 1837 he left Cambridge for London, and a week later he was settled in lodgings at 36 Great Marlborough Street; and except for a "short visit to Shrewsbury" in June, he worked on till September, being almost entirely employed on his _Journal_, of which he wrote (March):-- "In your last letter you urge me to get ready _the_ book. I am now hard at work and give up everything else for it. Our plan is as follows: Capt. Fitz-Roy writes two volumes out of the materials collected during the last voyage under Capt. King to Tierra del Fuego, and during our circumnavigation. I am to have the third volume, in which I intend giving a kind of journal of a naturalist, not following, however, always the order of time, but rather the order of position." A letter to Fox (July) gives an account of the progress of his work:-- "I gave myself a holiday and a visit to Shrewsbury [in June], as I had finished my Journal. I shall now be very busy in filling up gaps and getting it quite ready for the press by the first of August. I shall always feel respect for every one who has written a book, let it be what it may, for I had no idea of the trouble which trying to write common English could cost one. And, alas, there yet remains the worst part of all, correcting the press. As soon as ever that is done I must put my shoulder to the wheel and commence at the Geology. I have read some short papers to the Geological Society, and they were favourably received by the great guns, and this gives me much confidence, and I hope not a very great deal of vanity, though I confess I feel too often like a peacock admiring his tail. I never expected that my Geology would ever have been worth the consideration of such men as Lyell, who has been to me, since my return, a most active friend. My life is a very busy one at present, and I hope may ever remain so; though Heaven knows there are many serious drawbacks to such a life, and chief amongst them is the little time it allows one for seeing one's natural friends. For the last three years, I have been longing and longing to be living at Shrewsbury, and after all now in the course of several months, I see my good dear people at Shrewsbury for a week. Susan and Catherine have, however, been staying with my brother here for some weeks, but they had returned home before my visit." In August he writes to Henslow to announce the success of the scheme for the publication of the _Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle_, through the promise of a grant of £1000 from the Treasury: "I had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.[102] He appointed to see me this morning, and I had a long conversation with him, Mr. Peacock being present. Nothing could be more thoroughly obliging and kind than his whole manner. He made no sort of restriction, but only told me to make the most of the money, which of course I am right willing to do. "I expected rather an awful interview, but I never found anything less so in my life. It will be my fault if I do not make a good work; but I sometimes take an awful fright that I have not materials enough. It will be excessively satisfactory at the end of some two years to find all materials made the most they were capable of." Later in the autumn he wrote to Henslow: "I have not been very well of late, with an uncomfortable palpitation of the heart, and my doctors urge me _strongly_ to knock off all work, and go and live in the country for a few weeks." He accordingly took a holiday of about a month at Shrewsbury and Maer, and paid Fox a visit in the Isle of Wight. It was, I believe, during this visit, at Mr. Wedgwood's house at Maer, that he made his first observations on the work done by earthworms, and late in the autumn he read a paper on the subject at the Geological Society. Here he was already beginning to make his mark. Lyell wrote to Sedgwick (April 21, 1837):-- "Darwin is a glorious addition to any society of geologists, and is working hard and making way both in his book and in our discussions. I really never saw that bore Dr. Mitchell so successfully silenced, or such a bucket of cold water so dexterously poured down his back, as when Darwin answered some impertinent and irrelevant questions about South America. We escaped fifteen minutes of Dr. M.'s vulgar harangue in consequence...." Early in the following year (1838), he was, much against his will, elected Secretary of the Geological Society, an office he held for three years. A chief motive for his hesitation in accepting the post was the condition of his health, the doctors having urged "me to give up entirely all writing and even correcting press for some weeks. Of late anything which flurries me completely knocks me up afterwards, and brings on a violent palpitation of the heart." In the summer of 1838 he started on his expedition to Glen Roy, where he spent "eight good days" over the Parallel Roads. His Essay on this subject was written out during the same summer, and published by the Royal Society.[103] He wrote in his Pocket Book: "September 6 (1838). Finished the paper on 'Glen Roy,' one of the most difficult and instructive tasks I was ever engaged on." It will be remembered that in his _Autobiography_ he speaks of this paper as a failure, of which he was ashamed.[104] _C. D. to Lyell._ [August 9th, 1838.] 36 Great Marlborough Street. MY DEAR LYELL--I did not write to you at Norwich, for I thought I should have more to say, if I waited a few more days. Very many thanks for the present of your _Elements_, which I received (and I believe the _very first_ copy distributed) together with your note. I have read it through every word, and am full of admiration of it, and, as I now see no geologist, I must talk to you about it. There is no pleasure in reading a book if one cannot have a good talk over it; I repeat, I am full of admiration of it, it is as clear as daylight, in fact I felt in many parts some mortification at thinking how geologists have laboured and struggled at proving what seems, as you have put it, so evidently probable. I read with much interest your sketch of the secondary deposits; you have contrived to make it quite "juicy," as we used to say as children of a good story. There was also much new to me, and I have to copy out some fifty notes and references. It must do good, the heretics against common-sense must yield.... By the way, do you recollect my telling you how much I disliked the manner X. referred to his other works, as much as to say, "You must, ought, and shall buy everything I have written." To my mind, you have somehow quite avoided this; your references only seem to say, "I can't tell you all in this work, else I would, so you must go to the _Principles_; and many a one, I trust, you will send there, and make them, like me, adorers of the good science of rock-breaking."[105] You will see I am in a fit of enthusiasm, and good cause I have to be, when I find you have made such infinitely more use of my Journal than I could have anticipated. I will say no more about the book, for it is all praise. I must, however, admire the elaborate honesty with which you quote the words of all living and dead geologists. My Scotch expedition answered brilliantly; my trip in the steam-packet was absolutely pleasant, and I enjoyed the spectacle, wretch that I am, of two ladies, and some small children quite sea-sick, I being well. Moreover, on my return from Glasgow to Liverpool, I triumphed in a similar manner over some full-grown men. I stayed one whole day in Edinburgh, or more truly on Salisbury Craigs; I want to hear some day what you think about that classical ground,--the structure was to me new and rather curious,--that is, if I understand it right. I crossed from Edinburgh in gigs and carts (and carts without springs, as I never shall forget) to Loch Leven. I was disappointed in the scenery, and reached Glen Roy on Saturday evening, one week after leaving Marlborough Street. Here I enjoyed five [?] days of the most beautiful weather with gorgeous sunsets, and all nature looking as happy as I felt. I wandered over the mountains in all directions, and examined that most extraordinary district. I think, without any exceptions, not even the first volcanic island, the first elevated beach, or the passage of the Cordillera, was so interesting to me as this week. It is far the most remarkable area I ever examined. I have fully convinced myself (after some doubting at first) that the shelves are sea-beaches, although I could not find a trace of a shell; and I think I can explain away most, if not all, the difficulties. I found a piece of a road in another valley, not hitherto observed, which is important; and I have some curious facts about erratic blocks, one of which was perched up on a peak 2200 feet above the sea. I am now employed in writing a paper on the subject, which I find very amusing work, excepting that I cannot anyhow condense it into reasonable limits. At some future day I hope to talk over some of the conclusions with you, which the examination of Glen Roy has led me to. Now I have had my talk out, I am much easier, for I can assure you Glen Roy has astonished me. I am living very quietly, and therefore pleasantly, and am crawling on slowly but steadily with my work. I have come to one conclusion, which you will think proves me to be a very sensible man, namely, that whatever you say proves right; and as a proof of this, I am coming into your way of only working about two hours at a spell; I then go out and do my business in the streets, return and set to work again, and thus make two separate days out of one. The new plan answers capitally; after the second half day is finished I go and dine at the Athenæum like a gentleman, or rather like a lord, for I am sure the first evening I sat in that great drawing-room, all on a sofa by myself, I felt just like a duke. I am full of admiration at the Athenæum, one meets so many people there that one likes to see.... I have heard from more than one quarter that quarrelling is expected at Newcastle[106]; I am sorry to hear it. I met old ---- this evening at the Athenæum, and he muttered something about writing to you or some one on the subject; I am however all in the dark. I suppose, however, I shall be illuminated, for I am going to dine with him in a few days, as my inventive powers failed in making any excuse. A friend of mine dined with him the other day, a party of four, and they finished ten bottles of wine--a pleasant prospect for me; but I am determined not even to taste his wine, partly for the fun of seeing his infinite disgust and surprise.... I pity you the infliction of this most unmerciful letter. Pray remember me most kindly to Mrs. Lyell when you arrive at Kinnordy. Tell Mrs. Lyell to read the second series of 'Mr. Slick of Slickville's Sayings.'... He almost beats 'Samivel,' that prince of heroes. Good night, my dear Lyell; you will think I have been drinking some strong drink to write so much nonsense, but I did not even taste Minerva's small beer to-day.... A record of what he wrote during the year 1838 would not give a true index of the most important work that was in progress--the laying of the foundation-stones of what was to be the achievement of his life. This is shown in the following passages from a letter to Lyell (September), and from a letter to Fox, written in June:-- "I wish with all my heart that my Geological book was out. I have every motive to work hard, and will, following your steps, work just that degree of hardness to keep well. I should like my volume to be out before your new edition of the _Principles_ appears. Besides the Coral theory, the volcanic chapters will, I think, contain some new facts. I have lately been sadly tempted to be idle--that is, as far as pure geology is concerned--by the delightful number of new views which have been coming in thickly and steadily--on the classification and affinities and instincts of animals--bearing on the question of species. Note-book after note-book has been filled with facts which begin to group themselves _clearly_ under sub-laws." "I am delighted to hear you are such a good man as not to have forgotten my questions about the crossing of animals. It is my prime hobby, and I really think some day I shall be able to do something in that most intricate subject, species and varieties." In the winter of 1839 (Jan. 29) my father was married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.[107] The house in which they lived for the first few years of their married life, No. 12 Upper Gower Street, was a small common-place London house, with a drawing-room in front, and a small room behind, in which they lived for the sake of quietness. In later years my father used to laugh over the surpassing ugliness of the furniture, carpets, &c., of the Gower Street house. The only redeeming feature was a better garden than most London houses have, a strip as wide as the house, and thirty yards long. Even this small space of dingy grass made their London house more tolerable to its two country-bred inhabitants. Of his life in London he writes to Fox (October 1839): "We are living a life of extreme quietness; Delamere itself, which you describe as so secluded a spot, is, I will answer for it, quite dissipated compared with Gower Street. We have given up all parties, for they agree with neither of us; and if one is quiet in London, there is nothing like its quietness--there is a grandeur about its smoky fogs, and the dull distant sounds of cabs and coaches; in fact you may perceive I am becoming a thorough-paced Cockney, and I glory in the thought that I shall be here for the next six months." The entries of ill health in the Diary increase in number during these years, and as a consequence the holidays become longer and more frequent. The entry under August 1839 is: "Read a little, was much unwell and scandalously idle. I have derived this much good, that _nothing_ is so intolerable as idleness." At the end of 1839 his first child was born, and it was then that he began his observations ultimately published in the _Expression of the Emotions_. His book on this subject, and the short paper published in _Mind_,[108] show how closely he observed his child. He seems to have been surprised at his own feeling for a young baby, for he wrote to Fox (July 1840): "He [_i.e._ the baby] is so charming that I cannot pretend to any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our baby, for I defy anyone to say anything in its praise of which we are not fully conscious.... I had not the smallest conception there was so much in a five-month baby. You will perceive by this that I have a fine degree of paternal fervour." In 1841 some improvement in his health became apparent; he wrote in September:-- "I have steadily been gaining ground, and really believe now I shall some day be quite strong. I write daily for a couple of hours on my Coral volume, and take a little walk or ride every day. I grow very tired in the evenings, and am not able to go out at that time, or hardly to receive my nearest relations; but my life ceases to be burdensome now that I can do something." The manuscript of _Coral Reefs_ was at last sent to the printers in January 1842, and the last proof corrected in May. He thus writes of the work in his diary:-- "I commenced this work three years and seven months ago. Out of this period about twenty months (besides work during _Beagle's_ voyage) has been spent on it, and besides it, I have only compiled the Bird part of Zoology; Appendix to Journal, paper on Boulders, and corrected papers on Glen Roy and earthquakes, reading on species, and rest all lost by illness." The latter part of this year belongs to the period including the settlement at Down, and is therefore dealt with in another chapter. FOOTNOTES: [97] The Museum of the Zoological Society, then at 33 Bruton Street. The collection was some years later broken up and dispersed. [98] William Lonsdale, b. 1794, d. 1871, was originally in the army, and served at the battles of Salamanca and Waterloo. After the war he left the service and gave himself up to science. He acted as assistant-secretary to the Geological Society from 1829-42, when he resigned, owing to ill-health. [99] T. Bell, F.R.S., formerly Professor of Zoology in King's College, London, and sometime secretary to the Royal Society. He afterwards described the reptiles for the _Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle_. [100] I have often heard him speak of the despair with which he had to break off the projecting extremity of a huge, partly excavated bone, when the boat waiting for him would wait no longer. [101] A trifling record of my father's presence in Cambridge occurs in the book kept in Christ's College Combination-room, in which fines and bets are recorded, the earlier entries giving a curious impression of the after-dinner frame of mind of the Fellows. The bets are not allowed to be made in money, but are, like the fines, paid in wine. The bet which my father made and lost is thus recorded:-- "_Feb. 23, 1837._--Mr. Darwin _v._ Mr. Baines, that the combination-room measures from the ceiling to the floor more than _x_ feet. "1 Bottle paid same day." The bets are usually recorded in such a way as not to preclude future speculation on a subject which has proved itself capable of supplying a discussion (and a bottle) to the Room, hence the _x_ in the above quotation. [102] Spring Rice. [103] _Phil. Trans._, 1839, pp. 39-82. [104] Sir Archibald Geikie has been so good as to allow me to quote a passage from a letter addressed to me (Nov. 19, 1884):--"Had the idea of transient barriers of glacier-ice occurred to him, he would have found the difficulties vanish from the lake-theory which he opposed, and he would not have been unconsciously led to minimise the altogether overwhelming objections to the supposition that the terraces are of marine origin." It may be added that the idea of the barriers being formed by glaciers could hardly have occurred to him, considering the state of knowledge at the time, and bearing in mind his want of opportunities of observing glacial action on a large scale. [105] In a letter of Sept. 13 he wrote:--"It will be a curious point to geologists hereafter to note how long a man's name will support a theory so completely exposed as that of De Beaumont has been by you; you say you 'begin to hope that the great principles there insisted on will stand the test of time.' _Begin to hope_: why, the _possibility_ of a doubt has never crossed my mind for many a day. This may be very unphilosophical, but my geological salvation is staked on it." [106] At the meeting of the British Association. [107] Daughter of Josiah Wedgwood of Maer, and grand-daughter of the founder of the Etruria Pottery Works. [108] July 1877. CHAPTER VIII. LIFE AT DOWN. 1842-1854. "My life goes on like clockwork, and I am fixed on the spot where I shall end it." Letter to Captain Fitz-Roy, October, 1846. Certain letters which, chronologically considered, belong to the period 1845-54 have been utilised in a later chapter where the growth of the _Origin of Species_ is described. In the present chapter we only get occasional hints of the growth of my father's views, and we may suppose ourselves to be seeing his life, as it might have appeared to those who had no knowledge of the quiet development of his theory of evolution during this period. On Sept. 14, 1842, my father left London with his family and settled at Down.[109] In the Autobiographical chapter, his motives for moving into the country are briefly given. He speaks of the attendance at scientific societies and ordinary social duties as suiting his health so "badly that we resolved to live in the country, which we both preferred and have never repented of." His intention of keeping up with scientific life in London is expressed in a letter to Fox (Dec., 1842):-- "I hope by going up to town for a night every fortnight or three weeks, to keep up my communication with scientific men and my own zeal, and so not to turn into a complete Kentish hog." Visits to London of this kind were kept up for some years at the cost of much exertion on his part. I have often heard him speak of the wearisome drives of ten miles to or from Croydon or Sydenham--the nearest stations--with an old gardener acting as coachman, who drove with great caution and slowness up and down the many hills. In later years, regular scientific intercourse with London became, as before mentioned, an impossibility. The choice of Down was rather the result of despair than of actual preference: my father and mother were weary of house-hunting, and the attractive points about the place thus seemed to them to counterbalance its somewhat more obvious faults. It had at least one desideratum, namely, quietness. Indeed it would have been difficult to find a more retired place so near to London. In 1842 a coach drive of some twenty miles was the usual means of access to Down; and even now that railways have crept closer to it, it is singularly out of the world, with nothing to suggest the neighbourhood of London, unless it be the dull haze of smoke that sometimes clouds the sky. The village stands in an angle between two of the larger high-roads of the country, one leading to Tunbridge and the other to Westerham and Edenbridge. It is cut off from the Weald by a line of steep chalk hills on the south, and an abrupt hill, now smoothed down by a cutting and embankment, must formerly have been something of a barrier against encroachments from the side of London. In such a situation, a village, communicating with the main lines of traffic, only by stony tortuous lanes, may well have preserved its retired character. Nor is it hard to believe in the smugglers and their strings of pack-horses making their way up from the lawless old villages of the Weald, of which the memory still existed when my father settled in Down. The village stands on solitary upland country, 500 to 600 feet above the sea--a country with little natural beauty, but possessing a certain charm in the shaws, or straggling strips of wood, capping the chalky banks and looking down upon the quiet ploughed lands of the valleys. The village, of three or four hundred inhabitants, consists of three small streets of cottages meeting in front of the little flint-built church. It is a place where new-comers are seldom seen, and the names occurring far back in the old church registers are still known in the village. The smock-frock is not yet quite extinct, though chiefly used as a ceremonial dress by the "bearers" at funerals; but as a boy I remember the purple or green smocks of the men at church. The house stands a quarter of a mile from the village, and is built, like so many houses of the last century, as near as possible to the road--a narrow lane winding away to the Westerham high-road. In 1842, it was dull and unattractive enough: a square brick building of three storeys, covered with shabby whitewash, and hanging tiles. The garden had none of the shrubberies or walls that now give shelter; it was overlooked from the lane, and was open, bleak, and desolate. One of my father's first undertakings was to lower the lane by about two feet, and to build a flint wall along that part of it which bordered the garden. The earth thus excavated was used in making banks and mounds round the lawn: these were planted with evergreens, which now give to the garden its retired and sheltered character. The house was made to look neater by being covered with stucco, but the chief improvement effected was the building of a large bow extending up through three storeys. This bow became covered with a tangle of creepers, and pleasantly varied the south side of the house. The drawing-room, with its verandah opening into the garden, as well as the study in which my father worked during the later years of his life, were added at subsequent dates. Eighteen acres of land were sold with the house, of which twelve acres on the south side of the house form a pleasant field, scattered with fair-sized oaks and ashes. From this field a strip was cut off and converted into a kitchen garden, in which the experimental plot of ground was situated, and where the greenhouses were ultimately put up. During the whole of 1843 he was occupied with geological work, the result of which was published in the spring of the following year. It was entitled _Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, together with some brief notices on the geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope_; it formed the second part of the _Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle_, published "with the Approval of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury." The volume on _Coral Reefs_ forms Part I. of the series, and was published, as we have seen, in 1842. For the sake of the non-geological reader, I may here quote Sir A. Geikie's words[110] on these two volumes--which were up to this time my father's chief geological works. Speaking of the _Coral Reefs_, he says (p. 17): "This well-known treatise, the most original of all its author's geological memoirs, has become one of the classics of geological literature. The origin of those remarkable rings of coral-rock in mid-ocean has given rise to much speculation, but no satisfactory solution of the problem had been proposed. After visiting many of them, and examining also coral reefs that fringe islands and continents, he offered a theory which for simplicity and grandeur, strikes every reader with astonishment. It is pleasant, after the lapse of many years, to recall the delight with which one first read the _Coral Reefs_, how one watched the facts being marshalled into their places, nothing being ignored or passed lightly over; and how, step by step, one was led to the grand conclusion of wide oceanic subsidence. No more admirable example of scientific method was ever given to the world, and even if he had written nothing else, the treatise alone would have placed Darwin in the very front of investigators of nature." It is interesting to see in the following extract from one of Lyell's letters[111] how warmly and readily he embraced the theory. The extract also gives incidentally some idea of the theory itself. "I am very full of Darwin's new theory of Coral Islands, and have urged Whewell to make him read it at our next meeting. I must give up my volcanic crater theory for ever, though it cost me a pang at first, for it accounted for so much, the annular form, the central lagoon, the sudden rising of an isolated mountain in a deep sea; all went so well with the notion of submerged, crateriform, and conical volcanoes, ... and then the fact that in the South Pacific we had scarcely any rocks in the regions of coral islands, save two kinds, coral limestone and volcanic! Yet in spite of all this, the whole theory is knocked on the head, and the annular shape and central lagoon have nothing to do with volcanoes, nor even with a crateriform bottom. Perhaps Darwin told you when at the Cape what he considers the true cause? Let any mountain be submerged gradually, and coral grow in the sea in which it is sinking, and there will be a ring of coral, and finally only a lagoon in the centre.... Coral islands are the last efforts of drowning continents to lift their heads above water. Regions of elevation and subsidence in the ocean may be traced by the state of the coral reefs." The second part of the _Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle_, _i.e._ the volume on Volcanic Islands, which specially concerns us now, cannot be better described than by again quoting from Sir A. Geikie (p. 18):-- "Full of detailed observations, this work still remains the best authority on the general geological structure of most of the regions it describes. At the time it was written the 'crater of elevation theory,' though opposed by Constant Prévost, Scrope, and Lyell, was generally accepted, at least on the Continent. Darwin, however, could not receive it as a valid explanation of the facts; and though he did not share the view of its chief opponents, but ventured to propose a hypothesis of his own, the observations impartially made and described by him in this volume must be regarded as having contributed towards the final solution of the difficulty." Geikie continues (p. 21): "He is one of the earliest writers to recognize the magnitude of the denudation to which even recent geological accumulations have been subjected. One of the most impressive lessons to be learnt from his account of 'Volcanic Islands' is the prodigious extent to which they have been denuded.... He was disposed to attribute more of this work to the sea than most geologists would now admit; but he lived himself to modify his original views, and on this subject his latest utterances are quite abreast of the time." An extract from a letter of my father's to Lyell shows his estimate of his own work. "You have pleased me much by saying that you intend looking through my _Volcanic Islands_: it cost me eighteen months!!! and I have heard of very few who have read it.[112] Now I shall feel, whatever little (and little it is) there is confirmatory of old work, or new, will work its effect and not be lost." The second edition of the _Journal of Researches_[113] was completed in 1845. It was published by Mr. Murray in the _Colonial and Home Library_, and in this more accessible form soon had a large sale. _C. D. to Lyell._ Down [July, 1845]. MY DEAR LYELL--I send you the first part[114] of the new edition, which I so entirely owe to you. You will see that I have ventured to dedicate it to you, and I trust that this cannot be disagreeable. I have long wished, not so much for your sake, as for my own feelings of honesty, to acknowledge more plainly than by mere reference, how much I geologically owe you. Those authors, however, who, like you, educate people's minds as well as teach them special facts, can never, I should think, have full justice done them except by posterity, for the mind thus insensibly improved can hardly perceive its own upward ascent. I had intended putting in the present acknowledgment in the third part of my Geology, but its sale is so exceedingly small that I should not have had the satisfaction of thinking that as far as lay in my power I had owned, though imperfectly, my debt. Pray do not think that I am so silly, as to suppose that my dedication can any ways gratify you, except so far as I trust you will receive it, as a most sincere mark of my gratitude and friendship. I think I have improved this edition, especially the second part, which I have just finished. I have added a good deal about the Fuegians, and cut down into half the mercilessly long discussion on climate and glaciers, &c. I do not recollect anything added to the first part, long enough to call your attention to; there is a page of description of a very curious breed of oxen in Banda Oriental. I should like you to read the few last pages; there is a little discussion on extinction, which will not perhaps strike you as new, though it has so struck me, and has placed in my mind all the difficulties with respect to the causes of extinction, in the same class with other difficulties which are generally quite overlooked and undervalued by naturalists; I ought, however, to have made my discussion longer and shown by facts, as I easily could, how steadily every species must be checked in its numbers. A pleasant notice of the _Journal_ occurs in a letter from Humboldt to Mrs. Austin, dated June 7, 1844[115]:-- "Alas! you have got some one in England whom you do not read--young Darwin, who went with the expedition to the Straits of Magellan. He has succeeded far better than myself with the subject I took up. There are admirable descriptions of tropical nature in his journal, which you do not read because the author is a zoologist, which you imagine to be synonymous with bore. Mr. Darwin has another merit, a very rare one in your country--he has praised me." _October 1846 to October 1854._ The time between October 1846, and October 1854, was practically given up to working at the Cirripedia (Barnacles); the results were published in two volumes by the Ray Society in 1851 and 1854. His volumes on the Fossil Cirripedes were published by the Palæontographical Society in 1851 and 1854. Writing to Sir J. D. Hooker in 1845, my father says: "I hope this next summer to finish my South American Geology,[116] then to get out a little Zoology, and hurrah for my species work...." This passage serves to show that he had at this time no intention of making an exhaustive study of the Cirripedes. Indeed it would seem that his original intention was, as I learn from Sir J. D. Hooker, merely to work out one special problem. This is quite in keeping with the following passage in the _Autobiography_: "When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, which burrowed into the shells of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole reception.... To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms; and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group." In later years he seems to have felt some doubt as to the value of these eight years of work--for instance when he wrote in his _Autobiography_--"My work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the _Origin of Species_ the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time." Yet I learn from Sir J. D. Hooker that he certainly recognised at the time its value to himself as systematic training. Sir Joseph writes to me: "Your father recognised three stages in his career as a biologist: the mere collector at Cambridge; the collector and observer in the _Beagle_, and for some years afterwards; and the trained naturalist after, and only after the Cirripede work. That he was a thinker all along is true enough, and there is a vast deal in his writings previous to the Cirripedes that a trained naturalist could but emulate.... He often alluded to it as a valued discipline, and added that even the 'hateful' work of digging out synonyms, and of describing, not only improved his methods but opened his eyes to the difficulties and merits of the works of the dullest of cataloguers. One result was that he would never allow a depreciatory remark to pass unchallenged on the poorest class of scientific workers, provided that their work was honest, and good of its kind. I have always regarded it as one of the finest traits of his character,--this generous appreciation of the hod-men of science, and of their labours ... and it was monographing the Barnacles that brought it about." Mr. Huxley allows me to quote his opinion as to the value of the eight years given to the Cirripedes:-- "In my opinion your sagacious father never did a wiser thing than when he devoted himself to the years of patient toil which the Cirripede-book cost him. "Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological science, and it has always struck me as a remarkable instance of his scientific insight, that he saw the necessity of giving himself such training, and of his courage, that he did not shirk the labour of obtaining it. "The great danger which besets all men of large speculative faculty, is the temptation to deal with the accepted statements of fact in natural science, as if they were not only correct, but exhaustive; as if they might be dealt with deductively, in the same way as propositions in Euclid may be dealt with. In reality, every such statement, however true it may be, is true only relatively to the means of observation and the point of view of those who have enunciated it. So far it may be depended upon. But whether it will bear every speculative conclusion that may be logically deduced from it, is quite another question. "Your father was building a vast superstructure upon the foundations furnished by the recognised facts of geological and biological science. In Physical Geography, in Geology proper, in Geographical Distribution, and in Palæontology, he had acquired an extensive practical training during the voyage of the _Beagle_. He knew of his own knowledge the way in which the raw materials of these branches of science are acquired, and was therefore a most competent judge of the speculative strain they would bear. That which he needed, after his return to England, was a corresponding acquaintance with Anatomy and Development, and their relation to Taxonomy--and he acquired this by his Cirripede work." Though he became excessively weary of the work before the end of the eight years, he had much keen enjoyment in the course of it. Thus he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (1847?):--"As you say, there is an extraordinary pleasure in pure observation; not but what I suspect the pleasure in this case is rather derived from comparisons forming in one's mind with allied structures. After having been so long employed in writing my old geological observations, it is delightful to use one's eyes and fingers again." It was, in fact, a return to the work which occupied so much of his time when at sea during his voyage. Most of his work was done with the simple dissecting microscope--and it was the need which he found for higher powers that induced him, in 1846, to buy a compound microscope. He wrote to Hooker:--"When I was drawing with L., I was so delighted with the appearance of the objects, especially with their perspective, as seen through the weak powers of a good compound microscope, that I am going to order one; indeed, I often have structures in which the 1/30 is not power enough." During part of the time covered by the present chapter, my father suffered perhaps more from ill-health than at any other period of his life. He felt severely the depressing influence of these long years of illness; thus as early as 1840 he wrote to Fox: "I am grown a dull, old, spiritless dog to what I used to be. One gets stupider as one grows older I think." It is not wonderful that he should so have written, it is rather to be wondered at that his spirit withstood so great and constant a strain. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker in 1845: "You are very kind in your inquiries about my health; I have nothing to say about it, being always much the same, some days better and some worse. I believe I have not had one whole day, or rather night, without my stomach having been greatly disordered, during the last three years, and most days great prostration of strength: thank you for your kindness; many of my friends, I believe, think me a hypochondriac." During the whole of the period now under consideration, he was in constant correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. The following characteristic letter on Sigillaria (a gigantic fossil plant found in the Coal Measures) was afterwards characterised by himself as not being "reasoning, or even speculation, but simply as mental rioting." [Down, 1847?] " ... I am delighted to hear that Brongniart thought Sigillaria aquatic, and that Binney considers coal a sort of submarine peat. I would bet 5 to 1 that in twenty years this will be generally admitted;[117] and I do not care for whatever the botanical difficulties or impossibilities may be. If I could but persuade myself that Sigillaria and Co. had a good range of depth, _i.e._ could live from 5 to 10 fathoms under water, all difficulties of nearly all kinds would be removed (for the simple fact of muddy ordinary shallow sea implies proximity of land). [N.B.--I am chuckling to think how you are sneering all this time.] It is not much of a difficulty, there not being shells with the coal, considering how unfavourable deep mud is for most Mollusca, and that shells would probably decay from the humic acid, as seems to take place in peat and in the _black_ moulds (as Lyell tells me) of the Mississippi. So coal question settled--Q. E. D. Sneer away!" The two following extracts give the continuation and conclusion of the coal battle. "By the way, as submarine coal made you so wrath, I thought I would experimentise on Falconer and Bunbury[118] together, and it made [them] even more savage; 'such infernal nonsense ought to be thrashed out of me.' Bunbury was more polite and contemptuous. So I now know how to stir up and show off any Botanist. I wonder whether Zoologists and Geologists have got their tender points; I wish I could find out." "I cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note. Pray do not think that I was annoyed by your letter: I perceived that you had been thinking with animation, and accordingly expressed yourself strongly, and so I understood it. Forfend me from a man who weighs every expression with Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your noble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk with you and hear your ultimatum." He also corresponded with the late Hugh Strickland,--a well-known ornithologist, on the need of reform in the principle of nomenclature. The following extract (1849) gives an idea of my father's view:-- "I feel sure as long as species-mongers have their vanity tickled by seeing their own names appended to a species, because they miserably described it in two or three lines, we shall have the same _vast_ amount of bad work as at present, and which is enough to dishearten any man who is willing to work out any branch with care and time. I find every genus of Cirripedia has half-a-dozen names, and not one careful description of any one species in any one genus. I do not believe that this would have been the case if each man knew that the memory of his own name depended on his doing his work well, and not upon merely appending a name with a few wretched lines indicating only a few prominent external characters." In 1848 Dr. R. W. Darwin died, and Charles Darwin wrote to Hooker, from Malvern:-- "On the 13th of November, my poor dear father died, and no one who did not know him would believe that a man above eighty-three years old could have retained so tender and affectionate a disposition, with all his sagacity unclouded to the last. I was at the time so unwell, that I was unable to travel, which added to my misery. "All this winter I have been bad enough ... and my nervous system began to be affected, so that my hands trembled, and head was often swimming. I was not able to do anything one day out of three, and was altogether too dispirited to write to you, or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh. Having heard, accidentally, of two persons who had received much benefit from the water-cure, I got Dr. Gully's book, and made further inquiries, and at last started here, with wife, children, and all our servants. We have taken a house for two months, and have been here a fortnight. I am already a little stronger.... Dr. Gully feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most certainly the regular doctors could not.... I feel certain that the water-cure is no quackery. "How I shall enjoy getting back to Down with renovated health, if such is to be my good fortune, and resuming the beloved Barnacles. Now I hope that you will forgive me for my negligence in not having sooner answered your letter. I was uncommonly interested by the sketch you give of your intended grand expedition, from which I suppose you will soon be returning. How earnestly I hope that it may prove in every way successful...." _C. D. to W. D. Fox_. [March 7, 1852.] Our long silence occurred to me a few weeks since, and I had then thought of writing, but was idle. I congratulate and condole with you on your _tenth_ child; but please to observe when I have a tenth, send only condolences to me. We have now seven children, all well, thank God, as well as their mother; of these seven, five are boys; and my father used to say that it was certain that a boy gave as much trouble as three girls; so that _bonâ fide_ we have seventeen children. It makes me sick whenever I think of professions; all seem hopelessly bad, and as yet I cannot see a ray of light. I should very much like to talk over this (by the way, my three bugbears are Californian and Australian gold, beggaring me by making my money on mortgage worth nothing; the French coming by the Westerham and Sevenoaks roads, and therefore enclosing Down; and thirdly, professions for my boys), and I should like to talk about education, on which you ask me what we are doing. No one can more truly despise the old stereotyped stupid classical education than I do; but yet I have not had courage to break through the trammels. After many doubts we have just sent our eldest boy to Rugby, where for his age he has been very well placed.... I honour, admire, and envy you for educating your boys at home. What on earth shall you do with your boys? Very many thanks for your most kind and large invitation to Delamere, but I fear we can hardly compass it. I dread going anywhere, on account of my stomach so easily failing under any excitement. I rarely even now go to London, not that I am at all worse, perhaps rather better, and lead a very comfortable life with my three hours of daily work, but it is the life of a hermit. My nights are _always_ bad, and that stops my becoming vigorous. You ask about water-cure. I take at intervals of two or three months, five or six weeks of _moderately_ severe treatment, and always with good effect. Do you come here, I pray and beg whenever you can find time; you cannot tell how much pleasure it would give me and E. What pleasant times we had in drinking coffee in your rooms at Christ's College, and think of the glories of Crux-major.[119] Ah, in those days there were no professions for sons, no ill-health to fear for them, no Californian gold, no French invasions. How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children. My dread is hereditary ill-health. Even death is better for them. My dear Fox, your sincere friend. P.S.--Susan[120] has lately been working in a way which I think truly heroic about the scandalous violation of the Act against children climbing chimneys. We have set up a little Society in Shrewsbury to prosecute those who break the law. It is all Susan's doing. She has had very nice letters from Lord Shaftesbury and the Duke of Sutherland, but the brutal Shropshire squires are as hard as stones to move. The Act out of London seems most commonly violated. It makes one shudder to fancy one of one's own children at seven years old being forced up a chimney--to say nothing of the consequent loathsome disease and ulcerated limbs, and utter moral degradation. If you think strongly on this subject, do make some enquiries; add to your many good works, this other one, and try to stir up the magistrates.... The following letter refers to the Royal Medal, which was awarded to him in November, 1853: _C. D. to J. D. Hooker_. Down [November 1853]. MY DEAR HOOKER--Amongst my letters received this morning, I opened first one from Colonel Sabine; the contents certainly surprised me very much, but, though the letter was a _very kind one_, somehow, I cared very little indeed for the announcement it contained. I then opened yours, and such is the effect of warmth, friendship, and kindness from one that is loved, that the very same fact, told as you told it, made me glow with pleasure till my very heart throbbed. Believe me, I shall not soon forget the pleasure of your letter. Such hearty, affectionate sympathy is worth more than all the medals that ever were or will be coined. Again, my dear Hooker, I thank you. I hope Lindley[121] will never hear that he was a competitor against me; for really it is almost _ridiculous_ (of course you would never repeat that I said this, for it would be thought by others, though not, I believe by you, to be affectation) his not having the medal long before me; I must feel _sure_ that you did quite right to propose him; and what a good, dear, kind fellow you are, nevertheless, to rejoice in this honour being bestowed on me. What _pleasure_ I have felt on the occasion, I owe almost entirely to you.[122] Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately. The following series of extracts, must, for want of space, serve as a sketch of his feeling with regard to his seven years' work at Barnacles[123]:-- _September 1849._--"It makes me groan to think that probably I shall never again have the exquisite pleasure of making out some new district, of evolving geological light out of some troubled dark region. So I must make the best of my Cirripedia...." _October 1849._--"I have of late been at work at mere species describing, which is much more difficult than I expected, and has much the same sort of interest as a puzzle has; but I confess I often feel wearied with the work, and cannot help sometimes asking myself what is the good of spending a week or fortnight in ascertaining that certain just perceptible differences blend together and constitute varieties and not species. As long as I am on anatomy I never feel myself in that disgusting, horrid, _cui bono_, inquiring, humour. What miserable work, again, it is searching for priority of names. I have just finished two species, which possess seven generic, and twenty-four specific names! My chief comfort is, that the work must be sometime done, and I may as well do it, as any one else." _October 1852._--"I am at work at the second volume of the Cirripedia, of which creatures I am wonderfully tired. I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before, not even a sailor in a slow-sailing ship. My first volume is out; the only part worth looking at is on the sexes of Ibla and Scalpellum. I hope by next summer to have done with my tedious work." _July 1853._--"I am _extremely_ glad to hear that you approved of my cirripedial volume. I have spent an almost ridiculous amount of labour on the subject, and certainly would never have undertaken it had I foreseen what a job it was." In September, 1854, his Cirripede work was practically finished, and he wrote to Sir J. Hooker: "I have been frittering away my time for the last several weeks in a wearisome manner, partly idleness, and odds and ends, find sending ten thousand Barnacles[124] out of the house all over the world. But I shall now in a day or two begin to look over my old notes on species. What a deal I shall have to discuss with you; I shall have to look sharp that I do not 'progress' into one of the greatest bores in life, to the few like you with lots of knowledge." FOOTNOTES: [109] I must not omit to mention a member of the household who accompanied him. This was his butler, Joseph Parslow, who remained in the family, a valued friend and servant, for forty years, and became, as Sir Joseph Hooker once remarked to me, "an integral part of the family, and felt to be such by all visitors at the house." [110] Charles Darwin, _Nature_ Series, 1882. [111] To Sir John Herschel, May 24, 1837. _Life of Sir Charles Lyell_, vol. ii. p. 12. [112] He wrote to Herbert:--"I have long discovered that geologists never read each other's works, and that the only object in writing a book is a proof of earnestness, and that you do not form your opinions without undergoing labour of some kind. Geology is at present very oral, and what I here say is to a great extent quite true." And to Fitz-Roy, on the same subject, he wrote: "I have sent my _South American Geology_ to Dover Street, and you will get it, no doubt, in the course of time. You do not know what you threaten when you propose to read it--it is purely geological. I said to my brother, 'You will of course read it,' and his answer was, 'Upon my life, I would sooner even buy it.'" [113] The first edition was published in 1839, as vol. iii. of the _Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle.'_ [114] No doubt proof-sheets. [115] _Three Generations of Englishwomen_, by Janet Ross (1888), vol. i. p. 195. [116] This refers to the third and last of his geological books, _Geological Observation on South America_, which was published in 1846. A sentence from a letter of Dec. 11, 1860, may be quoted here--"David Forbes has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as I value praise for accurate observation far higher than for any other quality, forgive (if you can) the _insufferable_ vanity of my copying the last sentence in his note: 'I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without exception, one of the finest specimens of Geological inquiry.' I feel inclined to strut like a turkey-cock!" [117] An unfulfilled prophecy. [118] The late Sir C. Bunbury, well known as a palæobotanist. [119] The beetle Panagæus crux-major. [120] His sister. [121] John Lindley (b. 1799, d. 1865) was the son of a nurseryman near Norwich, through whose failure in business he was thrown at the age of twenty on his own resources. He was befriended by Sir W. Hooker, and employed as assistant librarian by Sir J. Banks. He seems to have had enormous capacity for work, and is said to have translated Richard's _Analyse du Fruit_ at one sitting of two days and three nights. He became Assistant-Secretary to the Horticultural Society, and in 1829 was appointed Professor of Botany at University College, a post which he held for upwards of thirty years. His writings are numerous; the best known being perhaps his _Vegetable Kingdom_, published in 1846. [122] Shortly afterwards he received a fresh mark of esteem from his warm-hearted friend: "Hooker's book (_Himalayan Journal_) is out, and _most beautifully_ got up. He has honoured me beyond measure by dedicating it to me!" [123] In 1860 he wrote to Lyell: "Is not Krohn a good fellow? I have long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and has detected two or three gigantic blunders, about which, I thank Heaven, I spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley failed. It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is so wrong, and not the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic blunders, and why I say all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at all, pointed out my errors with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness." There are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement Glands, and the other on the development of Cirripedes, _Weigmann's Archiv._ xxv. and xxvi. See _Autobiography_, p. 39, where my father remarks, "I blundered dreadfully about the cement glands." [124] The duplicate type-specimens of my father's Cirripedes are in the Liverpool Free Public Museum, as I learn from the Rev. H. H. Higgins. CHAPTER IX. THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' To give an account of the development of the chief work of my father's life--the _Origin of Species_, it will be necessary to return to an earlier date, and to weave into the story letters and other material, purposely omitted from the chapters dealing with the voyage and with his life at Down. To be able to estimate the greatness of the work, we must know something of the state of knowledge on the species question at the time when the germs of the Darwinian theory were forming in my father's mind. For the brief sketch which I can here insert, I am largely indebted to vol. ii. chapter v. of the _Life and Letters_--a discussion on the _Reception of the Origin of Species_ which Mr. Huxley "was good enough to write for me, also to the masterly obituary essay on my father, which the same writer contributed to the Proceedings of the Royal Society."[125] Mr. Huxley has well said[126]: "To any one who studies the signs of the times, the emergence of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped, forgotten things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century." In the autobiographical chapter, my father has given an account of his share in this great work: the present chapter does little more than expand that story. Two questions naturally occur to one: (1)--When and how did Darwin become convinced that species are mutable? How (that is to say) did he begin to believe in evolution. And (2)--When and how did he conceive the manner in which species are modified; when did he begin to believe in Natural Selection? The first question is the more difficult of the two to answer. He has said in the _Autobiography_ (p. 39) that certain facts observed by him in South America seemed to be explicable only on the "supposition that species gradually become modified." He goes on to say that the subject "haunted him"; and I think it is especially worthy of note that this "haunting,"--this unsatisfied dwelling on the subject was connected with the desire to explain _how_ species can be modified. It was characteristic of him to feel, as he did, that it was "almost useless" to endeavour to prove the general truth of evolution, unless the cause of change could be discovered. I think that throughout his life the questions 1 and 2 were intimately,--perhaps unduly so, connected in his mind. It will be shown, however, that after the publication of the _Origin_, when his views were being weighed in the balance of scientific opinion, it was to the acceptance of Evolution not of Natural Selection that he attached importance. An interesting letter (Feb. 24, 1877) to Dr. Otto Zacharias,[127] gives the same impression as the _Autobiography_:-- "When I was on board the _Beagle_ I believed in the permanence of species, but as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836, I immediately began to prepare my Journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species, so that in July, 1837, I opened a note-book to record any facts which might bear on the question. But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed." Two years bring us to 1839, at which date the idea of natural selection had already occurred to him--a fact which agrees with what has been said above. How far the idea that evolution is conceivable came to him from earlier writers it is not possible to say. He has recorded in the _Autobiography_ (p. 38) the "silent astonishment with which, about the year 1825, he heard Grant expound the Lamarckian philosophy." He goes on:-- "I had previously read the _Zoonomia_ of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me. Nevertheless, it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised, may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my _Origin of Species_. At this time I admired greatly the _Zoonomia_; but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given." Mr. Huxley has well said (Obituary Notice, p. ii.): "Erasmus Darwin, was in fact an anticipator of Lamarck, and not of Charles Darwin; there is no trace in his works of the conception by the addition of which his grandson metamorphosed the theory of evolution as applied to living things, and gave it a new foundation." On the whole it seems to me that the effect on his mind of the earlier evolutionists was inappreciable, and as far as concerns the history of the _Origin of the Species_, it is of no particular importance, because, as before said, evolution made no progress in his mind until the cause of modification was conceivable. I think Mr. Huxley is right in saying[128] that "it is hardly too much to say that Darwin's greatest work is the outcome of the unflinching application to biology of the leading idea, and the method applied in the _Principles_ to Geology." Mr. Huxley has elsewhere[129] admirably expressed the bearing of Lyell's work in this connection:-- "I cannot but believe that Lyell, for others, as for myself, was the chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin. For consistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the organic as in the inorganic world. The origin of a new species by other than ordinary agencies would be a vastly greater 'catastrophe' than any of those which Lyell successfully eliminated from sober geological speculation.... "Lyell,[130] with perfect right, claims this position for himself. He speaks of having 'advocated a law of continuity even in the organic world, so far as possible without adopting Lamarck's theory of transmutation.... "'But while I taught,' Lyell goes on, 'that as often as certain forms of animals and plants disappeared, for reasons quite intelligible to us, others took their place by virtue of a causation which was beyond our comprehension; it remained for Darwin to accumulate proof that there is no break between the incoming and the outgoing species, that they are the work of evolution, and not of special creation.... I had certainly prepared the way in this country, in six editions of my work before the _Vestiges of Creation_ appeared in 1842 [1844], for the reception of Darwin's gradual and insensible evolution of species.'" Mr. Huxley continues:-- "If one reads any of the earlier editions of the _Principles_ carefully (especially by the light of the interesting series of letters recently published by Sir Charles Lyell's biographer), it is easy to see that, with all his energetic opposition to Lamarck, on the one hand, and to the ideal quasi-progressionism of Agassiz, on the other, Lyell, in his own mind, was strongly disposed to account for the origination of all past and present species of living things by natural causes. But he would have liked, at the same time, to keep the name of creation for a natural process which he imagined to be incomprehensible." The passage above given refers to the influence of Lyell in preparing men's minds for belief in the _Origin_, but I cannot doubt that it "smoothed the way" for the author of that work in his early searchings, as well as for his followers. My father spoke prophetically when he wrote the dedication to Lyell of the second edition of the _Journal of Researches_ (1845). "To Charles Lyell, Esq., F.R.S., this second edition is dedicated with grateful pleasure--as an acknowledgment that the chief part of whatever scientific merit this journal and the other works of the author may possess, has been derived from studying the well-known and admirable _Principles of Geology_." Professor Judd, in some reminiscences of my father which he was so good as to give me, quotes him as saying that, "It was the reading of the _Principles of Geology_ which did most towards moulding his mind and causing him to take up the line of investigation to which his life was devoted." The _rôle_ that Lyell played as a pioneer makes his own point of view as to evolution all the more remarkable. As the late H. C. Watson wrote to my father (December 21, 1859):-- Now these novel views are brought fairly before the scientific public, it seems truly remarkable how so many of them could have failed to see their right road sooner. How could Sir C. Lyell, for instance, for thirty years read, write, and think, on the subject of species _and their succession_, and yet constantly look down the wrong road! "A quarter of a century ago, you and I must have been in something like the same state of mind on the main question. But you were able to see and work out the _quo modo_ of the succession, the all-important thing, while I failed to grasp it." In his earlier attitude towards evolution, my father was on a par with his contemporaries. He wrote in the _Autobiography_:-- "I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species:" and it will be made abundantly clear by his letters that in supporting the opposite view he felt himself a terrible heretic. Mr. Huxley[131] writes in the same sense:-- "Within the ranks of biologists, at that time [1851-58], I met with nobody, except Dr. Grant, of University College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and his advocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852, and then entered into the bonds of a friendship which, I am happy to think, has known no interruption. Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of apt illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable." These two last citations refer of course to a period much later than the time, 1836-37, at which the Darwinian theory was growing in my father's mind. The same thing is however true of earlier days. So much for the general problem: the further question as to the growth of Darwin's theory of natural selection is a less complex one, and I need add but little to the history given in the _Autobiography_ of how he came by that great conception by the help of which he was able to revivify "the oldest of all philosophies--that of evolution." The first point in the slow journey towards the _Origin of Species_ was the opening of that note-book of 1837 of which mention has been already made. The reader who is curious on the subject will find a series of citations from this most interesting note-book, in the _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 5, _et seq._ The two following extracts show that he applied the theory of evolution to the "whole organic kingdom" from plants to man. "If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine--our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusements--they may partake [of] our origin in one common ancestor--we may be all melted together." "The different intellects of man and animals not so great as between living things without thought (plants), and living things with thought (animals)." Speaking of intermediate forms, he remarks:-- "Opponents will say--_show them me_. I will answer yes, if you will show me every step between bulldog and greyhound." Here we see that the argument from domestic animals was already present in his mind as bearing on the production of natural species, an argument which he afterwards used with such signal force in the _Origin_. A comparison of the two editions of the _Naturalists' Voyage_ is instructive, as giving some idea of the development of his views on evolution. It does not give us a true index of the mass of conjecture which was taking shape in his mind, but it shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth of his belief to allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in the second edition. He has mentioned in the _Autobiography_ (p. 40), that it was not until he read Malthus that he got a clear view of the potency of natural selection. This was in 1838--a year after he finished the first edition (it was not published until 1839), and seven years before the second edition was issued (1845). Thus the turning-point in the formation of his theory took place between the writing of the two editions. Yet the difference between the two editions is not very marked; it is another proof of the author's caution and self-restraint in the treatment of his ideas. After reading the second edition of the _Voyage_ we remember with a strong feeling of surprise how far advanced were his views when he wrote it. These views are given in the manuscript volume of 1844, mentioned in the _Autobiography_. I give from my father's Pocket-book the entries referring to the preliminary sketch of this historic essay. "_1842, May 18_,--Went to Maer. _June 15_--to Shrewsbury, and 18th to Capel Curig. During my stay at Maer and Shrewsbury ... wrote pencil sketch of species theory."[132] In 1844, the pencil-sketch was enlarged to one of 230 folio pages, which is a wonderfully complete presentation of the arguments familiar to us in the _Origin_. The following letter shows in a striking manner the value my father put on this piece of work. _C. D. to Mrs. Darwin._ Down [July 5, 1844]. ... I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science. I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if legally entered in my will, that you will devote £400 to its publication, and further, will yourself, or through Hensleigh,[133] take trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some competent person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement and enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural History, which are either scored or have references at the end to the pages, begging him carefully to look over and consider such passages as actually bearing, or by possibility bearing, on this subject. I wish you to make a list of all such books as some temptation to an editor. I also request that you will hand over [to] him all those scraps roughly divided in eight or ten brown paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied quotations from various works, are those which may aid my editor. I also request that you, or some amanuensis, will aid in deciphering any of the scraps which the editor may think possibly of use. I leave to the editor's judgment whether to interpolate these facts in the text, or as notes, or under appendices. As the looking over the references and scraps will be a long labour, and as the _correcting_ and enlarging and altering my sketch will also take considerable time, I leave this sum of £400 as some remuneration, and any profits from the work, I consider that for this the editor is bound to get the sketch published either at a publisher's or his own risk. Many of the scraps in the portfolios contain mere rude suggestions and early views, now useless, and many of the facts will probably turn out as having no bearing on my theory. With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he would undertake it; I believe he would find the work pleasant, and he would learn some facts new to him. As the editor must be a geologist as well as a naturalist, the next best editor would be Professor Forbes of London. The next best (and quite best in many respects) would be Professor Henslow. Dr. Hooker would be _very_ good. The next, Mr. Strickland.[134] If none of these would undertake it, I would request you to consult with Mr. Lyell, or some other capable man for some editor, a geologist and naturalist. Should one other hundred pounds make the difference of procuring a good editor, I request earnestly that you will raise £500. My remaining collections in Natural History may be given to any one or any museum where [they] would be accepted.... The following note seems to have formed part of the original letter, but may have been of later date: "Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and of any good zoological aid), would be best of all. Without an editor will pledge himself to give up time to it, it would be of no use paying such a sum." "It there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who would go thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing of the passages marked in the books and copied out [on?] scraps of paper, then let my sketch be published as it is, stating that it was done several years ago[135] and from memory without consulting any works, and with no intention of publication in its present form." The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event of his death, as the only record of his work, seems to have been long in his mind, for in August 1854, when he had finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of beginning his "species work," he added on the back of the above letter, "Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August 1854." FOOTNOTES: [125] Vol. xliv. No. 269. [126] _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 180. [127] This letter was unaccountably overlooked in preparing the _Life and Letters_ for publication. [128] _Obituary Notice_, p. viii. [129] _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 190. In Mr. Huxley's chapter the passage beginning "Lyell with perfect right...." is given as a footnote: it will be seen that I have incorporated it with Mr. Huxley's text. [130] Lyell's _Life and Letters_, Letter to Haeckel, vol. ii. p. 436. Nov. 23, 1868. [131] _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 188. [132] I have discussed in the _Life and Letters_ the statement often made that the first sketch of his theory was written in 1839. [133] The late Mr. H. Wedgwood. [134] After Mr. Strickland's name comes the following sentence, which has been erased, but remains legible: "Professor Owen would be very good; but I presume he would not undertake such a work." [135] The words "several years ago and," seem to have been added at a later date. CHAPTER X. THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 1843-1858. The history of the years 1843-1858 is here related in an extremely abbreviated fashion. It was a period of minute labour on a variety of subjects, and the letters accordingly abound in detail. They are in many ways extremely interesting, more especially so to professed naturalists, and the picture of patient research which they convey is of great value from a biographical point of view. But such a picture must either be given in a complete series of unabridged letters, or omitted altogether. The limits of space compel me to the latter choice. The reader must imagine my father corresponding on problems in geology, geographical distribution, and classification; at the same time collecting facts on such varied points as the stripes on horses' legs, the floating of seeds, the breeding of pigeons, the form of bees' cells and the innumerable other questions to which his gigantic task demanded answers. The concluding letter of the last chapter has shown how strong was his conviction of the value of his work. It is impressive evidence of the condition of the scientific atmosphere, to discover, as in the following letters to Sir Joseph Hooker, how small was the amount of encouragement that he dared to hope for from his brother-naturalists. [January 11th, 1844.] ... I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, &c. &c., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of animals," &c.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so.... And again (1844):-- "In my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that I shall be able to show even to sound Naturalists, that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species--that facts can be viewed and grouped under the notion of allied species having descended from common stocks. With respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any systematical ones, except Lamarck's which is veritable rubbish: but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, &c., on the view of the immutability. Agassiz lately has brought the strongest argument in favour of immutability. Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written some good Essays, tending towards the mutability-side, in the _Suites à Buffon_, entitled _Zoolog. Générale_. Is it not strange that the author of such a book as the _Animaux sans Vertèbres_ should have written that insects, which never see their eggs, should will (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms, so as to become attached to particular objects. The other common (specially Germanic) notion is hardly less absurd, viz. that climate, food, &c., should make a Pediculus formed to climb hair, or a wood-pecker to climb trees. I believe all these absurd views arise from no one having, as far as I know, approached the subject on the side of variation under domestication, and having studied all that is known about domestication." "I hate arguments from results, but on my views of descent, really Natural History becomes a sublimely grand result-giving subject (now you may quiz me for so foolish an escape of mouth)...." _C. D. to L. Jenyns_[136] Down Oct. 12th [1845]. MY DEAR JENYNS--Thanks for your note. I am sorry to say I have not even the tail-end of a fact in English Zoology to communicate. I have found that even trifling observations require, in my case, some leisure and energy, [of] both of which ingredients I have had none to spare, as writing my Geology thoroughly expends both. I had always thought that I would keep a journal and record everything, but in the way I now live I find I observe nothing to record. Looking after my garden and trees, and occasionally a very little walk in an idle frame of my mind, fill up every afternoon in the same manner. I am surprised that with all your parish affairs, you have had time to do all that which you have done. I shall be very glad to see your little work[137] (and proud should I have been if I could have added a single fact to it). My work on the species question has impressed me very forcibly with the importance of all such works as your intended one, containing what people are pleased generally to call trifling facts. These are the facts which make one understand the working or economy of nature. There is one subject, on which I am very curious, and which perhaps you may throw some light on, if you have ever thought on it; namely, what are the checks and what the periods of life--by which the increase of any given species is limited. Just calculate the increase of any bird, if you assume that only half the young are reared, and these breed: within the _natural_ (i.e. if free from accidents) life of the parents the number of individuals will become enormous, and I have been much surprised to think how great destruction _must_ annually or occasionally be falling on every species, yet the means and period of such destruction are scarcely perceived by us. I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on variation of domestic animals and plants, and on the question of what are species. I have a grand body of facts, and I think I can draw some sound conclusions. The general conclusions at which I have slowly been driven from a directly opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and that allied species are co-descendants from common stocks. I know how much I open myself to reproach for such a conclusion, but I have at least honestly and deliberately come to it. I shall not publish on this subject for several years. _C. Darwin to L. Jenyns._[138] Down [1845?]. With respect to my far distant work on species, I must have expressed myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you to suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing puzzles, to myself _alone_; but in my wildest day-dream, I never expect more than to be able to show that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether species are _directly_ created or by intermediate laws (as with the life and death of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of the difficulty in determining what are species and what are varieties, but (though why I should give you such a history of my doings it would be hard to say) from such facts as the relationship between the living and extinct mammifers in South America, and between those living on the Continent and on adjoining islands, such as the Galapagos. It occurred to me that a collection of all such analogous facts would throw light either for or against the view of related species being co-descendants from a common stock. A long searching amongst agricultural and horticultural books and people makes me believe (I well know how absurdly presumptuous this must appear) that I see the way in which new varieties become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions of life and to other surrounding beings. I am a bold man to lay myself open to being thought a complete fool, and a most deliberate one. From the nature of the grounds which make me believe that species are mutable in form, these grounds cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species; but how far they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by degrees, when applied to species more and more remote from each other. Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions, but they appear to me less than on the common view. I have drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in 200 pages) of my conclusions; and if I thought at some future time that you would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most thankful to have the criticism of so competent a critic. Excuse this very long and egotistical and ill-written letter, which by your remarks you have led me into. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [1849-50?]. ... How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that no one has hardly a right to examine the question of species who has not minutely described many. I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen (who is vehemently opposed to any mutability in species), that he thought it was a very fair subject, and that there was a mass of facts to be brought to bear on the question, not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I mean to attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches of Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my species, and know something of geology (an indispensable union); and though I shall get more kicks than half-pennies, I will, life serving, attempt my work. Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of species at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps say) has Mr. D.... _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ September 25th [1853]. In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the dose of soft solder; it does one--or at least me--a great deal of good)--in my own work I have not felt conscious that disbelieving in the mere _permanence_ of species has made much difference one way or the other; in some few cases (if publishing avowedly on the doctrine of non-permanence), I should _not_ have affixed names, and in some few cases should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, and examining over and over again, when in my own mind the only doubt has been whether the form varied _to-day or yesterday_ (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby[139] would say). After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps nearly the same thing would have happened to me on any scheme of work. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, March 26th [1854]. MY DEAR HOOKER--I had hoped that you would have had a little breathing-time after your Journal,[140] but this seems to be very far from the case; and I am the more obliged (and somewhat contrite) for the long letter received this morning, _most_ juicy with news and _most_ interesting to me in many ways. I am very glad indeed to hear of the reforms, &c., in the Royal Society. With respect to the Club,[141] I am deeply interested; only two or three days ago, I was regretting to my wife, how I was letting drop and being dropped by nearly all my acquaintances, and that I would endeavour to go oftener to London; I was not then thinking of the Club, which, as far as one thing goes, would answer my exact object in keeping up old and making some new acquaintances. I will therefore come up to London for every (with rare exceptions) Club-day, and then my head, I think, will allow me on an average to go to every other meeting. But it is grievous how often any change knocks me up. I will further pledge myself, as I told Lyell, to resign after a year, if I did not attend pretty often, so that I should _at worst_ encumber the Club temporarily. If you can get me elected, I certainly shall be very much pleased.... I am particularly obliged to you for sending me Asa Gray's letter; how very pleasantly he writes. To see his and your caution on the species-question ought to overwhelm me in confusion and shame; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable.... I was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray's remarks on crossing obliterating varieties, on which, as you know, I have been collecting facts for these dozen years. How awfully flat I shall feel, if, when I got my notes together on species, &c. &c., the whole thing explodes like an empty puff-ball. Do not work yourself to death. Ever yours most truly. To work out the problem of the Geographical Distribution of animals and plants on evolutionary principles, Darwin had to study the means by which seeds, eggs, &c., can be transported across wide spaces of ocean. It was this need which gave an interest to the class of experiment to which the following letters refer. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ April 13th [1855]. ... I have had one experiment some little time in progress which will, I think, be interesting, namely, seeds in salt water, immersed in water of 32°-33°, which I have and shall long have, as I filled a great tank with snow. When I wrote last I was going to triumph over you, for my experiment had in a slight degree succeeded; but this, with infinite baseness, I did not tell, in hopes that you would say that you would eat all the plants which I could raise after immersion. It is very aggravating that I cannot in the least remember what you did formerly say that made me think you scoffed at the experiments vastly; for you now seem to view the experiment like a good Christian. I have in small bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of temperature, cress, radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery, and onion seed. These, after immersion for exactly one week, have all germinated, which I did not in the least expect (and thought how you would sneer at me); for the water of nearly all, and of the cress especially, smelt very badly, and the cress seed emitted a wonderful quantity of mucus (the _Vestiges_[142] would have expected them to turn into tadpoles), so as to adhere in a mass; but these seeds germinated and grew splendidly. The germination of all (especially cress and lettuces) has been accelerated, except the cabbages, which have come up very irregularly, and a good many, I think, dead. One would, have thought, from their native habitat, that the cabbage would have stood well. The Umbelliferæ and onions seem to stand the salt well. I wash the seed before planting them. I have written to the _Gardeners' Chronicle_,[143] though I doubt whether it was worth while. If my success seems to make it worth while, I will send a seed list, to get you to mark some different classes of seeds. To-day I replant the same seeds as above after fourteen days' immersion. As many sea-currents go a mile an hour, even in a week they might be transported 168 miles; the Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty miles a day. So much and too much on this head; but my geese are always swans.... _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [April 14th, 1855.] ... You are a good man to confess that you expected the cress would be killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little triumph. The children at first were tremendously eager, and asked me often, "whether I should beat Dr. Hooker!" The cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after twenty-one days' immersion. But I will write no more, which is a great virtue in me; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you everything I do. ... If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be so called) which I am trying, you would have a good right to sneer, for they are so _absurd_ even in _my_ opinion that I dare not tell you. Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising? I have had a letter telling me that seeds _must_ have _great_ power of resisting salt water, for otherwise how could they get to islands'? This is the true way to solve a problem? Experiments on the transportal of seeds through the agency of animals, also gave him much labour. He wrote to Fox (1855):-- "All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it; and just at present I wish I had my old barnacles to work at, and nothing new." And to Hooker:-- "Everything has been going wrong with me lately: the fish at the Zoolog. Soc. ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in imagination they had in my mind been swallowed, fish and all, by a heron, had been carried a hundred miles, been voided on the banks of some other lake and germinated splendidly, when lo and behold, the fish ejected vehemently, and with disgust equal to my own, _all_ the seeds from their mouths." THE UNFINISHED BOOK. In his Autobiographical sketch (p. 41) my father wrote:--"Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my _Origin of Species_; yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had collected." The remainder of the present chapter is chiefly concerned with the preparation of this unfinished book. The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued up to June 1858, when it was interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's MS. During the two years which we are now considering, he wrote ten chapters (that is about one-half) of the projected book. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker_. May 9th [1856]. ... I very much want advice and _truthful_ consolation if you can give it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my species work, and he urges me strongly to publish something. I am fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively will _not_ expose myself to an Editor or a Council allowing a publication for which they might be abused. If I publish anything it must be a _very thin_ and little volume, giving a sketch of my views and difficulties; but it is really dreadfully unphilosophical to give a _résumé_, without exact references, of an unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this, at the suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which I I might state, that I had been at work for eighteen[144] years, and yet could not publish for several years, and especially as I could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require especial investigation. Now what think you? I should be really grateful for advice. I thought of giving up a couple of months and writing such a sketch, and trying to keep my judgment open whether or no to publish it when completed. It will be simply impossible for me to give exact references; anything important I should state on the authority of the author generally; and instead of giving all the facts on which I ground my opinion, I could give by memory only one or two. In the Preface I would state that the work could not be considered strictly scientific, but a mere sketch or outline of a future work in which full references, &c., should be given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I should sneer at any one else doing this, and my only comfort is, that I _truly_ never dreamed of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems deliberately to think it advisable. I am in a peck of troubles, and do pray forgive me for troubling you. Yours affectionately. He made an attempt at a sketch of his views, but as he wrote to Fox in October 1856:-- "I found it such unsatisfactory work that I have desisted, and am now drawing up my work as perfect as my materials of nineteen years' collecting suffice, but do not intend to stop to perfect any line of investigation beyond current work." And in November he wrote to Sir Charles Lyell:-- "I am working very steadily at my big book; I have found it quite impossible to publish any preliminary essay or sketch; but am doing my work as completely as my present materials allow without waiting to perfect them. And this much acceleration I owe to you." Again to Mr. Fox, in February, 1857:-- "I am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous, than I do, but not I think, to any extreme degree: yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my book would be published for ever anonymously." _C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Moor Park, May 1st, 1857. MY DEAR SIR--I am much obliged for your letter of October 10th, from Celebes, received a few days ago; in a laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter and even still more by your paper[145] in the Annals, a year or more ago, I can plainly see that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the Annals, I agree to the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I dare say that you will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions from the very same facts. This summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first note-book, on the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from each other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for two years. I have never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before my work appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. I have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domestic varieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals having descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that it is so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the sterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to plants the collection of carefully recorded facts by Kölreuter and Gaertner (and Herbert) is _enormous_. I most entirely agree with you on the little effects of "climatal conditions," which one sees referred to _ad nauseam_ in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very slight. It is really _impossible_ to explain my views (in the compass of a letter), on the causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea,--whether true or false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth!... In December 1857 he wrote to the same correspondent:-- "You ask whether I shall discuss 'man.' I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for twenty years, will not fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large collection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole months on one chapter on Hybridism! "I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four years more. What a wonderful deal you will have seen, and what interesting areas--the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of South America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the good cause of Natural Science; and you have my very sincere and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I will do battle to the death." And to Fox in February 1858:-- "I am working very hard at my book, perhaps too hard. It will be very big, and I am become most deeply interested in the way facts fall into groups. I am like Croesus overwhelmed with my riches in facts, and I mean to make my book as perfect as ever I can. I shall not go to press at soonest for a couple of years." The letter which follows, written from his favourite resting place, the Water-Cure Establishment at Moor Park, comes in like a lull before the storm,--the upset of all his plans by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's manuscript, a phase in the history of his life to which the next chapter is devoted. _C. D. to Mrs. Darwin._ Moor Park, April [1858]. The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to you, I strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half, and enjoyed myself--the fresh yet dark green of the grand Scotch firs, the brown of the catkins of the old birches, with their white stems, and a fringe of distant green from the larches, made an excessively pretty view. At last I fell fast asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds singing around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some woodpeckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as ever I saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the beasts or birds had been formed. I sat in the drawing-room till after eight, and then went and read the Chief Justice's summing up, and thought Bernard[146] guilty, and then read a bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous, clerical, philanthropical, and all that sort of thing, but very decidedly flat. I say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money matters, and not much of a lady--for she makes her men say, "My Lady." I like Miss Craik very much, though we have some battles, and differ on every subject. I like also the Hungarian; a thorough gentleman, formerly attaché at Paris, and then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned exile, with broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but says, he is certain [he is] a sincere patriot, most clever and eloquent, but weak, with no determination of character.... FOOTNOTES: [136] Rev. L. Blomefield. [137] Mr. Jenyns' _Observations in Natural History_. It is prefaced by an Introduction on "Habits of observing as connected with the study of Natural History," and followed by a "Calendar of Periodic Phenomena in Natural History," with "Remarks on the importance of such Registers." [138] Rev. L. Blomefield. [139] In _Bleak House_. [140] Sir Joseph Hooker's _Himalayan Journal_. [141] The Philosophical Club, to which my father was elected (as Professor Bonney is good enough to inform me) on April 24, 1854. He resigned his membership in 1864. The Club was founded in 1847. The number of members being limited to 47, it was proposed to christen it "the Club of 47," but the name was never adopted. The nature of the Club may be gathered from its first rule: "The purpose of the Club is to promote as much as possible the scientific objects of the Royal Society; to facilitate intercourse between those Fellows who are actively engaged in cultivating the various branches of Natural Science, and who have contributed to its progress; to increase the attendance at the evening meetings, and to encourage the contribution and discussion of papers." The Club met for dinner at 6, and the chair was to be quitted at 8.15, it being expected that members would go to the Royal Society. Of late years the dinner has been at 6.30, the Society meeting in the afternoon. [142] _The Vestiges of Creation_, by R. Chambers. [143] A few words asking for information. The results were published in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_, May 26, Nov. 24, 1855. In the same year (p. 789) he sent a postscript to his former paper, correcting a misprint and adding a few words on the seeds of the Leguminosæ. A fuller paper on the germination of seeds after treatment in salt water, appeared in the _Linnean Soc. Journal_, 1857, p. 130. [144] The interval of eighteen years, from 1837 when he began to collect facts, would bring the date of this letter to 1855, not 1856, nevertheless the latter seems the more probable date. [145] "On the Law that has regulated the Introduction of New Species."--_Ann. Nat. Hist._, 1855. [146] Simon Bernard was tried in April 1858 as an accessory to Orsini's attempt on the life of the Emperor of the French. The verdict was "not guilty." CHAPTER XI. THE WRITING OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' "I have done my best. If you had all my material I am sure you would have made a splendid book."--From a letter to Lyell, June 21, 1859. JUNE 18, 1858, TO NOVEMBER 1859. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, 18th [June 1858]. MY DEAR LYELL--Some year or so ago you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the _Annals_,[147] which had interested you, and as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent me the enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance--that I should be forestalled. You said this, when I explained to you here very briefly my views of 'Natural Selection' depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory. I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say. My dear Lyell, yours most truly. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, [June 25, 1858]. MY DEAR LYELL--I am very sorry to trouble you, busy as you are, in so merely personal an affair; but if you will give me your deliberate opinion, you will do me as great a service as ever man did, for I have entire confidence in your judgment and honour.... There is nothing in Wallace's sketch which is not written out much fuller in my sketch, copied out in 1844, and read by Hooker some dozen years ago. About a year ago I sent a short sketch, of which I have a copy, of my views (owing to correspondence on several points) to Asa Gray, so that I could most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace. I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot persuade myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says nothing about publication, and I enclose his letter. But as I had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so honourably, because Wallace has sent me an outline of his doctrine? I would far rather burn my whole book, than that he or any other man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit. Do you not think his having sent me this sketch ties my hands?... If I could honourably publish, I would state that I was induced now to publish a sketch (and I should be very glad to be permitted to say, to follow your advice long ago given) from Wallace having sent me an outline of my general conclusions. We differ only, [in] that I was led to my views from what artificial selection has done for domestic animals. I would send Wallace a copy of my letter to Asa Gray, to show him that I had not stolen his doctrine. But I cannot tell whether to publish now would not be base and paltry. This was my first impression, and I should have certainly acted on it had it not been for your letter. This is a trumpery affair to trouble you with, but you cannot tell how much obliged I should be for your advice. By the way, would you object to send this and your answer to Hooker to be forwarded to me? for then I shall have the opinion of my two best and kindest friends. This letter is miserably written, and I write it now, that I may for a time banish the whole subject; and I am worn out with musing.... My good dear friend, forgive me. This is a trumpery letter, influenced by trumpery feelings. Yours most truly. I will never trouble you or Hooker on the subject again. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, 26th [June 1858]. MY DEAR LYELL--Forgive me for adding a P.S. to make the case as strong as possible against myself. Wallace might say, "You did not intend publishing an abstract of your views till you received my communication. Is it fair to take advantage of my having freely, though unasked, communicated to you my ideas, and thus prevent me forestalling you?" The advantage which I should take being that I am induced to publish from privately knowing that Wallace is in the field. It seems hard on me that I should be thus compelled to lose my priority of many years' standing, but I cannot feel at all sure that this alters the justice of the case. First impressions are generally right, and I at first thought it would be dishonourable in me now to publish. Yours most truly. P.S.--I have always thought you would make a first-rate Lord Chancellor; and I now appeal to you as a Lord Chancellor. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Tuesday night [June 29, 1858]. MY DEAR HOOKER--I have just read your letter, and see you want the papers at once. I am quite prostrated,[148] and can do nothing, but I send Wallace, and the abstract[149] of my letter to Asa Gray, which gives most imperfectly only the means of change, and does not touch on reasons for believing that species do change. I dare say all is too late. I hardly care about it. But you are too generous to sacrifice so much time and kindness. It is most generous, most kind. I send my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it. I really cannot bear to look at it. Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me to care at all about priority. The table of contents will show what it is. I would make a similar, but shorter and more accurate sketch for the _Linnean Journal_. I will do anything. God bless you, my dear kind friend. I can write no more. I send this by my servant to Kew. The joint paper[150] of Mr. Wallace and my father was read at the Linnean Society on the evening of July 1st. Mr. Wallace's Essay bore the title, "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type." My father's contribution to the paper consisted of (1) Extracts from the sketch of 1844; (2) part of a letter, addressed to Dr. Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857. The paper was "communicated" to the Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker, in whose prefatory letter a clear account of the circumstances of the case is given. Referring to Mr. Wallace's Essay, they wrote:-- "So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace's consent to allow the Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us been privy to for many years. On representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we thought proper of his memoir, &c.; and in adopting our present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of science generally." Sir Charles Lyell and Sir J. D. Hooker were present at the reading of the paper, and both, I believe, made a few remarks, chiefly with a view of impressing on those present the necessity of giving the most careful consideration to what they had heard. There was, however, no semblance of a discussion. Sir Joseph Hooker writes to me: "The interest excited was intense, but the subject was too novel and too ominous for the old school to enter the lists, before armouring. After the meeting it was talked over with bated breath: Lyell's approval and perhaps in a small way mine, as his lieutenant in the affair, rather overawed the Fellows, who would otherwise have flown out against the doctrine. We had, too, the vantage ground of being familiar with the authors and their theme." Mr. Wallace has, at my request, been so good as to allow me to publish the following letter. Professor Newton, to whom the letter is addressed, had submitted to Mr. Wallace his recollections of what the latter had related to him many years before, and had asked Mr. Wallace for a fuller version of the story. Hence the few corrections in Mr. Wallace's letter, for instance _bed_ for _hammock_. _A. R. Wallace to A. Newton._ Frith Hill, Godalming, Dec. 3rd, 1887. MY DEAR NEWTON--I had hardly heard of Darwin before going to the East, except as connected with the voyage of the _Beagle_, which I _think_ I had read. I saw him _once_ for a few minutes in the British Museum before I sailed. Through Stevens, my agent, I heard that he wanted curious _varieties_ which he was studying. I _think_ I wrote to him about some varieties of ducks I had sent, and he must have written once to me. I find on looking at his "Life" that his _first_ letter to me is given in vol. ii. p. 95, and another at p. 109, both after the publication of my first paper. I must have heard from some notices in the _Athenæum_, I think (which I had sent me), that he was studying varieties and species, and as I was continually thinking of the subject, I wrote to him giving some of my notions, and making some suggestions. But at that time I had not the remotest notion that he had already arrived at a definite theory--still less that it was the same as occurred to me, suddenly, in Ternate in 1858. The most interesting coincidence in the matter, I think, is, that I, _as well as Darwin_, was led to the theory itself through Malthus--in my case it was his elaborate account of the action of "preventive checks" in keeping down the population of savage races to a tolerably fixed, but scanty number. This had strongly impressed me, and it suddenly flashed upon me that all animals are necessarily thus kept down--"the struggle for existence"--while _variations_, on which I was always thinking, must necessarily often be _beneficial_, and would then cause those varieties to increase while the injurious variations diminished.[151] You are quite at liberty to mention the circumstances, but I think you have coloured them a little highly, and introduced some slight errors. I was lying on my bed (no hammocks in the East) in the hot fit of intermittent fever, when the idea suddenly came to me. I thought it almost all out before the fit was over, and the moment I got up began to write it down, and I believe finished the first draft the next day. I had no idea whatever of "dying,"--as it was not a serious illness,--but I _had_ the idea of working it out, so far as I was able, when I returned home, not at all expecting that Darwin had so long anticipated me. I can truly say _now_, as I said many years ago, that I am glad it was so; for I have not the love of _work_, _experiment_ and _detail_ that was so pre-eminent in Darwin, and without which anything I could have written would never have convinced the world. If you do refer to me at any length, can you send me a proof and I will return it to you at once? Yours faithfully ALFRED R. WALLACE. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Miss Wedgwood's, Hartfield, Tunbridge Wells [July 13th, 1858]. MY DEAR HOOKER--Your letter to Wallace seems to me perfect, quite clear and most courteous. I do not think it could possibly be improved, and I have to-day forwarded it with a letter of my own. I always thought it very possible that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had a grand enough soul not to care; but I found myself mistaken, and punished; I had, however, quite resigned myself, and had written half a letter to Wallace to give up all priority to him, and should certainly not have changed had it not been for Lyell's and your quite extraordinary kindness. I assure you I feel it, and shall not forget it. I am _more_ than satisfied at what took place at the Linnean Society. I had thought that your letter and mine to Asa Gray were to be only an appendix to Wallace's paper. We go from here in a few days to the sea-side, probably to the Isle of Wight, and on my return (after a battle with pigeon skeletons) I will set to work at the abstract, though how on earth I shall make anything of an abstract in thirty pages of the Journal, I know not, but will try my best.... I must try and see you before your journey; but do not think I am fishing to ask you to come to Down, for you will have no time for that. You cannot imagine how pleased I am that the notion of Natural Selection has acted as a purgative on your bowels of immutability. Whenever naturalists can look at species changing as certain, what a magnificent field will be open,--on all the laws of variation,--on the genealogy of all living beings,--on their lines of migration, &c. &c. Pray thank Mrs. Hooker for her very kind little note, and pray say how truly obliged I am, and in truth ashamed to think that she should have had the trouble of copying my ugly MS. It was extraordinarily kind in her. Farewell, my dear kind friend. Yours affectionately. P.S.--I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making ant; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful stories, but I have now seen a defeated marauding party, and I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are _house_, and not field niggers) in their mouths! _C. D. to C. Lyell._ King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight. July 18th [1858]. ... We are established here for ten days, and then go on to Shanklin, which seems more amusing to one, like myself, who cannot walk. We hope much that the sea may do H. and L. good. And if it does, our expedition will answer, but not otherwise. I have never half thanked you for all the extraordinary trouble and kindness you showed me about Wallace's affair. Hooker told me what was done at the Linnean Society, and I am far more than satisfied, and I do not think that Wallace can think my conduct unfair in allowing you and Hooker to do whatever you thought fair. I certainly was a little annoyed to lose all priority, but had resigned myself to my fate. I am going to prepare a longer abstract; but it is really impossible to do justice to the subject, except by giving the facts on which each conclusion is grounded, and that will, of course, be absolutely impossible. Your name and Hooker's name appearing as in any way the least interested in my work will, I am certain, have the most important bearing in leading people to consider the subject without prejudice. I look at this as so very important, that I am almost glad of Wallace's paper for having led to this. My dear Lyell, yours most gratefully. The following letter refers to the proof-sheets of the Linnean paper. The 'introduction' means the prefatory letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J. D. Hooker. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight. July 21st [1858]. MY DEAR HOOKER--I received only yesterday the proof-sheets, which I now return. I think your introduction cannot be improved. I am disgusted with my bad writing. I could not improve it, without rewriting all, which would not be fair or worth while, as I have begun on a better abstract for the Linnean Society. My excuse is that it _never_ was intended for publication. I have made only a few corrections in the style; but I cannot make it decent, but I hope moderately intelligible. I suppose some one will correct the revise. (Shall I?) Could I have a clean proof to send to Wallace? I have not yet fully considered your remarks on big genera (but your general concurrence is of the _highest possible_ interest to me); nor shall I be able till I re-read my MS.; but you may rely on it that you never make a remark to me which is lost from _inattention_. I am particularly glad you do not object to my stating your objections in a modified form, for they always struck me as very important, and as having much inherent value, whether or no they were fatal to my notions. I will consider and reconsider all your remarks.... I am very glad at what you say about my Abstract, but you may rely on it that I will condense to the utmost. I would aid in money if it is too long.[152] In how many ways you have aided me! Yours affectionately. The "Abstract" mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding letter was in fact the _Origin of Species_, on which he now set to work. In his _Autobiography_ (p. 41) he speaks of beginning to write in September, but in his Diary he wrote, "July 20 to Aug. 12, at Sandown, began Abstract of Species book." "Sep. 16, Recommenced Abstract." The book was begun with the idea that it would be published as a paper, or series of papers, by the Linnean Society, and it was only in the late autumn that it became clear that it must take the form of an independent volume. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight. [August 1858.] MY DEAR HOOKER,--I write merely to say that the MS. came safely two or three days ago. I am much obliged for the correction of style: I find it unutterably difficult to write clearly. When we meet I must talk over a few points on the subject. You speak of going to the sea-side somewhere; we think this the nicest sea-side place which we have ever seen, and we like Shanklin better than other spots on the south coast of the island, though many are charming and prettier, so that I would suggest your thinking of this place. We are on the actual coast; but tastes differ so much about places. If you go to Broadstairs, when there is a strong wind from the coast of France and in fine, dry, warm weather, look out and you will _probably_ (!) see thistle-seeds blown across the Channel. The other day I saw one blown right inland, and then in a few minutes a second one and then a third; and I said to myself, God bless me, how many thistles there must be in France; and I wrote a letter in imagination to you. But I then looked at the _low_ clouds, and noticed that they were not coming inland, so I feared a screw was loose, I then walked beyond a headland and found the wind parallel to the coast, and on this very headland a noble bed of thistles, which by every wide eddy were blown far out to sea, and then came right in at right angles to the shore! One day such a number of insects were washed up by the tide, and I brought to life thirteen species of Coleoptera; not that I suppose these came from France. But do you watch for thistle-seed as you saunter along the coast.... _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [Down] Oct. 6th, 1858. ... If you have or can make leisure, I should very much like to hear news of Mrs. Hooker, yourself, and the children. Where did you go, and what did you do and are doing? There is a comprehensive text. You cannot tell how I enjoyed your little visit here. It did me much good. If Harvey[153] is still with you, pray remember me very kindly to him. ... I am working most steadily at my Abstract [_Origin of Species_], but it grows to an inordinate length; yet fully to make my view clear (and never giving briefly more than a fact or two, and slurring over difficulties), I cannot make it shorter. It will yet take me three or four months; so slow do I work, though never idle. You cannot imagine what a service you have done me in making me make this Abstract; for though I thought I had got all clear, it has clarified my brains very much, by making me weigh the relative importance of the several elements. He was not so fully occupied but that he could find time to help his boys in their collecting. He sent a short notice to the _Entomologists' Weekly Intelligencer_, June 25th, 1859, recording the capture of _Licinus silphoides_, _Clytus mysticus_, _Panagæus 4-pustulatus_. The notice begins with the words, "We three very young collectors having lately taken in the parish of Down," &c., and is signed by three of his boys, but was clearly not written by them. I have a vivid recollection of the pleasure of turning out my bottle of dead beetles for my father to name, and the excitement, in which he fully shared, when any of them proved to be uncommon ones. The following letter to Mr. Fox (Nov. 13th, 1858), illustrates this point:-- "I am reminded of old days by my third boy having just begun collecting beetles, and he caught the other day _Brachinus crepitans_, of immortal Whittlesea Mere memory. My blood boiled with old ardour when he caught a Licinus--a prize unknown to me." And again to Sir John Lubbock:-- "I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet when I read about the capturing of rare beetles--is not this a magnanimous simile for a decayed entomologist?--It really almost makes me long to begin collecting again. Adios. "'Floreat Entomologia'!--to which toast at Cambridge I have drunk many a glass of wine. So again, 'Floreat Entomologia.'--N.B. I have _not_ now been drinking any glasses full of wine." _C D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, Jan. 23rd, 1859. ... I enclose letters to you and me from Wallace. I admire extremely the spirit in which they are written. I never felt very sure what he would say. He must be an amiable man. Please return that to me, and Lyell ought to be told how well satisfied he is. These letters have vividly brought before me how much I owe to your and Lyell's most kind and generous conduct in all this affair. ... How glad I shall be when the Abstract is finished, and I can rest!... _C. D. to A. B. Wallace._ Down, Jan. 25th [1859]. MY DEAR SIR,--I was extremely much pleased at receiving three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker. Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought a fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious to hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much to you and them; for I almost think that Lyell would have proved right, and I should never have completed my larger work, for I have found my Abstract [_Origin of Species_] hard enough with my poor health, but now, thank God, I am in my last chapter but one. My Abstract will make a small volume of 400 or 500 pages. Whenever published, I will, of course, send you a copy, and then you will see what I mean about the part which I believe selection has played with domestic productions. It is a very different part, as you suppose, from that played by "Natural Selection." I sent off, by the same address as this note, a copy of the _Journal of the Linnean Society_, and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies of the paper. I have many other copies at your disposal.... I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds' nests. I have done so, though almost exclusively under one point of view, viz. to show that instincts vary, so that selection could work on and improve them. Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a Museum. Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes; if there are any donkeys, pray add them. I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees' combs.... This is an especial hobby of mine, and I think I can throw a light on the subject. If you can collect duplicates at no very great expense, I should be glad of some specimens for myself with some bees of each kind. Young, growing, and irregular combs, and those which have not had pupæ, are most valuable for measurements and examination. Their edges should be well protected against abrasion. Every one whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839,[154] now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for publication, into the shade. You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror, often to me, of what a thing it would be, and what a job it would be for the next edition of _The Principles_, if he were "perverted." But he is most candid and honest, and I think will end by being perverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost as heterodox as you or I, and I look at Hooker as _by far_ the most capable judge in Europe. Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in all your pursuits, and, God knows, if admirable zeal and energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look at my own career as nearly run out. If I can publish my Abstract and perhaps my greater work on the same subject, I shall look at my course as done. Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely. In March 1859 the work was telling heavily on him. He wrote to Fox:-- "I can see daylight through my work, and am now finally correcting my chapters for the press; and I hope in a month or six weeks to have proof-sheets. I am weary of my work. It is a very odd thing that I have no sensation that I overwork my brain; but facts compel me to conclude that my brain was never formed for much thinking. We are resolved to go for two or three months, when I have finished, to Ilkley, or some such place, to see if I can anyhow give my health a good start, for it certainly has been wretched of late, and has incapacitated me for everything. You do me injustice when you think that I work for fame; I value it to a certain extent; but, if I know myself, I work from a sort of instinct to try to make out truth." _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, March 28th [1859]. MY DEAR LYELL,--If I keep decently well, I hope to be able to go to press with my volume early in May. This being so, I want much to beg a little advice from you. From an expression in Lady Lyell's note, I fancy that you have spoken to Murray. Is it so? And is he willing to publish my Abstract?[155] If you will tell me whether anything, and what has passed, I will then write to him. Does he know at all of the subject of the book? Secondly, can you advise me whether I had better state what terms of publication I should prefer, or first ask him to propose terms? And what do you think would be fair terms for an edition? Share profits, or what? Lastly, will you be so very kind as to look at the enclosed title and give me your opinion and any criticisms; you must remember that, if I have health, and it appears worth doing, I have a much larger and full book on the same subject nearly ready. My Abstract will be about five hundred pages of the size of your first edition of the _Elements of Geology_. Pray forgive me troubling you with the above queries; and you shall have no more trouble on the subject. I hope the world goes well with you, and that you are getting on with your various works. I am working very hard for me, and long to finish and be free and try to recover some health. My dear Lyell, ever yours. P.S.--Would you advise me to tell Murray that my book is not more _un_-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c. &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair. Or had I better say _nothing_ to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs slap counter to Genesis. _Enclosure._ AN ABSTRACT OF AN ESSAY ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES AND VARIETIES THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A. FELLOW OF THE ROYAL, GEOLOGICAL, AND LINNEAN SOCIETIES. LONDON: &c. &c. &c. &c. 1859. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, March 30th [1859]. MY DEAR LYELL,--You have been uncommonly kind in all you have done. You not only have saved me much trouble and some anxiety, but have done all incomparably better than I could have done it. I am much pleased at all you say about Murray. I will write either to-day or to-morrow to him, and will send shortly a large bundle of MS., but unfortunately I cannot for a week, as the first three chapters are in the copyists' hands. I am sorry about Murray objecting to the term Abstract, as I look at it as the only possible apology for _not_ giving references and facts in full, but I will defer to him and you. I am also sorry about the term "natural selection." I hope to retain it with explanation somewhat as thus:-- "Through natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races." Why I like the term is that it is constantly used in all works on breeding, and I am surprised that it is not familiar to Murray; but I have so long studied such works that I have ceased to be a competent judge. I again most truly and cordially thank you for your really valuable assistance. Yours most truly. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, April 2nd [1859]. ... I wrote to him [Mr. Murray] and gave him the headings of the chapters, and told him he could not have the MS. for ten days or so; and this morning I received a letter, offering me handsome terms, and agreeing to publish without seeing the MS.! So he is eager enough; I think I should have been cautious, anyhow, but, owing to your letter, I told him most _explicitly_ that I accept his offer solely on condition that, after he has seen part or all the MS. he has full power of retracting. You will think me presumptuous, but I think my book will be popular to a certain extent (enough to ensure [against] heavy loss) amongst scientific and semi-scientific men; why I think so is, because I have found in conversation so great and surprising an interest amongst such men, and some 0-scientific [non-scientific] men on this subject, and all my chapters are not _nearly_ so dry and dull as that which you have read on geographical distribution. Anyhow, Murray ought to be the best judge, and if he chooses to publish it, I think I may wash my hands of all responsibility. I am sure my friends, _i.e._ Lyell and you, have been _extraordinarily_ kind in troubling yourselves on the matter. I shall be delighted to see you the day before Good Friday; there would be one advantage for you in any other day--as I believe both my boys come home on that day--and it would be almost impossible that I could send the carriage for you. There will, I believe, be some relations in the house--but I hope you will not care for that, as we shall easily get as much talking as my _imbecile state_ allows. I shall deeply enjoy seeing you. ... I am tired, so no more. P.S.--Please to send, well _tied up_ with strong string, my Geographical MS. towards the latter half of next week--_i.e._ 7th or 8th--that I may send it with more to Murray; and God help him if he tries to read it. ... I cannot help a little doubting whether Lyell would take much pains to induce Murray to publish my book; this was not done at my request, and it rather grates against my pride. I know that Lyell has been _infinitely_ kind about my affair, but your dashed [_i.e._ underlined] "_induce_" gives the idea that Lyell had unfairly urged Murray. _C. D. to J. Murray._ Down, April 6th [1859]. MY DEAR SIR,--I send by this post, the Title (with some remarks on a separate page), and the first three chapters. If you have patience to read all Chapter I., I honestly think you will have a fair notion of the interest of the whole book. It may be conceit, but I believe the subject will interest the public, and I am sure that the views are original. If you think otherwise, I must repeat my request that you will freely reject my work; and though I shall be a little disappointed, I shall be in no way injured. If you choose to read Chapters II. and III., you will have a dull and rather abstruse chapter, and a plain and interesting one, in my opinion. As soon as you have done with the MS., please to send it by _careful messenger, and plainly directed_, to Miss G. Tollett,[156] 14, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square. This lady, being an excellent judge of style, is going to look out for errors for me. You must take your own time, but the sooner you finish, the sooner she will, and the sooner I shall get to press, which I so earnestly wish. I presume you will wish to see Chapter IV.,[157] the key-stone of my arch, and Chapters X. and XI., but please to inform me on this head. My dear Sir, yours sincerely. On April 11th he wrote to Hooker:-- "I write one line to say that I heard from Murray yesterday, and he says he has read the first three chapters of [my] MS. (and this includes a very dull one), and he abides by his offer. Hence he does not want more MS., and you can send my Geographical chapter when it pleases you." Part of the MS. seems to have been lost on its way back to my father. He wrote (April 14) to Sir J. D. Hooker:-- "I have the old MS., otherwise the loss would have killed me! The worst is now that it will cause delay in getting to press, and far worst of all, I lose all advantage of your having looked over my chapter,[158] except the third part returned. I am very sorry Mrs. Hooker took the trouble of copying the two pages." _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [April or May, 1859.] ... Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be fairly popular, and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure, it would make me the more ridiculous. I enclose a criticism, a taste of the future-- _Rev. S. Haughton's Address to the Geological Society, Dublin._[159] "This speculation of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace would not be worthy of notice were it not for the weight of authority of the names (_i.e._ Lyell's and yours), under whose auspices it has been brought forward. If it means what it says, it is a truism; if it means anything more, it is contrary to fact." Q. E. D. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, May 11th [1859]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--Thank you for telling me about obscurity of style. But on my life no nigger with lash over him could have worked harder at clearness than I have done. But the very difficulty to me, of itself leads to the probability that I fail. Yet one lady who has read all my MS. has found only two or three obscure sentences; but Mrs. Hooker having so found it, makes me tremble. I will do my best in proofs. You are a good man to take the trouble to write about it. With respect to our mutual muddle,[160] I never for a moment thought we could not make our ideas clear to each other by talk, or if either of us had time to write _in extenso_. I imagine from some expressions (but if you ask me what, I could not answer) that you look at variability as some necessary contingency with organisms, and further that there is some necessary tendency in the variability to go on diverging in character or degree. _If you do_, I do not agree. "Reversion" again (a form of inheritance), I look at as in no way directly connected with Variation, though of course inheritance is of fundamental importance to us, for if a variation be not inherited, it is of no signification to us. It was on such points as these I _fancied_ that we perhaps started differently. I fear that my book will not deserve at all the pleasant things you say about it, and Good Lord, how I do long to have done with it! Since the above was written, I have received and have been _much interested_ by A. Gray. I am delighted at his note about my and Wallace's paper. He will go round, for it is futile to give up very many species, and stop at an arbitrary line at others. It is what my father called Unitarianism, "a featherbed to catch a falling Christian."... _C. D. to J. Murray._ Down, June 14th [1859]. MY DEAR SIR,--The diagram will do very well, and I will send it shortly to Mr. West to have a few trifling corrections made. I get on very slowly with proofs. I remember writing to you that I thought there would be not much correction. I honestly wrote what I thought, but was most grievously mistaken. I find the style incredibly bad, and most difficult to make clear and smooth. I am extremely sorry to say, on account of expense, and loss of time for me, that the corrections are very heavy, as heavy as possible. But from casual glances, I still hope that later chapters are not so badly written. How I could have written so badly is quite inconceivable, but I suppose it was owing to my whole attention being fixed on the general line of argument, and not on details. All I can say is, that I am very sorry. Yours very sincerely. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [Sept.] 11th [1859]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--I corrected the last proof yesterday, and I have now my revises, index, &c., which will take me near to the end of the month. So that the neck of my work, thank God, is broken. I write now to say that I am uneasy in my conscience about hesitating to look over your proofs,[161] but I was feeling miserably unwell and shattered when I wrote. I do not suppose I could be of hardly any use, but if I could, pray send me any proofs. I should be (and fear I was) the most ungrateful man to hesitate to do anything for you after some fifteen or more years' help from you. As soon as ever I have fairly finished I shall be off to Ilkley, or some other Hydropathic establishment. But I shall be some time yet, as my proofs have been so utterly obscured with corrections, that I have to correct heavily on revises. Murray proposes to publish the first week in November. Oh, good heavens, the relief to my head and body to banish the whole subject from my mind! I hope you do not think me a brute about your proof-sheets. Farewell, yours affectionately. The following letter is interesting as showing with what a very moderate amount of recognition he was satisfied,--and more than satisfied. Sir Charles Lyell was President of the Geological section at the meeting of the British Association at Aberdeen in 1859. In his address he said:--"On this difficult and mysterious subject [Evolution] a work will very shortly appear by Mr. Charles Darwin, the result of twenty years of observations and experiments in Zoology, Botany, and Geology, by which he has been led to the conclusion that those powers of nature which give rise to races and permanent varieties in animals and plants, are the same as those which in much longer periods produce species, and in a still longer series of ages give rise to differences of generic rank. He appears to me to have succeeded by his investigations and reasonings in throwing a flood of light on many classes of phenomena connected with the affinities, geographical distribution, and geological succession of organic beings, for which no other hypothesis has been able, or has even attempted to account." My father wrote:-- "You once gave me intense pleasure, or rather delight, by the way you were interested, in a manner I never expected, in my Coral Reef notions, and now you have again given me similar pleasure by the manner you have noticed my species work. Nothing could be more satisfactory to me, and I thank you for myself, and even more for the subject's sake, as I know well that the sentence will make many fairly consider the subject, instead of ridiculing it." And again, a few days later:-- "I do thank you for your eulogy at Aberdeen. I have been so wearied and exhausted of late that I have for months doubted whether I have not been throwing away time and labour for nothing. But now I care not what the universal world says; I have always found you right, and certainly on this occasion I am not going to doubt for the first time. Whether you go far, or but a very short way with me and others who believe as I do, I am contented, for my work cannot be in vain. You would laugh if you knew how often I have read your paragraph, and it has acted like a little dram." _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, Sept. 30th [1859]. MY DEAR LYELL,--I sent off this morning the last sheets, but without index, which is not in type. I look at you as my Lord High Chancellor in Natural Science, and therefore I request you, after you have finished, just to _re-run_ over the heads in the recapitulation-part of the last chapter. I shall be deeply anxious to hear what you decide (if you are able to decide) on the balance of the pros and contras given in my volume, and of such other pros and contras as may occur to you. I hope that you will think that I have given the difficulties fairly. I feel an entire conviction that if you are now staggered to any moderate extent, you will come more and more round, the longer you keep the subject at all before your mind. I remember well how many long years it was before I could look into the face of some of the difficulties and not feel quite abashed. I fairly struck my colours before the case of neuter insects.[162] I suppose that I am a very slow thinker, for you would be surprised at the number of years it took me to see clearly what some of the problems were which had to be solved, such as the necessity of the principle of divergence of character, the extinction of intermediate varieties, on a continuous area, with graduated conditions; the double problem of sterile first crosses and sterile hybrids, &c. &c. Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were than to solve them, so far as I have succeeded in doing, and this seems to me rather curious. Well, good or bad, my work, thank God, is over; and hard work, I can assure you, I have had, and much work which has never borne fruit. You can see, by the way I am scribbling, that I have an idle and rainy afternoon. I was not able to start for Ilkley yesterday as I was too unwell; but I hope to get there on Tuesday or Wednesday. Do, I beg you, when you have finished my book and thought a little over it, let me hear from you. Never mind and pitch into me, if you think it requisite; some future day, in London possibly, you may give me a few criticisms in detail, that is, if you have scribbled any remarks on the margin, for the chance of a second edition. Murray has printed 1250 copies, which seems to me rather too large an edition, but I hope he will not lose. I make as much fuss about my book as if it were my first. Forgive me, and believe me, my dear Lyell, Yours most sincerely. The book was at last finished and printed, and he wrote to Mr. Murray:-- Ilkley, Yorkshire [1859]. MY DEAR SIR,--I have received your kind note and the copy; I am infinitely pleased and proud at the appearance of my child. I quite agree to all you propose about price. But you are really too generous about the, to me, scandalously heavy corrections. Are you not acting unfairly towards yourself? Would it not be better at least to share the £72 8s.? I shall be fully satisfied, for I had no business to send, though quite unintentionally and unexpectedly, such badly composed MS. to the printers. Thank you for your kind offer to distribute the copies to my friends and assisters as soon as possible. Do not trouble yourself much about the foreigners, as Messrs. Williams and Norgate have most kindly offered to do their best, and they are accustomed to send to all parts of the world. I will pay for my copies whenever you like. I am so glad that you were so good as to undertake the publication of my book. My dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. The further history of the book is given in the next chapter. FOOTNOTES: [147] _Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist._, 1855. [148] After the death, from scarlet fever, of his infant child. [149] "Abstract" is here used in the sense of "extract;" in this sense also it occurs in the _Linnean Journal_, where the sources of my father's paper are described. [150] "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection."--_Linnean Society's Journal_, iii. p. 53. [151] This passage was published as a footnote in a review of the _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_ which appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1888. In the new edition (1891) of _Natural Selection and Tropical Nature_ (p. 20), Mr. Wallace has given the facts above narrated. There is a slight and quite unimportant discrepancy between the two accounts, viz. that in the narrative of 1891 Mr. Wallace speaks of the "cold fit" instead of the "hot fit" of his ague attack. [152] That is to say, he would help to pay for the printing, if it should prove too long for the Linnean Society. [153] W. H. Harvey, born 1811, died 1866: a well-known botanist. [154] See a discussion on the date of the earliest sketch of the _Origin_ in the _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 10. [155] _The Origin of Species._ [156] Miss Tollett was an old friend of the family. [157] In the first edition Chapter iv. was on Natural Selection. [158] The following characteristic acknowledgment of the help he received occurs in a letter to Hooker, of about this time: "I never did pick any one's pocket, but whilst writing my present chapter I keep on feeling (even when differing most from you) just as if I were stealing from you, so much do I owe to your writings and conversation, so much more than mere acknowledgments show." [159] Feb. 9th, 1858. [160] "When I go over the chapter I will see what I can do, but I hardly know how I am obscure, and I think we are somehow in a mutual muddle with respect to each other, from starting from some fundamentally different notions."--Letter of May 6th, 1859. [161] Of Hooker's _Flora of Australia_. [162] _Origin of Species_, 6th edition, vol. ii. p. 357. "But with the working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile, so that it could never have transmitted successively acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may well be asked how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?" CHAPTER XII. THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' "Remember that your verdict will probably have more influence than my book in deciding whether such views as I hold will be admitted or rejected at present; in the future I cannot doubt about their admittance, and our posterity will marvel as much about the current belief as we do about fossil shells having been thought to have been created as we now see them."--From a letter to Lyell, Sept. 1859. OCTOBER 3RD, 1859, TO DECEMBER 31ST, 1859. Under the date of October 1st, 1859, in my father's Diary occurs the entry:--"Finished proofs (thirteen months and ten days) of Abstract on _Origin of Species_; 1250 copies printed. The first edition was published on November 24th, and all copies sold first day." In October he was, as we have seen in the last chapter, at Ilkley, near Leeds: there he remained with his family until December, and on the 9th of that month he was again at Down. The only other entry in the Diary for this year is as follows:--"During end of November and beginning of December, employed in correcting for second edition of 3000 copies; multitude of letters." The first and a few of the subsequent letters refer to proof-sheets, and to early copies of the Origin which were sent to friends before the book was published. _C. Lyell to C. Darwin._ October 3rd, 1859. MY DEAR DARWIN,--I have just finished your volume, and right glad I am that I did my best with Hooker to persuade you to publish it without waiting for a time which probably could never have arrived, though you lived till the age of a hundred, when you had prepared all your facts on which you ground so many grand generalizations. It is a splendid case of close reasoning, and long substantial argument throughout so many pages; the condensation immense, too great perhaps for the uninitiated, but an effective and important preliminary statement, which will admit, even before your detailed proofs appear, of some occasional useful exemplification, such as your pigeons and cirripedes, of which you make such excellent use. I mean that, when, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon called for, you may here and there insert an actual case to relieve the vast number of abstract propositions. So far as I am concerned, I am so well prepared to take your statements of facts for granted, that I do not think the "pièces justificatives" when published will make much difference, and I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the case of Man and his races, and of other animals, and that of plants is one and the same, and that if a "vera causa" be admitted for one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word "Creation," all the consequences must follow. I fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this place to indulge in a variety of comments, and to say how much I was delighted with Oceanic Islands--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--the genealogical key to the Natural System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should be copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a word of the Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration, or, at least, omission of a word or two be still possible in that. In the first place, at p. 480, it cannot surely be said that the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of the mutability of species? You do not mean to ignore G. St. Hilaire and Lamarck. As to the latter, you may say, that in regard to animals you substitute natural selection for volition to a certain considerable extent, but in his theory of the changes of plants he could not introduce volition; he may, no doubt, have laid an undue comparative stress on changes in physical conditions, and too little on those of contending organisms. He at least was for the universal mutability of species and for a genealogical link between the first and the present. The men of his school also appealed to domesticated varieties. (Do you mean _living_ naturalists?)[163] The first page of this most important summary gives the adversary an advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and crudely such a startling objection as the formation of "the eye,"[164] not by means analogous to man's reason, or rather by some power immeasurably superior to human reason, but by superinduced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder avails himself. Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several sentences, and in a future edition bring it out more fully. ... But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun. Your comparison of the letters retained in words, when no longer wanted for the sound, to rudimentary organs is excellent, as both are truly genealogical.... You enclose your sheets in old MS., so the Post Office very properly charge them, as letters, 2_d._ extra. I wish all their fines on MS. were worth as much. I paid 4_s._ 6_d._ for such wash the other day from Paris, from a man who can prove 300 deluges in the valley of Seine. With my hearty congratulations to you on your grand work, believe me, Ever very affectionately yours. _C. D. to L. Agassiz._[165] Down, November 11th [1859]. MY DEAR SIR,--I have ventured to send you a copy of my book (as yet only an abstract) on the _Origin of Species_. As the conclusions at which I have arrived on several points differ so widely from yours, I have thought (should you at any time read my volume) that you might think that I had sent it to you out of a spirit of defiance or bravado; but I assure you that I act under a wholly different frame of mind. I hope that you will at least give me credit, however erroneous you may think my conclusions, for having earnestly endeavoured to arrive at the truth. With sincere respect, I beg leave to remain, Yours very faithfully. He sent copies of the _Origin_, accompanied by letters similar to the last, to M. De Candolle, Dr. Asa Gray, Falconer and Mr. Jenyns (Blomefield). To Henslow he wrote (Nov. 11th, 1859):-- "I have told Murray to send a copy of my book on Species to you, my dear old master in Natural History; I fear, however, that you will not approve of your pupil in this case. The book in its present state does not show the amount of labour which I have bestowed on the subject. "If you have time to read it carefully, and would take the trouble to point out what parts seem weakest to you and what best, it would be a most material aid to me in writing my bigger book, which I hope to commence in a few months. You know also how highly I value your judgment. But I am not so unreasonable as to wish or expect you to write detailed and lengthy criticisms, but merely a few general remarks, pointing out the weakest parts. "If you are _in ever so slight a degree_ staggered (which I hardly expect) on the immutability of species, then I am convinced with further reflection you will become more and more staggered, for this has been the process through which my mind has gone." _C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Ilkley, November 13th, 1859. MY DEAR SIR,--I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) a copy of my book, and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the same time with this note. (N.B. I have got a bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.) If you are so inclined, I should very much like to hear your general impression of the book, as you have thought so profoundly on the subject, and in so nearly the same channel with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much. Remember it is only an abstract, and very much condensed. God knows what the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell, with whom I have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but he does not seem so in his letters to me; but is evidently deeply interested in the subject. I do not think your share in the theory will be overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, &c. I have heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the Malay Archipelago has been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was _extremely_ much interested by it. I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months, owing to the state of my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I am writing this at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger book. I sincerely hope that you keep your health; I suppose that you will be thinking of returning[166] soon with your magnificent collections, and still grander mental materials. You will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society fund will be worth your consideration. With every good wish, pray believe me, Yours very sincerely. P.S.--I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If I can convert Huxley I shall be content. _C. Darwin to W. B. Carpenter._ November 19th [1859]. ... If, after reading my book, you are able to come to a conclusion in any degree definite, will you think me very unreasonable in asking you to let me hear from you? I do not ask for a long discussion, but merely for a brief idea of your general impression. From your widely extended knowledge, habit of investigating the truth, and abilities, I should value your opinion in the very highest rank. Though I, of course, believe in the truth of my own doctrine, I suspect that no belief is vivid until shared by others. As yet I know only one believer, but I look at him as of the greatest authority, viz. Hooker. When I think of the many cases of men who have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded themselves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel sometimes a little frightened, whether I may not be one of these monomaniacs. Again pray excuse this, I fear, unreasonable request. A short note would suffice, and I could bear a hostile verdict, and shall have to bear many a one. Yours very sincerely. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Ilkley, Yorkshire. [November, 1859.] MY DEAR HOOKER,--I have just read a review on my book in the _Athenæum_[167] and it excites my curiosity much who is the author. If you should hear who writes in the _Athenæum_ I wish you would tell me. It seems to me well done, but the reviewer gives no new objections, and, being hostile, passes over every single argument in favour of the doctrine.... I fear, from the tone of the review, that I have written in a conceited and cocksure style,[168] which shames me a little. There is another review of which I should like to know the author, viz. of H. C. Watson in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_.[169] Some of the remarks are like yours, and he does deserve punishment; but surely the review is too severe. Don't you think so?... I have heard from Carpenter, who, I think, is likely to be a convert. Also from Quatrefages, who is inclined to go a long way with us. He says that he exhibited in his lecture a diagram closely like mine! _J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin._ Monday [Nov. 21, 1859]. MY DEAR DARWIN,--I am a sinner not to have written you ere this, if only to thank you for your glorious book--what a mass of close reasoning on curious facts and fresh phenomena--it is capitally written, and will be very successful. I say this on the strength of two or three plunges into as many chapters, for I have not yet attempted to read it. Lyell, with whom we are staying, is perfectly enchanted, and is absolutely gloating over it. I must accept your compliment to me, and acknowledgment of supposed assistance[170] from me, as the warm tribute of affection from an honest (though deluded) man, and furthermore accept it as very pleasing to my vanity; but, my dear fellow, neither my name nor my judgment nor my assistance deserved any such compliments, and if I am dishonest enough to be pleased with what I don't deserve, it must just pass. How different the _book_ reads from the MS. I see I shall have much to talk over with you. Those lazy printers have not finished my luckless Essay: which, beside your book, will look like a ragged handkerchief beside a Royal Standard.... _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [November, 1859.] MY DEAR HOOKER,--I cannot help it, I must thank you for your affectionate and most kind note. My head will be turned. By Jove, I must try and get a bit modest. I was a little chagrined by the review.[171] I hope it was _not_ ----. As advocate, he might think himself justified in giving the argument only on one side. But the manner in which he drags in immortality, and sets the priests at me, and leaves me to their mercies, is base. He would, on no account, burn me, but he will get the wood ready, and tell the black beasts how to catch me.... It would be unspeakably grand if Huxley were to lecture on the subject, but I can see this is a mere chance; Faraday might think it too unorthodox. ... I had a letter from [Huxley] with such tremendous praise of my book, that modesty (as I am trying to cultivate that difficult herb) prevents me sending it to you, which I should have liked to have done, as he is very modest about himself. You have cockered me up to that extent, that I now feel I can face a score of savage reviewers. I suppose you are still with the Lyells. Give my kindest remembrance to them. I triumph to hear that he continues to approve. Believe me, your would-be modest friend. The following passage from a letter to Lyell shows how strongly he felt on the subject of Lyell's adherence:--"I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;[172] nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace." _T. H. Huxley[173] to C. Darwin._ Jermyn Street, W. November 23rd, 1859. MY DEAR DARWIN,--I finished your book yesterday, a lucky examination having furnished me with a few hours of continuous leisure. Since I read Von Bär's[174] essays, nine years ago, no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. Nothing, I think, can be better than the tone of the book, it impresses those who know nothing about the subject. As for your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in support of Chapter IX.,[175] and most parts of Chapters X., XI., XII.; and Chapter XIII. contains much that is most admirable, but on one or two points I enter a _caveat_ until I can see further into all sides of the question. As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully with all the principles laid down in them. I think you have demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and have thrown the _onus probandi_, that species did not arise in the way you suppose, on your adversaries. But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully realized the bearings of those most remarkable and original Chapters III., IV. and V., and I will write no more about them just now. The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting _Natura non facit saltum_ so unreservedly.... And 2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should occur at all. However, I must read the book two or three times more before I presume to begin picking holes. I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead. I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness. Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly all I think about you and your noble book that I am half ashamed of it; but you will understand that, like the parrot in the story, "I think the more." Ever yours faithfully. _C. D. to T. H. Huxley._ Ilkley, Nov. 25 [1859]. MY DEAR HUXLEY,--Your letter has been forwarded to me from Down. Like a good Catholic who has received extreme unction, I can now sing "nunc dimittis." I should have been more than contented with one quarter of what you have said. Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to paper for this volume, I had awful misgivings; and thought perhaps I had deluded myself, like so many have done, and I then fixed in my mind three judges, on whose decision I determined mentally to abide. The judges were Lyell, Hooker, and yourself. It was this which made me so excessively anxious for your verdict. I am now contented, and can sing my "nunc dimittis." What a joke it would be if I pat you on the back when you attack some immovable creationists! You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must think, external conditions produce little _direct_ effect, what the devil determines each particular variation? What makes a tuft of feathers come on a cock's head, or moss on a moss-rose? I shall much like to talk over this with you.... My dear Huxley, I thank you cordially for your letter. Yours very sincerely. _Erasmus Darwin[176] to C. Darwin._ November 23rd [1859]. DEAR CHARLES,--I am so much weaker in the head, that I hardly know if I can write, but at all events I will jot down a few things that the Dr.[177] has said. He has not read much above half, so, as he says, he can give no definite conclusion, and keeps stating that he is not tied down to either view, and that he has always left an escape by the way he has spoken of varieties. I happened to speak of the eye before he had read that part, and it took away his breath--utterly impossible--structure--function, &c., &c., &c., but when he had read it he hummed and hawed, and perhaps it was partly conceivable, and then he fell back on the bones of the ear, which were beyond all probability or conceivability. He mentioned a slight blot, which I also observed, that in speaking of the slave-ants carrying one another, you change the species without giving notice first, and it makes one turn back.... ... For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution, I mean the relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I don't feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I don't in the least know if everything now living were fossilized whether the palæontologists could distinguish them. In fact the _a priori_ reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling. My ague has left me in such a state of torpidity that I wish I had gone through the process of natural selection. Yours affectionately. _A. Sedgwick[178] to C. Darwin._ [November 1859.] MY DEAR DARWIN,--I write to thank you for your work on the _Origin of Species_. It came, I think, in the latter part of last week; but it may have come a few days sooner, and been overlooked among my book-parcels, which often remain unopened when I am lazy or busy with any work before me. So soon as I opened it I began to read it, and I finished it, after many interruptions, on Tuesday. Yesterday I was employed--1st, in preparing for my lecture; 2ndly, in attending a meeting of my brother Fellows to discuss the final propositions of the Parliamentary Commissioners; 3rdly, in lecturing; 4thly, in hearing the conclusion of the discussion and the College reply, whereby, in conformity with my own wishes, we accepted the scheme of the Commissioners; 5thly, in dining with an old friend at Clare College; 6thly, in adjourning to the weekly meeting of the Ray Club, from which I returned at 10 P.M., dog-tired, and hardly able to climb my staircase. Lastly, in looking through the _Times_ to see what was going on in the busy world. I do not state this to fill space (though I believe that Nature does abhor a vacuum), but to prove that my reply and my thanks are sent to you by the earliest leisure I have, though that is but a very contracted opportunity. If I did not think you a good-tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell you that (spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital views of the correlation of the various parts of organic nature, admirable hints about the diffusion, through wide regions, of many related organic beings, &c. &c.) I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have _deserted_--after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth--the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle--_natural selection_--what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts? Development is a better word, because more close to the cause of the fact? For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God; and I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study and comprehend. Acting by law, and under what is called final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of "natural selection" as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. 'Tis but a consequence of the pre-supposed development, and the subsequent battle for life. This view of nature you have stated admirably, though admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common-sense. We all admit development as a fact of history: but how came it about? Here, in language, and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. 'Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it _does_ through _final cause_, link material and moral; and yet _does not_ allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-cells. If your development produced the successive modification of the bee and its cells (which no mortal can prove), final cause would stand good as the directing cause under which the successive generations acted and gradually improved. Passages in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I think, in speculating on organic descent, you _over_-state the evidence of geology; and that you _under_-state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree: but my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter--not as a summary, for in that light it appears good--but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the _Vestiges_) and prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found anywhere but in the fertile womb of man's imagination. And now to say a word about a son of a monkey and an old friend of yours: I am better, far better, than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days a week (formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the loss of activity and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily frame is sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions of the future. They are as much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and these visions are to have their anti-type in solid fruition of what is best and greatest. But on one condition only--that I humbly accept God's revelation of Himself both in His works and in His word, and do my best to act in conformity with that knowledge which He only can give me, and He only can sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this, we shall meet in heaven. I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love, therefore forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and believe me, spite of any disagreement in some points of the deepest moral interest, your true-hearted old friend, A. SEDGWICK. The following extract from a note to Lyell (Nov. 24) gives an idea of the conditions under which the second edition was prepared: "This morning I heard from Murray that he sold the whole edition[179] the first day to the trade. He wants a new edition instantly, and this utterly confounds me. Now, under water-cure, with all nervous power directed to the skin, I cannot possibly do head-work, and I must make only actually necessary corrections. But I will, as far as I can without my manuscript, take advantage of your suggestions: I must not attempt much. Will you send me one line to say whether I must strike out about the secondary whale,[180] it goes to my heart. About the rattle-snake, look to my Journal, under Trigonocephalus, and you will see the probable origin of the rattle, and generally in transitions it is the _premier pas qui coûte_." Here follows a hint of the coming storm (from a letter to Lyell, Dec. 2):-- "Do what I could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In answer to Sedgwick's remark that my book would be 'mischievous,' I asked him whether truth can be known except by being victorious over all attacks. But it is no use. H. C. Watson tells me that one zoologist says he will read my book, 'but I will never believe it.' What a spirit to read any book in! Crawford[181] writes to me that his notice will be hostile, but that 'he will not calumniate the author.' He says he has read my book, 'at least such parts as he could understand.'[182] He sent me some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant), and they show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject, by publishing an abstract.... I have had several notes from ----, very civil and less decided. Says he shall not pronounce against me without much reflection, _perhaps will say nothing_ on the subject. X. says he will go to that part of hell, which Dante tells us is appointed for those who are neither on God's side nor on that of the devil." But his friends were preparing to fight for him. Huxley gave, in _Macmillan's Magazine_ for December, an analysis of the _Origin_, together with the substance of his Royal Institution lecture, delivered before the publication of the book. Carpenter was preparing an essay for the _National Review_, and negotiating for a notice in the _Edinburgh_ free from any taint of _odium theologicum_. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down [December 12th, 1859]. ... I had very long interviews with ----, which perhaps you would like to hear about.... I infer from several expressions that, at bottom, he goes an immense way with us.... He said to the effect that my explanation was the best ever published of the manner of formation of species. I said I was very glad to hear it. He took me up short: "You must not at all suppose that I agree with you in all respects." I said I thought it no more likely that I should be right in nearly all points, than that I should toss up a penny and get heads twenty times running. I asked him what he thought the weakest part. He said he had no particular objection to any part. He added:-- "If I must criticise, I should say, we do not want to know what Darwin believes and is convinced of, but what he can prove." I agreed most fully and truly that I have probably greatly sinned in this line, and defended my general line of argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many classes of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would endeavour to modify the "believes" and "convinceds." He took me up short: "You will then spoil your book, the charm of it is that it is Darwin himself." He added another objection, that the book was too _teres atque rotundus_--that it explained everything, and that it was improbable in the highest degree that I should succeed in this. I quite agree with this rather queer objection, and it comes to this that my book must be very bad or very good.... I have heard, by a roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book "is the law of higgledy-piggledy." What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discouragement. _J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin_. Kew [1859]. DEAR DARWIN,--You have, I know, been drenched with letters since the publication of your book, and I have hence forborne to add my mite.[183] I hope now that you are well through Edition II., and I have heard that you were flourishing in London. I have not yet got half-through the book, not from want of will, but of time--for it is the very hardest book to read, to full profits, that I ever tried--it is so cram-full of matter and reasoning.[184] I am all the more glad that you have published in this form, for the three volumes, unprefaced by this, would have choked any Naturalist of the nineteenth century, and certainly have softened my brain in the operation of assimilating their contents. I am perfectly tired of marvelling at the wonderful amount of facts you have brought to bear, and your skill in marshalling them and throwing them on the enemy; it is also extremely clear as far as I have gone, but very hard to fully appreciate. Somehow it reads very different from the MS., and I often fancy that I must have been very stupid not to have more fully followed it in MS. Lyell told me of his criticisms. I did not appreciate them all, and there are many little matters I hope one day to talk over with you. I saw a highly flattering notice in the _English Churchman_, short and not at all entering into discussion, but praising you and your book, and talking patronizingly of the doctrine!... Bentham and Henslow will still shake their heads, I fancy.... Ever yours affectionately. _C. D. to T. H. Huxley._ Down, Dec. 28th [1859]. MY DEAR HUXLEY,--Yesterday evening, when I read the _Times_ of a previous day, I was amazed to find a splendid essay and review of me. Who can the author be? I am intensely curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite touched me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved. The author is a literary man, and German scholar. He has read my book very attentively; but, what is very remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He knows my Barnacle-book, and appreciates it too highly. Lastly, he writes and thinks with quite uncommon force and clearness; and what is even still rarer, his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit. We all laughed heartily over some of the sentences.... Who can it be? Certainly I should have said that there was only one man in England who could have written this essay, and that _you_ were the man. But I suppose I am wrong, and that there is some hidden genius of great calibre. For how could you influence Jupiter Olympus and make him give three and a half columns to pure science? The old fogies will think the world will come to an end. Well, whoever the man is, he has done great service to the cause, far more than by a dozen reviews in common periodicals. The grand way he soars above common religious prejudices, and the admission of such views into the _Times_, I look at as of the highest importance, quite independently of the mere question of species. If you should happen to be _acquainted_ with the author, for Heaven-sake tell me who he is? My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely. There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing in the leading daily Journal, must have had a strong influence on the reading public. Mr. Huxley allows me to quote from a letter an account of the happy chance that threw into his hands the opportunity of writing it:-- "The _Origin_ was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of the _Times_ writers at that day, in what I suppose was the ordinary course of business. Mr. Lucas, though an excellent journalist, and, at a later period, editor of _Once a Week_, was as innocent of any knowledge of science as a babe, and bewailed himself to an acquaintance on having to deal with such a book. Whereupon he was recommended to ask me to get him out of his difficulty, and he applied to me accordingly, explaining, however, that it would be necessary for him formally to adopt anything I might be disposed to write, by prefacing it with two or three paragraphs of his own. "I was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus offered of giving the book a fair chance with the multitudinous readers of the _Times_ to make any difficulty about conditions; and being then very full of the subject, I wrote the article faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my life, and sent it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening sentences. "When the article appeared, there was much speculation as to its authorship. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets will, but not by my aid; and then I used to derive a good deal of innocent amusement from the vehement assertions of some of my more acute friends, that they knew it was mine from the first paragraph! "As the _Times_ some years since referred to my connection with the review, I suppose there will be no breach of confidence in the publication of this little history, if you think it worth the space it will occupy." FOOTNOTES: [163] In his next letter to Lyell my father writes: "The omission of 'living' before 'eminent' naturalists was a dreadful blunder." In the first edition, as published, the blunder is corrected by the addition of the word "living." [164] Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in 1860:--"The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder." [165] Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, born at Mortier, on the lake of Morat in Switzerland, on May 28th, 1807. He emigrated to America in 1846, where he spent the rest of his life, and died Dec. 14th, 1873. His _Life_, written by his widow, was published in 1885. The following extract from a letter to Agassiz (1850) is worth giving, as showing how my father regarded him, and it may be added that his cordial feeling towards the great American naturalist remained strong to the end of his life:-- "I have seldom been more deeply gratified than by receiving your most kind present of _Lake Superior_. I had heard of it, and had much wished to read it, but I confess that it was the very great honour of having in my possession a work with your autograph as a presentation copy, that has given me such lively and sincere pleasure. I cordially thank you for it. I have begun to read it with uncommon interest, which I see will increase as I go on." [166] Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago. [167] Nov. 19, 1859. [168] The Reviewer speaks of the author's "evident self-satisfaction," and of his disposing of all difficulties "more or less confidently." [169] A review of the fourth volume of Watson's _Cybele Britannica_, _Gard. Chron._, 1859, p. 911. [170] See the _Origin_, first edition, p. 3, where Sir J. D. Hooker's help is conspicuously acknowledged. [171] This refers to the review in the _Athenæum_, Nov. 19th, 1859, where the reviewer, after touching on the theological aspects of the book, leaves the author to "the mercies of the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room, and the Museum." [172] It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the _Manual_, but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at work on the _Antiquity of Man_ in 1860, and had already determined to discuss the Origin at the end of the book. [173] In a letter written in October, my father had said, "I am intensely curious to hear Huxley's opinion of my book. I fear my long discussion on classification will disgust him, for it is much opposed to what he once said to me." He may have remembered the following incident told by Mr. Huxley in his chapter of the _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 196:--"I remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin, expressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence of transitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and imperfect knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he had then been many years brooding over the species question; and the humorous smile which accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me." [174] Karl Ernst von Baer, b. 1792, d. at Dorpat 1876--one of the most distinguished biologists of the century. He practically founded the modern science of embryology. [175] In the first edition of the _Origin_, Chap. IX. is on the 'Imperfection of the Geological Record;' Chap. X., on the 'Geological Succession of Organic Beings;' Chaps. XI. and XII., on 'Geographical Distribution;' Chap. XIII., on 'Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings; Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs.' [176] His brother. [177] Dr., afterwards Sir Henry, Holland. [178] Rev. Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor of Geology in the University of Cambridge. Born 1785, died 1873. [179] First edition, 1250 copies. [180] The passage was omitted in the second edition. [181] John Crawford, orientalist, ethnologist, &c., b. 1783, d. 1868. The review appeared in the _Examiner_, and, though hostile, is free from bigotry, as the following citation will show: "We cannot help saying that piety must be fastidious indeed that objects to a theory the tendency of which is to show that all organic beings, man included, are in a perpetual progress of amelioration and that is expounded in the reverential language which we have quoted." [182] A letter of Dec. 14, gives a good example of the manner in which some naturalists received and understood it. "Old J. E. Gray of the British Museum attacked me in fine style: 'You have just reproduced Lamarck's doctrine, and nothing else, and here Lyell and others have been attacking him for twenty years, and because _you_ (with a sneer and laugh) say the very same thing, they are all coming round; it is the most ridiculous inconsistency, &c. &c.'" [183] See, however, p. 211. [184] Mr. Huxley has made a similar remark:--"Long occupation with the work has led the present writer to believe that the _Origin of Species_ is one of the hardest of books to master."--_Obituary Notice, Proc. R. Soc._ No. 269, p. xvii. CHAPTER XIII. THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES'--REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS--ADHESIONS AND ATTACKS. "You are the greatest revolutionist in natural history of this century, if not of all centuries."--H. C. Watson to C. Darwin, Nov. 21, 1859. 1860. The second edition, 3000 copies, of the _Origin_ was published on January 7th; on the 10th, he wrote with regard to it, to Lyell:-- _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, January 10th [1860]. ... It is perfectly true that I owe nearly all the corrections to you, and several verbal ones to you and others; I am heartily glad you approve of them, as yet only two things have annoyed me; those confounded millions[185] of years (not that I think it is probably wrong), and my not having (by inadvertence) mentioned Wallace towards the close of the book in the summary, not that any one has noticed this to me. I have now put in Wallace's name at p. 484 in a conspicuous place. I shall be truly glad to read carefully any MS. on man, and give my opinion. You used to caution me to be cautious about man. I suspect I shall have to return the caution a hundred fold! Yours will, no doubt, be a grand discussion; but it will horrify the world at first more than my whole volume; although by the sentence (p. 489, new edition[186]) I show that I believe man is in the same predicament with other animals. It is in fact impossible to doubt it. I have thought (only vaguely) on man. With respect to the races, one of my best chances of truth has broken down from the impossibility of getting facts. I have one good speculative line, but a man must have entire credence in Natural Selection before he will even listen to it. Psychologically, I have done scarcely anything. Unless, indeed, expression of countenance can be included, and on that subject I have collected a good many facts, and speculated, but I do not suppose I shall ever publish, but it is an uncommonly curious subject. A few days later he wrote again to the same correspondent: "What a grand immense benefit you conferred on me by getting Murray to publish my book. I never till to-day realised that it was getting widely distributed; for in a letter from a lady to-day to E., she says she heard a man enquiring for it at the _Railway Station!!!_ at Waterloo Bridge; and the bookseller said that he had none till the new edition was out. The bookseller said he had not read it, but had heard it was a very remarkable book!!!" _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, 14th [January, 1860]. ... I heard from Lyell this morning, and he tells me a piece of news. You are a good-for-nothing man; here you are slaving yourself to death with hardly a minute to spare, and you must write a review on my book! I thought it[187] a very good one, and was so much struck with it, that I sent it to Lyell. But I assumed, as a matter of course, that it was Lindley's. Now that I know it is yours, I have re-read it, and my kind and good friend, it has warmed my heart with all the honourable and noble things you say of me and it. I was a good deal surprised at Lindley hitting on some of the remarks, but I never dreamed of you. I admired it chiefly as so well adapted to tell on the readers of the _Gardeners' Chronicle_; but now I admire it in another spirit. Farewell, with hearty thanks.... _Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker._ Cambridge, Mass., January 5th, 1860. MY DEAR HOOKER,--Your last letter, which reached me just before Christmas, has got mislaid during the upturnings in my study which take place at that season, and has not yet been discovered. I should be very sorry to lose it, for there were in it some botanical mems. which I had not secured.... The principal part of your letter was high laudation of Darwin's book. Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful perusal four days ago; and I freely say that your laudation is not out of place. It is done in a _masterly manner_. It might well have taken twenty years to produce it. It is crammed full of most interesting matter--thoroughly digested--well expressed--close, cogent, and taken as a system it makes out a better case than I had supposed possible.... Agassiz, when I saw him last, had read but a part of it. He says it is _poor--very poor_!! (entre nous). The fact [is] he is very much annoyed by it, ... and I do not wonder at it. To bring all _ideal_ systems within the domain of science, and give good physical or natural explanations of all his capital points, is as bad as to have Forbes take the glacier materials ... and give scientific explanation of all the phenomena. Tell Darwin all this. I will write to him when I get a chance. As I have promised, he and you shall have fair-play here.... I must myself write a review[188] of Darwin's book for _Silliman's Journal_ (the more so that I suspect Agassiz means to come out upon it) for the next (March) number, and I am now setting about it (when I ought to be every moment working the Expl[oring] Expedition Compositæ, which I know far more about). And really it is no easy job as you may well imagine. I doubt if I shall please you altogether. I know I shall not please Agassiz at all. I hear another reprint is in the Press, and the book will excite much attention here, and some controversy.... _C. D. to Asa Gray._ Down, January 28th [1860]. MY DEAR GRAY,--Hooker has forwarded to me your letter to him; and I cannot express how deeply it has gratified me. To receive the approval of a man whom one has long sincerely respected, and whose judgment and knowledge are most universally admitted, is the highest reward an author can possibly wish for; and I thank you heartily for your most kind expressions. I have been absent from home for a few days, and so could not earlier answer your letter to me of the 10th of January. You have been extremely kind to take so much trouble and interest about the edition. It has been a mistake of my publisher not thinking of sending over the sheets. I had entirely and utterly forgotten your offer of receiving the sheets as printed off. But I must not blame my publisher, for had I remembered your most kind offer I feel pretty sure I should not have taken advantage of it; for I never dreamed of my book being so successful with general readers: I believe I should have laughed at the idea of sending the sheets to America.[189] After much consideration, and on the strong advice of Lyell and others, I have resolved to leave the present book as it is (excepting correcting errors, or here and there inserting short sentences), and to use all my strength, _which is but little_, to bring out the first part (forming a separate volume, with index, &c.) of the three volumes which will make my bigger work; so that I am very unwilling to take up time in making corrections for an American edition. I enclose a list of a few corrections in the second reprint, which you will have received by this time complete, and I could send four or five corrections or additions of equally small importance, or rather of equal brevity. I also intend to write a _short_ preface with a brief history of the subject. These I will set about, as they must some day be done, and I will send them to you in a short time--the few corrections first, and the preface afterwards, unless I hear that you have given up all idea of a separate edition. You will then be able to judge whether it is worth having the new edition with _your review prefixed_. Whatever be the nature of your review, I assure you I should feel it a _great_ honour to have my book thus preceded.... _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down [February 15th, 1860]. ... I am perfectly convinced (having read it this morning) that the review in the _Annals_[190] is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses. I have written to him, and told him that the "pestilent" fellow thanks him for his kind manner of speaking about him. I have also told him that he would be pleased to hear that the Bishop of Oxford says it is the most unphilosophical[191] work he ever read. The review seems to me clever, and only misinterprets me in a few places. Like all hostile men, he passes over the explanation given of Classification, Morphology, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs, &c. I read Wallace's paper in MS.,[192] and thought it admirably good; he does not know that he has been anticipated about the depth of intervening sea determining distribution.... The most curious point in the paper seems to me that about the African character of the Celebes productions, but I should require further confirmation.... Henslow is staying here; I have had some talk with him; he is in much the same state as Bunbury,[193] and will go a very little way with us, but brings up no real argument against going further. He also shudders at the eye! It is really curious (and perhaps is an argument in our favour) how differently different opposers view the subject. Henslow used to rest his opposition on the imperfection of the Geological Record, but he now thinks nothing of this, and says I have got well out of it; I wish I could quite agree with him. Baden Powell says he never read anything so conclusive as my statement about the eye!! A stranger writes to me about sexual selection, and regrets that I boggle about such a trifle as the brush of hair on the male turkey, and so on. As L. Jenyns has a really philosophical mind, and as you say you like to see everything, I send an old letter of his. In a later letter to Henslow, which I have seen, he is more candid than any opposer I have heard of, for he says, though he cannot go so far as I do, yet he can give no good reason why he should not. It is funny how each man draws his own imaginary line at which to halt. It reminds me so vividly [of] what I was told[194] about you when I first commenced geology--to believe a _little_, but on no account to believe all. Ever yours affectionately. With regard to the attitude of the more liberal representatives of the Church, the following letter from Charles Kingsley is of interest: _C. Kingsley to C. Darwin._ Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, November 18th, 1859. DEAR SIR,--I have to thank you for the unexpected honour of your book. That the Naturalist whom, of all naturalists living, I most wish to know and to learn from, should have sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me at least to observe more carefully, and think more slowly. I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your book just now as I ought. All I have seen of it _awes_ me; both with the heap of facts and the prestige of your name, and also with the clear intuition, that if you be right, I must give up much that I have believed and written. In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Let us know what is, and, as old Socrates has it, [Greek: hepesthai tô logô]--follow up the villainous shifty fox of an argument, into whatsoever unexpected bogs and brakes he may lead us, if we do but run into him at last. From two common superstitious, at least, I shall be free while judging of your book:-- (1.) I have long since, from watching the crossing of domesticated animals and plants, learnt to disbelieve the dogma of the permanence of species. (2.) I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development into all forms needful _pro tempore_ and _pro loco_, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the _lacunas_ which He Himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought. Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a person as Your faithful servant, C. KINGSLEY. My father's old friend, the Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton Brodie, who was for many years Vicar of Down, in some reminiscences of my father which he was so good as to give me, writes in the same spirit: "We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin I had adopted, and publicly expressed, the principle that the study of natural history, geology, and science in general, should be pursued without reference to the Bible. That the Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood would never cross.... "In [a] letter, after I had left Down, he [Darwin] writes, 'We often differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing [of] which I should feel very proud if any one could say [it] of me.' "On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-table, 'Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty years, and we never thoroughly agreed on any subject but once, and then we stared hard at each other, and thought one of us must be very ill.'" The following extract from a letter to Lyell, Feb. 23, 1860, has a certain bearing on the points just touched on: "With respect to Bronn's[195] objection that it cannot be shown how life arises, and likewise to a certain extent Asa Gray's remark that natural selection is not a _vera causa_, I was much interested by finding accidentally in Brewster's _Life of Newton_, that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity because Newton could not show what gravity itself is. As it has chanced, I have used in letters this very same argument, little knowing that any one had really thus objected to the law of gravity. Newton answers by saying that it is philosophy to make out the movements of a clock, though you do not know why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz further objected that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural Religion! Is this not curious? I really think I shall use the facts for some introductory remarks for my bigger book." _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, March 3rd [1860]. ... I think you expect too much in regard to change of opinion on the subject of Species. One large class of men, more especially I suspect of naturalists, never will care about _any_ general question, of which old Gray, of the British Museum, may be taken as a type; and secondly, nearly all men past a moderate age, either in actual years or in mind are, I am fully convinced, incapable of looking at facts under a new point of view. Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the progress which the subject has made; look at the enclosed memorandum. ---- says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so; but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not. [Here follows the memorandum referred to:] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geologists. | Zoologists and | Physiologists. |Botanists. | Palæontologists. | | ------------------|------------------|------------------|----------------- Lyell. |Huxley. |Carpenter. |Hooker. Ramsay.[196] |J. Lubbock. |Sir. H. Holland |H. C. Watson. Jukes.[197] |L. Jenyns |(to large extent).|Asa Gray H. D. Rogers.[198]|(to large extent).| |(to some extent). |Searles Wood.[199]| |Dr. Boott | |(to large extent). | |Thwaites.[200] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _C. D. to Asa Gray_. Down, April 3 [1860]. ... I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!... You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedgwick (as I and Lyell feel _certain_ from internal evidence) has reviewed me savagely and unfairly in the _Spectator_.[201] The notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps between successive geological formations, instead of its being an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old friend Sedgwick, with his noble heart, is old, and is rabid with indignation.... There has been one prodigy of a review, namely, an _opposed_ one (by Pictet,[202] the palæontologist, in the _Bib. Universelle_ of Geneva) which is _perfectly_ fair and just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference being that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour, and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the opposed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never expected to see one. Please observe that I do not class your review by any means as opposed, though you think so yourself! It has done me _much_ too good service ever to appear in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with so much about my book. I should rather think there was a good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all Europe! What a proud pre-eminence! Well, you have helped to make me so, and therefore you must forgive me if you can. My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, April 10th [1860]. I have just read the _Edinburgh_,[203] which without doubt is by ----. It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley's lecture, and very bitter against Hooker. So we three _enjoyed_ it together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me uncomfortable for one night; but I have got quite over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents many parts. He misquotes some passages, altering words within inverted commas.... It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which ---- hates me. Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have done. In last Saturday's _Gardeners' Chronicle_,[204] a Mr. Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on _Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few passages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on Naval Timber. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [April 13th, 1860]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if you would read the enclosed.[205] If you think it proper that I should send it (and of this there can hardly be any question), and if you think it full and ample enough, please alter the date to the day on which you post it, and let that be soon. The case in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_ seems a _little_ stronger than in Mr. Matthew's book, for the passages are therein scattered in three places; but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that. If you object to my letter, please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much for science to my friends. ... I have gone over [the _Edinburgh_] review again, and compared passages, and I am astonished at the misrepresentations. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has been thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care about the gratuitous attack on you. Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember how many and many a man has done this--who thought it absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey. _C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, April [1860]. ... I was particularly glad to hear what you thought about not noticing [the _Edinburgh_] review. Hooker and Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark; but I so hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come up to London on Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will (if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before ten on Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but will not sit long, and so take up much of your time. I must say one more word about our quasi-theological controversy about natural selection, and let me have your opinion when we meet in London. Do you consider that the successive variations in the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has accumulated to please his caprice, have been due to "the creative and sustaining powers of Brahma?" In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universe should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man's silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an interposition of the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason whatever for believing in such interpositions in the case of natural beings, in which strange and admirable peculiarities have been naturally selected for the creature's own benefit. Imagine a Pouter in a state of nature wading into the water and then, being buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about in search of food. What admiration this would have excited--adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic pressure, &c. &c. For the life of me, I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, _if such structure can be arrived at by gradation_, and I know from experience how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations are not known. Ever yours. P.S.--The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told Asa Gray, is that such a question, as is touched on in this note, is beyond the human intellect, like "predestination and free will," or the "origin of evil." _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [May 15th, 1860]. ... How paltry it is in such men as X., Y. and Co. not reading your essay. It is incredibly paltry. They may all attack me to their hearts' content. I am got case-hardened. As for the old fogies in Cambridge,[206] it really signifies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work is worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight. But think of Lyell's progress with Geology. One thing I see most plainly, that without Lyell's, yours, Huxley's and Carpenter's aid, my book would have been a mere flash in the pan. But if we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now see that the battle is worth fighting. I deeply hope that you think so. _C. D. to Asa Gray._ Down May 22nd [1860]. MY DEAR GRAY,--Again I have to thank you for one of your very pleasant letters of May 7th, enclosing a very pleasant remittance of £22. I am in simple truth astonished at all the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appletons' account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknowledgment I send one. If you have any further communication to the Appletons, pray express my acknowledgment for [their] generosity; for it is generosity in my opinion. I am not at all surprised at the sale diminishing; my extreme surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public has been _shamefully_ imposed on! for they bought the book thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you will notice in _Silliman_ the additions in the _Origin_.[207] Judging from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can now be _simple_ organisms still existing.... I hear there is a _very_ severe review on me in the _North British_ by a Rev. Mr. Dunns,[208] a Free Kirk minister, and dabbler in Natural History. In the _Saturday Review_ (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, p. 573, there is a nice article on [the _Edinburgh_] review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker; and the latter, I think, [the _Edinburgh_ reviewer] treats most ungenerously.[209] But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my reviewers. With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion _at all_ satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially. The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is famous for two pitched battles over the _Origin of Species_. Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28th, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication to Section D: "On the final causes of the sexuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the _Origin of Species_." Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but tried (according to the _Athenæum_ report) to avoid a discussion, on the ground "that a general audience, in which sentiment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public before which such a discussion should be carried on." However, the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the _Athenæum_, July 7th, 1860), who "wished to approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher," expressed his "conviction that there were facts by which the public could come to some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to say that the brain of the gorilla "presented more differences, as compared with the brain of man, than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and most problematical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these assertions a "direct and unqualified contradiction," pledging himself to "justify that unusual procedure elsewhere,"[210] a pledge which he amply fulfilled.[211] On Friday there was peace, but on Saturday 30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury, at a conjoint meeting of three Sections, over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York, on the "Intellectual development of Europe considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin." The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene. "The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had been arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum, which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered the lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the bold Bishop.[212] Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied the chair, and wisely announced _in limine_ that none who had not valid arguments to bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to address the meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their indulgence in vague declamation. "The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was evident from his handling of the subject that he had been 'crammed' up to the throat, and that he knew nothing at first hand; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his _Quarterly_ article.[213] He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner, and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined to blame the President for allowing a discussion that could serve no scientific purpose, now forgave him from the bottom of my heart." What follows is from notes most kindly supplied by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Fremantle, who was an eye-witness of the scene. "The Bishop of Oxford attacked Darwin, at first playfully but at last in grim earnest. It was known that the Bishop had written an article against Darwin in the last _Quarterly Review_: it was also rumoured that Professor Owen had been staying at Cuddesden and had primed the Bishop, who was to act as mouthpiece to the great Palæontologist, who did not himself dare to enter the lists. The Bishop, however, did not show himself master of the facts, and made one serious blunder. A fact which had been much dwelt on as confirmatory of Darwin's idea of variation, was that a sheep had been born shortly before in a flock in the North of England, having an addition of one to the vertebræ of the spine. The Bishop was declaring with rhetorical exaggeration that there was hardly any actual evidence on Darwin's side. 'What have they to bring forward?' he exclaimed. 'Some rumoured statement about a long-legged sheep.' But he passed on to banter: 'I should like to ask Professor Huxley, who is sitting by me, and is about to tear me to pieces when I have sat down, as to his belief in being descended from an ape. Is it on his grandfather's or his grandmother's side that the ape ancestry comes in?' And then taking a graver tone, he asserted in a solemn peroration that Darwin's views were contrary to the revelations of God in the Scriptures. Professor Huxley was unwilling to respond: but he was called for and spoke with his usual incisiveness and with some scorn. 'I am here only in the interests of science,' he said, 'and I have not heard anything which can prejudice the case of my august client.' Then after showing how little competent the Bishop was to enter upon the discussion, he touched on the question of Creation. 'You say that development drives out the Creator. But you assert that God made you: and yet you know that you yourself were originally a little piece of matter no bigger than the end of this gold pencil-case.' Lastly as to the descent from a monkey, he said: 'I should feel it no shame to have risen from such an origin. But I should feel it a shame to have sprung from one who prostituted the gifts of culture and of eloquence to the service of prejudice and of falsehood.' "Many others spoke. Mr. Gresley, an old Oxford don, pointed out that in human nature at least orderly development was not the necessary rule; Homer was the greatest of poets, but he lived 3000 years ago, and has not produced his like. "Admiral Fitz-Roy was present, and said that he had often expostulated with his old comrade of the _Beagle_ for entertaining views which were contradictory to the First Chapter of Genesis. "Sir John Lubbock declared that many of the arguments by which the permanence of species was supported came to nothing, and instanced some wheat which was said to have come off an Egyptian mummy and was sent to him to prove that wheat had not changed since the time of the Pharaohs; but which proved to be made of French chocolate.[214] Sir Joseph (then Dr.) Hooker spoke shortly, saying that he had found the hypothesis of Natural Selection so helpful in explaining the phenomena of his own subject of Botany, that he had been constrained to accept it. After a few words from Darwin's old friend Professor Henslow who occupied the chair, the meeting broke up, leaving the impression that those most capable of estimating the arguments of Darwin in detail saw their way to accept his conclusions." Many versions of Mr. Huxley's speech were current: the following report of his conclusion is from a letter addressed by the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins:--"I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a _man_, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice."[215] The following letter shows that Mr. Huxley's presence at this remarkable scene depended on so slight a chance as that of meeting a friend in the street; that this friend should have been Robert Chambers, so that the author of the _Vestiges_ should have sounded the war-note for the battle of the _Origin_, adds interest to the incident. I have to thank Mr. Huxley for allowing the story to be told in words of his not written for publication. _T. H. Huxley to Francis Darwin._ June 27, 1891. ... I should say that Fremantle's account is substantially correct; but that Green has the passage of my speech more accurately. However, I am certain I did not use the word "equivocal."[216] The odd part of the business is that I should not have been present except for Robert Chambers. I had heard of the Bishop's intention to utilise the occasion. I knew he had the reputation of being a first-rate controversialist, and I was quite aware that if he played his cards properly, we should have little chance, with such an audience, of making an efficient defence. Moreover, I was very tired, and wanted to join my wife at her brother-in-law's country house near Reading, on the Saturday. On the Friday I met Chambers in the street, and in reply to some remark of his about the meeting, I said that I did not mean to attend it; did not see the good of giving up peace and quietness to be episcopally pounded. Chambers broke out into vehement remonstrances and talked about my deserting them. So I said, "Oh! if you take it that way, I'll come and have my share of what is going on." So I came, and chanced to sit near old Sir Benjamin Brodie. The Bishop began his speech, and, to my astonishment, very soon showed that he was so ignorant that he did not know how to manage his own case. My spirits rose proportionally, and when he turned to me with his insolent question, I said to Sir Benjamin, in an undertone, "The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands." That sagacious old gentleman stared at me as if I had lost my senses. But, in fact, the Bishop had justified the severest retort I could devise, and I made up my mind to let him have it. I was careful, however, not to rise to reply, until the meeting called for me--then I let myself go. In justice to the Bishop, I am bound to say he bore no malice, but was always courtesy itself when we occasionally met in after years. Hooker and I walked away from the meeting together, and I remember saying to him that this experience had changed my opinion as to the practical value of the art of public speaking, and that, from that time forth, I should carefully cultivate it, and try to leave off hating it. I did the former, but never quite succeeded in the latter effort. I did not mean to trouble you with such a long scrawl when I began about this piece of ancient history. Ever yours very faithfully T. H. HUXLEY. The eye-witness above quoted (p. 237) continues:-- "There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the rooms of the hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr. Daubeny, where the almost sole topic was the battle of the _Origin_, and I was much struck with the fair and unprejudiced way in which the black coats and white cravats of Oxford discussed the question, and the frankness with which they offered their congratulations to the winners in the combat."[217] _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Monday night [July 2nd, 1860]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--I have just received your letter. I have been very poorly, with almost continuous bad headache for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and thinking what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when your letter came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with affection; and this is a doctrine with which, I know, from your letter, that you will agree with from the bottom of your heart.... How I should have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you, if I had been well enough; and how still more I should have liked to have heard you triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished at your success and audacity. It is something unintelligible to me how any one can argue in public like orators do. I had no idea you had this power. I have read lately so many hostile views, that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that ---- was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-run, prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should have been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [July 1860.] ... I have just read the _Quarterly_.[218] It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the _Anti-Jacobin_ versus my Grandfather. You are not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley; and I can plainly see, here and there, ----'s hand. The concluding pages will make Lyell shake in his shoes. By Jove, if he sticks to us, he will be a real hero. Good-night. Your well-quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate friend, C. D. I can see there has been some queer tampering with the review, for a page has been cut out and reprinted. The following extract from a letter of Sept. 1st, 1860, is of interest, not only as showing that Lyell was still conscientiously working out his conversion, but also and especially as illustrating the remarkable fact that hardly any of my father's critics gave him any new objections--so fruitful had been his ponderings of twenty years:-- "I have been much interested by your letter of the 28th, received this morning. It has _delighted_ me, because it demonstrates that you have thought a good deal lately on Natural Selection. Few things have surprised me more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties new to me in the published reviews. Your remarks are of a different stamp and new to me." _C. D. to Asa Gray._ [Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd [1860]. MY DEAR GRAY,--Owing to absence from home at water-cure and then having to move my sick girl to whence I am now writing, I have only lately read the discussion in _Proc. American Acad._,[219] and now I cannot resist expressing my sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than _any one_ else the thorough master of the subject. I declare that you know my book as well as I do myself; and bring to the question new lines of illustration and argument in a manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy![220] I admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your article in _Silliman's Journal_. Every single word seems weighed carefully, and tells like a 32-pound shot. It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts on the variability of the American wild fruits. The _Athenæum_ has the largest circulation, and I have sent my copy to the editor with a request that he would republish the first discussion; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed the subject in so hostile a spirit.... I shall be curious [to see], and will order the August number, as soon as I know that it contains your review of reviews. My conclusion is that you have made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to have been a lawyer. The following passages from a letter to Huxley (Dec. 2nd, 1860) may serve to show what was my father's view of the position of the subject, after a year's experience of reviewers, critics and converts:-- "I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless, they have been of use in showing me when to expatiate a little and to introduce a few new discussions. "I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions are terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have said against me, I have far more confidence in the _general_ truth of the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing gives me confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed are now less bitterly opposed.... I can pretty plainly see that, if my view is ever to be generally adopted, it will be by young men growing up and replacing the old workers, and then young ones finding that they can group facts and search out new lines of investigation better on the notion of descent, than on that of creation." FOOTNOTES: [185] This refers to the passage in the _Origin of Species_ (2nd edit. p. 285) in which the lapse of time implied by the denudation of the Weald is discussed. The discussion closes with the sentence: "So that it is not improbable that a longer period than 300 million years has elapsed since the latter part of the Secondary period." This passage is omitted in the later editions of the _Origin_, against the advice of some of his friends, as appears from the pencil notes in my father's copy of the 2nd edition. [186] In the first edition, the passages occur on p. 488. [187] _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1860. Sir J. D. Hooker took the line of complete impartiality, so as not to commit the editor, Lindley. [188] On Jan. 23 Gray wrote to Darwin: "It naturally happens that my review of your book does not exhibit anything like the full force of the impression the book has made upon me. Under the circumstances I suppose I do your theory more good here, by bespeaking for it a fair and favourable consideration, and by standing non-committed as to its full conclusions, than I should if I announced myself a convert; nor could I say the latter, with truth.... "What seems to me the weakest point in the book is the attempt to account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, &c., by natural selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian." [189] In a letter to Mr. Murray, 1860, my father wrote:--"I am amused by Asa Gray's account of the excitement my book has made amongst naturalists in the U. States. Agassiz has denounced it in a newspaper, but yet in such terms that it is in fact a fine advertisement!" This seems to refer to a lecture given before the Mercantile Library Association. [190] _Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist._ third series, vol. v. p. 132. My father has obviously taken the expression "pestilent" from the following passage (p. 138): "But who is this Nature, we have a right to ask, who has such tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes, when dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she ought but a pestilent abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of an Intelligent First Cause of all?" The reviewer pays a tribute to my father's candour "so manly and outspoken as almost to 'cover a multitude of sins.'" The parentheses (to which allusion is made above) are so frequent as to give a characteristic appearance to Mr. Wollaston's pages. [191] Another version of the words is given by Lyell, to whom they were spoken, viz. "the most illogical book ever written."--_Life and Letters of Sir C. Lyell_, vol. ii. p. 358. [192] "On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago."--_Linn. Soc. Journ._ 1860. [193] The late Sir Charles Bunbury, well known as a Paleo-botanist. [194] By Professor Henslow. [195] The translator of the first German edition of the _Origin_. [196] Andrew Ramsay, late Director-General of the Geological Survey. [197] Joseph Beete Jukes, M.A., F.R.S., born 1811, died 1869. He was educated at Cambridge, and from 1842 to 1846 he acted as naturalist to H.M.S. _Fly_, on an exploring expedition in Australia and New Guinea. He was afterwards appointed Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland. He was the author of many papers, and of more than one good handbook of geology. [198] Professor of Geology in the University of Glasgow. Born in the United States 1809, died 1866. [199] Searles Valentine Wood, died 1880. Chiefly known for his work on the Mollusca of the _Crag_. [200] Dr. G. H. K. Thwaites, F.R.S., was born in 1811, or about that date, and died in Ceylon, September 11, 1882. He began life as a Notary, but his passion for Botany and Entomology ultimately led to his taking to Science as a profession. He became lecturer on Botany at the Bristol School of Medicine, and in 1849 he was appointed Director of the Botanic Gardens at Peradeniya, which he made "the most beautiful tropical garden in the world." He is best known through his important discovery of conjugation in the Diatomaceæ (1847). His _Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniæ_ (1858-64) was "the first complete account, on modern lines, of any definitely circumscribed tropical area." (From a notice in _Nature_, October 26, 1882.) [201] _Spectator_, March 24, 1860. There were favourable notices of the Origin by Huxley in the _Westminster Review_, and Carpenter in the _Medico-Chir. Review_, both in the April numbers. [202] François Jules Pictet, in the _Archives des Science de la Bibliothèque Universelle_, Mars 1860. [203] _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1860. [204] April 7, 1860. [205] My father wrote (_Gardeners' Chronicle_, April 21, 1860, p. 362): "I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the number of your paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for, I will insert to the foregoing effect." In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the _Saturday Analyst and Leader_, Nov. 24, 1860, was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago." It was not until later that he learned that Matthew had also been forestalled. In October 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker:--"Talking of the _Origin_, a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to Dr. Wells' famous _Essay on Dew_, which was read in 1813 to the Royal Soc., but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of Natural Selection to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on his title-pages, 'Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!" [206] This refers to a "savage onslaught" on the _Origin_ by Sedgwick at the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Henslow defended his old pupil, and maintained that "the subject was a legitimate one for investigation." [207] "The battle rages furiously in the United States. Gray says he was preparing a speech, which would take 1½ hours to deliver, and which he 'fondly hoped would be a stunner.' He is fighting splendidly, and there seem to have been many discussions with Agassiz and others at the meetings. Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded."--From a letter to Hooker, May 30th, 1860. [208] The statement as to authorship was made on the authority of Robert Chambers. [209] In a letter to Mr. Huxley my father wrote:--"Have you seen the last _Saturday Review_? I am very glad of the defence of you and of myself. I wish the reviewer had noticed Hooker. The reviewer, whoever he is, is a jolly good fellow, as this review and the last on me showed. He writes capitally, and understands well his subject. I wish he had slapped [the _Edinburgh_ reviewer] a little bit harder." [210] _Man's Place in Nature_, by T. H. Huxley, 1863, p. 114. [211] See the _Nat. Hist. Review_, 1861. [212] It was well known that Bishop Wilberforce was going to speak. [213] _Quarterly Review_, July 1860. [214] Sir John Lubbock also insisted on the embryological evidence for evolution.--F. D. [215] Mr. Fawcett wrote (_Macmillan's Magazine_, 1860):--"The retort was so justly deserved and so inimitable in its manner, that no one who was present can ever forget the impression that it made." [216] This agrees with Professor Victor Carus's recollection. [217] See Professor Newton's interesting _Early Days of Darwinism in Macmillan's Magazine_, Feb. 1888, where the battle at Oxford is briefly described. [218] _Quarterly Review_, July 1860. The article in question was by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and was afterwards published in his _Essays Contributed to the Quarterly Review_, 1874. In the _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 182, Mr. Huxley has given some account of this article. I quote a few lines:--"Since Lord Brougham assailed Dr. Young, the world has seen no such specimen of the insolence of a shallow pretender to a Master in Science as this remarkable production, in which one of the most exact of observers, most cautious of reasoners, and most candid of expositors, of this or any other age, is held up to scorn as a 'flighty' person, who endeavours 'to prop up his utterly rotten fabric of guess and speculation,' and whose 'mode of dealing with nature' is reprobated as 'utterly dishonourable to Natural Science.'" The passage from the _Anti-Jacobin_, referred to in the letter, gives the history of the evolution of space from the "primæval point or _punctum saliens_ of the universe," which is conceived to have moved "forward in a right line, _ad infinitum_, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which it had generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral direction, describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon as it became conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or descend according as its specific gravity would determine it, forming an immense solid space filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the present universe." The following (p. 263) may serve as an example of the passages in which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell:--"That Mr. Darwin should have wandered from this broad highway of nature's works into the jungle of fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is mistaken in believing that he may count Sir C. Lyell as one of his converts. We know, indeed, the strength of the temptations which he can bring to bear upon his geological brother.... Yet no man has been more distinct and more logical in the denial of the transmutation of species than Sir C. Lyell, and that not in the infancy of his scientific life, but in its full vigour and maturity." The Bishop goes on to appeal to Lyell, in order that with his help "this flimsy speculation may be as completely put down as was what in spite of all denials we must venture to call its twin though less instructed brother, the _Vestiges of Creation_." With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father's old friend and neighbour, writes:--"Most men would have been annoyed by an article written with the Bishop's accustomed vigour, a mixture of argument and ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a postscript--'If you have not seen the last _Quarterly_, do get it; the Bishop of Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.' By a curious coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the same house with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, 'I am very glad he takes it in that way, he is such a capital fellow.'" [219] April 10th, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail "several of the positions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr. [J. A.] Lowell, Prof. Bowen and Prof. Agassiz." It was reprinted in the _Athenæum_, Aug. 4th, 1860. [220] On Sept. 26th, 1860, he wrote in the same sense to Gray:--"You never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at it as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet which does not express fully my meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others, who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur." CHAPTER XIV. THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. 1861--1871. The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father engaged on the 3rd edition (2000 copies) of the _Origin_, which was largely corrected and added to, and was published in April, 1861. On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained until August 27--a holiday which he characteristically enters in his diary as "eight weeks and a day." The house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed from what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey's Cove. During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the record of his life, seems to become clearer when the whole of his botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present chapter will, therefore, include only the progress of his work in the direction of a general amplification of the _Origin of Species_--_e.g._, the publication of _Animals and Plants_ and the _Descent of Man_. It will also give some idea of the growth of belief in evolutionary doctrines. With regard to the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in December, 1860:-- "I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will print off--the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible with safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall improve the book considerably." An interesting feature in the new edition was the "Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species,"[221] which now appeared for the first time, and was continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong impress of the author's personal character in the obvious wish to do full justice to all his predecessors,--though even in this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism. A passage in a letter to Hooker (March 27, 1861) gives the history of one of his corrections. "Here is a good joke: H. C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to review the new edition of the _Origin_) says that in the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words 'I,' 'me,' 'my,' occur forty-three times! I was dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I wonder whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the parentheses in Wollaston's writing. "I am, _my_ dear Hooker, ever yours, "C. DARWIN. "P.S.--Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting." He wrote a couple of years later, 1863, to Asa Gray, in a manner which illustrates his use of the personal pronoun in the earlier editions of the _Origin_:-- "You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he declines to be a judge.... I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When I say 'me,' I only mean _change of species by descent_. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant, compared to the question of Creation _or_ Modification." He was, at first, alone, and felt himself to be so in maintaining a rational workable theory of Evolution. It was therefore perfectly natural that he should speak of "my" theory. Towards the end of the present year (1861) the final arrangements for the first French edition of the _Origin_ were completed, and in September a copy of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle. Clémence Royer, who undertook the work of translation. The book was now spreading on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen, a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, "My book seems exciting much attention in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent me." The silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German science was to become one of the strongest of the advocates of Evolution. A letter, June 23, 1861, gave a pleasant echo from the Continent of the growth of his views:-- _Hugh Falconer[222] to C. Darwin._ 31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861. MY DEAR DARWIN,--I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me a live _Proteus anguinus_, designed for you from the moment I got it; _i.e._ if you have got an aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last night from the Continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The poor dear animal is still alive--although it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a month--and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving it longer. In your hands it will thrive and have a fair chance of being developed without delay into some type of the Columbidæ--say a Pouter or a Tumbler. My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy, and Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your views and your admirable essay canvassed--the views of course often dissented from, according to the special bias of the speaker--but the work, its honesty of purpose, grandeur of conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous exposition, always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in the just appreciation of Charles Darwin than did, Yours very truly. My father replied:-- Down [June 24, 1861]. MY DEAR FALCONER,--I have just received your note, and by good luck a day earlier than properly, and I lose not a moment in answering you, and thanking you heartily for your offer of the valuable specimen; but I have no aquarium and shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand pities that I should have it. Yet I should certainly much like to see it, but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoological Society be the best place? and then the interest which many would take in this extraordinary animal would repay you for your trouble. Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering me this specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more than the specimen. I shall keep your note amongst a very few precious letters. Your kindness has quite touched me. Yours affectionately and gratefully. My father, who had the strongest belief in the value of Asa Gray's help, was anxious that his evolutionary writings should be more widely known in England. In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, he had a good deal of correspondence with him as to the publication, in the form of a pamphlet, of Gray's three articles in the July, August, and October numbers of the _Atlantic Monthly_, 1860. The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray's _Darwiniana_, p. 87, under the title "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology." The pamphlet found many admirers, and my father believed that it was of much value in lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a prominent place in the third edition of the _Origin_. Lyell, among others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote to Dr. Gray: "Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the _Quarterly_, and Lyell answered, 'Read Asa Gray in the _Atlantic_.'" On the same subject he wrote to Gray in the following year:-- "I believe that your pamphlet has done my book _great_ good; and I thank you from my heart for myself: and believing that the views are in large part true, I must think that you have done natural science a good turn. Natural Selection seems to be making a little progress in England and on the Continent; a new German edition is called for, and a French one has just appeared." The following may serve as an example of the form assumed between these friends of the animosity at that time so strong between England and America[223]:-- "Talking of books, I am in the middle of one which pleases me, though it is very innocent food, viz. Miss Cooper's _Journal of a Naturalist_. Who is she? She seems a very clever woman, and gives a capital account of the battle between _our_ and _your_ weeds.[224] Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest, downright good sort of weeds. The book gives an extremely pretty picture of one of your villages; but I see your autumn, though so much more gorgeous than ours, comes on sooner, and that is one comfort." A question constantly recurring in the letters to Gray is that of design. For instance:-- "Your question what would convince me of design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If I could be convinced thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing. "I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have asked him (and he says he will hereafter reflect and answer me) whether he believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does I have nothing more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting individual differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which natural selection preserves for the good of any being, have been designed. But I know that I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said before) as all the world seems to be in with respect to free will, yet with everything supposed to have been foreseen or preordained." The shape of his nose would perhaps not have been used as an illustration, if he had remembered Fitz-Roy's objection to that feature (see _Autobiography_, p. 26). He should, too, have remembered the difficulty of predicting the value to an organism of an apparently unimportant character. In England Professor Huxley was at work in the evolutionary cause. He gave, in 1862, two lectures at Edinburgh on _Man's Place in Nature_. My father wrote:-- "I am heartily glad of your success in the North. By Jove, you have attacked Bigotry in its stronghold. I thought you would have been mobbed. I am so glad that you will publish your Lectures. You seem to have kept a due medium between extreme boldness and caution. I am heartily glad that all went off so well." A review,[225] by F. W. Hutton, afterwards Professor of Biology and Geology at Canterbury, N. Z., gave a hopeful note of the time not far off when a broader view of the argument for Evolution would be accepted. My father wrote to the author[226]:-- Down, April 20th, 1861. DEAR SIR,--I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of your paper in the _Geologist_, and at the same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject a real service by the highly original, striking, and condensed manner with which you have put the case. I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained. But it is generally of no use, I cannot make persons see this. I generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory of the undulations of light--neither the undulations, nor the very existence of ether being proved--yet admitted because the view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased to see how carefully you have read my book, and what is far more important, reflected on so many points with an independent spirit. As I am deeply interested in the subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal point of view) I could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good service which you have done. Pray believe me, dear sir, Yours faithfully and obliged. It was a still more hopeful sign that work of the first rank in value, conceived on evolutionary principles, began to be published. My father expressed this idea in a letter to the late Mr. Bates.[227] "Under a general point of view, I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley took the same view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature can solely be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects as you have done." This refers to Mr. Bates' celebrated paper on mimicry, with which the following letter deals:-- Down Nov. 20 [1862]. DEAR BATES,--I have just finished, after several reads, your paper.[228] In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and admirable papers I ever read in my life. The mimetic cases are truly marvellous, and you connect excellently a host of analogous facts. The illustrations are beautiful, and seem very well chosen; but it would have saved the reader not a little trouble, if the name of each had been engraved below each separate figure. No doubt this would have put the engraver into fits, as it would have destroyed the beauty of the plate. I am not at all surprised at such a paper having consumed much time. I am rejoiced that I passed over the whole subject in the _Origin_, for I should have made a precious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved a wonderful problem. No doubt with most people this will be the cream of the paper; but I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on variation, and on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species, is not really more, or at least as valuable a part. I never conceived the process nearly so clearly before; one feels present at the creation of new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a little more on the pairing of similar varieties; a rather more numerous body of facts seems here wanted. Then, again, what a host of curious miscellaneous observations there are--as on related sexual and individual variability: these will some day, if I live, be a treasure to me. With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common with insects, do you not think it may be connected with their small size; they cannot defend themselves; they cannot escape by flight, at least, from birds, therefore they escape by trickery and deception? I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the title of the paper; I cannot but think that you ought to have called prominent attention in it to the mimetic resemblances. Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by the mob of naturalists without souls; but, rely on it, that it will have _lasting_ value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first great work. You will find, I should think, that Wallace will appreciate it. How gets on your book? Keep your spirits up. A book is no light labour. I have been better lately, and working hard, but my health is very indifferent. How is your health? Believe me, dear Bates, Yours very sincerely. 1863. Although the battle[229] of Evolution was not yet won, the growth of belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance, Charles Kingsley could write to F. D. Maurice[230]: "The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact." The change did not proceed without a certain amount of personal bitterness. My father wrote in February, 1863:-- "What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quarrelling within what ought to be the peaceful realms of science." I do not desire to keep alive the memories of dead quarrels, but some of the burning questions of that day are too important from the biographical point of view to be altogether omitted. Of this sort is the history of Lyell's conversion to Evolution. It led to no flaw in the friendship of the two men principally concerned, but it shook and irritated a number of smaller people. Lyell was like the Mississippi in flood, and as he changed his course, the dwellers on the banks were angered and frightened by the general upsetting of landmarks. _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, Feb. 24 [1863]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--I am astonished at your note. I have not seen the _Athenæum_,[231] but I have sent for it, and may get it to-morrow; and will then say what I think. I have read Lyell's book. [_The Antiquity of Man._] The whole certainly struck me as a compilation, but of the highest class, for when possible the facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original work. The Glacial chapters seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could hardly judge about Man, as all the gloss and novelty was completely worn off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a very striking effect on my mind. The chapter comparing language and changes of species, seems most ingenious and interesting. He has shown great skill in picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any judgment.... From all my communications with him, I must ever think that he has really entirely lost faith in the immutability of species; and yet one of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows; "If it should _ever_[232] be rendered highly probable that species change by variation and natural selection," &c. &c. I had hoped he would have guided the public as far as his own belief went.... One thing does please me on this subject, that he seems to appreciate your work. No doubt the public or a part may be induced to think that, as he gives to us a larger space than to Lamarck, he must think that there is something in our views. When reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if he had said openly that he believed in change of species, and as a consequence that man was derived from some Quadrumanous animal, it would have been very proper to have discussed by compilation the differences in the most important organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the chapter seems to me to come in rather by the head and shoulders. I do not think (but then I am as prejudiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that it is too severe; it struck me as given with judicial force. It might perhaps be said with truth that he had no business to judge on a subject on which he knows nothing; but compilers must do this to a certain extent. (You know I value and rank high compilers, being one myself!) The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till Wednesday. I dread it, but I must say how much disappointed I am that he has not spoken out on species, still less on man. And the best of the joke is that he thinks he has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may have taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall _particularly_ be glad of your opinion on this head. When I got his book I turned over the pages, and saw he had discussed the subject of species, and said that I thought he would do more to convert the public than all of us, and now (which makes the case worse for me) I must, in common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had said not a word on the subject. _C. D. to C. Lyell_. Down, March 6 [1863]. ... I have been of course deeply interested by your book.[233] I have hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a little on what most interested me. But I will first get out what I hate saying, viz. that I have been greatly disappointed that you have not given judgment and spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of species. I should have been contented if you had boldly said that species have not been separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like on how far variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to Heaven I am wrong (and from what you say about Whewell it seems so), but I cannot see how your chapters can do more good than an extraordinary able review. I think the _Parthenon_ is right, that you will leave the public in a fog. No doubt they may infer that as you give more space to myself, Wallace, and Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I had always thought that your judgment would have been an epoch in the subject. All that is over with me, and I will only think on the admirable skill with which you have selected the striking points, and explained them. No praise can be too strong, in my opinion, for the inimitable chapter on language in comparison with species.... I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, for you must know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured guide and master. I heartily hope and expect that your book will have a gigantic circulation, and may do in many ways as much good as it ought to do. I am tired, so no more. I have written so briefly that you will have to guess my meaning. I fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell, with kindest remembrance to Lady Lyell, Ever yours. A letter from Lyell to Hooker (Mar. 9, 1863), published in Lyell's _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 361, shows what was his feeling at the time:-- "He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go farther with him, or do not speak out more. I can only say that I have spoken out to the full extent of my present convictions, and even beyond my state of _feeling_ as to man's unbroken descent from the brutes, and I find I am half converting not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even now against Huxley." Lyell speaks, too, of having had to abandon "old and long cherished ideas, which constituted the charm to me of the theoretical part of the science in my earlier days, when I believed with Pascal in the theory, as Hallam terms it, of 'the archangel ruined.'" _C. D. to C. Lyell_. Down, 12th [March, 1863]. MY DEAR LYELL,--I thank you for your very interesting and kind, I may say, charming letter. I feared you might be huffed for a little time with me. I know some men would have been so.... As you say that you have gone as far as you believe on the species question, I have not a word to say; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation, expressions, letters, &c., you have as completely given up belief in immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still think a clear expression from you, _if you could have given it_, would have been potent with the public, and all the more so, as you formerly held opposite opinions. The more I work, the more satisfied I become with variation and natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as less important, though more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms on this head (and believe me that I should not have made them unasked), I may specify (pp. 412, 413) that such words as "Mr. D. labours to show," "is believed by the author to throw light," would lead a common reader to think that you yourself do _not_ at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the _obvious_ view that if species were not created separately they must have descended from other species, and I can see nothing else in common between the _Origin_ and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough. Please remember you have brought it all down on yourself!! I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's "reclamation."[234] I hate the very word, and have a sincere affection for him. Did you ever read anything so wretched as the _Athenæum_ reviews of you, and of Huxley[235] especially. Your _object_ to make man old, and Huxley's _object_ to degrade him. The wretched writer has not a glimpse of what the discovery of scientific truth means. How splendid some pages are in Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular.... In the _Athenæum_, Mar. 28, 1862, p. 417, appeared a notice of Dr. Carpenter's book on 'Foraminifera,' which led to more skirmishing in the same journal. The article was remarkable for upholding spontaneous generation. My father wrote, Mar. 29, 1863:-- "Many thanks for _Athenæum_, received this morning, and to be returned to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old stupid _Athenæum_ taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in Owenian style! "It will be some time before we see 'slime, protoplasm, &c.' generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation,[236] by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." The _Athenæum_ continued to be a scientific battle-ground. On April 4, 1863, Falconer wrote a severe article on Lyell. And my father wrote (_Athenæum_, 1863, p. 554), under the cloak of attacking spontaneous generation, to defend Evolution. In reply, an article appeared in the same Journal (May 2nd, 1863, p. 586), accusing my father of claiming for his views the exclusive merit of "connecting by an intelligible thread of reasoning" a number of facts in morphology, &c. The writer remarks that, "The different generalisations cited by Mr. Darwin as being connected by an intelligible thread of reasoning exclusively through his attempt to explain specific transmutation are in fact related to it in this wise, that they have prepared the minds of naturalists for a better reception of such attempts to explain the way of the origin of species from species." To this my father replied as follows in the _Athenæum_ of May 9th, 1863:-- Down, May 5 [1863]. I hope that you will grant me space to own that your reviewer is quite correct when he states that any theory of descent will connect, "by an intelligible thread of reasoning," the several generalizations before specified. I ought to have made this admission expressly; with the reservation, however, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well explains or connects these several generalizations (more especially the formation of domestic races in comparison with natural species, the principles of classification, embryonic resemblance, &c.) as the theory, or hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of Natural Selection. Nor has any other satisfactory explanation been ever offered of the almost perfect adaptation of all organic beings to each other, and to their physical conditions of life. Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the _Vestiges_, by Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable; for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however, from what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate modifications and improvements. CHARLES DARWIN. In the following, he refers to the above letter to the _Athenæum_:-- _C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Saturday [May 11, 1863]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--You give good advice about not writing in newspapers; I have been gnashing my teeth at my own folly; and this not caused by ----'s sneers, which were so good that I almost enjoyed them. I have written once again to own to a certain extent of truth in what he says, and then if I am ever such a fool again, have no mercy on me. I have read the squib in _Public Opinion_;[237] it is capital; if there is more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific man had better be trampled in dirt than squabble. In the following year (1864) he received the greatest honour which a scientific man can receive in this country, the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. It is presented at the Anniversary Meeting on St. Andrew's Day (Nov. 30), the medallist being usually present to receive it, but this the state of my father's health prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox:-- "I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being open to all sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great honour; but excepting from several kind letters, such things make little difference to me. It shows, however, that Natural Selection is making some progress in this country, and that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands." The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in connection with what has gone before, inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in his after-dinner speech, a "confession of faith as to the _Origin_." He wrote to my father (_Life of Sir C. Lyell_, vol. ii. p. 384), "I said I had been forced to give up my old faith without thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you would have been satisfied with the length I went." Lyell's acceptance of Evolution was made public in the tenth edition of the _Principles_, published in 1867 and 1868. It was a sign of improvement, "a great triumph," as my father called it, that an evolutionary article by Wallace, dealing with Lyell's book, should have appeared in the _Quarterly Review_ (April, 1869). Mr. Wallace wrote:-- "The history of science hardly presents so striking an instance of youthfulness of mind in advanced life as is shown by this abandonment of opinions so long held and so powerfully advocated; and if we bear in mind the extreme caution, combined with the ardent love of truth which characterise every work which our author has produced, we shall be convinced that so great a change was not decided on without long and anxious deliberation, and that the views now adopted must indeed be supported by arguments of overwhelming force. If for no other reason than that Sir Charles Lyell in his tenth edition has adopted it, the theory of Mr. Darwin deserves an attentive and respectful consideration from every earnest seeker after truth." The incident of the Copley Medal is interesting as giving an index of the state of the scientific mind at the time. My father wrote: "some of the old members of the Royal are quite shocked at my having the Copley." In the _Reader_, December 3, 1864, General Sabine's presidential address at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at some length. Special weight was laid on my father's work in Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the _Origin of Species_ was praised chiefly as containing a "mass of observations," &c. It is curious that as in the case of his election to the French Institute, so in this case, he was honoured not for the great work of his life, but for his less important work in special lines. I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction at the President's manner of allusion to the _Origin_ was felt by some Fellows of the Society. My father spoke justly when he said that the subject was "safe in foreign lands." In telling Lyell of the progress of opinion, he wrote (March, 1863):-- "A first-rate German naturalist[238] (I now forget the name!), who has lately published a grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on the _Origin_. De Candolle, in a very good paper on 'Oaks,' goes, in Asa Gray's opinion, as far as he himself does; but De Candolle, in writing to me, says _we_, 'we think this and that;' so that I infer he really goes to the full extent with me, and tells me of a French good botanical palæontologist[239] (name forgotten), who writes to De Candolle that he is sure that my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to have written all this. It satisfies me with the final results, but this result, I begin to see, will take two or three life-times. The entomologists are enough to keep the subject back for half a century." The official attitude of French science was not very hopeful. The Secrétaire Perpétuel of the Académie published an _Examen du livre de M. Darwin_, on which my father remarks:-- "A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book[240] against me, which pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading in France." Mr. Huxley, who reviewed the book,[241] quotes the following passage from Flourens:-- "M. Darwin continue: Aucune distinction absolue n'a été et ne peut être établie entre les espèces et les variétés! Je vous ai déjà dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue sépare les variétés d'avec les espèces." Mr. Huxley remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M. Flourens' misapprehension of Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65, 'Je laisse M. Darwin.'" The deterrent effect of the Académie on the spread of Evolution in France has been most striking. Even at the present day a member of the Institute does not feel quite happy in owning to a belief in Darwinism. We may indeed be thankful that we are "devoid of such a blessing." Among the Germans, he was fast gaining supporters. In 1865 he began a correspondence with the distinguished Naturalist, Fritz Müller, then, as now, resident in Brazil. They never met, but the correspondence with Müller, which continued to the close of my father's life, was a source of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his unseen friends Fritz Müller was the one for whom he had the strongest regard. Fritz Müller is the brother of another distinguished man, the late Hermann Müller, the author of _Die Befruchtung der Blumen_ (The Fertilisation of Flowers), and of much other valuable work. The occasion of writing to Fritz Müller was the latter's book, _Für Darwin_, which was afterwards translated by Mr. Dallas at my father's suggestion, under the title _Facts and Arguments for Darwin_. Shortly afterwards, in 1866, began his connection with Professor Victor Carus, of Leipzig, who undertook the translation of the 4th edition of the _Origin_. From this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father's books into German. The conscientious care with which this work was done was of material service, and I well remember the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation at his own shortcomings) with which my father used to receive the lists of oversights, &c., which Professor Carus discovered in the course of translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but was cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides. About this time, too, he came in contact with Professor Ernst Haeckel, whose influence on German science has been so powerful. The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time forward they corresponded (though not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of my father's life. His friendship with Haeckel was not merely the growth of correspondence, as was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz Müller. Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his correspondent--a feeling which I have often heard him emphatically express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred to is Haeckel's _Generelle Morphologie_, published in 1866, a copy of which my father received from the author in January, 1867. Dr. E. Krause[242] has given a good account of Professor Haeckel's services in the cause of Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm reception which the _Origin_ met with in Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers, not especially likely to advance its acceptance with the professorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his _Radiolaria_ (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of Naturalists at Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the first time publicly before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its success. Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as the Coryphæus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his _Generelle Morphologie_, "an attempt to work out the practical applications" of the doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the "force and suggestiveness, and ... systematising power of Oken without his extravagance." Mr. Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel's _Schöpfungs-Geschichte_ as an exposition of the _Generelle Morphologie_ "for an educated public." Again, in his _Evolution in Biology_,[243] Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution and to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science." In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 'Darwinismus,' and on this subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (p. 162). He asks whether much that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this. Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by his _Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts_, his _Generelle Morphologie_, and _Schöpfungs-Geschichte_, all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly short time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and moderation." _C. D. to E. Haeckel._ Down, May 21, 1867. DEAR HAECKEL,--Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for you have received what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken what I said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for a moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many new facts and arguments, would not advance our common object in the highest degree. All that I think is that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely blinds every one that your arguments would have no chance of influencing those who are already opposed to our views. Moreover, I do not at all like that you, towards whom I feel so much friendship, should unnecessarily make enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that your work will greatly advance our subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into English, for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what you say about my advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some of my English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good policy. The belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in England,[244] even amongst those who can give no reason for their belief. No body of men were at first so much opposed to my views as the members of the London Entomological Society, but now I am assured that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the members concur with me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappointment to me that I have never received your long letter written to me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which seems to have been a most interesting one, has done your health much good. ... I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of your visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see you here. Believe me, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely. I place here an extract from a letter of later date (Nov. 1868), which refers to one of Haeckel's later works.[245] "Your chapters on the affinities and genealogy of the animal kingdom strike me as admirable and full of original thought. Your boldness, however, sometimes makes me tremble, but as Huxley remarked, some one must be bold enough to make a beginning in drawing up tables of descent. Although you fully admit the imperfection of the geological record, yet Huxley agreed with me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash in venturing to say at what periods the several groups first appeared. I have this advantage over you, that I remember how wonderfully different any statement on this subject made 20 years ago, would have been to what would now be the case, and I expect the next 20 years will make quite as great a difference." The following extract from a letter to Professor W. Preyer, a well-known physiologist, shows that he estimated at its true value the help he was to receive from the scientific workers of Germany:-- March 31, 1868. ... I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine of the Modification of Species, and defend my views. The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To the present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt by writers of my own country; but the younger naturalists are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public must follow those who make the subject their special study. The abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very little.... I must now pass on to the publication, in 1868, of his book on _The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_. It was begun two days after the appearance of the second edition of the _Origin_, on Jan. 9, 1860, and it may, I think, be reckoned that about half of the eight years that elapsed between its commencement and completion was spent on it. The book did not escape adverse criticism: it was said, for instance, that the public had been patiently waiting for Mr. Darwin's _pièces justicatives_, and that after eight years of expectation, all they got was a mass of detail about pigeons, rabbits and silk-worms. But the true critics welcomed it as an expansion with unrivalled wealth of illustration of a section of the _Origin_. Variation under the influence of man was the only subject (except the question of man's origin) which he was able to deal with in detail so as to utilise his full stores of knowledge. When we remember how important for his argument is a knowledge of the action of artificial selection, we may well rejoice that this subject was chosen by him for amplification. In 1864, he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker: "I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as if I had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet worth printing, I think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am a complete millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and I have been really astounded at my own industry whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. God knows when the book will ever be completed, for I find that I am very weak, and on my best days cannot do more than one or one and a half hours' work. It is a good deal harder than writing about my dear climbing plants." In Aug. 1867, when Lyell was reading the proofs of the book, my father wrote:-- "I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me _real_ good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could hardly bear to correct the proofs, and you gave me fresh heart. I remember thinking that when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would pass it over as quite unreadable. I have been particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know whether you ever had the feeling of having thought so much over a subject that you had lost all power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in Biology." His theory of Pangenesis, by which he attempted to explain "how the characters of the parents are 'photographed' on the child, by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child," has never met with much acceptance. Nevertheless, some of his contemporaries felt with him about it. Thus in February 1868, he wrote to Hooker:-- "I heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), 'I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on _Pangenesis_. It is a _positive comfort_ to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly possible.' Now his foregoing [italicised] words express my sentiments exactly and fully: though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from having during many years vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or the stump of an amputated limb, has the 'potentiality' of reproducing the whole--or 'diffuses an influence,' these words give me no positive idea;--but, when it is said that the cells of a plant, or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the whole organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct idea." Immediately after the publication of the book, he wrote: Down, February 10 [1868]. MY DEAR HOOKER,--What is the good of having a friend, if one may not boast to him? I heard yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book. And now there has appeared a review in the _Pall Mall_ which has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how much I may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote the article in the _Pall Mall_, do please tell me; it is some one who writes capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to Lubbock's, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were not there. Your cock-a-hoop friend, C. D. Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (Feb. 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have been gratified by the following passages:-- "We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with which he expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on his antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other side, this forbearance is supremely dignified." And again in the third notice, Feb. 17:-- "Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive self-love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators ... but while abstaining from impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he may owe; and his book will make many men happy." I am indebted to Messrs. Smith and Elder for the information that these articles were written by Mr. G. H. Lewes. The following extract from a letter (Feb. 1870) to his friend Professor Newton, the well-known ornithologist, shows how much he valued the appreciation of his colleagues. "I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour; and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said in the 'Record'[246] about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. I have sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatrefages), who seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I thought the article in the _Athenæum_ was very unjust; but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your sympathy and too warm praise." WORK ON MAN. In February 1867, when the manuscript of _Animals and Plants_ had been sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and before the proofs began to come in, he had an interval of spare time, and began a "Chapter on Man," but be soon found it growing under his hands, and determined to publish it separately as a "very small volume." It is remarkable that only four years before this date, namely in 1864, he had given up hope of being able to work out this subject. He wrote to Mr. Wallace:-- "I have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose that I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so, would you like at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of chaos. There is much more that I should like to write, but I have not strength." But this was at a period of ill-health; not long before, in 1863, he had written in the same depressed tone about his future work generally:-- "I have been so steadily going downhill, I cannot help doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very short, for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to the best and kindest of wives and good dear children is dreadful." The "Chapter on Man," which afterwards grew into the _Descent of Man_, was interrupted by the necessity of correcting the proofs of _Animals and Plants_, and by some botanical work, but was resumed with unremitting industry on the first available day in the following year. He could not rest, and he recognised with regret the gradual change in his mind that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to him as he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent what is given in the _Autobiography_:-- "I am glad you were at the _Messiah_, it is the one thing that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days; and then I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest, which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed stomach." _The Descent of Man_ (and this is indicated on its title-page) consists of two separate books, namely on the pedigree of mankind, and on sexual selection in the animal kingdom generally. In studying this latter part of the subject he had to take into consideration the whole subject of colour. I give the two following characteristic letters, in which the reader is as it were present at the birth of a theory. _C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Down, February 23 [1867]. DEAR WALLACE,--I much regretted that I was unable to call on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave the house. On Monday evening I called on Bates, and put a difficulty before him, which he could not answer, and, as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion was, "You had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a sphinx) was conspicuous at the distance of yards, from its black and red colours, whilst feeding on large green leaves. If any one objected to male butterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, and asked why should they not have been made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but should maintain my ground. Will you think over this, and some time, either by letter or when we meet, tell me what you think?... He seems to have received an explanation by return of post, for a day or two afterwards he could write to Wallace:-- "Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to in a difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than your suggestion, and I hope you may be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the white moths; it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus almost proved to be true." Mr. Wallace's suggestion was that conspicuous caterpillars or perfect insects (_e.g._ white butterflies), which are distasteful to birds, benefit by being promptly recognised and therefore easily avoided.[247] The letter from Darwin to Wallace goes on: "The reason of my being so much interested just at present about sexual selection is, that I have almost resolved to publish a little essay on the origin of Mankind, and I still strongly think (though I failed to convince you, and this, to me, is the heaviest blow possible) that sexual selection has been the main agent in forming the races of man. "By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce in my essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, do you happen to know by any odd chance a very good-natured and acute observer in the Malay Archipelago, who you think would make a few easy observations for me on the expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions?" The reference to the subject of expression in the above letter is explained by the fact, that my father's original intention was to give his essay on this subject as a chapter in the _Descent of Man_, which in its turn grew, as we have seen, out of a proposed chapter in _Animals and Plants_. He got much valuable help from Dr. Günther, of the Natural History Museum, to whom he wrote in May 1870:-- "As I crawl on with the successive classes I am astonished to find how similar the rules are about the nuptial or 'wedding dress' of all animals. The subject has begun to interest me in an extraordinary degree; but I must try not to fall into my common error of being too speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would drink a little and not too much! My essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles are concerned, will be in fact yours, only written by me." The last revise of the _Descent of Man_ was corrected on January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker: "I finished the last proofs of my book a few days ago; the work half-killed me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the book is worth publishing." He also wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I have finished my book on the _Descent of Man_, &c., and its publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I will send you a copy, but I do not know that you will care about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare say, aggravate you, and if I hear from you, I shall probably receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen." The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 copies were printed at first, and 6000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he received for this edition £1470. Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compass) of the growth of Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr. Huxley[248]:-- "The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade from the date of the publication of the _Origin of Species_; and whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the _Origin of Species_ has worked as complete a revolution in Biological Science as the _Principia_ did in Astronomy;" and it had done so, "because in the words of Helmholtz, it contains 'an essentially new creative thought.' And, as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism." A passage in the Introduction to the _Descent of Man_ shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in the position of Evolutionism. "When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the National Institution of Geneva (1869), 'personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la création indépendante et de toutes pièces, des espèces,' it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every form." In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Reminiscence of Mr. Darwin" (_Harper's Magazine_, October 1884), he describes a visit to my father "early in 1871," shortly after the publication of the _Descent of Man_. Mr. Hague represents my father as "much impressed by the general assent with which his views had been received," and as remarking that "everybody is talking about it without being shocked." Later in the year the reception of the book is described in different language in the _Edinburgh Review_: "On every side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder and admiration." Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my father about the _Descent of Man_. I quote from Darwin's reply:-- "I must send you a few words to thank you for your interesting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted that you approve of my book, as far as you have read it. I felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought to allude to what you have published; strictly speaking every idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your works, but this would have made my book very dull reading; and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the beginning would suffice.[249] I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that I have expressed my high admiration of your labours with sufficient clearness; I am sure that I have not expressed it too strongly." In March he wrote to Professor Ray Lankester:-- "I think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the increasing liberality of England, that my book has sold wonderfully ... and as yet no abuse (though some, no doubt, will come, strong enough), and only contempt even in the poor old _Athenæum_." About the same time he wrote to Mr. Murray:-- "Many thanks for the _Nonconformist_ [March 8, 1871]. I like to see all that is written, and it is of some real use. If you hear of reviewers in out-of-the-way papers, especially the religious, as _Record_, _Guardian_, _Tablet_, kindly inform me. It is wonderful that there has been no abuse as yet. On the whole, the reviews have been highly favourable." The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 13, 1871) refers to a review in the _Times_[250]:-- "I have no idea who wrote the _Times'_ review. He has no knowledge of science, and seems to me a wind-bag full of metaphysics and classics, so that I do not much regard his adverse judgment, though I suppose it will injure the sale." A striking review appeared in the _Saturday Review_ (March 4 and 11, 1871) in which the position of Evolution is well stated. "He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and constitution, within that unity which he had previously sought to trace through all lower animal forms. The growth of opinion in the interval, due in chief measure to his own intermediate works, has placed the discussion of this problem in a position very much in advance of that held by it fifteen years ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any longer to be treated as one of first principles: nor has Mr. Darwin to do battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne as it is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise in either hemisphere." We must now return to the history of the general principle of Evolution. At the beginning of 1869[251] he was at work on the fifth edition of the _Origin_. The most important alterations were suggested by a remarkable paper in the _North British Review_ (June, 1867) written by the late Fleeming Jenkin. It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering. The point on which Fleeming Jenkin convinced my father is the extreme difficulty of believing that _single individuals_ which differ from their fellows in the possession of some useful character can be the starting point of a new variety. Thus the origin of a new variety is more likely to be found in a species which presents the incipient character in a large number of its individuals. This point of view was of course perfectly familiar to him, it was this that induced him to study "unconscious selection," where a breed is formed by the long-continued preservation by Man of all those individuals which are best adapted to his needs: not as in the art of the professed breeder, where a single individual is picked out to breed from. It is impossible to give in a short compass an account of Fleeming Jenkin's argument. My father's copy of the paper (ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I quote a passage opposite which my father has written "good sneers"--but it should be remembered that he used the word "sneer" in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying a feeling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of "banter." Speaking of the "true believer," Fleeming Jenkin says, p. 293:-- "He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no evidence; he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary foes; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with these advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of animals and circumstances explaining our assumed difficulty quite naturally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and trust to those which at least cannot be assailed by mere efforts of imagination." In the fifth edition of the _Origin_, my father altered a passage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition, p. xviii.). He thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding whether or not Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the principle of Natural Selection. Adding, "As far as the more enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us ... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthew." The desire that his views might spread in France was always strong with my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to find that in 1869 the publisher of the French edition had brought out a third edition without consulting the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition; this was undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant relations as the publisher of many of his books in French. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker:-- "I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, who translated the _Origin_ into French, and for whose second edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just brought out a third edition without informing me, so that all the corrections, &c., in the fourth and fifth English editions are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a pickpocket for Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to the _Origin_. So I wrote to Paris; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new translation from the fifth English edition, in competition with her third edition.... This fact shows that 'evolution of species' must at last be spreading in France." It will be well perhaps to place here all that remains to be said about the _Origin of Species_. The sixth or final edition was published in January 1872 in a smaller and cheaper form than its predecessors. The chief addition was a discussion suggested by Mr. Mivart's _Genesis of Species_, which appeared in 1871, before the publication of the _Descent of Man_. The following quotation from a letter to Wallace (July 9, 1871) may serve to show the spirit and method in which Mr. Mivart dealt with the subject. "I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright.[252] I complained to Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfair treatment." My father continues, with his usual charity and moderation:-- "I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly." In July 1871, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:-- "I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart, it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points, and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points, it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts, or rather miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having only just got over a bad attack. Farewell; God knows why I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre.[253] Farewell. " ... There is a most cutting review of me in the [July] _Quarterly_; I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This _Quarterly Review_ tempts me to republish Ch. Wright,[254] even if not read by any one, just to show some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his (_i.e._ Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some reflection.... God knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly." The _Quarterly_ review was the subject of an article by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the _Contemporary Review_. Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace's _Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection_, and the second edition of Mr. Mivart's _Genesis of Species_. What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley's article. The _Quarterly_ reviewer, though to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that Darwin has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley passes from the _Quarterly_ reviewer's further statement, that there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that "their teachings harmonize with all that modern science can possibly require." Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy" (at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St. Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:-- "By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy of Suarez,[255] in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them 'as careful robins eye the delver's toil' (_vide Idylls_), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley's unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet." The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied with a dissection of the _Quarterly_ reviewer's psychology, and his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of the _Quarterly_ reviewer's treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike "unjust and unbecoming."[256] In the sixth edition my father also referred to the "direct action of the conditions of life" as a subordinate cause of modification in living things: On this subject he wrote to Dr. Moritz Wagner (Oct. 13, 1876): "In my opinion the greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, _i.e._ food, climate, &c., independently of natural selection. Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, by isolation, in a small area, where only a few individuals lived under nearly uniform conditions." It has been supposed that such statements indicate a serious change of front on my father's part. As a matter of fact the first edition of the _Origin_ contains the words, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." Moreover, any alteration that his views may have undergone was due not to a change of opinion, but to change in the materials on which a judgment was to be formed. Thus he wrote to Wagner in the above quoted letter:-- "When I wrote the _Origin_, and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence." With the possibility of such action of the environment he had of course been familiar for many years. Thus he wrote to Mr. Davidson in 1861:-- "My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every living creature." And to Sir Joseph Hooker in the following year:-- "I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be." Reference has already been made to the growth of his book on the _Expression of the Emotions_ out of a projected chapter in the _Descent of Man_. It was published in the autumn of 1872. The edition consisted of 7000, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray's sale in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards sell so rapidly, and thus a mass of notes collected by the author was never employed for a second edition during his lifetime.[257] As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book being generally successful. The following passage in a letter to Haeckel serves to show that he had felt the writing of this book as a somewhat severe strain:-- "I have finished my little book on Expression, and when it is published in November I will of course send you a copy, in case you would like to read it for amusement. I have resumed some old botanical work, and perhaps I shall never again attempt to discuss theoretical views. "I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to you for your own sake and for that of science." A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_, Jan. 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the book exhibits certain "characteristics of the author's mind in an eminent degree," namely, "the insatiable longing to discover the causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by living things." He adds that in the case of the author "the restless curiosity of the child to know the 'what for?' the 'why?' and the 'how?' of everything" seems "never to have abated its force." The publication of the Expression book was the occasion of the following letter to one of his oldest friends, the late Mrs. Haliburton, who was the daughter of a Shropshire neighbour, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse, and became the wife of the author of _Sam Slick_. Nov. 1, 1872. MY DEAR MRS. HALIBURTON,--I dare say you will be surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to say that I have just published a book on the _Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals_; and it has occurred to me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it; and I can hardly think that this would have been the case with any of the books which I have already published. So I send by this post my present book. Although I have had no communication with you or the other members of your family for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much like to hear a little news about yourself and the other members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from my sisters. I have had many years of bad health and have not been able to visit anywhere; and now I feel very old. As long as I pass a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily work in Natural History, which is still my passion, as it was in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my continued ill-health, which has excluded me from society, my life has been a very happy one; the greatest drawback being that several of my children have inherited from me feeble health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to a large extent, the famous "Owen constitution." With sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all bearing the name of Owen, I venture to sign myself, Yours affectionately. CHARLES DARWIN. FOOTNOTES: [221] The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, p. 1) that it was his critique in the _N. Jahrbuch für Mineralogie_ that suggested to my father the idea of such a sketch. [222] Hugh Falconer, born 1809, died 1865. Chiefly known as a palæontologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career in India, where he was a medical officer in the H.E.I.C. Service. [223] In his letters to Gray there are also numerous references to the American war. I give a single passage. "I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! how I should like to see the greatest curse on earth--slavery--abolished!" [224] This refers to the remarkable fact that many introduced European weeds have spread over large parts of the United States. [225] _Geologist_, 1861, p. 132. [226] The letter is published in a lecture by Professor Hutton given before the Philosoph. Institute, Canterbury, N.Z., Sept 12th, 1887. [227] Mr. Bates is perhaps most widely known through his delightful _The Naturalist on the Amazons_. It was with regard to this book that my father wrote (April 1863) to the author:--"I have finished vol. i. My criticisms may be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is the best work of Natural History Travels ever published in England. Your style seems to me admirable. Nothing can be better than the discussion on the struggle for existence, and nothing better than the description of the Forest scenery. It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells quickly, it will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species; and boldness on the subject seems to get rarer and rarer. How beautifully illustrated it is." [228] Mr. Bates' paper, 'Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons Valley' (_Linn. Soc. Trans._ xxiii. 1862), in which the now familiar subject of mimicry was founded. My father wrote a short review of it in the _Natural History Review_, 1863, p. 219, parts of which occur almost verbatim in the later editions of the _Origin of Species_. A striking passage occurs in the review, showing the difficulties of the case from a creationist's point of view:-- "By what means, it may be asked, have so many butterflies of the Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation--an answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only by long-drawn arguments; but it is made at the expense of putting an effectual bar to all further inquiry. In this particular case, moreover, the creationist will meet with special difficulties; for many of the mimicking forms of _Leptalis_ can be shown by a graduated series to be merely varieties of one species; other mimickers are undoubtedly distinct species, or even distinct genera. So again, some of the mimicked forms can be shown to be merely varieties; but the greater number must be ranked as distinct species. Hence the creationist will have to admit that some of these forms have become imitators, by means of the laws of variation, whilst others he must look at as separately created under their present guise; he will further have to admit that some have been created in imitation of forms not themselves created as we now see them, but due to the laws of variation! Professor Agassiz, indeed, would think nothing of this difficulty; for he believes that not only each species and each variety, but that groups of individuals, though identically the same, when inhabiting distinct countries, have been all separately created in due proportional numbers to the wants of each land. Not many naturalists will be content thus to believe that varieties and individuals have been turned out all ready made, almost as a manufacturer turns out toys according to the temporary demand of the market." [229] Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the _Origin of Species_. He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of Mines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4_d._ each, under the title, _Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature_. [230] Kingsley's _Life_, vol. ii. p. 171. [231] In the _Antiquity of Man_, first edition, p. 480, Lyell criticised somewhat severely Owen's account of the difference between the Human and Simian brains. The number of the _Athenæum_ here referred to (1863, p. 262) contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell's strictures. The surprise expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which every one believed to be closed. Professor Huxley (_Medical Times_, Oct. 25th, 1862, quoted in _Man's Place in Nature_, p. 117) spoke of the "two years during which this preposterous controversy has dragged its weary length." And this no doubt expressed a very general feeling. [232] The italics are not Lyell's. [233] _The Antiquity of Man._ [234] "Falconer, whom I [Lyell] referred to oftener than to any other author, says I have not done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall come out with a separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in the new edition, but this he declined."--C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863; Lyell's _Life_, vol ii. p. 364. [235] _Man's Place in Nature_, 1863. [236] This refers to a passage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter's book speaks of "an operation of force," or "a concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature," as being, "a creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the primordial form 'into which life was first breathed.'" The conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the reviewer's. [237] _Public Opinion_, April 23, 1863, A lively account of a police case, in which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John Bull gives evidence that-- "The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley quarrelled with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and Prestwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had pleasure, however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set. They were always picking bones with each other and fighting over their gains. If either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything, he was obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone collectors would be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft afterwards, and the consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as they were wearisome. "Lord Mayor.--Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some influence over them? "The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to say that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the clergy as that to which these unhappy men belonged." [238] No doubt Haeckel, whose monograph on the Radiolaria was published in 1862. [239] The Marquis de Saporta. [240] _Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des espèces_. Par P. Flourens. 8vo. Paris, 1864. [241] _Lay Sermons_, p. 328. [242] _Charles Darwin und sein Verhältniss zu Deutschland_, 1885. [243] An article in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th edit., reprinted in _Science and Culture_, 1881, p. 298. [244] In October, 1867, he wrote to Mr. Wallace:--"Mr. Warrington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the _Origin_ before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the name of the Devil's Advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked." [245] _Die natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte_, 1868. It was translated and published in 1876, under the title, _The History of Creation_. [246] _Zoological Record._ The volume for 1868, published December, 1869. [247] Mr. Jenner Weir's observations published in the _Transactions of the Entomological Society_ (1869 and 1870) give strong support to the theory in question. [248] _Contemporary Review_, 1871. [249] In the introduction to the _Descent of Man_ the author wrote:--"This last naturalist [Haeckel] ... has recently ... published his _Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte_, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine." [250] April 7 and 8, 1871. [251] His holiday this year was at Caerdeon, on the north shore of the beautiful Barmouth estuary, and pleasantly placed in being close to wild hill country behind, as well as to the picturesque wooded "hummocks," between the steeper hills and the river. My father was ill and somewhat depressed throughout this visit, and I think felt imprisoned and saddened by his inability to reach the hills over which he had once wandered for days together. He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J. D. Hooker (June 22nd):-- "We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to pay us a visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden, and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a grand fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light. We remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as the stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then have been fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a comfortable tomb." [252] The late Chauncey Wright, in an article published in the _North American Review_, vol. cxiii. pp. 83, 84. Wright points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned that the passage from which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by Mr. Mivart. [253] My father, as an Evolutionist, felt that he required more time than Sir W. Thomson's estimate of the age of the world allows. [254] Chauncey Wright's review was published as a pamphlet in the autumn of 1871. [255] The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies. [256] The same words may be applied to Mr. Mivart's treatment of my father. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th, 1874) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement (_Lessons from Nature_, p. 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the "bestiality of man":-- "I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the _Academy_. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the _Origin_ I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my _Descent of Man_. Therefore it is very unjust ... of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment." [257] They were utilised to some extent in the 2nd edition, edited by me, and published in 1890.--F. D. CHAPTER XV. MISCELLANEA.--REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK.--THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.--HONOURS. In 1874 a second edition of his _Coral Reefs_ was published, which need not specially concern us. It was not until some time afterwards that the criticisms of my father's theory appeared, which have attracted a good deal of attention. The following interesting account of the subject is taken from Professor's Judd's "Critical Introduction" to Messrs. Ward, Lock and Co's. edition of _Coral Reefs_ and _Volcanic Islands, &c._[258] "The first serious note of dissent to the generally accepted theory was heard in 1863, when a distinguished German naturalist, Dr. Karl Semper, declared that his study of the Pelew Islands showed that uninterrupted subsidence could not have been going on in that region. Dr. Semper's objections were very carefully considered by Mr. Darwin, and a reply to them appeared in the second and revised edition of his _Coral Reefs_, which was published in 1874. With characteristic frankness and freedom from prejudices, Darwin admitted that the facts brought forward by Dr. Semper proved that in certain specified cases, subsidence could not have played the chief part in originating the peculiar forms of the coral islands. But while making this admission, he firmly maintained that exceptional cases, like those described in the Pelew Islands, were not sufficient to invalidate the theory of subsidence as applied to the widely spread atolls, encircling reefs, and barrier-reefs of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It is worthy of note that to the end of his life Darwin maintained a friendly correspondence with Semper concerning the points on which they were at issue. "After the appearance of Semper's work, Dr. J. J. Rein published an account of the Bermudas, in which he opposed the interpretation of the structure of the islands given by Nelson and other authors, and maintained that the facts observed in them are opposed to the views of Darwin. Although so far as I am aware, Darwin had no opportunity of studying and considering these particular objections, it may be mentioned that two American geologists have since carefully re-examined the district--Professor W. N. Rice in 1884 and Professor A. Heilprin in 1889--and they have independently arrived at the conclusion that Dr. Rein's objections cannot be maintained. "The most serious objection to Darwin's coral-reef theory, however, was that which developed itself after the return of H.M.S. _Challenger_ from her famous voyage. Mr. John Murray, one of the staff of naturalists on board that vessel, propounded a new theory of coral-reefs, and maintained that the view that they were formed by subsidence was one that was no longer tenable; these objections have been supported by Professor Alexander Agassiz in the United States, and by Dr. A. Geikie, and Dr. H. B. Guppy in this country. "Although Mr. Darwin did not live to bring out a third edition of his _Coral Reefs_, I know from several conversations with him that he had given the most patient and thoughtful consideration to Mr. Murray's paper on the subject. He admitted to me that had he known, when he wrote his work, of the abundant deposition of the remains of calcareous organisms on the sea floor, he might have regarded this cause as sufficient in a few cases to raise the summit of submerged volcanoes or other mountains to a level at which reef-forming corals can commence to flourish. But he did not think that the admission that under certain favourable conditions, atolls might be thus formed without subsidence, necessitated an abandonment of his theory in the case of the innumerable examples of the kind which stud the Indian and Pacific Oceans. "A letter written by Darwin to Professor Alexander Agassiz in May 1881, shows exactly the attitude which careful consideration of the subject led him to maintain towards the theory propounded by Mr. Murray:-- "'You will have seen,' he writes, 'Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the _Beagle_, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the smaller corals, &c., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, &c., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of many hundred feet. "Darwin's concluding words in the same letter written within a year of his death, are a striking proof of the candour and openness of mind which he preserved so well to the end, in this as in other controversies. "'If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet.' "It is noteworthy that the objections to Darwin's theory have for the most part proceeded from zoologists, while those who have fully appreciated the geological aspect of the question have been the staunchest supporters of the theory of subsidence. The desirability of such boring operations in atolls has been insisted upon by several geologists, and it may be hoped that before many years have passed away, Darwin's hopes may be realised, either with or without the intervention of the 'doubly rich millionaire.' "Three years after the death of Darwin, the veteran Professor Dana re-entered the lists and contributed a powerful defence of the theory of subsidence in the form of a reply to an essay written by the ablest exponent of the anti-Darwinian views on this subject, Dr. A. Geikie. While pointing out that the Darwinian position had been to a great extent misunderstood by its opponents, he showed that the rival theory presented even greater difficulties than those which it professed to remove. "During the last five years, the whole question of the origin of coral-reefs and islands has been re-opened, and a controversy has arisen, into which, unfortunately, acrimonious elements have been very unnecessarily introduced. Those who desire it, will find clear and impartial statements of the varied and often mutually destructive views put forward by different authors, in three works which have made their appearance within the last year--_The Bermuda Islands_, by Professor Angelo Heilprin: _Corals and Coral Islands_, new edition by Professor J. D. Dana; and the third edition of Darwin's _Coral-Reefs_, with Notes and Appendix by Professor T. G. Bonney. "Most readers will, I think, rise from the perusal of these works with the conviction that, while on certain points of detail it is clear that, through the want of knowledge concerning the action of marine organisms in the open ocean, Darwin was betrayed into some grave errors, yet the main foundations of his argument have not been seriously impaired by the new facts observed in the deep-sea researches, or by the severe criticisms to which his theory has been subjected during the last ten years. On the other hand, I think it will appear that much misapprehension has been exhibited by some of Darwin's critics, as to what his views and arguments really were; so that the reprint and wide circulation of the book in its original form is greatly to be desired, and cannot but be attended with advantage to all those who will have the fairness to acquaint themselves with Darwin's views at first hand, before attempting to reply to them." The only important geological work of my father's later years is embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This subject was one which had interested him many years before this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould was published in the _Proceedings of the Geological Society_. Here he showed that "fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c., which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer." For the explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of the geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing earth to the surface in their castings, must undermine any objects lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking. In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this burying action, and devised a number of different ways of checking his estimates as to the amount of work done. He also added a mass of observations on the natural history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which added greatly to its popularity. In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times, and thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself the effects produced by earthworms on the old concrete floors, walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer:-- "I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last. I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms were by no means the sole charm." In the autumn of 1880, when the _Power of Movement in Plants_ was nearly finished, he began once more on the subject. He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21):-- "In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title will be (as at present designed), _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms_.[259] As far as I can judge, it will be a curious little book." The manuscript was sent to the printers in April 1881, and when the proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Professor Carus: "The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and I have perhaps treated it in foolish detail." It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold at once. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, "I am glad that you approve of the _Worms_. When in old days I used to tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I always felt as most men do when their work is finally published." To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8): "It has been a complete surprise to me how many persons have cared for the subject." And to Mr. Dyer (in November): "My book has been received with almost laughable enthusiasm, and 3500 copies have been sold!!!" Again to his friend Mr. Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, "I have been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish and enthusiastic; but some containing good facts which I have used in correcting yesterday the _Sixth Thousand_." The popularity of the book may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three years following its publication, 8500 copies were sold--a sale relatively greater than that of the _Origin of Species_. It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so familiar, and treated with unabated vigour and freshness, may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks: "In the eyes of most men ... the earthworm is a mere blind, dumbsenseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. Mr. Darwin under-takes to rehabilitate his character, and the earthworm steps forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent personage, a worker of vast geological changes, a planer down of mountain sides ... a friend of man ... and an ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monuments." The _St. James's Gazette_, of October 17th, 1881, pointed out that the teaching of the cumulative importance of the infinitely little is the point of contact between this book and the author's previous work. One more book remains to be noticed, the _Life of Erasmus Darwin_. In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the scientific work of Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolutionary journal, _Kosmos_. The number of _Kosmos_ in question was a "Gratulationsheft,"[260] or special congratulatory issue in honour of my father's birthday, so that Dr. Krause's essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish an English translation of the Essay. His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's life was "to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward." This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any documents and letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus. This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father's hands a quantity of valuable material, including a curious folio common-place book, of which he wrote: "I have been deeply interested by the great book, ... reading and looking at it is like having communion with the dead ... [it] has taught me a good deal about the occupations and tastes of our grandfather." Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the _Life of Erasmus Darwin_, my father supplying a "preliminary notice." This expression on the title-page is somewhat misleading; my father's contribution is more than half the book, and should have been described as a biography. Work of this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. Thiselton Dyer, June 18th: "God only knows what I shall make of his life, it is such a new kind of work to me." The strong interest he felt about his forbears helped to give zest to the work, which became a decided enjoyment to him. With the general public the book was not markedly successful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J. D. Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote, "Your praise of the Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceedingly, for I despised my work, and thought myself a perfect fool to have undertaken such a job." To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14:-- "I am extremely glad that you approve of the little _Life_ of our grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether." THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. Something has already been said of my father's strong feeling with regard to suffering[261] both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing dogs, or his horror at the sufferings of slaves. The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to ride; the little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms. One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to animals was well known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told the cabman to go faster. "Why," said the man, "if I had whipped the horse _this_ much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have got out of the carriage and abused me well." With respect to the special point under consideration,--the sufferings of animals subjected to experiment,--nothing could show a stronger feeling than the following words from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):-- "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, _e.g._ by the index to _Nature_ for that year, in which the word "Vivisection" suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed, whose report defined the circumstances and conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research. Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E. Forster, Sir J. B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R. H. Hutton: they commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the following year. In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill, entitled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals," was introduced. The framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a correspondent writes in _Nature_ (1876, p. 248), "the evidence on the strength of which legislation was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the Report; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond the Recommendations; but rather to have contradicted them." The legislation which my father worked for, was practically what was introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair's Bill. The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th, 1881:-- _C. D. to Frithiof Holmgren._[262] Down, April 14, 1881. DEAR SIR,--In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches--a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it happens, animals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology. Dear Sir, yours faithfully. In the _Times_ of the following day appeared a letter headed "Mr. Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this my father replied in the _Times_ of April 22, 1881. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes:-- "As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the _Times_ on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists." _C. D. to the Editor of the 'Times.'_ SIR,--I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the _Times_ of the 19th inst.; but as she asserts that I have "misinformed" my correspondent in Sweden in saying that "the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the report of the Commission. (1.) The sentence--"It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists," which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, "can necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is immediately followed by the words "We have seen that it was so in Magendie." Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals. (2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general sentiment of humanity" prevailing in this country, say (p. 10):-- "This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid before us." Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10):-- "The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be very different indeed from that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists have used anæsthetics where they think they can do so with safety to the experiment." I am, Sir, your obedient servant. April 21. During the later years of my father's life there was a growing tendency in the public to do him honour.[263] The honours which he valued most highly were those which united the sympathy of friends with a mark of recognition of his scientific colleagues. Of this type was the article "Charles Darwin," published in _Nature_, June 4, 1874, and written by Asa Gray. This admirable estimate of my father's work in science is given in the form of a comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin. To Gray he wrote:-- "I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally. "What you say about Teleology[264] pleases me especially, and I do not think any one else has ever noticed the point. I have always said you were the man to hit the nail on the head." In 1877 he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the University of Cambridge. The degree was conferred on November 17, and with the customary Latin speech from the Public Orator, concluding with the words: "Tu vero, qui leges naturæ tam docte illustraveris, legum doctor nobis esto." The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot in the University to obtain some permanent memorial of my father. In June 1879 he sat to Mr. W. Richmond for the portrait in the possession of the University, now placed in the Library of the Philosophical Society at Cambridge. A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society--with which my father was so closely associated--led to his sitting in August, 1881, to Mr. John Collier, for the portrait now in the possession of the Society. The portrait represents him standing facing the observer in the loose cloak so familiar to those who knew him, with his slouch hat in his hand. Many of those who knew his face most intimately, think that Mr. Collier's picture is the best of the portraits, and in this judgment the sitter himself was inclined to agree. According to my feeling it is not so simple or strong a representation of him as that given by Mr. Ouless. The last-named portrait was painted at Down in 1875; it is in the possession of the family,[265] and is known to many through Rajon's fine etching. Of Mr. Ouless's picture my father wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker: "I look a very venerable, acute, melancholy old dog; whether I really look so I do not know." Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same time honours of an academic kind from some foreign societies. On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding Member of the French Institute in the Botanical Section,[266] and wrote to Dr. Asa Gray:-- "I see that we are both elected Corresponding Members of the Institute. It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one." He valued very highly two photographic albums containing portraits of a large number of scientific men in Germany and Holland, which he received as birthday gifts in 1877. In the year 1878 my father received a singular mark of recognition in the form of a letter from a stranger, announcing that the writer intended to leave to him the reversion of the greater part of his fortune. Mr. Anthony Rich, who desired thus to mark his sense of my father's services to science, was the author of a _Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities_, said to be the best book of the kind. It has been translated into French, German, and Italian, and has, in English, gone through several editions. Mr. Rich lived a great part of his life in Italy, painting, and collecting books and engravings. He finally settled, many years ago, at Worthing (then a small village), where he was a friend of Byron's Trelawny. My father visited Mr. Rich at Worthing, more than once, and gained a cordial liking and respect for him. Mr. Rich died in April, 1891, having arranged that his bequest[267] should not lapse in consequence of the predecease of my father. In 1879 he received from the Royal Academy of Turin the _Bressa_ Prize for the years 1875-78, amounting to the sum of 12,000 francs. He refers to this in a letter to Dr. Dohrn (February 15th, 1880):-- "Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society honoured me to an extraordinary degree by awarding me the _Bressa_ Prize. Now it occurred to me that if your station wanted some piece of apparatus, of about the value of £100, I should very much like to be allowed to pay for it. Will you be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want should occur to you, I would send you a cheque at any time." I find from my father's accounts that £100 was presented to the Naples Station. Two years before my father's death, and twenty-one years after the publication of his greatest work, a lecture was given (April 9, 1880) at the Royal Institution by Mr. Huxley[268] which was aptly named "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The following characteristic letter, inferring to this subject, may fitly close the present chapter. Abinger Hall, Dorking, Sunday, April 11, 1880. MY DEAR HUXLEY,--I wished much to attend your Lecture, but I have had a bad cough, and we have come here to see whether a change would do me good, as it has done. What a magnificent success your lecture seems to have been, as I judge from the reports in the _Standard_ and _Daily News_, and more especially from the accounts given me by three of my children. I suppose that you have not written out your lecture, so I fear there is no chance of its being printed _in extenso_. You appear to have piled, as on so many other occasions, honours high and thick on my old head. But I well know how great a part you have played in establishing and spreading the belief in the descent-theory, ever since that grand review in the _Times_ and the battle royal at Oxford up to the present day. Ever, my dear Huxley, Yours sincerely and gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the announcement of your Lecture, and thought that you meant the maturity of the subject, until my wife one day remarked, "it is almost twenty-one years since the _Origin_ appeared," and then for the first time the meaning of your words flashed on me. FOOTNOTES: [258] _The Minerva Library of famous Books_, 1890, edited by G. T. Bettany. [259] The full title is _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits_, 1881. [260] The same number contains a good biographical sketch of my father of which the material was to a large extent supplied by him to the writer, Professor Preyer of Jena. The article contains an excellent list of my father's publications. [261] He once made an attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as he wrongly supposed) was sane. He was in correspondence with the gardener at the asylum, and on one occasion he found a letter from the patient enclosed with one from the gardener. The letter was rational in tone and declared that the writer was sane and wrongfully confined. My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had been visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Some time afterward the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father for his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane when he wrote his former letter. [262] Professor of Physiology at Upsala. [263] In 1867 he had received a distinguished honour from Germany,--the order "Pour le Mérite." [264] "Let us recognise Darwin's great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that instead of Morphology _versus_ Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology." Similar remarks had been previously made by Mr. Huxley. See _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 305. [265] A _replica_ by the artist hangs alongside of the portraits of Milton and Paley in the hall of Christ's College, Cambridge. [266] He received twenty-six votes out of a possible thirty-nine, five blank papers were sent in, and eight votes were recorded for the other candidates. In 1872 an attempt had been made to elect him in the Section of Zoology, when, however, he only received fifteen out of forty-eight votes, and Lovén was chosen for the vacant place. It appears (_Nature_, August 1st, 1872) that an eminent member of the Academy wrote to _Les Mondes_ to the following effect:-- "What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame--the _Origin of Species_, and still more the _Descent of Man_, is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage." [267] Mr. Rich leaves a single near relative, to whom is bequeathed the life-interest in his property. [268] Published in _Science and Culture_, p. 310. BOTANICAL WORK. "I have been making some little trifling observations which have interested and perplexed me much." From a letter of June 1860. CHAPTER XVI. FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. The botanical work which my father accomplished by the guidance of the light cast on the study of natural history by his own work on evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to Mr. Murray, September 24th, 1861, speaking of his book the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, he says: "It will perhaps serve to illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the belief of the modification of species." This remark gives a suggestion as to the value and interest of his botanical work, and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language without danger of exaggeration. In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says: "I think this little volume will do good to the _Origin_, as it will show that I have worked hard at details." It is true that his botanical work added a mass of corroborative detail to the case for Evolution, but the chief support given to his doctrines by these researches was of another kind. They supplied an argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the consequent impossibility of their having been developed by means of natural selection. His observations on Orchids enabled him to say: "I can show the meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges and horns; who will now venture to say that this or that structure is useless?" A kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker (May 14th, 1862):-- "When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker, show distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous to attribute them to the effects of climate, &c., but when a single point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may thus have arisen. I have found the study of Orchids eminently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the flower are co-adapted for fertilisation by insects, and therefore the results of natural selection,--even the most trifling details of structure." One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the Study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The evolutionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs with the zeal of the older Teleologist, but with far wider and more coherent purpose. He has the invigorating knowledge that he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy of the present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And even where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, by a knowledge of its structure, unravel the history of the past vicissitudes in the life of the species. In this way a vigour and unity is given to the study of the forms of organised beings, which before it lacked. Mr. Huxley has well remarked:[269] "Perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his views offer. The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution." The point which here especially concerns us is to recognise that this "great service to natural science," as Dr. Gray describes it, was effected almost as much by Darwin's special botanical work as by the _Origin of Species_. For a statement of the scope and influence of my father's botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer's article in 'Charles Darwin,' one of the _Nature Series_. Mr. Dyer's wide knowledge, his friendship with my father, and his power of sympathising with the work of others, combine to give this essay a permanent value. The following passage (p. 43) gives a true picture:-- "Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical work, Mr. Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants, doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying organic phenomena in their least complicated forms; and this point of view, which, if one may use the expression without disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however startling, which seemed to explain them.... In any one else such an attitude would have produced much work that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin--if one may venture on language which will strike no one who had conversed with him as over-strained--seemed by gentle persuasion to have penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles smaller men. In other words, his long experience had given him a kind of instinctive insight into the method of attack of any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised experiment." To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution worked by my father's researches in the study of the fertilisation of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be remembered that it was only during the early years of the present century that the idea of sex, as applied to plants, became firmly established. Sachs, in his _History of Botany_[270] (1875), has given some striking illustrations of the remarkable slowness with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that when we consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius (1694), and by Kölreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that doubts should afterwards have been raised as to the sexuality of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms rested for the most part on careless experiments, but in many cases on _a priori_ arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal. A distinct conception of sex, as applied to plants, had, in fact, not long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany by attending Henslow's lectures at Cambridge. When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight of misconception remained, weighing down any rational view of the subject. Camerarius[271] believed (naturally enough in his day) that hermaphrodite[272] flowers are necessarily self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority of his successors did not attain to. The following extracts from a note-book show that this point occurred to my father as early as 1837: "Do not plants which have male and female organs together [_i.e._ in the same flower] yet receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell give some argument about varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen from other plants? Because this may be applied to show all plants do receive intermixture." Sprengel,[273] indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another _flower_, he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the intercrossing of distinct _plants_ lies the key to the whole question. Hermann Müller[274] has well remarked that this "omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel's work.... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, along with his defective ideas, the rich store of his patient and acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate interpretations." It remained for my father to convince the world that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown was the connecting link between them, for it was at his recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel's now celebrated _Secret of Nature Displayed_.[275] The book impressed him as being "full of truth," although "with some little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more fruitful seed than in putting such a book into such hands. A passage in the _Autobiography_ (p. 44) shows how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant." The original connection between the study of flowers and the problem of evolution is curious, and could hardly have been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. My father proved by a long series of laborious experiments, that when a plant is fertilised and sets seeds under the influence of pollen from a distinct individual, the offspring so produced are superior in vigour to the offspring of self-fertilisation, _i.e._ of the union of the male and female elements of a single plant. When this fact was established, it was possible to understand the _raison d'être_ of the machinery which insures cross-fertilisation in so many flowers; and to understand how natural selection can act on, and mould, the floral structure. Asa Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea (_Nature_, June 4, 1874):--"The aphorism, 'Nature abhors a vacuum,' is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism, 'Nature abhors close fertilisation,' and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of Natural Selection ... and to have applied these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linnæus, is ample title for one man's fame." The flowers of the Papilionaceæ[276] attracted his attention early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation.[277] The following extract from an undated letter to Asa Gray seems to have been written before the publication of this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857:-- " ... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very true; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed; but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct relation to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really pretty to watch the action of a humble-bee on the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in _Lathyrus grandiflorus_)[278] the honey is so placed that the bee invariably alights on that _one_ side of the flower towards which the spiral pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side all dusted with pollen. In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out about the Leguminosæ, which will bring the case within _our_ theory; though I have failed to do so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable ... kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites usually takes place _sub jove_, though thus exposed to _great_ injury from damp and rain." A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (September 5th, 1857) gives the substance of the paper in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_:-- "Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with the pollen shed; but I was led to believe that the pollen could _hardly_ get on the stigma by wind or otherwise, except by bees visiting [the flower] and moving the wing petals: hence I included a small bunch of flowers in two bottles in every way treated the same: the flowers in one I daily just momentarily moved, as if by a bee; these set three fine pods, the other _not one_. Of course this little experiment must be tried again, and this year in England it is too late, as the flowers seem now seldom to set. If bees are necessary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must almost cross them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs constantly touch the stigma. "I have, also, lately been reobserving daily _Lobelia fulgens_--this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed); I mention this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent the stigma ever getting its own pollen; which seems only explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses." The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858.[279] The chief object of these publications seems to have been to obtain information as to the possibility of growing varieties of Leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping them true. It is curious that the Papilionaceæ should not only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention by their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should also have constituted one of his sorest puzzles. The common pea and the sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because, although they are as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the rest of the order, yet their varieties keep true. The fact is that neither of these plants being indigenous, they are not perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He could not, at this stage of his observations, know that the co-ordination between a flower and the particular insect which fertilises it may be as delicate as that between a lock and its key, so that this explanation was not likely to occur to him. Besides observing the Leguminosæ, he had already begun, as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of 1860 he worked at Leschenaultia,[280] which at first puzzled him, but was ultimately made out. A passage in a letter chiefly relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in the spring of 1860 that he began widely to apply his knowledge to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is somewhat surprising, when we remember that he had read Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14):-- "I should look at this curious contrivance as specially related to visits of insects; as I begin to think is almost universally the case." Even in July 1862 he wrote to Asa Gray:-- "There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these cases to make one very cautious when one doubts about the use of all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all irregular flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects are the Lords of the floral (to quote the witty _Athenæum_) world." This idea has been worked out by H. Müller, who has written on insects in the character of flower-breeders or flower-fanciers, showing how the habits and structure of the visitors are reflected in the forms and colours of the flowers visited. He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by the fact that several kinds are common near Down. The letters of 1860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of his attention; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer and all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered himself idle for wasting time on Orchids which ought to have been given to _Variation under Domestication_. Thus he wrote:-- "There is to me incomparably more interest in observing than in writing; but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on these subjects, and not sticking to varieties of the confounded cocks, hens and ducks. I hear that Lyell is savage at me." It was in the summer of 1860 that he made out one of the most striking and familiar facts in the Orchid-book, namely, the manner in which the pollen masses are adapted for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, July 12:-- "I have been examining _Orchis pyramidalis_, and it almost equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case; the sticky glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ, which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then another movement takes place in the pollen masses, by which they are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the two lateral stigmatic surfaces. I never saw anything so beautiful." In June of the same year he wrote:-- "You speak of adaptation being rarely visible, though present in plants. I have just recently been looking at the common Orchis, and I declare I think its adaptations in every part of the flower quite as beautiful and plain, or even more beautiful than in the woodpecker."[281] He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, 1860:-- "Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the _Gardeners' Chronicle_." Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was already, in 1860, busy with the homologies of the parts, a subject of which he made good use in the Orchid book. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July):-- "It is a real good joke my discussing homologies of Orchids with you, after examining only three or four genera; and this very fact makes me feel positive I am right! I do not quite understand some of your terms; but sometime I must get you to explain the homologies; for I am intensely interested in the subject, just as at a game of chess." This work was valuable from a systematic point of view. In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham:-- "It was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchideæ, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the _least_ use to you about the nature of the parts." The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave him is shown in such passages as the following from a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker (July 27, 1861):-- "You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me. They came safe, but box rather smashed; cylindrical old cocoa-or snuff-canister much safer. I enclose postage. As an account of the movement, I shall allude to what I suppose is Oncidium, to make _certain_,--is the enclosed flower with crumpled petals this genus? Also I most specially want to know what the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I have only seen pollen of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have you not unintentionally sent me what I wanted most (after Catasetum or Mormodes), viz., one of the Epidendreæ?! I _particularly_ want (and will presently tell you why) another spike of this little Orchid, with older flowers, some even almost withered." His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to Dr. Gray (1863). Referring to Crüger's letters from Trinidad, he wrote:--"Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to their backs!" The following extracts of letters to Sir J. D. Hooker illustrate further the interest which his work excited in him:-- "Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful structures! "I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more, for though I enjoy looking at them _much_, and it has been very useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is idleness. For my object each species requires studying for days. I wish you had time to take up the group. I would give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be one of the stigmas,[282] there seems a great tendency for two lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio pages! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most differentiated. In Cypripedium which seems least modified, and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In _all others_, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four; and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in Orchis; into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious that a flower should exist, which could _at most_ fertilise only two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is; this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the contrivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness, is carried from flower to flower"[283](1861). "I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have taken about Vanilla; you really must not take an atom more; for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all morning at them; for Heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by any more" (August 30, 1861). He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids as a paper in the Linnean Society's _Journal_, but it soon became evident that a separate volume would be a more suitable form of publication. In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, Sept. 24, 1861, he writes:-- "I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose; and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days ago my Orchis paper, which turns out one hundred and forty folio pages!! and thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to myself, I will offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and publish it in a pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps Murray would publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and offered to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for all illustrations. It is a risk, and Heaven knows whether it will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray, and [have] told him that it would interest those alone who cared much for natural history. I hope I do not exaggerate the curiosity of the many special contrivances." And again on September 28th:-- "What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat me on the back. I have the greatest doubt whether I am not going to do, in publishing my paper, a most ridiculous thing. It would annoy me much, but only for Murray's sake, if the publication were a dead failure." There was still much work to be done, and in October he was still receiving Orchids from Kew, and wrote to Hooker:-- "It is impossible to thank you enough. I was almost mad at the wealth of Orchids." And again-- "Mr. Veitch most generously has sent me two splendid buds of Mormodes, which will be capital for dissection, but I fear will never be irritable; so for the sake of charity and love of heaven do, I beseech you, observe what movement takes place in Cychnoches, and what part must be touched. Mr. V. has also sent me one splendid flower of Catasetum, the most wonderful Orchid I have seen." On October 13 he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker:-- "It seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I have had the hardest day's work at Catasetum and buds of Mormodes, and believe I understand at last the mechanism of movements and the functions. Catasetum is a beautiful case of slight modification of structure leading to new functions. I never was more interested in any subject in all my life than in this of Orchids. I owe very much to you." Again to the same friend, November 1, 1861:-- "If you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly ready, I shall be most grateful; had I not better send for it? The case is truly marvellous; the (so-called) sensation, or stimulus from a light touch is certainly transmitted through the antennæ for more than one inch _instantaneously_.... A cursed insect or something let my last flower off last night." Professor de Candolle has remarked[284] of my father, "Ce n'est pas lui qui aurait demandé de construire des palais pour y loger des laboratoires." This was singularly true of his orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say that he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication of the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, that he built himself a greenhouse. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (December 24th, 1862):-- "And now I am going to tell you a _most_ important piece of news!! I have almost resolved to build a small hot-house; my neighbour's really first-rate gardener has suggested it, and offered to make me plans, and see that it is well done, and he is really a clever follow, who wins lots of prizes, and is very observant. He believes that we should succeed with a little patience; it will be a grand amusement for me to experiment with plants." Again he wrote (February 15th, 1863):-- "I write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I long to stock it, just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me pretty soon what plants you can give me; and then I shall know what to order? And do advise me how I had better get such plants as you can _spare_. Would it do to send my tax-cart early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty, lining the cart with mats, and arriving here before night? I have no idea whether this degree of exposure (and of course the cart would be cold) could injure stove-plants; they would be about five hours (with bait) on the journey home." A week later he wrote:-- "You cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give me (far more than your dead Wedgwood-ware can give you); H. and I go and gloat over them, but we privately confessed to each other, that if they were not our own, perhaps we should not see such transcendant beauty in each leaf." And in March, when he was extremely unwell, he wrote:-- "A few words about the stove-plants; they do so amuse me. I have crawled to see them two or three times. Will you correct and answer, and return enclosed. I have hunted in all my books and cannot find these names, and I like much to know the family." His difficulty with regard to the names of plants is illustrated, with regard to a Lupine on which he was at work, in an extract from a letter (July 21, 1866) to Sir J. D. Hooker: "I sent to the nursery garden, whence I bought the seed, and could only hear that it was 'the common blue Lupine,' the man saying 'he was no scholard, and did not know Latin, and that parties who make experiments ought to find out the names.'" The book was published May 15th, 1862. Of its reception he writes to Mr. Murray, June 13th and 18th:-- "The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some one sent me (perhaps you) the _Parthenon_, with a good review. The _Athenæum_[285] treats me with very kind pity and contempt; but the reviewer knew nothing of his subject." "There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the _London Review_.[286] But I have not been a fool, as I thought I was, to publish; for Asa Gray, about the most competent judge in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as does the _London Review_. The _Athenæum_ will hinder the sale greatly." The Rev. M. J. Berkeley was the author of the notice in the _London Review_, as my father learned from Sir J. D. Hooker, who added, "I thought it very well done indeed. I have read a good deal of the Orchid-book, and echo all he says." To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862):-- "My dear old friend,--You speak of my warming the cockles of your heart, but you will never know how often you have warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my scientific work (though I care for that more than for any one's): it is something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter you wrote to me from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure, and how it cheered me when I was utterly weary of life. Well, my Orchid-book is a success (but I do not know whether it sells)." In another letter to the same friend, he wrote:-- "You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to Bentham and Oliver approving of my book; for I had got a sort of nervousness, and doubted whether I had not made an egregious fool of myself, and concocted pleasant little stinging remarks for reviews, such as 'Mr. Darwin's head seems to have been turned by a certain degree of success, and he thinks that the most trifling observations are worth publication.'" He wrote too, to Asa Gray:-- "Your generous sympathy makes you over-estimate what you have read of my Orchid-book. But your letter of May 18th and 26th has given me an almost foolish amount of satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew, beyond its real value; but I had lately got to think that I had made myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular form. Now I shall confidently defy the world.... No doubt my volume contains much error: how curiously difficult it is to be accurate, though I try my utmost. Your notes have interested me beyond measure. I can now afford to d---- my critics with ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial thanks for this benefit." Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_, writing in a successful imitation of the style of Lindley, the Editor. My father wrote to Sir Joseph (Nov. 12, 1862):-- "So you did write the review in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_. Once or twice I doubted whether it was Lindley; but when I came to a little slap at R. Brown, I doubted no longer. You arch-rogue! I do not wonder you have deceived others also. Perhaps I am a conceited dog; but if so, you have much to answer for; I never received so much praise, and coming from you I value it much more than from any other." With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to Dr. Gray, "I am fairly astonished at the success of my book with botanists." Among naturalists who were not botanists, Lyell was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I have no means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, as I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise of the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, which he considered "next to the _Origin_, as the most valuable of all Darwin's works." Among the general public the author did not at first hear of many disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in September 1862: "Hardly any one not a botanist, except yourself, as far as I know, has cared for it." If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of flowers, we do not find that this new branch of study showed any great activity immediately after the publication of the Orchid-book. There are a few papers by Asa Gray, in 1862 and 1863, by Hildebrand in 1864, and by Moggridge in 1865, but the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino, Hildebrand, and the Müllers, did not begin to appear until about 1867. The period during which the new views were being assimilated, and before they became thoroughly fruitful, was, however, surprisingly short. The later activity in this department may be roughly gauged by the fact that the valuable 'Bibliography,' given by Professor D'Arcy Thompson in his translation of Müller's _Befruchtung_ (1883),[287] contains references to 814 papers. In 1877 a second edition of the _Fertilisation of Orchids_ was published, the first edition having been for some time out of print. The new edition was remodelled and almost rewritten, and a large amount of new matter added, much of which the author owed to his friend Fritz Müller. With regard to this edition he wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I do not suppose I shall ever again touch the book. After much doubt I have resolved to act in this way with all my books for the future; that is to correct them once and never touch them again, so as to use the small quantity of work left in me for new matter." One of the latest references to his Orchid-work occurs in a letter to Mr. Bentham, February 16, 1880. It shows the amount of pleasure which this subject gave to my father, and (what is characteristic of him) that his reminiscence of the work was one of delight in the observations which preceded its publication, not to the applause which followed it:-- "They are wonderful creatures, these Orchids, and I sometimes think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember making out some little point in their method of fertilisation." _The Effect of Cross-and Self-fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same species._ Two other books bearing on the problem of sex in plants require a brief notice. _The Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation_, published in 1876, is one of his most important works, and at the same time one of the most unreadable to any but the professed naturalist. Its value lies in the proof it offers of the increased vigour given to the offspring by the act of cross-fertilisation. It is the complement of the Orchid book because it makes us understand the advantage gained by the mechanisms for insuring cross-fertilisation described in that work. The book is also valuable in another respect, because it throws light on the difficult problems of the origin of sexuality. The increased vigour resulting from cross-fertilisation is allied in the closest manner to the advantage gained by change of conditions. So strongly is this the case, that in some instances cross-fertilisation gives no advantage to the offspring, unless the parents have lived under slightly different conditions. So that the really important thing is not that two individuals of different _blood_ shall unite, but two individuals which have been subjected to different conditions. We are thus led to believe that sexuality is a means for infusing vigour into the offspring by the coalescence of differentiated elements, an advantage which could not accompany asexual reproductions. It is remarkable that this book, the result of eleven years of experimental work, owed its origin to a chance observation. My father had raised two beds of _Linaria vulgaris_--one set being the offspring of cross and the other of self-fertilisation. The plants were grown for the sake of some observations on inheritance, and not with any view to cross-breeding, and he was astonished to observe that the offspring of self-fertilisation were clearly less vigorous than the others. It seemed incredible to him that this result could be due to a single act of self-fertilisation, and it was only in the following year, when precisely the same result occurred in the case of a similar experiment on inheritance in carnations, that his attention was "thoroughly aroused," and that he determined to make a series of experiments specially directed to the question. The volume on _Forms of Flowers_ was published in 1877, and was dedicated by the author to Professor Asa Gray, "as a small tribute of respect and affection." It consists of certain earlier papers re-edited, with the addition of a quantity of new matter. The subjects treated in the book are:-- (i.) Heterostyled Plants. (ii.) Polygamous, Dioecious, and Gynodioecious Plants. (iii.) Cleistogamic Flowers. The nature of heterostyled plants may be illustrated in the primrose, one of the best known examples of the class. If a number of primroses be gathered, it will be found that some plants yield nothing but "pin-eyed" flowers, in which the style (or organ for the transmission of the pollen to the ovule) is long, while the others yield only "thrum-eyed" flowers with short styles. Thus primroses are divided into two sets or castes differing structurally from each other. My father showed that they also differ sexually, and that in fact the bond between the two castes more nearly resembles that between separate sexes than any other known relationship. Thus for example a long-styled primrose, though it can be fertilised by its own pollen, is not _fully_ fertile unless it is impregnated by the pollen of a short-styled flower. Heterostyled plants are comparable to hermaphrodite animals, such as snails, which require the concourse of two individuals, although each possesses both the sexual elements. The difference is that in the case of the primrose it is _perfect fertility_, and not simply _fertility_, that depends on the mutual action of the two sets of individuals. The work on heterostyled plants has a special bearing, to which the author attached much importance, on the problem of the origin of species.[288] He found that a wonderfully close parallelism exists between hybridisation (_i.e._ crosses between distinct species), and certain forms of fertilisation among heterostyled plants. So that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the "illegitimately" reared seedlings are hybrids, although both their parents belong to identically the same species. In a letter to Professor Huxley, given in the second volume of the _Life and Letters_ (p. 384), my father writes as if his researches on heterostyled plants tended to make him believe that sterility is a selected or acquired quality. But in his later publications, _e.g._ in the sixth edition of the _Origin_, he adheres to the belief that sterility is an incidental[289] rather than a selected quality. The result of his work on heterostyled plants is of importance as showing that sterility is no test of specific distinctness, and that it depends on differentiation of the sexual elements which is independent of any racial difference. I imagine that it was his instinctive love of making out a difficulty which to a great extent kept him at work so patiently on the heterostyled plants. But it was the fact that general conclusions of the above character could be drawn from his results which made him think his results worthy of publication. FOOTNOTES: [269] The "Genealogy of Animals" (_The Academy_, 1869), reprinted in _Critiques and Addresses_. [270] An English edition is published by the Clarendon Press, 1890. [271] Sachs, _Geschichte d. Botanik_, p. 419. [272] That is to say, flowers possessing both stamens, or male organs, and pistils or female organs. [273] Christian Conrad Sprengel, born 1750, died 1816. [274] _Fertilisation of Flowers_ (Eng. Trans.) 1883, p. 3. [275] _Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Baue und in der Befruchtung der Blumen._ Berlin, 1793. [276] The order to which the pea and bean belong. [277] _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1857, p. 725. It appears that this paper was a piece of "over-time" work. He wrote to a friend, "that confounded Leguminous paper was done in the afternoon, and the consequence was I had to go to Moor Park for a week." [278] The sweet pea and everlasting pea belong to the genus Lathyrus. [279] _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 1858, p. 828. [280] He published a short paper on the manner of fertilisation of this flower, in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_ 1871, p. 1166. [281] The woodpecker was one of his stock examples of adaptation. [282] It is a modification of the upper stigma. [283] This rather obscure statement may be paraphrased thus:-- The machinery is so perfect that the plant can afford to minimise the amount of pollen produced. Where the machinery for pollen distribution is of a cruder sort, for instance where it is carried by the wind, enormous quantities are produced, _e.g._ in the fir tree. [284] "Darwin considéré, &c.," _Archives des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles_ 3ème période. Tome vii. 481, 1882. [285] May 24th, 1862. [286] June 14th, 1862. [287] My father's "Prefatory Notice" to this work is dated February 6th, 1882, and is therefore almost the last of his writings. [288] See Autobiography, p. 48. [289] The pollen or fertilising element is in each species adapted to produce a certain change in the egg-cell (or female element), just as a key is adapted to a lock. If a key opens a lock for which it was never intended it is an incidental result. In the same way if the pollen of species of A. proves to be capable of fertilising the egg-cell of species B. we may call it incidental. CHAPTER XVII. _Climbing Plants; Power of Movement in Plants; Insectivorous Plants; Kew Index of Plant Names._ My father mentions in his _Autobiography_ (p. 45) that he was led to take up the subject of climbing plants by reading Dr. Gray's paper, "Note on the Coiling of the Tendrils of Plants."[290] This essay seems to have been read in 1862, but I am only able to guess at the date of the letter in which he asks for a reference to it, so that the precise date of his beginning this work cannot be determined. In June 1863, he was certainly at work, and wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker for information as to previous publications on the subject, being then in ignorance of Palm's and H. v. Mohl's works on climbing plants, both of which were published in 1827. _C. Darwin to Asa Gray._ Down, August 4 [1863]. My present hobby-horse I owe to you, viz. the tendrils: their irritability is beautiful, as beautiful in all its modifications as anything in Orchids. About the _spontaneous_ movement (independent of touch) of the tendrils and upper internodes, I am rather taken aback by your saying, "is it not well known?" I can find nothing in any book which I have.... The spontaneous movement of the tendrils is independent of the movement of the upper internodes, but both work harmoniously together in sweeping a circle for the tendrils to grasp a stick. So with all climbing plants (without tendrils) as yet examined, the upper internodes go on night and day sweeping a circle in one fixed direction. It is surprising to watch the Apocyneæ with shoots 18 inches long (beyond the supporting stick), steadily searching for something to climb up. When the shoot meets a stick, the motion at that point is arrested, but in the upper part is continued; so that the climbing of all plants yet examined is the simple result of the spontaneous circulatory movement of the upper internodes.[291] Pray tell me whether anything has been published on this subject? I hate publishing what is old; but I shall hardly regret my work if it is old, as it has much amused me.... He soon found that his observations were not entirely novel, and wrote to Hooker: "I have now read two German books, and all I believe that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to find that I have a good deal of new matter. It is strange, but I really think no one has explained simple twining plants. These books have stirred me up, and made me wish for plants specified in them." He continued his observations on climbing plants during the prolonged illness from which he suffered in the autumn of 1863, and in the following spring. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, apparently in March 1864:-- "The hot-house is such an amusement to me, and my amusement I owe to you, as my delight is to look at the many odd leaves and plants from Kew.... The only approach to work which I can do is to look at tendrils and climbers, this does not distress my weakened brain. Ask Oliver to look over the enclosed queries (and do you look) and amuse a broken-down brother naturalist by answering any which he can. If you ever lounge through your houses, remember me and climbing plants." A letter to Dr. Gray, April 9, 1865, has a word or two on the subject.-- "I have began correcting proofs of my paper on Climbing Plants. I suppose I shall be able to send you a copy in four or five weeks. I think it contains a good deal new, and some curious points, but it is so fearfully long, that no one will ever read it. If, however, you do not _skim_ through it, you will be an unnatural parent, for it is your child." Dr. Gray not only read it but approved of it, to my father's great satisfaction, as the following extracts show:-- "I was much pleased to get your letter of July 24th. Now that I can do nothing, I maunder over old subjects, and your approbation of my climbing paper gives me _very_ great satisfaction. I made my observations when I could do nothing else and much enjoyed it, but always doubted whether they were worth publishing.... "I received yesterday your article[292] on climbers, and it has pleased me in an extraordinary and even silly manner. You pay me a superb compliment, and as I have just said to my wife, I think my friends must perceive that I like praise, they give me such hearty doses. I always admire your skill in reviews or abstracts, and you have done this article excellently and given the whole essence of my paper.... I have had a letter from a good zoologist in S. Brazil, F. Müller, who has been stirred up to observe climbers, and gives me some curious cases of _branch_-climbers, in which branches are converted into tendrils, and then continue to grow and throw out leaves and new branches, and then lose their tendril character." The paper on Climbing Plants was republished in 1875, as a separate book. The author had been unable to give his customary amount of care to the style of the original essay, owing to the fact that it was written during a period of continued ill-health, and it was now found to require a great deal of alteration. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (March 3, 1875): "It is lucky for authors in general that they do not require such dreadful work in merely licking what they write into shape." And to Mr. Murray, in September, he wrote: "The corrections are heavy in _Climbing Plants_, and yet I deliberately went over the MS. and old sheets three times." The book was published in September 1875, an edition of 1500 copies was struck off; the edition sold fairly well, and 500 additional copies were printed in June of the following year. _The Power of Movement in Plants._ 1880. The few sentences in the autobiographical chapter give with sufficient clearness the connection between the _Power of Movement_ and the book on Climbing Plants. The central idea of the book is that the movements of plants in relation to light, gravitation, &c., are modifications of a spontaneous tendency to revolve or circumnutate, which is widely inherent in the growing parts of plants. This conception has not been generally adopted, and has not taken a place among the canons of orthodox physiology. The book has been treated by Professor Sachs with a few words of professorial contempt; and by Professor Wiesner it has been honoured by careful and generously expressed criticism. Mr. Thiselton Dyer[293] has well said: "Whether this masterly conception of the unity of what has hitherto seemed a chaos of unrelated phenomena will be sustained, time alone will show. But no one can doubt the importance of what Mr. Darwin has done, in showing that for the future the phenomena of plant movement can and indeed must be studied from a single point of view." The work was begun in the summer of 1877, after the publication of _Different Forms of Flowers_, and by the autumn his enthusiasm for the subject was thoroughly established, and he wrote to Mr. Dyer: "I am all on fire at the work." At this time he was studying the movements of cotyledons, in which the sleep of plants is to be observed in its simplest form; in the following spring he was trying to discover what useful purpose those sleep-movements could serve, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (March 25th, 1878):-- "I think we have _proved_ that the sleep of plants is to lessen the injury to the leaves from radiation. This has interested me much, and has cost us great labour, as it has been a problem since the time of Linnæus. But we have killed or badly injured a multitude of plants. N.B.--_Oxalis carnosa_ was most valuable, but last night was killed." The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500 copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray's sale. With regard to it he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (November 23):-- "Your note has pleased me much--for I did not expect that you would have had time to read _any_ of it. Read the last chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without the evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after exposure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains) cut off is, I think worth your reading (bottom of p. 525); it astounded me. But I will bother you no more about my book. The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is marvellous." To another friend, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, he wrote (November 28, 1880): "Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think too highly of our work, not but what this is very pleasant.... Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out the use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of Natural History. Indeed you are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us." The book was widely reviewed, and excited much interest among the general public. The following letter refers to a leading article in the _Times_, November 20, 1880:-- _C. D. to Mrs. Haliburton._[294] Down, November 22, 1880. MY DEAR SARAH,--You see how audaciously I begin; but I have always loved and shall ever love this name. Your letter has done more than please me, for its kindness has touched my heart. I often think of old days and of the delight of my visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of gratitude which I owe to your father. It was very good of you to write. I had quite forgotten my old ambition about the Shrewsbury newspaper;[295] but I remember the pride which I felt when I saw in a book about beetles the impressive words "captured by C. Darwin." Captured sounded so grand compared with caught. This seemed to me glory enough for any man! I do not know in the least what made the _Times_ glorify me, for it has sometimes pitched into me ferociously. I should very much like to see you again, but you would find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and lunch with us. Believe me, my dear Sarah, Yours gratefully and affectionately. The following letter was called forth by the publication of a volume devoted to the criticism of the _Power of Movement in Plants_ by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius Wiesner, Professor of Botany in the University of Vienna: _C. D. to Julius Wiesner._ Down, October 25th, 1881. MY DEAR SIR,--I have now finished your book,[296] and have understood the whole except a very few passages. In the first place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which you have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a man may differ from another in the most decided manner, and yet express his difference with the most perfect courtesy. Not a few English and German naturalists might learn a useful lesson from your example; for the coarse language often used by scientific men towards each other does no good, and only degrades science. I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture; but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with the cotyledons of _Phalaris_, can I give up the belief of the transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper to the lower part. At p. 60 you have misunderstood my meaning, when you say that I believe that the effects from light are transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic. I never considered whether or not the short part beneath the ground was heliotropic; but I believe that with young seedlings the part which bends _near_, but _above_ the ground is heliotropic, and I believe so from this part bending only moderately when the light is oblique, and bending rectangularly when the light is horizontal. Nevertheless the bending of this lower part, as I conclude from my experiments with opaque caps, is influenced by the action of light on the upper part. My opinion, however, on the above and many other points, signifies very little, for I have no doubt that your book will convince most botanists that I am wrong in all the points on which we differ. Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, &c., act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I am quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I could not understand the passage at p. 78, until I consulted my son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that your objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp illuminating both sides of the object, and not being reduced, with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light; but he doubts whether this _necessary_ correction will account for the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the plants in the successive pots. With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing movement; whereas no movement was caused if the card remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum. The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the tip having been injured; but externally there was no sign of injury: and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme part became curved _towards_ the injured side. I can no more believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that the human tongue is so when it feels any such object. About the most important subject in my book, namely circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered at the difference in our conclusions; but I could not fully understand some parts which my son Francis will be able to translate to me when he returns home. The greater part of your book is beautifully clear. Finally, I wish that I had enough strength and spirit to commence a fresh set of experiments, and publish the results, with a full recantation of my errors when convinced of them; but I am too old for such an undertaking, nor do I suppose that I shall be able to do much, or any more, original work. I imagine that I see one possible source of error in your beautiful experiment of a plant rotating and exposed to a lateral light. With high respect, and with sincere thanks for the kind manner in which you have treated me and my mistakes, I remain, My dear Sir, yours sincerely. _Insectivorous Plants._ In the summer of 1860 he was staying at the house of his sister-in-law, Miss Wedgwood, in Ashdown Forest whence he wrote (July 29, 1860), to Sir Joseph Hooker:-- "Latterly I have done nothing here; but at first I amused myself with a few observations on the insect-catching power of Drosera:[297] and I must consult you some time whether my 'twaddle' is worth communicating to the Linnean Society." In August he wrote to the same friend:-- "I will gratefully send my notes on Drosera when copied by my copier: the subject amused me when I had nothing to do." He has described in the _Autobiography_ (p. 47), the general nature of these early experiments. He noticed insects sticking to the leaves, and finding that flies, &c., placed on the adhesive glands, were held fast and embraced, he suspected that the captured prey was digested and absorbed by the leaves. He therefore tried the effect on the leaves of various nitrogenous fluids--with results which, as far as they went, verified his surmise. In September, 1860, he wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I have been infinitely amused by working at Drosera: the movements are really curious; and the manner in which the leaves detect certain nitrogenous compounds is marvellous. You will laugh; but it is, at present, my full belief (after endless experiments) that they detect (and move in consequence of) the 1/2880 part of a single grain of nitrate of ammonia; but the muriate and sulphate of ammonia bother their chemical skill, and they cannot make anything of the nitrogen in these salts!" Later in the autumn he was again obliged to leave home for Eastbourne, where he continued his work on Drosera. On his return home he wrote to Lyell (November 1860):-- "I will and must finish my Drosera MS., which will take me a week, for, at the present moment, I care more about Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened and astounded at my results. I declare it is a certain fact, that one organ is so sensitive to touch, that a weight seventy-eight-times less than that, viz., 1/1000 of a grain, which will move the best chemical balance, suffices to cause a conspicuous movement. Is it not curious that a plant should be far more sensitive to the touch than any nerve in the human body? Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true. When I am on my hobby-horse, I never can resist telling my friends how well my hobby goes, so you must forgive the rider." The work was continued, as a holiday task, at Bournemouth, where he stayed during the autumn of 1862. A long break now ensued in his work on insectivorous plants, and it was not till 1872 that the subject seriously occupied him again. A passage in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, written in 1863 or 1864, shows, however, that the question was not altogether absent from his mind in the interim:-- "Depend on it you are unjust on the merits of my beloved Drosera; it is a wonderful plant, or rather a most sagacious animal. I will stick up for Drosera to the day of my death. Heaven knows whether I shall ever publish my pile of experiments on it." He notes in his diary that the last proof of the _Expression of the Emotions_ was finished on August 22, 1872, and that he began to work on Drosera on the following day. _C. D. to Asa Gray_ [Sevenoaks], October 22 [1872]. ... I have worked pretty hard for four or five weeks on Drosera, and then broke down; so that we took a house near Sevenoaks for three weeks (where I now am) to get complete rest. I have very little power of working now, and must put off the rest of the work on Drosera till next spring, as my plants are dying. It is an endless subject, and I must cut it short, and for this reason shall not do much on Dionæa. The point which has interested me most is tracing the _nerves_! which follow the vascular bundles. By a prick with a sharp lancet at a certain point, I can paralyse one-half the leaf, so that a stimulus to the other half causes no movement. It is just like dividing the spinal marrow of a frog:--no stimulus can be sent from the brain or anterior part of the spine to the hind legs: but if these latter are stimulated, they move by reflex action. I find my old results about the astonishing sensitiveness of the nervous system (!?) of Drosera to various stimulants fully confirmed and extended.... _C. D. to Asa Gray_, Down, June 3 [1874]. ... I am now hard at work getting my book on Drosera & Co. ready for the printers, but it will take some time, for I am always finding out new points to observe. I think you will be interested by my observations on the digestive process in Drosera; the secretion contains an acid of the acetic series, and some ferment closely analogous to, but not identical with, pepsine; for I have been making a long series of comparative trials. No human being will believe what I shall publish about the smallness of the doses of phosphate of ammonia which act.... The manuscript of _Insectivorous Plants_ was finished in March 1875. He seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the writing of this book, thus he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker in February:-- "You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide; I thought it was decently written, but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be ready to go to printers for two months, and will then make a confoundedly big book. Murray will say that it is no use publishing in the middle of summer, so I do not know what will be the upshot; but I begin to think that every one who publishes a book is a fool." The book was published on July 2nd, 1875, and 2700 copies were sold out of the edition of 3000. _The Kew Index of Plant-Names._ Some account of my father's connection with the _Index of Plant-Names_, now (1892) being printed by the Clarendon Press, will be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson's paper in the _Journal of Botany_, 1887, p. 151. Mr. Jackson quotes the following statement by Sir J. D. Hooker:-- "Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed Sir Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote a considerable sum of money annually for some years in aid or furtherance of some work or works of practical utility to biological science, and to make provisions in his will in the event of these not being completed during his lifetime. "Amongst other objects connected with botanical science, Mr. Darwin regarded with especial interest the importance of a complete index to the names and authors of the genera and species of plants known to botanists, together with their native countries. Steudel's _Nomenclator_ is the only existing work of this nature, and although now nearly half a century old, Mr. Darwin had found it of great aid in his own researches. It has been indispensable to every botanical institution, whether as a list of all known flowering plants, as an indication of their authors, or as a digest of botanical geography." Since 1840, when the _Nomenclator_ was published, the number of described plants may be said to have doubled, so that Steudel is now seriously below the requirements of botanical work. To remedy this want, the _Nomenclator_ has been from time to time posted up in an interleaved copy in the Herbarium at Kew, by the help of "funds supplied by private liberality."[298] My father, like other botanists, had, as Sir Joseph Hooker points out, experienced the value of Steudel's work. He obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to the accepted nomenclature so that he might convey to other workers precise indications as to the plants which he had studied. It was also frequently a matter of importance to him to know the native country of his experimental plants. Thus it was natural that he should recognise the desirability of completing and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew. The wish to help in this object was heightened by the admiration he felt for the results for which the world has to thank the Royal Gardens at Kew, and by his gratitude for the invaluable aid which for so many years he received from its Director and his staff. He expressly stated that it was his wish "to aid in some way the scientific work carried on at the Royal Gardens"[299]--which induced him to offer to supply funds for the completion of the Kew _Nomenclator_. The following passage, for which I am indebted to Professor Judd, is of interest, as illustrating, the motives that actuated my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes:-- "On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that his income having recently greatly increased, while his wants remained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he could spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He dwelt in the most touching manner on the fact that he owed so much happiness and fame to the natural history sciences, which had been the solace of what might have been a painful existence;--and he begged me, if I knew of any research which could be aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds, to let him know, as it would be a delight to him to feel that he was helping in promoting the progress of science. He informed me at the same time that he was making the same suggestion to Sir Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with respect to Botany and Zoology respectively. I was much impressed by the earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with which he spoke of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire to promote its interests." The plan of the proposed work having been carefully considered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elaboration in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the Linnean Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical literature qualifies him for the task. My father's original idea of producing a modern edition of Steudel's _Nomenclator_ has been practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is rather to construct a list of genera and species (with references) founded on Bentham and Hooker's _Genera Plantarum_. Under Sir Joseph Hooker's supervision, the work, carried out with admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson, goes steadily forward. The colossal nature of the undertaking may be estimated by the fact that the manuscript of the _Index_ is at the present time (1892) believed to weigh more than a ton. The Kew 'Index,' will be a fitting memorial of my father: and his share in its completion illustrates a part of his character--his ready sympathy with work outside his own lines of investigation--and his respect for minute and patient labour in all branches of science. FOOTNOTES: [290] _Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences_, 1858. [291] This view is rejected by some botanists. [292] In the September number of _Silliman's Journal_, concluded in the January number, 1866. [293] _Charles Darwin_, _Nature_ Series, p. 41. [294] Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father's early friend, the late Mr. Owen, of Woodhouse. [295] Mrs. Haliburton had reminded him of his saying as a boy that if Eddowes' newspaper ever alluded to him as "our deserving fellow-townsman," his ambition would be amply gratified. [296] _Das Bewegungsvermögen der Pflanzen._ Vienna, 1881. [297] The common sun-dew. [298] _Kew Gardens Report_, 1881, p. 62. [299] See _Nature_, January 5, 1882. CHAPTER XVIII. CONCLUSION. Some idea of the general course of my father's health may have been gathered from the letters given in the preceding pages. The subject of health appears more prominently than is often necessary in a Biography, because it was, unfortunately, so real an element in determining the outward form of his life. My father was at one time in the hands of Dr. Bence Jones, from whose treatment he certainly derived benefit. In later years he became a patient of Sir Andrew Clark, under whose care he improved greatly in general health. It was not only for his generously rendered service that my father felt a debt of gratitude towards Sir Andrew Clark. He owed to his cheering personal influence an often-repeated encouragement, which latterly added something real to his happiness, and he found sincere pleasure in Sir Andrew's friendship and kindness towards himself and his children. During the last ten years of his life the state of his health was a cause of satisfaction and hope to his family. His condition showed signs of amendment in several particulars. He suffered less distress and discomfort, and was able to work more steadily. Scattered through his letters are one or two references to pain or uneasiness felt in the region of the heart. How far these indicate that the heart was affected early in life, I cannot pretend to say; in any case it is certain that he had no serious or permanent trouble of this nature until shortly before his death. In spite of the general improvement in his health, which has been above alluded to, there was a certain loss of physical vigour occasionally apparent during the last few years of his life. This is illustrated by a sentence in a letter to his old friend Sir James Sulivan, written on January 10, 1879: "My scientific work tires me more than it used to do, but I have nothing else to do, and whether one is worn out a year or two sooner or later signifies but little." A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker of June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and wrote: "I am rather despondent about myself.... I have not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing I enjoy, and I have no little jobs which I can do." In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace: "We have just returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater; the scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything tires me, even seeing scenery.... What I shall do with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have everything to make me happy and contented, but life has become very wearisome to me." He was, however, able to do a good deal of work, and that of a trying sort,[300] during the autumn of 1881, but towards the end of the year, he was clearly in need of rest: and during the winter was in a lower condition than was usual with him. On December 13, he went for a week to his daughter's house in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he went to call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the door-step with an attack apparently of the same kind as those which afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the incident, which I give in Mr. Romanes' words, is interesting too from a different point of view, as giving one more illustration of my father's scrupulous consideration for others:-- "I happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr. Darwin was ill, asked him to come in. He said he would prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to wait at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would rather not give so much trouble. For the same reason he refused to allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly he watched him walking with difficulty towards the direction in which cabs were to be met with, and saw that, when he had got about three hundred yards from the house, he staggered and caught hold of the park-railings as if to prevent himself from falling. The butler therefore hastened to his assistance, but after a few seconds saw him turn round with the evident purpose of retracing his steps to my house. However, after he had returned part of the way he seems to have felt better, for he again changed his mind, and proceeded to find a cab." During the last week of February and in the beginning of March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irregularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance from the house; he got home with difficulty, and this was the last time that he was able to reach his favourite 'Sand-walk.' Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark, whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and Dr. Allfrey, at that time in practice at St. Mary Cray. He suffered from distressing sensations of exhaustion and faintness, and seemed to recognise with deep depression the fact that his working days were over. He gradually recovered from this condition, and became more cheerful and hopeful, as is shown in the following letter to Mr. Huxley, who was anxious that my father should have closer medical supervision than the existing arrangements allowed:-- "Down, March 27, 1882. "MY DEAR HUXLEY,--Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks, and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much better. Dr. Clark's kindness is unbounded to me, but he is too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more automata[301] in the world like you. "Ever yours, "CH. DARWIN." The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of explanation. Sir Andrew himself was ever ready to devote himself to my father, who however, could not endure the thought of sending for him, knowing how severely his great practice taxed his strength. No especial change occurred during the beginning of April, but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experiment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach of death, and said, "I am not the least afraid to die." All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end came. He died at about four o'clock on Wednesday, April 19th, 1882, in the 74th year of his age. I close the record of my father's life with a few words of retrospect added to the manuscript of his _Autobiography_ in 1879:-- "As for myself, I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to Science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures." FOOTNOTES: [300] On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves. [301] The allusion is to Mr. Huxley's address, "On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history," given at the Belfast Meeting of the British Association, 1874, and republished in _Science and Culture_. APPENDIX I. THE FUNERAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. On the Friday succeeding my father's death, the following letter, signed by twenty Members of Parliament, was addressed to Dr. Bradley, Dean of Westminster:-- HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 21, 1882. VERY REV. SIR,--We hope you will not think we are taking a liberty if we venture to suggest that it would be acceptable to a very large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions that our illustrious countryman, Mr. Darwin, should be buried in Westminster Abbey. We remain, your obedient servants, JOHN LUBBOCK, NEVIL STOREY MASKELYNE, A. J. MUNDELLA, G. O. TREVELYAN, LYON PLAYFAIR, CHARLES W. DILKE, DAVID WEDDERBURN, ARTHUR RUSSELL, HORACE DAVEY, BENJAMIN ARMITAGE, RICHARD B. MARTIN, FRANCIS W. BUXTON, E. L. STANLEY, HENRY BROADHURST, JOHN BARRAN, J. F. CHEETHAM, H. S. HOLLAND, H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, CHARLES BRUCE, RICHARD FORT. The Dean was abroad at the time, and telegraphed his cordial acquiescence. The family had desired that my father should be buried at Down: with regard to their wishes, Sir John Lubbock wrote:-- HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25, 1882. MY DEAR DARWIN,--I quite sympathise with your feeling, and personally I should greatly have preferred that your father should have rested in Down amongst us all. It is, I am sure, quite understood that the initiative was not taken by you. Still, from a national point of view, it is clearly right that he should be buried in the Abbey. I esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to accompany my dear master to the grave. Believe me, yours most sincerely, JOHN LUBBOCK. W. E. DARWIN, ESQ. The family gave up their first-formed plans, and the funeral took place in Westminster Abbey on April 26th. The pall-bearers were:-- SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, MR. HUXLEY, MR. JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL (American Minister), MR. A. R. WALLACE, THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, CANON FARRAR, SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, MR. WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE (President of the Royal Society), THE EARL OF DERBY, THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. The funeral was attended by the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and by those of the Universities and learned Societies, as well as by large numbers of personal friends and distinguished men. The grave is in the north aisle of the Nave, close to the angle of the choir-screen, and a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton. The stone bears the inscription-- CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN. Born 12 February, 1809. Died 19 April, 1882. APPENDIX II. PORTRAITS. -----+------------------+-----------------+-------------------- Date.|Description. |Artist. |In the Possession of -----+------------------+-----------------+-------------------- 1838 |Water-colour |G. Richmond |The Family. 1851 |Lithograph |Ipswich British | | | Assn. Series. | 1853 |Chalk Drawing |Samuel Lawrence |The Family. 1853?|Chalk Drawing[302]|Samuel Lawrence |Professor Hughes, | | | Cambridge. 1869 |Bust, marble |T. Woolner, R.A. |The Family. 1875 |Oil Painting[303] |W. Ouless, R.A. |The Family. |Etched by |P. Rajon. | 1879 |Oil Painting |W. B. Richmond |The University of | | | Cambridge. 1881 |Oil Painting[304] |Hon. John Collier|The Linnean Society. |Etched by |Leopold Flameng | CHIEF PORTRAITS AND MEMORIALS NOT TAKEN FROM LIFE. |Statue[305] |Joseph Boehm, |Museum, South | | R.A. | Kensington. |Bust |Chr. Lehr, Junr. | |Plaque |T. Woolner, R.A.,|Christ's College, in | | and Josiah | Charles Darwin's | | Wedgwood and | Room. | | Sons. | |Deep Medallion. |J. Boehm, R.A. |In Westminster | | | Abbey. -----+----------------+-----------------+-------------------- CHIEF ENGRAVINGS FROM PHOTOGRAPHS. *1854? By Messrs. Maull and Fox, engraved on wood for _Harper's Magazine_ (Oct. 1884). Frontispiece, _Life and Letters_, vol. i. 1868 By the late Mrs. Cameron, reproduced in heliogravure by the Cambridge Engraving Company for the present work. *1870? By O. J. Rejlander, engraved on Steel by C. H. Jeens for _Nature_ (June 4, 1874). *1874? By Major Darwin, engraved on wood for the _Century Magazine_ (Jan. 1883). Frontispiece, _Life and Letters_, vol. ii. 1881 By Messrs. Elliot and Fry, engraved on wood by G. Kruells, for vol. iii. of the _Life and Letters_. *The dates of these photographs must, from various causes, remain uncertain. Owing to a loss of books by fire, Messrs. Maull and Fox can give only an approximate date. Mr. Rejlander died some years ago, and his business was broken up. My brother, Major Darwin, has no record of the date at which his photograph was taken. FOOTNOTES: [302] Probably a sketch made at one of the sittings for the last-mentioned. [303] A _replica_ by the artist is in the possession of Christ's College, Cambridge. [304] A _replica_ by the artist is in the possession of W. E. Darwin, Esq., Southampton. [305] A cast from this work is now placed in the New Museums at Cambridge. INDEX. Abbott, F. E., letters to, on religious opinions, 55. Aberdeen, British Association Meeting at, 1859.. 202. Abstract ('Origin of Species'), 192, 193, 195, 196. Agassiz, Louis, Professor, letter to, sending him the 'Origin of Species,' 208; note on, and extract from letter to, 208; opinion of the book, 225; opposition to Darwin's views, 235; Asa Gray on the opinions of, 243. Agassiz, Alexander, Professor, letter to:--on coral reefs, 282. Agnosticism, 55. Ainsworth, William, 12. Albums of photographs received from Germany and Holland, 293. Algebra, distaste for the study of, 17. Allfrey, Dr., treatment by, 327. American edition of the 'Origin,' 226. ---- Civil War, the, 249. Ammonia, salts of, behaviour of the leaves of _Drosera_, towards, 320. Andes, excursion across the, 136; Lyell on the slow rise of the, 153. Animals, crossing of, 148. 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 227. Anti-Jacobin, 242, _note_, 243. Ants, slave-making, 191. Apocyneæ, twisting of shoots of, 313. Apparatus, 92-94; purchase of, for the Zoological Station at Naples, 293. Appletons' American reprints of the 'Origin,' 235. Ascension, 30. 'Athenæum,' letter to the, 258; article in the, 257; reply to the article, 258. ---- review of the 'Origin' in the, 211, 212; reviews in the, of Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man,' and Huxley's 'Man's place in Nature,' 253, 257; review of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants,' in the, 268; review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the, 308. Athenæum Club, 147. 'Atlantic Monthly,' Asa Gray's articles in the, 248. Atolls, formation of, 282. Audubon, 14. Autobiography, 5-54. 'Automata,' 327. Aveling, Dr., on C. Darwin's religious views, 65, _note_. Babbage and Carlyle, 36. Bachelor of Arts, degree taken, 18. Bär, Karl Ernest von, 213. Bahia, forest scenery at, 131; letter to R. W. Darwin from, 128. Barmouth, visit to, 106. Bates, H. W., paper on mimetic butterflies, 251; Darwin's opinion of, 251 _note_; 'Naturalist on the Amazons,' opinion of, 251; letter to:--on his 'Insect-Fauna of the Amazons Valley,' 251. _Beagle_, correspondence relating to the appointment to the, 115-123. ----, equipment of the, 125; accommodation on board the, 125; officers and crew of the, 126, 127, 130; manner of life on board the, 125. _Beagle_, voyage of the, 25-30. ----, Zoology of the voyage of the, publication of the, 31. Beans, stated to have grown on the wrong side of the pod, 52. Bees, visits of, necessary for the impregnation of the Scarlet Bean, 301. Bees' cells, Sedgwick on, 217. ---- combs, 195. Beetles, collecting at, Cambridge, &c., 20, 23, 106, 109, 194. Bell, Professor Thomas, 141. 'Bell-stone,' Shrewsbury, an erratic boulder, 14. Beneficence, Evidence of, 236. Bentham, G., approval of the work on the fertilisation of orchids, 308. ----, letter to, on orchids, 304, 310. Berkeley, Rev. M. J., review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' by, 308. 'Bermuda Islands,' by Prof. A. Heilprin, 284. 'Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 231. Birds' nests, 195. Blomefield, Rev. L., see JENYNS, REV. L. "Bob," the retriever, 70. Body-snatchers, arrest of, in Cambridge, 22. Books, treatment of, 96. Boott, Dr. Francis, 230. Botanical work, scope and influence of C. Darwin's, 297, 298. Botofogo Bay, letter to W. D. Fox from, 132, _note_. Boulders, erratic, of South America, paper on the, 32, 149. Bournemouth, residence at, 320. Bowen, Prof. F., Asa Gray on the opinions of, 243. Branch-climbers, 315. Bressa Prize, award of the, by the Royal Academy of Turin, 293. British Association, Sir C. Lyell's Presidential address to the, at Aberdeen, 1859.. 202; at Oxford, 236; action of, in connection with the question of vivisection, 288. Broderip, W. J., 141. Bronn, H. G., translator of the 'Origin' into German, 229. Brown, Robert, acquaintance with, 34; recommendation of Sprengel's book, 300. Buckle, Mr., meeting with, 35. Bulwer's 'Professor Long,' 38. Bunbury, Sir C., his opinion of the theory, 227. Butler, Dr., schoolmaster at Shrewsbury, 8. ----, Rev. T., 106. Caerdeon, holiday at, 273. Cambridge, gun-practice at, 10; life at, 17-23, 30, 104-113, 142. Cambridge, degree of LL.D. conferred by University of, 292; subscription portrait at, 292. ---- Philosophical Society, Sedgwick's attack before the, 234. Camerarius on sexuality in plants, 299. Canary Islands, projected excursion to, 114. Cape Verd Islands, 129. Carlyle, Thomas, acquaintance with, 36. Carnarvon, Lord, proposed Act to amend the Law relating to cruelty to animals, 288. Carnations, effects of cross- and self-fertilisation on, 311. Carpenter, Dr. W. B., letters to:--on the 'Origin of Species,' 210; review in the 'Medico-Chirurgical Review,' 231; notice of the 'Foraminifera,' in the _Athenæum_, 257. Carus, Prof. Victor, impressions of the Oxford discussion, 240. ----, his translations of the 'Origin' and other works, 262; letter to:--on earthworms, 285. Case, Rev. G., schoolmaster at Shrewsbury, 6. _Catasetum_, pollinia of, adhering to bees' backs, 305; sensitiveness of flowers of, 307. Caterpillars, colouring of, 269, 270. Cats and mice, 236. Cattle, falsely described new breed of, 53. Celebes, African character of productions of, 227. Chambers, R., 179, 240. Chemistry, study of, 11. Chili, recent elevation of the coast of, 30. Chimneys, employment of boys in sweeping, 161. Christ's College, Cambridge, 104; bet as to height of combination-room of, 142. Church, destination to the, 17, 108. Cirripedia, work on the, 38, 155-158; confusion of nomenclature of, 159; completion of work on the, 163. Clark, Sir Andrew, treatment by, 325, 327. Classics, study of, at Dr. Butler's school, 9. Climbing plants, 45, 313-315. 'Climbing Plants,' publication of the, 315. Coal, supposed marine origin of, 158. Coal-plants, letters to Sir Joseph Hooker on, 158, 159. Cobbe, Miss, letter headed "Mr. Darwin and vivisection" in the _Times_, 290. Coldstream, Dr., 12. Collections made during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' destination of the, 141. Collier, Hon. John, portrait of C. Darwin, by, 292. Cooper, Miss, 'Journal of a Naturalist,' 249. Copley medal, award of, to C. Darwin, 259. Coral Reefs, work on, 32, 148; publication of, 149. ----, second edition of, 281; Semper's remarks on the, 281; Murray's criticisms, 282; third edition, 284. ---- and Islands, Prof. Geikie and Sir C. Lyell on the theory of, 152. ---- and Volcanoes, book on, 148. 'Corals and Coral Islands,' by Prof. J. D. Dana, 284. Corrections on proofs, 201, 202, 205. Correspondence, 74. ---- during life at Cambridge, 1828-31.. 104-113; relating to appointment on the 'Beagle,' 115-123; during the voyage of the _Beagle_, 125-139; during residence in London, 1836-42.. 140-49; on the subject of religion, 55-65; during residence at Down, 1842-1854.. 150-164; during the progress of the work on the 'Origin of Species,' 165-205; after the publication of the work, 206-265; on the 'Variation of Animals and Plants,' 265-268; on the work on 'Man,' 268-280; miscellaneous, 281-294; on botanical researches, 297-322. Cotyledons, movements of, 316. Crawford, John, review of the 'Origin,' 219. Creation, objections to use of the term, 257. Cross- and self-fertilisation in plants, 47. Cross-fertilisation of hermaphrodite flowers, first ideas of the, 300. Crossing of animals, 148. _Cychnoches_, 306. _Cypripedium_, pollen of, 305. Dallas, W. S., translation of Fritz Müller's 'Für Darwin,' 262. Dana, Professor J. D., defence of the theory of subsidence, 283; 'Corals and Coral Islands,' 284. Darwin, Charles R., 1; Autobiography of, 5-54; birth, 5; loss of mother, 5; day-school at Shrewsbury, 6; natural history tastes, 6; hoaxing, 7; humanity, 7; egg-collecting, 7; angling, 7; dragoon's funeral, 8; boarding school at Shrewsbury, 8; fondness for dogs, 7; classics, 9; liking for geometry, 9; reading, 10; fondness for shooting, 10; science, 10; at Edinburgh, 11-15; early medical practice at Shrewsbury, 12; tours in North Wales, 15; shooting at Woodhouse and Maer, 15, 16; at Cambridge, 17-23, 30; visit to North Wales, with Sedgwick, 24, 25; on the voyage of the 'Beagle,' 25-30; residence in London, 31-37; marriage, 32; residence at Down, 37; publications, 38-49; manner of writing, 49; mental qualities, 50-54. Darwin, Reminiscences of, 66-103; personal appearance, 67, 68; mode of walking, 67; dissecting, 67; laughing, 68; gestures, 68; dress, 69; early rising, 69; work, 69; fondness for dogs, 69; walks, 70; love of flowers, 72; riding, 73; diet, 73, 76; correspondence, 74; business habits, 75; smoking, 75; snuff-taking, 75; reading aloud, 77; backgammon, 76; music, 77; bed-time, 77; art-criticism, 78; German reading, 79; general interest in science, 79; idleness a sign of ill-health, 80; aversion to public appearances, 80; visits, 81; holidays, 81; love of scenery, 81; visits to hydropathic establishments, 82; family relations, 82-87; hospitality, 87; conversational powers, 88-90; friends, 90; local influence, 90; mode of work, 91; literary style, 99; ill-health, 102. ----, Dr. Erasmus, life of, by Ernst Krause, 48, 286. ----, Erasmus Alvey, 3; letter from, 215. ----, Miss Susan, letters to:--relating the 'Beagle,' appointment, 118, 120; from Valparaiso, 135. ----, Mrs., letter to, with regard to the publication of the essay of 1844.. 171; letter to, from Moor Park, 184. ----, Reginald, letters to, on Dr. Erasmus Darwin's common-place book and papers, 286. Darwin, Dr. Robert Waring, 1; his family, 3; letter to, in answer to objections to accept the appointment on the 'Beagle,' 117; letter to, from Bahia, 128. 'Darwinismus,' 42. Daubeny, Professor, 241; 'On the final causes of the sexuality of plants,' 237. Davidson, Mr., letter to, 278. Dawes, Mr., 23. De Candolle, Professor A., sending him the 'Origin of Species,' 209. 'Descent of Man,' work on the, 269; publication of the, 46, 271. ----, Reviews of the, in the 'Edinburgh Review,' 272; in the _Nonconformist_, 273; in the _Times_, 273; in the _Saturday Review_, 273; in the 'Quarterly Review,' 276. Design in Nature, 63, 249; argument from, as to existence of God, 58. ----, evidence of, 236. _Dielytra_, 301. 'Different Forms of Flowers,' publication of the, 48, 311. Digestion in _Drosera_, 320, 321. Dimorphism and trimorphism in plants, papers on, 45. Divergence, principle of, 40. Dohrn, Dr. Anton, letter to, offering to present apparatus to the Zoological station at Naples, 293. Domestication, variation under, 174. Down, residence at, 37, 150; daily life at, 66; local influence at, 90; sequestered situation of, 151. Dragoon, funeral of a, 8. Draper, Dr., paper before the British Association on the "Intellectual development of Europe," 237. _Drosera_, observations on, 47, 319; action of glands of, 320; action of ammoniacal salts on the leaves of, 320. Dunns, Rev. J., the supposed author of a review in the 'North British Review,' 235. Dutch translation of the 'Origin,' 247. Dyer, W. Thiselton, on Mr. Darwin's botanical work, 298; on the 'Power of Movement in Plants,' 315; note to, on the life of Erasmus Darwin, 286. ----, letter to:--on movement in plants, 316. Earthquakes, paper on, 32. Earthworms, paper on the formation of mould by the agency of, 32, 49; first observations on work done by, 144; work on, 284; publication of, 285. Edinburgh, Plinian Society, 13; Royal Medical Society, 14; Wernerian Society, 14; lectures on Geology and Zoology in, 14. ----, studies at, 11-15. 'Edinburgh Review,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 232, 233, 235; review of the 'Descent of Man' in the, 272. 'Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom,' publication of the, 47, 48, 310. Elie de Beaumont's theory, 146. England, spread of the Descent-theory in, 264. _English Churchman_, review of the 'Origin' in the, 241. Engravings, fondness for, 107. Entomological Society, concurrence of the members of the, 264. _Epidendrum_, 306. Equator, ceremony at crossing the, 130. Erratic blocks, at Glen Roy, 147. ---- boulders of South America, paper on the, 32, 149. European opinions of Darwin's work, Dr. Falconer on, 247. Evolution, progress of the theory of, 165, 253, 271, 273. Experiment, love of, 94. Expression in man, 224, 270. ---- in the Malays, 270. ---- of the Emotions, work on the, 268. 'Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals,' publication of the, 47, 279. Eye, structure of the, 208, 215, 227. Falconer, Dr. Hugh, 247. ----, claim of priority against Lyell, 257; letter from, offering a live _Proteus_ and reporting on continental opinion, 247; letter to, 247; sending him the 'Origin of Species,' 209. Family relations, 82-87. Farrer, Sir Thomas, letter to, on earthworms, 285. Fawcett, Henry, on Huxley's reply to the Bishop of Oxford, 239, _note_. Fernando Noronha, visit to, 131. 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' publication of the, 44, 48, 308. '---- of Orchids,' publication of second edition of the, 310. '---- of Orchids,' reviews of the; in the 'Parthenon,' 308; in the _Athenæum_, 308; in the 'London Review,' 308; in _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 309. ----, cross- and self-, in the vegetable kingdom, 310-312. ----, of flowers, bibliography of the, 310. Fish swallowing seeds, 180. Fitz-Roy, Capt., 25; character of, 26; by Rev. G. Peacock, 115; Darwin's impression of, 119, 120; discipline on board the 'Beagle,' 127; letter to, from Shrewsbury, 140. Fitzwilliam Gallery, Cambridge, 19. Flourens, 'Examen du livre de M. Darwin,' 261. Flowers, adaptation of, to visits of insects, 303; different forms of, on plants of the same species, 48, 310; fertilisation of, 297-312; hermaphrodite, first ideas of cross-fertilisation of, 300; irregular, all adapted for visits of insects, 303. _Flustra_, paper on the larvæ of, 13. Forbes, David, on the geology of Chile, 156. Fordyce, J., extract from letter to, 55. 'Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the action of Worms,' publication of the, 49, 285; unexpected success of the, 285. Fossil bones, given to the College of Surgeons, 142. Fox, Rev. William Darwin, 21; letters to, 110-113, 114, 181; from Botofogo Bay, 132; in 1836-1842: 143, 148, 149; on the house at Down, 150; on their respective families, 160; on family matters, 194; on the progress of the work, 181, 183, 196; on the award of the Copley Medal, 259. France and Germany, contrast of progress of theory in, 261. Fremantle, Mr., on the Oxford meeting of the British Association, 238. French, translation of the 'Origin,' 246; third edition of the, published, 275. ---- translation of the 'Origin' from the fifth English edition, arrangements for the, 275. _Fumaria_, 301. Funeral in Westminster Abbey, 329. Galapagos, 29. Galton, Francis, note to, on the life of Erasmus Darwin, 287. _Gardeners' Chronicle_, review of the 'Origin' in the, 224; Mr. Patrick Matthew's claim of priority in the, 232; review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the, 309. Geikie, Prof. Archibald, notes on the work on Coral Reefs, 152, 182; notes on the work on Volcanic Islands, 153; on Darwin's theory of the parallel roads of Glen Roy, 145. Geoffrey St. Hilaire, 207. 'Geological Observations on South America,' 38; publication of the, 156. 'Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands,' publication of the, 152; Prof. Geikie's notes on the, 153. Geological Society, secretaryship of the, 31, 144. Geological work in the Andes, 136. 'Geologist,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 250. Geology, commencement of the study of, 24, 113; lectures on, in Edinburgh, 14; predilection for, 134, 135; study of, during the _Beagle's_ voyage, 27. German translation of the 'Origin of Species,' 247. Germany, Häckel's influence in the spread of Darwinism, 262. ----, photograph-album received from, 293. ----, reception of Darwinistic views in, 247. ---- and France, contrast of progress of theory in, 261. Glacial period, influence of the, on distribution, 43. Glacier action in North Wales, 32. Glands, sticky, of the pollinia, 304. Glen Roy, visit to, and paper on, 31; expedition to, 145. _Glossotherium_, 142. Glutton Club, 107. Gorilla, brain of, compared with that of man, 237. Gower Street, Upper, residence in, 32, 148. Graham, W., letter to, 63. Grant, Dr. R. E., 12; an evolutionist, 169. Gravity, light, &c., acting as stimuli, 318. Gray, Dr. Asa, comparison of rain drops and variations, 62; letter from, to J. D. Hooker, on the 'Origin of Species,' 224; articles in the 'Atlantic Monthly,' 248; 'Darwiniana,' 248; on the aphorism, "Nature abhors close fertilisation," 301; "Note on the coiling of the Tendrils of Plants," 313. ----, letters to: on Design in Nature, 63; with abstract of the theory of the 'Origin of Species,' 188; sending him the 'Origin of Species,' 209; suggesting an American edition, 225; on Sedgwick's and Pictet's reviews, 231; on notices in the 'North British' and 'Edinburgh' Reviews, and on the theological view, 235; on the position of Profs. Agassiz and Bowen, 243; on his article in the 'Atlantic Monthly,' 248; on change of species by descent, 246; on design, 249; on the American war, 249; on the 'Descent of Man,' 271; on the biographical notice in 'Nature,' 291; on their election to the French Institute, 292; on fertilisation of Papilionaceous flowers and _Lobelia_ by insects, 301, 302; on the structure of irregular flowers, 303; on Orchids, 304, 305, 309, 310; on movement of tendrils, 313; on climbing plants, 314; on _Drosera_, 320, 321. Great Marlborough Street, residence in, 31, 142. Gretton, Mr., his 'Memory's Harkback,' 8. Grote, A., meeting with, 36. Gully, Dr., 160. Günther, Dr. A., letter to:--on sexual differences, 270. Häckel, Professor Ernst, embryological researches of, 43; influence of, in the spread of Darwinism in Germany, 262. ----, letters to:--on the progress of Evolution in England, 263; on his works, 264; on the 'Descent of Man,' 272; on the 'Expression of the Emotions,' 279. Häckel's 'Generelle Morphologie,' 'Radiolaria,' 'Schöpfungs-Geschichte,' and 'Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts,' 262, 263. ---- 'Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte,' 263; Huxley's opinion of, 263. Hague, James, on the reception of the 'Descent of Man,' 272. Haliburton, Mrs., letter to, on the 'Expression of the Emotions,' 279; letter to, 317. Hardie, Mr., 12. Harris, William Snow, 122. Haughton, Professor S., opinion on the new views of Wallace and Darwin, 41; criticism on the theory of the origin of species, 200. Health, 68; improved during the last ten years of life, 325. Heart, pain felt in the region of the, 28, 325, 326. Heilprin, Professor A., 'The Bermuda Islands,' 284. Heliotropism of seedlings, 318. Henslow, Professor, lectures by, at Cambridge, 18; introduction to, 21; intimacy with, 107, 113; his opinion of Lyell's 'Principles,' 33; of the Darwinian theory, 227. ----, letter from, on the offer of the appointment to the 'Beagle,' 116. ----, letter to, from Rev. G. Peacock, 115. ----, letters to:--relating to the appointment to the 'Beagle,' 121, 122; from Rio de Janeiro, 134; from Sydney, 138; from Shrewsbury, 139; as to destination of specimens collected during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' 140. ----, letters to:--1836-1842, 144; sending him the 'Origin,' 209. Herbert, John Maurice, 19; anecdotes from, 105, 106, 108; letters to, 109; on the 'South American Geology,' 154. Hermaphrodite flowers, first idea of cross-fertilisation of, 300. Herschel, Sir J., acquaintance with, 34; letter from Sir C. Lyell to, on the theory of coral-reefs, 153; his opinion of the 'Origin,' 220. Heterostyled plants, 311; some forms of fertilisation of, analogous to hybridisation, 312. 'Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species,' 246. Hoaxes, 53. Holidays, 81. Holland, photograph-album received from, 293. Holland, Sir H., his opinions of the theory, 215. Holmgren, Frithiof, letter to, on vivisection, 289. Hooker, Sir J. D., on the training obtained by the work on Cirripedes, 156; letters from, on the 'Origin of Species,' 188, 211, 220; speech at Oxford, in answer to Bishop Wilberforce, 239; review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' by, 309. ----, letters to, 158; on coal-plants, 158, 159; announcing death of R. W. Darwin, and an intention to try water-cure, 160; on the award of the Royal Society's Medal, 162; on the theory of the origin of species, 173, 177; cirripedial work, 177; on the Philosophical Club, 178; on the germination of soaked seeds, 179, 180; on the preparation of a sketch of the theory of species, 181; on the papers read before the Linnean Society, 187, 190; on the 'Abstract,' 192, 193, 194, 200; on thistle-seeds, 193; on Wallace's letter, 194; on the arrangement with Mr. Murray, 198; on Professor Haughton's remarks, 200; on style and variability, 201; on the completion of proof-sheets, 202; on the review of the 'Origin' in the _Athenæum_, 211, 212; on his review in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 224; on the progress of opinion, 230; on Mr. Matthew's claim of priority and the 'Edinburgh Review,' 232; on the Cambridge opposition, 234; on the British Association discussion, 241; on the review in the 'Quarterly,' 242; on the corrections in the new edition, 246; on Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man,' 253; on letters in the papers, 259; on the completion and publication of the book on 'Variation under Domestication,' 266, 267; on pangenesis, 266; on work, 269; on a visit to Wales, 273; on a new French translation of the 'Origin,' 275; on the life of Erasmus Darwin, 287; on Mr. Ouless' portrait, 292; on the earthworm, 285; on the fertilisation of Orchids, 297, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307; on establishing a hot-house, 307; on his review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' 309; on climbing plants, 314: on the 'Insectivorous Plants,' 319, 321; on the movements of plants, 316; on health and work, 326. Hooker, Sir J. D., 'Himalayan Journal,' 162. Horner, Leonard, 14. Horses, humanity to, 287. Hot-house, building of, 307. Humboldt, Baron A. von, meeting with, 34; his opinion of C. Darwin, 155. Humboldt's 'Personal Narrative,' 23. Huth, Mr., on 'Consanguineous Marriage,' 53. Hutton, Prof. F. W., letter to, on his review of the 'Origin,' 250. Huxley, Prof. T. H., on the value as training, of Darwin's work on the Cirripedes, 157; on the theory of evolution, 155-169; review of the 'Origin' in the 'Westminster Review,' 231; reply to Owen, on the Brain in Man and the Gorilla, 237; speech at Oxford, in answer to the Bishop, 238; lectures on 'Our Knowledge of the causes of Organic Nature,' 253, _note_; opinion of Häckel's work, 263; on the progress of the doctrine of evolution, 271; article in the 'Contemporary Review,' against Mivart, and the Quarterly reviewer of the 'Descent of Man,' 276; lecture on 'the Coming of Age of the Origin of Species,' 294; on teleology, 298. ----, letters from, on the 'Origin of Species,' 213; on the discussion at Oxford, 240. ----, letters to:--on his adoption of the theory, 214; on the review in the _Times_, 221; on the effect of reviews, 244; on his Edinburgh lectures, 250; on 'the coming of age of the Origin of Species,' 294; last letter to, 327. Hybridisation, analogy of, with some forms of fertilisation of heterostyled plants, 312. Hybridism, 183. Hybrids, sterility of, 183. Hydropathic establishments, visits to, 82. Ichnuemonidæ, and their function, 236. Ilkley, residence at, in 1859.. 206. Ill-health, 32, 39, 102, 149, 158, 160, 268. Immortality of the Soul, 61. Innes, Rev. J. Brodie, 76, 91. ----, on Darwin's position with regard to theological views, 229; note on the review in the 'Quarterly' and Darwin's appreciation of it, 242, _note_. 'Insectivorous Plants,' work on the, 319-322; publication of, 47, 322. Insects, 10; agency of, in cross-fertilisation, 300. Institute of France, election as a corresponding member of the Botanical section of the, 292. Isolation, effects of, 278. Jackson, B. Daydon, preparation of the Kew-Index placed under the charge of, 323. Jenkin, Fleeming, review of the 'Origin,' 274. Jenyns, Rev. Leonard, acquaintance with, 22; his opinion of the theory, 228. ----, letters to:--on the 'Origin of Species,' 209; on checks to increase of species, 175; on his 'Observations in Natural History,' 175; on the immutability of species, 176. Jones, Dr. Bence, treatment by, 325. 'Journal of Researches,' 38, 143; publication of the second edition of the, 154; differences in the two editions of the, with regard to the theory of species, 170. Judd, Prof., on Coral Reefs, 281; on Mr. Darwin's intention to devote a certain sum to the advancement of scientific interests, 323. Jukes, Prof. Joseph B., 230. Kew-Index of plant names, 322; endowment of, by Mr. Darwin, 322. Kidney-beans, fertilisation of, 301. Kingsley, Rev. Charles, letter from, on the 'Origin of Species,' 228; on the progress of the theory of Evolution, 253. Kossuth, character of, 184. Krause, Ernst, 'Life of Erasmus Darwin,' 48; on Häckel's services to the cause of Evolution in Germany, 262; on the work of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 286. Lamarck's philosophy, 166. ---- views, references to, 174, 177, 207, 256. Lankester, E. Ray, letter to, on the reception of the 'Descent of Man,' 272. Last words, 327. _Lathyrus grandiflorus_, fertilisation of, by bees, 301. Laws, designed, 236. Leibnitz, objections raised by, to Newton's law of Gravitation, 229. _Leschenaultia_, fertilisation of, 303. Lewes, G. H., review of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants,' in the _Pall Mall Gazette_, 268. Life, origin of, 257. Light, gravity, &c., acting as stimuli, 318. Lightning, 236. _Linaria vulgaris_, observations on cross- and self-fertilisation in, 311. Lindley, John, 162. Linnean Society, joint paper with A. R. Wallace, read before the, 187; portrait at the, 292. _Linum flavum_, dimorphism of, 45. List of naturalists who had adopted the theory in March, 1860.. 230. Literature, taste in, 50. Little-Go, passed, 111. _Lobelia fulgens_, not self-fertilisable, 302. London, residence in, 31-37; from 1836 to 1842.. 140-149. 'London Review,' review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' in the, 308. Lonsdale, W., 141. Lubbock, Sir John, letter from, to W. E. Darwin, on the funeral in Westminster Abbey, 329; letter to:--on beetle-collecting, 194. Lyell, Sir Charles, acquaintance with, 31; character of, 33; influence of, on Geology, 33; geological views, 135; on Darwin's theory of coral islands, 153; extract of letter to, on the treatise on volcanic islands, 154; attitude towards the doctrine of Evolution, 167, 260; announcement of the forthcoming 'Origin of Species,' to the British Association at Aberdeen in 1859.. 202; letter from, criticising the 'Origin,' 206; Bishop Wilberforce's remarks upon, 242, _note_; inclination to accept the notion of design, 249; on Darwin's views, 256; on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' 309. ----, Sir Charles, letters to, 145, 148:-- on the second edition of the 'Journal of Researches,' 154; on the receipt of Wallace's paper, 185, 186; on the papers read before the Linnean Society, 191; on the mode of publication of the 'Origin,' 196, 198; with proof-sheets, 203; on the announcement of the work of the British Association, 203; on his adoption of the theory of descent, 212; on objectors to the theory of descent, 218, 219; on the second edition of the 'Origin,' 218, 223; on the review of the 'Origin' in the 'Annals,' 227; on objections, 229; on the review in the 'Edinburgh Review,' and on Matthew's anticipation of the theory of Natural Selection, 232; on design in variation, 234; on the 'Antiquity of Man,' 255, 256; on the progress of opinion, 260; on 'Pangenesis,' 266; on Drosera, 320. Lyell, Sir Charles, 'Antiquity of Man,' 254, 255. ----, 'Elements of Geology,' 145. ----, 'Principles of Geology.' 168; tenth edition of, 260. _Lythrum_, trimorphism of, 45. Macaulay, meeting with, 35. Macgillivray, William, 15. Mackintosh, Sir James, meeting with, 16. 'Macmillan's Magazine,' review of the 'Origin' in, by H. Fawcett, 239, _note_. _Macrauchenia_, 142. Mad-house, attempt to free a patient from a, 287, _note_. Maer, visits to, 15, 16. Malay Archipelago, Wallace's 'Zoological Geography' of the, 227. Malays, expression in the, 270. Malthus on _Population_, 40, 189. Malvern, Hydropathic treatment at, 39, 160. Mammalia, fossil from South America, 142. Man, descent of, 46; objections to discussing origin of, 183; brain of, and that of the gorilla, 237; influence of sexual selection upon the races of, 270; work on, 268. Marriage, 32, 148. Mathematics, difficulties with, 108; distaste for the study of, 17. Matthew, Patrick, claim of priority in the theory of Natural Selection, 232. 'Medico-Chirurgical Review,' review of the 'Origin' in the, by W. B. Carpenter, 231. Mellersh, Admiral, reminiscences of C. Darwin, 126. Mendoza, 136. Mental peculiarities, 49-54. Microscopes, 92; compound, 158. Mimicry, H. W. Bates on, 251. Minerals, collecting, 10. Miracles, 58. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,' 275. Moor Park, Hydropathic establishment at, 41. ----, water-cure at, 184. Moore, Dr. Norman, treatment by, 327. _Mormodes_, 306. Moths, white, Mr. Weir's observations on, 270. Motley, meeting with, 36. Mould, formation of, by the agency of Earthworms, paper on the, 32, 49; publication of book on the, 285. 'Mount,' the Shrewsbury, Charles Darwin's birthplace, 2. Müller, Fritz, embryological researches of, 43. ----, 'Für Darwin,' 262; 'Facts and arguments for Darwin,' 262. ----, Fritz, observations on branch-tendrils, 315. ----, Hermann, 262; on self-fertilisation of plants, 48; on Sprengel's views as to cross-fertilisation, 300. Murray, John, criticisms on the Darwinian theory of coral formation, 282. Murray, John, letters to:--relating to the publication of the 'Origin of Species,' 199, 201, 204; on the reception of the 'Origin' in the United States, 226 _note_; on the third edition of the 'Origin,' 245; on critiques of the 'Descent of Man,' 273; on the publication of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' 297, 308; on the publication of 'Climbing Plants,' 315. Music, effects of, 50; fondness for, 77, 107; taste for, at Cambridge, 19. _Mylodon_, 142. Names of garden plants, difficulty of obtaining, 308. Naples, Zoological Station, donation of £100 to the, for apparatus, 293. Nash, Mrs., reminiscences of Mr. Darwin, 87. Natural History, early taste for, 6. ---- selection, 165, 190. ---- belief in, founded on general considerations, 258; H. C. Watson on, 168; priority in the theory of, claimed by Mr. Patrick Matthew, 232; Sedgwick on, 216. Naturalists, list of, who had adopted the theory in March, 1860.. 230. _Naturalist's Voyage_, 170. 'Nature,' review in, 315. "Nervous system of" _Drosera_, 321. Newton, Prof. A., letter to, 268. Newton's 'Law of Gravitation,' objections raised by Leibnitz to, 229. Nicknames on board the _Beagle_, 126. Nitrogenous compounds, detection of, by the leaves of _Drosera_, 320. 'Nomenclator,' 322; endowment by Mr. Darwin, 322; plan of the, 323. Nomenclature, need of reform in, 159. _Nonconformist_, review of the 'Descent of Man' in the, 273. 'North British Review,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 235, 274. North Wales, tours through, 15; tour in, 32; visit to, with Sedgwick, 24; visit to, in 1869.. 273. Nose, objection to shape of, 26. Novels, liking for, 50, 77. Nuptial dress of animals, 270. Observation, methods of, 94, 95. ----, power of, 52. Old Testament, Darwinian theory contained in the, 42. Oliver, Prof., approval of the work on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' 308. Orchids, fertilisation of, bearing of the, on the theory of Natural Selection, 297; fertilisation of, work on the, 245; homologies of, 304; study of, 303, 304; pleasure of investigating, 310. _Orchis pyramidalis_, adaptation in, 303. Orders, thoughts of taking, 108. Organs, rudimentary, comparison of, with unsounded letters in words, 208. Origin of Species, first notes on the, 31; investigations upon the, 39-41; progress of the theory of the, 165; differences in the two editions of the 'Journal' with regard to the, 170; extracts from note-books on the, 169; first sketch of work on the, 170; essay of 1844 on the, 171. 'Origin of Species,' publication of the first edition of the, 41, 206; success of the, 42; reviews of the, in the _Athenæum_, 211, 212; in 'Macmillan's Magazine,' 219; in the _Times_, 221; in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 224; in the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' 227; in the _Spectator_, 231; in the 'Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève,' 231; in the Medico-Chirurgical Review,' 231; in the 'Westminster Review,' 231; in the 'Edinburgh Review,' 232, 233, 235; in the 'North British Review,' 235; in the _Saturday Review_, 236; in the 'Quarterly Review,' 242; in the 'Geologist,' 250. ----, publication of the second edition of the, 223. ----, third edition, commencement of work upon the, 245. ----, publication of the fifth edition of the, 274, 275. ----, sixth edition, publication of the, 275. ----, the 'Coming of Age' of the, 294. Ouless, W., portrait of Mr. Darwin by, 292. Owen, Sir R., on the differences between the brains of man and the Gorilla, 237; reply to Lyell, on the difference between the human and simian brains, 253; claim of priority, 275. Oxford, British Association Meeting, discussion at, 236-239. Paley's writings, study of, 18. _Pall Mall Gazette_, review of the Variation of Animals and Plants,' in the, 267. Pangenesis, 266. Papilionaceæ, papers on cross-fertilisation of, 301. Parallel roads of Glen Roy, paper on the, 145. Parasitic worms, experiments on, 290. Parslow, Joseph, 150, _note_. 'Parthenon,' review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the, 308. Pasteur's results upon the germs of diseases, 290. Patagonia, 29. Peacock, Rev. George, letter from, to Professor Henslow, 115. Philosophical Club, 178. ---- Magazine, 25. Photograph-albums received from Germany and Holland, 293. Pictet, Professor F. J., review of the 'Origin' in the 'Bibliothèque Universelle,' 231. Pictures, taste for, acquired at Cambridge, 19. Pigeons, nasal bones of, 249. Plants, climbing, 45, 313-315; insectivorous, 47, 319-322; power of movement in, 48, 315-319; garden, difficulty of naming, 308; heterostyled, polygamous, dioecious and gynodioecious, 311. Pleasurable sensations, influence of, in Natural Selection, 60. Plinian Society, 13. Poetry, taste for, 9; failure of taste for, 50. Pollen, conveyance of, by the wings of butterflies and moths, 302. ----, differences in the two forms of Primrose, 312. "Polly," the fox-terrier, 70. _Pontobdella_, egg-cases of, 13. Portraits, list of, 331. "Pour le Mérite," the order, 291, _note_. Pouter Pigeons, 234. Powell, Prof. Baden, his opinion on the structure of the eye, 228. 'Power of Movement in Plants,' 48, 315-319; publication of the, 316. Preyer, Prof. W., letter to, 265. Primrose, heterostyled flowers of the, 311; differences of the pollen in the two forms of the, 312. _Primula_, dimorphism of, paper on the, 45. _Primulæ_, said to have produced seed without access of insects, 53. _Proteus_, 247. Publication of the 'Origin of Species,' arrangements connected with the, 196-200. Publications, account of, 38-49. _Public Opinion_, squib in, 259. Quarterly Journal of Science, review of the 'Expression of the Emotions,' in the, 279. 'Quarterly Review,' review of the 'Origin' in the, 242; Darwin's appreciation of it, 242, _note_; review of the 'Descent of Man' in the, 276. Rabbits, asserted close interbreeding of, 53. Ramsay, Sir Andrew, 230. ----, Mr., 23. Reade, T. Mellard, note to, on the earthworms, 285. Rein, Dr. J. J., account of the Bermudas, 281. Reinwald, M., French translation of the 'Origin' by, 275. Religious views, 55-65; general statement of, 57-62. Reverence, development of the bump of, 17. Reversion, 201. Reviewers, 43. Rich, Anthony, letter to, on the book on 'Earthworms,' 285; bequest from, 293. Richmond, W., portrait of C. Darwin by, 292. Rio de Janeiro, letter to J. S. Henslow, from, 134. Rogers, Prof. H. D., 230. Romanes, G. J., account of a sudden attack of illness, 326. ----, letter to, on vivisection, 290. Roots, sensitiveness of tips of, to contact, 318. Royal Commission on Vivisection, 288. Royal Medical Society, Edinburgh, 14. ---- Society, award of the Royal Medal to C. Darwin, 162; award of the Copley Medal to C. Darwin, 259. Royer, Mdlle. Clémence, French translation of the 'Origin' by, 246; publication of third French edition of the 'Origin,' and criticism of pangenesis by, 275. Rudimentary organs, 207; comparison of, with unsounded letters in words, 208. Sabine, Sir E., 162; reference to Darwin's work in his Presidential Address to the Royal Society, 260. Sachs on the establishment of the idea of sexuality in plants, 299. St. Helena, 29. St. Jago, Cape Verd Islands, 129; geology of, 29. St. John's College, Cambridge, strict discipline at, 104. St. Paul's Island, visit to, 130. Salisbury Craigs, trap-dyke in, 15. "Sand walk," last visit to the, 327. San Salvador, letter to R. W. Darwin from, 128. Saporta, Marquis de, his opinion in 1863.. 261. _Saturday Review_, article in the, 235; review of the 'Descent of Man' in the, 273. _Scelidotherium_, 142. Scepticism, effects of, in science, 52. Science, early attention to, 10; general interest in, 79. Scott, Sir Walter, 14. Sea-sickness, 127, 128. Sedgwick, Professor Adam, introduction to, 113; visit to North Wales with, 24; opinion of C. Darwin, 137; letter from, on the 'Origin of Species,' 216; review of the 'Origin' in the _Spectator_, 231; attack before the 'Cambridge Philosophical Society,' 234. Seedlings, heliotropism of, 318. Seeds, experiments on the germination of, after immersion, 179, 180. Selection, natural, 165, 190; influence of, 40. ----, sexual, in insects, 270; influence of, upon races of man, 270. Semper, Professor Karl, on coral reefs, 281. Sex in plants, establishment of the idea of, 299. Sexual selection, 270; influence of, upon races of man, 270. Sexuality, origin of, 310. Shanklin, 193. Shooting, fondness for, 10, 15. Shrewsbury, schools at, 6, 8; return to, 140; early medical practice at, 12. _Sigillaria_, 158. Silliman's Journal, reviews in, 225, 235, 244, 314. Slavery, 137. Slaves, sympathy with, 287. Sleep-movements of plants, 316. Smith, Rev. Sydney, meeting with, 35. Snipe, first, 10. Snowdon, ascent of, 15. Son, eldest, birth of, 149; observations on, 149. South America, publication of the geological observations on, 156. Species, accumulation of facts relating to, 39-41, 148; checks to the increase of, 175; mutability of, 176; progress of the theory of the, 165; differences with regard to the, in the two editions of the 'Journal,' 170; extracts from Note-books on, 169; first sketch of the, 170; Essay of 1884 on the, 171. _Spectator_, review of the 'Origin' in the, 231. Spencer, Herbert, an evolutionist, 169. Sprengel, C. K., on cross-fertilisation of hermaphrodite flowers, 300. ----, 'Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur,' 44. Stanhope, Lord, 36. Sterility, in heterostyled plants, 312. Steudel's 'Nomenclator,' 322. Stokes, Admiral Lort, 126. Strickland, H. E., letter to, on nomenclature, 159. 'Struggle for Existence,' 40, 189. Style, 99; defects of, 201. Suarez, T. H. Huxley's study of, 277. Subsidence, theory of, 281. Suffering, evidence from, as to the existence of God, 57, 59, 60. Sulivan, Sir B. J., letter to, 325. ----, reminiscences of C. Darwin, 126. Sundew, 47, _see_ Drosera. Sydney, letter to J. S. Henslow from, 138. Teleology, revival of, 297. ---- and morphology, reconciliation of, by Darwinism, 291, _note_. Tendrils of plants, irritability of the, 313. Teneriffe, 23; desire to visit, 129; projected excursion to, 114. Theological views, 236. Theology and Natural History, 229. Thistle-seeds, conveyance of, by wind, 193. Thompson, Professor D'Arcy, literature of the fertilisation of flowers, 310. Thwaites, G. H. K., 230. Tierra del Fuego, 29. _Times_, review of the 'Origin' in the, 221, 222; review of the 'Descent of Man' in the, 273; letter to, on vivisection, 290; article on Mr. Darwin in the, 316. Title-page, proposed, of the 'Origin of Species,' 197. Torquay, visit to (1861), 245. _Toxodon_, 142. Translations of the 'Origin' into French, Dutch and German, 247. Transmutation of species, investigations on the, 39; first note-book on the, 142. Trimorphism and dimorphism in plants, papers on, 45. Tropical forest, first sight of, 134. Turin, Royal Academy of, award of the Bressa prize by the, 293. Twining plants, 314. 'Unfinished Book,' 180. Unitarianism, Erasmus Darwin's definition of, 201. Unorthodoxy, 197. Valparaiso, letter to Miss S. Darwin from, 139. _Vanilla_, 305. Variability, 201. 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' publication of, 46, 265. '----,' reviews of the, in the _Pall Mall Gazette_, 267; in the _Athenæum_, 268. Vegetable Kingdom, cross- and self-fertilisation in the, 47. 'Vestiges of Creation,' 167. Victoria Institute, analysis of the 'Origin,' read before the, 264, _note_. Vivisection, 287-291; opinion of, 288; commencement of agitation against, and Royal Commission on, 288; legislation on, 288. Vogt, Prof. Carl, on the origin of species, 271. Volcanic islands, Geological observations on, publication of the, 152; Prof. Geikie's notes on the, 152. Volcanoes and Coral-reefs, book on, 148. Wagner, Moritz, letter to, on the influence of isolation, 278. Wallace, A. R., first essay on variability of species, 41, 188; article in the 'Quarterly Review,' April, 1869.. 260; opinion of Pangenesis, 266; review of the 'Expression of the Emotions,' 279. ----, letters to,--on a paper by Wallace, 182; on the 'Origin of Species,' 195, 209; on 'Warrington's paper at the Victoria Institute,' 264, _note_; on man, 268; on sexual selection, 269, 270; on Mr. Wright's pamphlet in answer to Mivart, 275; on Mivart's remarks and an article in the 'Quarterly Review,' 276; on his criticism of Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' 277; last letter to, 326. Wallace, A. R., letter from, to Prof. A. Newton, 189. Warrington, Mr., Analysis of the 'Origin' read by, to the Victoria Institute, 264, _note_. Water-cure, at Ilkley, 206; at Malvern, 160; Moor Park, 82, 184. Watkins, Archdeacon, 106. Watson, H. C., charge of egotism against C. Darwin, 246; on Natural Selection, 168. Wedgwood, Emma, married to C. Darwin, 148. ----, Josiah, character of, 16. ----, Miss Julia, letter to, 62. ----, Susannah, married to R. W. Darwin, 1. Weir, J., Jenner, observations on white moths, 270. Westminster Abbey, funeral in, 329. 'Westminster Review,' review of the 'Origin,' in the, by T. H. Huxley, 231. Whale, secondary, 218. Whewell, Dr., acquaintance with, 22. Whitley, Rev. C., 19. Wiesner, Prof. Julius, criticisms of the 'Power of Movement in Plants,' 317; letter to, on Movement in Plants, 317. Wilberforce, Bishop, his opinion of the 'Origin,' 227; speech at Oxford against the Darwinian theory, 237; review of the 'Origin' in the 'Quarterly Review,' 238. Wollaston, T. V., review of the 'Origin' in the 'Annals,' 227. 'Wonders of the World,' 10. Wood, Searles V., 230. Woodhouse, shooting at, 15. Work, 69; method of, 50, 91-99. ----, growing necessity of, 269. Worms, formation of vegetable-mould by the action of, 32, 49, 285. Wright, Chauncey, article against Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,' 275, 276. Writing, manner of, 50, 97-99. Zacharias, Dr., Otto, letter to, on the theory of evolution, 166. Zoology, lectures on, in Edinburgh, 14. 'Zoology of the Voyage of the _Beagle_,' arrangements for publishing the, 143; Government grant obtained for the, 144; publication of the, 31, 32. PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. 
2087	----	THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN By Charles Darwin Including An Autobiographical Chapter Edited By His Son Francis Darwin VOLUME I PREFACE In choosing letters for publication I have been largely guided by the wish to illustrate my father's personal character. But his life was so essentially one of work, that a history of the man could not be written without following closely the career of the author. Thus it comes about that the chief part of the book falls into chapters whose titles correspond to the names of his books. In arranging the letters I have adhered as far as possible to chronological sequence, but the character and variety of his researches make a strictly chronological order an impossibility. It was his habit to work more or less simultaneously at several subjects. Experimental work was often carried on as a refreshment or variety, while books entailing reasoning and the marshalling of large bodies of facts were being written. Moreover, many of his researches were allowed to drop, and only resumed after an interval of years. Thus a rigidly chronological series of letters would present a patchwork of subjects, each of which would be difficult to follow. The Table of Contents will show in what way I have attempted to avoid this result. In printing the letters I have followed (except in a few cases) the usual plan of indicating the existence of omissions or insertions. My father's letters give frequent evidence of having been written when he was tired or hurried, and they bear the marks of this circumstance. In writing to a friend, or to one of his family, he frequently omitted the articles: these have been inserted without the usual indications, except in a few instances, where it is of special interest to preserve intact the hurried character of the letter. Other small words, such as "of", "to", etc., have been inserted usually within brackets. I have not followed the originals as regards the spelling of names, the use of capitals, or in the matter of punctuation. My father underlined many words in his letters; these have not always been given in italics,--a rendering which would unfairly exaggerate their effect. The Diary or Pocket-book, from which quotations occur in the following pages, has been of value as supplying a frame-work of facts round which letters may be grouped. It is unfortunately written with great brevity, the history of a year being compressed into a page or less; and contains little more than the dates of the principal events of his life, together with entries as to his work, and as to the duration of his more serious illnesses. He rarely dated his letters, so that but for the Diary it would have been all but impossible to unravel the history of his books. It has also enabled me to assign dates to many letters which would otherwise have been shorn of half their value. Of letters addressed to my father I have not made much use. It was his custom to file all letters received, and when his slender stock of files ("spits" as he called them) was exhausted, he would burn the letters of several years, in order that he might make use of the liberated "spits." This process, carried on for years, destroyed nearly all letters received before 1862. After that date he was persuaded to keep the more interesting letters, and these are preserved in an accessible form. I have attempted to give, in Chapter III., some account of his manner of working. During the last eight years of his life I acted as his assistant, and thus had an opportunity of knowing something of his habits and methods. I have received much help from my friends in the course of my work. To some I am indebted for reminiscences of my father, to others for information, criticisms, and advice. To all these kind coadjutors I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness. The names of some occur in connection with their contributions, but I do not name those to whom I am indebted for criticisms or corrections, because I should wish to bear alone the load of my short-comings, rather than to let any of it fall on those who have done their best to lighten it. It will be seen how largely I am indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker for the means of illustrating my father's life. The readers of these pages will, I think, be grateful to Sir Joseph for the care with which he has preserved his valuable collection of letters, and I should wish to add my acknowledgment of the generosity with which he has placed it at my disposal, and for the kindly encouragement given throughout my work. To Mr. Huxley I owe a debt of thanks, not only for much kind help, but for his willing compliance with my request that he should contribute a chapter on the reception of the 'Origin of Species.' Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the courtesy of the publishers of the 'Century Magazine' who have freely given me the use of their illustrations. To Messrs. Maull and Fox and Messrs. Elliott and Fry I am also indebted for their kindness in allowing me the use of reproductions of their photographs. FRANCIS DARWIN. Cambridge, October, 1887. TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOLUME I. CHAPTER 1.I.--The Darwin Family. CHAPTER 1.II.--Autobiography. CHAPTER 1.III.--Reminiscences. LETTERS. CHAPTER 1.IV.--Cambridge Life--1828-1831. CHAPTER 1.V.--The Appointment to the 'Beagle'--1831. CHAPTER 1.VI.--The Voyage--1831-1836. CHAPTER 1.VII.--London and Cambridge--1836-1842. CHAPTER 1.VIII.--Religion. CHAPTER 1.IX.--Life at Down--1842-1854. CHAPTER 1.X.--The Growth of the 'Origin of Species.' CHAPTER 1.XI.--The Growth of the 'Origin of Species'--Letters--1843-1856. CHAPTER 1.XII.--The Unfinished Book--May 1856-June 1858. CHAPTER 1.XIII.--The Writing of the 'Origin of Species'--June 18, 1858--November 1859. CHAPTER 1.XIV.--Professor Huxley on the Reception of the 'Origin of Species.' LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN. VOLUME I. CHAPTER 1.I. -- THE DARWIN FAMILY. The earliest records of the family show the Darwins to have been substantial yeomen residing on the northern borders of Lincolnshire, close to Yorkshire. The name is now very unusual in England, but I believe that it is not unknown in the neighbourhood of Sheffield and in Lancashire. Down to the year 1600 we find the name spelt in a variety of ways--Derwent, Darwen, Darwynne, etc. It is possible, therefore, that the family migrated at some unknown date from Yorkshire, Cumberland, or Derbyshire, where Derwent occurs as the name of a river. The first ancestor of whom we know was one William Darwin, who lived, about the year 1500, at Marton, near Gainsborough. His great grandson, Richard Darwyn, inherited land at Marton and elsewhere, and in his will, dated 1584, "bequeathed the sum of 3s. 4d. towards the settynge up of the Queene's Majestie's armes over the quearie (choir) doore in the parishe churche of Marton." (We owe a knowledge of these earlier members of the family to researches amongst the wills at Lincoln, made by the well-known genealogist, Colonel Chester.) The son of this Richard, named William Darwin, and described as "gentleman," appears to have been a successful man. Whilst retaining his ancestral land at Marton, he acquired through his wife and by purchase an estate at Cleatham, in the parish of Manton, near Kirton Lindsey, and fixed his residence there. This estate remained in the family down to the year 1760. A cottage with thick walls, some fish-ponds and old trees, now alone show where the "Old Hall" once stood, and a field is still locally known as the "Darwin Charity," from being subject to a charge in favour of the poor of Marton. William Darwin must, at least in part, have owed his rise in station to his appointment in 1613 by James I. to the post of Yeoman of the Royal Armoury of Greenwich. The office appears to have been worth only 33 pounds a year, and the duties were probably almost nominal; he held the post down to his death during the Civil Wars. The fact that this William was a royal servant may explain why his son, also named William, served when almost a boy for the King, as "Captain-Lieutenant" in Sir William Pelham's troop of horse. On the partial dispersion of the royal armies, and the retreat of the remainder to Scotland, the boy's estates were sequestrated by the Parliament, but they were redeemed on his signing the Solemn League and Covenant, and on his paying a fine which must have struck his finances severely; for in a petition to Charles II. he speaks of his almost utter ruin from having adhered to the royal cause. During the Commonwealth, William Darwin became a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, and this circumstance probably led to his marriage with the daughter of Erasmus Earle, serjeant-at-law; hence his great-grandson, Erasmus Darwin, the Poet, derived his Christian name. He ultimately became Recorder of the city of Lincoln. The eldest son of the Recorder, again called William, was born in 1655, and married the heiress of Robert Waring, a member of a good Staffordshire family. This lady inherited from the family of Lassells, or Lascelles, the manor and hall of Elston, near Newark, which has remained ever since in the family. (Captain Lassells, or Lascelles, of Elston was military secretary to Monk, Duke of Albemarle, during the Civil Wars. A large volume of account books, countersigned in many places by Monk, are now in the possession of my cousin Francis Darwin. The accounts might possibly prove of interest to the antiquarian or historian. A portrait of Captain Lassells in armour, although used at one time as an archery-target by some small boys of our name, was not irretrievably ruined.) A portrait of this William Darwin at Elston shows him as a good-looking young man in a full-bottomed wig. This third William had two sons, William, and Robert who was educated as a barrister. The Cleatham property was left to William, but on the termination of his line in daughters reverted to the younger brother, who had received Elston. On his mother's death Robert gave up his profession and resided ever afterwards at Elston Hall. Of this Robert, Charles Darwin writes (What follows is quoted from Charles Darwin's biography of his grandfather, forming the preliminary notice to Ernst Krause's interesting essay, 'Erasmus Darwin,' London, 1879, page 4.):-- "He seems to have had some taste for science, for he was an early member of the well-known Spalding Club; and the celebrated antiquary Dr. Stukeley, in 'An Account of the almost entire Sceleton of a large Animal,' etc., published in the 'Philosophical Transactions,' April and May 1719, begins the paper as follows: 'Having an account from my friend Robert Darwin, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, a person of curiosity, of a human sceleton impressed in stone, found lately by the rector of Elston,' etc. Stukeley then speaks of it as a great rarity, 'the like whereof has not been observed before in this island to my knowledge.' Judging from a sort of litany written by Robert, and handed down in the family, he was a strong advocate of temperance, which his son ever afterwards so strongly advocated:-- From a morning that doth shine, From a boy that drinketh wine, From a wife that talketh Latine, Good Lord deliver me! "It is suspected that the third line may be accounted for by his wife, the mother of Erasmus, having been a very learned lady. The eldest son of Robert, christened Robert Waring, succeeded to the estate of Elston, and died there at the age of ninety-two, a bachelor. He had a strong taste for poetry, like his youngest brother Erasmus. Robert also cultivated botany, and, when an oldish man, he published his 'Principia Botanica.' This book in MS. was beautifully written, and my father [Dr. R.W. Darwin] declared that he believed it was published because his old uncle could not endure that such fine caligraphy should be wasted. But this was hardly just, as the work contains many curious notes on biology--a subject wholly neglected in England in the last century. The public, moreover, appreciated the book, as the copy in my possession is the third edition." The second son, William Alvey, inherited Elston, and transmitted it to his granddaughter, the late Mrs. Darwin, of Elston and Creskeld. A third son, John, became rector of Elston, the living being in the gift of the family. The fourth son, the youngest child, was Erasmus Darwin, the poet and philosopher. TABLE OF RELATIONSHIP. (An incomplete list of family members.) ROBERT DARWIN of Elston, 1682-1754, had three sons, William Alvey Darwin, 1726-1783, Robert Waring Darwin, 1724-1816, and Erasmus Darwin, 1731-1802. William Alvey Darwin, 1726-1783, had a son, William Brown Darwin, 1774- 1841, and a daughter, Anne Darwin. William Brown Darwin, 1774-1841, had two daughters, Charlotte Darwin and Sarah Darwin. Charlotte Darwin married Francis Rhodes, now Francis Darwin of Creskeld and Elston. Sarah Darwin married Edward Noel. Anne Darwin married Samuel Fox and had a son, William Darwin Fox. ERASMUS DARWIN, 1731-1802, married (1) MARY HOWARD, 1740-1770, with whom he had two sons, Charles Darwin, 1758-1778, and ROBERT WARING DARWIN, and (2) Eliz. Chandos-Pole, 1747-1832, with whom he had a daughter, Violetta Darwin, and a son, Francis Sacheverel Darwin. ROBERT WARING DARWIN, 1767-1848, married SUSANNAH WEDGWOOD and had a son, CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN, b. February 12, 1809, d. April 19, 1882. Violetta Darwin married Samuel Tertius Galton and had a son, Francis Galton. Francis Sacheverel Darwin, 1786-1859, had two sons, Reginald Darwin and Edward Darwin, "High Elms." The table above shows Charles Darwin's descent from Robert, and his relationship to some other members of the family, whose names occur in his correspondence. Among these are included William Darwin Fox, one of his earliest correspondents, and Francis Galton, with whom he maintained a warm friendship for many years. Here also occurs the name of Francis Sacheverel Darwin, who inherited a love of natural history from Erasmus, and transmitted it to his son Edward Darwin, author (under the name of "High Elms") of a 'Gamekeeper's Manual' (4th Edition 1863), which shows keen observation of the habits of various animals. It is always interesting to see how far a man's personal characteristics can be traced in his forefathers. Charles Darwin inherited the tall stature, but not the bulky figure of Erasmus; but in his features there is no traceable resemblance to those of his grandfather. Nor, it appears, had Erasmus the love of exercise and of field-sports, so characteristic of Charles Darwin as a young man, though he had, like his grandson, an indomitable love of hard mental work. Benevolence and sympathy with others, and a great personal charm of manner, were common to the two. Charles Darwin possessed, in the highest degree, that "vividness of imagination" of which he speaks as strongly characteristic of Erasmus, and as leading "to his overpowering tendency to theorise and generalise." This tendency, in the case of Charles Darwin, was fully kept in check by the determination to test his theories to the utmost. Erasmus had a strong love of all kinds of mechanism, for which Charles Darwin had no taste. Neither had Charles Darwin the literary temperament which made Erasmus a poet as well as a philosopher. He writes of Erasmus ('Life of Erasmus Darwin,' page 68.): "Throughout his letters I have been struck with his indifference to fame, and the complete absence of all signs of any over-estimation of his own abilities, or of the success of his works." These, indeed, seem indications of traits most strikingly prominent in his own character. Yet we get no evidence in Erasmus of the intense modesty and simplicity that marked Charles Darwin's whole nature. But by the quick bursts of anger provoked in Erasmus, at the sight of any inhumanity or injustice, we are again reminded of him. On the whole, however, it seems to me that we do not know enough of the essential personal tone of Erasmus Darwin's character to attempt more than a superficial comparison; and I am left with an impression that, in spite of many resemblances, the two men were of a different type. It has been shown that Miss Seward and Mrs. Schimmelpenninck have misrepresented Erasmus Darwin's character. (Ibid., pages 77, 79, etc.) It is, however, extremely probable that the faults which they exaggerate were to some extent characteristic of the man; and this leads me to think that Erasmus had a certain acerbity or severity of temper which did not exist in his grandson. The sons of Erasmus Darwin inherited in some degree his intellectual tastes, for Charles Darwin writes of them as follows: "His eldest son, Charles (born September 3, 1758), was a young man of extraordinary promise, but died (May 15, 1778) before he was twenty-one years old, from the effects of a wound received whilst dissecting the brain of a child. He inherited from his father a strong taste for various branches of science, for writing verses, and for mechanics...He also inherited stammering. With the hope of curing him, his father sent him to France, when about eight years old (1766-'67), with a private tutor, thinking that if he was not allowed to speak English for a time, the habit of stammering might be lost; and it is a curious fact, that in after years, when speaking French, he never stammered. At a very early age he collected specimens of all kinds. When sixteen years old he was sent for a year to [Christ Church] Oxford, but he did not like the place, and thought (in the words of his father) that the 'vigour of his mind languished in the pursuit of classical elegance like Hercules at the distaff, and sighed to be removed to the robuster exercise of the medical school of Edinburgh.' He stayed three years at Edinburgh, working hard at his medical studies, and attending 'with diligence all the sick poor of the parish of Waterleith, and supplying them with the necessary medicines.' The Aesculapian Society awarded him its first gold medal for an experimental inquiry on pus and mucus. Notices of him appeared in various journals; and all the writers agree about his uncommon energy and abilities. He seems like his father to have excited the warm affection of his friends. Professor Andrew Duncan... spoke...about him with the warmest affection forty-seven years after his death when I was a young medical student at Edinburgh... "About the character of his second son, Erasmus (born 1759), I have little to say, for though he wrote poetry, he seems to have had none of the other tastes of his father. He had, however, his own peculiar tastes, viz., genealogy, the collecting of coins, and statistics. When a boy he counted all the houses in the city of Lichfield, and found out the number of inhabitants in as many as he could; he thus made a census, and when a real one was first made, his estimate was found to be nearly accurate. His disposition was quiet and retiring. My father had a very high opinion of his abilities, and this was probably just, for he would not otherwise have been invited to travel with, and pay long visits to, men so distinguished in different ways as Boulton the engineer, and Day the moralist and novelist." His death by suicide, in 1799, seems to have taken place in a state of incipient insanity. Robert Waring, the father of Charles Darwin, was born May 30, 1766, and entered the medical profession like his father. He studied for a few months at Leyden, and took his M.D. (I owe this information to the kindness of Professor Rauwenhoff, Director of the Archives at Leyden. He quotes from the catalogue of doctors that "Robertus Waring Darwin, Anglo-britannus," defended (February 26, 1785) in the Senate a Dissertation on the coloured images seen after looking at a bright object, and "Medicinae Doctor creatus est a clar. Paradijs." The archives of Leyden University are so complete that Professor Rauwenhoff is able to tell me that my grandfather lived together with a certain "Petrus Crompton, Anglus," in lodgings in the Apothekersdijk. Dr. Darwin's Leyden dissertation was published in the 'Philosophical Transactions,' and my father used to say that the work was in fact due to Erasmus Darwin.--F.D.) at that University on February 26, 1785. "His father" (Erasmus) "brought ('Life of Erasmus Darwin,' page 85.) him to Shrewsbury before he was twenty-one years old (1787), and left him 20 pounds, saying, 'Let me know when you want more, and I will send it you.' His uncle, the rector of Elston, afterwards also sent him 20 pounds, and this was the sole pecuniary aid which he ever received...Erasmus tells Mr. Edgeworth that his son Robert, after being settled in Shrewsbury for only six months, 'already had between forty and fifty patients.' By the second year he was in considerable, and ever afterwards in very large, practice." Robert Waring Darwin married (April 18, 1796) Susannah, the daughter of his father's friend, Josiah Wedgwood, of Etruria, then in her thirty-second year. We have a miniature of her, with a remarkably sweet and happy face, bearing some resemblance to the portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds of her father; a countenance expressive of the gentle and sympathetic nature which Miss Meteyard ascribes to her. ('A Group of Englishmen,' by Miss Meteyard, 1871.) She died July 15, 1817, thirty-two years before her husband, whose death occurred on November 13, 1848. Dr. Darwin lived before his marriage for two or three years on St. John's Hill; afterwards at the Crescent, where his eldest daughter Marianne was born; lastly at the "Mount," in the part of Shrewsbury known as Frankwell, where the other children were born. This house was built by Dr. Darwin about 1800, it is now in the possession of Mr. Spencer Phillips, and has undergone but little alteration. It is a large, plain, square, red-brick house, of which the most attractive feature is the pretty green-house, opening out of the morning-room. The house is charmingly placed, on the top of a steep bank leading down to the Severn. The terraced bank is traversed by a long walk, leading from end to end, still called "the Doctor's Walk." At one point in this walk grows a Spanish chestnut, the branches of which bend back parallel to themselves in a curious manner, and this was Charles Darwin's favourite tree as a boy, where he and his sister Catherine had each their special seat. The Doctor took a great pleasure in his garden, planting it with ornamental trees and shrubs, and being especially successful in fruit-trees; and this love of plants was, I think, the only taste kindred to natural history which he possessed. Of the "Mount pigeons," which Miss Meteyard describes as illustrating Dr. Darwin's natural-history taste, I have not been able to hear from those most capable of knowing. Miss Meteyard's account of him is not quite accurate in a few points. For instance, it is incorrect to describe Dr. Darwin as having a philosophical mind; his was a mind especially given to detail, and not to generalising. Again, those who knew him intimately describe him as eating remarkably little, so that he was not "a great feeder, eating a goose for his dinner, as easily as other men do a partridge." ('A Group of Englishmen,' page 263.) In the matter of dress he was conservative, and wore to the end of his life knee-breeches and drab gaiters, which, however, certainly did not, as Miss Meteyard says, button above the knee--a form of costume chiefly known to us in grenadiers of Queen Anne's day, and in modern wood-cutters and ploughboys. Charles Darwin had the strongest feeling of love and respect for his father's memory. His recollection of everything that was connected with him was peculiarly distinct, and he spoke of him frequently; generally prefacing an anecdote with some such phrase as, "My father, who was the wisest man I ever knew, etc..." It was astonishing how clearly he remembered his father's opinions, so that he was able to quote some maxims or hint of his in most cases of illness. As a rule, he put small faith in doctors, and thus his unlimited belief in Dr. Darwin's medical instinct and methods of treatment was all the more striking. His reverence for him was boundless and most touching. He would have wished to judge everything else in the world dispassionately, but anything his father had said was received with almost implicit faith. His daughter Mrs. Litchfield remembers him saying that he hoped none of his sons would ever believe anything because he said it, unless they were themselves convinced of its truth,--a feeling in striking contrast with his own manner of faith. A visit which Charles Darwin made to Shrewsbury in 1869 left on the mind of his daughter who accompanied him a strong impression of his love for his old home. The then tenant of the Mount showed them over the house, etc., and with mistaken hospitality remained with the party during the whole visit. As they were leaving, Charles Darwin said, with a pathetic look of regret, "If I could have been left alone in that green-house for five minutes, I know I should have been able to see my father in his wheel-chair as vividly as if he had been there before me." Perhaps this incident shows what I think is the truth, that the memory of his father he loved the best, was that of him as an old man. Mrs. Litchfield has noted down a few words which illustrate well his feeling towards his father. She describes him as saying with the most tender respect, "I think my father was a little unjust to me when I was young, but afterwards I am thankful to think I became a prime favourite with him." She has a vivid recollection of the expression of happy reverie that accompanied these words, as if he were reviewing the whole relation, and the remembrance left a deep sense of peace and gratitude. What follows was added by Charles Darwin to his autobiographical 'Recollections,' and was written about 1877 or 1878. "I may here add a few pages about my father, who was in many ways a remarkable man. "He was about 6 feet 2 inches in height, with broad shoulders, and very corpulent, so that he was the largest man whom I ever saw. When he last weighed himself, he was 24 stone, but afterwards increased much in weight. His chief mental characteristics were his powers of observation and his sympathy, neither of which have I ever seen exceeded or even equalled. His sympathy was not only with the distresses of others, but in a greater degree with the pleasures of all around him. This led him to be always scheming to give pleasure to others, and, though hating extravagance, to perform many generous actions. For instance, Mr. B--, a small manufacturer in Shrewsbury, came to him one day, and said he should be bankrupt unless he could at once borrow 10,000 pounds, but that he was unable to give any legal security. My father heard his reasons for believing that he could ultimately repay the money, and from [his] intuitive perception of character felt sure that he was to be trusted. So he advanced this sum, which was a very large one for him while young, and was after a time repaid. "I suppose that it was his sympathy which gave him unbounded power of winning confidence, and as a consequence made him highly successful as a physician. He began to practise before he was twenty-one years old, and his fees during the first year paid for the keep of two horses and a servant. On the following year his practice was large, and so continued for about sixty years, when he ceased to attend on any one. His great success as a doctor was the more remarkable, as he told me that he at first hated his profession so much that if he had been sure of the smallest pittance, or if his father had given him any choice, nothing should have induced him to follow it. To the end of his life, the thought of an operation almost sickened him, and he could scarcely endure to see a person bled--a horror which he has transmitted to me--and I remember the horror which I felt as a schoolboy in reading about Pliny (I think) bleeding to death in a warm bath... "Owing to my father's power of winning confidence, many patients, especially ladies, consulted him when suffering from any misery, as a sort of Father-Confessor. He told me that they always began by complaining in a vague manner about their health, and by practice he soon guessed what was really the matter. He then suggested that they had been suffering in their minds, and now they would pour out their troubles, and he heard nothing more about the body...Owing to my father's skill in winning confidence he received many strange confessions of misery and guilt. He often remarked how many miserable wives he had known. In several instances husbands and wives had gone on pretty well together for between twenty and thirty years, and then hated each other bitterly; this he attributed to their having lost a common bond in their young children having grown up. "But the most remarkable power which my father possessed was that of reading the characters, and even the thoughts of those whom he saw even for a short time. We had many instances of the power, some of which seemed almost supernatural. It saved my father from ever making (with one exception, and the character of this man was soon discovered) an unworthy friend. A strange clergyman came to Shrewsbury, and seemed to be a rich man; everybody called on him, and he was invited to many houses. My father called, and on his return home told my sisters on no account to invite him or his family to our house; for he felt sure that the man was not to be trusted. After a few months he suddenly bolted, being heavily in debt, and was found out to be little better than an habitual swindler. Here is a case of trustfulness which not many men would have ventured on. An Irish gentleman, a complete stranger, called on my father one day, and said that he had lost his purse, and that it would be a serious inconvenience to him to wait in Shrewsbury until he could receive a remittance from Ireland. He then asked my father to lend him 20 pounds, which was immediately done, as my father felt certain that the story was a true one. As soon as a letter could arrive from Ireland, one came with the most profuse thanks, and enclosing, as he said, a 20 pound Bank of England note, but no note was enclosed. I asked my father whether this did not stagger him, but he answered 'not in the least.' On the next day another letter came with many apologies for having forgotten (like a true Irishman) to put the note into his letter of the day before...(A gentleman) brought his nephew, who was insane but quite gentle, to my father; and the young man's insanity led him to accuse himself of all the crimes under heaven. When my father afterwards talked over the matter with the uncle, he said, 'I am sure that your nephew is really guilty of...a heinous crime.' Whereupon [the gentleman] said, 'Good God, Dr. Darwin, who told you; we thought that no human being knew the fact except ourselves!' My father told me the story many years after the event, and I asked him how he distinguished the true from the false self-accusations; and it was very characteristic of my father that he said he could not explain how it was. "The following story shows what good guesses my father could make. Lord Shelburne, afterwards the first Marquis of Lansdowne, was famous (as Macaulay somewhere remarks) for his knowledge of the affairs of Europe, on which he greatly prided himself. He consulted my father medically, and afterwards harangued him on the state of Holland. My father had studied medicine at Leyden, and one day [while there] went a long walk into the country with a friend who took him to the house of a clergyman (we will say the Rev. Mr. A--, for I have forgotten his name), who had married an Englishwoman. My father was very hungry, and there was little for luncheon except cheese, which he could never eat. The old lady was surprised and grieved at this, and assured my father that it was an excellent cheese, and had been sent her from Bowood, the seat of Lord Shelburne. My father wondered why a cheese should be sent her from Bowood, but thought nothing more about it until it flashed across his mind many years afterwards, whilst Lord Shelburne was talking about Holland. So he answered, 'I should think from what I saw of the Rev. Mr. A--, that he was a very able man, and well acquainted with the state of Holland.' My father saw that the Earl, who immediately changed the conversation was much startled. On the next morning my father received a note from the Earl, saying that he had delayed starting on his journey, and wished particularly to see my father. When he called, the Earl said, 'Dr. Darwin, it is of the utmost importance to me and to the Rev. Mr. A-- to learn how you have discovered that he is the source of my information about Holland.' So my father had to explain the state of the case, and he supposed that Lord Shelburne was much struck with his diplomatic skill in guessing, for during many years afterwards he received many kind messages from him through various friends. I think that he must have told the story to his children; for Sir C. Lyell asked me many years ago why the Marquis of Lansdowne (the son or grand-son of the first marquis) felt so much interest about me, whom he had never seen, and my family. When forty new members (the forty thieves as they were then called) were added to the Athenaeum Club, there was much canvassing to be one of them; and without my having asked any one, Lord Lansdowne proposed me and got me elected. If I am right in my supposition, it was a queer concatenation of events that my father not eating cheese half-a-century before in Holland led to my election as a member of the Athenaeum. "The sharpness of his observation led him to predict with remarkable skill the course of any illness, and he suggested endless small details of relief. I was told that a young doctor in Shrewsbury, who disliked my father, used to say that he was wholly unscientific, but owned that his power of predicting the end of an illness was unparalleled. Formerly when he thought that I should be a doctor, he talked much to me about his patients. In the old days the practice of bleeding largely was universal, but my father maintained that far more evil was thus caused than good done; and he advised me if ever I was myself ill not to allow any doctor to take more than an extremely small quantity of blood. Long before typhoid fever was recognised as distinct, my father told me that two utterly distinct kinds of illness were confounded under the name of typhus fever. He was vehement against drinking, and was convinced of both the direct and inherited evil effects of alcohol when habitually taken even in moderate quantity in a very large majority of cases. But he admitted and advanced instances of certain persons who could drink largely during their whole lives without apparently suffering any evil effects, and he believed that he could often beforehand tell who would thus not suffer. He himself never drank a drop of any alcoholic fluid. This remark reminds me of a case showing how a witness under the most favourable circumstances may be utterly mistaken. A gentleman-farmer was strongly urged by my father not to drink, and was encouraged by being told that he himself never touched any spirituous liquor. Whereupon the gentleman said, 'Come, come, Doctor, this won't do--though it is very kind of you to say so for my sake--for I know that you take a very large glass of hot gin and water every evening after your dinner.' (This belief still survives, and was mentioned to my brother in 1884 by an old inhabitant of Shrewsbury.--F.D.) So my father asked him how he knew this. The man answered, 'My cook was your kitchen-maid for two or three years, and she saw the butler every day prepare and take to you the gin and water.' The explanation was that my father had the odd habit of drinking hot water in a very tall and large glass after his dinner; and the butler used first to put some cold water in the glass, which the girl mistook for gin, and then filled it up with boiling water from the kitchen boiler. "My father used to tell me many little things which he had found useful in his medical practice. Thus ladies often cried much while telling him their troubles, and thus caused much loss of his precious time. He soon found that begging them to command and restrain themselves, always made them weep the more, so that afterwards he always encouraged them to go on crying, saying that this would relieve them more than anything else, and with the invariable result that they soon ceased to cry, and he could hear what they had to say and give his advice. When patients who were very ill craved for some strange and unnatural food, my father asked them what had put such an idea into their heads; if they answered that they did not know, he would allow them to try the food, and often with success, as he trusted to their having a kind of instinctive desire; but if they answered that they had heard that the food in question had done good to some one else, he firmly refused his assent. "He gave one day an odd little specimen of human nature. When a very young man he was called in to consult with the family physician in the case of a gentleman of much distinction in Shropshire. The old doctor told the wife that the illness was of such a nature that it must end fatally. My father took a different view and maintained that the gentleman would recover: he was proved quite wrong in all respects (I think by autopsy) and he owned his error. He was then convinced that he should never again be consulted by this family; but after a few months the widow sent for him, having dismissed the old family doctor. My father was so much surprised at this, that he asked a friend of the widow to find out why he was again consulted. The widow answered her friend, that 'she would never again see the odious old doctor who said from the first that her husband would die, while Dr. Darwin always maintained that he would recover!' In another case my father told a lady that her husband would certainly die. Some months afterwards he saw the widow, who was a very sensible woman, and she said, 'You are a very young man, and allow me to advise you always to give, as long as you possibly can, hope to any near relative nursing a patient. You made me despair, and from that moment I lost strength.' My father said that he had often since seen the paramount importance, for the sake of the patient, of keeping up the hope and with it the strength of the nurse in charge. This he sometimes found difficult to do compatibly with truth. One old gentleman, however, caused him no such perplexity. He was sent for by Mr.P--, who said, 'From all that I have seen and heard of you I believe that you are the sort of man who will speak the truth, and if I ask, you will tell me when I am dying. Now I much desire that you should attend me, if you will promise, whatever I may say, always to declare that I am not going to die.' My father acquiesced on the understanding that his words should in fact have no meaning. "My father possessed an extraordinary memory, especially for dates, so that he knew, when he was very old, the day of the birth, marriage, and death of a multitude of persons in Shropshire; and he once told me that this power annoyed him; for if he once heard a date, he could not forget it; and thus the deaths of many friends were often recalled to his mind. Owing to his strong memory he knew an extraordinary number of curious stories, which he liked to tell, as he was a great talker. He was generally in high spirits, and laughed and joked with every one--often with his servants--with the utmost freedom; yet he had the art of making every one obey him to the letter. Many persons were much afraid of him. I remember my father telling us one day, with a laugh, that several persons had asked him whether Miss --, a grand old lady in Shropshire, had called on him, so that at last he enquired why they asked him; and he was told that Miss --, whom my father had somehow mortally offended, was telling everybody that she would call and tell 'that fat old doctor very plainly what she thought of him.' She had already called, but her courage had failed, and no one could have been more courteous and friendly. As a boy, I went to stay at the house of --, whose wife was insane; and the poor creature, as soon as she saw me, was in the most abject state of terror that I ever saw, weeping bitterly and asking me over and over again, 'Is your father coming?' but was soon pacified. On my return home, I asked my father why she was so frightened, and he answered he was very glad to hear it, as he had frightened her on purpose, feeling sure that she would be kept in safety and much happier without any restraint, if her husband could influence her, whenever she became at all violent, by proposing to send for Dr. Darwin; and these words succeeded perfectly during the rest of her long life. "My father was very sensitive, so that many small events annoyed him or pained him much. I once asked him, when he was old and could not walk, why he did not drive out for exercise; and he answered, 'Every road out of Shrewsbury is associated in my mind with some painful event.' Yet he was generally in high spirits. He was easily made very angry, but his kindness was unbounded. He was widely and deeply loved. "He was a cautious and good man of business, so that he hardly ever lost money by an investment, and left to his children a very large property. I remember a story showing how easily utterly false beliefs originate and spread. Mr. E --, a squire of one of the oldest families in Shropshire, and head partner in a bank, committed suicide. My father was sent for as a matter of form, and found him dead. I may mention, by the way, to show how matters were managed in those old days, that because Mr. E -- was a rather great man, and universally respected, no inquest was held over his body. My father, in returning home, thought it proper to call at the bank (where he had an account) to tell the managing partners of the event, as it was not improbable that it would cause a run on the bank. Well, the story was spread far and wide, that my father went into the bank, drew out all his money, left the bank, came back again, and said, 'I may just tell you that Mr. E -- has killed himself,' and then departed. It seems that it was then a common belief that money withdrawn from a bank was not safe until the person had passed out through the door of the bank. My father did not hear this story till some little time afterwards, when the managing partner said that he had departed from his invariable rule of never allowing any one to see the account of another man, by having shown the ledger with my father's account to several persons, as this proved that my father had not drawn out a penny on that day. It would have been dishonourable in my father to have used his professional knowledge for his private advantage. Nevertheless, the supposed act was greatly admired by some persons; and many years afterwards, a gentleman remarked, 'Ah, Doctor, what a splendid man of business you were in so cleverly getting all your money safe out of that bank!' "My father's mind was not scientific, and he did not try to generalize his knowledge under general laws; yet he formed a theory for almost everything which occurred. I do not think I gained much from him intellectually; but his example ought to have been of much moral service to all his children. One of his golden rules (a hard one to follow) was, 'Never become the friend of any one whom you cannot respect.'" Dr. Darwin had six children (Of these Mrs. Wedgwood is now the sole survivor.): Marianne, married Dr. Henry Parker; Caroline, married Josiah Wedgwood; Erasmus Alvey; Susan, died unmarried; Charles Robert; Catherine, married Rev. Charles Langton. The elder son, Erasmus, was born in 1804, and died unmarried at the age of seventy-seven. He, like his brother, was educated at Shrewsbury School and at Christ's College, Cambridge. He studied medicine at Edinburgh and in London, and took the degree of Bachelor of Medicine at Cambridge. He never made any pretence of practising as a doctor, and, after leaving Cambridge, lived a quiet life in London. There was something pathetic in Charles Darwin's affection for his brother Erasmus, as if he always recollected his solitary life, and the touching patience and sweetness of his nature. He often spoke of him as "Poor old Ras," or "Poor dear old Philos"--I imagine Philos (Philosopher) was a relic of the days when they worked at chemistry in the tool-house at Shrewsbury--a time of which he always preserved a pleasant memory. Erasmus being rather more than four years older than Charles Darwin, they were not long together at Cambridge, but previously at Edinburgh they lived in the same lodgings, and after the Voyage they lived for a time together in Erasmus' house in Great Marlborough Street. At this time also he often speaks with much affection of Erasmus in his letters to Fox, using words such as "my dear good old brother." In later years Erasmus Darwin came to Down occasionally, or joined his brother's family in a summer holiday. But gradually it came about that he could not, through ill health, make up his mind to leave London, and then they only saw each other when Charles Darwin went for a week at a time to his brother's house in Queen Anne Street. The following note on his brother's character was written by Charles Darwin at about the same time that the sketch of his father was added to the 'Recollections.':-- "My brother Erasmus possessed a remarkably clear mind with extensive and diversified tastes and knowledge in literature, art, and even in science. For a short time he collected and dried plants, and during a somewhat longer time experimented in chemistry. He was extremely agreeable, and his wit often reminded me of that in the letters and works of Charles Lamb. He was very kind-hearted...His health from his boyhood had been weak, and as a consequence he failed in energy. His spirits were not high, sometimes low, more especially during early and middle manhood. He read much, even whilst a boy, and at school encouraged me to read, lending me books. Our minds and tastes were, however, so different, that I do not think I owe much to him intellectually. I am inclined to agree with Francis Galton in believing that education and environment produce only a small effect on the mind of any one, and that most of our qualities are innate." Erasmus Darwin's name, though not known to the general public, may be remembered from the sketch of his character in Carlyle's 'Reminiscences,' which I here reproduce in part:-- "Erasmus Darwin, a most diverse kind of mortal, came to seek us out very soon ('had heard of Carlyle in Germany, etc.') and continues ever since to be a quiet house-friend, honestly attached; though his visits latterly have been rarer and rarer, health so poor, I so occupied, etc., etc. He had something of original and sarcastically ingenious in him, one of the sincerest, naturally truest, and most modest of men; elder brother of Charles Darwin (the famed Darwin on Species of these days) to whom I rather prefer him for intellect, had not his health quite doomed him to silence and patient idleness...My dear one had a great favour for this honest Darwin always; many a road, to shops and the like, he drove her in his cab (Darwingium Cabbum comparable to Georgium Sidus) in those early days when even the charge of omnibuses was a consideration, and his sparse utterances, sardonic often, were a great amusement to her. 'A perfect gentleman,' she at once discerned him to be, and of sound worth and kindliness in the most unaffected form." (Carlyle's 'Reminiscences,' vol. ii. page 208.) Charles Darwin did not appreciate this sketch of his brother; he thought Carlyle had missed the essence of his most lovable nature. I am tempted by the wish of illustrating further the character of one so sincerely beloved by all Charles Darwin's children, to reproduce a letter to the "Spectator" (September 3, 1881) by his cousin Miss Julia Wedgwood. "A portrait from Mr. Carlyle's portfolio not regretted by any who loved the original, surely confers sufficient distinction to warrant a few words of notice, when the character it depicts is withdrawn from mortal gaze. Erasmus, the only brother of Charles Darwin, and the faithful and affectionate old friend of both the Carlyles, has left a circle of mourners who need no tribute from illustrious pen to embalm the memory so dear to their hearts; but a wider circle must have felt some interest excited by that tribute, and may receive with a certain attention the record of a unique and indelible impression, even though it be made only on the hearts of those who cannot bequeath it, and with whom, therefore, it must speedily pass away. They remember it with the same distinctness as they remember a creation of genius; it has in like manner enriched and sweetened life, formed a common meeting-point for those who had no other; and, in its strong fragrance of individuality, enforced that respect for the idiosyncracies of human character without which moral judgment is always hard and shallow, and often unjust. Carlyle was one to find a peculiar enjoyment in the combination of liveliness and repose which gave his friend's society an influence at once stimulating and soothing, and the warmth of his appreciation was not made known first in its posthumous expression; his letters of anxiety nearly thirty years ago, when the frail life which has been prolonged to old age was threatened by serious illness, are still fresh in my memory. The friendship was equally warm with both husband and wife. I remember well a pathetic little remonstrance from her elicited by an avowal from Erasmus Darwin, that he preferred cats to dogs, which she felt a slur on her little 'Nero;' and the tones in which she said, 'Oh, but you are fond of dogs! you are too kind not to be,' spoke of a long vista of small, gracious kindnesses, remembered with a tender gratitude. He was intimate also with a person whose friends, like those of Mr. Carlyle, have not always had cause to congratulate themselves on their place in her gallery,--Harriet Martineau. I have heard him more than once call her a faithful friend, and it always seemed to me a curious tribute to something in the friendship that he alone supplied; but if she had written of him at all, I believe the mention, in its heartiness of appreciation, would have afforded a rare and curious meeting-point with the other 'Reminiscences,' so like and yet so unlike. It is not possible to transfer the impression of a character; we can only suggest it by means of some resemblance; and it is a singular illustration of that irony which checks or directs our sympathies, that in trying to give some notion of the man whom, among those who were not his kindred, Carlyle appears to have most loved, I can say nothing more descriptive than that he seems to me to have had something in common with the man whom Carlyle least appreciated. The society of Erasmus Darwin had, to my mind, much the same charm as the writings of Charles Lamb. There was the same kind of playfulness, the same lightness of touch, the same tenderness, perhaps the same limitations. On another side of his nature, I have often been reminded of him by the quaint, delicate humour, the superficial intolerance, the deep springs of pity, the peculiar mixture of something pathetic with a sort of gay scorn, entirely remote from contempt, which distinguish the Ellesmere of Sir Arthur Helps' earlier dialogues. Perhaps we recall such natures most distinctly, when such a resemblance is all that is left of them. The character is not merged in the creation; and what we lose in the power to communicate our impression, we seem to gain in its vividness. Erasmus Darwin has passed away in old age, yet his memory retains something of a youthful fragrance; his influence gave much happiness, of a kind usually associated with youth, to many lives besides the illustrious one whose records justify, though certainly they do not inspire, the wish to place this fading chaplet on his grave." The foregoing pages give, in a fragmentary manner, as much perhaps as need be told of the family from which Charles Darwin came, and may serve as an introduction to the autobiographical chapter which follows. CHAPTER 1.II. -- AUTOBIOGRAPHY. [My father's autobiographical recollections, given in the present chapter, were written for his children,--and written without any thought that they would ever be published. To many this may seem an impossibility; but those who knew my father will understand how it was not only possible, but natural. The autobiography bears the heading, 'Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character,' and end with the following note:-- "Aug.3, 1876. This sketch of my life was begun about May 28th at Hopedene (Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey.), and since then I have written for nearly an hour on most afternoons." It will easily be understood that, in a narrative of a personal and intimate kind written for his wife and children, passages should occur which must here be omitted; and I have not thought it necessary to indicate where such omissions are made. It has been found necessary to make a few corrections of obvious verbal slips, but the number of such alterations has been kept down to the minimum.--F.D.] A German Editor having written to me for an account of the development of my mind and character with some sketch of my autobiography, I have thought that the attempt would amuse me, and might possibly interest my children or their children. I know that it would have interested me greatly to have read even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my grandfather, written by himself, and what he thought and did, and how he worked. I have attempted to write the following account of myself, as if I were a dead man in another world looking back at my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life is nearly over with me. I have taken no pains about my style of writing. I was born at Shrewsbury on February 12th, 1809, and my earliest recollection goes back only to when I was a few months over four years old, when we went to near Abergele for sea-bathing, and I recollect some events and places there with some little distinctness. My mother died in July 1817, when I was a little over eight years old, and it is odd that I can remember hardly anything about her except her death-bed, her black velvet gown, and her curiously constructed work-table. In the spring of this same year I was sent to a day-school in Shrewsbury, where I stayed a year. I have been told that I was much slower in learning than my younger sister Catherine, and I believe that I was in many ways a naughty boy. By the time I went to this day-school (Kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel in the High Street. Mrs. Darwin was a Unitarian and attended Mr. Case's chapel, and my father as a little boy went there with his elder sisters. But both he and his brother were christened and intended to belong to the Church of England; and after his early boyhood he seems usually to have gone to church and not to Mr. Case's. It appears ("St. James' Gazette", Dec. 15, 1883) that a mural tablet has been erected to his memory in the chapel, which is now known as the 'Free Christian Church.') my taste for natural history, and more especially for collecting, was well developed. I tried to make out the names of plants (Rev. W.A. Leighton, who was a schoolfellow of my father's at Mr. Case's school, remembers his bringing a flower to school and saying that his mother had taught him how by looking at the inside of the blossom the name of the plant could be discovered. Mr. Leighton goes on, "This greatly roused my attention and curiosity, and I enquired of him repeatedly how this could be done?"--but his lesson was naturally enough not transmissible.--F.D.), and collected all sorts of things, shells, seals, franks, coins, and minerals. The passion for collecting which leads a man to be a systematic naturalist, a virtuoso, or a miser, was very strong in me, and was clearly innate, as none of my sisters or brother ever had this taste. One little event during this year has fixed itself very firmly in my mind, and I hope that it has done so from my conscience having been afterwards sorely troubled by it; it is curious as showing that apparently I was interested at this early age in the variability of plants! I told another little boy (I believe it was Leighton, who afterwards became a well-known lichenologist and botanist), that I could produce variously coloured polyanthuses and primroses by watering them with certain coloured fluids, which was of course a monstrous fable, and had never been tried by me. I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father's trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of stolen fruit. I must have been a very simple little fellow when I first went to the school. A boy of the name of Garnett took me into a cake shop one day, and bought some cakes for which he did not pay, as the shopman trusted him. When we came out I asked him why he did not pay for them, and he instantly answered, "Why, do you not know that my uncle left a great sum of money to the town on condition that every tradesman should give whatever was wanted without payment to any one who wore his old hat and moved [it] in a particular manner?" and he then showed me how it was moved. He then went into another shop where he was trusted, and asked for some small article, moving his hat in the proper manner, and of course obtained it without payment. When we came out he said, "Now if you like to go by yourself into that cake-shop (how well I remember its exact position) I will lend you my hat, and you can get whatever you like if you move the hat on your head properly." I gladly accepted the generous offer, and went in and asked for some cakes, moved the old hat and was walking out of the shop, when the shopman made a rush at me, so I dropped the cakes and ran for dear life, and was astonished by being greeted with shouts of laughter by my false friend Garnett. I can say in my own favour that I was as a boy humane, but I owed this entirely to the instruction and example of my sisters. I doubt indeed whether humanity is a natural or innate quality. I was very fond of collecting eggs, but I never took more than a single egg out of a bird's nest, except on one single occasion, when I took all, not for their value, but from a sort of bravado. I had a strong taste for angling, and would sit for any number of hours on the bank of a river or pond watching the float; when at Maer (The house of his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood.) I was told that I could kill the worms with salt and water, and from that day I never spitted a living worm, though at the expense probably of some loss of success. Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters. I remember clearly only one other incident during this year whilst at Mr. Case's daily school,--namely, the burial of a dragoon soldier; and it is surprising how clearly I can still see the horse with the man's empty boots and carbine suspended to the saddle, and the firing over the grave. This scene deeply stirred whatever poetic fancy there was in me. In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler's great school in Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years still Midsummer 1825, when I was sixteen years old. I boarded at this school, so that I had the great advantage of living the life of a true schoolboy; but as the distance was hardly more than a mile to my home, I very often ran there in the longer intervals between the callings over and before locking up at night. This, I think, was in many ways advantageous to me by keeping up home affections and interests. I remember in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided. I have heard my father and elder sister say that I had, as a very young boy, a strong taste for long solitary walks; but what I thought about I know not. I often became quite absorbed, and once, whilst returning to school on the summit of the old fortifications round Shrewsbury, which had been converted into a public foot-path with no parapet on one side, I walked off and fell to the ground, but the height was only seven or eight feet. Nevertheless the number of thoughts which passed through my mind during this very short, but sudden and wholly unexpected fall, was astonishing, and seem hardly compatible with what physiologists have, I believe, proved about each thought requiring quite an appreciable amount of time. Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr. Butler's school, as it was strictly classical, nothing else being taught, except a little ancient geography and history. The school as a means of education to me was simply a blank. During my whole life I have been singularly incapable of mastering any language. Especial attention was paid to verse-making, and this I could never do well. I had many friends, and got together a good collection of old verses, which by patching together, sometimes aided by other boys, I could work into any subject. Much attention was paid to learning by heart the lessons of the previous day; this I could effect with great facility, learning forty or fifty lines of Virgil or Homer, whilst I was in morning chapel; but this exercise was utterly useless, for every verse was forgotten in forty-eight hours. I was not idle, and with the exception of versification, generally worked conscientiously at my classics, not using cribs. The sole pleasure I ever received from such studies, was from some of the odes of Horace, which I admired greatly. When I left the school I was for my age neither high nor low in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect. To my deep mortification my father once said to me, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family." But my father, who was the kindest man I ever knew and whose memory I love with all my heart, must have been angry and somewhat unjust when he used such words. Looking back as well as I can at my character during my school life, the only qualities which at this period promised well for the future, were, that I had strong and diversified tastes, much zeal for whatever interested me, and a keen pleasure in understanding any complex subject or thing. I was taught Euclid by a private tutor, and I distinctly remember the intense satisfaction which the clear geometrical proofs gave me. I remember, with equal distinctness, the delight which my uncle gave me (the father of Francis Galton) by explaining the principle of the vernier of a barometer with respect to diversified tastes, independently of science, I was fond of reading various books, and I used to sit for hours reading the historical plays of Shakespeare, generally in an old window in the thick walls of the school. I read also other poetry, such as Thomson's 'Seasons,' and the recently published poems of Byron and Scott. I mention this because later in life I wholly lost, to my great regret, all pleasure from poetry of any kind, including Shakespeare. In connection with pleasure from poetry, I may add that in 1822 a vivid delight in scenery was first awakened in my mind, during a riding tour on the borders of Wales, and this has lasted longer than any other aesthetic pleasure. Early in my school days a boy had a copy of the 'Wonders of the World,' which I often read, and disputed with other boys about the veracity of some of the statements; and I believe that this book first gave me a wish to travel in remote countries, which was ultimately fulfilled by the voyage of the "Beagle". In the latter part of my school life I became passionately fond of shooting; I do not believe that any one could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands. This taste long continued, and I became a very good shot. When at Cambridge I used to practise throwing up my gun to my shoulder before a looking-glass to see that I threw it up straight. Another and better plan was to get a friend to wave about a lighted candle, and then to fire at it with a cap on the nipple, and if the aim was accurate the little puff of air would blow out the candle. The explosion of the cap caused a sharp crack, and I was told that the tutor of the college remarked, "What an extraordinary thing it is, Mr. Darwin seems to spend hours in cracking a horse-whip in his room, for I often hear the crack when I pass under his windows." I had many friends amongst the schoolboys, whom I loved dearly, and I think that my disposition was then very affectionate. With respect to science, I continued collecting minerals with much zeal, but quite unscientifically--all that I cared about was a new-NAMED mineral, and I hardly attempted to classify them. I must have observed insects with some little care, for when ten years old (1819) I went for three weeks to Plas Edwards on the sea-coast in Wales, I was very much interested and surprised at seeing a large black and scarlet Hemipterous insect, many moths (Zygaena), and a Cicindela which are not found in Shropshire. I almost made up my mind to begin collecting all the insects which I could find dead, for on consulting my sister I concluded that it was not right to kill insects for the sake of making a collection. From reading White's 'Selborne,' I took much pleasure in watching the habits of birds, and even made notes on the subject. In my simplicity I remember wondering why every gentleman did not become an ornithologist. Towards the close of my school life, my brother worked hard at chemistry, and made a fair laboratory with proper apparatus in the tool-house in the garden, and I was allowed to aid him as a servant in most of his experiments. He made all the gases and many compounds, and I read with great care several books on chemistry, such as Henry and Parkes' 'Chemical Catechism.' The subject interested me greatly, and we often used to go on working till rather late at night. This was the best part of my education at school, for it showed me practically the meaning of experimental science. The fact that we worked at chemistry somehow got known at school, and as it was an unprecedented fact, I was nicknamed "Gas." I was also once publicly rebuked by the head-master, Dr. Butler, for thus wasting my time on such useless subjects; and he called me very unjustly a "poco curante," and as I did not understand what he meant, it seemed to me a fearful reproach. As I was doing no good at school, my father wisely took me away at a rather earlier age than usual, and sent me (Oct. 1825) to Edinburgh University with my brother, where I stayed for two years or sessions. My brother was completing his medical studies, though I do not believe he ever really intended to practise, and I was sent there to commence them. But soon after this period I became convinced from various small circumstances that my father would leave me property enough to subsist on with some comfort, though I never imagined that I should be so rich a man as I am; but my belief was sufficient to check any strenuous efforts to learn medicine. The instruction at Edinburgh was altogether by lectures, and these were intolerably dull, with the exception of those on chemistry by Hope; but to my mind there are no advantages and many disadvantages in lectures compared with reading. Dr. Duncan's lectures on Materia Medica at 8 o'clock on a winter's morning are something fearful to remember. Dr.-- made his lectures on human anatomy as dull as he was himself, and the subject disgusted me. It has proved one of the greatest evils in my life that I was not urged to practise dissection, for I should soon have got over my disgust; and the practice would have been invaluable for all my future work. This has been an irremediable evil, as well as my incapacity to draw. I also attended regularly the clinical wards in the hospital. Some of the cases distressed me a good deal, and I still have vivid pictures before me of some of them; but I was not so foolish as to allow this to lessen my attendance. I cannot understand why this part of my medical course did not interest me in a greater degree; for during the summer before coming to Edinburgh I began attending some of the poor people, chiefly children and women in Shrewsbury: I wrote down as full an account as I could of the case with all the symptoms, and read them aloud to my father, who suggested further inquiries and advised me what medicines to give, which I made up myself. At one time I had at least a dozen patients, and I felt a keen interest in the work. My father, who was by far the best judge of character whom I ever knew, declared that I should make a successful physician,--meaning by this one who would get many patients. He maintained that the chief element of success was exciting confidence; but what he saw in me which convinced him that I should create confidence I know not. I also attended on two occasions the operating theatre in the hospital at Edinburgh, and saw two very bad operations, one on a child, but I rushed away before they were completed. Nor did I ever attend again, for hardly any inducement would have been strong enough to make me do so; this being long before the blessed days of chloroform. The two cases fairly haunted me for many a long year. My brother stayed only one year at the University, so that during the second year I was left to my own resources; and this was an advantage, for I became well acquainted with several young men fond of natural science. One of these was Ainsworth, who afterwards published his travels in Assyria; he was a Wernerian geologist, and knew a little about many subjects. Dr. Coldstream was a very different young man, prim, formal, highly religious, and most kind-hearted; he afterwards published some good zoological articles. A third young man was Hardie, who would, I think, have made a good botanist, but died early in India. Lastly, Dr. Grant, my senior by several years, but how I became acquainted with him I cannot remember; he published some first-rate zoological papers, but after coming to London as Professor in University College, he did nothing more in science, a fact which has always been inexplicable to me. I knew him well; he was dry and formal in manner, with much enthusiasm beneath this outer crust. He one day, when we were walking together, burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge without any effect on my mind. I had previously read the 'Zoonomia' of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me. Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my 'Origin of Species.' At this time I admired greatly the 'Zoonomia;' but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given. Drs. Grant and Coldstream attended much to marine Zoology, and I often accompanied the former to collect animals in the tidal pools, which I dissected as well as I could. I also became friends with some of the Newhaven fishermen, and sometimes accompanied them when they trawled for oysters, and thus got many specimens. But from not having had any regular practice in dissection, and from possessing only a wretched microscope, my attempts were very poor. Nevertheless I made one interesting little discovery, and read, about the beginning of the year 1826, a short paper on the subject before the Plinian Society. This was that the so-called ova of Flustra had the power of independent movement by means of cilia, and were in fact larvae. In another short paper I showed that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the wormlike Pontobdella muricata. The Plinian Society was encouraged and, I believe, founded by Professor Jameson: it consisted of students and met in an underground room in the University for the sake of reading papers on natural science and discussing them. I used regularly to attend, and the meetings had a good effect on me in stimulating my zeal and giving me new congenial acquaintances. One evening a poor young man got up, and after stammering for a prodigious length of time, blushing crimson, he at last slowly got out the words, "Mr. President, I have forgotten what I was going to say." The poor fellow looked quite overwhelmed, and all the members were so surprised that no one could think of a word to say to cover his confusion. The papers which were read to our little society were not printed, so that I had not the satisfaction of seeing my paper in print; but I believe Dr. Grant noticed my small discovery in his excellent memoir on Flustra. I was also a member of the Royal Medical Society, and attended pretty regularly; but as the subjects were exclusively medical, I did not much care about them. Much rubbish was talked there, but there were some good speakers, of whom the best was the present Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. Dr. Grant took me occasionally to the meetings of the Wernerian Society, where various papers on natural history were read, discussed, and afterwards published in the 'Transactions.' I heard Audubon deliver there some interesting discourses on the habits of N. American birds, sneering somewhat unjustly at Waterton. By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. Mr. Leonard Horner also took me once to a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, where I saw Sir Walter Scott in the chair as President, and he apologised to the meeting as not feeling fitted for such a position. I looked at him and at the whole scene with some awe and reverence, and I think it was owing to this visit during my youth, and to my having attended the Royal Medical Society, that I felt the honour of being elected a few years ago an honorary member of both these Societies, more than any other similar honour. If I had been told at that time that I should one day have been thus honoured, I declare that I should have thought it as ridiculous and improbable, as if I had been told that I should be elected King of England. During my second year at Edinburgh I attended --'s lectures on Geology and Zoology, but they were incredibly dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to read a book on Geology, or in any way to study the science. Yet I feel sure that I was prepared for a philosophical treatment of the subject; for an old Mr. Cotton in Shropshire, who knew a good deal about rocks, had pointed out to me two or three years previously a well-known large erratic boulder in the town of Shrewsbury, called the "bell-stone"; he told me that there was no rock of the same kind nearer than Cumberland or Scotland, and he solemnly assured me that the world would come to an end before any one would be able to explain how this stone came where it now lay. This produced a deep impression on me, and I meditated over this wonderful stone. So that I felt the keenest delight when I first read of the action of icebergs in transporting boulders, and I gloried in the progress of Geology. Equally striking is the fact that I, though now only sixty-seven years old, heard the Professor, in a field lecture at Salisbury Craigs, discoursing on a trapdyke, with amygdaloidal margins and the strata indurated on each side, with volcanic rocks all around us, say that it was a fissure filled with sediment from above, adding with a sneer that there were men who maintained that it had been injected from beneath in a molten condition. When I think of this lecture, I do not wonder that I determined never to attend to Geology. From attending --'s lectures, I became acquainted with the curator of the museum, Mr. Macgillivray, who afterwards published a large and excellent book on the birds of Scotland. I had much interesting natural-history talk with him, and he was very kind to me. He gave me some rare shells, for I at that time collected marine mollusca, but with no great zeal. My summer vacations during these two years were wholly given up to amusements, though I always had some book in hand, which I read with interest. During the summer of 1826 I took a long walking tour with two friends with knapsacks on our backs through North wales. We walked thirty miles most days, including one day the ascent of Snowdon. I also went with my sister a riding tour in North Wales, a servant with saddle-bags carrying our clothes. The autumns were devoted to shooting chiefly at Mr. Owen's, at Woodhouse, and at my Uncle Jos's (Josiah Wedgwood, the son of the founder of the Etruria Works.) at Maer. My zeal was so great that I used to place my shooting-boots open by my bed-side when I went to bed, so as not to lose half a minute in putting them on in the morning; and on one occasion I reached a distant part of the Maer estate, on the 20th of August for black-game shooting, before I could see: I then toiled on with the game-keeper the whole day through thick heath and young Scotch firs. I kept an exact record of every bird which I shot throughout the whole season. One day when shooting at Woodhouse with Captain Owen, the eldest son, and Major Hill, his cousin, afterwards Lord Berwick, both of whom I liked very much, I thought myself shamefully used, for every time after I had fired and thought that I had killed a bird, one of the two acted as if loading his gun, and cried out, "You must not count that bird, for I fired at the same time," and the gamekeeper, perceiving the joke, backed them up. After some hours they told me the joke, but it was no joke to me, for I had shot a large number of birds, but did not know how many, and could not add them to my list, which I used to do by making a knot in a piece of string tied to a button-hole. This my wicked friends had perceived. How I did enjoy shooting! But I think that I must have been half-consciously ashamed of my zeal, for I tried to persuade myself that shooting was almost an intellectual employment; it required so much skill to judge where to find most game and to hunt the dogs well. One of my autumnal visits to Maer in 1827 was memorable from meeting there Sir J. Mackintosh, who was the best converser I ever listened to. I heard afterwards with a glow of pride that he had said, "There is something in that young man that interests me." This must have been chiefly due to his perceiving that I listened with much interest to everything which he said, for I was as ignorant as a pig about his subjects of history, politics, and moral philosophy. To hear of praise from an eminent person, though no doubt apt or certain to excite vanity, is, I think, good for a young man, as it helps to keep him in the right course. My visits to Maer during these two or three succeeding years were quite delightful, independently of the autumnal shooting. Life there was perfectly free; the country was very pleasant for walking or riding; and in the evening there was much very agreeable conversation, not so personal as it generally is in large family parties, together with music. In the summer the whole family used often to sit on the steps of the old portico, with the flower-garden in front, and with the steep wooded bank opposite the house reflected in the lake, with here and there a fish rising or a water-bird paddling about. Nothing has left a more vivid picture on my mind than these evenings at Maer. I was also attached to and greatly revered my Uncle Jos; he was silent and reserved, so as to be a rather awful man; but he sometimes talked openly with me. He was the very type of an upright man, with the clearest judgment. I do not believe that any power on earth could have made him swerve an inch from what he considered the right course. I used to apply to him in my mind the well-known ode of Horace, now forgotten by me, in which the words "nec vultus tyranni, etc.," come in. (Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium Non vultus instantis tyranni Mente quatit solida.) CAMBRIDGE 1828-1831. After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed,' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father's wish ever formerly given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the "Beagle" as naturalist. If the phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretaries of a German psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photograph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discussion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of reverence developed enough for ten priests. As it was decided that I should be a clergyman, it was necessary that I should go to one of the English universities and take a degree; but as I had never opened a classical book since leaving school, I found to my dismay, that in the two intervening years I had actually forgotten, incredible as it may appear, almost everything which I had learnt, even to some few of the Greek letters. I did not therefore proceed to Cambridge at the usual time in October, but worked with a private tutor in Shrewsbury, and went to Cambridge after the Christmas vacation, early in 1828. I soon recovered my school standard of knowledge, and could translate easy Greek books, such as Homer and the Greek Testament, with moderate facility. During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade. With respect to Classics I did nothing except attend a few compulsory college lectures, and the attendance was almost nominal. In my second year I had to work for a month or two to pass the Little-Go, which I did easily. Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up Paley's 'Evidences of Christianity,' and his 'Moral Philosophy.' This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may add, of his 'Natural Theology,' gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation. By answering well the examination questions in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably in Classics, I gained a good place among the oi polloi or crowd of men who do not go in for honours. Oddly enough, I cannot remember how high I stood, and my memory fluctuates between the fifth, tenth, or twelfth, name on the list. (Tenth in the list of January 1831.) Public lectures on several branches were given in the University, attendance being quite voluntary; but I was so sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend Sedgwick's eloquent and interesting lectures. Had I done so I should probably have become a geologist earlier than I did. I attended, however, Henslow's lectures on Botany, and liked them much for their extreme clearness, and the admirable illustrations; but I did not study botany. Henslow used to take his pupils, including several of the older members of the University, field excursions, on foot or in coaches, to distant places, or in a barge down the river, and lectured on the rarer plants and animals which were observed. These excursions were delightful. Although, as we shall presently see, there were some redeeming features in my life at Cambridge, my time was sadly wasted there, and worse than wasted. From my passion for shooting and for hunting, and, when this failed, for riding across country, I got into a sporting set, including some dissipated low-minded young men. We used often to dine together in the evening, though these dinners often included men of a higher stamp, and we sometimes drank too much, with jolly singing and playing at cards afterwards. I know that I ought to feel ashamed of days and evenings thus spent, but as some of my friends were very pleasant, and we were all in the highest spirits, I cannot help looking back to these times with much pleasure. But I am glad to think that I had many other friends of a widely different nature. I was very intimate with Whitley (Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy in Durham University.), who was afterwards Senior Wrangler, and we used continually to take long walks together. He inoculated me with a taste for pictures and good engravings, of which I bought some. I frequently went to the Fitzwilliam Gallery, and my taste must have been fairly good, for I certainly admired the best pictures, which I discussed with the old curator. I read also with much interest Sir Joshua Reynolds' book. This taste, though not natural to me, lasted for several years, and many of the pictures in the National Gallery in London gave me much pleasure; that of Sebastian del Piombo exciting in me a sense of sublimity. I also got into a musical set, I believe by means of my warm-hearted friend, Herbert (The late John Maurice Herbert, County Court Judge of Cardiff and the Monmouth Circuit.), who took a high wrangler's degree. From associating with these men, and hearing them play, I acquired a strong taste for music, and used very often to time my walks so as to hear on week days the anthem in King's College Chapel. This gave me intense pleasure, so that my backbone would sometimes shiver. I am sure that there was no affectation or mere imitation in this taste, for I used generally to go by myself to King's College, and I sometimes hired the chorister boys to sing in my rooms. Nevertheless I am so utterly destitute of an ear, that I cannot perceive a discord, or keep time and hum a tune correctly; and it is a mystery how I could possibly have derived pleasure from music. My musical friends soon perceived my state, and sometimes amused themselves by making me pass an examination, which consisted in ascertaining how many tunes I could recognise when they were played rather more quickly or slowly than usual. 'God save the King,' when thus played, was a sore puzzle. There was another man with almost as bad an ear as I had, and strange to say he played a little on the flute. Once I had the triumph of beating him in one of our musical examinations. But no pursuit at Cambridge was followed with nearly so much eagerness or gave me so much pleasure as collecting beetles. It was the mere passion for collecting, for I did not dissect them, and rarely compared their external characters with published descriptions, but got them named anyhow. I will give a proof of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! it ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one. I was very successful in collecting, and invented two new methods; I employed a labourer to scrape during the winter, moss off old trees and place it in a large bag, and likewise to collect the rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds are brought from the fens, and thus I got some very rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem published than I did at seeing, in Stephens' 'Illustrations of British Insects,' the magic words, "captured by C. Darwin, Esq." I was introduced to entomology by my second cousin W. Darwin Fox, a clever and most pleasant man, who was then at Christ's College, and with whom I became extremely intimate. Afterwards I became well acquainted, and went out collecting, with Albert Way of Trinity, who in after years became a well-known archaeologist; also with H. Thompson of the same College, afterwards a leading agriculturist, chairman of a great railway, and Member of Parliament. It seems therefore that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication of future success in life! I am surprised what an indelible impression many of the beetles which I caught at Cambridge have left on my mind. I can remember the exact appearance of certain posts, old trees and banks where I made a good capture. The pretty Panagaeus crux-major was a treasure in those days, and here at Down I saw a beetle running across a walk, and on picking it up instantly perceived that it differed slightly from P. crux-major, and it turned out to be P. quadripunctatus, which is only a variety or closely allied species, differing from it very slightly in outline. I had never seen in those old days Licinus alive, which to an uneducated eye hardly differs from many of the black Carabidous beetles; but my sons found here a specimen, and I instantly recognised that it was new to me; yet I had not looked at a British beetle for the last twenty years. I have not as yet mentioned a circumstance which influenced my whole career more than any other. This was my friendship with Professor Henslow. Before coming up to Cambridge, I had heard of him from my brother as a man who knew every branch of science, and I was accordingly prepared to reverence him. He kept open house once every week when all undergraduates, and some older members of the University, who were attached to science, used to meet in the evening. I soon got, through Fox, an invitation, and went there regularly. Before long I became well acquainted with Henslow, and during the latter half of my time at Cambridge took long walks with him on most days; so that I was called by some of the dons "the man who walks with Henslow;" and in the evening I was very often asked to join his family dinner. His knowledge was great in botany, entomology, chemistry, mineralogy, and geology. His strongest taste was to draw conclusions from long-continued minute observations. His judgment was excellent, and his whole mind well balanced; but I do not suppose that any one would say that he possessed much original genius. He was deeply religious, and so orthodox that he told me one day he should be grieved if a single word of the Thirty-nine Articles were altered. His moral qualities were in every way admirable. He was free from every tinge of vanity or other petty feeling; and I never saw a man who thought so little about himself or his own concerns. His temper was imperturbably good, with the most winning and courteous manners; yet, as I have seen, he could be roused by any bad action to the warmest indignation and prompt action. I once saw in his company in the streets of Cambridge almost as horrid a scene as could have been witnessed during the French Revolution. Two body-snatchers had been arrested, and whilst being taken to prison had been torn from the constable by a crowd of the roughest men, who dragged them by their legs along the muddy and stony road. They were covered from head to foot with mud, and their faces were bleeding either from having been kicked or from the stones; they looked like corpses, but the crowd was so dense that I got only a few momentary glimpses of the wretched creatures. Never in my life have I seen such wrath painted on a man's face as was shown by Henslow at this horrid scene. He tried repeatedly to penetrate the mob; but it was simply impossible. He then rushed away to the mayor, telling me not to follow him, but to get more policemen. I forget the issue, except that the two men were got into the prison without being killed. Henslow's benevolence was unbounded, as he proved by his many excellent schemes for his poor parishioners, when in after years he held the living of Hitcham. My intimacy with such a man ought to have been, and I hope was, an inestimable benefit. I cannot resist mentioning a trifling incident, which showed his kind consideration. Whilst examining some pollen-grains on a damp surface, I saw the tubes exserted, and instantly rushed off to communicate my surprising discovery to him. Now I do not suppose any other professor of botany could have helped laughing at my coming in such a hurry to make such a communication. But he agreed how interesting the phenomenon was, and explained its meaning, but made me clearly understand how well it was known; so I left him not in the least mortified, but well pleased at having discovered for myself so remarkable a fact, but determined not to be in such a hurry again to communicate my discoveries. Dr. Whewell was one of the older and distinguished men who sometimes visited Henslow, and on several occasions I walked home with him at night. Next to Sir J. Mackintosh he was the best converser on grave subjects to whom I ever listened. Leonard Jenyns (The well-known Soame Jenyns was cousin to Mr. Jenyns' father.), who afterwards published some good essays in Natural History (Mr. Jenyns (now Blomefield) described the fish for the Zoology of the "Beagle"; and is author of a long series of papers, chiefly Zoological.), often stayed with Henslow, who was his brother-in-law. I visited him at his parsonage on the borders of the Fens [Swaffham Bulbeck], and had many a good walk and talk with him about Natural History. I became also acquainted with several other men older than me, who did not care much about science, but were friends of Henslow. One was a Scotchman, brother of Sir Alexander Ramsay, and tutor of Jesus College: he was a delightful man, but did not live for many years. Another was Mr. Dawes, afterwards Dean of Hereford, and famous for his success in the education of the poor. These men and others of the same standing, together with Henslow, used sometimes to take distant excursions into the country, which I was allowed to join, and they were most agreeable. Looking back, I infer that there must have been something in me a little superior to the common run of youths, otherwise the above-mentioned men, so much older than me and higher in academical position, would never have allowed me to associate with them. Certainly I was not aware of any such superiority, and I remember one of my sporting friends, Turner, who saw me at work with my beetles, saying that I should some day be a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the notion seemed to me preposterous. During my last year at Cambridge, I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's 'Personal Narrative.' This work, and Sir J. Herschel's 'Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy,' stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two. I copied out from Humboldt long passages about Teneriffe, and read them aloud on one of the above-mentioned excursions, to (I think) Henslow, Ramsay, and Dawes, for on a previous occasion I had talked about the glories of Teneriffe, and some of the party declared they would endeavour to go there; but I think that they were only half in earnest. I was, however, quite in earnest, and got an introduction to a merchant in London to enquire about ships; but the scheme was, of course, knocked on the head by the voyage of the "Beagle". My summer vacations were given up to collecting beetles, to some reading, and short tours. In the autumn my whole time was devoted to shooting, chiefly at Woodhouse and Maer, and sometimes with young Eyton of Eyton. Upon the whole the three years which I spent at Cambridge were the most joyful in my happy life; for I was then in excellent health, and almost always in high spirits. As I had at first come up to Cambridge at Christmas, I was forced to keep two terms after passing my final examination, at the commencement of 1831; and Henslow then persuaded me to begin the study of geology. Therefore on my return to Shropshire I examined sections, and coloured a map of parts round Shrewsbury. Professor Sedgwick intended to visit North Wales in the beginning of August to pursue his famous geological investigations amongst the older rocks, and Henslow asked him to allow me to accompany him. (In connection with this tour my father used to tell a story about Sedgwick: they had started from their inn one morning, and had walked a mile or two, when Sedgwick suddenly stopped, and vowed that he would return, being certain "that damned scoundrel" (the waiter) had not given the chambermaid the sixpence intrusted to him for the purpose. He was ultimately persuaded to give up the project, seeing that there was no reason for suspecting the waiter of especial perfidy.--F.D.) Accordingly he came and slept at my father's house. A short conversation with him during this evening produced a strong impression on my mind. Whilst examining an old gravel-pit near Shrewsbury, a labourer told me that he had found in it a large worn tropical Volute shell, such as may be seen on the chimney-pieces of cottages; and as he would not sell the shell, I was convinced that he had really found it in the pit. I told Sedgwick of the fact, and he at once said (no doubt truly) that it must have been thrown away by some one into the pit; but then added, if really embedded there it would be the greatest misfortune to geology, as it would overthrow all that we know about the superficial deposits of the Midland Counties. These gravel-beds belong in fact to the glacial period, and in after years I found in them broken arctic shells. But I was then utterly astonished at Sedgwick not being delighted at so wonderful a fact as a tropical shell being found near the surface in the middle of England. Nothing before had ever made me thoroughly realise, though I had read various scientific books, that science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them. Next morning we started for Llangollen, Conway, Bangor, and Capel Curig. This tour was of decided use in teaching me a little how to make out the geology of a country. Sedgwick often sent me on a line parallel to his, telling me to bring back specimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map. I have little doubt that he did this for my good, as I was too ignorant to have aided him. On this tour I had a striking instance of how easy it is to overlook phenomena, however conspicuous, before they have been observed by any one. We spent many hours in Cwm Idwal, examining all the rocks with extreme care, as Sedgwick was anxious to find fossils in them; but neither of us saw a trace of the wonderful glacial phenomena all around us; we did not notice the plainly scored rocks, the perched boulders, the lateral and terminal moraines. Yet these phenomena are so conspicuous that, as I declared in a paper published many years afterwards in the 'Philosophical Magazine' ('Philosophical Magazine,' 1842.), a house burnt down by fire did not tell its story more plainly than did this valley. If it had still been filled by a glacier, the phenomena would have been less distinct than they now are. At Capel Curig I left Sedgwick and went in a straight line by compass and map across the mountains to Barmouth, never following any track unless it coincided with my course. I thus came on some strange wild places, and enjoyed much this manner of travelling. I visited Barmouth to see some Cambridge friends who were reading there, and thence returned to Shrewsbury and to Maer for shooting; for at that time I should have thought myself mad to give up the first days of partridge-shooting for geology or any other science. "VOYAGE OF THE 'BEAGLE' FROM DECEMBER 27, 1831, TO OCTOBER 2, 1836." On returning home from my short geological tour in North Wales, I found a letter from Henslow, informing me that Captain Fitz-Roy was willing to give up part of his own cabin to any young man who would volunteer to go with him without pay as naturalist to the Voyage of the "Beagle". I have given, as I believe, in my MS. Journal an account of all the circumstances which then occurred; I will here only say that I was instantly eager to accept the offer, but my father strongly objected, adding the words, fortunate for me, "If you can find any man of common sense who advises you to go I will give my consent." So I wrote that evening and refused the offer. On the next morning I went to Maer to be ready for September 1st, and, whilst out shooting, my uncle (Josiah Wedgwood.) sent for me, offering to drive me over to Shrewsbury and talk with my father, as my uncle thought it would be wise in me to accept the offer. My father always maintained that he was one of the most sensible men in the world, and he at once consented in the kindest manner. I had been rather extravagant at Cambridge, and to console my father, said, "that I should be deuced clever to spend more than my allowance whilst on board the 'Beagle';" but he answered with a smile, "But they tell me you are very clever." Next day I started for Cambridge to see Henslow, and thence to London to see Fitz-Roy, and all was soon arranged. Afterwards, on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy, I heard that I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected, on account of the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater, and was convinced that he could judge of a man's character by the outline of his features; and he doubted whether any one with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage. But I think he was afterwards well satisfied that my nose had spoken falsely. Fitz-Roy's character was a singular one, with very many noble features: he was devoted to his duty, generous to a fault, bold, determined, and indomitably energetic, and an ardent friend to all under his sway. He would undertake any sort of trouble to assist those whom he thought deserved assistance. He was a handsome man, strikingly like a gentleman, with highly courteous manners, which resembled those of his maternal uncle, the famous Lord Castlereagh, as I was told by the Minister at Rio. Nevertheless he must have inherited much in his appearance from Charles II., for Dr. Wallich gave me a collection of photographs which he had made, and I was struck with the resemblance of one to Fitz-Roy; and on looking at the name, I found it Ch. E. Sobieski Stuart, Count d'Albanie, a descendant of the same monarch. Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him. His character was in several respects one of the most noble which I have ever known. The voyage of the "Beagle" has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career; yet it depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle offering to drive me thirty miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose. I have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training or education of my mind; I was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history, and thus my powers of observation were improved, though they were always fairly developed. The investigation of the geology of all the places visited was far more important, as reasoning here comes into play. On first examining a new district nothing can appear more hopeless than the chaos of rocks; but by recording the stratification and nature of the rocks and fossils at many points, always reasoning and predicting what will be found elsewhere, light soon begins to dawn on the district, and the structure of the whole becomes more or less intelligible. I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell's 'Principles of Geology,' which I studied attentively; and the book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape de Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author, whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read. Another of my occupations was collecting animals of all classes, briefly describing and roughly dissecting many of the marine ones; but from not being able to draw, and from not having sufficient anatomical knowledge, a great pile of MS. which I made during the voyage has proved almost useless. I thus lost much time, with the exception of that spent in acquiring some knowledge of the Crustaceans, as this was of service when in after years I undertook a monograph of the Cirripedia. During some part of the day I wrote my Journal, and took much pains in describing carefully and vividly all that I had seen; and this was good practice. My Journal served also, in part, as letters to my home, and portions were sent to England whenever there was an opportunity. The above various special studies were, however, of no importance compared with the habit of energetic industry and of concentrated attention to whatever I was engaged in, which I then acquired. Everything about which I thought or read was made to bear directly on what I had seen or was likely to see; and this habit of mind was continued during the five years of the voyage. I feel sure that it was this training which has enabled me to do whatever I have done in science. Looking backwards, I can now perceive how my love for science gradually preponderated over every other taste. During the first two years my old passion for shooting survived in nearly full force, and I shot myself all the birds and animals for my collection; but gradually I gave up my gun more and more, and finally altogether, to my servant, as shooting interfered with my work, more especially with making out the geological structure of a country. I discovered, though unconsciously and insensibly, that the pleasure of observing and reasoning was a much higher one than that of skill and sport. That my mind became developed through my pursuits during the voyage is rendered probable by a remark made by my father, who was the most acute observer whom I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in phrenology; for on first seeing me after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters, and exclaimed, "Why, the shape of his head is quite altered." To return to the voyage. On September 11th (1831), I paid a flying visit with Fitz-Roy to the "Beagle" at Plymouth. Thence to Shrewsbury to wish my father and sisters a long farewell. On October 24th I took up my residence at Plymouth, and remained there until December 27th, when the "Beagle" finally left the shores of England for her circumnavigation of the world. We made two earlier attempts to sail, but were driven back each time by heavy gales. These two months at Plymouth were the most miserable which I ever spent, though I exerted myself in various ways. I was out of spirits at the thought of leaving all my family and friends for so long a time, and the weather seemed to me inexpressibly gloomy. I was also troubled with palpitation and pain about the heart, and like many a young ignorant man, especially one with a smattering of medical knowledge, was convinced that I had heart disease. I did not consult any doctor, as I fully expected to hear the verdict that I was not fit for the voyage, and I was resolved to go at all hazards. I need not here refer to the events of the voyage--where we went and what we did--as I have given a sufficiently full account in my published Journal. The glories of the vegetation of the Tropics rise before my mind at the present time more vividly than anything else; though the sense of sublimity, which the great deserts of Patagonia and the forest-clad mountains of Tierra del Fuego excited in me, has left an indelible impression on my mind. The sight of a naked savage in his native land is an event which can never be forgotten. Many of my excursions on horseback through wild countries, or in the boats, some of which lasted several weeks, were deeply interesting: their discomfort and some degree of danger were at that time hardly a drawback, and none at all afterwards. I also reflect with high satisfaction on some of my scientific work, such as solving the problem of coral islands, and making out the geological structure of certain islands, for instance, St. Helena. Nor must I pass over the discovery of the singular relations of the animals and plants inhabiting the several islands of the Galapagos archipelago, and of all of them to the inhabitants of South America. As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in Natural Science. But I was also ambitious to take a fair place among scientific men,--whether more ambitious or less so than most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion. The geology of St. Jago is very striking, yet simple: a stream of lava formerly flowed over the bed of the sea, formed of triturated recent shells and corals, which it has baked into a hard white rock. Since then the whole island has been upheaved. But the line of white rock revealed to me a new and important fact, namely, that there had been afterwards subsidence round the craters, which had since been in action, and had poured forth lava. It then first dawned on me that I might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight. That was a memorable hour to me, and how distinctly I can call to mind the low cliff of lava beneath which I rested, with the sun glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and with living corals in the tidal pools at my feet. Later in the voyage, Fitz-Roy asked me to read some of my Journal, and declared it would be worth publishing; so here was a second book in prospect! Towards the close of our voyage I received a letter whilst at Ascension, in which my sisters told me that Sedgwick had called on my father, and said that I should take a place among the leading scientific men. I could not at the time understand how he could have learnt anything of my proceedings, but I heard (I believe afterwards) that Henslow had read some of the letters which I wrote to him before the Philosophical Society of Cambridge (Read at the meeting held November 16, 1835, and printed in a pamphlet of 31 pages for distribution among the members of the Society.), and had printed them for private distribution. My collection of fossil bones, which had been sent to Henslow, also excited considerable attention amongst palaeontologists. After reading this letter, I clambered over the mountains of Ascension with a bounding step, and made the volcanic rocks resound under my geological hammer. All this shows how ambitious I was; but I think that I can say with truth that in after years, though I cared in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much about the general public. I do not mean to say that a favourable review or a large sale of my books did not please me greatly, but the pleasure was a fleeting one, and I am sure that I have never turned one inch out of my course to gain fame. FROM MY RETURN TO ENGLAND (OCTOBER 2, 1836) TO MY MARRIAGE (JANUARY 29, 1839.) These two years and three months were the most active ones which I ever spent, though I was occasionally unwell, and so lost some time. After going backwards and forwards several times between Shrewsbury, Maer, Cambridge, and London, I settled in lodgings at Cambridge (In Fitzwilliam Street.) on December 13th, where all my collections were under the care of Henslow. I stayed here three months, and got my minerals and rocks examined by the aid of Professor Miller. I began preparing my 'Journal of Travels,' which was not hard work, as my MS. Journal had been written with care, and my chief labour was making an abstract of my more interesting scientific results. I sent also, at the request of Lyell, a short account of my observations on the elevation of the coast of Chile to the Geological Society. ('Geolog. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pages 446-449.) On March 7th, 1837, I took lodgings in Great Marlborough Street in London, and remained there for nearly two years, until I was married. During these two years I finished my Journal, read several papers before the Geological Society, began preparing the MS. for my 'Geological Observations,' and arranged for the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle".' In July I opened my first note-book for facts in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years. During these two years I also went a little into society, and acted as one of the honorary secretaries of the Geological Society. I saw a great deal of Lyell. One of his chief characteristics was his sympathy with the work of others, and I was as much astonished as delighted at the interest which he showed when, on my return to England, I explained to him my views on coral reefs. This encouraged me greatly, and his advice and example had much influence on me. During this time I saw also a good deal of Robert Brown; I used often to call and sit with him during his breakfast on Sunday mornings, and he poured forth a rich treasure of curious observations and acute remarks, but they almost always related to minute points, and he never with me discussed large or general questions in science. During these two years I took several short excursions as a relaxation, and one longer one to the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, an account of which was published in the 'Philosophical Transactions.' (1839, pages 39-82.) This paper was a great failure, and I am ashamed of it. Having been deeply impressed with what I had seen of the elevation of the land of South America, I attributed the parallel lines to the action of the sea; but I had to give up this view when Agassiz propounded his glacier-lake theory. Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion. As I was not able to work all day at science, I read a good deal during these two years on various subjects, including some metaphysical books; but I was not well fitted for such studies. About this time I took much delight in Wordsworth's and Coleridge's poetry; and can boast that I read the 'Excursion' twice through. Formerly Milton's 'Paradise Lost' had been my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the voyage of the "Beagle", when I could take only a single volume, I always chose Milton. FROM MY MARRIAGE, JANUARY 29, 1839, AND RESIDENCE IN UPPER GOWER STREET, TO OUR LEAVING LONDON AND SETTLING AT DOWN, SEPTEMBER 14, 1842. (After speaking of his happy married life, and of his children, he continues:--) During the three years and eight months whilst we resided in London, I did less scientific work, though I worked as hard as I possibly could, than during any other equal length of time in my life. This was owing to frequently recurring unwellness, and to one long and serious illness. The greater part of my time, when I could do anything, was devoted to my work on 'Coral Reefs,' which I had begun before my marriage, and of which the last proof-sheet was corrected on May 6th, 1842. This book, though a small one, cost me twenty months of hard work, as I had to read every work on the islands of the Pacific and to consult many charts. It was thought highly of by scientific men, and the theory therein given is, I think, now well established. No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this, for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of South America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with denudation and the deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of corals. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls. Besides my work on coral-reefs, during my residence in London, I read before the Geological Society papers on the Erratic Boulders of South America ('Geolog. Soc. Proc.' iii. 1842.), on Earthquakes ('Geolog. Trans. v. 1840.), and on the Formation by the Agency of Earth-worms of Mould. ('Geolog. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838.) I also continued to superintend the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle".' Nor did I ever intermit collecting facts bearing on the origin of species; and I could sometimes do this when I could do nothing else from illness. In the summer of 1842 I was stronger than I had been for some time, and took a little tour by myself in North Wales, for the sake of observing the effects of the old glaciers which formerly filled all the larger valleys. I published a short account of what I saw in the 'Philosophical Magazine.' ('Philosophical Magazine,' 1842.) This excursion interested me greatly, and it was the last time I was ever strong enough to climb mountains or to take long walks such as are necessary for geological work. During the early part of our life in London, I was strong enough to go into general society, and saw a good deal of several scientific men, and other more or less distinguished men. I will give my impressions with respect to some of them, though I have little to say worth saying. I saw more of Lyell than of any other man, both before and after my marriage. His mind was characterised, as it appeared to me, by clearness, caution, sound judgment, and a good deal of originality. When I made any remark to him on Geology, he never rested until he saw the whole case clearly, and often made me see it more clearly than I had done before. He would advance all possible objections to my suggestion, and even after these were exhausted would long remain dubious. A second characteristic was his hearty sympathy with the work of other scientific men. (The slight repetition here observable is accounted for by the notes on Lyell, etc., having been added in April, 1881, a few years after the rest of the 'Recollections' were written.) On my return from the voyage of the "Beagle", I explained to him my views on coral-reefs, which differed from his, and I was greatly surprised and encouraged by the vivid interest which he showed. His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind. He was very kind-hearted, and thoroughly liberal in his religious beliefs, or rather disbeliefs; but he was a strong theist. His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, though he had gained much fame by opposing Lamarck's views, and this after he had grown old. He reminded me that I had many years before said to him, when discussing the opposition of the old school of geologists to his new views, "What a good thing it would be if every scientific man was to die when sixty years old, as afterwards he would be sure to oppose all new doctrines." But he hoped that now he might be allowed to live. The science of Geology is enormously indebted to Lyell--more so, as I believe, than to any other man who ever lived. When [I was] starting on the voyage of the "Beagle", the sagacious Henslow, who, like all other geologists, believed at that time in successive cataclysms, advised me to get and study the first volume of the 'Principles,' which had then just been published, but on no account to accept the views therein advocated. How differently would any one now speak of the 'Principles'! I am proud to remember that the first place, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde archipelago, in which I geologised, convinced me of the infinite superiority of Lyell's views over those advocated in any other work known to me. The powerful effects of Lyell's works could formerly be plainly seen in the different progress of the science in France and England. The present total oblivion of Elie de Beaumont's wild hypotheses, such as his 'Craters of Elevation' and 'Lines of Elevation' (which latter hypothesis I heard Sedgwick at the Geological Society lauding to the skies), may be largely attributed to Lyell. I saw a good deal of Robert Brown, "facile Princeps Botanicorum," as he was called by Humboldt. He seemed to me to be chiefly remarkable for the minuteness of his observations, and their perfect accuracy. His knowledge was extraordinarily great, and much died with him, owing to his excessive fear of ever making a mistake. He poured out his knowledge to me in the most unreserved manner, yet was strangely jealous on some points. I called on him two or three times before the voyage of the "Beagle", and on one occasion he asked me to look through a microscope and describe what I saw. This I did, and believe now that it was the marvellous currents of protoplasm in some vegetable cell. I then asked him what I had seen; but he answered me, "That is my little secret." He was capable of the most generous actions. When old, much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him. This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific penuriousness or jealousy. I may here mention a few other eminent men, whom I have occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the Cape of Good Hope, and afterwards at his London house. I saw him, also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to. I once met at breakfast at Sir R. Murchison's house the illustrious Humboldt, who honoured me by expressing a wish to see me. I was a little disappointed with the great man, but my anticipations probably were too high. I can remember nothing distinctly about our interview, except that Humboldt was very cheerful and talked much. --reminds me of Buckle whom I once met at Hensleigh Wedgwood's. I was very glad to learn from him his system of collecting facts. He told me that he bought all the books which he read, and made a full index, to each, of the facts which he thought might prove serviceable to him, and that he could always remember in what book he had read anything, for his memory was wonderful. I asked him how at first he could judge what facts would be serviceable, and he answered that he did not know, but that a sort of instinct guided him. From this habit of making indices, he was enabled to give the astonishing number of references on all sorts of subjects, which may be found in his 'History of Civilisation.' This book I thought most interesting, and read it twice, but I doubt whether his generalisations are worth anything. Buckle was a great talker, and I listened to him saying hardly a word, nor indeed could I have done so for he left no gaps. When Mrs. Farrer began to sing, I jumped up and said that I must listen to her; after I had moved away he turned around to a friend and said (as was overheard by my brother), "Well, Mr. Darwin's books are much better than his conversation." Of other great literary men, I once met Sydney Smith at Dean Milman's house. There was something inexplicably amusing in every word which he uttered. Perhaps this was partly due to the expectation of being amused. He was talking about Lady Cork, who was then extremely old. This was the lady who, as he said, was once so much affected by one of his charity sermons, that she BORROWED a guinea from a friend to put in the plate. He now said "It is generally believed that my dear old friend Lady Cork has been overlooked," and he said this in such a manner that no one could for a moment doubt that he meant that his dear old friend had been overlooked by the devil. How he managed to express this I know not. I likewise once met Macaulay at Lord Stanhope's (the historian's) house, and as there was only one other man at dinner, I had a grand opportunity of hearing him converse, and he was very agreeable. He did not talk at all too much; nor indeed could such a man talk too much, as long as he allowed others to turn the stream of his conversation, and this he did allow. Lord Stanhope once gave me a curious little proof of the accuracy and fulness of Macaulay's memory: many historians used often to meet at Lord Stanhope's house, and in discussing various subjects they would sometimes differ from Macaulay, and formerly they often referred to some book to see who was right; but latterly, as Lord Stanhope noticed, no historian ever took this trouble, and whatever Macaulay said was final. On another occasion I met at Lord Stanhope's house, one of his parties of historians and other literary men, and amongst them were Motley and Grote. After luncheon I walked about Chevening Park for nearly an hour with Grote, and was much interested by his conversation and pleased by the simplicity and absence of all pretension in his manners. Long ago I dined occasionally with the old Earl, the father of the historian; he was a strange man, but what little I knew of him I liked much. He was frank, genial, and pleasant. He had strongly marked features, with a brown complexion, and his clothes, when I saw him, were all brown. He seemed to believe in everything which was to others utterly incredible. He said one day to me, "Why don't you give up your fiddle-faddle of geology and zoology, and turn to the occult sciences!" The historian, then Lord Mahon, seemed shocked at such a speech to me, and his charming wife much amused. The last man whom I will mention is Carlyle, seen by me several times at my brother's house, and two or three times at my own house. His talk was very racy and interesting, just like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother's, where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of silence. After dinner Babbage, in his grimmest manner, thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence. Carlyle sneered at almost every one: one day in my house he called Grote's 'History' "a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it." I always thought, until his 'Reminiscences' appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent yet benevolent man; and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real, though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and men--far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another question. He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained he could, of Goethe's views on light. He thought it a most ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research. Whilst living in London, I attended as regularly as I could the meetings of several scientific societies, and acted as secretary to the Geological Society. But such attendance, and ordinary society, suited my health so badly that we resolved to live in the country, which we both preferred and have never repented of. RESIDENCE AT DOWN FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1842, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1876. After several fruitless searches in Surrey and elsewhere, we found this house and purchased it. I was pleased with the diversified appearance of vegetation proper to a chalk district, and so unlike what I had been accustomed to in the Midland counties; and still more pleased with the extreme quietness and rusticity of the place. It is not, however, quite so retired a place as a writer in a German periodical makes it, who says that my house can be approached only by a mule-track! Our fixing ourselves here has answered admirably in one way, which we did not anticipate, namely, by being very convenient for frequent visits from our children. Few persons can have lived a more retired life than we have done. Besides short visits to the houses of relations, and occasionally to the seaside or elsewhere, we have gone nowhere. During the first part of our residence we went a little into society, and received a few friends here; but my health almost always suffered from the excitement, violent shivering and vomiting attacks being thus brought on. I have therefore been compelled for many years to give up all dinner-parties; and this has been somewhat of a deprivation to me, as such parties always put me into high spirits. From the same cause I have been able to invite here very few scientific acquaintances. My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort. I have therefore nothing to record during the rest of my life, except the publication of my several books. Perhaps a few details how they arose may be worth giving. MY SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS. In the early part of 1844, my observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of the "Beagle" were published. In 1845, I took much pains in correcting a new edition of my 'Journal of Researches,' which was originally published in 1839 as part of Fitz-Roy's work. The success of this, my first literary child, always tickles my vanity more than that of any of my other books. Even to this day it sells steadily in England and the United States, and has been translated for the second time into German, and into French and other languages. This success of a book of travels, especially of a scientific one, so many years after its first publication, is surprising. Ten thousand copies have been sold in England of the second edition. In 1846 my 'Geological Observations on South America' were published. I record in a little diary, which I have always kept, that my three geological books ('Coral Reefs' included) consumed four and a half years' steady work; "and now it is ten years since my return to England. How much time have I lost by illness?" I have nothing to say about these three books except that to my surprise new editions have lately been called for. ('Geological Observations,' 2nd Edit.1876. 'Coral Reefs,' 2nd Edit. 1874.) In October, 1846, I began to work on 'Cirripedia.' When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, which burrowed into the shells of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole reception. Lately an allied burrowing genus has been found on the shores of Portugal. To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms; and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group. I worked steadily on this subject for the next eight years, and ultimately published two thick volumes (Published by the Ray Society.), describing all the known living species, and two thin quartos on the extinct species. I do not doubt that Sir E. Lytton Bulwer had me in his mind when he introduced in one of his novels a Professor Long, who had written two huge volumes on limpets. Although I was employed during eight years on this work, yet I record in my diary that about two years out of this time was lost by illness. On this account I went in 1848 for some months to Malvern for hydropathic treatment, which did me much good, so that on my return home I was able to resume work. So much was I out of health that when my dear father died on November 13th, 1848, I was unable to attend his funeral or to act as one of his executors. My work on the Cirripedia possesses, I think, considerable value, as besides describing several new and remarkable forms, I made out the homologies of the various parts--I discovered the cementing apparatus, though I blundered dreadfully about the cement glands--and lastly I proved the existence in certain genera of minute males complemental to and parasitic on the hermaphrodites. This latter discovery has at last been fully confirmed; though at one time a German writer was pleased to attribute the whole account to my fertile imagination. The Cirripedes form a highly varying and difficult group of species to class; and my work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the 'Origin of Species' the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time. From September 1854 I devoted my whole time to arranging my huge pile of notes, to observing, and to experimenting in relation to the transmutation of species. During the voyage of the "Beagle" I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me. But it was equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor the will of the organisms (especially in the case of plants) could account for the innumerable cases in which organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of life--for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes. I had always been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have been modified. After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject. My first note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders and gardeners, and by extensive reading. When I see the list of books of all kinds which I read and abstracted, including whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at my industry. I soon perceived that selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of animals and plants. But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me. In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement 'Malthus on Population,' and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess. But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature. Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my 'Origin of Species;' yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had collected, and I got through about half the work on this scale. But my plans were overthrown, for early in the summer of 1858 Mr. Wallace, who was then in the Malay archipelago, sent me an essay "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type;" and this essay contained exactly the same theory as mine. Mr. Wallace expressed the wish that if I thought well of his essay, I should sent it to Lyell for perusal. The circumstances under which I consented at the request of Lyell and Hooker to allow of an abstract from my MS., together with a letter to Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857, to be published at the same time with Wallace's Essay, are given in the 'Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society,' 1858, page 45. I was at first very unwilling to consent, as I thought Mr. Wallace might consider my doing so unjustifiable, for I did not then know how generous and noble was his disposition. The extract from my MS. and the letter to Asa Gray had neither been intended for publication, and were badly written. Mr. Wallace's essay, on the other hand, was admirably expressed and quite clear. Nevertheless, our joint productions excited very little attention, and the only published notice of them which I can remember was by Professor Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old. This shows how necessary it is that any new view should be explained at considerable length in order to arouse public attention. In September 1858 I set to work by the strong advice of Lyell and Hooker to prepare a volume on the transmutation of species, but was often interrupted by ill-health, and short visits to Dr. Lane's delightful hydropathic establishment at Moor Park. I abstracted the MS. begun on a much larger scale in 1856, and completed the volume on the same reduced scale. It cost me thirteen months and ten days' hard labour. It was published under the title of the 'Origin of Species,' in November 1859. Though considerably added to and corrected in the later editions, it has remained substantially the same book. It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the first highly successful. The first small edition of 1250 copies was sold on the day of publication, and a second edition of 3000 copies soon afterwards. Sixteen thousand copies have now (1876) been sold in England; and considering how stiff a book it is, this is a large sale. It has been translated into almost every European tongue, even into such languages as Spanish, Bohemian, Polish, and Russian. It has also, according to Miss Bird, been translated into Japanese (Miss Bird is mistaken, as I learn from Prof. Mitsukuri.--F.D.), and is there much studied. Even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, showing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament! The reviews were very numerous; for some time I collected all that appeared on the 'Origin' and on my related books, and these amount (excluding newspaper reviews) to 265; but after a time I gave up the attempt in despair. Many separate essays and books on the subject have appeared; and in Germany a catalogue or bibliography on "Darwinismus" has appeared every year or two. The success of the 'Origin' may, I think, be attributed in large part to my having long before written two condensed sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I had, also, during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer. It has sometimes been said that the success of the 'Origin' proved "that the subject was in the air," or "that men's minds were prepared for it." I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species. Even Lyell and Hooker, though they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by Natural Selection, but signally failed. What I believe was strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were stored in the minds of naturalists ready to take their proper places as soon as any theory which would receive them was sufficiently explained. Another element in the success of the book was its moderate size; and this I owe to the appearance of Mr. Wallace's essay; had I published on the scale in which I began to write in 1856, the book would have been four or five times as large as the 'Origin,' and very few would have had the patience to read it. I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it, for I cared very little whether men attributed most originality to me or Wallace; and his essay no doubt aided in the reception of the theory. I was forestalled in only one important point, which my vanity has always made me regret, namely, the explanation by means of the Glacial period of the presence of the same species of plants and of some few animals on distant mountain summits and in the arctic regions. This view pleased me so much that I wrote it out in extenso, and I believe that it was read by Hooker some years before E. Forbes published his celebrated memoir ('Geolog. Survey Mem.,' 1846.) on the subject. In the very few points in which we differed, I still think that I was in the right. I have never, of course, alluded in print to my having independently worked out this view. Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the 'Origin,' as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class. No notice of this point was taken, as far as I remember, in the early reviews of the 'Origin,' and I recollect expressing my surprise on this head in a letter to Asa Gray. Within late years several reviewers have given the whole credit to Fritz Muller and Hackel, who undoubtedly have worked it out much more fully, and in some respects more correctly than I did. I had materials for a whole chapter on the subject, and I ought to have made the discussion longer; for it is clear that I failed to impress my readers; and he who succeeds in doing so deserves, in my opinion, all the credit. This leads me to remark that I have almost always been treated honestly by my reviewers, passing over those without scientific knowledge as not worthy of notice. My views have often been grossly misrepresented, bitterly opposed and ridiculed, but this has been generally done, as I believe, in good faith. On the whole I do not doubt that my works have been over and over again greatly overpraised. I rejoice that I have avoided controversies, and this I owe to Lyell, who many years ago, in reference to my geological works, strongly advised me never to get entangled in a controversy, as it rarely did any good and caused a miserable loss of time and temper. Whenever I have found out that I have blundered, or that my work has been imperfect, and when I have been contemptuously criticised, and even when I have been overpraised, so that I have felt mortified, it has been my greatest comfort to say hundreds of times to myself that "I have worked as hard and as well as I could, and no man can do more than this." I remember when in Good Success Bay, in Tierra del Fuego, thinking (and, I believe, that I wrote home to the effect) that I could not employ my life better than in adding a little to Natural Science. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like, but they cannot destroy this conviction. During the two last months of 1859 I was fully occupied in preparing a second edition of the 'Origin,' and by an enormous correspondence. On January 1st, 1860, I began arranging my notes for my work on the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication;' but it was not published until the beginning of 1868; the delay having been caused partly by frequent illnesses, one of which lasted seven months, and partly by being tempted to publish on other subjects which at the time interested me more. On May 15th, 1862, my little book on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' which cost me ten months' work, was published: most of the facts had been slowly accumulated during several previous years. During the summer of 1839, and, I believe, during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant. I attended to the subject more or less during every subsequent summer; and my interest in it was greatly enhanced by having procured and read in November 1841, through the advice of Robert Brown, a copy of C.K. Sprengel's wonderful book, 'Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur.' For some years before 1862 I had specially attended to the fertilisation of our British orchids; and it seemed to me the best plan to prepare as complete a treatise on this group of plants as well as I could, rather than to utilise the great mass of matter which I had slowly collected with respect to other plants. My resolve proved a wise one; for since the appearance of my book, a surprising number of papers and separate works on the fertilisation of all kinds of flowers have appeared: and these are far better done than I could possibly have effected. The merits of poor old Sprengel, so long overlooked, are now fully recognised many years after his death. During the same year I published in the 'Journal of the Linnean Society' a paper "On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition of Primula," and during the next five years, five other papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants. I had noticed in 1838 or 1839 the dimorphism of Linum flavum, and had at first thought that it was merely a case of unmeaning variability. But on examining the common species of Primula I found that the two forms were much too regular and constant to be thus viewed. I therefore became almost convinced that the common cowslip and primrose were on the high road to become dioecious;--that the short pistil in the one form, and the short stamens in the other form were tending towards abortion. The plants were therefore subjected under this point of view to trial; but as soon as the flowers with short pistils fertilised with pollen from the short stamens, were found to yield more seeds than any other of the four possible unions, the abortion-theory was knocked on the head. After some additional experiment, it became evident that the two forms, though both were perfect hermaphrodites, bore almost the same relation to one another as do the two sexes of an ordinary animal. With Lythrum we have the still more wonderful case of three forms standing in a similar relation to one another. I afterwards found that the offspring from the union of two plants belonging to the same forms presented a close and curious analogy with hybrids from the union of two distinct species. In the autumn of 1864 I finished a long paper on 'Climbing Plants,' and sent it to the Linnean Society. The writing of this paper cost me four months; but I was so unwell when I received the proof-sheets that I was forced to leave them very badly and often obscurely expressed. The paper was little noticed, but when in 1875 it was corrected and published as a separate book it sold well. I was led to take up this subject by reading a short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He sent me seeds, and on raising some plants I was so much fascinated and perplexed by the revolving movements of the tendrils and stems, which movements are really very simple, though appearing at first sight very complex, that I procured various other kinds of climbing plants, and studied the whole subject. I was all the more attracted to it, from not being at all satisfied with the explanation which Henslow gave us in his lectures, about twining plants, namely, that they had a natural tendency to grow up in a spire. This explanation proved quite erroneous. Some of the adaptations displayed by Climbing Plants are as beautiful as those of Orchids for ensuring cross-fertilisation. My 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication' was begun, as already stated, in the beginning of 1860, but was not published until the beginning of 1868. It was a big book, and cost me four years and two months' hard labour. It gives all my observations and an immense number of facts collected from various sources, about our domestic productions. In the second volume the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, etc., are discussed as far as our present state of knowledge permits. Towards the end of the work I give my well-abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value; but if any one should hereafter be led to make observations by which some such hypothesis could be established, I shall have done good service, as an astonishing number of isolated facts can be thus connected together and rendered intelligible. In 1875 a second and largely corrected edition, which cost me a good deal of labour, was brought out. My 'Descent of Man' was published in February, 1871. As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in the 'Origin of Species' the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honourable man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that by the work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." It would have been useless and injurious to the success of the book to have paraded, without giving any evidence, my conviction with respect to his origin. But when I found that many naturalists fully accepted the doctrine of the evolution of species, it seemed to me advisable to work up such notes as I possessed, and to publish a special treatise on the origin of man. I was the more glad to do so, as it gave me an opportunity of fully discussing sexual selection--a subject which had always greatly interested me. This subject, and that of the variation of our domestic productions, together with the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, and the intercrossing of plants, are the sole subjects which I have been able to write about in full, so as to use all the materials which I have collected. The 'Descent of Man' took me three years to write, but then as usual some of this time was lost by ill health, and some was consumed by preparing new editions and other minor works. A second and largely corrected edition of the 'Descent' appeared in 1874. My book on the 'Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals' was published in the autumn of 1872. I had intended to give only a chapter on the subject in the 'Descent of Man,' but as soon as I began to put my notes together, I saw that it would require a separate treatise. My first child was born on December 27th, 1839, and I at once commenced to make notes on the first dawn of the various expressions which he exhibited, for I felt convinced, even at this early period, that the most complex and fine shades of expression must all have had a gradual and natural origin. During the summer of the following year, 1840, I read Sir C. Bell's admirable work on expression, and this greatly increased the interest which I felt in the subject, though I could not at all agree with his belief that various muscles had been specially created for the sake of expression. From this time forward I occasionally attended to the subject, both with respect to man and our domesticated animals. My book sold largely; 5267 copies having been disposed of on the day of publication. In the summer of 1860 I was idling and resting near Hartfield, where two species of Drosera abound; and I noticed that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I carried home some plants, and on giving them insects saw the movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it probable that the insects were caught for some special purpose. Fortunately a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing a large number of leaves in various nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous fluids of equal density; and as soon as I found that the former alone excited energetic movements, it was obvious that here was a fine new field for investigation. During subsequent years, whenever I had leisure, I pursued my experiments, and my book on 'Insectivorous Plants' was published in July 1875--that is, sixteen years after my first observations. The delay in this case, as with all my other books, has been a great advantage to me; for a man after a long interval can criticise his own work, almost as well as if it were that of another person. The fact that a plant should secrete, when properly excited, a fluid containing an acid and ferment, closely analogous to the digestive fluid of an animal, was certainly a remarkable discovery. During this autumn of 1876 I shall publish on the 'Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom.' This book will form a complement to that on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in which I showed how perfect were the means for cross-fertilisation, and here I shall show how important are the results. I was led to make, during eleven years, the numerous experiments recorded in this volume, by a mere accidental observation; and indeed it required the accident to be repeated before my attention was thoroughly aroused to the remarkable fact that seedlings of self-fertilised parentage are inferior, even in the first generation, in height and vigour to seedlings of cross-fertilised parentage. I hope also to republish a revised edition of my book on Orchids, and hereafter my papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants, together with some additional observations on allied points which I never have had time to arrange. My strength will then probably be exhausted, and I shall be ready to exclaim "Nunc dimittis." WRITTEN MAY 1ST, 1881. 'The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation' was published in the autumn of 1876; and the results there arrived at explain, as I believe, the endless and wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one plant to another of the same species. I now believe, however, chiefly from the observations of Hermann Muller, that I ought to have insisted more strongly than I did on the many adaptations for self-fertilisation; though I was well aware of many such adaptations. A much enlarged edition of my 'Fertilisation of Orchids' was published in 1877. In this same year 'The Different Forms of Flowers, etc.,' appeared, and in 1880 a second edition. This book consists chiefly of the several papers on Heterostyled flowers originally published by the Linnean Society, corrected, with much new matter added, together with observations on some other cases in which the same plant bears two kinds of flowers. As before remarked, no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers. The results of crossing such flowers in an illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as bearing on the sterility of hybrids; although these results have been noticed by only a few persons. In 1879, I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause's 'Life of Erasmus Darwin' published, and I added a sketch of his character and habits from material in my possession. Many persons have been much interested by this little life, and I am surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold. In 1880 I published, with [my son] Frank's assistance, our 'Power of Movement in Plants.' This was a tough piece of work. The book bears somewhat the same relation to my little book on 'Climbing Plants,' which 'Cross-Fertilisation' did to the 'Fertilisation of Orchids;' for in accordance with the principle of evolution it was impossible to account for climbing plants having been developed in so many widely different groups unless all kinds of plants possess some slight power of movement of an analogous kind. This I proved to be the case; and I was further led to a rather wide generalisation, viz. that the great and important classes of movements, excited by light, the attraction of gravity, etc., are all modified forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation. It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings; and I therefore felt an especial pleasure in showing how many and what admirably well adapted movements the tip of a root possesses. I have now (May 1, 1881) sent to the printers the MS. of a little book on 'The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms.' This is a subject of but small importance; and I know not whether it will interest any readers (Between November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies have been sold.), but it has interested me. It is the completion of a short paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and has revived old geological thoughts. I have now mentioned all the books which I have published, and these have been the milestones in my life, so that little remains to be said. I am not conscious of any change in my mind during the last thirty years, excepting in one point presently to be mentioned; nor, indeed, could any change have been expected unless one of general deterioration. But my father lived to his eighty-third year with his mind as lively as ever it was, and all his faculties undimmed; and I hope that I may die before my mind fails to a sensible extent. I think that I have become a little more skilful in guessing right explanations and in devising experimental tests; but this may probably be the result of mere practice, and of a larger store of knowledge. I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time; but it has had the compensating advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of others. There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mind leading me to put at first my statement or proposition in a wrong or awkward form. Formerly I used to think about my sentences before writing them down; but for several years I have found that it saves time to scribble in a vile hand whole pages as quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and then correct deliberately. Sentences thus scribbled down are often better ones than I could have written deliberately. Having said thus much about my manner of writing, I will add that with my large books I spend a good deal of time over the general arrangement of the matter. I first make the rudest outline in two or three pages, and then a larger one in several pages, a few words or one word standing for a whole discussion or series of facts. Each one of these headings is again enlarged and often transferred before I begin to write in extenso. As in several of my books facts observed by others have been very extensively used, and as I have always had several quite distinct subjects in hand at the same time, I may mention that I keep from thirty to forty large portfolios, in cabinets with labelled shelves, into which I can at once put a detached reference or memorandum. I have bought many books, and at their ends I make an index of all the facts that concern my work; or, if the book is not my own, write out a separate abstract, and of such abstracts I have a large drawer full. Before beginning on any subject I look to all the short indexes and make a general and classified index, and by taking the one or more proper portfolios I have all the information collected during my life ready for use. I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did. On the other hand, novels which are works of the imagination, though not of a very high order, have been for years a wonderful relief and pleasure to me, and I often bless all novelists. A surprising number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if moderately good, and if they do not end unhappily--against which a law ought to be passed. A novel, according to my taste, does not come into the first class unless it contains some person whom one can thoroughly love, and if a pretty woman all the better. This curious and lamentable loss of the higher aesthetic tastes is all the odder, as books on history, biographies, and travels (independently of any scientific facts which they may contain), and essays on all sorts of subjects interest me as much as ever they did. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better constituted than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature. My books have sold largely in England, have been translated into many languages, and passed through several editions in foreign countries. I have heard it said that the success of a work abroad is the best test of its enduring value. I doubt whether this is at all trustworthy; but judged by this standard my name ought to last for a few years. Therefore it may be worth while to try to analyse the mental qualities and the conditions on which my success has depended; though I am aware that no man can do this correctly. I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am therefore a poor critic: a paper or book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is only after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My power to follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited; and therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or mathematics. My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or read something opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing, or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I can generally recollect where to search for my authority. So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of poetry. Some of my critics have said, "Oh, he is a good observer, but he has no power of reasoning!" I do not think that this can be true, for the 'Origin of Species' is one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men. No one could have written it without having some power of reasoning. I have a fair share of invention, and of common sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or doctor must have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree. On the favourable side of the balance, I think that I am superior to the common run of men in noticing things which easily escape attention, and in observing them carefully. My industry has been nearly as great as it could have been in the observation and collection of facts. What is far more important, my love of natural science has been steady and ardent. This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have had the strongest desire to understand or explain whatever I observed,--that is, to group all facts under some general laws. These causes combined have given me the patience to reflect or ponder for any number of years over any unexplained problem. As far as I can judge, I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in this manner, for with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot remember a single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time to be given up or greatly modified. This has naturally led me to distrust greatly deductive reasoning in the mixed sciences. On the other hand, I am not very sceptical,--a frame of mind which I believe to be injurious to the progress of science. A good deal of scepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met with not a few men, who, I feel sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly serviceable. In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I have known. A gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good local botanist) wrote to me from the Eastern counties that the seed or beans of the common field-bean had this year everywhere grown on the wrong side of the pod. I wrote back, asking for further information, as I did not understand what was meant; but I did not receive any answer for a very long time. I then saw in two newspapers, one published in Kent and the other in Yorkshire, paragraphs stating that it was a most remarkable fact that "the beans this year had all grown on the wrong side." So I thought there must be some foundation for so general a statement. Accordingly, I went to my gardener, an old Kentish man, and asked him whether he had heard anything about it, and he answered, "Oh, no, sir, it must be a mistake, for the beans grow on the wrong side only on leap-year, and this is not leap-year." I then asked him how they grew in common years and how on leap-years, but soon found that he knew absolutely nothing of how they grew at any time, but he stuck to his belief. After a time I heard from my first informant, who, with many apologies, said that he should not have written to me had he not heard the statement from several intelligent farmers; but that he had since spoken again to every one of them, and not one knew in the least what he had himself meant. So that here a belief--if indeed a statement with no definite idea attached to it can be called a belief--had spread over almost the whole of England without any vestige of evidence. I have known in the course of my life only three intentionally falsified statements, and one of these may have been a hoax (and there have been several scientific hoaxes) which, however, took in an American Agricultural Journal. It related to the formation in Holland of a new breed of oxen by the crossing of distinct species of Bos (some of which I happen to know are sterile together), and the author had the impudence to state that he had corresponded with me, and that I had been deeply impressed with the importance of his result. The article was sent to me by the editor of an English Agricultural Journal, asking for my opinion before republishing it. A second case was an account of several varieties, raised by the author from several species of Primula, which had spontaneously yielded a full complement of seed, although the parent plants had been carefully protected from the access of insects. This account was published before I had discovered the meaning of heterostylism, and the whole statement must have been fraudulent, or there was neglect in excluding insects so gross as to be scarcely credible. The third case was more curious: Mr. Huth published in his book on 'Consanguineous Marriage' some long extracts from a Belgian author, who stated that he had interbred rabbits in the closest manner for very many generations, without the least injurious effects. The account was published in a most respectable Journal, that of the Royal Society of Belgium; but I could not avoid feeling doubts--I hardly know why, except that there were no accidents of any kind, and my experience in breeding animals made me think this very improbable. So with much hesitation I wrote to Professor Van Beneden, asking him whether the author was a trustworthy man. I soon heard in answer that the Society had been greatly shocked by discovering that the whole account was a fraud. (The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth relied has been pointed out by himself in a slip inserted in all the copies of his book which then remained unsold.) The writer had been publicly challenged in the Journal to say where he had resided and kept his large stock of rabbits while carrying on his experiments, which must have consumed several years, and no answer could be extracted from him. My habits are methodical, and this has been of not a little use for my particular line of work. Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement. Therefore my success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been--the love of science--unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject--industry in observing and collecting facts--and a fair share of invention as well as of common sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some important points. CHAPTER 1.III. -- REMINISCENCES OF MY FATHER'S EVERYDAY LIFE. It is my wish in the present chapter to give some idea of my father's everyday life. It has seemed to me that I might carry out this object in the form of a rough sketch of a day's life at Down, interspersed with such recollections as are called up by the record. Many of these recollections, which have a meaning for those who knew my father, will seem colourless or trifling to strangers. Nevertheless, I give them in the hope that they may help to preserve that impression of his personality which remains on the minds of those who knew and loved him--an impression at once so vivid and so untranslatable into words. Of his personal appearance (in these days of multiplied photographs) it is hardly necessary to say much. He was about six feet in height, but scarcely looked so tall, as he stooped a good deal; in later days he yielded to the stoop; but I can remember seeing him long ago swinging his arms back to open out his chest, and holding himself upright with a jerk. He gave one the idea that he had been active rather than strong; his shoulders were not broad for his height, though certainly not narrow. As a young man he must have had much endurance, for on one of the shore excursions from the "Beagle", when all were suffering from want of water, he was one of the two who were better able than the rest to struggle on in search of it. As a boy he was active, and could jump a bar placed at the height of the "Adam's apple" in his neck. He walked with a swinging action, using a stick heavily shod with iron, which he struck loudly against the ground, producing as he went round the "Sand-walk" at Down, a rhythmical click which is with all of us a very distinct remembrance. As he returned from the midday walk, often carrying the waterproof or cloak which had proved too hot, one could see that the swinging step was kept up by something of an effort. Indoors his step was often slow and laboured, and as he went upstairs in the afternoon he might be heard mounting the stairs with a heavy footfall, as if each step were an effort. When interested in his work he moved about quickly and easily enough, and often in the middle of dictating he went eagerly into the hall to get a pinch of snuff, leaving the study door open, and calling out the last words of his sentence as he went. Indoors he sometimes used an oak stick like a little alpenstock, and this was a sign that he felt giddiness. In spite of his strength and activity, I think he must always have had a clumsiness of movement. He was naturally awkward with his hands, and was unable to draw at all well. (The figure representing the aggregated cell-contents in 'Insectivorous Plants' was drawn by him.) This he always regretted much, and he frequently urged the paramount necessity of a young naturalist making himself a good draughtsman. He could dissect well under the simple microscope, but I think it was by dint of his great patience and carefulness. It was characteristic of him that he thought many little bits of skilful dissection something almost superhuman. He used to speak with admiration of the skill with which he saw Newport dissect a humble bee, getting out the nervous system with a few cuts of a fine pair of scissors, held, as my father used to show, with the elbow raised, and in an attitude which certainly would render great steadiness necessary. He used to consider cutting sections a great feat, and in the last year of his life, with wonderful energy, took the pains to learn to cut sections of roots and leaves. His hand was not steady enough to hold the object to be cut, and he employed a common microtome, in which the pith for holding the object was clamped, and the razor slid on a glass surface in making the sections. He used to laugh at himself, and at his own skill in section-cutting, at which he would say he was "speechless with admiration." On the other hand, he must have had accuracy of eye and power of co-ordinating his movements, since he was a good shot with a gun as a young man, and as a boy was skilful in throwing. He once killed a hare sitting in the flower-garden at Shrewsbury by throwing a marble at it, and, as a man, he once killed a cross-beak with a stone. He was so unhappy at having uselessly killed the cross-beak that he did not mention it for years, and then explained that he should never have thrown at it if he had not felt sure that his old skill had gone from him. When walking he had a fidgetting movement with his fingers, which he has described in one of his books as the habit of an old man. When he sat still he often took hold of one wrist with the other hand; he sat with his legs crossed, and from being so thin they could be crossed very far, as may be seen in one of the photographs. He had his chair in the study and in the drawing-room raised so as to be much higher than ordinary chairs; this was done because sitting on a low or even an ordinary chair caused him some discomfort. We used to laugh at him for making his tall drawing-room chair still higher by putting footstools on it, and then neutralising the result by resting his feet on another chair. His beard was full and almost untrimmed, the hair being grey and white, fine rather than coarse, and wavy or frizzled. His moustache was somewhat disfigured by being cut short and square across. He became very bald, having only a fringe of dark hair behind. His face was ruddy in colour, and this perhaps made people think him less of an invalid than he was. He wrote to Dr. Hooker (June 13, 1849), "Every one tells me that I look quite blooming and beautiful; and most think I am shamming, but you have never been one of those." And it must be remembered that at this time he was miserably ill, far worse than in later years. His eyes were bluish grey under deep overhanging brows, with thick bushy projecting eyebrows. His high forehead was much wrinkled, but otherwise his face was not much marked or lined. His expression showed no signs of the continual discomfort he suffered. When he was excited with pleasant talk his whole manner was wonderfully bright and animated, and his face shared to the full in the general animation. His laugh was a free and sounding peal, like that of a man who gives himself sympathetically and with enjoyment to the person and the thing which have amused him. He often used some sort of gesture with his laugh, lifting up his hands or bringing one down with a slap. I think, generally speaking, he was given to gesture, and often used his hands in explaining anything (e.g. the fertilisation of a flower) in a way that seemed rather an aid to himself than to the listener. He did this on occasions when most people would illustrate their explanations by means of a rough pencil sketch. He wore dark clothes, of a loose and easy fit. Of late years he gave up the tall hat even in London, and wore a soft black one in winter, and a big straw hat in summer. His usual out-of-doors dress was the short cloak in which Elliot and Fry's photograph represents him leaning against the pillar of the verandah. Two peculiarities of his indoor dress were that he almost always wore a shawl over his shoulders, and that he had great loose cloth boots lined with fur which he could slip on over his indoor shoes. Like most delicate people he suffered from heat as well as from chilliness; it was as if he could not hit the balance between too hot and too cold; often a mental cause would make him too hot, so that he would take off his coat if anything went wrong in the course of his work. He rose early, chiefly because he could not lie in bed, and I think he would have liked to get up earlier than he did. He took a short turn before breakfast, a habit which began when he went for the first time to a water-cure establishment. This habit he kept up till almost the end of his life. I used, as a little boy, to like going out with him, and I have a vague sense of the red of the winter sunrise, and a recollection of the pleasant companionship, and a certain honour and glory in it. He used to delight me as a boy by telling me how, in still earlier walks, on dark winter mornings, he had once or twice met foxes trotting home at the dawning. After breakfasting alone about 7.45, he went to work at once, considering the 1 1/2 hour between 8 and 9.30 one of his best working times. At 9.30 he came into the drawing-room for his letters--rejoicing if the post was a light one and being sometimes much worried if it was not. He would then hear any family letters read aloud as he lay on the sofa. The reading aloud, which also included part of a novel, lasted till about half-past ten, when he went back to work till twelve or a quarter past. By this time he considered his day's work over, and would often say, in a satisfied voice, "I'VE done a good day's work." He then went out of doors whether it was wet or fine; Polly, his white terrier, went with him in fair weather, but in rain she refused or might be seen hesitating in the verandah, with a mixed expression of disgust and shame at her own want of courage; generally, however, her conscience carried the day, and as soon as he was evidently gone she could not bear to stay behind. My father was always fond of dogs, and as a young man had the power of stealing away the affections of his sister's pets; at Cambridge, he won the love of his cousin W.D. Fox's dog, and this may perhaps have been the little beast which used to creep down inside his bed and sleep at the foot every night. My father had a surly dog, who was devoted to him, but unfriendly to every one else, and when he came back from the "Beagle" voyage, the dog remembered him, but in a curious way, which my father was fond of telling. He went into the yard and shouted in his old manner; the dog rushed out and set off with him on his walk, showing no more emotion or excitement than if the same thing had happened the day before, instead of five years ago. This story is made use of in the 'Descent of Man,' 2nd Edition, page 74. In my memory there were only two dogs which had much connection with my father. One was a large black and white half-bred retriever, called Bob, to which we, as children, were much devoted. He was the dog of whom the story of the "hot-house face" is told in the 'Expression of the Emotions.' But the dog most closely associated with my father was the above-mentioned Polly, a rough, white fox-terrier. She was a sharp-witted, affectionate dog; when her master was going away on a journey, she always discovered the fact by the signs of packing going on in the study, and became low-spirited accordingly. She began, too, to be excited by seeing the study prepared for his return home. She was a cunning little creature, and used to tremble or put on an air of misery when my father passed, while she was waiting for dinner, just as if she knew that he would say (as he did often say) that "she was famishing." My father used to make her catch biscuits off her nose, and had an affectionate and mock-solemn way of explaining to her before-hand that she must "be a very good girl." She had a mark on her back where she had been burnt, and where the hair had re-grown red instead of white, and my father used to commend her for this tuft of hair as being in accordance with his theory of pangenesis; her father had been a red bull-terrier, thus the red hair appearing after the burn showed the presence of latent red gemmules. He was delightfully tender to Polly, and never showed any impatience at the attentions she required, such as to be let in at the door, or out at the verandah window, to bark at "naughty people," a self-imposed duty she much enjoyed. She died, or rather had to be killed, a few days after his death. (The basket in which she usually lay curled up near the fire in his study is faithfully represented in Mr. Parson's drawing, "The Study at Down.") My father's midday walk generally began by a call at the greenhouse, where he looked at any germinating seeds or experimental plants which required a casual examination, but he hardly ever did any serious observing at this time. Then he went on for his constitutional--either round the "Sand-walk," or outside his own grounds in the immediate neighbourhood of the house. The "Sand-walk" was a narrow strip of land 1 1/2 acres in extent, with a gravel-walk round it. On one side of it was a broad old shaw with fair-sized oaks in it, which made a sheltered shady walk; the other side was separated from a neighbouring grass field by a low quickset hedge, over which you could look at what view there was, a quiet little valley losing itself in the upland country towards the edge of the Westerham hill, with hazel coppice and larch wood, the remnants of what was once a large wood, stretching away to the Westerham road. I have heard my father say that the charm of this simple little valley helped to make him settle at Down. The Sand-walk was planted by my father with a variety of trees, such as hazel, alder, lime, hornbeam, birch, privet, and dogwood, and with a long line of hollies all down the exposed side. In earlier times he took a certain number of turns every day, and used to count them by means of a heap of flints, one of which he kicked out on the path each time he passed. Of late years I think he did not keep to any fixed number of turns, but took as many as he felt strength for. The Sand-walk was our play-ground as children, and here we continually saw my father as he walked round. He liked to see what we were doing, and was ever ready to sympathize in any fun that was going on. It is curious to think how, with regard to the Sand-walk in connection with my father, my earliest recollections coincide with my latest; it shows how unvarying his habits have been. Sometimes when alone he stood still or walked stealthily to observe birds or beasts. It was on one of these occasions that some young squirrels ran up his back and legs, while their mother barked at them in an agony from the tree. He always found birds' nests even up to the last years of his life, and we, as children, considered that he had a special genius in this direction. In his quiet prowls he came across the less common birds, but I fancy he used to conceal it from me, as a little boy, because he observed the agony of mind which I endured at not having seen the siskin or goldfinch, or whatever it might have been. He used to tell us how, when he was creeping noiselessly along in the "Big-Woods," he came upon a fox asleep in the daytime, which was so much astonished that it took a good stare at him before it ran off. A Spitz dog which accompanied him showed no sign of excitement at the fox, and he used to end the story by wondering how the dog could have been so faint-hearted. Another favourite place was "Orchis Bank," above the quiet Cudham valley, where fly- and musk-orchis grew among the junipers, and Cephalanthera and Neottia under the beech boughs; the little wood "Hangrove," just above this, he was also fond of, and here I remember his collecting grasses, when he took a fancy to make out the names of all the common kinds. He was fond of quoting the saying of one of his little boys, who, having found a grass that his father had not seen before, had it laid by his own plate during dinner, remarking, "I are an extraordinary grass-finder!" My father much enjoyed wandering slowly in the garden with my mother or some of his children, or making one of a party, sitting out on a bench on the lawn; he generally sat, however, on the grass, and I remember him often lying under one of the big lime-trees, with his head on the green mound at its foot. In dry summer weather, when we often sat out, the big fly-wheel of the well was commonly heard spinning round, and so the sound became associated with those pleasant days. He used to like to watch us playing at lawn-tennis, and often knocked up a stray ball for us with the curved handle of his stick. === Though he took no personal share in the management of the garden, he had great delight in the beauty of flowers--for instance, in the mass of Azaleas which generally stood in the drawing-room. I think he sometimes fused together his admiration of the structure of a flower and of its intrinsic beauty; for instance, in the case of the big pendulous pink and white flowers of Dielytra. In the same way he had an affection, half-artistic, half-botanical, for the little blue Lobelia. In admiring flowers, he would often laugh at the dingy high-art colours, and contrast them with the bright tints of nature. I used to like to hear him admire the beauty of a flower; it was a kind of gratitude to the flower itself, and a personal love for its delicate form and colour. I seem to remember him gently touching a flower he delighted in; it was the same simple admiration that a child might have. He could not help personifying natural things. This feeling came out in abuse as well as in praise--e.g. of some seedlings--"The little beggars are doing just what I don't want them to." He would speak in a half-provoked, half-admiring way of the ingenuity of a Mimosa leaf in screwing itself out of a basin of water in which he had tried to fix it. One must see the same spirit in his way of speaking of Sundew, earth-worms, etc. (Cf. Leslie Stephen's 'Swift,' 1882, page 200, where Swift's inspection of the manners and customs of servants are compared to my father's observations on worms, "The difference is," says Mr. Stephen, "that Darwin had none but kindly feelings for worms.") Within my memory, his only outdoor recreation, besides walking, was riding, which he took to on the recommendation of Dr. Bence Jones, and we had the luck to find for him the easiest and quietest cob in the world, named "Tommy." He enjoyed these rides extremely, and devised a number of short rounds which brought him home in time for lunch. Our country is good for this purpose, owing to the number of small valleys which give a variety to what in a flat country would be a dull loop of road. He was not, I think, naturally fond of horses, nor had he a high opinion of their intelligence, and Tommy was often laughed at for the alarm he showed at passing and repassing the same heap of hedge-clippings as he went round the field. I think he used to feel surprised at himself, when he remembered how bold a rider he had been, and how utterly old age and bad health had taken away his nerve. He would say that riding prevented him thinking much more effectually than walking--that having to attend to the horse gave him occupation sufficient to prevent any really hard thinking. And the change of scene which it gave him was good for spirits and health. Unluckily, Tommy one day fell heavily with him on Keston common. This, and an accident with another horse, upset his nerves, and he was advised to give up riding. If I go beyond my own experience, and recall what I have heard him say of his love for sport, etc., I can think of a good deal, but much of it would be a repetition of what is contained in his 'Recollections.' At school he was fond of bat-fives, and this was the only game at which he was skilful. He was fond of his gun as quite a boy, and became a good shot; he used to tell how in South America he killed twenty-three snipe in twenty-four shots. In telling the story he was careful to add that he thought they were not quite so wild as English snipe. Luncheon at Down came after his midday walk; and here I may say a word or two about his meals generally. He had a boy-like love of sweets, unluckily for himself, since he was constantly forbidden to take them. He was not particularly successful in keeping the "vows," as he called them, which he made against eating sweets, and never considered them binding unless he made them aloud. He drank very little wine, but enjoyed, and was revived by, the little he did drink. He had a horror of drinking, and constantly warned his boys that any one might be led into drinking too much. I remember, in my innocence as a small boy, asking him if he had been ever tipsy; and he answered very gravely that he was ashamed to say he had once drunk too much at Cambridge. I was much impressed, so that I know now the place where the question was asked. After his lunch, he read the newspaper, lying on the sofa in the drawing-room. I think the paper was the only non-scientific matter which he read to himself. Everything else, novels, travels, history, was read aloud to him. He took so wide an interest in life, that there was much to occupy him in newspapers, though he laughed at the wordiness of the debates; reading them, I think, only in abstract. His interest in politics was considerable, but his opinion on these matters was formed rather by the way than with any serious amount of thought. After he read his paper, came his time for writing letters. These, as well as the MS. of his books, were written by him as he sat in a huge horse-hair chair by the fire, his paper supported on a board resting on the arms of the chair. When he had many or long letters to write, he would dictate them from a rough copy; these rough copies were written on the backs of manuscript or of proof-sheets, and were almost illegible, sometimes even to himself. He made a rule of keeping ALL letters that he received; this was a habit which he learnt from his father, and which he said had been of great use to him. He received many letters from foolish, unscrupulous people, and all of these received replies. He used to say that if he did not answer them, he had it on his conscience afterwards, and no doubt it was in great measure the courtesy with which he answered every one, which produced the universal and widespread sense of his kindness of nature, which was so evident on his death. He was considerate to his correspondents in other and lesser things, for instance when dictating a letter to a foreigner he hardly ever failed to say to me, "You'd better try and write well, as it's to a foreigner." His letters were generally written on the assumption that they would be carelessly read; thus, when he was dictating, he was careful to tell me to make an important clause begin with an obvious paragraph "to catch his eye," as he often said. How much he thought of the trouble he gave others by asking questions, will be well enough shown by his letters. It is difficult to say anything about the general tone of his letters, they will speak for themselves. The unvarying courtesy of them is very striking. I had a proof of this quality in the feeling with which Mr. Hacon, his solicitor, regarded him. He had never seen my father, yet had a sincere feeling of friendship for him, and spoke especially of his letters as being such as a man seldom receives in the way of business:--"Everything I did was right, and everything was profusely thanked for." He had a printed form to be used in replying to troublesome correspondents, but he hardly ever used it; I suppose he never found an occasion that seemed exactly suitable. I remember an occasion on which it might have been used with advantage. He received a letter from a stranger stating that the writer had undertaken to uphold Evolution at a debating society, and that being a busy young man, without time for reading, he wished to have a sketch of my father's views. Even this wonderful young man got a civil answer, though I think he did not get much material for his speech. His rule was to thank the donors of books, but not of pamphlets. He sometimes expressed surprise that so few people thanked him for his books which he gave away liberally; the letters that he did receive gave him much pleasure, because he habitually formed so humble an estimate of the value of all his works, that he was generally surprised at the interest which they excited. In money and business matters he was remarkably careful and exact. He kept accounts with great care, classifying them, and balancing at the end of the year like a merchant. I remember the quick way in which he would reach out for his account-book to enter each cheque paid, as though he were in a hurry to get it entered before he had forgotten it. His father must have allowed him to believe that he would be poorer than he really was, for some of the difficulty experienced in finding a house in the country must have arisen from the modest sum he felt prepared to give. Yet he knew, of course, that he would be in easy circumstances, for in his 'Recollections' he mentions this as one of the reasons for his not having worked at medicine with so much zeal as he would have done if he had been obliged to gain his living. He had a pet economy in paper, but it was rather a hobby than a real economy. All the blank sheets of letters received were kept in a portfolio to be used in making notes; it was his respect for paper that made him write so much on the backs of his old MS., and in this way, unfortunately, he destroyed large parts of the original MS. of his books. His feeling about paper extended to waste paper, and he objected, half in fun, to the careless custom of throwing a spill into the fire after it had been used for lighting a candle. My father was wonderfully liberal and generous to all his children in the matter of money, and I have special cause to remember his kindness when I think of the way in which he paid some Cambridge debts of mine--making it almost seem a virtue in me to have told him of them. In his later years he had the kind and generous plan of dividing his surplus at the year's end among his children. He had a great respect for pure business capacity, and often spoke with admiration of a relative who had doubled his fortune. And of himself would often say in fun that what he really WAS proud of was the money he had saved. He also felt satisfaction in the money he made by his books. His anxiety to save came in a great measure from his fears that his children would not have health enough to earn their own livings, a foreboding which fairly haunted him for many years. And I have a dim recollection of his saying, "Thank God, you'll have bread and cheese," when I was so young that I was rather inclined to take it literally. When letters were finished, about three in the afternoon, he rested in his bedroom, lying on the sofa and smoking a cigarette, and listening to a novel or other book not scientific. He only smoked when resting, whereas snuff was a stimulant, and was taken during working hours. He took snuff for many years of his life, having learnt the habit at Edinburgh as a student. He had a nice silver snuff-box given him by Mrs. Wedgwood of Maer, which he valued much--but he rarely carried it, because it tempted him to take too many pinches. In one of his early letters he speaks of having given up snuff for a month, and describes himself as feeling "most lethargic, stupid, and melancholy." Our former neighbour and clergyman, Mr. Brodie Innes, tells me that at one time my father made a resolve not to take snuff except away from home, "a most satisfactory arrangement for me," he adds, "as I kept a box in my study to which there was access from the garden without summoning servants, and I had more frequently, than might have been otherwise the case, the privilege of a few minutes' conversation with my dear friend." He generally took snuff from a jar on the hall table, because having to go this distance for a pinch was a slight check; the clink of the lid of the snuff jar was a very familiar sound. Sometimes when he was in the drawing-room, it would occur to him that the study fire must be burning low, and when some of us offered to see after it, it would turn out that he also wished to get a pinch of snuff. Smoking he only took to permanently of late years, though on his Pampas rides he learned to smoke with the Gauchos, and I have heard him speak of the great comfort of a cup of mate and a cigarette when he halted after a long ride and was unable to get food for some time. The reading aloud often sent him to sleep, and he used to regret losing parts of a novel, for my mother went steadily on lest the cessation of the sound might wake him. He came down at four o'clock to dress for his walk, and he was so regular that one might be quite certain it was within a few minutes of four when his descending steps were heard. From about half-past four to half-past five he worked; then he came to the drawing-room, and was idle till it was time (about six) to go up for another rest with novel-reading and a cigarette. Latterly he gave up late dinner, and had a simple tea at half-past seven (while we had dinner), with an egg or a small piece of meat. After dinner he never stayed in the room, and used to apologise by saying he was an old woman, who must be allowed to leave with the ladies. This was one of the many signs and results of his constant weakness and ill-health. Half an hour more or less conversation would make to him the difference of a sleepless night, and of the loss perhaps of half the next day's work. After dinner he played backgammon with my mother, two games being played every night; for many years a score of the games which each won was kept, and in this score he took the greatest interest. He became extremely animated over these games, bitterly lamenting his bad luck and exploding with exaggerated mock-anger at my mother's good fortune. After backgammon he read some scientific book to himself, either in the drawing-room, or, if much talking was going on, in the study. In the evening, that is, after he had read as much as his strength would allow, and before the reading aloud began, he would often lie on the sofa and listen to my mother playing the piano. He had not a good ear, yet in spite of this he had a true love of fine music. He used to lament that his enjoyment of music had become dulled with age, yet within my recollection, his love of a good tune was strong. I never heard him hum more than one tune, the Welsh song "Ar hyd y nos," which he went through correctly; he used also, I believe, to hum a little Otaheitan song. From his want of ear he was unable to recognize a tune when he heard it again, but he remained constant to what he liked, and would often say, when an old favourite was played, "That's a fine thing; what is it?" He liked especially parts of Beethoven's symphonies, and bits of Handel. He made a little list of all the pieces which he especially liked among those which my mother played--giving in a few words the impression that each one made on him--but these notes are unfortunately lost. He was sensitive to differences in style, and enjoyed the late Mrs. Vernon Lushington's playing intensely, and in June 1881, when Hans Richter paid a visit at Down, he was roused to strong enthusiasm by his magnificent performance on the piano. He much enjoyed good singing, and was moved almost to tears by grand or pathetic songs. His niece Lady Farrer's singing of Sullivan's "Will he come" was a never-failing enjoyment to him. He was humble in the extreme about his own taste, and correspondingly pleased when he found that others agreed with him. He became much tired in the evenings, especially of late years, when he left the drawing-room about ten, going to bed at half-past ten. His nights were generally bad, and he often lay awake or sat up in bed for hours, suffering much discomfort. He was troubled at night by the activity of his thoughts, and would become exhausted by his mind working at some problem which he would willingly have dismissed. At night, too, anything which had vexed or troubled him in the day would haunt him, and I think it was then that he suffered if he had not answered some troublesome person's letter. The regular readings, which I have mentioned, continued for so many years, enabled him to get through a great deal of lighter kinds of literature. He was extremely fond of novels, and I remember well the way in which he would anticipate the pleasure of having a novel read to him, as he lay down, or lighted his cigarette. He took a vivid interest both in plot and characters, and would on no account know beforehand, how a story finished; he considered looking at the end of a novel as a feminine vice. He could not enjoy any story with a tragical end, for this reason he did not keenly appreciate George Eliot, though he often spoke warmly in praise of 'Silas Marner.' Walter Scott, Miss Austen, and Mrs. Gaskell, were read and re-read till they could be read no more. He had two or three books in hand at the same time--a novel and perhaps a biography and a book of travels. He did not often read out-of-the-way or old standard books, but generally kept to the books of the day obtained from a circulating library. I do not think that his literary tastes and opinions were on a level with the rest of his mind. He himself, though he was clear as to what he thought good, considered that in matters of literary taste, he was quite outside the pale, and often spoke of what those within it liked or disliked, as if they formed a class to which he had no claim to belong. In all matters of art he was inclined to laugh at professed critics, and say that their opinions were formed by fashion. Thus in painting, he would say how in his day every one admired masters who are now neglected. His love of pictures as a young man is almost a proof that he must have had an appreciation of a portrait as a work of art, not as a likeness. Yet he often talked laughingly of the small worth of portraits, and said that a photograph was worth any number of pictures, as if he were blind to the artistic quality in a painted portrait. But this was generally said in his attempts to persuade us to give up the idea of having his portrait painted, an operation very irksome to him. This way of looking at himself as an ignoramus in all matters of art, was strengthened by the absence of pretence, which was part of his character. With regard to questions of taste, as well as to more serious things, he always had the courage of his opinions. I remember, however, an instance that sounds like a contradiction to this: when he was looking at the Turners in Mr. Ruskin's bedroom, he did not confess, as he did afterwards, that he could make out absolutely nothing of what Mr. Ruskin saw in them. But this little pretence was not for his own sake, but for the sake of courtesy to his host. He was pleased and amused when subsequently Mr. Ruskin brought him some photographs of pictures (I think Vandyke portraits), and courteously seemed to value my father's opinion about them. Much of his scientific reading was in German, and this was a great labour to him; in reading a book after him, I was often struck at seeing, from the pencil-marks made each day where he left off, how little he could read at a time. He used to call German the "Verdammte," pronounced as if in English. He was especially indignant with Germans, because he was convinced that they could write simply if they chose, and often praised Dr. F. Hildebrand for writing German which was as clear as French. He sometimes gave a German sentence to a friend, a patriotic German lady, and used to laugh at her if she did not translate it fluently. He himself learnt German simply by hammering away with a dictionary; he would say that his only way was to read a sentence a great many times over, and at last the meaning occurred to him. When he began German long ago, he boasted of the fact (as he used to tell) to Sir J. Hooker, who replied, "Ah, my dear fellow, that's nothing; I've begun it many times." In spite of his want of grammar, he managed to get on wonderfully with German, and the sentences that he failed to make out were generally really difficult ones. He never attempted to speak German correctly, but pronounced the words as though they were English; and this made it not a little difficult to help him, when he read out a German sentence and asked for a translation. He certainly had a bad ear for vocal sounds, so that he found it impossible to perceive small differences in pronunciation. His wide interest in branches of science that were not specially his own was remarkable. In the biological sciences his doctrines make themselves felt so widely that there was something interesting to him in most departments of it. He read a good deal of many quite special works, and large parts of text books, such as Huxley's 'Invertebrate Anatomy,' or such a book as Balfour's 'Embryology,' where the detail, at any rate, was not specially in his own line. And in the case of elaborate books of the monograph type, though he did not make a study of them, yet he felt the strongest admiration for them. In the non-biological sciences he felt keen sympathy with work of which he could not really judge. For instance, he used to read nearly the whole of 'Nature,' though so much of it deals with mathematics and physics. I have often heard him say that he got a kind of satisfaction in reading articles which (according to himself) he could not understand. I wish I could reproduce the manner in which he would laugh at himself for it. It was remarkable, too, how he kept up his interest in subjects at which he had formerly worked. This was strikingly the case with geology. In one of his letters to Mr. Judd he begs him to pay him a visit, saying that since Lyell's death he hardly ever gets a geological talk. His observations, made only a few years before his death, on the upright pebbles in the drift at Southampton, and discussed in a letter to Mr. Geikie, afford another instance. Again, in the letters to Dr. Dohrn, he shows how his interest in barnacles remained alive. I think it was all due to the vitality and persistence of his mind--a quality I have heard him speak of as if he felt that he was strongly gifted in that respect. Not that he used any such phrases as these about himself, but he would say that he had the power of keeping a subject or question more or less before him for a great many years. The extent to which he possessed this power appears when we consider the number of different problems which he solved, and the early period at which some of them began to occupy him. It was a sure sign that he was not well when he was idle at any times other than his regular resting hours; for, as long as he remained moderately well, there was no break in the regularity of his life. Week-days and Sundays passed by alike, each with their stated intervals of work and rest. It is almost impossible, except for those who watched his daily life, to realise how essential to his well-being was the regular routine that I have sketched: and with what pain and difficulty anything beyond it was attempted. Any public appearance, even of the most modest kind, was an effort to him. In 1871 he went to the little village church for the wedding of his elder daughter, but he could hardly bear the fatigue of being present through the short service. The same may be said of the few other occasions on which he was present at similar ceremonies. I remember him many years ago at a christening; a memory which has remained with me, because to us children it seemed an extraordinary and abnormal occurrence. I remember his look most distinctly at his brother Erasmus's funeral, as he stood in the scattering of snow, wrapped in a long black funeral cloak, with a grave look of sad reverie. When, after an interval of many years, he again attended a meeting of the Linnean Society, it was felt to be, and was in fact, a serious undertaking; one not to be determined on without much sinking of heart, and hardly to be carried into effect without paying a penalty of subsequent suffering. In the same way a breakfast-party at Sir James Paget's, with some of the distinguished visitors to the Medical Congress (1881), was to him a severe exertion. The early morning was the only time at which he could make any effort of the kind, with comparative impunity. Thus it came about that the visits he paid to his scientific friends in London were by preference made as early as ten in the morning. For the same reason he started on his journeys by the earliest possible train, and used to arrive at the houses of relatives in London when they were beginning their day. He kept an accurate journal of the days on which he worked and those on which his ill health prevented him from working, so that it would be possible to tell how many were idle days in any given year. In this journal--a little yellow Lett's Diary, which lay open on his mantel-piece, piled on the diaries of previous years--he also entered the day on which he started for a holiday and that of his return. The most frequent holidays were visits of a week to London, either to his brother's house (6 Queen Anne Street), or to his daughter's (4 Bryanston Street). He was generally persuaded by my mother to take these short holidays, when it became clear from the frequency of "bad days," or from the swimming of his head, that he was being overworked. He went unwillingly, and tried to drive hard bargains, stipulating, for instance, that he should come home in five days instead of six. Even if he were leaving home for no more than a week, the packing had to be begun early on the previous day, and the chief part of it he would do himself. The discomfort of a journey to him was, at least latterly, chiefly in the anticipation, and in the miserable sinking feeling from which he suffered immediately before the start; even a fairly long journey, such as that to Coniston, tired him wonderfully little, considering how much an invalid he was; and he certainly enjoyed it in an almost boyish way, and to a curious extent. Although, as he has said, some of his aesthetic tastes had suffered a gradual decay, his love of scenery remained fresh and strong. Every walk at Coniston was a fresh delight, and he was never tired of praising the beauty of the broken hilly country at the head of the lake. One of the happy memories of this time [1879] is that of a delightful visit to Grasmere: "The perfect day," my sister writes, "and my father's vivid enjoyment and flow of spirits, form a picture in my mind that I like to think of. He could hardly sit still in the carriage for turning round and getting up to admire the view from each fresh point, and even in returning he was full of the beauty of Rydal Water, though he would not allow that Grasmere at all equalled his beloved Coniston." Besides these longer holidays, there were shorter visits to various relatives--to his brother-in-law's house, close to Leith Hill, and to his son near Southampton. He always particularly enjoyed rambling over rough open country, such as the commons near Leith Hill and Southampton, the heath-covered wastes of Ashdown Forest, or the delightful "Rough" near the house of his friend Sir Thomas Farrer. He never was quite idle even on these holidays, and found things to observe. At Hartfield he watched Drosera catching insects, etc.; at Torquay he observed the fertilisation of an orchid (Spiranthes), and also made out the relations of the sexes in Thyme. He was always rejoiced to get home after his holidays; he used greatly to enjoy the welcome he got from his dog Polly, who would get wild with excitement, panting, squeaking, rushing round the room, and jumping on and off the chairs; and he used to stoop down, pressing her face to his, letting her lick him, and speaking to her with a peculiarly tender, caressing voice. My father had the power of giving to these summer holidays a charm which was strongly felt by all his family. The pressure of his work at home kept him at the utmost stretch of his powers of endurance, and when released from it, he entered on a holiday with a youthfulness of enjoyment that made his companionship delightful; we felt that we saw more of him in a week's holiday than in a month at home. Some of these absences from home, however, had a depressing effect on him; when he had been previously much overworked it seemed as though the absence of the customary strain allowed him to fall into a peculiar condition of miserable health. Besides the holidays which I have mentioned, there were his visits to water-cure establishments. In 1849, when very ill, suffering from constant sickness, he was urged by a friend to try the water-cure, and at last agreed to go to Dr. Gully's establishment at Malvern. His letters to Mr. Fox show how much good the treatment did him; he seems to have thought that he had found a cure for his troubles, but, like all other remedies, it had only a transient effect on him. However, he found it, at first, so good for him that when he came home he built himself a douche-bath, and the butler learnt to be his bathman. He paid many visits to Moor Park, Dr. Lane's water-cure establishment in Surrey, not far from Aldershot. These visits were pleasant ones, and he always looked back to them with pleasure. Dr. Lane has given his recollections of my father in Dr. Richardson's 'Lecture on Charles Darwin,' October 22, 1882, from which I quote:-- "In a public institution like mine, he was surrounded, of course, by multifarious types of character, by persons of both sexes, mostly very different from himself--commonplace people, in short, as the majority are everywhere, but like to him at least in this, that they were fellow-creatures and fellow-patients. And never was any one more genial, more considerate, more friendly, more altogether charming than he universally was."...He "never aimed, as too often happens with good talkers, at monopolising the conversation. It was his pleasure rather to give and take, and he was as good a listener as a speaker. He never preached nor prosed, but his talk, whether grave or gay (and it was each by turns), was full of life and salt--racy, bright, and animated." Some idea of his relation to his family and his friends may be gathered from what has gone before; it would be impossible to attempt a complete account of these relationships, but a slightly fuller outline may not be out of place. Of his married life I cannot speak, save in the briefest manner. In his relationship towards my mother, his tender and sympathetic nature was shown in its most beautiful aspect. In her presence he found his happiness, and through her, his life,--which might have been overshadowed by gloom,--became one of content and quiet gladness. The 'Expression of the Emotions' shows how closely he watched his children; it was characteristic of him that (as I have heard him tell), although he was so anxious to observe accurately the expression of a crying child, his sympathy with the grief spoiled his observation. His note-book, in which are recorded sayings of his young children, shows his pleasure in them. He seemed to retain a sort of regretful memory of the childhoods which had faded away, and thus he wrote in his 'Recollections':--"When you were very young it was my delight to play with you all, and I think with a sigh that such days can never return." I may quote, as showing the tenderness of his nature, some sentences from an account of his little daughter Annie, written a few days after her death:-- "Our poor child, Annie, was born in Gower Street, on March 2, 1841, and expired at Malvern at mid-day on the 23rd of April, 1851. "I write these few pages, as I think in after years, if we live, the impressions now put down will recall more vividly her chief characteristics. From whatever point I look back at her, the main feature in her disposition which at once rises before me, is her buoyant joyousness, tempered by two other characteristics, namely, her sensitiveness, which might easily have been overlooked by a stranger, and her strong affection. Her joyousness and animal spirits radiated from her whole countenance, and rendered every movement elastic and full of life and vigour. It was delightful and cheerful to behold her. Her dear face now rises before me, as she used sometimes to come running downstairs with a stolen pinch of snuff for me her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure. Even when playing with her cousins, when her joyousness almost passed into boisterousness, a single glance of my eye, not of displeasure (for I thank God I hardly ever cast one on her), but of want of sympathy, would for some minutes alter her whole countenance. "The other point in her character, which made her joyousness and spirits so delightful, was her strong affection, which was of a most clinging, fondling nature. When quite a baby, this showed itself in never being easy without touching her mother, when in bed with her; and quite lately she would, when poorly, fondle for any length of time one of her mother's arms. When very unwell, her mother lying down beside her seemed to soothe her in a manner quite different from what it would have done to any of our other children. So, again, she would at almost any time spend half an hour in arranging my hair, 'making it,' as she called it, 'beautiful,' or in smoothing, the poor dear darling, my collar or cuffs--in short, in fondling me. "Beside her joyousness thus tempered, she was in her manners remarkably cordial, frank, open, straightforward, natural, and without any shade of reserve. Her whole mind was pure and transparent. One felt one knew her thoroughly and could trust her. I always thought, that come what might, we should have had in our old age at least one loving soul which nothing could have changed. All her movements were vigorous, active, and usually graceful. When going round the Sand-walk with me, although I walked fast, yet she often used to go before, pirouetting in the most elegant way, her dear face bright all the time with the sweetest smiles. Occasionally she had a pretty coquettish manner towards me, the memory of which is charming. She often used exaggerated language, and when I quizzed her by exaggerating what she had said, how clearly can I now see the little toss of the head, and exclamation of 'Oh, papa what a shame of you!' In the last short illness her conduct in simple truth was angelic. She never once complained; never became fretful; was ever considerate of others, and was thankful in the most gentle, pathetic manner for everything done for her. When so exhausted that she could hardly speak, she praised everything that was given her, and said some tea 'was beautifully good.' When I gave her some water she said, 'I quite thank you;' and these, I believe, were the last precious words ever addressed by her dear lips to me. "We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age. She must have known how we loved her. Oh, that she could now know how deeply, how tenderly, we do still and shall ever love her dear joyous face! Blessings on her! "April 30, 1851." We his children all took especial pleasure in the games he played at with us, but I do not think he romped much with us; I suppose his health prevented any rough play. He used sometimes to tell us stories, which were considered especially delightful, partly on account of their rarity. The way he brought us up is shown by a little story about my brother Leonard, which my father was fond of telling. He came into the drawing-room and found Leonard dancing about on the sofa, which was forbidden, for the sake of the springs, and said, "Oh, Lenny, Lenny, that's against all rules," and received for answer, "Then I think you'd better go out of the room." I do not believe he ever spoke an angry word to any of his children in his life; but I am certain that it never entered our heads to disobey him. I well remember one occasion when my father reproved me for a piece of carelessness; and I can still recall the feeling of depression which came over me, and the care which he took to disperse it by speaking to me soon afterwards with especial kindness. He kept up his delightful, affectionate manner towards us all his life. I sometimes wonder that he could do so, with such an undemonstrative race as we are; but I hope he knew how much we delighted in his loving words and manner. How often, when a man, I have wished when my father was behind my chair, that he would pass his hand over my hair, as he used to do when I was a boy. He allowed his grown-up children to laugh with and at him, and was, generally speaking, on terms of perfect equality with us. He was always full of interest about each one's plans or successes. We used to laugh at him, and say he would not believe in his sons, because, for instance, he would be a little doubtful about their taking some bit of work for which he did not feel sure that they had knowledge enough. On the other hand, he was only too much inclined to take a favourable view of our work. When I thought he had set too high a value on anything that I had done, he used to be indignant and inclined to explode in mock anger. His doubts were part of his humility concerning what was in any way connected with himself; his too favourable view of our work was due to his sympathetic nature, which made him lenient to every one. He kept up towards his children his delightful manner of expressing his thanks; and I never wrote a letter, or read a page aloud to him, without receiving a few kind words of recognition. His love and goodness towards his little grandson Bernard were great; and he often spoke of the pleasure it was to him to see "his little face opposite to him" at luncheon. He and Bernard used to compare their tastes; e.g., in liking brown sugar better than white, etc.; the result being, "We always agree, don't we?" My sister writes:-- "My first remembrances of my father are of the delights of his playing with us. He was passionately attached to his own children, although he was not an indiscriminate child-lover. To all of us he was the most delightful play-fellow, and the most perfect sympathiser. Indeed it is impossible adequately to describe how delightful a relation his was to his family, whether as children or in their later life. "It is a proof of the terms on which we were, and also of how much he was valued as a play-fellow, that one of his sons when about four years old tried to bribe him with sixpence to come and play in working hours. We all knew the sacredness of working-time, but that any one should resist sixpence seemed an impossibility. "He must have been the most patient and delightful of nurses. I remember the haven of peace and comfort it seemed to me when I was unwell, to be tucked up on the study sofa, idly considering the old geological map hung on the wall. This must have been in his working hours, for I always picture him sitting in the horsehair arm-chair by the corner of the fire. "Another mark of his unbounded patience was the way in which we were suffered to make raids into the study when we had an absolute need of sticking-plaster, string, pins, scissors, stamps, foot-rule, or hammer. These and other such necessaries were always to be found in the study, and it was the only place where this was a certainty. We used to feel it wrong to go in during work-time; still, when the necessity was great we did so. I remember his patient look when he said once, 'Don't you think you could not come in again, I have been interrupted very often.' We used to dread going in for sticking-plaster, because he disliked to see that we had cut ourselves, both for our sakes and on account of his acute sensitiveness to the sight of blood. I well remember lurking about the passage till he was safe away, and then stealing in for the plaster. "Life seems to me, as I look back upon it, to have been very regular in those early days, and except relations (and a few intimate friends), I do not think any one came to the house. After lessons, we were always free to go where we would, and that was chiefly in the drawing-room and about the garden, so that we were very much with both my father and mother. We used to think it most delightful when he told us any stories about the 'Beagle', or about early Shrewsbury days--little bits about school-life and his boyish tastes. Sometimes too he read aloud to his children such books as Scott's novels, and I remember a few little lectures on the steam-engine. "I was more or less ill during the five years between my thirteenth and eighteenth years, and for a long time (years it seems to me) he used to play a couple of games of backgammon with me every afternoon. He played them with the greatest spirit, and I remember we used at one time to keep account of the games, and as this record came out in favour of him, we kept a list of the doublets thrown by each, as I was convinced that he threw better than myself. "His patience and sympathy were boundless during this weary illness, and sometimes when most miserable I felt his sympathy to be almost too keen. When at my worst, we went to my aunt's house at Hartfield, in Sussex, and as soon as we had made the move safely he went on to Moor Park for a fortnight's water-cure. I can recall now how on his return I could hardly bear to have him in the room, the expression of tender sympathy and emotion in his face was too agitating, coming fresh upon me after his little absence. "He cared for all our pursuits and interests, and lived our lives with us in a way that very few fathers do. But I am certain that none of us felt that this intimacy interfered the least with our respect or obedience. Whatever he said was absolute truth and law to us. He always put his whole mind into answering any of our questions. One trifling instance makes me feel how he cared for what we cared for. He had no special taste for cats, though he admired the pretty ways of a kitten. But yet he knew and remembered the individualities of my many cats, and would talk about the habits and characters of the more remarkable ones years after they had died. "Another characteristic of his treatment of his children was his respect for their liberty, and for their personality. Even as quite a girl, I remember rejoicing in this sense of freedom. Our father and mother would not even wish to know what we were doing or thinking unless we wished to tell. He always made us feel that we were each of us creatures whose opinions and thoughts were valuable to him, so that whatever there was best in us came out in the sunshine of his presence. "I do not think his exaggerated sense of our good qualities, intellectual or moral, made us conceited, as might perhaps have been expected, but rather more humble and grateful to him. The reason being no doubt that the influence of his character, of his sincerity and greatness of nature, had a much deeper and more lasting effect than any small exaltation which his praises or admiration may have caused to our vanity." As head of a household he was much loved and respected; he always spoke to servants with politeness, using the expression, "would you be so good," in asking for anything. He was hardly ever angry with his servants; it shows how seldom this occurred, that when, as a small boy, I overheard a servant being scolded, and my father speaking angrily, it impressed me as an appalling circumstance, and I remember running up stairs out of a general sense of awe. He did not trouble himself about the management of the garden, cows, etc. He considered the horses so little his concern, that he used to ask doubtfully whether he might have a horse and cart to send to Keston for Drosera, or to the Westerham nurseries for plants, or the like. As a host my father had a peculiar charm: the presence of visitors excited him, and made him appear to his best advantage. At Shrewsbury, he used to say, it was his father's wish that the guests should be attended to constantly, and in one of the letters to Fox he speaks of the impossibility of writing a letter while the house was full of company. I think he always felt uneasy at not doing more for the entertainment of his guests, but the result was successful; and, to make up for any loss, there was the gain that the guests felt perfectly free to do as they liked. The most usual visitors were those who stayed from Saturday till Monday; those who remained longer were generally relatives, and were considered to be rather more my mother's affair than his. Besides these visitors, there were foreigners and other strangers, who came down for luncheon and went away in the afternoon. He used conscientiously to represent to them the enormous distance of Down from London, and the labour it would be to come there, unconsciously taking for granted that they would find the journey as toilsome as he did himself. If, however, they were not deterred, he used to arrange their journeys for them, telling them when to come, and practically when to go. It was pleasant to see the way in which he shook hands with a guest who was being welcomed for the first time; his hand used to shoot out in a way that gave one the feeling that it was hastening to meet the guest's hands. With old friends his hand came down with a hearty swing into the other hand in a way I always had satisfaction in seeing. His good-bye was chiefly characterised by the pleasant way in which he thanked his guests, as he stood at the door, for having come to see him. These luncheons were very successful entertainments, there was no drag or flagging about them, my father was bright and excited throughout the whole visit. Professor De Candolle has described a visit to Down, in his admirable and sympathetic sketch of my father. ('Darwin considere au point de vue des causes de son succes.'--Geneva, 1882.) He speaks of his manner as resembling that of a "savant" of Oxford or Cambridge. This does not strike me as quite a good comparison; in his ease and naturalness there was more of the manner of some soldiers; a manner arising from total absence of pretence or affectation. It was this absence of pose, and the natural and simple way in which he began talking to his guests, so as to get them on their own lines, which made him so charming a host to a stranger. His happy choice of matter for talk seemed to flow out of his sympathetic nature, and humble, vivid interest in other people's work. To some, I think, he caused actual pain by his modesty; I have seen the late Francis Balfour quite discomposed by having knowledge ascribed to himself on a point about which my father claimed to be utterly ignorant. It is difficult to seize on the characteristics of my father's conversation. He had more dread than have most people of repeating his stories, and continually said, "You must have heard me tell," or "I dare say I've told you." One peculiarity he had, which gave a curious effect to his conversation. The first few words of a sentence would often remind him of some exception to, or some reason against, what he was going to say; and this again brought up some other point, so that the sentence would become a system of parenthesis within parenthesis, and it was often impossible to understand the drift of what he was saying until he came to the end of his sentence. He used to say of himself that he was not quick enough to hold an argument with any one, and I think this was true. Unless it was a subject on which he was just then at work, he could not get the train of argument into working order quickly enough. This is shown even in his letters; thus, in the case of two letters to Prof. Semper about the effect of isolation, he did not recall the series of facts he wanted until some days after the first letter had been sent off. When puzzled in talking, he had a peculiar stammer on the first word of a sentence. I only recall this occurring with words beginning with w; possibly he had a special difficulty with this letter, for I have heard him say that as a boy he could not pronounce w, and that sixpence was offered him if he could say "white wine," which he pronounced "rite rine." Possibly he may have inherited this tendency from Erasmus Darwin, who stammered. (My father related a Johnsonian answer of Erasmus Darwin's: "Don't you find it very inconvenient stammering, Dr. Darwin?" "No, sir, because I have time to think before I speak, and don't ask impertinent questions.") He sometimes combined his metaphors in a curious way, using such a phrase as "holding on like life,"--a mixture of "holding on for his life," and "holding on like grim death." It came from his eager way of putting emphasis into what he was saying. This sometimes gave an air of exaggeration where it was not intended; but it gave, too, a noble air of strong and generous conviction; as, for instance, when he gave his evidence before the Royal Commission on vivisection and came out with his words about cruelty, "It deserves detestation and abhorrence." When he felt strongly about any similar question, he could hardly trust himself to speak, as he then easily became angry, a thing which he disliked excessively. He was conscious that his anger had a tendency to multiply itself in the utterance, and for this reason dreaded (for example) having to scold a servant. It was a great proof of the modesty of his style of talking, that, when, for instance, a number of visitors came over from Sir John Lubbock's for a Sunday afternoon call he never seemed to be preaching or lecturing, although he had so much of the talk to himself. He was particularly charming when "chaffing" any one, and in high spirits over it. His manner at such times was light-hearted and boyish, and his refinement of nature came out most strongly. So, when he was talking to a lady who pleased and amused him, the combination of raillery and deference in his manner was delightful to see. When my father had several guests he managed them well, getting a talk with each, or bringing two or three together round his chair. In these conversations there was always a good deal of fun, and, speaking generally, there was either a humorous turn in his talk, or a sunny geniality which served instead. Perhaps my recollection of a pervading element of humour is the more vivid, because the best talks were with Mr. Huxley, in whom there is the aptness which is akin to humour, even when humour itself is not there. My father enjoyed Mr. Huxley's humour exceedingly, and would often say, "What splendid fun Huxley is!" I think he probably had more scientific argument (of the nature of a fight) with Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker. He used to say that it grieved him to find that for the friends of his later life he had not the warm affection of his youth. Certainly in his early letters from Cambridge he gives proofs of very strong friendship for Herbert and Fox; but no one except himself would have said that his affection for his friends was not, throughout life, of the warmest possible kind. In serving a friend he would not spare himself, and precious time and strength were willingly given. He undoubtedly had, to an unusual degree, the power of attaching his friends to him. He had many warm friendships, but to Sir Joseph Hooker he was bound by ties of affection stronger than we often see among men. He wrote in his 'Recollections,' "I have known hardly any man more lovable than Hooker." His relationship to the village people was a pleasant one; he treated them, one and all, with courtesy, when he came in contact with them, and took an interest in all relating to their welfare. Some time after he came to live at Down he helped to found a Friendly Club, and served as treasurer for thirty years. He took much trouble about the club, keeping its accounts with minute and scrupulous exactness, and taking pleasure in its prosperous condition. Every Whit-Monday the club used to march round with band and banner, and paraded on the lawn in front of the house. There he met them, and explained to them their financial position in a little speech seasoned with a few well worn jokes. He was often unwell enough to make even this little ceremony an exertion, but I think he never failed to meet them. He was also treasurer of the Coal Club, which gave him some work, and he acted for some years as a County Magistrate. With regard to my father's interest in the affairs of the village, Mr. Brodie Innes has been so good as to give me his recollections:-- "On my becoming Vicar of Down in 1846, we became friends, and so continued till his death. His conduct towards me and my family was one of unvarying kindness, and we repaid it by warm affection. "In all parish matters he was an active assistant; in matters connected with the schools, charities, and other business, his liberal contribution was ever ready, and in the differences which at times occurred in that, as in other parishes, I was always sure of his support. He held that where there was really no important objection, his assistance should be given to the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances best, and was chiefly responsible." His intercourse with strangers was marked with scrupulous and rather formal politeness, but in fact he had few opportunities of meeting strangers. Dr. Lane has described (Lecture by Dr. B.W. Richardson, in St. George's Hall, October 22, 1882.) how, on the rare occasion of my father attending a lecture (Dr. Sanderson's) at the Royal Institution, "the whole assembly...rose to their feet to welcome him," while he seemed "scarcely conscious that such an outburst of applause could possibly be intended for himself." The quiet life he led at Down made him feel confused in a large society; for instance, at the Royal Society's soirees he felt oppressed by the numbers. The feeling that he ought to know people, and the difficulty he had in remembering faces in his latter years, also added to his discomfort on such occasions. He did not realise that he would be recognised from his photographs, and I remember his being uneasy at being obviously recognised by a stranger at the Crystal Palace Aquarium. I must say something of his manner of working: one characteristic of it was his respect for time; he never forgot how precious it was. This was shown, for instance, in the way in which he tried to curtail his holidays; also, and more clearly, with respect to shorter periods. He would often say, that saving the minutes was the way to get work done; he showed his love of saving the minutes in the difference he felt between a quarter of an hour and ten minutes' work; he never wasted a few spare minutes from thinking that it was not worth while to set to work. I was often struck by his way of working up to the very limit of his strength, so that he suddenly stopped in dictating, with the words, "I believe I mustn't do any more." The same eager desire not to lose time was seen in his quick movements when at work. I particularly remember noticing this when he was making an experiment on the roots of beans, which required some care in manipulation; fastening the little bits of card upon the roots was done carefully and necessarily slowly, but the intermediate movements were all quick; taking a fresh bean, seeing that the root was healthy, impaling it on a pin, fixing it on a cork, and seeing that it was vertical, etc; all these processes were performed with a kind of restrained eagerness. He always gave one the impression of working with pleasure, and not with any drag. I have an image, too, of him as he recorded the result of some experiment, looking eagerly at each root, etc., and then writing with equal eagerness. I remember the quick movement of his head up and down as he looked from the object to the notes. He saved a great deal of time through not having to do things twice. Although he would patiently go on repeating experiments where there was any good to be gained, he could not endure having to repeat an experiment which ought, if complete care had been taken, to have succeeded the first time--and this gave him a continual anxiety that the experiment should not be wasted; he felt the experiment to be sacred, however slight a one it was. He wished to learn as much as possible from an experiment, so that he did not confine himself to observing the single point to which the experiment was directed, and his power of seeing a number of other things was wonderful. I do not think he cared for preliminary or rough observation intended to serve as guides and to be repeated. Any experiment done was to be of some use, and in this connection I remember how strongly he urged the necessity of keeping the notes of experiments which failed, and to this rule he always adhered. In the literary part of his work he had the same horror of losing time, and the same zeal in what he was doing at the moment, and this made him careful not to be obliged unnecessarily to read anything a second time. His natural tendency was to use simple methods and few instruments. The use of the compound microscope has much increased since his youth, and this at the expense of the simple one. It strikes us nowadays as extraordinary that he should have had no compound microscope when he went his "Beagle" voyage; but in this he followed the advice of Robt. Brown, who was an authority in such matters. He always had a great liking for the simple microscope, and maintained that nowadays it was too much neglected, and that one ought always to see as much as possible with the simple before taking to the compound microscope. In one of his letters he speaks on this point, and remarks that he always suspects the work of a man who never uses the simple microscope. His dissecting table was a thick board, let into a window of the study; it was lower than an ordinary table, so that he could not have worked at it standing; but this, from wishing to save his strength, he would not have done in any case. He sat at his dissecting-table on a curious low stool which had belonged to his father, with a seat revolving on a vertical spindle, and mounted on large castors, so that he could turn easily from side to side. His ordinary tools, etc., were lying about on the table, but besides these a number of odds and ends were kept in a round table full of radiating drawers, and turning on a vertical axis, which stood close by his left side, as he sat at his microscope-table. The drawers were labelled, "best tools," "rough tools," "specimens," "preparations for specimens," etc. The most marked peculiarity of the contents of these drawers was the care with which little scraps and almost useless things were preserved; he held the well-known belief, that if you threw a thing away you were sure to want it directly--and so things accumulated. If any one had looked at his tools, etc., lying on the table, he would have been struck by an air of simpleness, make-shift, and oddness. At his right hand were shelves, with a number of other odds and ends, glasses, saucers, tin biscuit boxes for germinating seeds, zinc labels, saucers full of sand, etc., etc. Considering how tidy and methodical he was in essential things, it is curious that he bore with so many make-shifts: for instance, instead of having a box made of a desired shape, and stained black inside, he would hunt up something like what he wanted and get it darkened inside with shoe-blacking; he did not care to have glass covers made for tumblers in which he germinated seeds, but used broken bits of irregular shape, with perhaps a narrow angle sticking uselessly out on one side. But so much of his experimenting was of a simple kind, that he had no need for any elaboration, and I think his habit in this respect was in great measure due to his desire to husband his strength, and not waste it on inessential things. His way of marking objects may here be mentioned. If he had a number of things to distinguish, such as leaves, flowers, etc., he tied threads of different colours round them. In particular he used this method when he had only two classes of objects to distinguish; thus in the case of crossed and self-fertilised flowers, one set would be marked with black and one with white thread, tied round the stalk of the flower. I remember well the look of two sets of capsules, gathered and waiting to be weighed, counted, etc., with pieces of black and of white thread to distinguish the trays in which they lay. When he had to compare two sets of seedlings, sowed in the same pot, he separated them by a partition of zinc-plate; and the zinc label, which gave the necessary details about the experiment, was always placed on a certain side, so that it became instinctive with him to know without reading the label which were the "crossed" and which were the "self-fertilised." His love of each particular experiment, and his eager zeal not to lose the fruit of it, came out markedly in these crossing experiments--in the elaborate care he took not to make any confusion in putting capsules into wrong trays, etc., etc. I can recall his appearance as he counted seeds under the simple microscope with an alertness not usually characterising such mechanical work as counting. I think he personified each seed as a small demon trying to elude him by getting into the wrong heap, or jumping away altogether; and this gave to the work the excitement of a game. He had great faith in instruments, and I do not think it naturally occurred to him to doubt the accuracy of a scale or measuring glass, etc. He was astonished when we found that one of his micrometers differed from the other. He did not require any great accuracy in most of his measurements, and had not good scales; he had an old three-foot rule, which was the common property of the household, and was constantly being borrowed, because it was the only one which was certain to be in its place--unless, indeed, the last borrower had forgotten to put it back. For measuring the height of plants he had a seven-foot deal rod, graduated by the village carpenter. Latterly he took to using paper scales graduated to millimeters. For small objects he used a pair of compasses and an ivory protractor. It was characteristic of him that he took scrupulous pains in making measurements with his somewhat rough scales. A trifling example of his faith in authority is that he took his "inch in terms of millimeters" from an old book, in which it turned out to be inaccurately given. He had a chemical balance which dated from the days when he worked at chemistry with his brother Erasmus. Measurements of capacity were made with an apothecary's measuring glass: I remember well its rough look and bad graduation. With this, too, I remember the great care he took in getting the fluid-line on to the graduation. I do not mean by this account of his instruments that any of his experiments suffered from want of accuracy in measurement, I give them as examples of his simple methods and faith in others--faith at least in instrument-makers, whose whole trade was a mystery to him. A few of his mental characteristics, bearing especially on his mode of working, occur to me. There was one quality of mind which seemed to be of special and extreme advantage in leading him to make discoveries. It was the power of never letting exceptions pass unnoticed. Everybody notices a fact as an exception when it is striking or frequent, but he had a special instinct for arresting an exception. A point apparently slight and unconnected with his present work is passed over by many a man almost unconsciously with some half-considered explanation, which is in fact no explanation. It was just these things that he seized on to make a start from. In a certain sense there is nothing special in this procedure, many discoveries being made by means of it. I only mention it because, as I watched him at work, the value of this power to an experimenter was so strongly impressed upon me. Another quality which was shown in his experimental works was his power of sticking to a subject; he used almost to apologise for his patience, saying that he could not bear to be beaten, as if this were rather a sign of weakness on his part. He often quoted the saying, "It's dogged as does it;" and I think doggedness expresses his frame of mind almost better than perseverance. Perseverance seems hardly to express his almost fierce desire to force the truth to reveal itself. He often said that it was important that a man should know the right point at which to give up an inquiry. And I think it was his tendency to pass this point that inclined him to apologise for his perseverance, and gave the air of doggedness to his work. He often said that no one could be a good observer unless he was an active theoriser. This brings me back to what I said about his instinct for arresting exceptions: it was as though he were charged with theorising power ready to flow into any channel on the slightest disturbance, so that no fact, however small, could avoid releasing a stream of theory, and thus the fact became magnified into importance. In this way it naturally happened that many untenable theories occurred to him; but fortunately his richness of imagination was equalled by his power of judging and condemning the thoughts that occurred to him. He was just to his theories, and did not condemn them unheard; and so it happened that he was willing to test what would seem to most people not at all worth testing. These rather wild trials he called "fool's experiments," and enjoyed extremely. As an example I may mention that finding the cotyledons of Biophytum to be highly sensitive to vibrations of the table, he fancied that they might perceive the vibrations of sound, and therefore made me play my bassoon close to a plant. (This is not so much an example of superabundant theorising from a small cause, but only of his wish to test the most improbable ideas.) The love of experiment was very strong in him, and I can remember the way he would say, "I shan't be easy till I have tried it," as if an outside force were driving him. He enjoyed experimenting much more than work which only entailed reasoning, and when he was engaged on one of his books which required argument and the marshalling of facts, he felt experimental work to be a rest or holiday. Thus, while working upon the 'Variations of Animals and Plants,' in 1860-61, he made out the fertilisation of Orchids, and thought himself idle for giving so much time to them. It is interesting to think that so important a piece of research should have been undertaken and largely worked out as a pastime in place of more serious work. The letters to Hooker of this period contain expressions such as, "God forgive me for being so idle; I am quite sillily interested in this work." The intense pleasure he took in understanding the adaptations for fertilisation is strongly shown in these letters. He speaks in one of his letters of his intention of working at Drosera as a rest from the 'Descent of Man.' He has described in his 'Recollections' the strong satisfaction he felt in solving the problem of heterostylism. And I have heard him mention that the Geology of South America gave him almost more pleasure than anything else. It was perhaps this delight in work requiring keen observation that made him value praise given to his observing powers almost more than appreciation of his other qualities. For books he had no respect, but merely considered them as tools to be worked with. Thus he did not bind them, and even when a paper book fell to pieces from use, as happened to Muller's 'Befruchtung,' he preserved it from complete dissolution by putting a metal clip over its back. In the same way he would cut a heavy book in half, to make it more convenient to hold. He used to boast that he made Lyell publish the second edition of one of his books in two volumes instead of one, by telling him how he had been obliged to cut it in half. Pamphlets were often treated even more severely than books, for he would tear out, for the sake of saving room, all the pages except the one that interested him. The consequence of all this was, that his library was not ornamental, but was striking from being so evidently a working collection of books. He was methodical in his manner of reading books and pamphlets bearing on his own work. He had one shelf on which were piled up the books he had not yet read, and another to which they were transferred after having been read, and before being catalogued. He would often groan over his unread books, because there were so many which he knew he should never read. Many a book was at once transferred to the other heap, either marked with a cypher at the end, to show that it contained no marked passages, or inscribed, perhaps, "not read," or "only skimmed." The books accumulated in the "read" heap until the shelves overflowed, and then, with much lamenting, a day was given up to the cataloguing. He disliked this work, and as the necessity of undertaking the work became imperative, would often say, in a voice of despair, "We really must do these books soon." In each book, as he read it, he marked passages bearing on his work. In reading a book or pamphlet, etc., he made pencil-lines at the side of the page, often adding short remarks, and at the end made a list of the pages marked. When it was to be catalogued and put away, the marked pages were looked at, and so a rough abstract of the book was made. This abstract would perhaps be written under three or four headings on different sheets, the facts being sorted out and added to the previously collected facts in different subjects. He had other sets of abstracts arranged, not according to subject, but according to periodical. When collecting facts on a large scale, in earlier years, he used to read through, and make abstracts, in this way, of whole series of periodicals. In some of his early letters he speaks of filling several note-books with facts for his book on species; but it was certainly early that he adopted his plan of using portfolios as described in the 'Recollections.' (The racks on which the portfolios were placed are shown in the illustration, "The Study at Down," in the recess at the right-hand side of the fire-place.) My father and M. de Candolle were mutually pleased to discover that they had adopted the same plan of classifying facts. De Candolle describes the method in his 'Phytologie,' and in his sketch of my father mentions the satisfaction he felt in seeing it in action at Down. Besides these portfolios, of which there are some dozens full of notes, there are large bundles of MS. marked "used" and put away. He felt the value of his notes, and had a horror of their destruction by fire. I remember, when some alarm of fire had happened, his begging me to be especially careful, adding very earnestly, that the rest of his life would be miserable if his notes and books were to be destroyed. He shows the same feeling in writing about the loss of a manuscript, the purport of his words being, "I have a copy, or the loss would have killed me." In writing a book he would spend much time and labour in making a skeleton or plan of the whole, and in enlarging and sub-classing each heading, as described in his 'Recollections.' I think this careful arrangement of the plan was not at all essential to the building up of his argument, but for its presentment, and for the arrangement of his facts. In his 'Life of Erasmus Darwin,' as it was first printed in slips, the growth of the book from a skeleton was plainly visible. The arrangement was altered afterwards, because it was too formal and categorical, and seemed to give the character of his grandfather rather by means of a list of qualities than as a complete picture. It was only within the last few years that he adopted a plan of writing which he was convinced suited him best, and which is described in the 'Recollections;' namely, writing a rough copy straight off without the slightest attention to style. It was characteristic of him that he felt unable to write with sufficient want of care if he used his best paper, and thus it was that he wrote on the backs of old proofs or manuscript. The rough copy was then reconsidered, and a fair copy was made. For this purpose he had foolscap paper ruled at wide intervals, the lines being needed to prevent him writing so closely that correction became difficult. The fair copy was then corrected, and was recopied before being sent to the printers. The copying was done by Mr. E. Norman, who began this work many years ago when village schoolmaster at Down. My father became so used to Mr. Norman's hand-writing, that he could not correct manuscript, even when clearly written out by one of his children, until it had been recopied by Mr. Norman. The MS., on returning from Mr. Norman was once more corrected, and then sent off to the printers. Then came the work of revising and correcting the proofs, which my father found especially wearisome. It was at this stage that he first seriously considered the style of what he had written. When this was going on he usually started some other piece of work as a relief. The correction of slips consisted in fact of two processes, for the corrections were first written in pencil, and then re-considered and written in ink. When the book was passing through the "slip" stage he was glad to have corrections and suggestions from others. Thus my mother looked over the proofs of the 'Origin.' In some of the later works my sister, Mrs. Litchfield, did much of the correction. After my sister's marriage perhaps most of the work fell to my share. My sister, Mrs. Litchfield, writes:-- "This work was very interesting in itself, and it was inexpressibly exhilarating to work for him. He was always so ready to be convinced that any suggested alteration was an improvement, and so full of gratitude for the trouble taken. I do not think that he ever used to forget to tell me what improvement he thought that I had made, and he used almost to excuse himself if he did not agree with any correction. I think I felt the singular modesty and graciousness of his nature through thus working for him in a way I never should otherwise have done. "He did not write with ease, and was apt to invert his sentences both in writing and speaking, putting the qualifying clause before it was clear what it was to qualify. He corrected a great deal, and was eager to express himself as well as he possibly could." Perhaps the commonest corrections needed were of obscurities due to the omission of a necessary link in the reasoning, something which he had evidently omitted through familiarity with the subject. Not that there was any fault in the sequence of the thoughts, but that from familiarity with his argument he did not notice when the words failed to reproduce his thought. He also frequently put too much matter into one sentence, so that it had to be cut up into two. On the whole, I think the pains which my father took over the literary part of the work was very remarkable. He often laughed or grumbled at himself for the difficulty which he found in writing English, saying, for instance, that if a bad arrangement of a sentence was possible, he should be sure to adopt it. He once got much amusement and satisfaction out of the difficulty which one of the family found in writing a short circular. He had the pleasure of correcting and laughing at obscurities, involved sentences, and other defects, and thus took his revenge for all the criticism he had himself to bear with. He used to quote with astonishment Miss Martineau's advice to young authors, to write straight off and send the MS. to the printer without correction. But in some cases he acted in a somewhat similar manner. When a sentence got hopelessly involved, he would ask himself, "now what DO you want to say?" and his answer written down, would often disentangle the confusion. His style has been much praised; on the other hand, at least one good judge has remarked to me that it is not a good style. It is, above all things, direct and clear; and it is characteristic of himself in its simplicity, bordering on naivete, and in its absence of pretence. He had the strongest disbelief in the common idea that a classical scholar must write good English; indeed, he thought that the contrary was the case. In writing, he sometimes showed the same tendency to strong expressions as he did in conversation. Thus in the 'Origin,' page 440, there is a description of a larval cirripede, "with six pairs of beautifully constructed natatory legs, a pair of magnificent compound eyes, and extremely complex antennae." We used to laugh at him for this sentence, which we compared to an advertisement. This tendency to give himself up to the enthusiastic turn of his thought, without fear of being ludicrous, appears elsewhere in his writings. His courteous and conciliatory tone towards his reader is remarkable, and it must be partly this quality which revealed his personal sweetness of character to so many who had never seen him. I have always felt it to be a curious fact, that he who had altered the face of Biological Science, and is in this respect the chief of the moderns, should have written and worked in so essentially a non-modern spirit and manner. In reading his books one is reminded of the older naturalists rather than of the modern school of writers. He was a Naturalist in the old sense of the word, that is, a man who works at many branches of the science, not merely a specialist in one. Thus it is, that, though he founded whole new divisions of special subjects--such as the fertilisation of flowers, insectivorous plants, dimorphism, etc.--yet even in treating these very subjects he does not strike the reader as a specialist. The reader feels like a friend who is being talked to by a courteous gentleman, not like a pupil being lectured by a professor. The tone of such a book as the 'Origin' is charming, and almost pathetic; it is the tone of a man who, convinced of the truth of his own views, hardly expects to convince others; it is just the reverse of the style of a fanatic, who wants to force people to believe. The reader is never scorned for any amount of doubt which he may be imagined to feel, and his scepticism is treated with patient respect. A sceptical reader, or perhaps even an unreasonable reader, seems to have been generally present to his thoughts. It was in consequence of this feeling, perhaps, that he took much trouble over points which he imagined would strike the reader, or save him trouble, and so tempt him to read. For the same reason he took much interest in the illustrations of his books, and I think rated rather too highly their value. The illustrations for his earlier books were drawn by professional artists. This was the case in 'Animals and Plants,' the 'Descent of Man,' and the 'Expression of the Emotions.' On the other hand, 'Climbing Plants,' 'Insectivorous Plants,' the 'Movements of Plants,' and 'Forms of Flowers,' were, to a large extent, illustrated by some of his children--my brother George having drawn by far the most. It was delightful to draw for him, as he was enthusiastic in his praise of very moderate performances. I remember well his charming manner of receiving the drawings of one of his daughters-in-law, and how he would finish his words of praise by saying, "Tell A--, Michael Angelo is nothing to it." Though he praised so generously, he always looked closely at the drawing, and easily detected mistakes or carelessness. He had a horror of being lengthy, and seems to have been really much annoyed and distressed when he found how the 'Variations of Animals and Plants' was growing under his hands. I remember his cordially agreeing with 'Tristram Shandy's' words, "Let no man say, 'Come, I'll write a duodecimo.'" His consideration for other authors was as marked a characteristic as his tone towards his reader. He speaks of all other authors as persons deserving of respect. In cases where, as in the case of --'s experiments on Drosera, he thought lightly of the author, he speaks of him in such a way that no one would suspect it. In other cases he treats the confused writings of ignorant persons as though the fault lay with himself for not appreciating or understanding them. Besides this general tone of respect, he had a pleasant way of expressing his opinion on the value of a quoted work, or his obligation for a piece of private information. His respectful feeling was not only morally beautiful, but was I think of practical use in making him ready to consider the ideas and observations of all manner of people. He used almost to apologise for this, and would say that he was at first inclined to rate everything too highly. It was a great merit in his mind that, in spite of having so strong a respectful feeling towards what he read, he had the keenest of instincts as to whether a man was trustworthy or not. He seemed to form a very definite opinion as to the accuracy of the men whose books he read; and made use of this judgment in his choice of facts for use in argument or as illustrations. I gained the impression that he felt this power of judging of a man's trustworthiness to be of much value. He had a keen feeling of the sense of honour that ought to reign among authors, and had a horror of any kind of laxness in quoting. He had a contempt for the love of honour and glory, and in his letters often blames himself for the pleasure he took in the success of his books, as though he were departing from his ideal--a love of truth and carelessness about fame. Often, when writing to Sir J. Hooker what he calls a boasting letter, he laughs at himself for his conceit and want of modesty. There is a wonderfully interesting letter which he wrote to my mother bequeathing to her, in case of his death, the care of publishing the manuscript of his first essay on evolution. This letter seems to me full of the intense desire that his theory should succeed as a contribution to knowledge, and apart from any desire for personal fame. He certainly had the healthy desire for success which a man of strong feelings ought to have. But at the time of the publication of the 'Origin' it is evident that he was overwhelmingly satisfied with the adherence of such men as Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, and Asa Gray, and did not dream of or desire any such wide and general fame as he attained to. Connected with his contempt for the undue love of fame, was an equally strong dislike of all questions of priority. The letters to Lyell, at the time of the 'Origin,' show the anger he felt with himself for not being able to repress a feeling of disappointment at what he thought was Mr. Wallace's forestalling of all his years of work. His sense of literary honour comes out strongly in these letters; and his feeling about priority is again shown in the admiration expressed in his 'Recollections' of Mr. Wallace's self-annihilation. His feeling about reclamations, including answers to attacks and all kinds of discussions, was strong. It is simply expressed in a letter to Falconer (1863?), "If I ever felt angry towards you, for whom I have a sincere friendship, I should begin to suspect that I was a little mad. I was very sorry about your reclamation, as I think it is in every case a mistake and should be left to others. Whether I should so act myself under provocation is a different question." It was a feeling partly dictated by instinctive delicacy, and partly by a strong sense of the waste of time, energy, and temper thus caused. He said that he owed his determination not to get into discussions (He departed from his rule in his "Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker, Colaptes campestris," 'Proc. Zool. Soc.,' 1870, page 705: also in a letter published in the 'Athenaeum' (1863, page 554), in which case he afterwards regretted that he had not remained silent. His replies to criticisms, in the later editions of the 'Origin,' can hardly be classed as infractions of his rule.) to the advice of Lyell,--advice which he transmitted to those among his friends who were given to paper warfare. If the character of my father's working life is to be understood, the conditions of ill-health, under which he worked, must be constantly borne in mind. He bore his illness with such uncomplaining patience, that even his children can hardly, I believe, realise the extent of his habitual suffering. In their case the difficulty is heightened by the fact that, from the days of their earliest recollections, they saw him in constant ill-health,--and saw him, in spite of it, full of pleasure in what pleased them. Thus, in later life, their perception of what he endured had to be disentangled from the impression produced in childhood by constant genial kindness under conditions of unrecognised difficulty. No one indeed, except my mother, knows the full amount of suffering he endured, or the full amount of his wonderful patience. For all the latter years of his life she never left him for a night; and her days were so planned that all his resting hours might be shared with her. She shielded him from every avoidable annoyance, and omitted nothing that might save him trouble, or prevent him becoming overtired, or that might alleviate the many discomforts of his ill-health. I hesitate to speak thus freely of a thing so sacred as the life-long devotion which prompted all this constant and tender care. But it is, I repeat, a principal feature of his life, that for nearly forty years he never knew one day of the health of ordinary men, and that thus his life was one long struggle against the weariness and strain of sickness. And this cannot be told without speaking of the one condition which enabled him to bear the strain and fight out the struggle to the end. LETTERS. The earliest letters to which I have access are those written by my father when an undergraduate at Cambridge. The history of his life, as told in his correspondence, must therefore begin with this period. CHAPTER 1.IV. -- CAMBRIDGE LIFE. [My father's Cambridge life comprises the time between the Lent Term, 1828, when he came up as a Freshman, and the end of the May Term, 1831, when he took his degree and left the University.] It appears from the College books, that my father "admissus est pensionarius minor sub Magistro Shaw" on October 15, 1827. He did not come into residence till the Lent Term, 1828, so that, although he passed his examination in due season, he was unable to take his degree at the usual time,--the beginning of the Lent Term, 1831. In such a case a man usually took his degree before Ash-Wednesday, when he was called "Baccalaureus ad Diem Cinerum," and ranked with the B.A.'s of the year. My father's name, however, occurs in the list of Bachelors "ad Baptistam," or those admitted between Ash-Wednesday and St. John Baptist's Day (June 24th); ("On Tuesday last Charles Darwin, of Christ's College, was admitted B.A."--"Cambridge Chronicle", Friday, April 29, 1831.) he therefore took rank among the Bachelors of 1832. He "kept" for a term or two in lodgings, over Bacon the tobacconist's; not, however, over the shop in the Market Place, now so well known to Cambridge men, but in Sidney Street. For the rest of his time he had pleasant rooms on the south side of the first court of Christ's. (The rooms are on the first floor, on the west side of the middle staircase. A medallion (given by my brother) has recently been let into the wall of the sitting-room.) What determined the choice of this college for his brother Erasmus and himself I have no means of knowing. Erasmus the elder, their grandfather, had been at St. John's, and this college might have been reasonably selected for them, being connected with Shrewsbury School. But the life of an under-graduate at St. John's seems, in those days, to have been a troubled one, if I may judge from the fact that a relative of mine migrated thence to Christ's to escape the harassing discipline of the place. A story told by Mr. Herbert illustrates the same state of things:-- "In the beginning of the October Term of 1830, an incident occurred which was attended with somewhat disagreeable, though ludicrous consequences to myself. Darwin asked me to take a long walk with him in the Fens, to search for some natural objects he was desirous of having. After a very long, fatiguing day's work, we dined together, late in the evening, at his rooms in Christ's College; and as soon as our dinner was over we threw ourselves into easy chairs and fell sound asleep. I was first to awake, about three in the morning, when, having looked at my watch, and knowing the strict rule of St. John's, which required men in statu pupillari to come into college before midnight, I rushed homeward at the utmost speed, in fear of the consequences, but hoping that the Dean would accept the excuse as sufficient when I told him the real facts. He, however, was inexorable, and refused to receive my explanations, or any evidence I could bring; and although during my undergraduateship I had never been reported for coming late into College, now, when I was a hard-working B.A., and had five or six pupils, he sentenced me to confinement to the College walls for the rest of the term. Darwin's indignation knew no bounds, and the stupid injustice and tyranny of the Dean raised not only a perfect ferment among my friends, but was the subject of expostulation from some of the leading members of the University." My father seems to have found no difficulty in living at peace with all men in and out of office at Lady Margaret's other foundation. The impression of a contemporary of my father's is that Christ's in their day was a pleasant, fairly quiet college, with some tendency towards "horsiness"; many of the men made a custom of going to Newmarket during the races, though betting was not a regular practice. In this they were by no means discouraged by the Senior Tutor, Mr. Shaw, who was himself generally to be seen on the Heath on these occasions. There was a somewhat high proportion of Fellow-Commoners,--eight or nine, to sixty or seventy Pensioners, and this would indicate that it was not an unpleasant college for men with money to spend and with no great love of strict discipline. The way in which the service was conducted in chapel shows that the Dean, at least, was not over zealous. I have heard my father tell how at evening chapel the Dean used to read alternate verses of the Psalms, without making even a pretence of waiting for the congregation to take their share. And when the Lesson was a lengthy one, he would rise and go on with the Canticles after the scholar had read fifteen or twenty verses. It is curious that my father often spoke of his Cambridge life as if it had been so much time wasted, forgetting that, although the set studies of the place were barren enough for him, he yet gained in the highest degree the best advantages of a University life--the contact with men and an opportunity for his mind to grow vigorously. It is true that he valued at its highest the advantages which he gained from associating with Professor Henslow and some others, but he seemed to consider this as a chance outcome of his life at Cambridge, not an advantage for which Alma Mater could claim any credit. One of my father's Cambridge friends was the late Mr. J.M. Herbert, County Court Judge for South Wales, from whom I was fortunate enough to obtain some notes which help us to gain an idea of how my father impressed his contemporaries. Mr. Herbert writes: "I think it was in the spring of 1828 that I first met Darwin, either at my cousin Whitley's rooms in St. John's, or at the rooms of some other of his old Shrewsbury schoolfellows, with many of whom I was on terms of great intimacy. But it certainly was in the summer of that year that our acquaintance ripened into intimacy, when we happened to be together at Barmouth, for the Long Vacation, reading with private tutors,--he with Batterton of St. John's, his Classical and Mathematical Tutor, and I with Yate of St. John's." The intercourse between them practically ceased in 1831, when my father said goodbye to Herbert at Cambridge, on starting on his "Beagle" voyage. I once met Mr. Herbert, then almost an old man, and I was much struck by the evident warmth and freshness of the affection with which he remembered my father. The notes from which I quote end with this warm-hearted eulogium: "It would be idle for me to speak of his vast intellectual powers...but I cannot end this cursory and rambling sketch without testifying, and I doubt not all his surviving college friends would concur with me, that he was the most genial, warm-hearted, generous, and affectionate of friends; that his sympathies were with all that was good and true; and that he had a cordial hatred for everything false, or vile, or cruel, or mean, or dishonourable. He was not only great, but pre-eminently good, and just, and loveable." Two anecdotes told by Mr. Herbert show that my father's feeling for suffering, whether of man or beast, was as strong in him as a young man as it was in later years: "Before he left Cambridge he told me that he had made up his mind not to shoot any more; that he had had two days' shooting at his friend's, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse; and that on the second day, when going over some of the ground they had beaten on the day before, he picked up a bird not quite dead, but lingering from a shot it had received on the previous day; and that it had made and left such a painful impression on his mind, that he could not reconcile it to his conscience to continue to derive pleasure from a sport which inflicted such cruel suffering." To realise the strength of the feeling that led to this resolve, we must remember how passionate was his love of sport. We must recall the boy shooting his first snipe ('Recollections.'), and trembling with excitement so that he could hardly reload his gun. Or think of such a sentence as, "Upon my soul, it is only about a fortnight to the 'First,' then if there is a bliss on earth that is it." (Letter from C. Darwin to W.D. Fox.) Another anecdote told by Mr. Herbert illustrates again his tenderness of heart:-- "When at Barmouth he and I went to an exhibition of 'learned dogs.' In the middle of the entertainment one of the dogs failed in performing the trick his master told him to do. On the man reproving him, the dog put on a most piteous expression, as if in fear of the whip. Darwin seeing it, asked me to leave with him, saying, 'Come along, I can't stand this any longer; how those poor dogs must have been licked.'" It is curious that the same feeling recurred to my father more than fifty years afterwards, on seeing some performing dogs at the Westminster Aquarium; on this occasion he was reassured by the manager telling him that the dogs were taught more by reward than by punishment. Mr. Herbert goes on:--"It stirred one's inmost depth of feeling to hear him descant upon, and groan over, the horrors of the slave-trade, or the cruelties to which the suffering Poles were subjected at Warsaw...These, and other like proofs have left on my mind the conviction that a more humane or tender-hearted man never lived." His old college friends agree in speaking with affectionate warmth of his pleasant, genial temper as a young man. From what they have been able to tell me, I gain the impression of a young man overflowing with animal spirits--leading a varied healthy life--not over-industrious in the set of studies of the place, but full of other pursuits, which were followed with a rejoicing enthusiasm. Entomology, riding, shooting in the fens, suppers and card-playing, music at King's Chapel, engravings at the Fitzwilliam Museum, walks with Professor Henslow--all combined to fill up a happy life. He seems to have infected others with his enthusiasm. Mr. Herbert relates how, during the same Barmouth summer, he was pressed into the service of "the science"--as my father called collecting beetles. They took their daily walks together among the hills behind Barmouth, or boated in the Mawddach estuary, or sailed to Sarn Badrig to land there at low water, or went fly-fishing in the Cors-y-gedol lakes. "On these occasions Darwin entomologized most industriously, picking up creatures as he walked along, and bagging everything which seemed worthy of being pursued, or of further examination. And very soon he armed me with a bottle of alcohol, in which I had to drop any beetle which struck me as not of a common kind. I performed this duty with some diligence in my constitutional walks; but alas! my powers of discrimination seldom enabled me to secure a prize--the usual result, on his examining the contents of my bottle, being an exclamation, 'Well, old Cherbury' (No doubt in allusion to the title of Lord Herbert of Cherbury.) (the nickname he gave me, and by which he usually addressed me), 'none of these will do.'" Again, the Rev. T. Butler, who was one of the Barmouth reading-party in 1828, says: "He inoculated me with a taste for Botany which has stuck by me all my life." Archdeacon Watkins, another old college friend of my father's, remembers him unearthing beetles in the willows between Cambridge and Grantchester, and speaks of a certain beetle the remembrance of whose name is "Crux major." (Panagaeus crux-major.) How enthusiastically must my father have exulted over this beetle to have impressed its name on a companion so that he remembers it after half a century! Archdeacon Watkins goes on: "I do not forget the long and very interesting conversations that we had about Brazilian scenery and tropical vegetation of all sorts. Nor do I forget the way and the vehemence with which he rubbed his chin when he got excited on such subjects, and discoursed eloquently of lianas, orchids, etc." He became intimate with Henslow, the Professor of Botany, and through him with some other older members of the University. "But," Mr. Herbert writes, "he always kept up the closest connection with the friends of his own standing; and at our frequent social gatherings--at breakfast, wine or supper parties--he was ever one of the most cheerful, the most popular, and the most welcome." My father formed one of a club for dining once a week, called the Gourmet (Mr. Herbert mentions the name as 'The Glutton Club.') Club, the members, besides himself and Mr. Herbert (from whom I quote), being Whitley of St. John's, now Honorary Canon of Durham (Formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy at Durham University.); Heaviside of Sidney, now Canon of Norwich; Lovett Cameron of Trinity, now vicar of Shoreham; Blane of Trinity, who held a high post during the Crimean war; H. Lowe (Brother of Lord Sherbrooke.) (Now Sherbrooke) of Trinity Hall; and Watkins of Emmanuel, now Archdeacon of York. The origin of the club's name seems already to have become involved in obscurity. Mr. Herbert says that it was chosen in derision of another "set of men who called themselves by a long Greek name signifying 'fond of dainties,' but who falsified their claim to such a designation by their weekly practice of dining at some roadside inn, six miles from Cambridge, on mutton chops or beans and bacon." Another old member of the club tells me that the name arose because the members were given to making experiments on "birds and beasts which were before unknown to human palate." He says that hawk and bittern were tried, and that their zeal broke down over an old brown owl, "which was indescribable." At any rate, the meetings seemed to have been successful, and to have ended with "a game of mild vingt-et-un." Mr. Herbert gives an amusing account of the musical examinations described by my father in his "Recollections." Mr. Herbert speaks strongly of his love of music, and adds, "What gave him the greatest delight was some grand symphony or overture of Mozart's or Beethoven's, with their full harmonies." On one occasion Herbert remembers "accompanying him to the afternoon service at King's, when we heard a very beautiful anthem. At the end of one of the parts, which was exceedingly impressive, he turned round to me and said, with a deep sigh, 'How's your backbone?'" He often spoke of a feeling of coldness or shivering in his back on hearing beautiful music. Besides a love of music, he had certainly at this time a love of fine literature; and Mr. Cameron tells me that he used to read Shakespeare to my father in his rooms at Christ's, who took much pleasure in it. He also speaks of his "great liking for first-class line engravings, especially those of Raphael Morghen and Muller; and he spent hours in the Fitzwilliam Museum in looking over the prints in that collection." My father's letters to Fox show how sorely oppressed he felt by the reading of an examination: "I am reading very hard, and have spirits for nothing. I actually have not stuck a beetle this term." His despair over mathematics must have been profound, when he expressed a hope that Fox's silence is due to "your being ten fathoms deep in the Mathematics; and if you are, God help you, for so am I, only with this difference, I stick fast in the mud at the bottom, and there I shall remain." Mr. Herbert says: "He had, I imagine, no natural turn for mathematics, and he gave up his mathematical reading before he had mastered the first part of Algebra, having had a special quarrel with Surds and the Binomial Theorem." We get some evidence from his letters to Fox of my father's intention of going into the Church. "I am glad," he writes (March 18, 1829.), "to hear that you are reading divinity. I should like to know what books you are reading, and your opinions about them; you need not be afraid of preaching to me prematurely." Mr. Herbert's sketch shows how doubts arose in my father's mind as to the possibility of his taking Orders. He writes, "We had an earnest conversation about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his asking me, with reference to the question put by the Bishop in the ordination service, 'Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, etc.,' whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my saying I could not, he said, 'Neither can I, and therefore I cannot take orders.'" This conversation appears to have taken place in 1829, and if so, the doubts here expressed must have been quieted, for in May 1830, he speaks of having some thoughts of reading divinity with Henslow. [The greater number of the following letters are addressed by my father to his cousin, William Darwin Fox. Mr. Fox's relationship to my father is shown in the pedigree given in Chapter I. The degree of kinship appears to have remained a problem to my father, as he signs himself in one letter "cousin/n to the power 2." Their friendship was, in fact, due to their being undergraduates together. My father's letters show clearly enough how genuine the friendship was. In after years, distance, large families, and ill-health on both sides, checked the intercourse; but a warm feeling of friendship remained. The correspondence was never quite dropped and continued till Mr. Fox's death in 1880. Mr. Fox took orders, and worked as a country clergyman until forced by ill-health to leave his living in Delamare Forest. His love of natural history remained strong, and he became a skilled fancier of many kinds of birds, etc. The index to 'Animals and Plants,' and my father's later correspondence, show how much help he received from his old College friend.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Saturday Evening [September 14, 1828]. (The postmark being Derby seems to show that the letter was written from his cousin, W.D. Fox's house, Osmaston, near Derby.) My dear old Cherbury, I am about to fulfil my promise of writing to you, but I am sorry to add there is a very selfish motive at the bottom. I am going to ask you a great favour, and you cannot imagine how much you will oblige me by procuring some more specimens of some insects which I dare say I can describe. In the first place, I must inform you that I have taken some of the rarest of the British Insects, and their being found near Barmouth, is quite unknown to the Entomological world: I think I shall write and inform some of the crack entomologists. But now for business. SEVERAL more specimens, if you can procure them without much trouble, of the following insects:--The violet-black coloured beetle, found on Craig Storm (The top of the hill immediately behind Barmouth was called Craig-Storm, a hybrid Cambro-English word.), under stones, also a large smooth black one very like it; a bluish metallic-coloured dung-beetle, which is VERY common on the hill-sides; also, if you WOULD be so very kind as to cross the ferry, and you will find a great number under the stones on the waste land of a long, smooth, jet-black beetle (a great many of these); also, in the same situation, a very small pinkish insect, with black spots, with a curved thorax projecting beyond the head; also, upon the marshy land over the ferry, near the sea, under old sea-weed, stones, etc., you will find a small yellowish transparent beetle, with two or four blackish marks on the back. Under these stones there are two sorts, one much darker than the other; the lighter-coloured is that which I want. These last two insects are EXCESSIVELY RARE, and you will really EXTREMELY oblige me by taking all this trouble pretty soon; remember me most kindly to Butler, tell him of my success, and I dare say both of you will easily recognise these insects. I hope his caterpillars go on well. I think many of the Chrysalises are well worth keeping. I really am quite ashamed [of] so long a letter all about my own concerns; but do return good for evil, and send me a long account of all your proceedings. In the first week I killed seventy-five head of game--a very contemptible number--but there are very few birds. I killed, however, a brace of black game. Since then I have been staying at the Fox's, near Derby; it is a very pleasant house, and the music meeting went off very well. I want to hear how Yates likes his gun, and what use he has made of it. If the bottle is not large you can buy another for me, and when you pass through Shrewsbury you can leave these treasures, and I hope, if you possibly can, you will stay a day or two with me, as I hope I need not say how glad I shall be to see you again. Fox remarked what deuced good-natured fellows your friends at Barmouth must be; and if I did not know how you and Butler were so, I would not think of giving you so much trouble. Believe me, my dear Herbert, Yours, most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. Remember me to all friends. [In the following January we find him looking forward with pleasure to the beginning of another year of his Cambridge life: he writes to Fox-- "I waited till to-day for the chance of a letter, but I will wait no longer. I must most sincerely and cordially congratulate you on having finished all your labours. I think your place a VERY GOOD one considering by how much you have beaten many men who had the start of you in reading. I do so wish I were now in Cambridge (a very selfish wish, however, as I was not with you in all your troubles and misery), to join in all the glory and happiness, which dangers gone by can give. How we would talk, walk, and entomologise! Sappho should be the best of bitches, and Dash, of dogs: then should be 'peace on earth, good will to men,'--which, by the way, I always think the most perfect description of happiness that words can give."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Cambridge, Thursday [February 26, 1829]. My dear Fox, When I arrived here on Tuesday I found to my great grief and surprise, a letter on my table which I had written to you about a fortnight ago, the stupid porter never took the trouble of getting the letter forwarded. I suppose you have been abusing me for a most ungrateful wretch; but I am sure you will pity me now, as nothing is so vexatious as having written a letter in vain. Last Thursday I left Shrewsbury for London, and stayed there till Tuesday, on which I came down here by the 'Times.' The first two days I spent entirely with Mr. Hope (Founder of the Chair of Zoology at Oxford.), and did little else but talk about and look at insects; his collection is most magnificent, and he himself is the most generous of entomologists; he has given me about 160 new species, and actually often wanted to give me the rarest insects of which he had only two specimens. He made many civil speeches, and hoped you will call on him some time with me, whenever we should happen to be in London. He greatly compliments our exertions in Entomology, and says we have taken a wonderfully great number of good insects. On Sunday I spent the day with Holland, who lent me a horse to ride in the Park with. On Monday evening I drank tea with Stephens (J.F. Stephens, author of 'A Manual of British Coleoptera,' 1839, and other works.); his cabinet is more magnificent than the most zealous entomologist could dream of; he appears to be a very good-humoured pleasant little man. Whilst in town I went to the Royal Institution, Linnean Society, and Zoological Gardens, and many other places where naturalists are gregarious. If you had been with me, I think London would be a very delightful place; as things were, it was much pleasanter than I could have supposed such a dreary wilderness of houses to be. I shot whilst in Shrewsbury a Dundiver (female Goosander, as I suppose you know). Shaw has stuffed it, and when I have an opportunity I will send it to Osmaston. There have been shot also five Waxen Chatterers, three of which Shaw has for sale; would you like to purchase a specimen? I have not yet thanked you for your last very long and agreeable letter. It would have been still more agreeable had it contained the joyful intelligence that you were coming up here; my two solitary breakfasts have already made me aware how very very much I shall miss you. ... Believe me, My dear old Fox, Most sincerely yours, C. DARWIN. [Later on in the Lent term he writes to Fox:-- "I am leading a quiet everyday sort of a life; a little of Gibbon's History in the morning, and a good deal of "Van John" in the evening; this, with an occasional ride with Simcox and constitutional with Whitley, makes up the regular routine of my days. I see a good deal both of Herbert and Whitley, and the more I see of them increases every day the respect I have for their excellent understandings and dispositions. They have been giving some very gay parties, nearly sixty men there both evenings."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Christ's College [Cambridge], April 1 [1829]. My dear Fox, In your letter to Holden you are pleased to observe "that of all the blackguards you ever met with I am the greatest." Upon this observation I shall make no remarks, excepting that I must give you all due credit for acting on it most rigidly. And now I should like to know in what one particular are you less of a blackguard than I am? You idle old wretch, why have you not answered my last letter, which I am sure I forwarded to Clifton nearly three weeks ago? If I was not really very anxious to hear what you are doing, I should have allowed you to remain till you thought it worth while to treat me like a gentleman. And now having vented my spleen in scolding you, and having told you, what you must know, how very much and how anxiously I want to hear how you and your family are getting on at Clifton, the purport of this letter is finished. If you did but know how often I think of you, and how often I regret your absence, I am sure I should have heard from you long enough ago. I find Cambridge rather stupid, and as I know scarcely any one that walks, and this joined with my lips not being quite so well, has reduced me to a sort of hybernation... I have caught Mr. Harbour letting -- have the first pick of the beetles; accordingly we have made our final adieus, my part in the affecting scene consisted in telling him he was a d--d rascal, and signifying I should kick him down the stairs if ever he appeared in my rooms again. It seemed altogether mightily to surprise the young gentleman. I have no news to tell you; indeed, when a correspondence has been broken off like ours has been, it is difficult to make the first start again. Last night there was a terrible fire at Linton, eleven miles from Cambridge. Seeing the reflection so plainly in the sky, Hall, Woodyeare, Turner, and myself thought we would ride and see it. We set out at half-past nine, and rode like incarnate devils there, and did not return till two in the morning. Altogether it was a most awful sight. I cannot conclude without telling you, that of all the blackguards I ever met with, you are the greatest and the best. C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. [Cambridge, Thursday, April 23, 1829.] My dear Fox, I have delayed answering your last letter for these few days, as I thought that under such melancholy circumstances my writing to you would be probably only giving you trouble. This morning I received a letter from Catherine informing me of that event (The death of Fox's sister, Mrs. Bristowe.), which, indeed, from your letter, I had hardly dared to hope would have happened otherwise. I feel most sincerely and deeply for you and all your family; but at the same time, as far as any one can, by his own good principles and religion, be supported under such a misfortune, you, I am assured, will know where to look for such support. And after so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords, I am equally assured how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear, although it be as heartfelt and sincere, as I hope you believe me capable of feeling. At such a time of deep distress I will say nothing more, excepting that I trust your father and Mrs. Fox bear this blow as well as, under such circumstances, can be hoped for. I am afraid it will be a long time, my dear Fox, before we meet; till then, believe me at all times, Yours most affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Shrewsbury, Friday [July 4, 1829]. My dear Fox, I should have written to you before only that whilst our expedition lasted I was too much engaged, and the conclusion was so unfortunate, that I was too unhappy to write to you till this week's quiet at home. The thoughts of Woodhouse next week has at last given me courage to relate my unfortunate case. I started from this place about a fortnight ago to take an entomological trip with Mr. Hope through all North Wales; and Barmouth was our first destination. The two first days I went on pretty well, taking several good insects; but for the rest of that week my lips became suddenly so bad (Probably with eczema, from which he often suffered.), and I myself not very well, that I was unable to leave the room, and on the Monday I retreated with grief and sorrow back again to Shrewsbury. The first two days I took some good insects...But the days that I was unable to go out, Mr. Hope did wonders...and to-day I have received another parcel of insects from him, such Colymbetes, such Carabi, and such magnificent Elaters (two species of the bright scarlet sort). I am sure you will properly sympathise with my unfortunate situation: I am determined I will go over the same ground that he does before autumn comes, and if working hard will procure insects I will bring home a glorious stock.... My dear Fox, Yours most sincerely, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Shrewsbury, July 18, 1829. I am going to Maer next week in order to entomologise, and shall stay there a week, and for the rest of this summer I intend to lead a perfectly idle and wandering life...You see I am much in the same state that you are, with this difference, you make good resolutions and never keep them; I never make them, so cannot keep them; it is all very well writing in this manner, but I must read for my Little-go. Graham smiled and bowed so very civilly, when he told me that he was one of the six appointed to make the examination stricter, and that they were determined this would make it a very different thing from any previous examination, that from all this I am sure it will be the very devil to pay amongst all idle men and entomologists. Erasmus, we expect home in a few weeks' time: he intends passing next winter in Paris. Be sure you order the two lists of insects published by Stephens, one printed on both sides, and the other only on one; you will find them very useful in many points of view. Dear old Fox, yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Christ's College, Thursday [October 16, 1829]. My dear Fox, I am afraid you will be very angry with me for not having written during the Music Meeting, but really I was worked so hard that I had no time; I arrived here on Monday and found my rooms in dreadful confusion, as they have been taking up the floor, and you may suppose that I have had plenty to do for these two days. The Music Meeting (At Birmingham.) was the most glorious thing I ever experienced; and as for Malibran, words cannot praise her enough, she is quite the most charming person I ever saw. We had extracts out of several of the best operas, acted in character, and you cannot imagine how very superior it made the concerts to any I ever heard before. J. de Begnis (De Begnis's Christian name was Giuseppe.) acted 'Il Fanatico' in character; being dressed up an extraordinary figure gives a much greater effect to his acting. He kept the whole theatre in roars of laughter. I liked Madame Blasis very much, but nothing will do after Malibran, who sung some comic songs, and [a] person's heart must have been made of stone not to have lost it to her. I lodged very near the Wedgwoods, and lived entirely with them, which was very pleasant, and had you been there it would have been quite perfect. It knocked me up most dreadfully, and I will never attempt again to do two things the same day. ... CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. [Cambridge] Thursday [March, 1830]. My dear Fox, I am through my Little-Go!!! I am too much exalted to humble myself by apologising for not having written before. But I assure you before I went in, and when my nerves were in a shattered and weak condition, your injured person often rose before my eyes and taunted me with my idleness. But I am through, through, through. I could write the whole sheet full with this delightful word. I went in yesterday, and have just heard the joyful news. I shall not know for a week which class I am in. The whole examination is carried on in a different system. It has one grand advantage--being over in one day. They are rather strict, and ask a wonderful number of questions. And now I want to know something about your plans; of course you intend coming up here: what fun we will have together; what beetles we will catch; it will do my heart good to go once more together to some of our old haunts. I have two very promising pupils in Entomology, and we will make regular campaigns into the Fens. Heaven protect the beetles and Mr. Jenyns, for we won't leave him a pair in the whole country. My new Cabinet is come down, and a gay little affair it is. And now for the time--I think I shall go for a few days to town to hear an opera and see Mr. Hope; not to mention my brother also, whom I should have no objection to see. If I go pretty soon, you can come afterwards, but if you will settle your plans definitely, I will arrange mine, so send me a letter by return of post. And I charge you let it be favourable--that is to say, come directly. Holden has been ordained, and drove the Coach out on the Monday. I do not think he is looking very well. Chapman wants you and myself to pay him a visit when you come up, and begs to be remembered to you. You must excuse this short letter, as I have no end more to send off by this day's post. I long to see you again, and till then, My dear good old Fox, Yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [In August he was in North Wales and wrote to Fox:-- "I have been intending to write every hour for the last fortnight, but REALLY have had no time. I left Shrewsbury this day fortnight ago, and have since that time been working from morning to night in catching fish or beetles. This is literally the first idle day I have had to myself; for on the rainy days I go fishing, on the good ones entomologising. You may recollect that for the fortnight previous to all this, you told me not to write, so that I hope I have made out some sort of defence for not having sooner answered your two long and very agreeable letters."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. [Cambridge, November 5, 1830.] My dear Fox, I have so little time at present, and am so disgusted by reading that I have not the heart to write to anybody. I have only written once home since I came up. This must excuse me for not having answered your three letters, for which I am really very much obliged... I have not stuck an insect this term, and scarcely opened a case. If I had time I would have sent you the insects which I have so long promised; but really I have not spirits or time to do anything. Reading makes me quite desperate; the plague of getting up all my subjects is next thing to intolerable. Henslow is my tutor, and a most ADMIRABLE one he makes; the hour with him is the pleasantest in the whole day. I think he is quite the most perfect man I ever met with. I have been to some very pleasant parties there this term. His good-nature is unbounded. I am sure you will be sorry to hear poor old Whitley's father is dead. In a worldly point of view it is of great consequence to him, as it will prevent him going to the Bar for some time.--(Be sure answer this:) What did you pay for the iron hoop you had made in Shrewsbury? Because I do not mean to pay the whole of the Cambridge man's bill. You need not trouble yourself about the Phallus, as I have bought up both species. I have heard men say that Henslow has some curious religious opinions. I never perceived anything of it, have you? I am very glad to hear, after all your delays, you have heard of a curacy where you may read all the commandments without endangering your throat. I am also still more glad to hear that your mother continues steadily to improve. I do trust that you will have no further cause for uneasiness. With every wish for your happiness, my dear old Fox, Believe me yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Cambridge, Sunday, January 23, 1831. My dear Fox, I do hope you will excuse my not writing before I took my degree. I felt a quite inexplicable aversion to write to anybody. But now I do most heartily congratulate you upon passing your examination, and hope you find your curacy comfortable. If it is my last shilling (I have not many), I will come and pay you a visit. I do not know why the degree should make one so miserable, both before and afterwards. I recollect you were sufficiently wretched before, and I can assure [you] I am now, and what makes it the more ridiculous is, I know not what about. I believe it is a beautiful provision of nature to make one regret the less leaving so pleasant a place as Cambridge; and amongst all its pleasures--I say it for once and for all--none so great as my friendship with you. I sent you a newspaper yesterday, in which you will see what a good place [10th] I have got in the Poll. As for Christ's, did you ever see such a college for producing Captains and Apostles? (The "Captain" is at the head of the "Poll": the "Apostles" are the last twelve in the Mathematical Tripos.) There are no men either at Emmanuel or Christ's plucked. Cameron is gulfed, together with other three Trinity scholars! My plans are not at all settled. I think I shall keep this term, and then go and economise at Shrewsbury, return and take my degree. A man may be excused for writing so much about himself when he has just passed the examination; so you must excuse [me]. And on the same principle do you write a letter brimful of yourself and plans. I want to know something about your examination. Tell me about the state of your nerves; what books you got up, and how perfect. I take an interest about that sort of thing, as the time will come when I must suffer. Your tutor, Thompson, begged to be remembered to you, and so does Whitley. If you will answer this, I will send as many stupid answers as you can desire. Believe me, dear Fox, CHAS. DARWIN. CHAPTER 1.V. -- THE APPOINTMENT TO THE 'BEAGLE.' [In a letter addressed to Captain Fitz-Roy, before the "Beagle" sailed, my father wrote, "What a glorious day the 4th of November (The "Beagle" did not however make her final and successful start until December 27.) will be to me--my second life will then commence, and it shall be as a birthday for the rest of my life."] The circumstances which led to this second birth--so much more important than my father then imagined--are connected with his Cambridge life, but may be more appropriately told in the present chapter. Foremost in the chain of circumstances which lead to his appointment to the "Beagle", was my father's friendship with Professor Henslow. He wrote in a pocket-book or diary, which contain a brief record of dates, etc., throughout his life:-- "1831. CHRISTMAS.--Passed my examination for B.A. degree and kept the two following terms. "During these months lived much with Professor Henslow, often dining with him and walking with him; became slightly acquainted with several of the learned men in Cambridge, which much quickened the zeal which dinner parties and hunting had not destroyed. "In the spring paid Mr. Dawes a visit with Ramsay and Kirby, and talked over an excursion to Teneriffe. In the spring Henslow persuaded me to think of Geology, and introduced me to Sedgwick. During Midsummer geologised a little in Shropshire. "AUGUST.--Went on Geological tour (Mentioned by Sedgwick in his preface to Salter's 'Catalogue of Cambrian and Silurian Fossils,' 1873.) by Llangollen, Ruthin, Conway, Bangor, and Capel Curig, where I left Professor Sedgwick, and crossed the mountain to Barmouth." In a letter to Fox (May, 1831), my father writes:--"I am very busy...and see a great deal of Henslow, whom I do not know whether I love or respect most." His feeling for this admirable man is finely expressed in a letter which he wrote to Rev. L. Blomefield (then Rev. L. Jenyns), when the latter was engaged in his 'Memoir of Professor Henslow' (published 1862). The passage ('Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow, M.A.,' by the Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 8vo. London, 1862, page 51.) has been made use of in the first of the memorial notices written for 'Nature,' and Mr. Romanes points out that my father, "while describing the character of another, is unconsciously giving a most accurate description of his own":-- "I went to Cambridge early in the year 1828, and soon became acquainted, through some of my brother entomologists, with Professor Henslow, for all who cared for any branch of natural history were equally encouraged by him. Nothing could be more simple, cordial, and unpretending than the encouragement which he afforded to all young naturalists. I soon became intimate with him, for he had a remarkable power of making the young feel completely at ease with him; though we were all awe-struck with the amount of his knowledge. Before I saw him, I heard one young man sum up his attainments by simply saying that he knew everything. When I reflect how immediately we felt at perfect ease with a man older, and in every way so immensely our superior, I think it was as much owing to the transparent sincerity of his character as to his kindness of heart; and, perhaps, even still more, to a highly remarkable absence in him of all self-consciousness. One perceived at once that he never thought of his own varied knowledge or clear intellect, but solely on the subject in hand. Another charm, which must have struck every one, was that his manner to old and distinguished persons and to the youngest student was exactly the same: and to all he showed the same winning courtesy. He would receive with interest the most trifling observation in any branch of natural history; and however absurd a blunder one might make, he pointed it out so clearly and kindly, that one left him no way disheartened, but only determined to be more accurate the next time. In short, no man could be better formed to win the entire confidence of the young, and to encourage them in their pursuits. "His lectures on Botany were universally popular, and as clear as daylight. So popular were they, that several of the older members of the University attended successive courses. Once every week he kept open house in the evening, and all who cared for natural history attended these parties, which, by thus favouring inter-communication, did the same good in Cambridge, in a very pleasant manner, as the Scientific Societies do in London. At these parties many of the most distinguished members of the University occasionally attended; and when only a few were present, I have listened to the great men of those days, conversing on all sorts of subjects, with the most varied and brilliant powers. This was no small advantage to some of the younger men, as it stimulated their mental activity and ambition. Two or three times in each session he took excursions with his botanical class; either a long walk to the habitat of some rare plant, or in a barge down the river to the fens, or in coaches to some more distant place, as to Gamlingay, to see the wild lily of the valley, and to catch on the heath the rare natter-jack. These excursions have left a delightful impression on my mind. He was, on such occasions, in as good spirits as a boy, and laughed as heartily as a boy at the misadventures of those who chased the splendid swallow-tail butterflies across the broken and treacherous fens. He used to pause every now and then to lecture on some plant or other object; and something he could tell us on every insect, shell, or fossil collected, for he had attended to every branch of natural history. After our day's work we used to dine at some inn or house, and most jovial we then were. I believe all who joined these excursions will agree with me that they have left an enduring impression of delight on our minds. "As time passed on at Cambridge I became very intimate with Professor Henslow, and his kindness was unbounded; he continually asked me to his house, and allowed me to accompany him in his walks. He talked on all subjects, including his deep sense of religion, and was entirely open. I own more than I can express to this excellent man... "During the years when I associated so much with Professor Henslow, I never once saw his temper even ruffled. He never took an ill-natured view of any one's character, though very far from blind to the foibles of others. It always struck me that his mind could not be even touched by any paltry feeling of vanity, envy, or jealousy. With all this equability of temper and remarkable benevolence, there was no insipidity of character. A man must have been blind not to have perceived that beneath this placid exterior there was a vigorous and determined will. When principle came into play, no power on earth could have turned him one hair's-breadth... "Reflecting over his character with gratitude and reverence, his moral attributes rise, as they should do in the highest character, in pre-eminence over his intellect." In a letter to Rev. L. Blomefield (Jenyns), May 24, 1862, my father wrote with the same feelings that he had expressed in his letters thirty years before:-- "I thank you most sincerely for your kind present of your Memoir of Henslow. I have read about half, and it has interested me much. I do not think that I could have venerated him more than I did; but your book has even exalted his character in my eyes. From turning over the pages of the latter half, I should think your account would be invaluable to any clergyman who wished to follow poor dear Henslow's noble example. What an admirable man he was." The geological work mentioned in the quotation from my father's pocket-book was doubtless of importance as giving him some practical experience, and perhaps of more importance in helping to give him some confidence in himself. In July of the same year, 1831, he was "working like a tiger" at Geology, and trying to make a map of Shropshire, but not finding it "as easy as I expected." In writing to Henslow about the same time, he gives some account of his work:-- "I should have written to you some time ago, only I was determined to wait for the clinometer, and I am very glad to say I think it will answer admirably. I put all the tables in my bedroom at every conceivable angle and direction. I will venture to say I have measured them as accurately as any geologist going could do...I have been working at so many things that I have not got on much with geology. I suspect the first expedition I take, clinometer and hammer in hand, will send me back very little wiser and a good deal more puzzled than when I started. As yet I have only indulged in hypotheses, but they are such powerful ones that I suppose, if they were put into action for but one day, the world would come to an end." He was evidently most keen to get to work with Sedgwick, for he wrote to Henslow: "I have not heard from Professor Sedgwick, so I am afraid he will not pay the Severn formations a visit. I hope and trust you did your best to urge him." My father has given in his Recollections some account of this Tour. There too we read of the projected excursion to the Canaries, of which slight mention occurs in letters to Fox and Henslow. In April 1831 he writes to Fox: "At present I talk, think, and dream of a scheme I have almost hatched of going to the Canary Islands. I have long had a wish of seeing tropical scenery and vegetation, and, according to Humboldt, Teneriffe is a very pretty specimen." And again in May: "As for my Canary scheme, it is rash of you to ask questions; my other friends most sincerely wish me there, I plague them so with talking about tropical scenery, etc. Eyton will go next summer, and I am learning Spanish." Later on in the summer the scheme took more definite form, and the date seems to have been fixed for June, 1832. He got information in London about passage-money, and in July was working at Spanish and calling Fox "un grandisimo lebron," in proof of his knowledge of the language; which, however, he found "intensely stupid." But even then he seems to have had some doubts about his companions' zeal, for he writes to Henslow (July 27, 1831): "I hope you continue to fan your Canary ardour. I read and re-read Humboldt; do you do the same? I am sure nothing will prevent us seeing the Great Dragon Tree." Geological work and Teneriffe dreams carried him through the summer, till on returning from Barmouth for the sacred 1st of September, he received the offer of appointment as Naturalist to the "Beagle". The following extract from the pocket-book will be a help in reading the letters:-- "Returned to Shrewsbury at end of August. Refused offer of voyage. "September.--Went to Maer, returned with Uncle Jos. to Shrewsbury, thence to Cambridge. London. "11th.--Went with Captain Fitz-Roy in steamer to Plymouth to see the "Beagle". "22nd.--Returned to Shrewsbury, passing through Cambridge. "October 2nd.--Took leave of my home. Stayed in London. "24th--Reached Plymouth. "October and November.--These months very miserable. "December 10th.--Sailed, but were obliged to put back. "21st.--Put to sea again, and were driven back. "27th.--Sailed from England on our Circumnavigation." GEORGE PEACOCK (Formerly Dean of Ely, and Lowndean Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge.) TO J.S. HENSLOW. 7 Suffolk Street, Pall Mall East. [1831.] My dear Henslow, Captain Fitz-Roy is going out to survey the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego, and afterwards to visit many of the South Sea Islands, and to return by the Indian Archipelago. The vessel is fitted out expressly for scientific purposes, combined with the survey; it will furnish, therefore, a rare opportunity for a naturalist, and it would be a great misfortune that it should be lost. An offer has been made to me to recommend a proper person to go out as a naturalist with this expedition; he will be treated with every consideration. The Captain is a young man of very pleasing manners (a nephew of the Duke of Grafton), of great zeal in his profession, and who is very highly spoken of; if Leonard Jenyns could go, what treasures he might bring home with him, as the ship would be placed at his disposal whenever his inquiries made it necessary or desirable. In the absence of so accomplished a naturalist, is there any person whom you could strongly recommend? he must be such a person as would do credit to our recommendation. Do think of this subject, it would be a serious loss to the cause of natural science if this fine opportunity was lost.... The ship sails about the end of September. Write immediately, and tell me what can be done. Believe me, My dear Henslow, Most truly yours, GEORGE PEACOCK. J.S. HENSLOW TO C. DARWIN. Cambridge, August 24, 1831. My dear Darwin, Before I enter upon the immediate business of this letter, let us condole together upon the loss of our inestimable friend poor Ramsay, of whose death you have undoubtedly heard long before this. I will not now dwell upon this painful subject, as I shall hope to see you shortly, fully expecting that you will eagerly catch at the offer which is likely to be made you of a trip to Tierra del Fuego, and home by the East Indies. I have been asked by Peacock, who will read and forward this to you from London, to recommend him a Naturalist as companion to Captain Fitz-Roy, employed by Government to survey the southern extremity of America. I have stated that I consider you to be the best qualified person I know of who is likely to undertake such a situation. I state this not in the supposition of your being a FINISHED naturalist, but as amply qualified for collecting, observing, and noting, anything worthy to be noted in Natural History. Peacock has the appointment at his disposal, and if he cannot find a man willing to take the office, the opportunity will probably be lost. Captain Fitz-Roy wants a man (I understand) more as a companion than a mere collector, and would not take any one, however good a naturalist, who was not recommended to him likewise as a GENTLEMAN. Particulars of salary, etc., I know nothing. The voyage is to last two years, and if you take plenty of books with you, anything you please may be done. You will have ample opportunities at command. In short, I suppose there never was a finer chance for a man of zeal and spirit; Captain Fitz-Roy is a young man. What I wish you to do is instantly to come and consult with Peacock (at No. 7 Suffolk Street, Pall Mall East, or else at the University Club), and learn further particulars. Don't put on any modest doubts or fears about your disqualifications, for I assure you I think you are the very man they are in search of; so conceive yourself to be tapped on the shoulder by your bum-bailiff and affectionate friend, J.S. HENSLOW. The expedition is to sail on 25th September (at earliest), so there is no time to be lost. G. PEACOCK TO C. DARWIN. [1831.] My dear Sir, I received Henslow's letter last night too late to forward it to you by the post; a circumstance which I do not regret, as it has given me an opportunity of seeing Captain Beaufort at the Admiralty (the Hydrographer), and of stating to him the offer which I have to make to you. He entirely approves of it, and you may consider the situation as at your absolute disposal. I trust that you will accept it, as it is an opportunity which should not be lost, and I look forward with great interest to the benefit which our collections of Natural History may receive from your labours. The circumstances are these;-- Captain Fitz-Roy (a nephew of the Duke of Grafton) sails at the end of September, in a ship to survey, in the first instance, the South Coast of Tierra del Fuego, afterwards to visit the South Sea Islands, and to return by the Indian Archipelago to England. The expedition is entirely for scientific purposes, and the ship will generally wait your leisure for researches in Natural History, etc. Captain Fitz-Roy is a public-spirited and zealous officer, of delightful manners, and greatly beloved by all his brother officers. He went with Captain Beechey (For 'Beechey' read 'King.' I do not find the name Fitz-Roy in the list of Beechey's officers. The Fuegians were brought back from Captain King's voyage.), and spent 1500 pounds in bringing over and educating at his own charge three natives of Patagonia. He engages at his own expense an artist at 200 pounds a year to go with him. You may be sure, therefore, of having a very pleasant companion, who will enter heartily into all your views. The ship sails about the end of September, and you must lose no time in making known your acceptance to Captain Beaufort, Admiralty Hydrographer. I have had a good deal of correspondence about this matter [with Henslow?], who feels, in common with myself, the greatest anxiety that you should go. I hope that no other arrangements are likely to interfere with it.... The Admiralty are not disposed to give a salary, though they will furnish you with an official appointment, and every accommodation. If a salary should be required, however, I am inclined to think that it would be granted. Believe me, my dear Sir, Very truly yours, GEORGE PEACOCK. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Shrewsbury, Tuesday [August 30?, 1831]. My dear Sir, Mr. Peacock's letter arrived on Saturday, and I received it late yesterday evening. As far as my own mind is concerned, I should, I think CERTAINLY, most gladly have accepted the opportunity which you so kindly have offered me. But my father, although he does not decidedly refuse me, gives such strong advice against going, that I should not be comfortable if I did not follow it. My father's objections are these: the unfitting me to settle down as a Clergyman, my little habit of seafaring, THE SHORTNESS OF THE TIME, and the chance of my not suiting Captain Fitz-Roy. It is certainly a very serious objection, the very short time for all my preparations, as not only body but mind wants making up for such an undertaking. But if it had not been for my father I would have taken all risks. What was the reason that a Naturalist was not long ago fixed upon? I am very much obliged for the trouble you have had about it; there certainly could not have been a better opportunity.... My trip with Sedgwick answered most perfectly. I did not hear of poor Mr. Ramsay's loss till a few days before your letter. I have been lucky hitherto in never losing any person for whom I had any esteem or affection. My acquaintance, although very short, was sufficient to give me those feelings in a great degree. I can hardly make myself believe he is no more. He was the finest character I ever knew. Yours most sincerely, My dear Sir, CH. DARWIN. I have written to Mr. Peacock, and I mentioned that I have asked you to send one line in the chance of his not getting my letter. I have also asked him to communicate with Captain Fitz-Roy. Even if I was to go, my father disliking would take away all energy, and I should want a good stock of that. Again I must thank you, it adds a little to the heavy but pleasant load of gratitude which I owe to you. CHARLES DARWIN TO R.W. DARWIN. [Maer] August 31, [1831]. My dear Father, I am afraid I am going to make you again very uncomfortable. But, upon consideration, I think you will excuse me once again, stating my opinions on the offer of the voyage. My excuse and reason is the different way all the Wedgwoods view the subject from what you and my sisters do. I have given Uncle Jos (Josiah Wedgwood.) what I fervently trust is an accurate and full list of your objections, and he is kind enough to give his opinions on all. The list and his answers will be enclosed. But may I beg of you one favour, it will be doing me the greatest kindness, if you will send me a decided answer, yes or no? If the latter, I should be most ungrateful if I did not implicitly yield to your better judgment, and to the kindest indulgence you have shown me all through my life; and you may rely upon it I will never mention the subject again. If your answer should be yes; I will go directly to Henslow and consult deliberately with him, and then come to Shrewsbury. The danger appears to me and all the Wedgwoods not great. The expense cannot be serious, and the time I do not think, anyhow, would be more thrown away then if I stayed at home. But pray do not consider that I am so bent on going that I would for one SINGLE MOMENT hesitate, if you thought that after a short period you should continue uncomfortable. I must again state I cannot think it would unfit me hereafter for a steady life. I do hope this letter will not give you much uneasiness. I send it by the car to-morrow morning; if you make up your mind directly will you send me an answer on the following day by the same means? If this letter should not find you at home, I hope you will answer as soon as you conveniently can. I do not know what to say about Uncle Jos' kindness; I never can forget how he interests himself about me. Believe me, my dear father, Your affectionate son, CHARLES DARWIN. [Here follows the list of objections which are referred to in the following letter:-- 1. Disreputable to my character as a Clergyman hereafter. 2. A wild scheme. 3. That they must have offered to many others before me the place of Naturalist. 4. And from its not being accepted there must be some serious objection to the vessel or expedition. 5. That I should never settle down to a steady life hereafter. 6. That my accommodations would be most uncomfortable. 7. That you [i.e. Dr. Darwin] should consider it as again changing my profession. 8. That it would be a useless undertaking.] JOSIAH WEDGWOOD TO R.W. DARWIN. Maer, August 31, 1831. [Read this last.] (In C. Darwin's writing.) My dear Doctor, I feel the responsibility of your application to me on the offer that has been made to Charles as being weighty, but as you have desired Charles to consult me, I cannot refuse to give the result of such consideration as I have been able to [give?] it. Charles has put down what he conceives to be your principal objections, and I think the best course I can take will be to state what occurs to me upon each of them. 1. I should not think that it would be in any degree disreputable to his character as a Clergyman. I should on the contrary think the offer honourable to him; and the pursuit of Natural History, though certainly not professional, is very suitable to a clergyman. 2. I hardly know how to meet this objection, but he would have definite objects upon which to employ himself, and might acquire and strengthen habits of application, and I should think would be as likely to do so as in any way in which he is likely to pass the next two years at home. 3. The notion did not occur to me in reading the letters; and on reading them again with that object in my mind I see no ground for it. 4. I cannot conceive that the Admiralty would send out a bad vessel on such a service. As to objections to the expedition, they will differ in each man's case, and nothing would, I think, be inferred in Charles's case, if it were known that others had objected. 5. You are a much better judge of Charles's character than I can be. If on comparing this mode of spending the next two years with the way in which he will probably spend them, if he does not accept this offer, you think him more likely to be rendered unsteady and unable to settle, it is undoubtedly a weighty objection. Is it not the case that sailors are prone to settle in domestic and quiet habits? 6. I can form no opinion on this further than that if appointed by the Admiralty he will have a claim to be as well accommodated as the vessel will allow. 7. If I saw Charles now absorbed in professional studies I should probably think it would not be advisable to interrupt them; but this is not, and, I think, will not be the case with him. His present pursuit of knowledge is in the same track as he would have to follow in the expedition. 8. The undertaking would be useless as regards his profession, but looking upon him as a man of enlarged curiosity, it affords him such an opportunity of seeing men and things as happens to few. You will bear in mind that I have had very little time for consideration, and that you and Charles are the persons who must decide. I am, My dear Doctor, Affectionately yours, JOSIAH WEDGWOOD. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Cambridge, Red Lion [September 2], 1831. My dear Sir, I am just arrived; you will guess the reason. My father has changed his mind. I trust the place is not given away. I am very much fatigued, and am going to bed. I dare say you have not yet got my second letter. How soon shall I come to you in the morning? Send a verbal answer. Good-night, Yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS SUSAN DARWIN. Cambridge, Sunday Morning [September 4]. My dear Susan, As a letter would not have gone yesterday, I put off writing till to-day. I had rather a wearisome journey, but got into Cambridge very fresh. The whole of yesterday I spent with Henslow, thinking of what is to be done, and that I find is a great deal. By great good luck I know a man of the name of Wood, nephew of Lord Londonderry. He is a great friend of Captain Fitz-Roy, and has written to him about me. I heard a part of Captain Fitz-Roy's letter, dated some time ago, in which he says: "I have a right good set of officers, and most of my men have been there before." It seems he has been there for the last few years; he was then second in command with the same vessel that he has now chosen. He is only twenty-three years old, but [has] seen a deal of service, and won the gold medal at Portsmouth. The Admiralty say his maps are most perfect. He had choice of two vessels, and he chose the smallest. Henslow will give me letters to all travellers in town whom he thinks may assist me. Peacock has sole appointment of Naturalist. The first person offered was Leonard Jenyns, who was so near accepting it that he packed up his clothes. But having [a] living, he did not think it right to leave it--to the great regret of all his family. Henslow himself was not very far from accepting it, for Mrs. Henslow most generously, and without being asked, gave her consent; but she looked so miserable that Henslow at once settled the point.... I am afraid there will be a good deal of expense at first. Henslow is much against taking many things; it is [the] mistake all young travellers fall into. I write as if it was settled, but Henslow tells me BY NO MEANS to make up my mind till I have had long conversations with Captains Beaufort and Fitz-Roy. Good-bye. You will hear from me constantly. Direct 17 Spring Gardens. TELL NOBODY in Shropshire yet. Be sure not. C. DARWIN. I was so tired that evening I was in Shrewsbury that I thanked none of you for your kindness half so much as I felt. Love to my father. The reason I don't want people told in Shropshire: in case I should not go, it will make it more flat. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS S. DARWIN. 17 Spring Gardens, Monday [September 5, 1831]. I have so little time to spare that I have none to waste in re-writing letters, so that you must excuse my bringing up the other with me and altering it. The last letter was written in the morning. In [the] middle of [the] day, Wood received a letter from Captain Fitz-Roy, which I must say was MOST straightforward and GENTLEMANLIKE, but so much against my going, that I immediately gave up the scheme; and Henslow did the same, saying that he thought Peacock had acted VERY WRONG in misrepresenting things so much. I scarcely thought of going to town, but here I am; and now for more details, and much more promising ones. Captain Fitz-Roy is [in] town, and I have seen him; it is no use attempting to praise him as much as I feel inclined to do, for you would not believe me. One thing I am certain, nothing could be more open and kind than he was to me. It seems he had promised to take a friend with him, who is in office and cannot go, and he only received the letter five minutes before I came in; and this makes things much better for me, as want of room was one of Fitz-Roy's greatest objections. He offers me to go share in everything in his cabin if I like to come, and every sort of accommodation that I can have, but they will not be numerous. He says nothing would be so miserable for him as having me with him if I was uncomfortable, as in a small vessel we must be thrown together, and thought it his duty to state everything in the worst point of view. I think I shall go on Sunday to Plymouth to see the vessel. There is something most extremely attractive in his manners and way of coming straight to the point. If I live with him, he says I must live poorly--no wine, and the plainest dinners. The scheme is not certainly so good as Peacock describes. Captain Fitz-Roy advises me not [to] make up my mind quite yet, but that, seriously, he thinks it will have much more pleasure than pain for me. The vessel does not sail till the 10th of October. It contains sixty men, five or six officers, etc., but is a small vessel. It will probably be out nearly three years. I shall pay to the mess the same as [the] Captain does himself, 30 pounds per annum; and Fitz-Roy says if I spend, including my outfitting, 500 pounds, it will be beyond the extreme. But now for still worse news. The round the world is not CERTAIN, but the chance most excellent. Till that point is decided, I will not be so. And you may believe, after the many changes I have made, that nothing but my reason shall decide me. Fitz-Roy says the stormy sea is exaggerated; that if I do not choose to remain with them, I can at any time get home to England, so many vessels sail that way, and that during bad weather (probably two months), if I like I shall be left in some healthy, safe and nice country; that I shall always have assistance; that he has many books, all instruments, guns, at my service; that the fewer and cheaper clothes I take the better. The manner of proceeding will just suit me. They anchor the ship, and then remain for a fortnight at a place. I have made Captain Beaufort perfectly understand me. He says if I start and do not go round the world, I shall have good reason to think myself deceived. I am to call the day after to-morrow, and, if possible, to receive more certain instructions. The want of room is decidedly the most serious objection; but Captain Fitz-Roy (probably owing to Wood's letter) seems determined to make me [as] comfortable as he possibly can. I like his manner of proceeding. He asked me at once, "Shall you bear being told that I want the cabin to myself--when I want to be alone? If we treat each other this way, I hope we shall suit; if not, probably we should wish each other at the devil." We stop a week at [the] Madeira Islands, and shall see most of [the] big cities in South America. Captain Beaufort is drawing up the track through the South Sea. I am writing in [a] great hurry; I do not know whether you take interest enough to excuse treble postage. I hope I am judging reasonably, and not through prejudice, about Captain Fitz-Roy; if so, I am sure we shall suit. I dine with him to-day. I could write [a] great deal more if I thought you liked it, and I had at present time. There is indeed a tide in the affairs of man, and I have experienced it, and I had ENTIRELY given it up till one to-day. Love to my father. Dearest Susan, good-bye. CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. London, Monday, [September 5, 1831]. My dear Sir, Gloria in excelsis is the most moderate beginning I can think of. Things are more prosperous than I should have thought possible. Captain Fitz-Roy is everything that is delightful. If I was to praise half so much as I feel inclined, you would say it was absurd, only once seeing him. I think he really wishes to have me. He offers me to mess with him, and he will take care I have such room as is possible. But about the cases he says I must limit myself; but then he thinks like a sailor about size. Captain Beaufort says I shall be upon the Boards, and then it will only cost me like other officers. Ship sails 10th of October. Spends a week at Madeira Islands; and then Rio de Janeiro. They all think most extremely probable, home by the Indian archipelago; but till that is decided, I will not be so. What has induced Captain Fitz-Roy to take a better view of the case is, that Mr. Chester, who was going as a friend, cannot go, so that I shall have his place in every respect. Captain Fitz-Roy has [a] good stock of books, many of which were in my list, and rifles, etc., so that the outfit will be much less expensive than I supposed. The vessel will be out three years. I do not object so that my father does not. On Wednesday I have another interview with Captain Beaufort, and on Sunday most likely go with Captain Fitz-Roy to Plymouth. So I hope you will keep on thinking on the subject, and just keep memoranda of what may strike you. I will call most probably on Mr. Burchell and introduce myself. I am in lodgings at 17 Spring Gardens. You cannot imagine anything more pleasant, kind, and open than Captain Fitz-Roy's manners were to me. I am sure it will be my fault if we do not suit. What changes I have had. Till one to-day I was building castles in the air about hunting foxes the Shropshire, now llamas in South America. There is indeed a tide in the affairs of men. If you see Mr. Wood, remember me very kindly to him. Good-bye. My dear Henslow, Your most sincere friend, CHAS. DARWIN. Excuse this letter in such a hurry. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. 17 Spring Gardens, London, September 6, 1831.... Your letter gave me great pleasure. You cannot imagine how much your former letter annoyed and hurt me. (He had misunderstood a letter of Fox's as implying a charge of falsehood.) But, thank heaven, I firmly believe that it was my OWN ENTIRE fault in so interpreting your letter. I lost a friend the other day, and I doubt whether the moral death (as I then wickedly supposed) of our friendship did not grieve me as much as the real and sudden death of poor Ramsay. We have known each other too long to need, I trust, any more explanations. But I will mention just one thing--that on my death-bed, I think I could say I never uttered one insincere (which at the time I did not fully feel) expression about my regard for you. One thing more--the sending IMMEDIATELY the insects, on my honour, was an unfortunate coincidence. I forgot how you naturally would take them. When you look at them now, I hope no unkindly feelings will rise in your mind, and that you will believe that you have always had in me a sincere, and I will add, an obliged friend. The very many pleasant minutes that we spent together in Cambridge rose like departed spirits in judgment against me. May we have many more such, will be one of my last wishes in leaving England. God bless you, dear old Fox. May you always be happy. Yours truly, CHAS. DARWIN. I have left your letter behind, so do not know whether I direct right. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS SUSAN DARWIN. 17 Spring Gardens, Tuesday, [September 6, 1831.] My dear Susan, Again I am going to trouble you. I suspect, if I keep on at this rate, you will sincerely wish me at Tierra del Fuego, or any other Terra, but England. First I will give my commissions. Tell Nancy to make me some twelve instead of eight shirts. Tell Edward to send me up in my carpet-bag (he can slip the key in the bag tied to some string), my slippers, a pair of lightish walking-shoes, my Spanish books, my new microscope (about six inches long and three or four deep), which must have cotton stuffed inside; my geological compass; my father knows that; a little book, if I have got it in my bedroom--'Taxidermy.' Ask my father if he thinks there would be any objection to my taking arsenic for a little time, as my hands are not quite well, and I have always observed that if I once get them well, and change my manner of living about the same time, they will generally remain well. What is the dose? Tell Edward my gun is dirty. What is Erasmus's direction? Tell me if you think there is time to write and receive an answer before I start, as I should like particularly to know what he thinks about it. I suppose you do not know Sir J. Mackintosh's direction? I write all this as if it was settled, but it is not more than it was, excepting that from Captain Fitz-Roy wishing me so much to go, and from his kindness, I feel a predestination I shall start. I spent a very pleasant evening with him yesterday. He must be more than twenty-three years old; he is of a slight figure, and a dark but handsome edition of Mr. Kynaston, and, according to my notions, pre-eminently good manners. He is all for economy, excepting on one point--viz., fire-arms. He recommends me strongly to get a case of pistols like his, which cost 60 pounds!! and never to go on shore anywhere without loaded ones, and he is doubting about a rifle; he says I cannot appreciate the luxury of fresh meat here. Of course I shall buy nothing till everything is settled; but I work all day long at my lists, putting in and striking out articles. This is the first really cheerful day I have spent since I received the letter, and it all is owing to the sort of involuntary confidence I place in my beau ideal of a Captain. We stop at Teneriffe. His object is to stop at as many places as possible. He takes out twenty chronometers, and it will be a "sin" not to settle the longitude. He tells me to get it down in writing at the Admiralty that I have the free choice to leave as soon and whenever I like. I dare say you expect I shall turn back at the Madeira; if I have a morsel of stomach left, I won't give up. Excuse my so often troubling and writing: the one is of great utility, the other a great amusement to me. Most likely I shall write to-morrow. Answer by return of post. Love to my father, dearest Susan. C. DARWIN. As my instruments want altering, send my things by the 'Oxonian' the same night. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS SUSAN DARWIN. London, Friday Morning, September 9, 1831. My dear Susan, I have just received the parcel. I suppose it was not delivered yesterday owing to the Coronation. I am very much obliged to my father, and everybody else. Everything is done quite right. I suppose by this time you have received my letter written next day, and I hope will send off the things. My affairs remain in statu quo. Captain Beaufort says I am on the books for victuals, and he thinks I shall have no difficulty about my collections when I come home. But he is too deep a fish for me to make him out. The only thing that now prevents me finally making up my mind, is the want of certainty about the South Sea Islands; although morally I have no doubt we should go there whether or no it is put in the instructions. Captain Fitz-Roy says I do good by plaguing Captain Beaufort, it stirs him up with a long pole. Captain Fitz-Roy says he is sure he has interest enough (particularly if this Administration is not everlasting--I shall soon turn Tory!), anyhow, even when out, to get the ship ordered home by whatever track he likes. From what Wood says, I presume the Dukes of Grafton and Richmond interest themselves about him. By the way, Wood has been of the greatest use to me; and I am sure his personal introduction of me inclined Captain Fitz-Roy to have me. To explain things from the very beginning: Captain Fitz-Roy first wished to have a Naturalist, and then he seems to have taken a sudden horror of the chances of having somebody he should not like on board the vessel. He confesses his letter to Cambridge was to throw cold water on the scheme. I don't think we shall quarrel about politics, although Wood (as might be expected from a Londonderry) solemnly warned Fitz-Roy that I was a Whig. Captain Fitz-Roy was before Uncle Jos., he said, "now your friends will tell you a sea-captain is the greatest brute on the face of the creation. I do not know how to help you in this case, except by hoping you will give me a trial." How one does change! I actually now wish the voyage was longer before we touch land. I feel my blood run cold at the quantity I have to do. Everybody seems ready to assist me. The Zoological want to make me a corresponding member. All this I can construct without crossing the Equator. But one friend is quite invaluable, viz., a Mr. Yarrell, a stationer, and excellent naturalist. (William Yarrell, well-known for his 'History of British Birds' and 'History of British Fishes,' was born in 1784. He inherited from his father a newsagent's business, to which he steadily adhered up to his death, "in his 73rd year." He was a man of a thoroughly amiable and honourable character, and was a valued office-bearer of several of the learned Societies.) He goes to the shops with me and bullies about prices (not that I yet buy): hang me if I give 60 pounds for pistols. Yesterday all the shops were shut, so that I could do nothing; and I was child enough to give 1 pound 1 shilling for an excellent seat to see the Procession. (The Coronation of William IV.) And it certainly was very well worth seeing. I was surprised that any quantity of gold could make a long row of people quite glitter. It was like only what one sees in picture-books of Eastern processions. The King looked very well, and seemed popular, but there was very little enthusiasm; so little that I can hardly think there will be a coronation this time fifty years. The Life Guards pleased me as much as anything--they are quite magnificent; and it is beautiful to see them clear a crowd. You think that they must kill a score at least, and apparently they really hurt nobody, but most deucedly frighten them. Whenever a crowd was so dense that the people were forced off the causeway, one of these six-feet gentlemen, on a black horse, rode straight at the place, making his horse rear very high, and fall on the thickest spot. You would suppose men were made of sponge to see them shrink away. In the evening there was an illumination, and much grander than the one on the Reform Bill. All the principal streets were crowded just like a race-ground. Carriages generally being six abreast, and I will venture to say not going one mile an hour. The Duke of Northumberland learnt a lesson last time, for his house was very grand; much more so than the other great nobility, and in much better taste; every window in his house was full of straight lines of brilliant lights, and from their extreme regularity and number had a beautiful effect. The paucity of invention was very striking, crowns, anchors, and "W.R.'s" were repeated in endless succession. The prettiest were gas-pipes with small holes; they were almost painfully brilliant. I have written so much about the Coronation, that I think you will have no occasion to read the "Morning Herald". For about the first time in my life I find London very pleasant; hurry, bustle, and noise are all in unison with my feelings. And I have plenty to do in spare moments. I work at Astronomy, as I suppose it would astound a sailor if one did not know how to find Latitude and Longitude. I am now going to Captain Fitz-Roy, and will keep [this] letter open till evening for anything that may occur. I will give you one proof of Fitz-Roy being a good officer--all the officers are the same as before; two-thirds of his crew and [the] eight marines who went before all offered to come again, so the service cannot be so very bad. The Admiralty have just issued orders for a large stock of canister-meat and lemon-juice, etc. etc. I have just returned from spending a long day with Captain Fitz-Roy, driving about in his gig, and shopping. This letter is too late for to-day's post. You may consider it settled that I go. Yet there is room for change if any untoward accident should happen; this I can see no reason to expect. I feel convinced nothing else will alter my wish of going. I have begun to order things. I have procured a case of good strong pistols and an excellent rifle for 50 pounds, there is a saving; a good telescope, with compass, 5 pounds, and these are nearly the only expensive instruments I shall want. Captain Fitz-Roy has everything. I never saw so (what I should call, he says not) extravagant a man, as regards himself, but as economical towards me. How he did order things! His fire-arms will cost 400 pounds at least. I found the carpet bag when I arrived all right, and much obliged. I do not think I shall take any arsenic; shall send partridges to Mr. Yarrell; much obliged. Ask Edward to BARGAIN WITH Clemson to make for my gun--TWO SPARE hammers or cocks, two main-springs, two sere-springs, four nipples or plugs--I mean one for each barrel, except nipples, of which there must be two for each, all of excellent quality, and set about them immediately; tell Edward to make inquiries about prices. I go on Sunday per packet to Plymouth, shall stay one or two days, then return, and hope to find a letter from you; a few days in London; then Cambridge, Shrewsbury, London, Plymouth, Madeira, is my route. It is a great bore my writing so much about the Coronation; I could fill another sheet. I have just been with Captain King, Fitz-Roy's senior officer last expedition; he thinks that the expedition will suit me. Unasked, he said Fitz-Roy's temper was perfect. He sends his own son with him as midshipman. The key of my microscope was forgotten; it is of no consequence. Love to all. CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. 17 Spring Gardens (and here I shall remain till I start) [September 19, 1831]. My dear Fox, I returned from my expedition to see the "Beagle" at Plymouth on Saturday, and found your most welcome letter on my table. It is quite ridiculous what a very long period these last twenty days have appeared to me, certainly much more than as many weeks on ordinary occasions; this will account for my not recollecting how much I told you of my plans.... But on the whole it is a grand and fortunate opportunity; there will be so many things to interest me--fine scenery and an endless occupation and amusement in the different branches of Natural History; then again navigation and meteorology will amuse me on the voyage, joined to the grand requisite of there being a pleasant set of officers, and, as far as I can judge, this is certain. On the other hand there is very considerable risk to one's life and health, and the leaving for so very long a time so many people whom I dearly love, is oftentimes a feeling so painful that it requires all my resolution to overcome it. But everything is now settled, and before the 20th of October I trust to be on the broad sea. My objection to the vessel is its smallness, which cramps one so for room for packing my own body and all my cases, etc., etc. As to its safety, I hope the Admiralty are the best judges; to a landsman's eye she looks very small. She is a ten-gun three-masted brig, but, I believe, an excellent vessel. So much for my future plans, and now for my present. I go to-night by the mail to Cambridge, and from thence, after settling my affairs, proceed to Shrewsbury (most likely on Friday 23rd, or perhaps before); there I shall stay a few days, and be in London by the 1st of October, and start for Plymouth on the 9th. And now for the principal part of my letter. I do not know how to tell you how very kind I feel your offer of coming to see me before I leave England. Indeed I should like it very much; but I must tell you decidedly that I shall have very little time to spare, and that little time will be almost spoilt by my having so much to think about; and secondly, I can hardly think it worth your while to leave your parish for such a cause. But I shall never forget such generous kindness. Now I know you will act just as you think right; but do not come up for my sake. Any time is the same for me. I think from this letter you will know as much of my plans as I do myself, and will judge accordingly the where and when to write to me. Every now and then I have moments of glorious enthusiasm, when I think of the date and cocoa-trees, the palms and ferns so lofty and beautiful, everything new, everything sublime. And if I live to see years in after life, how grand must such recollections be! Do you know Humboldt? (If you don't, do so directly.) With what intense pleasure he appears always to look back on the days spent in the tropical countries. I hope when you next write to Osmaston, [you will] tell them my scheme, and give them my kindest regards and farewells. Good-bye, my dear Fox, Yours ever sincerely, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO R. FITZ-ROY. 17 Spring Gardens [October 17? 1831]. Dear Fitz-Roy, Very many thanks for your letter; it has made me most comfortable, for it would have been heart-breaking to have left anything quite behind, and I never should have thought of sending things by some other vessel. This letter will, I trust, accompany some talc. I read your letter without attending to the name. But I have now procured some from Jones, which appears very good, and I will send it this evening by the mail. You will be surprised at not seeing me propria persona instead of my handwriting. But I had just found out that the large steam-packet did not intend to sail on Sunday, and I was picturing to myself a small, dirty cabin, with the proportion of 39-40ths of the passengers very sick, when Mr. Earl came in and told me the "Beagle" would not sail till the beginning of November. This, of course, settled the point; so that I remain in London one week more. I shall then send heavy goods by steamer and start myself by the coach on Sunday evening. Have you a good set of mountain barometers? Several great guns in the scientific world have told me some points in geology to ascertain which entirely depend on their relative height. If you have not a good stock, I will add one more to the list. I ought to be ashamed to trouble you so much, but will you SEND ONE LINE to inform me? I am daily becoming more anxious to be off, and, if I am so, you must be in a perfect fever. What a glorious day the 4th of November will be to me! My second life will then commence, and it shall be as a birthday for the rest of my life. Believe me, dear Fitz-Roy, Yours most sincerely, CHAS. DARWIN. MONDAY.--I hope I have not put you to much inconvenience by ordering the room in readiness. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Devonport, November 15, 1831. My dear Henslow, The orders are come down from the Admiralty, and everything is finally settled. We positively sail the last day of this month, and I think before that time the vessel will be ready. She looks most beautiful, even a landsman must admire her. WE all think her the most perfect vessel ever turned out of the Dockyard. One thing is certain, no vessel has been fitted out so expensively, and with so much care. Everything that can be made so is of mahogany, and nothing can exceed the neatness and beauty of all the accommodations. The instructions are very general, and leave a great deal to the Captain's discretion and judgment, paying a substantial as well as a verbal compliment to him.... No vessel ever left England with such a set of Chronometers, viz., twenty-four, all very good ones. In short, everything is well, and I have only now to pray for the sickness to moderate its fierceness, and I shall do very well. Yet I should not call it one of the very best opportunities for natural history that has ever occurred. The absolute want of room is an evil that nothing can surmount. I think L. Jenyns did very wisely in not coming, that is judging from my own feelings, for I am sure if I had left college some few years, or been those years older, I NEVER could have endured it. The officers (excepting the Captain) are like the freshest freshmen, that is in their manners, in everything else widely different. Remember me most kindly to him, and tell him if ever he dreams in the night of palm-trees, he may in the morning comfort himself with the assurance that the voyage would not have suited him. I am much obliged for your advice, de Mathematicis. I suspect when I am struggling with a triangle, I shall often wish myself in your room, and as for those wicked sulky surds, I do not know what I shall do without you to conjure them. My time passes away very pleasantly. I know one or two pleasant people, foremost of whom is Mr. Thunder-and-lightning Harris (William Snow Harris, the Electrician.), whom I dare say you have heard of. My chief employment is to go on board the "Beagle", and try to look as much like a sailor as I can. I have no evidence of having taken in man, woman or child. I am going to ask you to do one more commission, and I trust it will be the last. When I was in Cambridge, I wrote to Mr. Ash, asking him to send my College account to my father, after having subtracted about 30 pounds for my furniture. This he has forgotten to do, and my father has paid the bill, and I want to have the furniture-money transmitted to my father. Perhaps you would be kind enough to speak to Mr. Ash. I have cost my father so much money, I am quite ashamed of myself. I will write once again before sailing, and perhaps you will write to me before then. Remember me to Professor Sedgwick and Mr. Peacock. Believe me, yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Devonport, December 3, 1831. My dear Henslow, It is now late in the evening, and to-night I am going to sleep on board. On Monday we most certainly sail, so you may guess what a desperate state of confusion we are all in. If you were to hear the various exclamations of the officers, you would suppose we had scarcely had a week's notice. I am just in the same way taken all ABACK, and in such a bustle I hardly know what to do. The number of things to be done is infinite. I look forward even to sea-sickness with something like satisfaction, anything must be better than this state of anxiety. I am very much obliged for your last kind and affectionate letter. I always like advice from you, and no one whom I have the luck to know is more capable of giving it than yourself. Recollect, when you write, that I am a sort of protege of yours, and that it is your bounden duty to lecture me. I will now give you my direction; it is at first, Rio; but if you will send me a letter on the first Tuesday (when the packet sails) in February, directed to Monte Video, it will give me very great pleasure; I shall so much enjoy hearing a little Cambridge news. Poor dear old Alma Mater! I am a very worthy son in as far as affection goes. I have little more to write about...I cannot end this without telling you how cordially I feel grateful for the kindness you have shown me during my Cambridge life. Much of the pleasure and utility which I may have derived from it is owing to you. I long for the time when we shall again meet, and till then believe me, my dear Henslow, Your affectionate and obliged friend, CH. DARWIN. Remember me most kindly to those who take any interest in me. CHAPTER 1.VI. -- THE VOYAGE. "There is a natural good-humoured energy in his letters just like himself."--From a letter of Dr. R.W. Darwin's to Prof. Henslow. [The object of the "Beagle" voyage is briefly described in my father's 'Journal of Researches,' page 1, as being "to complete the Survey of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, commenced under Captain King in 1826 to 1830; to survey the shores of Chile, Peru, and some island in the Pacific; and to carry a chain of chronometrical measurements round the world."] The "Beagle" is described as a well-built little vessel, of 235 tons, rigged as a barque, and carrying six guns. She belonged to the old class of ten-gun brigs, which were nicknamed "coffins," from their liability to go down in severe weather. They were very "deep-waisted," that is, their bulwarks were high in proportion to their size, so that a heavy sea breaking over them might be highly dangerous. Nevertheless, she lived through the five years' work, in the most stormy regions in the world, under Commanders Stokes and Fitz-Roy, without a serious accident. When re-commissioned in 1831 for her second voyage, she was found (as I learn from Admiral Sir James Sulivan) to be so rotten that she had practically to be rebuilt, and it was this that caused the long delay in refitting. The upper deck was raised, making her much safer in heavy weather, and giving her far more comfortable accommodation below. By these alterations and by the strong sheathing added to her bottom she was brought up to 242 tons burthen. It is a proof of the splendid seamanship of Captain Fitz-Roy and his officers that she returned without having carried away a spar, and that in only one of the heavy storms that she encountered was she in great danger. She was fitted out for the expedition with all possible care, being supplied with carefully chosen spars and ropes, six boats, and a "dinghy;" lightning conductors, "invented by Mr. Harris, were fixed in all the masts, the bowsprits, and even in the flying jib-boom." To quote my father's description, written from Devonport, November 17, 1831: "Everybody, who can judge, says it is one of the grandest voyages that has almost ever been sent out. Everything is on a grand scale. Twenty-four chronometers. The whole ship is fitted up with mahogany; she is the admiration of the whole place. In short, everything is as prosperous as human means can make it." Owing to the smallness of the vessel, every one on board was cramped for room, and my father's accommodation seems to have been small enough: "I have just room to turn round," he writes to Henslow, "and that is all." Admiral Sir James Sulivan writes to me: "The narrow space at the end of the chart-table was his only accommodation for working, dressing, and sleeping; the hammock being left hanging over his head by day, when the sea was at all rough, that he might lie on it with a book in his hand when he could not any longer sit at the table. His only stowage for clothes being several small drawers in the corner, reaching from deck to deck; the top one being taken out when the hammock was hung up, without which there was not length for it, so then the foot-clews took the place of the top drawer. For specimens he had a very small cabin under the forecastle." Yet of this narrow room he wrote enthusiastically, September 17, 1831:-- "When I wrote last I was in great alarm about my cabin. The cabins were not then marked out, but when I left they were, and mine is a capital one, certainly next best to the Captain's and remarkably light. My companion most luckily, I think, will turn out to be the officer whom I shall like best. Captain Fitz-Roy says he will take care that one corner is so fitted up that I shall be comfortable in it and shall consider it my home, but that also I shall have the run of his. My cabin is the drawing one; and in the middle is a large table, on which we two sleep in hammocks. But for the first two months there will be no drawing to be done, so that it will be quite a luxurious room, and good deal larger than the Captain's cabin." My father used to say that it was the absolute necessity of tidiness in the cramped space of the "Beagle" that helped 'to give him his methodical habits of working.' On the "Beagle", too, he would say, that he learned what he considered the golden rule for saving time; i.e., taking care of the minutes. Sir James Sulivan tells me that the chief fault in the outfit of the expedition was the want of a second smaller vessel to act as tender. This want was so much felt by Captain Fitz-Roy that he hired two decked boats to survey the coast of Patagonia, at a cost of 1100 pounds, a sum which he had to supply, although the boats saved several thousand pounds to the country. He afterwards bought a schooner to act as a tender, thus saving the country a further large amount. He was ultimately ordered to sell the schooner, and was compelled to bear the loss himself, and it was only after his death that some inadequate compensation was made for all the losses which he suffered through his zeal. For want of a proper tender, much of the work had to be done in small open whale boats, which were sent away from the ship for weeks together, and this in a climate, where the crews were exposed to severe hardships from the almost constant rains, which sometimes continued for weeks together. The completeness of the equipment was also in other respects largely due to the public spirit of Captain Fitz-Roy. He provided at his own cost an artist, and a skilled instrument-maker to look after the chronometers. (Either one or both were on the books for victuals.) Captain Fitz-Roy's wish was to take "some well-educated and scientific person" as his private guest, but this generous offer was only accepted by my father on condition of being allowed to pay a fair share of the expense of the Captain's table; he was, moreover, on the ship's books for victuals. In a letter to his sister (July 1832) he writes contentedly of his manner of life at sea:--"I do not think I have ever given you an account of how the day passes. We breakfast at eight o'clock. The invariable maxim is to throw away all politeness--that is, never to wait for each other, and bolt off the minute one has done eating, etc. At sea, when the weather is calm, I work at marine animals, with which the whole ocean abounds. If there is any sea up I am either sick or contrive to read some voyage or travels. At one we dine. You shore-going people are lamentably mistaken about the manner of living on board. We have never yet (nor shall we) dined off salt meat. Rice and peas and calavanses are excellent vegetables, and, with good bread, who could want more? Judge Alderson could not be more temperate, as nothing but water comes on the table. At five we have tea. The midshipmen's berth have all their meals an hour before us, and the gun-room an hour afterwards." The crew of the "Beagle" consisted of Captain Fitz-Roy, "Commander and Surveyor," two lieutenants, one of whom (the first lieutenant) was the late Captain Wickham, Governor of Queensland; the present Admiral Sir James Sulivan, K.C.B., was the second lieutenant. Besides the master and two mates, there was an assistant-surveyor, the present Admiral Lort Stokes. There were also a surgeon, assistant-surgeon, two midshipmen, master's mate, a volunteer (1st class), purser, carpenter, clerk, boatswain, eight marines, thirty-four seamen, and six boys. There are not now (1882) many survivors of my father's old ship-mates. Admiral Mellersh, Mr. Hammond, and Mr. Philip King, of the Legislative Council of Sydney, and Mr. Usborne, are among the number. Admiral Johnson died almost at the same time as my father. He retained to the last a most pleasant recollection of the voyage of the "Beagle", and of the friends he made on board her. To his children their names were familiar, from his many stories of the voyage, and we caught his feeling of friendship for many who were to us nothing more than names. It is pleasant to know how affectionately his old companions remembered him. Sir James Sulivan remained, throughout my father's lifetime, one of his best and truest friends. He writes:--"I can confidently express my belief that during the five years in the "Beagle", he was never known to be out of temper, or to say one unkind or hasty word OF or TO any one. You will therefore readily understand how this, combined with the admiration of his energy and ability, led to our giving him the name of 'the dear old Philosopher.'" (His other nickname was "The Flycatcher." I have heard my father tell how he overheard the boatswain of the "Beagle" showing another boatswain over the ship, and pointing out the officers: "That's our first lieutenant; that's our doctor; that's our flycatcher.") Admiral Mellersh writes to me:--"Your father is as vividly in my mind's eye as if it was only a week ago that I was in the "Beagle" with him; his genial smile and conversation can never be forgotten by any who saw them and heard them. I was sent on two or three occasions away in a boat with him on some of his scientific excursions, and always looked forward to these trips with great pleasure, an anticipation that, unlike many others, was always realised. I think he was the only man I ever knew against whom I never heard a word said; and as people when shut up in a ship for five years are apt to get cross with each other, that is saying a good deal. Certainly we were always so hard at work, we had no time to quarrel, but if we had done so, I feel sure your father would have tried (and have been successful) to throw oil on the troubled waters." Admiral Stokes, Mr. King, Mr. Usborne, and Mr. Hamond, all speak of their friendship with him in the same warm-hearted way. Of the life on board and on shore his letters give some idea. Captain Fitz-Roy was a strict officer, and made himself thoroughly respected both by officers and men. The occasional severity of his manner was borne with because every one on board knew that his first thought was his duty, and that he would sacrifice anything to the real welfare of the ship. My father writes, July 1834, "We all jog on very well together, there is no quarrelling on board, which is something to say. The Captain keeps all smooth by rowing every one in turn." The best proof that Fitz-Roy was valued as a commander is given by the fact that many ('Voyage of the "Adventure" and "Beagle",' vol. ii. page 21.) of the crew had sailed with him in the "Beagle's" former voyage, and there were a few officers as well as seamen and marines, who had served in the "Adventure" or "Beagle" during the whole of that expedition. My father speaks of the officers as a fine determined set of men, and especially of Wickham, the first lieutenant, as a "glorious fellow." The latter being responsible for the smartness and appearance of the ship strongly objected to his littering the decks, and spoke of specimens as "d--d beastly devilment," and used to add, "If I were skipper, I would soon have you and all your d--d mess out of the place." A sort of halo of sanctity was given to my father by the fact of his dining in the Captain's cabin, so that the midshipmen used at first to call him "Sir," a formality, however, which did not prevent his becoming fast friends with the younger officers. He wrote about the year 1861 or 1862 to Mr. P.G. King, M.L.C., Sydney, who, as before stated, was a midshipman on board the "Beagle":--"The remembrance of old days, when we used to sit and talk on the booms of the "Beagle", will always, to the day of my death, make me glad to hear of your happiness and prosperity." Mr. King describes the pleasure my father seemed to take "in pointing out to me as a youngster the delights of the tropical nights, with their balmy breezes eddying out of the sails above us, and the sea lighted up by the passage of the ship through the never-ending streams of phosphorescent animalculae." It has been assumed that his ill-health in later years was due to his having suffered so much from sea-sickness. This he did not himself believe, but rather ascribed his bad health to the hereditary fault which came out as gout in some of the past generations. I am not quite clear as to how much he actually suffered from sea-sickness; my impression is distinct that, according to his own memory, he was not actually ill after the first three weeks, but constantly uncomfortable when the vessel pitched at all heavily. But, judging from his letters, and from the evidence of some of the officers, it would seem that in later years he forgot the extent of the discomfort from which he suffered. Writing June 3, 1836, from the Cape of Good Hope, he says: "It is a lucky thing for me that the voyage is drawing to its close, for I positively suffer more from sea-sickness now than three years ago." Admiral Lort Stokes wrote to the "Times", April 25, 1883:-- "May I beg a corner for my feeble testimony to the marvellous persevering endurance in the cause of science of that great naturalist, my old and lost friend, Mr. Charles Darwin, whose remains are so very justly to be honoured with a resting-place in Westminster Abbey? "Perhaps no one can better testify to his early and most trying labours than myself. We worked together for several years at the same table in the poop cabin of the 'Beagle' during her celebrated voyage, he with his microscope and myself at the charts. It was often a very lively end of the little craft, and distressingly so to my old friend, who suffered greatly from sea-sickness. After perhaps an hour's work he would say to me, 'Old fellow, I must take the horizontal for it,' that being the best relief position from ship motion; a stretch out on one side of the table for some time would enable him to resume his labours for a while, when he had again to lie down. "It was distressing to witness this early sacrifice of Mr. Darwin's health, who ever afterwards seriously felt the ill-effects of the 'Beagle's' voyage." Mr. A.B. Usborne writes, "He was a dreadful sufferer from sea-sickness, and at times, when I have been officer of the watch, and reduced the sails, making the ship more easy, and thus relieving him, I have been pronounced by him to be 'a good officer,' and he would resume his microscopic observations in the poop cabin." The amount of work that he got through on the "Beagle" shows that he was habitually in full vigour; he had, however, one severe illness, in South America, when he was received into the house of an Englishman, Mr. Corfield, who tended him with careful kindness. I have heard him say that in this illness every secretion of the body was affected, and that when he described the symptoms to his father Dr. Darwin could make no guess as to the nature of the disease. My father was sometimes inclined to think that the breaking up of his health was to some extent due to this attack. The "Beagle" letters give ample proof of his strong love of home, and all connected with it, from his father down to Nancy, his old nurse, to whom he sometimes sends his love. His delight in home-letters is shown in such passages as:--"But if you knew the glowing, unspeakable delight, which I felt at being certain that my father and all of you were well, only four months ago, you would not grudge the labour lost in keeping up the regular series of letters." Or again--his longing to return in words like these:--"It is too delightful to think that I shall see the leaves fall and hear the robin sing next autumn at Shrewsbury. My feelings are those of a schoolboy to the smallest point; I doubt whether ever boy longed for his holidays as much as I do to see you all again. I am at present, although nearly half the world is between me and home, beginning to arrange what I shall do, where I shall go during the first week." Another feature in his letters is the surprise and delight with which he hears of his collections and observations being of some use. It seems only to have gradually occurred to him that he would ever be more than collector of specimens and facts, of which the great men were to make use. And even as to the value of his collections he seems to have had much doubt, for he wrote to Henslow in 1834:--"I really began to think that my collections were so poor that you were puzzled what to say; the case is now quite on the opposite tack, for you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow it shall not be spared." After his return and settlement in London, he began to realise the value of what he had done, and wrote to Captain Fitz-Roy--"However others may look back to the 'Beagle's' voyage, now that the small disagreeable parts are well-nigh forgotten, I think it far the MOST FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE IN MY LIFE that the chance afforded by your offer of taking a Naturalist fell on me. I often have the most vivid and delightful pictures of what I saw on board the 'Beagle' pass before my eyes. These recollections, and what I learnt on Natural History, I would not exchange for twice ten thousand a year." [In selecting the following series of letters, I have been guided by the wish to give as much personal detail as possible. I have given only a few scientific letters, to illustrate the way in which he worked, and how he regarded his own results. In his 'Journal of Researches' he gives incidentally some idea of his personal character; the letters given in the present chapter serve to amplify in fresher and more spontaneous words that impression of his personality which the 'Journal' has given to so many readers.] CHARLES DARWIN TO R.W. DARWIN. Bahia, or San Salvador, Brazils [February 8, 1832]. I find after the first page I have been writing to my sisters. My dear Father, I am writing this on the 8th of February, one day's sail past St. Jago (Cape de Verd), and intend taking the chance of meeting with a homeward-bound vessel somewhere about the equator. The date, however, will tell this whenever the opportunity occurs. I will now begin from the day of leaving England, and give a short account of our progress. We sailed, as you know, on the 27th of December, and have been fortunate enough to have had from that time to the present a fair and moderate breeze. It afterwards proved that we had escaped a heavy gale in the Channel, another at Madeira, and another on [the] Coast of Africa. But in escaping the gale, we felt its consequences--a heavy sea. In the Bay of Biscay there was a long and continuous swell, and the misery I endured from sea-sickness is far beyond what I ever guessed at. I believe you are curious about it. I will give you all my dear-bought experience. Nobody who has only been to sea for twenty-four hours has a right to say that sea-sickness is even uncomfortable. The real misery only begins when you are so exhausted that a little exertion makes a feeling of faintness come on. I found nothing but lying in my hammock did me any good. I must especially except your receipt of raisins, which is the only food that the stomach will bear. On the 4th of January we were not many miles from Madeira, but as there was a heavy sea running, and the island lay to windward, it was not thought worth while to beat up to it. It afterwards has turned out it was lucky we saved ourselves the trouble. I was much too sick even to get up to see the distant outline. On the 6th, in the evening, we sailed into the harbour of Santa Cruz. I now first felt even moderately well, and I was picturing to myself all the delights of fresh fruits growing in beautiful valleys, and reading Humboldt's descriptions of the island's glorious views, when perhaps you may nearly guess at our disappointment, when a small pale man informed us we must perform a strict quarantine of twelve days. There was a death-like stillness in the ship till the Captain cried "up jib," and we left this long-wished for place. We were becalmed for a day between Teneriffe and the Grand Canary, and here I first experienced any enjoyment. The view was glorious. The Peak of Teneriffe was seen amongst the clouds like another world. Our only drawback was the extreme wish of visiting this glorious island. TELL EYTON NEVER TO FORGET EITHER THE CANARY ISLANDS OR SOUTH AMERICA; that I am sure it will well repay the necessary trouble, but that he must make up his mind to find a good deal of the latter. I feel certain he will regret it if he does not make the attempt. From Teneriffe to St. Jago the voyage was extremely pleasant. I had a net astern the vessel which caught great numbers of curious animals, and fully occupied my time in my cabin, and on deck the weather was so delightful and clear, that the sky and water together made a picture. On the 16th we arrived at Port Praya, the capital of the Cape de Verds, and there we remained twenty-three days, viz., till yesterday, the 7th of February. The time has flown away most delightfully, indeed nothing can be pleasanter; exceedingly busy, and that business both a duty and a great delight. I do not believe I have spent one half-hour idly since leaving Teneriffe. St. Jago has afforded me an exceedingly rich harvest in several branches of Natural History. I find the descriptions scarcely worth anything of many of the commoner animals that inhabit the Tropics. I allude, of course, to those of the lower classes. Geologising in a volcanic country is most delightful; besides the interest attached to itself, it leads you into most beautiful and retired spots. Nobody but a person fond of Natural History can imagine the pleasure of strolling under cocoa-nuts in a thicket of bananas and coffee-plants, and an endless number of wild flowers. And this island, that has given me so much instruction and delight, is reckoned the most uninteresting place that we perhaps shall touch at during our voyage. It certainly is generally very barren, but the valleys are more exquisitely beautiful, from the very contrast. It is utterly useless to say anything about the scenery; it would be as profitable to explain to a blind man colours, as to a person who has not been out of Europe, the total dissimilarity of a tropical view. Whenever I enjoy anything, I always either look forward to writing it down, either in my log-book (which increases in bulk), or in a letter; so you must excuse raptures, and those raptures badly expressed. I find my collections are increasing wonderfully, and from Rio I think I shall be obliged to send a cargo home. All the endless delays which we experienced at Plymouth have been most fortunate, as I verily believe no person ever went out better provided for collecting and observing in the different branches of Natural History. In a multitude of counsellors I certainly found good. I find to my great surprise that a ship is singularly comfortable for all sorts of work. Everything is so close at hand, and being cramped makes one so methodical, that in the end I have been a gainer. I already have got to look at going to sea as a regular quiet place, like going back to home after staying away from it. In short, I find a ship a very comfortable house, with everything you want, and if it was not for sea-sickness the whole world would be sailors. I do not think there is much danger of Erasmus setting the example, but in case there should be, he may rely upon it he does not know one-tenth of the sufferings of sea-sickness. I like the officers much more than I did at first, especially Wickham, and young King and Stokes, and indeed all of them. The Captain continues steadily very kind, and does everything in his power to assist me. We see very little of each other when in harbour, our pursuits lead us in such different tracks. I never in my life met with a man who could endure nearly so great a share of fatigue. He works incessantly, and when apparently not employed, he is thinking. If he does not kill himself, he will during this voyage do a wonderful quantity of work. I find I am very well, and stand the little heat we have had as yet as well as anybody. We shall soon have it in real earnest. We are now sailing for Fernando Noronha, off the coast of Brazil, where we shall not stay very long, and then examine the shoals between there and Rio, touching perhaps at Bahia. I will finish this letter when an opportunity of sending it occurs. FEBRUARY 26TH. About 280 miles from Bahia. On the 10th we spoke the packet "Lyra", on her voyage to Rio. I sent a short letter by her, to be sent to England on [the] first opportunity. We have been singularly unlucky in not meeting with any homeward-bound vessels, but I suppose [at] Bahia we certainly shall be able to write to England. Since writing the first part of [this] letter nothing has occurred except crossing the Equator, and being shaved. This most disagreeable operation consists in having your face rubbed with paint and tar, which forms a lather for a saw which represents the razor, and then being half drowned in a sail filled with salt water. About 50 miles north of the line we touched at the rocks of St. Paul; this little speck (about 1/4 of a mile across) in the Atlantic has seldom been visited. It is totally barren, but is covered by hosts of birds; they were so unused to men that we found we could kill plenty with stones and sticks. After remaining some hours on the island, we returned on board with the boat loaded with our prey. From this we went to Fernando Noronha, a small island where the [Brazilians] send their exiles. The landing there was attended with so much difficulty owing [to] a heavy surf that the Captain determined to sail the next day after arriving. My one day on shore was exceedingly interesting, the whole island is one single wood so matted together by creepers that it is very difficult to move out of the beaten path. I find the Natural History of all these unfrequented spots most exceedingly interesting, especially the geology. I have written this much in order to save time at Bahia. Decidedly the most striking thing in the Tropics is the novelty of the vegetable forms. Cocoa-nuts could well be imagined from drawings, if you add to them a graceful lightness which no European tree partakes of. Bananas and plantains are exactly the same as those in hothouses, the acacias or tamarinds are striking from the blueness of their foliage; but of the glorious orange trees, no description, no drawings, will give any just idea; instead of the sickly green of our oranges, the native ones exceed the Portugal laurel in the darkness of their tint, and infinitely exceed it in beauty of form. Cocoa-nuts, papaws, the light green bananas, and oranges, loaded with fruit, generally surround the more luxuriant villages. Whilst viewing such scenes, one feels the impossibility that any description would come near the mark, much less be overdrawn. MARCH 1ST. Bahia, or San Salvador. I arrived at this place on the 28th of February, and am now writing this letter after having in real earnest strolled in the forests of the new world. No person could imagine anything so beautiful as the ancient town of Bahia, it is fairly embosomed in a luxuriant wood of beautiful trees, and situated on a steep bank, and overlooks the calm waters of the great bay of All Saints. The houses are white and lofty, and, from the windows being narrow and long, have a very light and elegant appearance. Convents, porticos, and public buildings, vary the uniformity of the houses; the bay is scattered over with large ships; in short, and what can be said more, it is one of the finest views in the Brazils. But the exquisite glorious pleasure of walking amongst such flowers, and such trees, cannot be comprehended but by those who have experienced it. Although in so low a latitude the locality is not disagreeably hot, but at present it is very damp, for it is the rainy season. I find the climate as yet agrees admirably with me; it makes me long to live quietly for some time in such a country. If you really want to have [an idea] of tropical countries, study Humboldt. Skip the scientific parts, and commence after leaving Teneriffe. My feelings amount to admiration the more I read him. Tell Eyton (I find I am writing to my sisters!) how exceedingly I enjoy America, and that I am sure it will be a great pity if he does not make a start. This letter will go on the 5th, and I am afraid will be some time before it reaches you; it must be a warning how in other parts of the world you may be a long time without hearing. A year might by accident thus pass. About the 12th we start for Rio, but we remain some time on the way in sounding the Albrolhos shoals. Tell Eyton as far as my experience goes let him study Spanish, French, drawing, and Humboldt. I do sincerely hope to hear of (if not to see him) in South America. I look forward to the letters in Rio--till each one is acknowledged, mention its date in the next. We have beat all the ships in manoeuvring, so much so that the commanding officer says, we need not follow his example; because we do everything better than his great ship. I begin to take great interest in naval points, more especially now, as I find they all say we are the No. 1 in South America. I suppose the Captain is a most excellent officer. It was quite glorious to-day how we beat the "Samarang" in furling sails. It is quite a new thing for a "sounding ship" to beat a regular man-of-war; and yet the "Beagle" is not at all a particular ship. Erasmus will clearly perceive it when he hears that in the night I have actually sat down in the sacred precincts of the quarter deck. You must excuse these queer letters, and recollect they are generally written in the evening after my day's work. I take more pains over my log-book, so that eventually you will have a good account of all the places I visit. Hitherto the voyage has answered ADMIRABLY to me, and yet I am now more fully aware of your wisdom in throwing cold water on the whole scheme; the chances are so numerous of turning out quite the reverse; to such an extent do I feel this, that if my advice was asked by any person on a similar occasion, I should be very cautious in encouraging him. I have not time to write to anybody else, so send to Maer to let them know, that in the midst of the glorious tropical scenery, I do not forget how instrumental they were in placing me there. I will not rapturise again, but I give myself great credit in not being crazy out of pure delight. Give my love to every soul at home, and to the Owens. I think one's affections, like other good things, flourish and increase in these tropical regions. The conviction that I am walking in the New World is even yet marvellous in my own eyes, and I dare say it is little less so to you, the receiving a letter from a son of yours in such a quarter. Believe me, my dear Father, Your most affectionate son, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Botofogo Bay, near Rio de Janeiro, May, 1832. My dear Fox, I have delayed writing to you and all my other friends till I arrived here and had some little spare time. My mind has been, since leaving England, in a perfect HURRICANE of delight and astonishment, and to this hour scarcely a minute has passed in idleness... At St. Jago my natural history and most delightful labours commenced. During the three weeks I collected a host of marine animals, and enjoyed many a good geological walk. Touching at some islands, we sailed to Bahia, and from thence to Rio, where I have already been some weeks. My collections go on admirably in almost every branch. As for insects, I trust I shall send a host of undescribed species to England. I believe they have no small ones in the collections, and here this morning I have taken minute Hydropori, Noterus, Colymbetes, Hydrophilus, Hydrobius, Gromius, etc., etc., as specimens of fresh-water beetles. I am entirely occupied with land animals, as the beach is only sand. Spiders and the adjoining tribes have perhaps given me, from their novelty, the most pleasure. I think I have already taken several new genera. But Geology carries the day: it is like the pleasure of gambling. Speculating, on first arriving, what the rocks may be, I often mentally cry out 3 to 1 tertiary against primitive; but the latter have hitherto won all the bets. So much for the grand end of my voyage; in other respects things are equally flourishing. My life, when at sea, is so quiet, that to a person who can employ himself, nothing can be pleasanter; the beauty of the sky and brilliancy of the ocean together make a picture. But when on shore, and wandering in the sublime forests, surrounded by views more gorgeous than even Claude ever imagined, I enjoy a delight which none but those who have experienced it can understand. If it is to be done, it must be by studying Humboldt. At our ancient snug breakfasts, at Cambridge, I little thought that the wide Atlantic would ever separate us; but it is a rare privilege that with the body, the feelings and memory are not divided. On the contrary, the pleasantest scenes in my life, many of which have been in Cambridge, rise from the contrast of the present, the more vividly in my imagination. Do you think any diamond beetle will ever give me so much pleasure as our old friend crux major?... It is one of my most constant amusements to draw pictures of the past; and in them I often see you and poor little Fran. Oh, Lord, and then old Dash, poor thing! Do you recollect how you all tormented me about his beautiful tail? ...Think when you are picking insects off a hawthorn-hedge on a fine May day (wretchedly cold, I have no doubt), think of me collecting amongst pine-apples and orange-trees; whilst staining your fingers with dirty blackberries, think and be envious of ripe oranges. This is a proper piece of bravado, for I would walk through many a mile of sleet, snow, or rain to shake you by the hand. My dear old Fox, God bless you. Believe me, Yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Rio de Janeiro, May 18, 1832. My dear Henslow,... Till arriving at Teneriffe (we did not touch at Madeira) I was scarcely out of my hammock, and really suffered more than you can well imagine from such a cause. At Santa Cruz, whilst looking amongst the clouds for the Peak, and repeating to myself Humboldt's sublime descriptions, it was announced we must perform twelve days' strict quarantine. We had made a short passage, so "Up jib," and away for St. Jago. You will say all this sounds very bad, and so it was; but from that to the present time it has been nearly one scene of continual enjoyment. A net over the stern kept me at full work till we arrived at St. Jago. Here we spent three most delightful weeks. The geology was pre-eminently interesting, and I believe quite new; there are some facts on a large scale of upraised coast (which is an excellent epoch for all the volcanic rocks to date from), that would interest Mr. Lyell. One great source of perplexity to me is an utter ignorance whether I note the right facts, and whether they are of sufficient importance to interest others. In the one thing collecting I cannot go wrong. St. Jago is singularly barren, and produces few plants or insects, so that my hammer was my usual companion, and in its company most delightful hours I spent. On the coast I collected many marine animals, chiefly gasteropodous (I think some new). I examined pretty accurately a Caryopyllia, and, if my eyes are not bewitched, former descriptions have not the slightest resemblance to the animal. I took several specimens of an Octopus which possessed a most marvellous power of changing its colours, equalling any chameleon, and evidently accommodating the changes to the colour of the ground which it passed over. Yellowish green, dark brown, and red, were the prevailing colours; this fact appears to be new, as far as I can find out. Geology and the invertebrate animals will be my chief object of pursuit through the whole voyage. We then sailed for Bahia, and touched at the rock of St. Paul. This is a serpentine formation. Is it not the only island in the Atlantic which is not volcanic? We likewise stayed a few hours at Fernando Noronha; a tremendous surf was running so that a boat was swamped, and the Captain would not wait. I find my life on board when we are on blue water most delightful, so very comfortable and quiet--it is almost impossible to be idle, and that for me is saying a good deal. Nobody could possibly be better fitted in every respect for collecting than I am; many cooks have not spoiled the broth this time. Mr. Brown's little hints about microscopes, etc., have been invaluable. I am well off in books, the 'Dictionnaire Classique' IS MOST USEFUL. If you should think of any thing or book that would be useful to me, if you would write one line, E. Darwin, Wyndham Club, St. James's Street, he will procure them, and send them with some other things to Monte Video, which for the next year will be my headquarters. Touching at the Abrolhos, we arrived here on April 4th, when amongst others I received your most kind letter. You may rely on it during the evening I thought of the many most happy hours I have spent with you in Cambridge. I am now living at Botofogo, a village about a league from the city, and shall be able to remain a month longer. The "Beagle" has gone back to Bahia, and will pick me up on its return. There is a most important error in the longitude of South America, to settle which this second trip has been undertaken. Our chronometers, at least sixteen of them, are going superbly; none on record have ever gone at all like them. A few days after arriving I started on an expedition of 150 miles to Rio Macao, which lasted eighteen days. Here I first saw a tropical forest in all its sublime grander--nothing but the reality can give any idea how wonderful, how magnificent the scene is. If I was to specify any one thing I should give the pre-eminence to the host of parasitical plants. Your engraving is exactly true, but underrates rather than exaggerates the luxuriance. I never experienced such intense delight. I formerly admired Humboldt, I now almost adore him; he alone gives any notion of the feelings which are raised in the mind on first entering the Tropics. I am now collecting fresh-water and land animals; if what was told me in London is true, viz., that there are no small insects in the collections from the Tropics, I tell Entomologists to look out and have their pens ready for describing. I have taken as minute (if not more so) as in England, Hydropori, Hygroti, Hydrobii, Pselaphi, Staphylini, Curculio, etc. etc. It is exceedingly interesting observing the difference of genera and species from those which I know, it is however much less than I had expected. I am at present red-hot with spiders; they are very interesting, and if I am not mistaken I have already taken some new genera. I shall have a large box to send very soon to Cambridge, and with that I will mention some more natural history particulars. The Captain does everything in his power to assist me, and we get on very well, but I thank my better fortune he has not made me a renegade to Whig principles. I would not be a Tory, if it was merely on account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian nations--Slavery. I am very good friends with all the officers. I have just returned from a walk, and as a specimen, how little the insects are known. Noterus, according to the 'Dictionary Classique,' contains solely three European species. I in one haul of my net took five distinct species; is this not quite extraordinary?... Tell Professor Sedgwick he does not know how much I am indebted to him for the Welsh Expedition; it has given me an interest in Geology which I would not give up for any consideration. I do not think I ever spent a more delightful three weeks than pounding the North-west Mountains. I look forward to the geology about Monte Video as I hear there are slates there, so I presume in that district I shall find the junctions of the Pampas, and the enormous granite formation of Brazils. At Bahia the pegmatite and gneiss in beds had the same direction, as observed by Humboldt, prevailing over Columbia, distant 1300 miles--is it not wonderful? Monte Video will be for a long time my direction. I hope you will write again to me, there is nobody from whom I like receiving advice so much as from you...Excuse this almost unintelligible letter, and believe me, my dear Henslow, with the warmest feelings of respect and friendship, Yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Botofogo Bay, Rio de Janeiro, June 1832. My dear old Herbert, Your letter arrived here when I had given up all hopes of receiving another, it gave me, therefore, an additional degree of pleasure. At such an interval of time and space one does learn to feel truly obliged to those who do not forget one. The memory when recalling scenes past by, affords to us EXILES one of the greatest pleasures. Often and often whilst wandering amongst these hills do I think of Barmouth, and, I may add, as often wish for such a companion. What a contrast does a walk in these two places afford; here abrupt and stony peaks are to the very summit enclosed by luxuriant woods; the whole surface of the country, excepting where cleared by man, is one impenetrable forest. How different from Wales, with its sloping hills covered with turf, and its open valleys. I was not previously aware how intimately what may be called the moral part is connected with the enjoyment of scenery. I mean such ideas, as the history of the country, the utility of the produce, and more especially the happiness of the people living with them. Change the English labourer into a poor slave, working for another, and you will hardly recognise the same view. I am sure you will be glad to hear how very well every part (Heaven forefend, except sea-sickness) of the expedition has answered. We have already seen Teneriffe and the Great Canary; St. Jago where I spent three most delightful weeks, revelling in the delights of first naturalising a tropical volcanic island, and besides other islands, the two celebrated ports in the Brazils, viz. Bahia and Rio. I was in my hammock till we arrived at the Canaries, and I shall never forget the sublime impression the first view of Teneriffe made on my mind. The first arriving into warm weather was most luxuriously pleasant; the clear blue sky of the Tropics was no common change after those accursed south-west gales at Plymouth. About the Line it became weltering hot. We spent one day at St. Paul's, a little group of rocks about a quarter of a mile in circumference, peeping up in the midst of the Atlantic. There was such a scene here. Wickham (1st Lieutenant) and I were the only two who landed with guns and geological hammers, etc. The birds by myriads were too close to shoot; we then tried stones, but at last, proh pudor! my geological hammer was the instrument of death. We soon loaded the boat with birds and eggs. Whilst we were so engaged, the men in the boat were fairly fighting with the sharks for such magnificent fish as you could not see in the London market. Our boat would have made a fine subject for Snyders, such a medley of game it contained. We have been here ten weeks, and shall now start for Monte Video, when I look forward to many a gallop over the Pampas. I am ashamed of sending such a scrambling letter, but if you were to see the heap of letters on my table you would understand the reason... I am glad to hear music flourishes so well in Cambridge; but it [is] as barbarous to talk to me of "celestial concerts" as to a person in Arabia of cold water. In a voyage of this sort, if one gains many new and great pleasures, on the other side the loss is not inconsiderable. How should you like to be suddenly debarred from seeing every person and place, which you have ever known and loved, for five years? I do assure you I am occasionally "taken aback" by this reflection; and then for man or ship it is not so easy to right again. Remember me most sincerely to the remnant of most excellent fellows whom I have the good luck to know in Cambridge--I mean Whitley and Watkins. Tell Lowe I am even beneath his contempt. I can eat salt beef and musty biscuits for dinner. See what a fall man may come to! My direction for the next year and a half will be Monte Video. God bless you, my very dear old Herbert. May you always be happy and prosperous is my most cordial wish. Yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO F. WATKINS. Monte Video, River Plata, August 18, 1832. My dear Watkins, I do not feel very sure you will think a letter from one so far distant will be worth having; I write therefore on the selfish principle of getting an answer. In the different countries we visit the entire newness and difference from England only serves to make more keen the recollection of its scenes and delights. In consequence the pleasure of thinking of, and hearing from one's former friends, does indeed become great. Recollect this, and some long winter's evening sit down and send me a long account of yourself and our friends; both what you have, and what [you] intend doing; otherwise in three or four more years when I return you will be all strangers to me. Considering how many months have passed, we have not in the "Beagle" made much way round the world. Hitherto everything has well repaid the necessary trouble and loss of comfort. We stayed three weeks at the Cape de Verds; it was no ordinary pleasure rambling over the plains of lava under a tropical sun, but when I first entered on and beheld the luxuriant vegetation in Brazil, it was realizing the visions in the 'Arabian Nights.' The brilliancy of the scenery throws one into a delirium of delight, and a beetle hunter is not likely soon to awaken from it, when whichever way he turns fresh treasures meet his eye. At Rio de Janeiro three months passed away like so many weeks. I made a most delightful excursion during this time of 150 miles into the country. I stayed at an estate which is the last of the cleared ground, behind is one vast impenetrable forest. It is almost impossible to imagine the quietude of such a life. Not a human being within some miles interrupts the solitude. To seat oneself amidst the gloom of such a forest on a decaying trunk, and then think of home, is a pleasure worth taking some trouble for. We are at present in a much less interesting country. One single walk over the undulatory turf plain shows everything which is to be seen. It is not at all unlike Cambridgeshire, only that every hedge, tree and hill must be leveled, and arable land turned into pasture. All South America is in such an unsettled state that we have not entered one port without some sort of disturbance. At Buenos Ayres a shot came whistling over our heads; it is a noise I had never before heard, but I found I had an instinctive knowledge of what it meant. The other day we landed our men here, and took possession, at the request of the inhabitants, of the central fort. We philosophers do not bargain for this sort of work, and I hope there will be no more. We sail in the course of a day or two to survey the coast of Patagonia; as it is entirely unknown, I expect a good deal of interest. But already do I perceive the grievous difference between sailing on these seas and the Equinoctial ocean. In the "Ladies' Gulf," as the Spaniard's call it, it is so luxurious to sit on deck and enjoy the coolness of the night, and admire the new constellations of the South...I wonder when we shall ever meet again; but be it when it may, few things will give me greater pleasure than to see you again, and talk over the long time we have passed together. If you were to meet me at present I certainly should be looked at like a wild beast, a great grizzly beard and flushing jacket would disfigure an angel. Believe me, my dear Watkins, with the warmest feelings of friendship. Ever yours, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. April 11, 1833. My dear Henslow, We are now running up from the Falkland Islands to the Rio Negro (or Colorado). The "Beagle" will proceed to Monte Video; but if it can be managed I intend staying at the former place. It is now some months since we have been at a civilised port; nearly all this time has been spent in the most southern part of Tierra del Fuego. It is a detestable place; gales succeed gales with such short intervals that it is difficult to do anything. We were twenty-three days off Cape Horn, and could by no means get to the westward. The last and final gale before we gave up the attempt was unusually severe. A sea stove one of the boats, and there was so much water on the decks that every place was afloat; nearly all the paper for drying plants is spoiled, and half of this curious collection. We at last ran into harbour, and in the boats got to the west by the inland channels. As I was one of this party I was very glad of it. With two boats we went about 300 miles, and thus I had an excellent opportunity of geologising and seeing much of the savages. The Fuegians are in a more miserable state of barbarism than I had expected ever to have seen a human being. In this inclement country they are absolutely naked, and their temporary houses are like what children make in summer with boughs of trees. I do not think any spectacle can be more interesting than the first sight of man in his primitive wildness. It is an interest which cannot well be imagined until it is experienced. I shall never forget this when entering Good Success Bay--the yell with which a party received us. They were seated on a rocky point, surrounded by the dark forest of beech; as they threw their arms wildly round their heads, and their long hair streaming, they seemed the troubled spirits of another world. The climate in some respects is a curious mixture of severity and mildness; as far as regards the animal kingdom, the former character prevails; I have in consequence not added much to my collections. The Geology of this part of Tierra del Fuego was, as indeed every place is, to me very interesting. The country is non-fossiliferous, and a common-place succession of granitic rocks and slates; attempting to make out the relation of cleavage, strata, etc., etc., was my chief amusement. The mineralogy, however, of some of the rocks will, I think, be curious from their resemblance to those of volcanic origin.... After leaving Tierra del Fuego we sailed to the Falklands. I forgot to mention the fate of the Fuegians whom we took back to their country. They had become entirely European in their habits and wishes, so much so that the younger one had forgotten his own language, and their countrymen paid but very little attention to them. We built houses for them and planted gardens, but by the time we return again on our passage round the Horn, I think it will be very doubtful how much of their property will be left unstolen. ...When I am sea-sick and miserable, it is one of my highest consolations to picture the future when we again shall be pacing together the roads round Cambridge. That day is a weary long way off. We have another cruise to make to Tierra del Fuego next summer, and then our voyage round the world will really commence. Captain Fitz-Roy has purchased a large schooner of 170 tons. In many respects it will be a great advantage having a consort--perhaps it may somewhat shorten our cruise, which I most cordially hope it may. I trust, however, that the Coral Reefs and various animals of the Pacific may keep up my resolution. Remember me most kindly to Mrs. Henslow and all other friends; I am a true lover of Alma Mater and all its inhabitants. Believe me, my dear Henslow, Your affectionate and most obliged friend, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS C. DARWIN. Maldonado, Rio Plata, May 22, 1833. ...The following business piece is to my father. Having a servant of my own would be a really great addition to my comfort. For these two reasons: as at present the Captain has appointed one of the men always to be with me, but I do not think it just thus to take a seaman out of the ship; and, secondly, when at sea I am rather badly off for any one to wait on me. The man is willing to be my servant, and all the expenses would be under 60 pounds per annum. I have taught him to shoot and skin birds, so that in my main object he is very useful. I have now left England nearly a year and a half, and I find my expenses are not above 200 pounds per annum; so that, it being hopeless (from time) to write for permission, I have come to the conclusion that you would allow me this expense. But I have not yet resolved to ask the Captain, and the chances are even that he would not be willing to have an additional man in the ship. I have mentioned this because for a long time I have been thinking about it. JUNE. I have just received a bundle more letters. I do not know how to thank you all sufficiently. One from Catherine, February 8th, another from Susan, March 3rd, together with notes from Caroline and from my father; give my best love to my father. I almost cried for pleasure at receiving it; it was very kind thinking of writing to me. My letters are both few, short, and stupid in return for all yours; but I always ease my conscience by considering the Journal as a long letter. If I can manage it, I will, before doubling the Horn, send the rest. I am quite delighted to find the hide of the Megatherium has given you all some little interest in my employments. These fragments are not, however, by any means the most valuable of the geological relics. I trust and believe that the time spent in this voyage, if thrown away for all other respects, will produce its full worth in Natural History; and it appears to me the doing what LITTLE we can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life as one can in any likelihood pursue. It is more the result of such reflections (as I have already said) than much immediate pleasure which now makes me continue the voyage, together with the glorious prospect of the future, when passing the Straits of Magellan, we have in truth the world before us. Think of the Andes, the luxuriant forest of Guayaquil, the islands of the South Sea, and New South Wales. How many magnificent and characteristic views, how many and curious tribes of men we shall see! What fine opportunities for geology and for studying the infinite host of living beings! Is not this a prospect to keep up the most flagging spirit? If I was to throw it away, I don't think I should ever rest quiet in my grave. I certainly should be a ghost and haunt the British Museum. How famously the Ministers appear to be going on. I always much enjoy political gossip and what you at home think will, etc., etc., take place. I steadily read up the weekly paper, but it is not sufficient to guide one's opinion; and I find it a very painful state not to be as obstinate as a pig in politics. I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place. There is at Rio a man (I know not his title) who has a large salary to prevent (I believe) the landing of slaves; he lives at Botofogo, and yet that was the bay where, during my residence, the greater number of smuggled slaves were landed. Some of the Anti-Slavery people ought to question about his office; it was the subject of conversation at Rio amongst the lower English... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Maldonado, Rio Plata, June 2, 1833. My dear Herbert, I have been confined for the last three days to a miserable dark room, in an old Spanish house, from the torrents of rain; I am not, therefore, in very good trim for writing; but, defying the blue devils, I will send you a few lines, if it is merely to thank you very sincerely for writing to me. I received your letter, dated December 1st, a short time since. We are now passing part of the winter in the Rio Plata, after having had a hard summer's work to the south. Tierra del Fuego is indeed a miserable place; the ceaseless fury of the gales is quite tremendous. One evening we saw old Cape Horn, and three weeks afterwards we were only thirty miles to windward of it. It is a grand spectacle to see all nature thus raging; but Heaven knows every one in the "Beagle" has seen enough in this one summer to last them their natural lives. The first place we landed at was Good Success Bay. It was here Banks and Solander met such disasters on ascending one of the mountains. The weather was tolerably fine, and I enjoyed some walks in a wild country, like that behind Barmouth. The valleys are impenetrable from the entangled woods, but the higher parts, near the limits of perpetual snow, are bare. From some of these hills the scenery, from its savage, solitary character, was most sublime. The only inhabitant of these heights is the guanaco, and with its shrill neighing it often breaks the stillness. The consciousness that no European foot had ever trod much of this ground added to the delight of these rambles. How often and how vividly have many of the hours spent at Barmouth come before my mind! I look back to that time with no common pleasure; at this moment I can see you seated on the hill behind the inn, almost as plainly as if you were really there. It is necessary to be separated from all which one has been accustomed to, to know how properly to treasure up such recollections, and at this distance, I may add, how properly to esteem such as yourself, my dear old Herbert. I wonder when I shall ever see you again. I hope it may be, as you say, surrounded with heaps of parchment; but then there must be, sooner or later, a dear little lady to take care of you and your house. Such a delightful vision makes me quite envious. This is a curious life for a regular shore-going person such as myself; the worst part of it is its extreme length. There is certainly a great deal of high enjoyment, and on the contrary a tolerable share of vexation of spirit. Everything, however, shall bend to the pleasure of grubbing up old bones, and captivating new animals. By the way, you rank my Natural History labours far too high. I am nothing more than a lions' provider: I do not feel at all sure that they will not growl and finally destroy me. It does one's heart good to hear how things are going on in England. Hurrah for the honest Whigs! I trust they will soon attack that monstrous stain on our boasted liberty, Colonial Slavery. I have seen enough of Slavery and the dispositions of the negroes, to be thoroughly disgusted with the lies and nonsense one hears on the subject in England. Thank God, the cold-hearted Tories, who, as J. Mackintosh used to say, have no enthusiasm, except against enthusiasm, have for the present run their race. I am sorry, by your letter, to hear you have not been well, and that you partly attribute it to want of exercise. I wish you were here amongst the green plains; we would take walks which would rival the Dolgelly ones, and you should tell stories, which I would believe, even to a CUBIC FATHOM OF PUDDING. Instead I must take my solitary ramble, think of Cambridge days, and pick up snakes, beetles and toads. Excuse this short letter (you know I never studied 'The Complete Letter-writer'), and believe me, my dear Herbert, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. East Falkland Island, March, 1834. ...I am quite charmed with Geology, but like the wise animal between two bundles of hay, I do not know which to like the best; the old crystalline group of rocks, or the softer and fossiliferous beds. When puzzling about stratifications, etc., I feel inclined to cry "a fig for your big oysters, and your bigger megatheriums." But then when digging out some fine bones, I wonder how any man can tire his arms with hammering granite. By the way I have not one clear idea about cleavage, stratification, lines of upheaval. I have no books which tell me much, and what they do I cannot apply to what I see. In consequence I draw my own conclusions, and most gloriously ridiculous ones they are, I sometimes fancy...Can you throw any light into my mind by telling me what relation cleavage and planes of deposition bear to each other? And now for my second SECTION, Zoology. I have chiefly been employed in preparing myself for the South Sea by examining the polypi of the smaller Corallines in these latitudes. Many in themselves are very curious, and I think are quite undescribed; there was one appalling one, allied to a Flustra, which I dare say I mentioned having found to the northward, where the cells have a movable organ (like a vulture's head, with a dilatable beak), fixed on the edge. But what is of more general interest is the unquestionable (as it appears to me) existence of another species of ostrich, besides the Struthio rhea. All the Gauchos and Indians state it is the case, and I place the greatest faith in their observations. I have the head, neck, piece of skin, feathers, and legs of one. The differences are chiefly in the colour of the feathers and scales on legs, being feathered below the knees, nidification, and geographical distribution. So much for what I have lately done; the prospect before me is full of sunshine, fine weather, glorious scenery, the geology of the Andes, plains abounding with organic remains (which perhaps I may have the good luck to catch in the very act of moving), and lastly, an ocean, its shores abounding with life, so that, if nothing unforeseen happens, I will stick to the voyage, although for what I can see this may last till we return a fine set of white-headed old gentlemen. I have to thank you most cordially for sending me the books. I am now reading the Oxford 'Report' (The second meeting of the British Association was held at Oxford in 1832, the following year it was at Cambridge.); the whole account of your proceedings is most glorious; you remaining in England cannot well imagine how excessively interesting I find the reports. I am sure from my own thrilling sensations when reading them, that they cannot fail to have an excellent effect upon all those residing in distant colonies, and who have little opportunity of seeing the periodicals. My hammer has flown with redoubled force on the devoted blocks; as I thought over the eloquence of the Cambridge President, I hit harder and harder blows. I hope to give my arms strength for the Cordilleras. You will send me through Capt. Beaufort a copy of the Cambridge 'Report.' I have forgotten to mention that for some time past, and for the future, I will put a pencil cross on the pill-boxes containing insects, as these alone will require being kept particularly dry; it may perhaps save you some trouble. When this letter will go I do not know, as this little seat of discord has lately been embroiled by a dreadful scene of murder, and at present there are more prisoners than inhabitants. If a merchant vessel is chartered to take them to Rio, I will send some specimens (especially my few plants and seeds). Remember me to all my Cambridge friends. I love and treasure up every recollection of dear old Cambridge. I am much obliged to you for putting my name down to poor Ramsay's monument; I never think of him without the warmest admiration. Farewell, my dear Henslow. Believe me your most obliged and affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS C. DARWIN. East Falkland Island, April 6, 1834. My dear Catherine, When this letter will reach you I know not, but probably some man-of-war will call here before, in the common course of events, I should have another opportunity of writing.... After visiting some of the southern islands, we beat up through the magnificent scenery of the Beagle Channel to Jemmy Button's country. (Jemmy Button, York Minster, and Fuegia Basket, were natives of Tierra del Fuego, brought to England by Captain Fitz-Roy in his former voyage, and restored to their country by him in 1832.) We could hardly recognise poor Jemmy. Instead of the clean, well-dressed stout lad we left him, we found him a naked, thin, squalid savage. York and Fuegia had moved to their own country some months ago, the former having stolen all Jemmy's clothes. Now he had nothing except a bit of blanket round his waist. Poor Jemmy was very glad to see us, and, with his usual good feeling, brought several presents (otter-skins, which are most valuable to themselves) for his old friends. The Captain offered to take him to England, but this, to our surprise, he at once refused. In the evening his young wife came alongside and showed us the reason. He was quite contented. Last year, in the height of his indignation, he said "his country people no sabe nothing--damned fools"--now they were very good people, with TOO much to eat, and all the luxuries of life. Jemmy and his wife paddled away in their canoe loaded with presents, and very happy. The most curious thing is, that Jemmy, instead of recovering his own language, has taught all his friends a little English. "J. Button's canoe" and "Jemmy's wife come," "Give me knife," etc., was said by several of them. We then bore away for this island--this little miserable seat of discord. We found that the Gauchos, under pretence of a revolution, had murdered and plundered all the Englishmen whom they could catch, and some of their own countrymen. All the economy at home makes the foreign movements of England most contemptible. How different from old Spain. Here we, dog-in-the-manger fashion, seize an island, and leave to protect it a Union Jack; the possessor has, of course, been murdered; we now send a lieutenant with four sailors, without authority or instructions. A man-of-war, however, ventured to leave a party of marines, and by their assistance, and the treachery of some of the party, the murderers have all been taken, there being now as many prisoners as inhabitants. This island must some day become a very important halting-place in the most turbulent sea in the world. It is mid-way between Australia and the South Sea to England; between Chili, Peru, etc., and the Rio Plata and the Rio de Janeiro. There are fine harbours, plenty of fresh water, and good beef. It would doubtless produce the coarser vegetables. In other respects it is a wretched place. A little time since, I rode across the island, and returned in four days. My excursion would have been longer, but during the whole time it blew a gale of wind, with hail and snow. There is no firewood bigger than heath, and the whole country is, more or less an elastic peat-bog. Sleeping out at night was too miserable work to endure it for all the rocks in South America. We shall leave this scene of iniquity in two or three days, and go to the Rio de la Sta. Cruz. One of the objects is to look at the ship's bottom. We struck heavily on an unknown rock off Port Desire, and some of her copper is torn off. After this is repaired the Captain has a glorious scheme; it is to go to the very head of this river, that is probably to the Andes. It is quite unknown; the Indians tell us it is two or three hundred yards broad, and horses can nowhere ford it. I cannot imagine anything more interesting. Our plans then are to go to Fort Famine, and there we meet the "Adventure", who is employed in making the Chart of the Falklands. This will be in the middle of winter, so I shall see Tierra del Fuego in her white drapery. We leave the straits to enter the Pacific by the Barbara Channel, one very little known, and which passes close to the foot of Mount Sarmiento (the highest mountain in the south, excepting Mt.!! Darwin!!). We then shall scud away for Concepcion in Chili. I believe the ship must once again steer southward, but if any one catches me there again, I will give him leave to hang me up as a scarecrow for all future naturalists. I long to be at work in the Cordilleras, the geology of this side, which I understand pretty well is so intimately connected with periods of violence in that great chain of mountains. The future is, indeed, to me a brilliant prospect. You say its very brilliancy frightens you; but really I am very careful; I may mention as a proof, in all my rambles I have never had any one accident or scrape...Continue in your good custom of writing plenty of gossip; I much like hearing all about all things. Remember me most kindly to Uncle Jos, and to all the Wedgwoods. Tell Charlotte (their married names sound downright unnatural) I should like to have written to her, to have told her how well everything is going on; but it would only have been a transcript of this letter, and I have a host of animals at this minute surrounding me which all require embalming and numbering. I have not forgotten the comfort I received that day at Maer, when my mind was like a swinging pendulum. Give my best love to my father. I hope he will forgive all my extravagance, but not as a Christian, for then I suppose he would send me no more money. Good-bye, dear, to you, and all your goodly sisterhood. Your affectionate brother, CHAS. DARWIN. My love to Nancy (His old nurse.); tell her, if she was now to see me with my great beard, she would think I was some worthy Solomon, come to sell the trinkets. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. WHITLEY. Valparaiso, July 23, 1834. My dear Whitley, I have long intended writing, just to put you in mind that there is a certain hunter of beetles, and pounder of rocks still in existence. Why I have not done so before I know not, but it will serve me right if you have quite forgotten me. It is a very long time since I have heard any Cambridge news; I neither know where you are living or what you are doing. I saw your name down as one of the indefatigable guardians of the eighteen hundred philosophers. I was delighted to see this, for when we last left Cambridge you were at sad variance with poor science; you seemed to think her a public prostitute working for popularity. If your opinions are the same as formerly, you would agree most admirably with Captain Fitz-Roy,--the object of his most devout abhorrence is one of the d--d scientific Whigs. As captains of men-of-war are the greatest men going, far greater than kings or schoolmasters, I am obliged to tell him everything in my own favour. I have often said I once had a very good friend, an out-and-out Tory, and we managed to get on very well together. But he is very much inclined to doubt if ever I really was so much honoured; at present we hear scarcely anything about politics; this saves a great deal of trouble, for we all stick to our former opinions rather more obstinately than before, and can give rather fewer reasons for doing so. I do hope you will write to me: ('H.M.S. "Beagle", S. American Station' will find me). I should much like to hear in what state you are both in body and mind. ?Quien Sabe? as the people say here (and God knows they well may, for they do know little enough), if you are not a married man, and may be nursing, as Miss Austen says, little olive branches, little pledges of mutual affection. Eheu! Eheu! this puts me in mind of former visions of glimpses into futurity, where I fancied I saw retirement, green cottages, and white petticoats. What will become of me hereafter I know not; I feel like a ruined man, who does not see or care how to extricate himself. That this voyage must come to a conclusion my reason tells me, but otherwise I see no end to it. It is impossible not bitterly to regret the friends and other sources of pleasure one leaves behind in England; in place of it there is much solid enjoyment, some present, but more in anticipation, when the ideas gained during the voyage can be compared to fresh ones. I find in Geology a never-failing interest, as it has been remarked, it creates the same grand ideas respecting this world which Astronomy does for the universe. We have seen much fine scenery; that of the Tropics in its glory and luxuriance exceeds even the language of Humboldt to describe. A Persian writer could alone do justice to it, and if he succeeded he would in England be called the 'Grandfather of all liars.' But I have seen nothing which more completely astonished me than the first sight of a savage. It was a naked Fuegian, his long hair blowing about, his face besmeared with paint. There is in their countenances an expression which I believe, to those who have not seen it, must be inconceivably wild. Standing on a rock he uttered tones and made gesticulations, than which the cries of domestic animals are far more intelligible. When I return to England, you must take me in hand with respect to the fine arts. I yet recollect there was a man called Raffaelle Sanctus. How delightful it will be once again to see, in the Fitzwilliam, Titian's Venus. How much more than delightful to go to some good concert or fine opera. These recollections will not do. I shall not be able to-morrow to pick out the entrails of some small animal with half my usual gusto. Pray tell me some news about Cameron, Watkins, Marindin, the two Thompsons of Trinity, Lowe, Heaviside, Matthew. Herbert I have heard from. How is Henslow getting on? and all other good friends of dear Cambridge? Often and often do I think over those past hours, so many of which have been passed in your company. Such can never return, but their recollection can never die away. God bless you, my dear Whitley, Believe me, your most sincere friend, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS C. DARWIN. Valparaiso, November 8, 1834. My dear Catherine, My last letter was rather a gloomy one, for I was not very well when I wrote it. Now everything is as bright as sunshine. I am quite well again after being a second time in bed for a fortnight. Captain Fitz-Roy very generously has delayed the ship ten days on my account, and without at the time telling me for what reason. We have had some strange proceedings on board the "Beagle", but which have ended most capitally for all hands. Captain Fitz-Roy has for the last two months been working EXTREMELY hard, and at the same time constantly annoyed by interruptions from officers of other ships; the selling the schooner and its consequences were very vexatious; the cold manner the Admiralty (solely I believe because he is a Tory) have treated him, and a thousand other, etc. etc.'s, has made him very thin and unwell. This was accompanied by a morbid depression of spirits, and a loss of all decision and resolution... All that Bynoe [the Surgeon] could say, that it was merely the effect of bodily health and exhaustion after such application, would not do; he invalided, and Wickham was appointed to the command. By the instructions Wickham could only finish the survey of the southern part, and would then have been obliged to return direct to England. The grief on board the "Beagle" about the Captain's decision was universal and deeply felt; one great source of his annoyment was the feeling it impossible to fulfil the whole instructions; from his state of mind it never occurred to him that the very instructions ordered him to do as much of the West coast AS HE HAS TIME FOR, and then proceed across the Pacific. Wickham (very disinterestedly giving up his own promotion) urged this most strongly, stated that when he took the command nothing should induce him to go to Tierra del Fuego again; and then asked the Captain what would be gained by his resignation? why not do the more useful part, and return as commanded by the Pacific. The Captain at last, to every one's joy, consented, and the resignation was withdrawn. Hurrah! hurrah! it is fixed the "Beagle" shall not go one mile south of Cape Tres Montes (about 200 miles south of Chiloe), and from that point to Valparaiso will be finished in about five months. We shall examine the Chonos Archipelago, entirely unknown, and the curious inland sea behind Chiloe. For me it is glorious. Cape Tres Montes is the most southern point where there is much geological interest, as there the modern beds end. The Captain then talks of crossing the Pacific; but I think we shall persuade him to finish the Coast of Peru, where the climate is delightful, the country hideously sterile, but abounding with the highest interest to a geologist. For the first time since leaving England I now see a clear and not so distant prospect of returning to you all: crossing the Pacific, and from Sydney home, will not take much time. As soon as the Captain invalided I at once determined to leave the "Beagle", but it was quite absurd what a revolution in five minutes was effected in all my feelings. I have long been grieved and most sorry at the interminable length of the voyage (although I never would have quitted it); but the minute it was all over, I could not make up my mind to return. I could not give up all the geological castles in the air which I had been building up for the last two years. One whole night I tried to think over the pleasure of seeing Shrewsbury again, but the barren plains of Peru gained the day. I made the following scheme (I know you will abuse me, and perhaps if I had put it in execution, my father would have sent a mandamus after me); it was to examine the Cordilleras of Chili during this summer, and in winter go from port to port on the coast of Peru to Lima, returning this time next year to Valparaiso, cross the Cordilleras to Buenos Ayres, and take ship to England. Would not this have been a fine excursion, and in sixteen months I should have been with you all? To have endured Tierra del Fuego and not seen the Pacific would have been miserable... I go on board to-morrow; I have been for the last six weeks in Corfield's house. You cannot imagine what a kind friend I have found him. He is universally liked, and respected by the natives and foreigners. Several Chileno Signoritas are very obligingly anxious to become the signoras of this house. Tell my father I have kept my promise of being extravagant in Chili. I have drawn a bill of 100 pounds (had it not better be notified to Messrs. Robarts & Co.); 50 pounds goes to the Captain for the ensuing year, and 30 pounds I take to sea for the small ports; so that bona fide I have not spent 180 pounds during these last four months. I hope not to draw another bill for six months. All the foregoing particulars were only settled yesterday. It has done me more good than a pint of medicine, and I have not been so happy for the last year. If it had not been for my illness, these four months in Chili would have been very pleasant. I have had ill luck, however, in only one little earthquake having happened. I was lying in bed when there was a party at dinner in the house; on a sudden I heard such a hubbub in the dining-room; without a word being spoken, it was devil take the hindmost who should get out first; at the same moment I felt my bed SLIGHTLY vibrate in a lateral direction. The party were old stagers, and heard the noise which always precedes a shock; and no old stager looks at an earthquake with philosophical eyes... Good-bye to you all; you will not have another letter for some time. My dear Catherine, Yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. My best love to my father, and all of you. Love to Nancy. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS S. DARWIN. Valparaiso, April 23, 1835. My dear Susan, I received, a few days since, your letter of November; the three letters which I before mentioned are yet missing, but I do not doubt they will come to life. I returned a week ago from my excursion across the Andes to Mendoza. Since leaving England I have never made so successful a journey; it has, however, been very expensive. I am sure my father would not regret it, if he could know how deeply I have enjoyed it: it was something more than enjoyment; I cannot express the delight which I felt at such a famous winding-up of all my geology in South America. I literally could hardly sleep at nights for thinking over my day's work. The scenery was so new, and so majestic; everything at an elevation of 12,000 feet bears so different an aspect from that in a lower country. I have seen many views more beautiful, but none with so strongly marked a character. To a geologist, also, there are such manifest proofs of excessive violence; the strata of the highest pinnacles are tossed about like the crust of a broken pie. I crossed by the Portillo Pass, which at this time of the year is apt to be dangerous, so could not afford to delay there. After staying a day in the stupid town of Mendoza, I began my return by Uspallate, which I did very leisurely. My whole trip only took up twenty-two days. I travelled with, for me, uncommon comfort, as I carried a BED! My party consisted of two Peons and ten mules, two of which were with baggage, or rather food, in case of being snowed up. Everything, however, favoured me; not even a speck of this year's snow had fallen on the road. I do not suppose any of you can be much interested in geological details, but I will just mention my principal results:--Besides understanding to a certain extent the description and manner of the force which has elevated this great line of mountains, I can clearly demonstrate that one part of the double line is of an age long posterior to the other. In the more ancient line, which is the true chain of the Andes, I can describe the sort and order of the rocks which compose it. These are chiefly remarkable by containing a bed of gypsum nearly 2000 feet thick--a quantity of this substance I should think unparalleled in the world. What is of much greater consequence, I have procured fossil shells (from an elevation of 12,000 feet). I think an examination of these will give an approximate age to these mountains, as compared to the strata of Europe. In the other line of the Cordilleras there is a strong presumption (in my own mind, conviction) that the enormous mass of mountains, the peaks of which rise to 13,000 and 14,000 feet, are so very modern as to be contemporaneous with the plains of Patagonia (or about with the UPPER strata of the Isle of Wight). If this result shall be considered as proved (The importance of these results has been fully recognised by geologists.), it is a very important fact in the theory of the formation of the world; because, if such wonderful changes have taken place so recently in the crust of the globe, there can be no reason for supposing former epochs of excessive violence. These modern strata are very remarkable by being threaded with metallic veins of silver, gold, copper, etc.; hitherto these have been considered as appertaining to older formations. In these same beds, and close to a goldmine, I found a clump of petrified trees, standing up right, with layers of fine sandstone deposited round them, bearing the impression of their bark. These trees are covered by other sandstones and streams of lava to the thickness of several thousand feet. These rocks have been deposited beneath water; yet it is clear the spot where the trees grew must once have been above the level of the sea, so that it is certain the land must have been depressed by at least as many thousand feet as the superincumbent subaqueous deposits are thick. But I am afraid you will tell me I am prosy with my geological descriptions and theories... Your account of Erasmus' visit to Cambridge has made me long to be back there. I cannot fancy anything more delightful than his Sunday round of King's, Trinity, and those talking giants, Whewell and Sedgwick; I hope your musical tastes continue in due force. I shall be ravenous for the pianoforte... I have not quite determined whether I will sleep at the 'Lion' the first night when I arrive per 'Wonder,' or disturb you all in the dead of night; everything short of that is absolutely planned. Everything about Shrewsbury is growing in my mind bigger and more beautiful; I am certain the acacia and copper beech are two superb trees; I shall know every bush, and I will trouble you young ladies, when each of you cut down your tree, to spare a few. As for the view behind the house, I have seen nothing like it. It is the same with North Wales; Snowdon, to my mind, looks much higher and much more beautiful than any peak in the Cordilleras. So you will say, with my benighted faculties, it is time to return, and so it is, and I long to be with you. Whatever the trees are, I know what I shall find all you. I am writing nonsense, so farewell. My most affectionate love to all, and I pray forgiveness from my father. Yours most affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Lima, July, 1835. My dear Fox, I have lately received two of your letters, one dated June and the other November, 1834 (they reached me, however, in an inverted order). I was very glad to receive a history of this most important year in your life. Previously I had only heard the plain fact that you were married. You are a true Christian and return good for evil, to send two such letters to so bad a correspondent as I have been. God bless you for writing so kindly and affectionately; if it is a pleasure to have friends in England, it is doubly so to think and know that one is not forgotten because absent. This voyage is terribly long. I do so earnestly desire to return, yet I dare hardly look forward to the future, for I do not know what will become of me. Your situation is above envy: I do not venture even to frame such happy visions. To a person fit to take the office, the life of a clergyman is a type of all that is respectable and happy. You tempt me by talking of your fireside, whereas it is a sort of scene I never ought to think about. I saw the other day a vessel sail for England; it was quite dangerous to know how easily I might turn deserter. As for an English lady, I have almost forgotten what she is--something very angelic and good. As for the women in these countries, they wear caps and petticoats, and a very few have pretty faces, and then all is said. But if we are not wrecked on some unlucky reef, I will sit by that same fireside in Vale Cottage and tell some of the wonderful stories, which you seem to anticipate and, I presume, are not very ready to believe. Gracias a dios, the prospect of such times is rather shorter than formerly. From this most wretched 'City of the Kings' we sail in a fortnight, from thence to Guayaquil, Galapagos, Marquesas, Society Islands, etc., etc. I look forward to the Galapagos with more interest than any other part of the voyage. They abound with active volcanoes, and, I should hope, contain Tertiary strata. I am glad to hear you have some thoughts of beginning Geology. I hope you will; there is so much larger a field for thought than in the other branches of Natural History. I am become a zealous disciple of Mr. Lyell's views, as known in his admirable book. Geologising in South America, I am tempted to carry parts to a greater extent even than he does. Geology is a capital science to begin, as it requires nothing but a little reading, thinking, and hammering. I have a considerable body of notes together; but it is a constant subject of perplexity to me, whether they are of sufficient value for all the time I have spent about them, or whether animals would not have been of more certain value. I shall indeed be glad once again to see you and tell you how grateful I feel for your steady friendship. God bless you, my very dear Fox. Believe me, Yours affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Sydney, January, 1836. My dear Henslow, This is the last opportunity of communicating with you before that joyful day when I shall reach Cambridge. I have very little to say: but I must write if it is only to express my joy that the last year is concluded, and that the present one, in which the "Beagle" will return, is gliding onwards. We have all been disappointed here in not finding even a single letter; we are, indeed, rather before our expected time, otherwise, I dare say, I should have seen your handwriting. I must feed upon the future, and it is beyond bounds delightful to feel the certainty that within eight months I shall be residing once again most quietly in Cambridge. Certainly, I never was intended for a traveller; my thoughts are always rambling over past or future scenes; I cannot enjoy the present happiness for anticipating the future, which is about as foolish as the dog who dropped the real bone for its shadow.... In our passage across the Pacific we only touched at Tahiti and New Zealand; at neither of these places or at sea had I much opportunity of working. Tahiti is a most charming spot. Everything which former navigators have written is true. 'A new Cytheraea has risen from the ocean.' Delicious scenery, climate, manners of the people are all in harmony. It is, moreover, admirable to behold what the missionaries both here and at New Zealand have effected. I firmly believe they are good men working for the sake of a good cause. I much suspect that those who have abused or sneered at the missionaries have generally been such as were not very anxious to find the natives moral and intelligent beings. During the remainder of our voyage we shall only visit places generally acknowledged as civilised, and nearly all under the British flag. These will be a poor field for Natural History, and without it I have lately discovered that the pleasure of seeing new places is as nothing. I must return to my old resource and think of the future, but that I may not become more prosy, I will say farewell till the day arrives, when I shall see my Master in Natural History, and can tell him how grateful I feel for his kindness and friendship. Believe me, dear Henslow, Ever yours, most faithfully, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS S. DARWIN. Bahia, Brazil, August 4 [1836]. My dear Susan, I will just write a few lines to explain the cause of this letter being dated on the coast of South America. Some singular disagreements in the longitudes made Captain Fitz-Roy anxious to complete the circle in the southern hemisphere, and then retrace our steps by our first line to England. This zigzag manner of proceeding is very grievous; it has put the finishing stroke to my feelings. I loathe, I abhor the sea and all ships which sail on it. But I yet believe we shall reach England in the latter half of October. At Ascension I received Catherine's letter of October, and yours of November; the letter at the Cape was of a later date, but letters of all sorts are inestimable treasures, and I thank you both for them. The desert, volcanic rocks, and wild sea of Ascension, as soon as I knew there was news from home, suddenly wore a pleasing aspect, and I set to work with a good-will at my old work of Geology. You would be surprised to know how entirely the pleasure in arriving at a new place depends on letters. We only stayed four days at Ascension, and then made a very good passage to Bahia. I little thought to have put my foot on South American coast again. It has been almost painful to find how much good enthusiasm has been evaporated during the last four years. I can now walk soberly through a Brazilian forest; not but what it is exquisitely beautiful, but now, instead of seeking for splendid contrasts, I compare the stately mango trees with the horse-chestnuts of England. Although this zigzag has lost us at least a fortnight, in some respects I am glad of it. I think I shall be able to carry away one vivid picture of inter-tropical scenery. We go from hence to the Cape de Verds; that is, if the winds or the Equatorial calms will allow us. I have some faint hopes that a steady foul wind might induce the Captain to proceed direct to the Azores. For which most untoward event I heartily pray. Both your letters were full of good news; especially the expressions which you tell me Professor Sedgwick used about my collections. I confess they are deeply gratifying--I trust one part at least will turn out true, and that I shall act as I now think--as a man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life. Professor Sedgwick mentioning my name at all gives me hopes that he will assist me with his advice, of which, in my geological questions, I stand much in need. It is useless to tell you from the shameful state of this scribble that I am writing against time, having been out all morning, and now there are some strangers on board to whom I must go down and talk civility. Moreover, as this letter goes by a foreign ship, it is doubtful whether it will ever arrive. Farewell, my very dear Susan and all of you. Good-bye. C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. St. Helena, July 9, 1836. My dear Henslow, I am going to ask you to do me a favour. I am very anxious to belong to the Geological Society. I do not know, but I suppose it is necessary to be proposed some time before being ballotted for; if such is the case, would you be good enough to take the proper preparatory steps? Professor Sedgwick very kindly offered to propose me before leaving England, if he should happen to be in London. I dare say he would yet do so. I have very little to write about. We have neither seen, done, or heard of anything particular for a long time past; and indeed if at present the wonders of another planet could be displayed before us, I believe we should unanimously exclaim, what a consummate plague. No schoolboys ever sung the half sentimental and half jovial strain of 'dulce domum' with more fervour, than we all feel inclined to do. But the whole subject of 'dulce domum,' and the delight of seeing one's friends, is most dangerous, it must infallibly make one very prosy or very boisterous. Oh, the degree to which I long to be once again living quietly with not one single novel object near me! No one can imagine it till he has been whirled round the world during five long years in a ten-gun-brig. I am at present living in a small house (amongst the clouds) in the centre of the island, and within stone's throw of Napoleon's tomb. It is blowing a gale of wind with heavy rain and wretchedly cold; if Napoleon's ghost haunts his dreary place of confinement, this would be a most excellent night for such wandering spirits. If the weather chooses to permit me, I hope to see a little of the Geology (so often partially described) of the island. I suspect that differently from most volcanic islands its structure is rather complicated. It seems strange that this little centre of a distinct creation should, as is asserted, bear marks of recent elevation. The "Beagle" proceeds from this place to Ascension, then to the Cape de Verds (what miserable places!) to the Azores to Plymouth, and then to home. That most glorious of all days in my life will not, however, arrive till the middle of October. Some time in that month you will see me at Cambridge, where I must directly come to report myself to you, as my first Lord of the Admiralty. At the Cape of Good Hope we all on board suffered a bitter disappointment in missing nine months' letters, which are chasing us from one side of the globe to the other. I dare say amongst them there was a letter from you; it is long since I have seen your handwriting, but I shall soon see you yourself, which is far better. As I am your pupil, you are bound to undertake the task of criticising and scolding me for all the things ill done and not done at all, which I fear I shall need much; but I hope for the best, and I am sure I have a good if not too easy taskmaster. At the Cape Captain Fitz-Roy and myself enjoyed a memorable piece of good fortune in meeting Sir J. Herschel. We dined at his house and saw him a few times besides. He was exceedingly good natured, but his manners at first appeared to me rather awful. He is living in a very comfortable country house, surrounded by fir and oak trees, which alone in so open a country, give a most charming air of seclusion and comfort. He appears to find time for everything; he showed us a pretty garden full of Cape bulbs of his own collecting, and I afterwards understood that everything was the work of his own hands...I am very stupid, and I have nothing more to say; the wind is whistling so mournfully over the bleak hills, that I shall go to bed and dream of England. Goodnight, my dear Henslow, Yours most truly obliged and affectionately, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Shrewsbury, Thursday, October 6, [1836]. My dear Henslow, I am sure you will congratulate me on the delight of once again being home. The "Beagle" arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached Shrewsbury yesterday morning. I am exceedingly anxious to see you, and as it will be necessary in four or five days to return to London to get my goods and chattels out of the "Beagle", it appears to me my best plan to pass through Cambridge. I want your advice on many points; indeed I am in the clouds, and neither know what to do or where to go. My chief puzzle is about the geological specimens--who will have the charity to help me in describing their mineralogical nature? Will you be kind enough to write to me one line by RETURN OF POST, saying whether you are now at Cambridge? I am doubtful till I hear from Captain Fitz-Roy whether I shall not be obliged to start before the answer can arrive, but pray try the chance. My dear Henslow, I do long to see you; you have been the kindest friend to me that ever man possessed. I can write no more, for I am giddy with joy and confusion. Farewell for the present, Yours most truly obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO R. FITZ-ROY. Shrewsbury, Thursday morning, October 6, [1836]. My dear Fitz-Roy, I arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time, and, thank God, found all my dear good sisters and father quite well. My father appears more cheerful and very little older than when I left. My sisters assure me I do not look the least different, and I am able to return the compliment. Indeed, all England appears changed excepting the good old town of Shrewsbury and its inhabitants, which, for all I can see to the contrary, may go on as they now are to Doomsday. I wish with all my heart I was writing to you amongst your friends instead of at that horrid Plymouth. But the day will soon come, and you will be as happy as I now am. I do assure you I am a very great man at home; the five years' voyage has certainly raised me a hundred per cent. I fear such greatness must experience a fall. I am thoroughly ashamed of myself in what a dead-and-half-alive state I spent the few last days on board; my only excuse is that certainly I was not quite well. The first day in the mail tired me, but as I drew nearer to Shrewsbury everything looked more beautiful and cheerful. In passing Gloucestershire and Worcestershire I wished much for you to admire the fields, woods, and orchards. The stupid people on the coach did not seem to think the fields one bit greener than usual; but I am sure we should have thoroughly agreed that the wide world does not contain so happy a prospect as the rich cultivated land of England. I hope you will not forget to send me a note telling me how you go on. I do indeed hope all your vexations and trouble with respect to our voyage, which we now know HAS an end, have come to a close. If you do not receive much satisfaction for all the mental and bodily energy you have expended in His Majesty's service, you will be most hardly treated. I put my radical sisters into an uproar at some of the prudent (if they were not honest Whigs, I would say shabby) proceedings of our Government. By the way, I must tell you for the honour and glory of the family that my father has a large engraving of King George IV. put up in his sitting-room. But I am no renegade, and by the time we meet my politics will be as firmly fixed and as wisely founded as ever they were. I thought when I began this letter I would convince you what a steady and sober frame of mind I was in. But I find I am writing most precious nonsense. Two or three of our labourers yesterday immediately set to work and got most excessively drunk in honour of the arrival of Master Charles. Who then shall gainsay if Master Charles himself chooses to make himself a fool. Good-bye. God bless you! I hope you are as happy, but much wiser, than your most sincere but unworthy philosopher, CHAS. DARWIN. CHAPTER 1.VII. -- LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. 1836-1842. [The period illustrated by the following letters includes the years between my father's return from the voyage of the "Beagle" and his settling at Down. It is marked by the gradual appearance of that weakness of health which ultimately forced him to leave London and take up his abode for the rest of his life in a quiet country house.] In June, 1841, he writes to Lyell: "My father scarcely seems to expect that I shall become strong for some years; it has been a bitter mortification for me to digest the conclusion that the 'race is for the strong,' and that I shall probably do little more but be content to admire the strides others make in science." There is no evidence of any intention of entering a profession after his return from the voyage, and early in 1840 he wrote to Fitz-Roy: "I have nothing to wish for, excepting stronger health to go on with the subjects to which I have joyfully determined to devote my life." These two conditions--permanent ill-health and a passionate love of scientific work for its own sake--determined thus early in his career, the character of his whole future life. They impelled him to lead a retired life of constant labour, carried on to the utmost limits of his physical power, a life which signally falsified his melancholy prophecy. The end of the last chapter saw my father safely arrived at Shrewsbury on October 4, 1836, "after an absence of five years and two days." He wrote to Fox: "You cannot imagine how gloriously delightful my first visit was at home; it was worth the banishment." But it was a pleasure that he could not long enjoy, for in the last days of October he was at Greenwich unpacking specimens from the "Beagle". As to the destination of the collections he writes, somewhat despondingly, to Henslow:-- "I have not made much progress with the great men. I find, as you told me, that they are all overwhelmed with their own business. Mr. Lyell has entered, in the MOST good-natured manner, and almost without being asked, into all my plans. He tells me, however, the same story, that I must do all myself. Mr. Owen seems anxious to dissect some of the animals in spirits, and, besides these two, I have scarcely met any one who seems to wish to possess any of my specimens. I must except Dr. Grant, who is willing to examine some of the corallines. I see it is quite unreasonable to hope for a minute that any man will undertake the examination of a whole order. It is clear the collectors so much outnumber the real naturalists that the latter have no time to spare. "I do not even find that the Collections care for receiving the unnamed specimens. The Zoological Museum (The Museum of the Zoological Society, then at 33 Bruton Street. The collection was some years later broken up and dispersed.) is nearly full, and upwards of a thousand specimens remain unmounted. I dare say the British Museum would receive them, but I cannot feel, from all I hear, any great respect even for the present state of that establishment. Your plan will be not only the best, but the only one, namely, to come down to Cambridge, arrange and group together the different families, and then wait till people, who are already working in different branches, may want specimens. But it appears to me [that] to do this it will be almost necessary to reside in London. As far as I can yet see my best plan will be to spend several months in Cambridge, and then when, by your assistance, I know on what ground I stand, to emigrate to London, where I can complete my Geology and try to push on the Zoology. I assure you I grieve to find how many things make me see the necessity of living for some time in this dirty, odious London. For even in Geology I suspect much assistance and communication will be necessary in this quarter, for instance, in fossil bones, of which none excepting the fragments of Megatherium have been looked at, and I clearly see that without my presence they never would be.... "I only wish I had known the Botanists cared so much for specimens (A passage in a subsequent letter shows that his plants also gave him some anxiety. "I met Mr. Brown a few days after you had called on him; he asked me in rather an ominous manner what I meant to do with my plants. In the course of conversation Mr. Broderip, who was present, remarked to him, 'You forget how long it is since Captain King's expedition.' He answered, 'Indeed, I have something in the shape of Captain King's undescribed plants to make me recollect it.' Could a better reason be given, if I had been asked, by me, for not giving the plants to the British Museum?") and the Zoologists so little; the proportional number of specimens in the two branches should have had a very different appearance. I am out of patience with the Zoologists, not because they are overworked, but for their mean, quarrelsome spirit. I went the other evening to the Zoological Society, where the speakers were snarling at each other in a manner anything but like that of gentlemen. Thank Heavens! as long as I remain in Cambridge there will not be any danger of falling into any such contemptible quarrels, whilst in London I do not see how it is to be avoided. Of the Naturalists, F. Hope is out of London; Westwood I have not seen, so about my insects I know nothing. I have seen Mr. Yarrell twice, but he is so evidently oppressed with business that it is too selfish to plague him with my concerns. He has asked me to dine with the Linnean on Tuesday, and on Wednesday I dine with the Geological, so that I shall see all the great men. Mr. Bell, I hear, is so much occupied that there is no chance of his wishing for specimens of reptiles. I have forgotten to mention Mr. Lonsdale (William Lonsdale, 1794-1871, was originally in the army, and served at the battles of Salamanca and Waterloo. After the war he left the service and gave himself up to science. He acted as assistant secretary to the Geological Society from 1829-42, when he resigned, owing to ill health.), who gave me a most cordial reception, and with whom I had much most interesting conversation. If I was not much more inclined for geology than the other branches of Natural History, I am sure Mr. Lyell's and Lonsdale's kindness ought to fix me. You cannot conceive anything more thoroughly good-natured than the heart-and-soul manner in which he put himself in my place and thought what would be best to do. At first he was all for London versus Cambridge, but at last I made him confess that, for some time at least, the latter would be for me much the best. There is not another soul whom I could ask, excepting yourself, to wade through and criticise some of those papers which I have left with you. Mr. Lyell owned that, second to London, there was no place in England so good for a Naturalist as Cambridge. Upon my word I am ashamed of writing so many foolish details, no young lady ever described her first ball with more particularity." A few days later he writes more cheerfully: "I became acquainted with Mr. Bell (T. Bell, F.R.S., formerly Prof. of Zoology in King's College, London, and some time secretary to the Royal Society. He afterwards described the reptiles for the zoology of the voyage of the "Beagle".) who to my surprise expressed a good deal of interest about my crustacea and reptiles, and seems willing to work at them. I also heard that Mr. Broderip would be glad to look over the South American shells, so that things flourish well with me." About his plants he writes with characteristic openness as to his own ignorance: "You have made me known amongst the botanists, but I felt very foolish when Mr. Don remarked on the beautiful appearance of some plant with an astounding long name, and asked me about its habitation. Some one else seemed quite surprised that I knew nothing about a Carex from I do not know where. I was at last forced to plead most entire innocence, and that I knew no more about the plants which I had collected than the man in the moon." As to part of his Geological Collection he was soon able to write: "I [have] disposed of the most important part [of] my collections, by giving all the fossil bones to the College of Surgeons, casts of them will be distributed, and descriptions published. They are very curious and valuable; one head belonged to some gnawing animal, but of the size of a Hippopotamus! Another to an ant-eater of the size of a horse!" It is worth noting that at this time the only extinct mammalia from South America, which had been described, were Mastodon (three species) and Megatherium. The remains of the other extinct Edentata from Sir Woodbine Parish's collection had not been described. My father's specimens included (besides the above-mentioned Toxodon and Scelidotherium) the remains of Mylodon, Glossotherium, another gigantic animal allied to the ant-eater, and Macrauchenia. His discovery of these remains is a matter of interest in itself, but it has a special importance as a point in his own life, since it was the vivid impression produced by excavating them with his own hands (I have often heard him speak of the despair with which he had to break off the projecting extremity of a huge, partly excavated bone, when the boat waiting for him would wait no longer.) that formed one of the chief starting-points of his speculation on the origin of species. This is shown in the following extract from his Pocket Book for this year (1837): "In July opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter), origin of all my views."] 1836-1837. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. 43 Great Marlborough Street, November 6th [1836]. My dear Fox, I have taken a shamefully long time in answering your letter. But the busiest time of the whole voyage has been tranquillity itself to this last month. After paying Henslow a short but very pleasant visit, I came up to town to wait for the "Beagle's" arrival. At last I have removed all my property from on board, and sent the specimens of Natural History to Cambridge, so that I am now a free man. My London visit has been quite idle as far as Natural History goes, but has been passed in most exciting dissipation amongst the Dons in science. All my affairs, indeed, are most prosperous; I find there are plenty who will undertake the description of whole tribes of animals, of which I know nothing. So that about this day month I hope to set to work tooth and nail at the Geology, which I shall publish by itself. It is quite ridiculous what an immensely long period it appears to me since landing at Falmouth. The fact is I have talked and laughed enough for years instead of weeks, so [that] my memory is quite confounded with the noise. I am delighted to hear you are turned geologist: when I pay the Isle of Wight a visit, which I am determined shall somehow come to pass, you will be a capital cicerone to the famous line of dislocation. I really suppose there are few parts of the world more interesting to a geologist than your island. Amongst the great scientific men, no one has been nearly so friendly and kind as Lyell. I have seen him several times, and feel inclined to like him much. You cannot imagine how good-naturedly he entered into all my plans. I speak now only of the London men, for Henslow was just like his former self, and therefore a most cordial and affectionate friend. When you pay London a visit I shall be very proud to take you to the Geological Society, for be it known, I was proposed to be a F.G.S. last Tuesday. It is, however, a great pity that these and the other letters, especially F.R.S., are so very expensive. I do not scruple to ask you to write to me in a week's time in Shrewsbury, for you are a good letter writer, and if people will have such good characters they must pay the penalty. Good-bye, dear Fox. Yours, C.D. [His affairs being thus so far prosperously managed he was able to put into execution his plan of living at Cambridge, where he settled on December 10th, 1836. He was at first a guest in the comfortable home of the Henslows, but afterwards, for the sake of undisturbed work, he moved into lodgings.] He thus writes to Fox, March 13th, 1837, from London:-- "My residence at Cambridge was rather longer than I expected, owing to a job which I determined to finish there, namely, looking over all my geological specimens. Cambridge yet continues a very pleasant, but not half so merry a place as before. To walk through the courts of Christ's College, and not know an inhabitant of a single room, gave one a feeling half melancholy. The only evil I found in Cambridge was its being too pleasant: there was some agreeable party or another every evening, and one cannot say one is engaged with so much impunity there as in this great city." A trifling record of my father's presence in Cambridge occurs in the book kept in Christ's College combination-room, where fines and bets were recorded, the earlier entries giving a curious impression of the after-dinner frame of mind of the fellows. The bets were not allowed to be made in money, but were, like the fines, paid in wine. The bet which my father made and lost is thus recorded:-- "FEBRUARY 23, 1837." Mr. Darwin v. Mr. Baines, that the combination-room measures from the ceiling to the floor more than (x) feet. 1 Bottle paid same day. "N.B. Mr. Darwin may measure at any part of the room he pleases." Besides arranging the geological and mineralogical specimens, he had his 'Journal of Researches' to work at, which occupied his evenings at Cambridge. He also read a short paper at the Zoological Society ("Notes upon Rhea Americana," 'Zool. Soc. Proc.' v. 1837, pages 35, 36.), and another at the Geological Society ('Geol. Soc. Proc.' ii. 1838, pages 446- 449.), on the recent elevation of the coast of Chile. Early in the spring of 1837 (March 6th) he left Cambridge for London, and a week later he was settled in lodgings at 36 Great Marlborough Street; and except for a "short visit to Shrewsbury" in June, he worked on till September, being almost entirely employed on his 'Journal.' He found time, however, for two papers at the Geological Society. ("A sketch of the deposits containing extinct mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata," 'Geol. Soc. Proc.' ii. 1838, pages 542-544; and "On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations." 'Geol. Soc. Proc' ii. 1838, pages 552- 554.) He writes of his work to Fox (March, 1837):-- "In your last letter you urge me to get ready THE book. I am now hard at work and give up everything else for it. Our plan is as follows: Captain Fitz-Roy writes two volumes out of the materials collected during the last voyage under Capt. King to Tierra del Fuego, and during our circumnavigation. I am to have the third volume, in which I intend giving a kind of journal of a naturalist, not following, however, always the order of time, but rather the order of position. The habits of animals will occupy a large portion, sketches of the geology, the appearance of the country, and personal details will make the hodge-podge complete. Afterwards I shall write an account of the geology in detail, and draw up some zoological papers. So that I have plenty of work for the next year or two, and till that is finished I will have no holidays." Another letter to Fox (July) gives an account of the progress of his work:-- "I gave myself a holiday and a visit to Shrewsbury [in June], as I had finished my Journal. I shall now be very busy in filling up gaps and getting it quite ready for the press by the first of August. I shall always feel respect for every one who has written a book, let it be what it may, for I had no idea of the trouble which trying to write common English could cost one. And, alas, there yet remains the worst part of all, correcting the press. As soon as ever that is done I must put my shoulder to the wheel and commence at the Geology. I have read some short papers to the Geological Society, and they were favourably received by the great guns, and this gives me much confidence, and I hope not a very great deal of vanity, though I confess I feel too often like a peacock admiring his tail. I never expected that my Geology would ever have been worth the consideration of such men as Lyell, who has been to me, since my return, a most active friend. My life is a very busy one at present, and I hope may ever remain so; though Heaven knows there are many serious drawbacks to such a life, and chief amongst them is the little time it allows one for seeing one's natural friends. For the last three years, I have been longing and longing to be living at Shrewsbury, and after all now in the course of several months, I see my dear good people at Shrewsbury for a week. Susan and Catherine have, however, been staying with my brother here for some weeks, but they had returned home before my visit." [Besides the work already mentioned he had much to busy him in making arrangements for the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle".' The following letters illustrate this subject.] CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS. (Now Rev L. Blomefield.) 36 Great Marlborough Street, April 10th, 1837. Dear Jenyns, During the last week several of the zoologists of this place have been urging me to consider the possibility of publishing the 'Zoology of the "Beagle's" Voyage' on some uniform plan. Mr. Macleay (William Sharp Macleay was the son of Alexander Macleay, formerly Colonial Secretary of New South Wales, and for many years Secretary of the Linnean Society.) The son, who was a most zealous Naturalist, and had inherited from his father a very large general collection of insects, made Entomology his chief study, and gained great notoriety by his now forgotten "Quinary System", set forth in the Second Part of his 'Horae Entomologicae,' published in 1821.--[I am indebted to Rev. L. Blomefield for the foregoing note.] has taken a great deal of interest in the subject, and maintains that such a publication is very desirable, because it keeps together a series of observations made respecting animals inhabiting the same part of the world, and allows any future traveller taking them with him. How far this facility of reference is of any consequence I am very doubtful; but if such is the case, it would be more satisfactory to myself to see the gleanings of my hands, after having passed through the brains of other naturalists, collected together in one work. But such considerations ought not to have much weight. The whole scheme is at present merely floating in the air; but I was determined to let you know, as I should much like to know what you think about it, and whether you would object to supply descriptions of the fish to such a work instead of to 'Transactions.' I apprehend the whole will be impracticable, without Government will aid in engraving the plates, and this I fear is a mere chance, only I think I can put in a strong claim, and get myself well backed by the naturalists of this place, who nearly all take a good deal of interest in my collections. I mean to-morrow to see Mr. Yarrell; if he approves, I shall begin and take more active steps; for I hear he is most prudent and most wise. It is scarcely any use speculating about any plan, but I thought of getting subscribers and publishing the work in parts (as long as funds would last, for I myself will not lose money by it). In such case, whoever had his own part ready on any order might publish it separately (and ultimately the parts might be sold separately), so that no one should be delayed by the other. The plan would resemble, on a humble scale, Ruppel's 'Atlas,' or Humboldt's 'Zoologie,' where Latreille, Cuvier, etc., wrote different parts. I myself should have little to do with it; excepting in some orders adding habits and ranges, etc., and geographical sketches, and perhaps afterwards some descriptions of invertebrate animals... I am working at my Journal; it gets on slowly, though I am not idle. I thought Cambridge a bad place from good dinners and other temptations, but I find London no better, and I fear it may grow worse. I have a capital friend in Lyell, and see a great deal of him, which is very advantageous to me in discussing much South American geology. I miss a walk in the country very much; this London is a vile smoky place, where a man loses a great part of the best enjoyments in life. But I see no chance of escaping, even for a week, from this prison for a long time to come. I fear it will be some time before we shall meet; for I suppose you will not come up here during the spring, and I do not think I shall be able to go down to Cambridge. How I should like to have a good walk along the Newmarket road to-morrow, but Oxford Street must do instead. I do hate the streets of London. Will you tell Henslow to be careful with the EDIBLE fungi from Tierra del Fuego, for I shall want some specimens for Mr. Brown, who seems PARTICULARLY interested about them. Tell Henslow, I think my silicified wood has unflintified Mr. Brown's heart, for he was very gracious to me, and talked about the Galapagos plants; but before he never would say a word. It is just striking twelve o'clock; so I will wish you a very good night. My dear Jenyns, Yours most truly, CHARLES DARWIN. [A few weeks later the plan seems to have been matured, and the idea of seeking Government aid to have been adopted.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. 36 Great Marlborough Street, [18th May, 1837]. My dear Henslow, I was very glad to receive your letter. I wanted much to hear how you were getting on with your manifold labours. Indeed I do not wonder your head began to ache; it is almost a wonder you have any head left. Your account of the Gamlingay expedition was cruelly tempting, but I cannot anyhow leave London. I wanted to pay my good, dear people at Shrewsbury a visit of a few days, but I found I could not manage it; at present I am waiting for the signatures of the Duke of Somerset, as President of the Linnean, and of Lord Derby and Whewell, to a statement of the value of my collection; the instant I get this I shall apply to Government for assistance in engraving, and so publish the 'Zoology' on some uniform plan. It is quite ridiculous the time any operation requires which depends on many people. I have been working very steadily, but have only got two-thirds through the Journal part alone. I find, though I remain daily many hours at work, the progress is very slow: it is an awful thing to say to oneself, every fool and every clever man in England, if he chooses, may make as many ill-natured remarks as he likes on this unfortunate sentence.... In August he writes to Henslow to announce the success of the scheme for the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle",' through the promise of a grant of 1000 pounds from the Treasury: "I have delayed writing to you, to thank you most sincerely for having so effectually managed my affair. I waited till I had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (T. Spring Rice.). He appointed to see me this morning, and I had a long conversation with him, Mr. Peacock being present. Nothing could be more thoroughly obliging and kind than his whole manner. He made no sort of restriction, but only told me to make the most of [the] money, which of course I am right willing to do. "I expected rather an awful interview, but I never found anything less so in my life. It will be my fault if I do not make a good work; but I sometimes take an awful fright that I have not materials enough. It will be excessively satisfactory at the end of some two years to find all materials made the most they were capable of." Later in the autumn he wrote to Henslow: "I have not been very well of late, with an uncomfortable palpitation of the heart, and my doctors urge me STRONGLY to knock off all work, and go and live in the country for a few weeks." He accordingly took a holiday of about a month at Shrewsbury and Maer, and paid a visit in the Isle of Wight. It was, I believe, during this visit, at Mr. Wedgwood's house at Maer, that he made his first observations on the work done by earthworms, and late in the autumn he read a paper on the subject at the Geological Society. ("On the formation of mould," 'Geol. Soc. Proc.' ii. 1838, pages 574-576.) During these two months he was also busy preparing the scheme of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle",' and in beginning to put together the Geological results of his travels. The following letter refers to the proposal that he should take the Secretaryship of the Geological Society.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 14th, [1837]. My dear Henslow, ...I am much obliged to you for your message about the Secretaryship. I am exceedingly anxious for you to hear my side of the question, and will you be so kind as afterwards to give me your fair judgment. The subject has haunted me all summer. I am unwilling to undertake the office for the following reasons: First, my entire ignorance of English Geology, a knowledge of which would be almost necessary in order to shorten many of the papers before reading them before the Society, or rather to know what parts to skip. Again, my ignorance of all languages, and not knowing how to pronounce a SINGLE word of French--a language so perpetually quoted. It would be disgraceful to the Society to have a Secretary who could not read French. Secondly, the loss of time; pray consider that I should have to look after the artists, superintend and furnish materials for the Government work, which will come out in parts, and which must appear regularly. All my Geological notes are in a very rough state; none of my fossil shells worked up; and I have much to read. I have had hopes, by giving up society and not wasting an hour, that I should finish my Geology in a year and a half, by which time the description of the higher animals by others would be completed, and my whole time would then necessarily be required to complete myself the description of the invertebrate ones. If this plan fails, as the Government work must go on, the Geology would necessarily be deferred till probably at least three years from this time. In the present state of the science, a great part of the utility of the little I have done would be lost, and all freshness and pleasure quite taken from me. I know from experience the time required to make abstracts EVEN of my own papers for the 'Proceedings.' If I was Secretary, and had to make double abstracts of each paper, studying them before reading, and attendance would AT LEAST cost me three days (and often more) in the fortnight. There are likewise other accidental and contingent losses of time; I know Dr. Royle found the office consumed much of his time. If by merely giving up any amusement, or by working harder than I have done, I could save time, I would undertake the Secretaryship; but I appeal to you whether, with my slow manner of writing, with two works in hand, and with the certainty, if I cannot complete the Geological part within a fixed period, that its publication must be retarded for a very long time,--whether any Society whatever has any claim on me for three days' disagreeable work every fortnight. I cannot agree that it is a duty on my part, as a follower of science, as long as I devote myself to the completion of the work I have in hand, to delay that, by undertaking what may be done by any person who happens to have more spare time than I have at present. Moreover, so early in my scientific life, with so very much as I have to learn, the office, though no doubt a great honour, etc., for me, would be the more burdensome. Mr. Whewell (I know very well), judging from himself, will think I exaggerate the time the Secretaryship would require; but I absolutely know the time which with me the simplest writing consumes. I do not at all like appearing so selfish as to refuse Mr. Whewell, more especially as he has always shown, in the kindest manner, an interest in my affairs. But I cannot look forward with even tolerable comfort to undertaking an office without entering on it heart and soul, and that would be impossible with the Government work and the Geology in hand. My last objection is, that I doubt how far my health will stand the confinement of what I have to do, without any additional work. I merely repeat, that you may know I am not speaking idly, that when I consulted Dr. Clark in town, he at first urged me to give up entirely all writing and even correcting press for some weeks. Of late anything which flurries me completely knocks me up afterwards, and brings on a violent palpitation of the heart. Now the Secretaryship would be a periodical source of more annoying trouble to me than all the rest of the fortnight put together. In fact, till I return to town, and see how I get on, if I wished the office ever so much, I COULD not say I would positively undertake it. I beg of you to excuse this very long prose all about myself, but the point is one of great interest. I can neither bear to think myself very selfish and sulky, nor can I see the possibility of my taking the Secretaryship without making a sacrifice of all my plans and a good deal of comfort. If you see Whewell, would you tell him the substance of this letter; or, if he will take the trouble, he may read it. My dear Henslow, I appeal to you in loco parentis. Pray tell me what you think? But do not judge me by the activity of mind which you and a few others possess, for in that case the more difficult things in hand the pleasanter the work; but, though I hope I never shall be idle, such is not the case with me. Ever, dear Henslow, Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. [He ultimately accepted the post, and held it for three years--from February 16, 1838, to February 19, 1841. After being assured of the Grant for the publication of the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle",' there was much to be done in arranging the scheme of publication, and this occupied him during part of October and November.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. [4th November, 1837.] My dear Henslow, ...Pray tell Leonard (Rev. L. Jenyns.) that my Government work is going on smoothly, and I hope will be prosperous. He will see in the Prospectus his name attached to the fish; I set my shoulders to the work with a good heart. I am very much better than I was during the last month before my Shrewsbury visit. I fear the Geology will take me a great deal of time; I was looking over one set of notes, and the quantity I found I had to read, for that one place was frightful. If I live till I am eighty years old I shall not cease to marvel at finding myself an author; in the summer before I started, if any one had told me that I should have been an angel by this time, I should have thought it an equal impossibility. This marvellous transformation is all owing to you. I am sorry to find that a good many errata are left in the part of my volume, which is printed. During my absence Mr. Colburn employed some goose to revise, and he has multiplied, instead of diminishing my oversights; but for all that, the smooth paper and clear type has a charming appearance, and I sat the other evening gazing in silent admiration at the first page of my own volume, when I received it from the printers! Good-bye, my dear Henslow, C. DARWIN. 1838. [From the beginning of this year to nearly the end of June, he was busily employed on the zoological and geological results of his voyage. This spell of work was interrupted only by a visit of three days to Cambridge, in May; and even this short holiday was taken in consequence of failing health, as we may assume from the entry in his diary: "May 1st, unwell," and from a letter to his sister (May 16, 1838), when he wrote:-- "My trip of three days to Cambridge has done me such wonderful good, and filled my limbs with such elasticity, that I must get a little work out of my body before another holiday." This holiday seems to have been thoroughly enjoyed; he wrote to his sister:-- "Now for Cambridge: I stayed at Henslow's house and enjoyed my visit extremely. My friends gave me a most cordial welcome. Indeed, I was quite a lion there. Mrs. Henslow unfortunately was obliged to go on Friday for a visit in the country. That evening we had at Henslow's a brilliant party of all the geniuses in Cambridge, and a most remarkable set of men they most assuredly are. On Saturday I rode over to L. Jenyns', and spent the morning with him. I found him very cheerful, but bitterly complaining of his solitude. On Saturday evening dined at one of the Colleges, played at bowls on the College Green after dinner, and was deafened with nightingales singing. Sunday, dined in Trinity; capital dinner, and was very glad to sit by Professor Lee (Samuel Lee, of Queens', was Professor of Arabic from 1819 to 1831, and Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1831 to 1848.)...; I find him a very pleasant chatting man, and in high spirits like a boy, at having lately returned from a living or a curacy, for seven years in Somersetshire, to civilised society and oriental manuscripts. He had exchanged his living to one within fourteen miles of Cambridge, and seemed perfectly happy. In the evening attended Trinity Chapel, and heard 'The Heavens are telling the Glory of God,' in magnificent style; the last chorus seemed to shake the very walls of the College. After chapel a large party in Sedgwick's rooms. So much for my Annals." He started, towards the end of June, on his expedition to Glen Roy, of which he writes to Fox: "I have not been very well of late, which has suddenly determined me to leave London earlier than I had anticipated. I go by the steam-packet to Edinburgh,--take a solitary walk on Salisbury Craigs, and call up old thoughts of former times, then go on to Glasgow and the great valley of Inverness, near which I intend stopping a week to geologise the parallel roads of Glen Roy, thence to Shrewsbury, Maer for one day, and London for smoke, ill-health and hard work." He spent "eight good days" over the Parallel Roads. His Essay on this subject was written out during the same summer, and published by the Royal Society. ('Phil. Trans.' 1839, pages 39-82.) He wrote in his Pocket Book: "September 6 [1838]. Finished the paper on 'Glen Roy,' one of the most difficult and instructive tasks I was ever engaged on." It will be remembered that in his 'Recollections' he speaks of this paper as a failure, of which he was ashamed. At the time at which he wrote, the latest theory of the formation of the Parallel Roads was that of Sir Lauder Dick and Dr. Macculloch, who believed that lakes had anciently existed in Glen Roy, caused by dams of rock or alluvium. In arguing against this theory he conceived that he had disproved the admissibility of any lake theory, but in this point he was mistaken. He wrote (Glen Roy paper, page 49) "the conclusion is inevitable, that no hypothesis founded on the supposed existence of a sheet of water confined by BARRIERS, that is a lake, can be admitted as solving the problematical origin of the parallel roads of Lochaber." Mr. Archibald Geikie has been so good as to allow me to quote a passage from a letter addressed to me (November 19, 1884) in compliance with my request for his opinion on the character of my father's Glen Roy work:-- "Mr. Darwin's 'Glen Roy' paper, I need not say, is marked by all his characteristic acuteness of observation and determination to consider all possible objections. It is a curious example, however, of the danger of reasoning by a method of exclusion in Natural Science. Finding that the waters which formed the terraces in the Glen Roy region could not possibly have been dammed back by barriers of rock or of detritus, he saw no alternative but to regard them as the work of the sea. Had the idea of transient barriers of glacier-ice occurred to him, he would have found the difficulties vanish from the lake-theory which he opposed, and he would not have been unconsciously led to minimise the altogether overwhelming objections to the supposition that the terraces are of marine origin." It may be added that the idea of the barriers being formed by glaciers could hardly have occurred to him, considering what was the state of knowledge at the time, and bearing in mind his want of opportunities of observing glacial action on a large scale. The latter half of July was passed at Shrewsbury and Maer. The only entry of any interest is one of being "very idle" at Shrewsbury, and of opening "a note-book connected with metaphysical inquiries." In August he records that he read "a good deal of various amusing books, and paid some attention to metaphysical subjects." The work done during the remainder of the year comprises the book on coral reefs (begun in October), and some work on the phenomena of elevation in S. America.] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 36 Great Marlborough Street, August 9th [1838]. My dear Lyell, I do not write to you at Norwich, for I thought I should have more to say, if I waited a few more days. Very many thanks for the present of your 'Elements,' which I received (and I believe the VERY FIRST copy distributed) together with your note. I have read it through every word, and am full of admiration of it, and, as I now see no geologist, I must talk to you about it. There is no pleasure in reading a book if one cannot have a good talk over it; I repeat, I am full of admiration of it, it is as clear as daylight, in fact I felt in many parts some mortification at thinking how geologists have laboured and struggled at proving what seems, as you have put it, so evidently probable. I read with much interest your sketch of the secondary deposits; you have contrived to make it quite "juicy," as we used to say as children of a good story. There was also much new to me, and I have to copy out some fifty notes and references. It must do good, the heretics against common sense must yield...By the way, do you recollect my telling you how much I disliked the manner -- referred to his other works, as much as to say, "You must, ought, and shall buy everything I have written." To my mind, you have somehow quite avoided this; your references only seem to say, "I can't tell you all in this work, else I would, so you must go to the 'Principles'"; and many a one, I trust, you will send there, and make them, like me, adorers of the good science of rock-breaking. You will see I am in a fit of enthusiasm, and good cause I have to be, when I find you have made such infinitely more use of my Journal than I could have anticipated. I will say no more about the book, for it is all praise. I must, however, admire the elaborate honesty with which you quote the words of all living and dead geologists. My Scotch expedition answered brilliantly; my trip in the steam-packet was absolutely pleasant, and I enjoyed the spectacle, wretch that I am, of two ladies, and some small children quite sea-sick, I being well. Moreover, on my return from Glasgow to Liverpool, I triumphed in a similar manner over some full-grown men. I stayed one whole day in Edinburgh, or more truly on Salisbury Craigs; I want to hear some day what you think about that classical ground,--the structure was to me new and rather curious,--that is, if I understand it right. I crossed from Edinburgh in gigs and carts (and carts without springs, as I never shall forget) to Loch Leven. I was disappointed in the scenery, and reached Glen Roy on Saturday evening, one week after leaving Marlborough Street. Here I enjoyed five [?] days of the most beautiful weather with gorgeous sunsets, and all nature looking as happy as I felt. I wandered over the mountains in all directions, and examined that most extraordinary district. I think, without any exceptions, not even the first volcanic island, the first elevated beach, or the passage of the Cordillera, was so interesting to me as this week. It is far the most remarkable area I ever examined. I have fully convinced myself (after some doubting at first) that the shelves are sea-beaches, although I could not find a trace of a shell; and I think I can explain away most, if not all, the difficulties. I found a piece of a road in another valley, not hitherto observed, which is important; and I have some curious facts about erratic blocks, one of which was perched up on a peak 2200 feet above the sea. I am now employed in writing a paper on the subject, which I find very amusing work, excepting that I cannot anyhow condense it into reasonable limits. At some future day I hope to talk over some of the conclusions with you, which the examination of Glen Roy has led me to. Now I have had my talk out, I am much easier, for I can assure you Glen Roy has astonished me. I am living very quietly, and therefore pleasantly, and am crawling on slowly but steadily with my work. I have come to one conclusion, which you will think proves me to be a very sensible man, namely, that whatever you say proves right; and as a proof of this, I am coming into your way of only working about two hours at a spell; I then go out and do my business in the streets, return and set to work again, and thus make two separate days out of one. The new plan answers capitally; after the second half day is finished I go and dine at the Athenaeum like a gentleman, or rather like a lord, for I am sure the first evening I sat in that great drawing-room, all on a sofa by myself, I felt just like a duke. I am full of admiration at the Athenaeum, one meets so many people there that one likes to see. The very first time I dined there (i.e. last week) I met Dr. Fitton (W.H. Fitton (1780-1861) was a physician and geologist, and sometime president of the Geological Society. He established the 'Proceedings,' a mode of publication afterwards adopted by other societies.) at the door, and he got together quite a party--Robert Brown, who is gone to Paris and Auvergne, Macleay [?] and Dr. Boott. (Francis Boott (1792-1863) is chiefly known as a botanist through his work on the genus Carex. He was also well-known in connection with the Linnean Society of which he was for many years an office-bearer. He is described (in a biographical sketch published in the "Gardener's Chronicle", 1864) as having been one of the first physicians in London who gave up the customary black coat, knee-breeches and silk stockings, and adopted the ordinary dress of the period, a blue coat with brass buttons, and a buff waiscoat, a costume which he continued to wear to the last. After giving up practice, which he did early in life, he spent much of his time in acts of unpretending philanthropy.) Your helping me into the Athenaeum has not been thrown away, and I enjoy it the more because I fully expected to detest it. I am writing you a most unmerciful letter, but I shall get Owen to take it to Newcastle. If you have a mind to be a very generous man you will write to me from Kinnordy (The house of Lyell's father.), and tell me some Newcastle news, as well as about the Craig, and about yourself and Mrs. Lyell, and everything else in the world. I will send by Hall the 'Entomological Transactions,' which I have borrowed for you; you will be disappointed in --'s papers, that is if you suppose my dear friend has a single clear idea upon any one subject. He has so involved recent insects and true fossil insects in one table that I fear you will not make much out of it, though it is a subject which ought I should think to come into the 'Principles.' You will be amused at some of the ridiculo-sublime passages in the papers, and no doubt will feel acutely a sneer there is at yourself. I have heard from more than one quarter that quarrelling is expected at Newcastle (At the meeting of the British Association.); I am sorry to hear it. I met old -- this evening at the Athenaeum, and he muttered something about writing to you or some one on the subject; I am however all in the dark. I suppose, however, I shall be illuminated, for I am going to dine with him in a few days, as my inventive powers failed in making any excuse. A friend of mine dined with him the other day, a party of four, and they finished ten bottles of wine--a pleasant prospect for me; but I am determined not even to taste his wine, partly for the fun of seeing his infinite disgust and surprise... I pity you the infliction of this most unmerciful letter. Pray remember me most kindly to Mrs. Lyell when you arrive at Kinnordy. I saw her name in the landlord's book of Inverorum. Tell Mrs. Lyell to read the second series of 'Mr. Slick of Slickville's Sayings.'...He almost beats "Samivel," that prince of heroes. Goodnight, my dear Lyell; you will think I have been drinking some strong drink to write so much nonsense, but I did not even taste Minerva's small beer to-day. Yours most sincerely, CHAS. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Friday night, September 13th [1838]. My dear Lyell, I was astonished and delighted at your gloriously long letter, and I am sure I am very much obliged to Mrs. Lyell for having taken the trouble to write so much. (Lyell dictated much of his correspondence.) I mean to have a good hour's enjoyment and scribble away to you, who have so much geological sympathy that I do not care how egotistically I write... I have got so much to say about all sorts of trifling things that I hardly know what to begin about. I need not say how pleased I am to hear that Mr. Lyell (Father of the geologist.) likes my Journal. To hear such tidings is a kind of resurrection, for I feel towards my first-born child as if it had long since been dead, buried, and forgotten; but the past is nothing and the future everything to us geologists, as you show in your capital motto to the 'Elements.' By the way, have you read the article, in the 'Edinburgh Review,' on M. Comte, 'Cours de la Philosophie' (or some such title)? It is capital; there are some fine sentences about the very essence of science being prediction, which reminded me of "its law being progress." I will now begin and go through your letter seriatim. I dare say your plan of putting the Elie de Beaumont's chapter separately and early will be very good; anyhow, it is showing a bold front in the first edition which is to be translated into French. It will be a curious point to geologists hereafter to note how long a man's name will support a theory so completely exposed as that of De Beaumont's has been by you; you say you "begin to hope that the great principles there insisted on will stand the test of time." BEGIN TO HOPE: why, the POSSIBILITY of a doubt has never crossed my mind for many a day. This may be very unphilosophical, but my geological salvation is staked on it. After having just come back from Glen Roy, and found how difficulties smooth away under your principles, it makes me quite indignant that you should talk of HOPING. With respect to the question, how far my coral theory bears on De Beaumont's theory, I think it would be prudent to quote me with great caution until my whole account is published, and then you (and others) can judge how far there is foundation for such generalisation. Mind, I do not doubt its truth; but the extension of any view over such large spaces, from comparatively few facts, must be received with much caution. I do not myself the least doubt that within the recent (or as you, much to my annoyment, would call it, "New Pliocene") period, tortuous bands--not all the bands parallel to each other--have been elevated and corresponding ones subsided, though within the same period some parts probably remained for a time stationary, or even subsided. I do not believe a more utterly false view could have been invented than great straight lines being suddenly thrown up. When my book on Volcanoes and Coral Reefs will be published I hardly know; I fear it will be at least four or five months; though, mind, the greater part is written. I find so much time is lost in correcting details and ascertaining their accuracy. The Government Zoological work is a millstone round my neck, and the Glen Roy paper has lost me six weeks. I will not, however, say lost; for, supposing I can prove to others' satisfaction what I have convinced myself is the case, the inference I think you will allow to be important. I cannot doubt that the molten matter beneath the earth's crust possesses a high degree of fluidity, almost like the sea beneath the block ice. By the way, I hope you will give me some Swedish case to quote, of shells being preserved on the surface, but not in contemporaneous beds of gravel... Remember what I have often heard you say: the country is very bad for the intellects; the Scotch mists will put out some volcanic speculations. You see I am affecting to become very Cockneyfied, and to despise the poor country-folk, who breath fresh air instead of smoke, and see the goodly fields instead of the brick houses in Marlborough Street, the very sight of which I confess I abhor. I am glad to hear what a favourable report you give of the British Association. I am the more pleased because I have been fighting its battles with Basil Hall, Stokes, and several others, having made up my mind, from the report in the "Athenaeum", that it must have been an excellent meeting. I have been much amused with an account I have received of the wars of Don Roderick (Murchison.) and Babbage. What a grievous pity it is that the latter should be so implacable...This is a most rigmarole letter, for after each sentence I take breath, and you will have need of it in reading it... I wish with all my heart that my Geological book was out. I have every motive to work hard, and will, following your steps, work just that degree of hardness to keep well. I should like my volume to be out before your new edition of 'Principles' appears. Besides the Coral theory, the volcanic chapters will, I think, contain some new facts. I have lately been sadly tempted to be idle--that is, as far as pure geology is concerned--by the delightful number of new views which have been coming in thickly and steadily,--on the classification and affinities and instincts of animals--bearing on the question of species. Note-book after note-book has been filled with facts which begin to group themselves CLEARLY under sub-laws. Good night, my dear Lyell. I have filled my letter and enjoyed my talk to you as much as I can without having you in propria persona. Think of the bad effects of the country--so once more good night. Ever yours, CHAS. DARWIN. Pray again give my best thanks to Mrs. Lyell. [The record of what he wrote during the year does not give a true index of the most important work that was in progress,--the laying of the foundation-stones of what was to be the achievement of his life. This is shown in the foregoing letter to Lyell, where he speaks of being "idle," and the following extract from a letter to Fox, written in June, is of interest in this point of view: "I am delighted to hear you are such a good man as not to have forgotten my questions about the crossing of animals. It is my prime hobby, and I really think some day I shall be able to do something in that most intricate subject, species and varieties."] 1839-1841. [In the winter of 1839 (January 29) my father was married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood. (Daughter of Josiah Wedgwood of Maer, and grand-daughter of the founder of the Etruria Pottery Works.) The house in which they lived for the first few years of their married life, No. 12 Upper Gower Street, was a small common-place London house, with a drawing-room in front, and a small room behind, in which they lived for the sake of quietness. In later years my father used to laugh over the surpassing ugliness of the furniture, carpets, etc., of the Gower Street house. The only redeeming feature was a better garden than most London houses have, a strip as wide as the house, and thirty yards long. Even this small space of dingy grass made their London house more tolerable to its two country-bred inhabitants. Of his life in London he writes to Fox (October 1839): "We are living a life of extreme quietness; Delamere itself, which you describe as so secluded a spot, is, I will answer for it, quite dissipated compared with Gower Street. We have given up all parties, for they agree with neither of us; and if one is quiet in London, there is nothing like its quietness--there is a grandeur about its smoky fogs, and the dull distant sounds of cabs and coaches; in fact you may perceive I am becoming a thorough-paced Cockney, and I glory in thoughts that I shall be here for the next six months." The entries of ill health in the Diary increase in number during these years, and as a consequence the holidays become longer and more frequent. From April 26 to May 13, 1839, he was at Maer and Shrewsbury. Again, from August 23 to October 2 he was away from London at Maer, Shrewsbury, and at Birmingham for the meeting of the British Association. The entry under August 1839 is: "During my visit to Maer, read a little, was much unwell and scandalously idle. I have derived this much good, that NOTHING is so intolerable as idleness." At the end of 1839 his eldest child was born, and it was then that he began his observations ultimately published in the 'Expression of the Emotions.' His book on this subject, and the short paper published in 'Mind,' (July 1877.) show how closely he observed his child. He seems to have been surprised at his own feelings for a young baby, for he wrote to Fox (July 1840): "He [i.e. the baby] is so charming that I cannot pretend to any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our baby, for I defy any one to say anything in its praise of which we are not fully conscious...I had not the smallest conception there was so much in a five-month baby. You will perceive by this that I have a fine degree of paternal fervour." During these years he worked intermittently at 'Coral Reefs,' being constantly interrupted by ill health. Thus he speaks of "recommencing" the subject in February 1839, and again in the October of the same year, and once more in July 1841, "after more than thirteen months' interval." His other scientific work consisted of a contribution to the Geological Society ('Geol. Soc. Proc.' iii. 1842, and 'Geol. Soc. Trans.' vi), on the boulders and "till" of South America, as well as a few other minor papers on geological subjects. He also worked busily at the ornithological part of the Zoology of the "Beagle", i.e. the notice of the habits and ranges of the birds which were described by Gould.] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Wednesday morning [February 1840]. My dear Lyell, Many thanks for your kind note. I will send for the "Scotsman". Dr. Holland thinks he has found out what is the matter with me, and now hopes he shall be able to set me going again. Is it not mortifying, it is now nine weeks since I have done a whole day's work, and not more than four half days. But I won't grumble any more, though it is hard work to prevent doing so. Since receiving your note I have read over my chapter on Coral, and find I am prepared to stand by almost everything; it is much more cautiously and accurately written than I thought. I had set my heart upon having my volume completed before your new edition, but not, you may believe me, for you to notice anything new in it (for there is very little besides details), but you are the one man in Europe whose opinion of the general truth of a toughish argument I should be always most anxious to hear. My MS. is in such confusion, otherwise I am sure you should most willingly if it had been worth your while, have looked at any part you choose.... [In a letter to Fox (January 1841) he shows that his "Species work" was still occupying his mind:-- "If you attend at all to Natural History I send you this P.S. as a memento, that I continue to collect all kinds of facts about 'Varieties and Species,' for my some-day work to be so entitled; the smallest contributions thankfully accepted; descriptions of offspring of all crosses between all domestic birds and animals, dogs, cats, etc., etc., very valuable. Don't forget, if your half-bred African cat should die that I should be very much obliged for its carcase sent up in a little hamper for the skeleton; it, or any cross-bred pigeons, fowl, duck, etc., etc., will be more acceptable than the finest haunch of venison, or the finest turtle." Later in the year (September) he writes to Fox about his health, and also with reference to his plan of moving into the country:-- "I have steadily been gaining ground, and really believe now I shall some day be quite strong. I write daily for a couple of hours on my Coral volume, and take a little walk or ride every day. I grow very tired in the evenings, and am not able to go out at that time, or hardly to receive my nearest relations; but my life ceases to be burdensome now that I can do something. We are taking steps to leave London, and live about twenty miles from it on some railway."] 1842. [The record of work includes his volume on 'Coral Reefs' (A notice of the Coral Reef work appeared in the Geograph. Soc. Journal, xii., page 115.), the manuscript of which was at last sent to the printers in January of this year, and the last proof corrected in May. He thus writes of the work in his diary:-- "I commenced this work three years and seven months ago. Out of this period about twenty months (besides work during "Beagle's" voyage) has been spent on it, and besides it, I have only compiled the Bird part of Zoology; Appendix to Journal, paper on Boulders, and corrected papers on Glen Roy and earthquakes, reading on species, and rest all lost by illness." In May and June he was at Shrewsbury and Maer, whence he went on to make the little tour in Wales, of which he spoke in his 'Recollections,' and of which the results were published as "Notes on the effects produced by the ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by floating Ice." ('Philosophical Magazine,' 1842, page 352.) Mr. Archibald Geikie speaks of this paper as standing "almost at the top of the long list of English contributions to the history of the Ice Age." (Charles Darwin, 'Nature' Series, page 23.) The latter part of this year belongs to the period including the settlement at Down, and is therefore dealt with in another chapter.] CHAPTER 1.VIII. -- RELIGION. [The history of this part of my father's life may justly include some mention of his religious views. For although, as he points out, he did not give continuous systematic thought to religious questions, yet we know from his own words that about this time (1836-39) the subject was much before his mind.] In his published works he was reticent on the matter of religion, and what he has left on the subject was not written with a view to publication. (As an exception may be mentioned, a few words of concurrence with Dr. Abbot's 'Truths for the Times,' which my father allowed to be published in the "Index".) I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He felt strongly that a man's religion is an essentially private matter, and one concerning himself alone. This is indicated by the following extract from a letter of 1879:--(Addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by him in his 'Aspects of Scepticism,' 1883.) "What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He naturally shrank from wounding the sensibilities of others in religious matters, and he was also influenced by the consciousness that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought. That he felt this caution to apply to himself in the matter of religion is shown in a letter to Dr. F.E. Abbot, of Cambridge, U.S. (September 6, 1871). After explaining that the weakness arising from his bad health prevented him from feeling "equal to deep reflection, on the deepest subject which can fill a man's mind," he goes on to say: "With respect to my former notes to you, I quite forget their contents. I have to write many letters, and can reflect but little on what I write; but I fully believe and hope that I have never written a word, which at the time I did not think; but I think you will agree with me, that anything which is to be given to the public ought to be maturely weighed and cautiously put. It never occurred to me that you would wish to print any extract from my notes: if it had, I would have kept a copy. I put 'private' from habit, only as yet partially acquired, from some hasty notes of mine having been printed, which were not in the least degree worth printing, though otherwise unobjectionable. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that my former note to you would be worth sending to me, with any part marked which you desire to print; but if you like to do so, I will at once say whether I should have any objection. I feel in some degree unwilling to express myself publicly on religious subjects, as I do not feel that I have thought deeply enough to justify any publicity." I may also quote from another letter to Dr. Abbot (November 16, 1871), in which my father gives more fully his reasons for not feeling competent to write on religious and moral subjects:-- "I can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your request that I should become a contributor to the "Index", and am much obliged for the draft. I fully, also, subscribe to the proposition that it is the duty of every one to spread what he believes to be the truth; and I honour you for doing so, with so much devotion and zeal. But I cannot comply with your request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in your eyes ungracious. My health is very weak: I NEVER pass 24 hours without many hours of discomfort, when I can do nothing whatever. I have thus, also, lost two whole consecutive months this season. Owing to this weakness, and my head being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects requiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials. At no time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have done in science has solely been by long pondering, patience and industry. "Now I have never systematically thought much on religion in relation to science, or on morals in relation to society; and without steadily keeping my mind on such subjects for a LONG period, I am really incapable of writing anything worth sending to the 'Index'." He was more than once asked to give his views on religion, and he had, as a rule, no objection to doing so in a private letter. Thus in answer to a Dutch student he wrote (April 2, 1873):-- "I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest. "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father's family, who wrote:-- "Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all. "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God." This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my father, and received from him the following reply:-- "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,--nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat abbreviated, from a part of the Autobiography, written in 1876, in which my father gives the history of his religious views:-- "During these two years (October 1836 to January 1839.) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the 'Beagle' I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,--is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible. "By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,--and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,--that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;--by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. "But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress. "Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the 'Variations of Domesticated Animals and Plants' (My father asks whether we are to believe that the forms are preordained of the broken fragments of rock tumbled from a precipice which are fitted together by man to build his houses. If not, why should we believe that the variations of domestic animals or plants are preordained for the sake of the breeder? "But if we give up the principle in one case,... no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."--'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' 1st Edition volume ii. page 431.--F.D.), and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered. "But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness. "Everyone who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking, and in the propagation of the species, etc.; or by both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary, they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner, through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,--in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances. "That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection. "At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. "Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music. "With respect to immortality, nothing shows me [so clearly] how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful. "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species;' and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." [The following letters repeat to some extent what has been given from the Autobiography. The first one refers to 'The Boundaries of Science, a Dialogue,' published in 'Macmillan's Magazine,' for July 1861.] CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS JULIA WEDGWOOD. July 11 [1861]. Some one has sent us 'Macmillan'; and I must tell you how much I admire your Article; though at the same time I must confess that I could not clearly follow you in some parts, which probably is in main part due to my not being at all accustomed to metaphysical trains of thought. I think that you understand my book (The 'Origin of Species.') perfectly, and that I find a very rare event with my critics. The ideas in the last page have several times vaguely crossed my mind. Owing to several correspondents I have been led lately to think, or rather to try to think over some of the chief points discussed by you. But the result has been with me a maze--something like thinking on the origin of evil, to which you allude. The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray and some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray would compare with the rain drops (Dr. Gray's rain-drop metaphor occurs in the Essay 'Darwin and his Reviewers' ('Darwiniana,' page 157): "The whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon the vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture is furnished by the ocean, is raised by the sun's heat from the ocean's surface, and is wafted inland by the winds. But what multitudes of rain-drops fall back into the ocean--are as much without a final cause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing! Does it therefore follow that the rains which are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity were not designed to support vegetable and animal life?") which do not fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilize it) as having been providentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man's amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or any one, admits [that] these variations are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (of course not accidental as to their cause or origin); then I can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which the beautifully adapted woodpecker has been formed, as providentially designed. For it would be easy to imagine the enlarged crop of the pouter, or tail of the fantail, as of some use to birds, in a state of nature, having peculiar habits of life. These are the considerations which perplex me about design; but whether you will care to hear them, I know not.... [On the subject of design, he wrote (July 1860) to Dr. Gray: "One word more on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this DESIGNEDLY. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God DESIGNEDLY killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I can't and don't. If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their FIRST birth or production should be necessarily designed."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. GRAHAM. Down, July 3rd, 1881. Dear Sir, I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation--and no doubt of the conservation of energy--of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. (The Duke of Argyll ('Good Words,' Ap. 1885, page 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. "...in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the 'Fertilization of Orchids,' and upon 'The Earthworms,' and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature--I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'") But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second, third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused. I beg leave to remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. [My father spoke little on these subjects, and I can contribute nothing from my own recollection of his conversation which can add to the impression here given of his attitude towards Religion. Some further idea of his views may, however, be gathered from occasional remarks in his letters.] (Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent--that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.) CHAPTER 1.IX. -- LIFE AT DOWN. 1842-1854. "My life goes on like clockwork, and I am fixed on the spot where I shall end it." Letter to Captain Fitz-Roy, October, 1846. [With the view of giving in the following chapters a connected account of the growth of the 'Origin of Species,' I have taken the more important letters bearing on that subject out of their proper chronological position here, and placed them with the rest of the correspondence bearing on the same subject; so that in the present group of letters we only get occasional hints of the growth of my father's views, and we may suppose ourselves to be looking at his life, as it might have been looked at by those who had no knowledge of the quiet development of his theory of evolution during this period.] On September 14, 1842, my father left London with his family and settled at Down. (I must not omit to mention a member of the household who accompanied him. This was his butler, Joseph Parslow, who remained in the family, a valued friend and servant, for forty years, and became as Sir Joseph Hooker once remarked to me, "an integral part of the family, and felt to be such by all visitors at the house.") In the Autobiographical chapter, his motives for taking this step in the country are briefly given. He speaks of the attendance at scientific societies, and ordinary social duties, as suiting his health so "badly that we resolved to live in the country, which we both preferred and have never repented of." His intention of keeping up with scientific life in London is expressed in a letter to Fox (December, 1842):-- "I hope by going up to town for a night every fortnight or three weeks, to keep up my communication with scientific men and my own zeal, and so not to turn into a complete Kentish hog." Visits to London of this kind were kept up for some years at the cost of much exertion on his part. I have often heard him speak of the wearisome drives of ten miles to or from Croydon or Sydenham--the nearest stations--with an old gardener acting as coachman, who drove with great caution and slowness up and down the many hills. In later years, all regular scientific intercourse with London became, as before mentioned, an impossibility. The choice of Down was rather the result of despair than of actual preference; my father and mother were weary of house-hunting, and the attractive points about the place thus seemed to them to counterbalance its somewhat more obvious faults. It had at least one desideratum, namely quietness. Indeed it would have been difficult to find a more retired place so near to London. In 1842 a coach drive of some twenty miles was the only means of access to Down; and even now that railways have crept closer to it, it is singularly out of the world, with nothing to suggest the neighbourhood of London, unless it be the dull haze of smoke that sometimes clouds the sky. The village stands in an angle between two of the larger high-roads of the country, one leading to Tunbridge and the other to Westerham and Edenbridge. It is cut off from the Weald by a line of steep chalk hills on the south, and an abrupt hill, now smoothed down by a cutting and embankment, must formerly have been something of a barrier against encroachments from the side of London. In such a situation, a village, communicating with the main lines of traffic, only by stony tortuous lanes, may well have been enabled to preserve its retired character. Nor is it hard to believe in the smugglers and their strings of pack-horses making their way up from the lawless old villages of the Weald, of which the memory still existed when my father settled in Down. The village stands on solitary upland country, 500 to 600 feet above the sea,-- a country with little natural beauty, but possessing a certain charm in the shaws, or straggling strips of wood, capping the chalky banks and looking down upon the quiet ploughed lands of the valleys. The village, of three or four hundred inhabitants, consists of three small streets of cottages meeting in front of the little flint-built church. It is a place where new-comers are seldom seen, and the names occurring far back in the old church registers are still well-known in the village. The smock-frock is not yet quite extinct, though chiefly used as a ceremonial dress by the "bearers" at funerals: but as a boy I remember the purple or green smocks of the men at church. The house stands a quarter of a mile from the village, and is built, like so many houses of the last century, as near as possible to the road--a narrow lane winding away to the Westerham high-road. In 1842, it was dull and unattractive enough: a square brick building of three storeys, covered with shabby whitewash and hanging tiles. The garden had none of the shrubberies or walls that now give shelter; it was overlooked from the lane, and was open, bleak, and desolate. One of my father's first undertakings was to lower the lane by about two feet, and to build a flint wall along that part of it which bordered the garden. The earth thus excavated was used in making banks and mounds round the lawn: these were planted with evergreens, which now give to the garden its retired and sheltered character. The house was made to look neater by being covered with stucco, but the chief improvement effected was the building of a large bow extending up through three storeys. This bow became covered with a tangle of creepers, and pleasantly varied the south side of the house. The drawing-room, with its verandah opening into the garden, as well as the study in which my father worked during the later years of his life, were added at subsequent dates. Eighteen acres of land were sold with the house, of which twelve acres on the south side of the house formed a pleasant field, scattered with fair-sized oaks and ashes. From this field a strip was cut off and converted into a kitchen garden, in which the experimental plot of ground was situated, and where the greenhouses were ultimately put up. The following letter to Mr. Fox (March 28th, 1843) gives among other things my father's early impressions of Down:-- "I will tell you all the trifling particulars about myself that I can think of. We are now exceedingly busy with the first brick laid down yesterday to an addition to our house; with this, with almost making a new kitchen garden and sundry other projected schemes, my days are very full. I find all this very bad for geology, but I am very slowly progressing with a volume, or rather pamphlet, on the volcanic islands which we visited: I manage only a couple of hours per day and that not very regularly. It is uphill work writing books, which cost money in publishing, and which are not read even by geologists. I forget whether I ever described this place: it is a good, very ugly house with 18 acres, situated on a chalk flat, 560 feet above sea. There are peeps of far distant country and the scenery is moderately pretty: its chief merit is its extreme rurality. I think I was never in a more perfectly quiet country. Three miles south of us the great chalk escarpment quite cuts us off from the low country of Kent, and between us and the escarpment there is not a village or gentleman's house, but only great woods and arable fields (the latter in sadly preponderant numbers) so that we are absolutely at the extreme verge of the world. The whole country is intersected by foot-paths; but the surface over the chalk is clayey and sticky, which is the worst feature in our purchase. The dingles and banks often remind me of Cambridgeshire and walks with you to Cherry Hinton, and other places, though the general aspect of the country is very different. I was looking over my arranged cabinet (the only remnant I have preserved of all my English insects), and was admiring Panagaeus Crux-major: it is curious the vivid manner in which this insect calls up in my mind your appearance, with little Fan trotting after, when I was first introduced to you. Those entomological days were very pleasant ones. I am VERY much stronger corporeally, but am little better in being able to stand mental fatigue, or rather excitement, so that I cannot dine out or receive visitors, except relations with whom I can pass some time after dinner in silence." I could have wished to give here some idea of the position which, at this period of his life, my father occupied among scientific men and the reading public generally. But contemporary notices are few and of no particular value for my purpose,--which therefore must, in spite of a good deal of pains, remain unfulfilled. His 'Journal of Researches' was then the only one of his books which had any chance of being commonly known. But the fact that it was published with the 'Voyages' of Captains King and Fitz-Roy probably interfered with its general popularity. Thus Lyell wrote to him in 1838 ('Lyell's Life,' ii. page 43), "I assure you my father is quite enthusiastic about your journal...and he agrees with me that it would have a large sale if published separately. He was disappointed at hearing that it was to be fettered by the other volumes, for, although he should equally buy it, he feared so many of the public would be checked from doing so." In a notice of the three voyages in the 'Edinburgh Review' (July, 1839), there is nothing leading a reader to believe that he would find it more attractive than its fellow-volumes. And, as a fact, it did not become widely known until it was separately published in 1845. It may be noted, however, that the 'Quarterly Review' (December, 1839) called the attention of its readers to the merits of the 'Journal' as a book of travels. The reviewer speaks of the "charm arising from the freshness of heart which is thrown over these virgin pages of a strong intellectual man and an acute and deep observer." The German translation (1844) of the 'Journal' received a favourable notice in No. 12 of the 'Heidelberger Jahrbucher der Literatur,' 1847--where the Reviewer speaks of the author's "varied canvas, on which he sketches in lively colours the strange customs of those distant regions with their remarkable fauna, flora and geological peculiarities." Alluding to the translation, my father writes--"Dr. Dieffenbach...has translated my 'Journal' into German, and I must, with unpardonable vanity, boast that it was at the instigation of Liebig and Humboldt." The geological work of which he speaks in the above letter to Mr. Fox occupied him for the whole of 1843, and was published in the spring of the following year. It was entitled 'Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the voyage of H.M.S. "Beagle", together with some brief notices on the geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope': it formed the second part of the 'Geology of the Voyage of the "Beagle",' published "with the Approval of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury." The volume on 'Coral Reefs' forms Part I. of the series, and was published, as we have seen, in 1842. For the sake of the non-geological reader, I may here quote Professor Geikie's words (Charles Darwin, 'Nature' Series, 1882.) on these two volumes--which were up to this time my father's chief geological works. Speaking of the 'Coral Reefs,' he says:--page 17, "This well-known treatise, the most original of all its author's geological memoirs, has become one of the classics of geological literature. The origin of those remarkable rings of coral-rock in mid-ocean has given rise to much speculation, but no satisfactory solution of the problem has been proposed. After visiting many of them, and examining also coral reefs that fringe islands and continents, he offered a theory which for simplicity and grandeur strikes every reader with astonishment. It is pleasant, after the lapse of many years, to recall the delight with which one first read the 'Coral Reefs'; how one watched the facts being marshalled into their places, nothing being ignored or passed lightly over; and how, step by step, one was led to the grand conclusion of wide oceanic subsidence. No more admirable example of scientific method was ever given to the world, and even if he had written nothing else, the treatise alone would have placed Darwin in the very front of investigators of nature." It is interesting to see in the following extract from one of Lyell's letters (To Sir John Herschel, May 24, 1837. 'Life of Sir Charles Lyell,' vol. ii. page 12.) how warmly and readily he embraced the theory. The extract also gives incidentally some idea of the theory itself. "I am very full of Darwin's new theory of Coral Islands, and have urged Whewell to make him read it at our next meeting. I must give up my volcanic crater theory for ever, though it cost me a pang at first, for it accounted for so much, the annular form, the central lagoon, the sudden rising of an isolated mountain in a deep sea; all went so well with the notion of submerged, crateriform, and conical volcanoes,... and then the fact that in the South Pacific we had scarcely any rocks in the regions of coral islands, save two kinds, coral limestone and volcanic! Yet spite of all this, the whole theory is knocked on the head, and the annular shape and central lagoon have nothing to do with volcanoes, nor even with a crateriform bottom. Perhaps Darwin told you when at the Cape what he considers the true cause? Let any mountain be submerged gradually, and coral grow in the sea in which it is sinking, and there will be a ring of coral, and finally only a lagoon in the centre. Why? For the same reason that a barrier reef of coral grows along certain coasts: Australia, etc. Coral islands are the last efforts of drowning continents to lift their heads above water. Regions of elevation and subsidence in the ocean may be traced by the state of the coral reefs." There is little to be said as to published contemporary criticism. The book was not reviewed in the 'Quarterly Review' till 1847, when a favourable notice was given. The reviewer speaks of the "bold and startling" character of the work, but seems to recognize the fact that the views are generally accepted by geologists. By that time the minds of men were becoming more ready to receive geology of this type. Even ten years before, in 1837, Lyell ('Life of Sir Charles Lyell,' vol. ii. page 6.) says, "people are now much better prepared to believe Darwin when he advances proofs of the slow rise of the Andes, than they were in 1830, when I first startled them with that doctrine." This sentence refers to the theory elaborated in my father's geological observations on South America (1846), but the gradual change in receptivity of the geological mind must have been favourable to all his geological work. Nevertheless, Lyell seems at first not to have expected any ready acceptance of the Coral theory; thus he wrote to my father in 1837:--"I could think of nothing for days after your lesson on coral reefs, but of the tops of submerged continents. It is all true, but do not flatter yourself that you will be believed till you are growing bald like me, with hard work and vexation at the incredulity of the world." The second part of the 'Geology of the Voyage of the "Beagle",' i.e. the volume on Volcanic Islands, which specially concerns us now, cannot be better described than by again quoting from Professor Geikie (page 18):-- "Full of detailed observations, this work still remains the best authority on the general geological structure of most of the regions it describes. At the time it was written the 'crater of elevation theory,' though opposed by Constant Prevost, Scrope, and Lyell, was generally accepted, at least on the Continent. Darwin, however, could not receive it as a valid explanation of the facts; and though he did not share the view of its chief opponents, but ventured to propose a hypothesis of his own, the observations impartially made and described by him in this volume must be regarded as having contributed towards the final solution of the difficulty." Professor Geikie continues (page 21): "He is one of the earliest writers to recognize the magnitude of the denudation to which even recent geological accumulations have been subjected. One of the most impressive lessons to be learnt from his account of 'Volcanic Islands' is the prodigious extent to which they have been denuded...He was disposed to attribute more of this work to the sea than most geologists would now admit; but he lived himself to modify his original views, and on this subject his latest utterances are quite abreast of the time." An extract from a letter of my father's to Lyell shows his estimate of his own work. "You have pleased me much by saying that you intend looking through my 'Volcanic Islands': it cost me eighteen months!!! and I have heard of very few who have read it. Now I shall feel, whatever little (and little it is) there is confirmatory of old work, or new, will work its effect and not be lost." The third of his geological books, 'Geological Observations on South America,' may be mentioned here, although it was not published until 1846. "In this work the author embodied all the materials collected by him for the illustration of South American Geology, save some which have been published elsewhere. One of the most important features of the book was the evidence which it brought forward to prove the slow interrupted elevation of the South American Continent during a recent geological period." (Geikie, loc. cit.) Of this book my father wrote to Lyell:--"My volume will be about 240 pages, dreadfully dull, yet much condensed. I think whenever you have time to look through it, you will think the collection of facts on the elevation of the land and on the formation of terraces pretty good." Of his special geological work as a whole, Professor Geikie, while pointing out that it was not "of the same epoch-making kind as his biological researches," remarks that he "gave a powerful impulse to" the general reception of Lyell's teaching "by the way in which he gathered from all parts of the world facts in its support." WORK OF THE PERIOD 1842 TO 1854. The work of these years may be roughly divided into a period of geology from 1842 to 1846, and one of zoology from 1846 onwards. I extract from his diary notices of the time spent on his geological books and on his 'Journal.' 'Volcanic Islands.' Summer of 1842 to January, 1844. 'Geology of South America.' July, 1844, to April, 1845. Second Edition of 'The Journal,' October, 1845, to October, 1846. The time between October, 1846, and October, 1854, was practically given up to working at the Cirripedia (Barnacles); the results were published in two volumes by the Ray Society in 1851 and 1854. His volumes on the Fossil Cirripedes were published by the Palaeontographical Society in 1851 and 1854. Some account of these volumes will be given later. The minor works may be placed together, independently of subject matter. "Observations on the Structure, etc., of the genus Sagitta," Ann. Nat. Hist. xiii., 1844, pages 1-6. "Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariae, etc.," Ann. Nat. Hist. xiv., 1844, pages 241-251. "An Account of the Fine Dust (A sentence occurs in this paper of interest, as showing that the author was alive to the importance of all means of distribution:-- "The fact that particles of this size have been brought at least 330 miles from the land is interesting as bearing on the distribution of Cryptogamic plants.") which often Falls on Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean," Geol. Soc. Journ. ii., 1846, pages 26-30. "On the Geology of the Falkland Islands," Geol. Soc. Journ. ii., 1846, pages 267-274. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders, etc.," Geol. Soc. Journ. iv., 1848, pages 315-323. (An extract from a letter to Lyell, 1847, is of interest in connection with this essay:--"Would you be so good (if you know it) as to put Maclaren's address on the enclosed letter and post it. It is chiefly to enquire in what paper he has described the Boulders on Arthur's Seat. Mr. D. Milne in the last Edinburgh 'New Phil. Journal' [1847], has a long paper on it. He says: 'Some glacialists have ventured to explain the transportation of boulders even in the situation of those now referred to, by imagining that they were transported on ice floes,' etc. He treats this view, and the scratching of rocks by icebergs, as almost absurd...he has finally stirred me up so, that (without you would answer him) I think I will send a paper in opposition to the same Journal. I can thus introduce some old remarks of mine, and some new, and will insist on your capital observations in N. America. It is a bore to stop one's work, but he has made me quite wroth.") The article "Geology," in the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry (1849), pages 156-195. This was written in the spring of 1848. "On British Fossil Lepadidae," 'Geol. Soc. Journ.' vi., 1850, pages 439-440. "Analogy of the structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers," 'Edin. Roy. Soc. Proc.' ii., 1851, pages 17-18. Professor Geikie has been so good as to give me (in a letter dated November 1885) his impressions of my father's article in the 'Admiralty Manual.' He mentions the following points as characteristic of the work:-- "1. Great breadth of view. No one who had not practically studied and profoundly reflected on the questions discussed could have written it. "2. The insight so remarkable in all that Mr. Darwin ever did. The way in which he points out lines of enquiry that would elucidate geological problems is eminently typical of him. Some of these lines have never yet been adequately followed; so with regard to them he was in advance of his time. "3. Interesting and sympathetic treatment. The author at once puts his readers into harmony with him. He gives them enough of information to show how delightful the field is to which he invites them, and how much they might accomplish in it. There is a broad sketch of the subject which everybody can follow, and there is enough of detail to instruct and guide a beginner and start him on the right track. "Of course, geology has made great strides since 1849, and the article, if written now, would need to take notice of other branches of inquiry, and to modify statements which are not now quite accurate; but most of the advice Mr. Darwin gives is as needful and valuable now as when it was given. It is curious to see with what unerring instinct he seems to have fastened on the principles that would stand the test of time." In a letter to Lyell (1853) my father wrote, "I went up for a paper by the Arctic Dr. Sutherland, on ice action, read only in abstract, but I should think with much good matter. It was very pleasant to hear that it was written owing to the Admiralty Manual." To give some idea of the retired life which now began for my father at Down, I have noted from his diary the short periods during which he was away from home between the autumn of 1842, when he came to Down, and the end of 1854. 1843 July.--Week at Maer and Shrewsbury. October.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury. 1844 April.--Week at Maer and Shrewsbury. July.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury. 1845 September 15.--Six weeks, "Shrewsbury, Lincolnshire, York, the Dean of Manchester, Waterton, Chatsworth." 1846 February.--Eleven days at Shrewsbury. July.--Ten days at Shrewsbury. September.--Ten days at Southampton, etc., for the British Association. 1847 February.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury. June.--Ten days at Oxford, etc., for the British Association. October.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury. 1848 May.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury. July.--Week at Swanage. October.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury. November.--Eleven days at Shrewsbury. 1849 March to June.--Sixteen weeks at Malvern. September.--Eleven days at Birmingham for the British Association. 1850 June.--Week at Malvern. August.--Week at Leith Hill, the house of a relative. October.--Week at the house of another relative. 1851 March.--Week at Malvern. April.--Nine days at Malvern. July.--Twelve days in London. 1852 March.--Week at Rugby and Shrewsbury. September.--Six days at the house of a relative. 1853 July.--Three weeks at Eastbourne. August.--Five days at the military Camp at Chobham. 1854 March.--Five days at the house of a relative. July.--Three days at the house of a relative. October.--Six days at the house of a relative. It will be seen that he was absent from home sixty weeks in twelve years. But it must be remembered that much of the remaining time spent at Down was lost through ill-health.] LETTERS. CHARLES DARWIN TO R. FITZ-ROY. Down [March 31st, 1843]. Dear Fitz-Roy, I read yesterday with surprise and the greatest interest, your appointment as Governor of New Zealand. I do not know whether to congratulate you on it, but I am sure I may the Colony, on possessing your zeal and energy. I am most anxious to know whether the report is true, for I cannot bear the thoughts of your leaving the country without seeing you once again; the past is often in my memory, and I feel that I owe to you much bygone enjoyment, and the whole destiny of my life, which (had my health been stronger) would have been one full of satisfaction to me. During the last three months I have never once gone up to London without intending to call in the hopes of seeing Mrs. Fitz-Roy and yourself; but I find, most unfortunately for myself, that the little excitement of breaking out of my most quiet routine so generally knocks me up, that I am able to do scarcely anything when in London, and I have not even been able to attend one evening meeting of the Geological Society. Otherwise, I am very well, as are, thank God, my wife and two children. The extreme retirement of this place suits us all very well, and we enjoy our country life much. But I am writing trifles about myself, when your mind and time must be fully occupied. My object in writing is to beg of you or Mrs. Fitz-Roy to have the kindness to send me one line to say whether it is true, and whether you sail soon. I shall come up next week for one or two days; could you see me for even five minutes, if I called early on Thursday morning, viz. at nine or ten o'clock, or at whatever hour (if you keep early ship hours) you finish your breakfast. Pray remember me very kindly to Mrs. Fitz-Roy, who I trust is able to look at her long voyage with boldness. Believe me, dear Fitz-Roy, Your ever truly obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. [A quotation from another letter (1846) to Fitz-Roy may be worth giving, as showing my father's affectionate remembrance of his old Captain. "Farewell, dear Fitz-Roy, I often think of your many acts of kindness to me, and not seldomest on the time, no doubt quite forgotten by you, when, before making Madeira, you came and arranged my hammock with your own hands, and which, as I afterwards heard, brought tears into my father's eyes."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. [Down, September 5, 1843.] Monday morning. My dear Fox, When I sent off the glacier paper, I was just going out and so had no time to write. I hope your friend will enjoy (and I wish you were going there with him) his tour as much as I did. It was a kind of geological novel. But your friend must have patience, for he will not get a good GLACIAL EYE for a few days. Murchison and Count Keyserling RUSHED through North Wales the same autumn and could see nothing except the effects of rain trickling over the rocks! I cross-examined Murchison a little, and evidently saw he had looked carefully at nothing. I feel CERTAIN about the glacier-effects in North Wales. Get up your steam, if this weather lasts, and have a ramble in Wales; its glorious scenery must do every one's heart and body good. I wish I had energy to come to Delamere and go with you; but as you observe, you might as well ask St. Paul's. Whenever I give myself a trip, it shall be, I think, to Scotland, to hunt for more parallel roads. My marine theory for these roads was for a time knocked on the head by Agassiz ice-work, but it is now reviving again... Farewell,--we are getting nearly finished--almost all the workmen gone, and the gravel laying down on the walks. Ave Maria! how the money does go. There are twice as many temptations to extravagance in the country compared with London. Adios. Yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844?]. ...I have also read the 'Vestiges,' ('The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' was published anonymously in 1844, and is confidently believed to have been written by the late Robert Chambers. My father's copy gives signs of having been carefully read, a long list of marked passages being pinned in at the end. One useful lesson he seems to have learned from it. He writes: "The idea of a fish passing into a reptile, monstrous. I will not specify any genealogies--much too little known at present." He refers again to the book in a letter to Fox, February, 1845: "Have you read that strange, unphilosophical but capitally-written book, the 'Vestiges': it has made more talk than any work of late, and has been by some attributed to me--at which I ought to be much flattered and unflattered."), but have been somewhat less amused at it than you appear to have been: the writing and arrangement are certainly admirable, but his geology strikes me as bad, and his zoology far worse. I should be very much obliged, if at any future or leisure time you could tell me on what you ground your doubtful belief in imagination of a mother affecting her offspring. (This refers to the case of a relative of Sir J. Hooker's, who insisted that a mole, which appeared on one of her children, was the effect of fright upon herself on having, before the birth of the child, blotted with sepia a copy of Turner's 'Liber Studiorum' that had been lent to her with special injunctions to be careful.) I have attended to the several statements scattered about, but do not believe in more than accidental coincidences. W. Hunter told my father, then in a lying-in hospital, that in many thousand cases, he had asked the mother, BEFORE HER CONFINEMENT, whether anything had affected her imagination, and recorded the answers; and absolutely not one case came right, though, when the child was anything remarkable, they afterwards made the cap to fit. Reproduction seems governed by such similar laws in the whole animal kingdom, that I am most loth [to believe]... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Down [1844 or 1845]. My dear Herbert, I was very glad to see your handwriting and hear a bit of news about you. Though you cannot come here this autumn, I do hope you and Mrs. Herbert will come in the winter, and we will have lots of talk of old times, and lots of Beethoven. I have little or rather nothing to say about myself; we live like clock-work, and in what most people would consider the dullest possible manner. I have of late been slaving extra hard, to the great discomfiture of wretched digestive organs, at South America, and thank all the fates, I have done three-fourths of it. Writing plain English grows with me more and more difficult, and never attainable. As for your pretending that you will read anything so dull as my pure geological descriptions, lay not such a flattering unction on my soul (On the same subject he wrote to Fitz-Roy: "I have sent my 'South American Geology' to Dover Street, and you will get it, no doubt, in the course of time. You do not know what you threaten when you propose to read it--it is purely geological. I said to my brother, 'You will of course read it,' and his answer was, 'Upon my life, I would sooner even buy it.'") for it is incredible. I have long discovered that geologists never read each other's works, and that the only object in writing a book is a proof of earnestness, and that you do not form your opinions without undergoing labour of some kind. Geology is at present very oral, and what I here say is to a great extent quite true. But I am giving you a discussion as long as a chapter in the odious book itself. I have lately been to Shrewsbury, and found my father surprisingly well and cheerful. Believe me, my dear old friend, ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Monday [February 10th, 1845]. My dear Hooker, I am much obliged for your very agreeable letter; it was very good-natured, in the midst of your scientific and theatrical dissipation, to think of writing so long a letter to me. I am astonished at your news, and I must condole with you in your PRESENT view of the Professorship (Sir J.D. Hooker was a candidate for the Professorship of Botany at Edinburgh University.), and most heartily deplore it on my own account. There is something so chilling in a separation of so many hundred miles, though we did not see much of each other when nearer. You will hardly believe how deeply I regret for MYSELF your present prospects. I had looked forward to [our] seeing much of each other during our lives. It is a heavy disappointment; and in a mere selfish point of view, as aiding me in my work, your loss is indeed irreparable. But, on the other hand, I cannot doubt that you take at present a desponding, instead of bright, view of your prospects: surely there are great advantages, as well as disadvantages. The place is one of eminence; and really it appears to me there are so many indifferent workers, and so few readers, that it is a high advantage, in a purely scientific point of view, for a good worker to hold a position which leads others to attend to his work. I forget whether you attended Edinburgh, as a student, but in my time there was a knot of men who were far from being the indifferent and dull listeners which you expect for your audience. Reflect what a satisfaction and honour it would be to MAKE a good botanist--with your disposition you will be to many what Henslow was at Cambridge to me and others, a most kind friend and guide. Then what a fine garden, and how good a Public Library! why, Forbes always regrets the advantages of Edinburgh for work: think of the inestimable advantage of getting within a short walk of those noble rocks and hills and sandy shores near Edinburgh! Indeed, I cannot pity you much, though I pity myself exceedingly in your loss. Surely lecturing will, in a year or two, with your GREAT capacity for work (whatever you may be pleased to say to the contrary) become easy, and you will have a fair time for your Antarctic Flora and general views of distribution. If I thought your Professorship would stop your work, I should wish it and all the good worldly consequences at el Diavolo. I know I shall live to see you the first authority in Europe on that grand subject, that almost keystone of the laws of creation, Geographical Distribution. Well, there is one comfort, you will be at Kew, no doubt, every year, so I shall finish by forcing down your throat my sincere congratulations. Thanks for all your news. I grieve to hear Humboldt is failing; one cannot help feeling, though unrightly, that such an end is humiliating: even when I saw him he talked beyond all reason. If you see him again, pray give him my most respectful and kind compliments, and say that I never forget that my whole course of life is due to having read and re-read as a youth his 'Personal Narrative.' How true and pleasing are all your remarks on his kindness; think how many opportunities you will have, in your new place, of being a Humboldt to others. Ask him about the river in N.E. Europe, with the Flora very different on its opposite banks. I have got and read your Wilkes; what a feeble book in matter and style, and how splendidly got up! Do write me a line from Berlin. Also thanks for the proof-sheets. I do not, however, mean proof plates; I value them, as saving me copying extracts. Farewell, my dear Hooker, with a heavy heart I wish you joy of your prospects. Your sincere friend, C. DARWIN. [The second edition of the 'Journal,' to which the following letter refers, was completed between April 25th and August 25th. It was published by Mr. Murray in the 'Colonial and Home Library,' and in this more accessible form soon had a large sale. Up to the time of his first negotiations with Mr. Murray for its publication in this form, he had received payment only in the form of a large number of presentation copies, and he seems to have been glad to sell the copyright of the second edition to Mr. Murray for 150 pounds. The points of difference between it and the first edition are of interest chiefly in connection with the growth of the author's views on evolution, and will be considered later.] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [July, 1845]. My dear Lyell, I send you the first part (No doubt proof-sheets.) of the new edition [of the 'Journal of Researches'], which I so entirely owe to you. You will see that I have ventured to dedicate it to you (The dedication of the second edition of the 'Journal of Researches,' is as follows:--"To Charles Lyell, Esq., F.R.S., this second edition is dedicated with grateful pleasure--as an acknowledgment that the chief part of whatever scientific merit this Journal and the other works of the Author may possess, has been derived from studying the well-known and admirable 'Principles of Geology.'"), and I trust that this cannot be disagreeable. I have long wished, not so much for your sake, as for my own feelings of honesty, to acknowledge more plainly than by mere reference, how much I geologically owe you. Those authors, however, who like you, educate people's minds as well as teach them special facts, can never, I should think, have full justice done them except by posterity, for the mind thus insensibly improved can hardly perceive its own upward ascent. I had intended putting in the present acknowledgment in the third part of my Geology, but its sale is so exceedingly small that I should not have had the satisfaction of thinking that as far as lay in my power I had owned, though imperfectly, my debt. Pray do not think that I am so silly, as to suppose that my dedication can any ways gratify you, except so far as I trust you will receive it, as a most sincere mark of my gratitude and friendship. I think I have improved this edition, especially the second part, which I have just finished. I have added a good deal about the Fuegians, and cut down into half the mercilessly long discussion on climate and glaciers, etc. I do not recollect anything added to the first part, long enough to call your attention to; there is a page of description of a very curious breed of oxen in Banda Oriental. I should like you to read the few last pages; there is a little discussion on extinction, which will not perhaps strike you as new, though it has so struck me, and has placed in my mind all the difficulties with respect to the causes of extinction, in the same class with other difficulties which are generally quite overlooked and undervalued by naturalists; I ought, however, to have made my discussion longer and shewn by facts, as I easily could, how steadily every species must be checked in its numbers. I received your Travels ('Travels in North America,' 2 volumes, 1845.) yesterday; and I like exceedingly its external and internal appearance; I read only about a dozen pages last night (for I was tired with hay-making), but I saw quite enough to perceive how VERY much it will interest me, and how many passages will be scored. I am pleased to find a good sprinkling of Natural History; I shall be astonished if it does not sell very largely... How sorry I am to think that we shall not see you here again for so long; I wish you may knock yourself a little bit up before you start and require a day's fresh air, before the ocean breezes blow on you... Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Saturday [August 1st, 1845]. My dear Lyell, I have been wishing to write to you for a week past, but every five minutes' worth of strength has been expended in getting out my second part. (Of the second edition of the 'Journal of Researches.') Your note pleased me a good deal more I dare say than my dedication did you, and I thank you much for it. Your work has interested me much, and I will give you my impressions, though, as I never thought you would care to hear what I thought of the non-scientific parts, I made no notes, nor took pains to remember any particular impression of two-thirds of the first volume. The first impression I should say would be with most (though I have literally seen not one soul since reading it) regret at there not being more of the non-scientific [parts]. I am not a good judge, for I have read nothing, i.e. non-scientific about North America, but the whole struck me as very new, fresh, and interesting. Your discussions bore to my mind the evident stamp of matured thought, and of conclusions drawn from facts observed by yourself, and not from the opinions of the people whom you met; and this I suspect is comparatively rare. Your slave discussion disturbed me much; but as you would care no more for my opinion on this head than for the ashes of this letter, I will say nothing except that it gave me some sleepless, most uncomfortable hours. Your account of the religious state of the States particularly interested me; I am surprised throughout at your very proper boldness against the Clergy. In your University chapter the Clergy, and not the State of Education, are most severely and justly handled, and this I think is very bold, for I conceive you might crush a leaden-headed old Don, as a Don, with more safety, than touch the finger of that Corporate Animal, the Clergy. What a contrast in Education does England show itself! Your apology (using the term, like the old religionists who meant anything but an apology) for lectures, struck me as very clever; but all the arguments in the world on your side, are not equal to one course of Jamieson's Lectures on the other side, which I formerly for my sins experienced. Although I had read about the 'Coalfields in North America,' I never in the smallest degree really comprehended their area, their thickness and favourable position; nothing hardly astounded me more in your book. Some few parts struck me as rather heterogeneous, but I do not know whether to an extent that at all signified. I missed however, a good deal, some general heading to the chapters, such as the two or three principal places visited. One has no right to expect an author to write down to the zero of geographical ignorance of the reader; but I not knowing a single place, was occasionally rather plagued in tracing your course. Sometimes in the beginning of a chapter, in one paragraph your course was traced through a half dozen places; anyone, as ignorant as myself, if he could be found, would prefer such a disturbing paragraph left out. I cut your map loose, and I found that a great comfort; I could not follow your engraved track. I think in a second edition, interspaces here and there of one line open, would be an improvement. By the way, I take credit to myself in giving my Journal a less scientific air in having printed all names of species and genera in Romans; the printing looks, also, better. All the illustrations strike me as capital, and the map is an admirable volume in itself. If your 'Principles' had not met with such universal admiration, I should have feared there would have been too much geology in this for the general reader; certainly all that the most clear and light style could do, has been done. To myself the geology was an excellent, well-condensed, well-digested resume of all that has been made out in North America, and every geologist ought to be grateful to you. The summing up of the Niagara chapter appeared to me the grandest part; I was also deeply interested by your discussion on the origin of the Silurian formations. I have made scores of SCORES marking passages hereafter useful to me. All the coal theory appeared to me very good; but it is no use going on enumerating in this manner. I wish there had been more Natural History; I liked ALL the scattered fragments. I have now given you an exact transcript of my thoughts, but they are hardly worth your reading... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 25th [1845]. My dear Lyell, This is literally the first day on which I have had any time to spare; and I will amuse myself by beginning a letter to you... I was delighted with your letter in which you touch on Slavery; I wish the same feelings had been apparent in your published discussion. But I will not write on this subject, I should perhaps annoy you, and most certainly myself. I have exhaled myself with a paragraph or two in my Journal on the sin of Brazilian slavery; you perhaps will think that it is in answer to you; but such is not the case. I have remarked on nothing which I did not hear on the coast of South America. My few sentences, however, are merely an explosion of feeling. How could you relate so placidly that atrocious sentiment (In the passage referred to, Lyell does not give his own views, but those of a planter.) about separating children from their parents; and in the next page speak of being distressed at the whites not having prospered; I assure you the contrast made me exclaim out. But I have broken my intention, and so no more on this odious deadly subject. There is a favourable, but not strong enough review on you, in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". I am sorry to see that Lindley abides by the carbonic acid gas theory. By the way, I was much pleased by Lindley picking out my extinction paragraphs and giving them uncurtailed. To my mind, putting the comparative rarity of existing species in the same category with extinction has removed a great weight; though of course it does not explain anything, it shows that until we can explain comparative rarity, we ought not to feel any surprise at not explaining extinction... I am much pleased to hear of the call for a new edition of the 'Principles': what glorious good that work has done. I fear this time you will not be amongst the old rocks; how I shall rejoice to live to see you publish and discover another stage below the Silurian--it would be the grandest step possible, I think. I am very glad to hear what progress Bunbury is making in fossil Botany; there is a fine hiatus for him to fill up in this country. I will certainly call on him this winter...From what little I saw of him, I can quite believe everything which you say of his talents... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [1845?]. My dear Hooker, I have just received your note, which has astonished me, and has most truly grieved me. I never for one minute doubted of your success, for I most erroneously imagined, that merit was sure to gain the day. I feel most sure that the day will come soon, when those who have voted against you, if they have any shame or conscience in them, will be ashamed at having allowed politics to blind their eyes to your qualifications, and those qualifications vouched for by Humboldt and Brown! Well, those testimonials must be a consolation to you. Proh pudor! I am vexed and indignant by turns. I cannot even take comfort in thinking that I shall see more of you, and extract more knowledge from your well-arranged stock. I am pleased to think, that after having read a few of your letters, I never once doubted the position you will ultimately hold amongst European Botanists. I can think about nothing else, otherwise I should like [to] discuss 'Cosmos' (A translation of Humboldt's 'Kosmos.') with you. I trust you will pay me and my wife a visit this autumn at Down. I shall be at Down on the 24th, and till then moving about. My dear Hooker, allow me to call myself Your very true friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. October 8th [1845], Shrewsbury. ...I have lately been taking a little tour to see a farm I have purchased in Lincolnshire (He speaks of his Lincolnshire farm in a letter to Henslow (July 4th):--"I have bought a farm in Lincolnshire, and when I go there this autumn, I mean to see what I can do in providing any cottage on my small estate with gardens. It is a hopeless thing to look to, but I believe few things would do this country more good in future ages than the destruction of primogeniture, so as to lessen the difference in land-wealth, and make more small freeholders. How atrociously unjust are the stamp laws, which render it so expensive for the poor man to buy his quarter of an acre; it makes one's blood burn with indignation.") and then to York, where I visited the Dean of Manchester (Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert. The visit is mentioned in a letter to Dr. Hooker:--"I have been taking a little tour, partly on business, and visited the Dean of Manchester, and had very much interesting talk with him on hybrids, sterility, and variation, etc., etc. He is full of self-gained knowledge, but knows surprisingly little what others have done on the same subjects. He is very heterodox on 'species': not much better as most naturalists would esteem it, than poor Mr. Vestiges.") the great maker of Hybrids, who gave me much curious information. I also visited Waterton at Walton Hall, and was extremely amused with my visit there. He is an amusing strange fellow; at our early dinner, our party consisted of two Catholic priests and two Mulattresses! He is past sixty years old, and the day before ran down and caught a leveret in a turnip-field. It is a fine old house, and the lake swarms with water-fowl. I then saw Chatsworth, and was in transport with the great hothouse; it is a perfect fragment of a tropical forest, and the sight made me think with delight of old recollections. My little ten-day tour made me feel wonderfully strong at the time, but the good effects did not last. My wife, I am sorry to say, does not get very strong, and the children are the hope of the family, for they are all happy, life, and spirits. I have been much interested with Sedgwick's review (Sedgwick's review of the 'Vestiges of Creation' in the 'Edinburgh Review,' July, 1845.) though I find it far from popular with our scientific readers. I think some few passages savour of the dogmatism of the pulpit, rather than of the philosophy of the Professor's Chair; and some of the wit strikes me as only worthy of -- in the 'Quarterly.' Nevertheless, it is a grand piece of argument against mutability of species, and I read it with fear and trembling, but was well pleased to find that I had not overlooked any of the arguments, though I had put them to myself as feebly as milk and water. Have you read 'Cosmos' yet? The English translation is wretched, and the semi-metaphysico-politico descriptions in the first part are barely intelligible; but I think the volcanic discussion well worth your attention, it has astonished me by its vigour and information. I grieve to find Humboldt an adorer of Von Buch, with his classification of volcanos, craters of elevation, etc., etc., and carbonic acid gas atmosphere. He is indeed a wonderful man. I hope to get home in a fortnight and stick to my wearyful South America till I finish it. I shall be very anxious to hear how you get on from the Horners, but you must not think of wasting your time by writing to me. We shall miss, indeed, your visits to Down, and I shall feel a lost man in London without my morning "house of call" at Hart Street... Believe me, my dear Lyell, ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Farnborough, Kent. Thursday, September, 1846. My dear Hooker, I hope this letter will catch you at Clifton, but I have been prevented writing by being unwell, and having had the Horners here as visitors, which, with my abominable press-work, has fully occupied my time. It is, indeed, a long time since we wrote to each other; though, I beg to tell you, that I wrote last, but what about I cannot remember, except, I know, it was after reading your last numbers (Sir J.D. Hooker's Antarctic Botany.), and I send you a uniquely laudatory epistle, considering it was from a man who hardly knows a Daisy from a Dandelion to a professed Botanist... I cannot remember what papers have given me the impression, but I have that, which you state to be the case, firmly fixed on my mind, namely, the little chemical importance of the soil to its vegetation. What a strong fact it is, as R. Brown once remarked to me, of certain plants being calcareous ones here, which are not so under a more favourable climate on the Continent, or the reverse, for I forget which; but you, no doubt, will know to what I refer. By-the-way, there are some such cases in Herbert's paper in the 'Horticultural Journal.' ('Journal of the Horticultural Society,' 1846.) Have you read it: it struck me as extremely original, and bears DIRECTLY on your present researches. (Sir J.D. Hooker was at this time attending to polymorphism, variability, etc.) To a NON-BOTANIST the chalk has the most peculiar aspect of any flora in England; why will you not come here to make your observations? WE go to Southampton, if my courage and stomach do not fail, for the Brit. Assoc. (Do you not consider it your duty to be there?) And why cannot you come here afterward and WORK?... THE MONOGRAPH OF THE CIRRIPEDIA, October 1846 to October 1854. [Writing to Sir J.D. Hooker in 1845, my father says: "I hope this next summer to finish my South American Geology, then to get out a little Zoology, and hurrah for my species work..." This passage serves to show that he had at this time no intention of making an exhaustive study of the Cirripedes. Indeed it would seem that his original intention was, as I learn from Sir J.D. Hooker, merely to work out one special problem. This is quite in keeping with the following passage in the Autobiography: "When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, which burrowed into the shells of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole reception...To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms; and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group." In later years he seems to have felt some doubt as to the value of these eight years of work,--for instance when he wrote in his Autobiography--"My work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the 'Origin of Species,' the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time." Yet I learn from Sir J.D. Hooker that he certainly recognised at the time its value to himself as systematic training. Sir Joseph writes to me: "Your father recognised three stages in his career as a biologist: the mere collector at Cambridge; the collector and observer in the "Beagle", and for some years afterwards; and the trained naturalist after, and only after the Cirripede work. That he was a thinker all along is true enough, and there is a vast deal in his writings previous to the Cirripedes that a trained naturalist could but emulate...He often alluded to it as a valued discipline, and added that even the 'hateful' work of digging out synonyms, and of describing, not only improved his methods but opened his eyes to the difficulties and merits of the works of the dullest of cataloguers. One result was that he would never allow a depreciatory remark to pass unchallenged on the poorest class of scientific workers, provided that their work was honest, and good of its kind. I have always regarded it as one of the finest traits of his character,--this generous appreciation of the hod-men of science, and of their labours...and it was monographing the Barnacles that brought it about."] Professor Huxley allows me to quote his opinion as to the value of the eight years given to the Cirripedes:-- "In my opinion your sagacious father never did a wiser thing than when he devoted himself to the years of patient toil which the Cirripede-book cost him. "Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological science, and it has always struck me as a remarkable instance of his scientific insight, that he saw the necessity of giving himself such training, and of his courage, that he did not shirk the labour of obtaining it. "The great danger which besets all men of large speculative faculty, is the temptation to deal with the accepted statements of facts in natural science, as if they were not only correct, but exhaustive; as if they might be dealt with deductively, in the same way as propositions in Euclid may be dealt with. In reality, every such statement, however true it may be, is true only relatively to the means of observation and the point of view of those who have enunciated it. So far it may be depended upon. But whether it will bear every speculative conclusion that may be logically deduced from it, is quite another question. "Your father was building a vast superstructure upon the foundations furnished by the recognised facts of geological and biological science. In Physical Geography, in Geology proper, in Geographical Distribution, and in Palaeontology, he had acquired an extensive practical training during the voyage of the "Beagle". He knew of his own knowledge the way in which the raw materials of these branches of science are acquired, and was therefore a most competent judge of the speculative strain they would bear. That which he needed, after his return to England, was a corresponding acquaintance with Anatomy and Development, and their relation to Taxonomy--and he acquired this by his Cirripede work. "Thus, in my apprehension, the value of the Cirripede monograph lies not merely in the fact that it is a very admirable piece of work, and constituted a great addition to positive knowledge, but still more in the circumstance that it was a piece of critical self-discipline, the effect of which manifested itself in everything your father wrote afterwards, and saved him from endless errors of detail. "So far from such work being a loss of time, I believe it would have been well worth his while, had it been practicable, to have supplemented it by a special study of embryology and physiology. His hands would have been greatly strengthened thereby when he came to write out sundry chapters of the 'Origin of Species.' But of course in those days it was almost impossible for him to find facilities for such work." No one can look a the two volumes on the recent Cirripedes, of 399 and 684 pages respectively (not to speak of the volumes on the fossil species), without being struck by the immense amount of detailed work which they contain. The forty plates, some of them with thirty figures, and the fourteen pages of index in the two volumes together, give some rough idea of the labour spent on the work. (The reader unacquainted with Zoology will find some account of the more interesting results in Mr. Romanes' article on "Charles Darwin" ('Nature' Series, 1882).) The state of knowledge, as regards the Cirripedes, was most unsatisfactory at the time that my father began to work at them. As an illustration of this fact, it may be mentioned that he had even to re-organise the nomenclature of the group, or, as he expressed it, he "unwillingly found it indispensable to give names to several valves, and to some few of the softer parts of Cirripedes." (Vol. i. page 3.) It is interesting to learn from his diary the amount of time which he gave to different genera. Thus the genus Chthamalus, the description of which occupies twenty-two pages, occupied him for thirty-six days; Coronula took nineteen days, and is described in twenty-seven pages. Writing to Fitz-Roy, he speaks of being "for the last half-month daily hard at work in dissecting a little animal about the size of a pin's head, from the Chonos archipelago, and I could spend another month, and daily see more beautiful structure." Though he became excessively weary of the work before the end of the eight years, he had much keen enjoyment in the course of it. Thus he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (1847?):--"As you say, there is an extraordinary pleasure in pure observation; not but what I suspect the pleasure in this case is rather derived from comparisons forming in one's mind with allied structures. After having been so long employed in writing my old geological observations, it is delightful to use one's eyes and fingers again." It was, in fact, a return to the work which occupied so much of his time when at sea during his voyage. His zoological notes of that period give an impression of vigorous work, hampered by ignorance and want of appliances. And his untiring industry in the dissection of marine animals, especially of Crustacea, must have been of value to him as training for his Cirripede work. Most of his work was done with the simple dissecting microscope--but it was the need which he found for higher powers that induced him, in 1846, to buy a compound microscope. He wrote to Hooker:--"When I was drawing with L., I was so delighted with the appearance of the objects, especially with their perspective, as seen through the weak powers of a good compound microscope, that I am going to order one; indeed, I often have structures in which the 1/30 is not power enough." During part of the time covered by the present chapter, my father suffered perhaps more from ill-health than at any other time of his life. He felt severely the depressing influence of these long years of illness; thus as early as 1840 he wrote to Fox: "I am grown a dull, old, spiritless dog to what I used to be. One gets stupider as one grows older I think." It is not wonderful that he should so have written, it is rather to be wondered at that his spirit withstood so great and constant a strain. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker in 1845: "You are very kind in your enquiries about my health; I have nothing to say about it, being always much the same, some days better and some worse. I believe I have not had one whole day, or rather night, without my stomach having been greatly disordered, during the last three years, and most days great prostration of strength: thank you for your kindness; many of my friends, I believe, think me a hypochondriac." Again, in 1849, he notes in his diary:--"January 1st to March 10th.--Health very bad, with much sickness and failure of power. Worked on all well days." This was written just before his first visit to Dr. Gully's Water-Cure Establishment at Malvern. In April of the same year he wrote:--"I believe I am going on very well, but I am rather weary of my present inactive life, and the water-cure has the most extraordinary effect in producing indolence and stagnation of mind: till experiencing it, I could not have believed it possible. I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for thirty days." He returned in June, after sixteen weeks' absence, much improved in health, and, as already described, continued the water-cure at home for some time.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [October, 1846]. My dear Hooker, I have not heard from Sulivan (Admiral Sir B.J. Sulivan, formerly an officer of the "Beagle".) lately; when he last wrote he named from 8th to 10th as the most likely time. Immediately that I hear, I will fly you a line, for the chance of your being able to come. I forget whether you know him, but I suppose so; he is a real good fellow. Anyhow, if you do not come then, I am very glad that you propose coming soon after... I am going to begin some papers on the lower marine animals, which will last me some months, perhaps a year, and then I shall begin looking over my ten-year-long accumulation of notes on species and varieties, which, with writing, I dare say will take me five years, and then, when published, I dare say I shall stand infinitely low in the opinion of all sound Naturalists--so this is my prospect for the future. Are you a good hand at inventing names. I have a quite new and curious genus of Barnacle, which I want to name, and how to invent a name completely puzzles me. By the way, I have told you nothing about Southampton. We enjoyed (wife and myself) our week beyond measure: the papers were all dull, but I met so many friends and made so many new acquaintances (especially some of the Irish Naturalists), and took so many pleasant excursions. I wish you had been there. On Sunday we had so pleasant an excursion to Winchester with Falconer (Hugh Falconer, 1809-1865. Chiefly known as a palaeontologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career in India, where he was also a medical officer in the H.E.I.C. Service; he was superintendent of the Company's garden, first at Saharunpore, and then at Calcutta. He was one of the first botanical explorers of Kashmir. Falconer's discoveries of Miocene mammalian remains in the Sewalik Hills, were, at the time, perhaps the greatest "finds" which had been made. His book on the subject, 'Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,' remained unfinished at the time of his death.), Colonel Sabine (The late Sir Edward Sabine, formerly President of the Royal Society, and author of a long series of memoirs on Terrestrial Magnetism.), and Dr. Robinson (The late Dr. Thomas Romney Robinson, of the Armagh Observatory.), and others. I never enjoyed a day more in my life. I missed having a look at H. Watson. (The late Hewett Cottrell Watson, author of the 'Cybele Britannica,' one of a most valuable series of works on the topography and geographical distribution of the plants of the British Islands.) I suppose you heard that he met Forbes and told him he had a severe article in the Press. I understood that Forbes explained to him that he had no cause to complain, but as the article was printed, he would not withdraw it, but offered it to Forbes for him to append notes to it, which Forbes naturally declined... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 7th [1847?]. My dear Hooker, I should have written before now, had I not been almost continually unwell, and at present I am suffering from four boils and swellings, one of which hardly allows me the use of my right arm, and has stopped all my work, and damped all my spirits. I was much disappointed at missing my trip to Kew, and the more so, as I had forgotten you would be away all this month; but I had no choice, and was in bed nearly all Friday and Saturday. I congratulate you over your improved prospects about India (Sir J. Hooker left England on November 11, 1847, for his Himalayan and Tibetan journey. The expedition was supported by a small grant from the Treasury, and thus assumed the character of a Government mission.), but at the same time must sincerely groan over it. I shall feel quite lost without you to discuss many points with, and to point out (ill-luck to you) difficulties and objections to my species hypotheses. It will be a horrid shame if money stops your expedition; but Government will surely help you to some extent...Your present trip, with your new views, amongst the coal-plants, will be very interesting. If you have spare time, BUT NOT WITHOUT, I should enjoy having some news of your progress. Your present trip will work well in, if you go to any of the coal districts in India. Would this not be a good object to parade before Government; the utilitarian souls would comprehend this. By the way, I will get some work out of you, about the domestic races of animals in India... CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down [1847]. Dear Jenyns, ("This letter relates to a small Almanack first published in 1843, under the name of 'The Naturalists' Pocket Almanack,' by Mr. Van Voorst, and which I edited for him. It was intended especially for those who interest themselves in the periodic phenomena of animals and plants, of which a select list was given under each month of the year. "The Pocket Almanack contained, moreover, miscellaneous information relating to Zoology and Botany; to Natural History and other scientific societies; to public Museums and Gardens, in addition to the ordinary celestial phenomena found in most other Almanacks. It continued to be issued till 1847, after which year the publication was abandoned."--From a letter from Rev. L. Blomefield to F. Darwin.) I am very much obliged for the capital little Almanack; it so happened that I was wishing for one to keep in my portfolio. I had never seen this kind before, and shall certainly get one for the future. I think it is very amusing to have a list before one's eyes of the order of appearance of the plants and animals around one; it gives a fresh interest to each fine day. There is one point I should like to see a little improved, viz., the correction for the clock at shorter intervals. Most people, I suspect, who like myself have dials, will wish to be more precise than with a margin of three minutes. I always buy a shilling almanack for this SOLE end. By the way, YOURS, i.e., Van Voorst's Almanack, is very dear; it ought, at least, to be advertised post-free for the shilling. Do you not think a table (not rules) of conversion of French into English measures, and perhaps weights, would be exceedingly useful; also centigrade into Fahrenheit,--magnifying powers according to focal distances?--in fact you might make it the more useful publication of the age. I know what I should like best of all, namely, current meteorological remarks for each month, with statement of average course of winds and prediction of weather, in accordance with movements of barometer. People, I think, are always amused at knowing the extremes and means of temperature for corresponding times in other years. I hope you will go on with it another year. With many thanks, my dear Jenyns, Yours very truly, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sunday [April 18th, 1847]. My dear Hooker, I return with many thanks Watson's letter, which I have had copied. It is a capital one, and I am extremely obliged to you for obtaining me such valuable information. Surely he is rather in a hurry when he says intermediate varieties must almost be necessarily rare, otherwise they would be taken as the types of the species; for he overlooks numerical frequency as an element. Surely if A, B, C were three varieties, and if A were a good deal the commonest (therefore, also, first known), it would be taken as the type, without regarding whether B was quite intermediate or not, or whether it was rare or not. What capital essays W would write; but I suppose he has written a good deal in the 'Phytologist.' You ought to encourage him to publish on variation; it is a shame that such facts as those in his letter should remain unpublished. I must get you to introduce me to him; would he be a good and sociable man for Dropmore? (A much enjoyed expedition made from Oxford--when the British Association met there in 1847.) though if he comes, Forbes must not (and I think you talked of inviting Forbes), or we shall have a glorious battle. I should like to see sometime the war correspondence. Have you the 'Phytologist,' and could you sometime spare it? I would go through it quickly...I have read your last five numbers (Of the Botany of Hooker's 'Antarctic Voyage.'), and as usual have been much interested in several points, especially with your discussions on the beech and potato. I see you have introduced several sentences against us Transmutationists. I have also been looking through the latter volumes of the 'Annals of Natural History,' and have read two such soulless, pompous papers of --, quite worthy of the author...The contrast of the papers in the "Annals" with those in the "Annales" is rather humiliating; so many papers in the former, with short descriptions of species, without one word on their affinities, internal structure, range or habits. I am now reading --, and I have picked out some things which have interested me; but he strikes me as rather dullish, and with all his Materia Medica smells of the doctor's shop. I shall ever hate the name of the Materia Medica, since hearing Duncan's lectures at eight o'clock on a winter's morning--a whole, cold breakfastless hour on the properties of rhubarb! I hope your journey will be very prosperous. Believe me, my dear Hooker, Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I think I have only made one new acquaintance of late, that is R. Chambers; and I have just received a presentation copy of the sixth edition of the 'Vestiges.' Somehow I now feel perfectly convinced he is the author. He is in France, and has written to me thence. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1847?]. ...I am delighted to hear that Brongniart thought Sigillaria aquatic, and that Binney considers coal a sort of submarine peat. I would bet 5 to 1 that in twenty years this will be generally admitted (An unfulfilled prophecy.); and I do not care for whatever the botanical difficulties or impossibilities may be. If I could but persuade myself that Sigillaria and Co. had a good range of depth, i.e., could live from 5 to 100 fathoms under water, all difficulties of nearly all kinds would be removed (for the simple fact of muddy ordinary shallow sea implies proximity of land). [N.B.--I am chuckling to think how you are sneering all this time.] It is not much of a difficulty, there not being shells with the coal, considering how unfavourable deep mud is for most Mollusca, and that shells would probably decay from the humic acid, as seems to take place in peat and in the BLACK moulds (as Lyell tells me) of the Mississippi. So coal question settled--Q.E.D. Sneer away! Many thanks for your welcome note from Cambridge, and I am glad you like my alma mater, which I despise heartily as a place of education, but love from many most pleasant recollections... Thanks for your offer of the 'Phytologist;' I shall be very much obliged for it, for I do not suppose I should be able to borrow it from any other quarter. I will not be set up too much by your praise, but I do not believe I ever lost a book or forgot to return it during a long lapse of time. Your 'Webb' is well wrapped up, and with your name in large letters OUTSIDE. My new microscope is come home (a "splendid plaything," as old R. Brown called it), and I am delighted with it; it really is a splendid plaything. I have been in London for three days, and saw many of our friends. I was extremely sorry to hear a not very good account of Sir William. Farewell, my dear Hooker, and be a good boy, and make Sigillaria a submarine sea-weed. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [May 6th, 1847]. My dear Hooker, You have made a savage onslaught, and I must try to defend myself. But, first, let me say that I never write to you except for my own good pleasure; now I fear that you answer me when busy and without inclination (and I am sure I should have none if I was as busy as you). Pray do not do so, and if I thought my writing entailed an answer from you nolens volens, it would destroy all my pleasure in writing. Firstly, I did not consider my letter as REASONING, or even as SPECULATION, but simply as mental rioting; and as I was sending Binney's paper, I poured out to you the result of reading it. Secondly, you are right, indeed, in thinking me mad, if you suppose that I would class any ferns as marine plants; but surely there is a wide distinction between the plants found upright in the coal-beds and those not upright, and which might have been drifted. Is it not possible that the same circumstances which have preserved the vegetation in situ, should have preserved drifted plants? I know Calamites is found upright; but I fancied its affinities were very obscure, like Sigillaria. As for Lepidodendron, I forgot its existence, as happens when one goes riot, and now know neither what it is, or whether upright. If these plants, i.e. Calamites and Lepidodendron, have VERY CLEAR RELATIONS to terrestrial vegetables, like the ferns have, and are found upright in situ, of course I must give up the ghost. But surely Sigillaria is the main upright plant, and on its obscure affinities I have heard you enlarge. Thirdly, it never entered my head to undervalue botanical relatively to zoological evidence; except in so far as I thought it was admitted that the vegetative structure seldom yielded any evidence of affinity nearer than that of families, and not always so much. And is it not in plants, as certainly it is in animals, dangerous to judge of habits without very near affinity. Could a Botanist tell from structure alone that the Mangrove family, almost or quite alone in Dicotyledons, could live in the sea, and the Zostera family almost alone among the Monocotyledons? Is it a safe argument, that because algae are almost the only, or the only submerged sea-plants, that formerly other groups had not members with such habits? With animals such an argument would not be conclusive, as I could illustrate by many examples; but I am forgetting myself; I want only to some degree to defend myself, and not burn my fingers by attacking you. The foundation of my letter, and what is my deliberate opinion, though I dare say you will think it absurd, is that I would rather trust, caeteris paribus, pure geological evidence than either zoological or botanical evidence. I do not say that I would sooner trust POOR geological evidence than GOOD organic. I think the basis of pure geological reasoning is simpler (consisting chiefly of the action of water on the crust of the earth, and its up and down movements) than a basis drawn from the difficult subject of affinities and of structure in relation to habits. I can hardly analyze the facts on which I have come to this conclusion; but I can illustrate it. Pallas's account would lead any one to suppose that the Siberian strata, with the frozen carcasses, had been quickly deposited, and hence that the embedded animals had lived in the neighbourhood; but our zoological knowledge of thirty years ago led every one falsely to reject this conclusion. Tell me that an upright fern in situ occurs with Sigillaria and Stigmaria, or that the affinities of Calamites and Lepidodendron (supposing that they are found in situ with Sigillaria) are so CLEAR, that they could not have been marine, like, but in a greater degree, than the mangrove and sea-wrack, and I will humbly apologise to you and all Botanists for having let my mind run riot on a subject on which assuredly I know nothing. But till I hear this, I shall keep privately to my own opinion with the same pertinacity and, as you will think, with the same philosophical spirit with which Koenig maintains that Cheirotherium-footsteps are fuci. Whether this letter will sink me lower in your opinion, or put me a little right, I know not, but hope the latter. Anyhow, I have revenged myself with boring you with a very long epistle. Farewell, and be forgiving. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--When will you return to Kew? I have forgotten one main object of my letter, to thank you MUCH for your offer of the 'Hort. Journal,' but I have ordered the two numbers. [The two following extracts [1847] give the continuation and conclusion of the coal battle. "By the way, as submarine coal made you so wrath, I thought I would experimentise on Falconer and Bunbury (The late Sir C. Bunbury, well-known as a palaeobotanist.) together, and it made [them] even more savage; 'such infernal nonsense ought to be thrashed out of me.' Bunbury was more polite and contemptuous. So I now know how to stir up and show off any Botanist. I wonder whether Zoologists and Geologists have got their tender points; I wish I could find out." "I cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note. Pray do not think that I was annoyed by your letter: I perceived that you had been thinking with animation, and accordingly expressed yourself strongly, and so I understood it. Forfend me from a man who weighs every expression with Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your noble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk with you and hear your ultimatum."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. (Parts of two letters.) Down [October, 1847]. I congratulate you heartily on your arrangements being completed, with some prospect for the future. It will be a noble voyage and journey, but I wish it was over, I shall miss you selfishly and all ways to a dreadful extent ...I am in great perplexity how we are to meet...I can well understand how dreadfully busy you must be. If you CANNOT come here, you MUST let me come to you for a night; for I must have one more chat and one more quarrel with you over the coal. By the way, I endeavoured to stir up Lyell (who has been staying here some days with me) to theorise on the coal: his oolitic UPRIGHT Equisetums are dreadful for my submarine flora. I should die much easier if some one would solve me the coal question. I sometimes think it could not have been formed at all. Old Sir Anthony Carlisle once said to me gravely, that he supposed Megatherium and such cattle were just sent down from heaven to see whether the earth would support them; and I suppose the coal was rained down to puzzle mortals. You must work the coal well in India. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [November 6th, 1847.] My dear Hooker, I have just received your note with sincere grief: there is no help for it. I shall always look at your intention of coming here, under such circumstances, as the greatest proof of friendship I ever received from mortal man. My conscience would have upbraided me in not having come to you on Thursday, but, as it turned out, I could not, for I was quite unable to leave Shrewsbury before that day, and I reached home only last night, much knocked up. Without I hear to-morrow (which is hardly possible), and if I am feeling pretty well, I will drive over to Kew on Monday morning, just to say farewell. I will stay only an hour... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [November, 1847.] My dear Hooker, I am very unwell, and incapable of doing anything. I do hope I have not inconvenienced you. I was so unwell all yesterday, that I was rejoicing you were not here; for it would have been a bitter mortification to me to have had you here and not enjoyed your last day. I shall not now see you. Farewell, and God bless you. Your affectionate friend, C. DARWIN. I will write to you in India. [In 1847 appeared a paper by Mr. D. Milne (Now Mr. Milne Home. The essay was published in Transactions of the Edinburgh Royal Society, vol. xvi.), in which my father's Glen Roy work is criticised, and which is referred to in the following characteristic extract from a letter to Sir J. Hooker:] "I have been bad enough for these few last days, having had to think and write too much about Glen Roy...Mr. Milne having attacked my theory, which made me horribly sick." I have not been able to find any published reply to Mr. Milne, so that I imagine the "writing" mentioned was confined to letters. Mr. Milne's paper was not destructive to the Glen Roy paper, and this my father recognises in the following extract from a letter to Lyell (March, 1847). The reference to Chambers is explained by the fact that he accompanied Mr. Milne in his visit to Glen Roy. "I got R. Chambers to give me a sketch of Milne's Glen Roy views, and I have re-read my paper, and am, now that I have heard what is to be said, not even staggered. It is provoking and humiliating to find that Chambers not only had not read with any care my paper on this subject, or even looked at the coloured map, so that the new shelf described by me had not been searched for, and my arguments and facts of detail not in the least attended to. I entirely gave up the ghost, and was quite chicken-hearted at the Geological Society, till you reassured and reminded me of the main facts in the whole case." The two following letters to Lyell, though of later date (June, 1848), bear on the same subject:-- "I was at the evening meeting [of the Geological Society], but did not get within hail of you. What a fool (though I must say a very amusing one) -- did make of himself. Your speech was refreshing after it, and was well characterized by Fox (my cousin) in three words--'What a contrast!' That struck me as a capital speculation about the Wealden Continent going down. I did not hear what you settled at the Council; I was quite wearied out and bewildered. I find Smith, of Jordan Hill, has a much worse opinion of R. Chambers's book than even I have. Chambers has piqued me a little ('Ancient Sea Margins, 1848.' The words quoted by my father should be "the mobility of the land was an ascendant idea."); he says I 'propound' and 'profess my belief' that Glen Roy is marine, and that the idea was accepted because the 'mobility of the land was the ascendant idea of the day.' He adds some very faint UPPER lines in Glen Spean (seen, by the way, by Agassiz), and has shown that Milne and Kemp are right in there being horizontal aqueous markings (NOT at coincident levels with those of Glen Roy) in other parts of Scotland at great heights, and he adds several other cases. This is the whole of his addition to the data. He not only takes my line of argument from the buttresses and terraces below the lower shelf and some other arguments (without acknowledgment), but he sneers at all his predecessors not having perceived the importance of the short portions of lines intermediate between the chief ones in Glen Roy; whereas I commence the description of them with saying, that 'perceiving their importance, I examined them with scrupulous care,' and expatiate at considerable length on them. I have indirectly told him I do not think he has quite claims to consider that he alone (which he pretty directly asserts) has solved the problem of Glen Roy. With respect to the terraces at lower levels coincident in height all round Scotland and England, I am inclined to believe he shows some little probability of there being some leading ones coincident, but much more exact evidence is required. Would you believe it credible? he advances as a probable solution to account for the rise of Great Britain that in some great ocean one-twentieth of the bottom of the whole aqueous surface of the globe has sunk in (he does not say where he puts it) for a thickness of half a mile, and this he has calculated would make an apparent rise of 130 feet." CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [June, 1848]. My dear Lyell, Out of justice to Chambers I must trouble you with one line to say, as far as I am personally concerned in Glen Roy, he has made the amende honorable, and pleads guilty through inadvertency of taking my two lines of arguments and facts without acknowledgment. He concluded by saying he "came to the same point by an independent course of inquiry, which in a small degree excuses this inadvertency." His letter altogether shows a very good disposition, and says he is "much gratified with the MEASURED approbation which you bestow, etc." I am heartily glad I was able to say in truth that I thought he had done good service in calling more attention to the subject of the terraces. He protests it is unfair to call the sinking of the sea his theory, for that he with care always speaks of mere change of level, and this is quite true; but the one section in which he shows how he conceives the sea might sink is so astonishing, that I believe it will with others, as with me, more than counterbalance his previous caution. I hope that you may think better of the book than I do. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. October 6th, 1848. ...I have lately been trying to get up an agitation (but I shall not succeed, and indeed doubt whether I have time and strength to go on with it), against the practice of Naturalists appending for perpetuity the name of the FIRST describer to species. I look at this as a direct premium to hasty work, to NAMING instead of DESCRIBING. A species ought to have a name so well known that the addition of the author's name would be superfluous, and a [piece] of empty vanity. (His contempt for the self-regarding spirit in a naturalist is illustrated by an anecdote, for which I am indebted to Rev. L. Blomefield. After speaking of my father's love of Entomology at Cambridge, Mr. Blomefield continues:--"He occasionally came over from Cambridge to my Vicarage at Swaffham Bulbeck, and we went out together to collect insects in the woods at Bottisham Hall, close at hand, or made longer excursions in the Fens. On one occasion he captured in a large bag net, with which he used vigorously to sweep the weeds and long grass, a rare coleopterous insect, one of the Lepturidae, which I myself had never taken in Cambridgeshire. He was pleased with his capture, and of course carried it home in triumph. Some years afterwards, the voyage of the 'Beagle' having been made in the interim, talking over old times with him, I reverted to this circumstance, and asked if he remembered it. 'Oh, yes,' (he said,) 'I remember it well; and I was selfish enough to keep the specimen, when you were collecting materials for a Fauna of Cambridgeshire, and for a local museum in the Philosophical Society.' He followed this up with some remarks on the pettiness of collectors, who aimed at nothing beyond filling their cabinets with rare things.") At present, it would not do to give mere specific names; but I think Zoologists might open the road to the omission, by referring to good systematic writers instead of to first describers. Botany, I fancy, has not suffered so much as Zoology from mere NAMING; the characters, fortunately, are more obscure. Have you ever thought on this point? Why should Naturalists append their own names to new species, when Mineralogists and Chemists do not do so to new substances? When you write to Falconer pray remember me affectionately to him. I grieve most sincerely to hear that he has been ill, my dear Hooker, God bless you, and fare you well. Your sincere friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. (Hugh Edwin Strickland, M.A., F.R.S., was born 2nd of March, 1811, and educated at Rugby, under Arnold, and at Oriel College, Oxford. In 1835 and 1836 he travelled through Europe to the Levant with W.J. Hamilton, the geologist, wintering in Asia Minor. In 1841 he brought the subject of Natural History Nomenclature before the British Association, and prepared the Code of Rules for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his name--the principles of which are very generally adopted. In 1843 he was one of the founders (if not the original projector) of the Ray Society. In 1845 he married the second daughter of Sir William Jardine, Bart. In 1850 he was appointed, in consequence of Buckland's illness, Deputy Reader in Geology at Oxford. His promising career was suddenly cut short on September 14, 1853, when, while geologizing in a railway cutting between Retford and Gainsborough, he was run over by a train and instantly killed. A memoir of him and a reprint of his principal contributions to journals was published by Sir William Jardine in 1858; but he was also the author of 'The Dodo and its Kindred' (1848); 'Bibliographia Zoologiae' (the latter in conjunction with Louis Agassiz, and issued by the Ray Society); 'Ornithological Synonyms' (one volume only published, and that posthumously). A catalogue of his ornithological collection, given by his widow to the University of Cambridge, was compiled by Mr. Salvin, and published in 1882. (I am indebted to Prof. Newton for the above note.)) Down, January 29th [1849]. ...What a labour you have undertaken; I do HONOUR your devoted zeal in the good cause of Natural Science. Do you happen to have a SPARE copy of the Nomenclature rules published in the 'British Association Transactions?' if you have, and would give it to me, I should be truly obliged, for I grudge buying the volume for it. I have found the rules very useful, it is quite a comfort to have something to rest on in the turbulent ocean of nomenclature (and am accordingly grateful to you), though I find it very difficult to obey always. Here is a case (and I think it should have been noticed in the rules), Coronula, Cineras and Otion, are names adopted by Cuvier, Lamarck, Owen, and almost EVERY well-known writer, but I find that all three names were anticipated by a German: now I believe if I were to follow the strict rule of priority, more harm would be done than good, and more especially as I feel sure that the newly fished-up names would not be adopted. I have almost made up my mind to reject the rule of priority in this case; would you grudge the trouble to send me your opinion? I have been led of late to reflect much on the subject of naming, and I have come to a fixed opinion that the plan of the first describer's name, being appended for perpetuity to a species, had been the greatest curse to Natural History. Some months since, I wrote out the enclosed badly drawn-up paper, thinking that perhaps I would agitate the subject; but the fit has passed, and I do not suppose I ever shall; I send it you for the CHANCE of your caring to see my notions. I have been surprised to find in conversation that several naturalists were of nearly my way of thinking. I feel sure as long as species-mongers have their vanity tickled by seeing their own names appended to a species, because they miserably described it in two or three lines, we shall have the same VAST amount of bad work as at present, and which is enough to dishearten any man who is willing to work out any branch with care and time. I find every genus of Cirripedia has half-a-dozen names, and not one careful description of any one species in any one genus. I do not believe that this would have been the case if each man knew that the memory of his own name depended on his doing his work well, and not upon merely appending a name with a few wretched lines indicating only a few prominent external characters. But I will not weary you with any longer tirade. Read my paper or NOT, just as you like, and return it whenever you please. Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. HUGH STRICKLAND TO CHARLES DARWIN. The Lodge, Tewkesbury, January 31st, 1849. ...I have next to notice your second objection--that retaining the name of the FIRST describer in perpetuum along with that of the species, is a premium on hasty and careless work. This is quite a different question from that of the law of priority itself, and it never occurred to me before, though it seems highly probable that the general recognition of that law may produce such a result. We must try to counteract this evil in some other way. The object of appending the name of a man to the name of a species is not to gratify the vanity of the man, but to indicate more precisely the species. Sometimes two men will, by accident, give the same name (independently) to two species of the same genus. More frequently a later author will misapply the specific name of an older one. Thus the Helix putris of Montagu is not H. putris of Linnaeus, though Montague supposed it to be so. In such a case we cannot define the species by Helix putris alone, but must append the name of the author whom we quote. But when a species has never borne but one name (as Corvus frugilegus), and no other species of Corvus has borne the same name, it is, of course, unnecessary to add the author's name. Yet even here I like the form Corvus frugilegus, Linn., as it reminds us that this is one of the old species, long known, and to be found in the 'Systema Naturae,' etc. I fear, therefore, that (at least until our nomenclature is more definitely settled) it will be impossible to indicate species with scientific accuracy, without adding the name of their first author. You may, indeed, do it as you propose, by saying in Lam. An. Invert., etc., but then this would be incompatible with the law of priority, for where Lamarck has violated that low, one cannot adopt his name. It is, nevertheless, highly conducive to accurate indication to append to the (oldest) specific name ONE good reference to a standard work, especially to a FIGURE, with an accompanying synonym if necessary. This method may be cumbrous, but cumbrousness is a far less evil than uncertainty. It, moreover, seems hardly possible to carry out the PRIORITY principle, without the historical aid afforded by appending the author's name to the specific one. If I, a PRIORITY MAN, called a species C.D., it implies that C.D. is the oldest name that I know of; but in order that you and others may judge of the propriety of that name, you must ascertain when, and by whom, the name was first coined. Now, if to the specific name C.D., I append the name A.B., of its first describer, I at once furnish you with the clue to the dates when, and the book in which, this description was given, and I thus assist you in determining whether C.D. be really the oldest, and therefore the correct, designation. I do, however, admit that the priority principle (excellent as it is) has a tendency, when the author's name is added, to encourage vanity and slovenly work. I think, however, that much might be done to discourage those obscure and unsatisfactory definitions of which you so justly complain, by WRITING DOWN the practice. Let the better disposed naturalists combine to make a formal protest against all vague, loose, and inadequate definitions of (supposed) new species. Let a committee (say of the British Association) be appointed to prepare a sort of CLASS LIST of the various modern works in which new species are described, arranged in order of merit. The lowest class would contain the worst examples of the kind, and their authors would thus be exposed to the obloquy which they deserve, and be gibbeted in terrorem for the edification of those who may come after. I have thus candidly stated my views (I hope intelligibly) of what seems best to be done in the present transitional and dangerous state of systematic zoology. Innumerable labourers, many of them crotchety and half-educated, are rushing into the field, and it depends, I think, on the present generation whether the science is to descend to posterity a chaotic mass, or possessed of some traces of law and organisation. If we could only get a congress of deputies from the chief scientific bodies of Europe and America, something might be done, but, as the case stands, I confess I do not clearly see my way, beyond humbly endeavouring to reform NUMBER ONE. Yours ever, H.E. STRICKLAND. CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. Down, Sunday [February 4th, 1849]. My dear Strickland, I am, in truth, GREATLY obliged to you for your long, most interesting, and clear letter, and the Report. I will consider your arguments, which are of the greatest weight, but I confess I cannot yet bring myself to reject very WELL-KNOWN names, not in ONE country, but over the world, for obscure ones,--simply on the ground that I do not believe I should be followed. Pray believe that I should break the law of priority only in rare cases; will you read the enclosed (and return it), and tell me whether it does not stagger you? (N.B. I PROMISE that I will not give you any more trouble.) I want simple answers, and not for you to waste your time in reasons; I am curious for your answer in regard to Balanus. I put the case of Otion, etc., to W. Thompson, who is fierce for the law of priority, and he gave it up in such well-known names. I am in a perfect maze of doubt on nomenclature. In not one large genus of Cirripedia has ANY ONE species been correctly defined; it is pure guesswork (being guided by range and commonness and habits) to recognise any species: thus I can make out, from plates or descriptions, hardly any of the British sessile cirripedes. I cannot bear to give new names to all the species, and yet I shall perhaps do wrong to attach old names by little better than guess; I cannot at present tell the least which of two species all writers have meant by the common Anatifera laevis; I have, therefore, given that name to the one which is rather the commonest. Literally, not one species is properly defined; not one naturalist has ever taken the trouble to open the shell of any species to describe it scientifically, and yet all the genera have half-a-dozen synonyms. For ARGUMENT'S sake, suppose I do my work thoroughly well, any one who happens to have the original specimens named, I will say by Chenu, who has figured and named hundreds of species, will be able to upset all my names according to the law of priority (for he may maintain his descriptions are sufficient), do you think it advantageous to science that this should be done: I think not, and that convenience and high merit (here put as mere argument) had better come into some play. The subject is heart-breaking. I hope you will occasionally turn in your mind my argument of the evil done by the "mihi" attached to specific names; I can most clearly see the EXCESSIVE evil it has caused; in mineralogy I have myself found there is no rage to merely name; a person does not take up the subject without he intends to work it out, as he knows that his ONLY claim to merit rests on his work being ably done, and has no relation whatever to NAMING. I give up one point, and grant that reference to first describer's name should be given in all systematic works, but I think something would be gained if a reference was given without the author's name being actually appended as part of the binomial name, and I think, except in systematic works, a reference, such as I propose, would damp vanity much. I think a very wrong spirit runs through all Natural History, as if some merit was due to a man for merely naming and defining a species; I think scarcely any, or none, is due; if he works out MINUTELY and anatomically any one species, or systematically a whole group, credit is due, but I must think the mere defining a species is nothing, and that no INJUSTICE is done him if it be overlooked, though a great inconvenience to Natural History is thus caused. I do not think more credit is due to a man for defining a species, than to a carpenter for making a box. But I am foolish and rabid against species-mongers, or rather against their vanity; it is useful and necessary work which must be done; but they act as if they had actually made the species, and it was their own property. I use Agassiz's nomenclator; at least two-thirds of the dates in the Cirripedia are grossly wrong. I shall do what I can in fossil Cirripedia, and should be very grateful for specimens; but I do not believe that species (and hardly genera) can be defined by single valves; as in every recent species yet examined their forms vary greatly: to describe a species by valves alone, is the same as to describe a crab from SMALL portions of its carapace alone, these portions being highly variable, and not, as in Crustacea, modelled over viscera. I sincerely apologise for the trouble which I have given you, but indeed I will give no more. Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S.--In conversation I found Owen and Andrew Smith much inclined to throw over the practice of attaching authors' names; I believe if I agitated I could get a large party to join. W. Thompson agreed some way with me, but was not prepared to go nearly as far as I am. CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. Down, February 10th [1849]. My dear Strickland, I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not think of), I cannot do it, my pen won't write it--it is IMPOSSIBLE. I have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong dates in Agassiz, and to my having to run several genera into one, for I have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so without I found others approved, and in some public way,--nor, indeed, is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which, fortunately, I have in many cases in the British Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, as never putting mihi or "Darwin" after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving no authors' names at all, as the systematic Part will serve for those who want to know the History of a species as far as I can imperfectly work it out... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [The Lodge, Malvern, March 28th, 1849.] My dear Hooker, Your letter of the 13th of October has remained unanswered till this day! What an ungrateful return for a letter which interested me so much, and which contained so much and curious information. But I have had a bad winter. On the 13th of November, my poor dear father died, and no one who did not know him would believe that a man above eighty-three years old could have retained so tender and affectionate a disposition, with all his sagacity unclouded to the last. I was at the time so unwell, that I was unable to travel, which added to my misery. Indeed, all this winter I have been bad enough...and my nervous system began to be affected, so that my hands trembled, and head was often swimming. I was not able to do anything one day out of three, and was altogether too dispirited to write to you, or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh. Having heard, accidentally, of two persons who had received much benefit from the water-cure, I got Dr. Gully's book, and made further enquiries, and at last started here, with wife, children, and all our servants. We have taken a house for two months, and have been here a fortnight. I am already a little stronger...Dr. Gully feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most certainly the regular doctors could not...I feel certain that the water-cure is no quackery. How I shall enjoy getting back to Down with renovated health, if such is to be my good fortune, and resuming the beloved Barnacles. Now I hope that you will forgive me for my negligence in not having sooner answered your letter. I was uncommonly interested by the sketch you give of your intended grand expedition, from which I suppose you will soon be returning. How earnestly I hope that it may prove in every way successful... [When my father was at the Water-cure Establishment at Malvern he was brought into contact with clairvoyance, of which he writes in the following extract from a letter to Fox, September, 1850. "You speak about Homoeopathy, which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clairvoyance. Clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of the question, but in homoeopathy common sense and common observation come into play, and both these must go to the dogs, if the infinitesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz., that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare homoeopathy, and all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think, in my beloved Dr. Gully, that he believes in everything. When Miss -- was very ill, he had a clairvoyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep--an homoeopathist, viz. Dr. --, and himself as hydropathist! and the girl recovered." A passage out of an earlier letter to Fox (December, 1884) shows that he was equally sceptical on the subject of mesmerism: "With respect to mesmerism, the whole country resounds with wonderful facts or tales..I have just heard of a child, three or four years old (whose parents and self I well knew) mesmerised by his father, which is the first fact which has staggered me. I shall not believe fully till I see or hear from good evidence of animals (as has been stated is possible) not drugged, being put to stupor; of course the impossibility would not prove mesmerism false; but it is the only clear experimentum crucis, and I am astonished it has not been systematically tried. If mesmerism was investigated, like a science, this could not have been left till the present day to be DONE SATISFACTORILY, as it has been I believe left. Keep some cats yourself, and do get some mesmeriser to attempt it. One man told me he had succeeded, but his experiments were most vague, and as was likely from a man who said cats were more easily done than other animals, because they were so electrical!"] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, December 4th [1849]. My dear Lyell, This letter requires no answer, and I write from exuberance of vanity. Dana has sent me the Geology of the United States Expedition, and I have just read the Coral part. To begin with a modest speech, I AM ASTONISHED AT MY OWN ACCURACY!! If I were to rewrite now my Coral book there is hardly a sentence I should have to alter, except that I ought to have attributed more effect to recent volcanic action in checking growth of coral. When I say all this I ought to add that the CONSEQUENCES of the theory on areas of subsidence are treated in a separate chapter to which I have not come, and in this, I suspect, we shall differ more. Dana talks of agreeing with my theory IN MOST POINTS; I can find out not one in which he differs. Considering how infinitely more he saw of Coral Reefs than I did, this is wonderfully satisfactory to me. He treats me most courteously. There now, my vanity is pretty well satisfied... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Malvern, April 9th, 1849. My dear Hooker, The very next morning after posting my last letter (I think on 23rd of March), I received your two interesting gossipaceous and geological letters; and the latter I have since exchanged with Lyell for his. I will write higglety-pigglety just as subjects occur. I saw the Review in the 'Athenaeum,' it was written in an ill-natured spirit; but the whole virus consisted in saying that there was not novelty enough in your remarks for publication. No one, nowadays, cares for reviews. I may just mention that my Journal got some REAL GOOD abuse, "presumption," etc.,--ended with saying that the volume appeared "made up of the scraps and rubbish of the author's portfolio." I most truly enter into what you say, and quite believe you that you care only for the review with respect to your father; and that this ALONE would make you like to see extracts from your letters more properly noticed in this same periodical. I have considered to the very best of my judgment whether any portion of your present letters are adapted for the 'Athenaeum' (in which I have no interest; the beasts not having even NOTICED my three geological volumes which I had sent to them), and I have come to the conclusion it is better not to send them. I feel sure, considering all the circumstances, that without you took pains and wrote WITH CARE, a condensed and finished sketch of some striking feature in your travels, it is better not to send anything. These two letters are, moreover, rather too geological for the 'Athenaeum,' and almost require woodcuts. On the other hand, there are hardly enough details for a communication to the Geological Society. I have not the SMALLEST DOUBT that your facts are of the highest interest with regard to glacial action in the Himalaya; but it struck both Lyell and myself that your evidence ought to have been given more distinctly... I have written so lately that I have nothing to say about myself; my health prevented me going on with a crusade against "mihi" and "nobis," of which you warn me of the dangers. I showed my paper to three or four Naturalists, and they all agreed with me to a certain extent: with health and vigour, I would not have shown a white feather, [and] with aid of half-a-dozen really good Naturalists, I believe something might have been done against the miserable and degrading passion of mere species naming. In your letter you wonder what "Ornamental Poultry" has to do with Barnacles; but do not flatter yourself that I shall not yet live to finish the Barnacles, and then make a fool of myself on the subject of species, under which head ornamental Poultry are very interesting... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. The Lodge, Malvern [June, 1849]. ...I have got your book ('A Second Visit to the United States.'), and have read all the first and a small part of the second volume (reading is the hardest work allowed here), and greatly I have been interested by it. It makes me long to be a Yankee. E. desires me to say that she quite "gloated" over the truth of your remarks on religious progress...I delight to think how you will disgust some of the bigots and educational dons. As yet there has not been MUCH Geology or Natural History, for which I hope you feel a little ashamed. Your remarks on all social subjects strike me as worthy of the author of the 'Principles.' And yet (I know it is prejudice and pride) if I had written the Principles, I never would have written any travels; but I believe I am more jealous about the honour and glory of the Principles than you are yourself... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. September 14th, 1849. ...I go on with my aqueous processes, and very steadily but slowly gain health and strength. Against all rules, I dined at Chevening with Lord Mahon, who did me the great honour of calling on me, and how he heard of me I can't guess. I was charmed with Lady Mahon, and any one might have been proud at the pieces of agreeableness which came from her beautiful lips with respect to you. I like old Lord Stanhope very much; though he abused Geology and Zoology heartily. "To suppose that the Omnipotent God made a world, found it a failure, and broke it up, and then made it again, and again broke it up, as the Geologists say, is all fiddle faddle. Describing Species of birds and shells, etc., is all fiddle faddle..." I am heartily glad we shall meet at Birmingham, as I trust we shall, if my health will but keep up. I work now every day at the Cirripedia for 2 1/2 hours, and so get on a little, but very slowly. I sometimes, after being a whole week employed and having described perhaps only two species, agree mentally with Lord Stanhope, that it is all fiddle faddle; however, the other day I got a curious case of a unisexual, instead of hermaphrodite cirripede, in which the female had the common cirripedial character, and in two valves of her shell had two little pockets, in EACH of which she kept a little husband; I do not know of any other case where a female invariably has two husbands. I have one still odder fact, common to several species, namely, that though they are hermaphrodite, they have small additional, or as I shall call them, complemental males, one specimen itself hermaphrodite had no less than SEVEN, of these complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and wonders of Nature are illimitable. But I am running on as badly about my cirripedia as about Geology; it makes me groan to think that probably I shall never again have the exquisite pleasure of making out some new district, of evolving geological light out of some troubled dark region. So I must make the best of my Cirripedia... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 12th, 1849. ...By the way, one of the pleasantest parts of the British Association was my journey down to Birmingham with Mrs. Sabine, Mrs. Reeve, and the Colonel; also Col. Sykes and Porter. Mrs. Sabine and myself agreed wonderfully on many points, and in none more sincerely than about you. We spoke about your letters from the Erebus; and she quite agreed with me, that you and the AUTHOR (Sir J. Hooker wrote the spirited description of cattle hunting in Sir J. Ross's 'Voyage of Discovery in the Southern Regions,' 1847, vol. ii., page 245.), of the description of the cattle hunting in the Falklands, would have made a capital book together! A very nice woman she is, and so is her sharp and sagacious mother...Birmingham was very flat compared to Oxford, though I had my wife with me. We saw a good deal of the Lyells and Horners and Robinsons (the President); but the place was dismal, and I was prevented, by being unwell, from going to Warwick, though that, i.e., the party, by all accounts, was wonderfully inferior to Blenheim, not to say anything of that heavenly day at Dropmore. One gets weary of all the spouting... You ask about my cold-water cure; I am going on very well, and am certainly a little better every month, my nights mend much slower than my days. I have built a douche, and am to go on through all the winter, frost or no frost. My treatment now is lamp five times per week, and shallow bath for five minutes afterwards; douche daily for five minutes, and dripping sheet daily. The treatment is wonderfully tonic, and I have had more better consecutive days this month than on any previous ones...I am allowed to work now two and a half hours daily, and I find it as much as I can do, for the cold-water cure, together with three short walks, is curiously exhausting; and I am actually FORCED to go to bed at eight o'clock completely tired. I steadily gain in weight, and eat immensely, and am never oppressed with my food. I have lost the involuntary twitching of the muscle, and all the fainting feelings, etc--black spots before eyes, etc. Dr. Gully thinks he shall quite cure me in six or nine months more. The greatest bore, which I find in the water-cure, is the having been compelled to give up all reading, except the newspapers; for my daily two and a half hours at the Barnacles is fully as much as I can do of anything which occupies the mind; I am consequently terribly behind in all scientific books. I have of late been at work at mere species describing, which is much more difficult than I expected, and has much the same sort of interest as a puzzle has; but I confess I often feel wearied with the work, and cannot help sometimes asking myself what is the good of spending a week or fortnight in ascertaining that certain just perceptible differences blend together and constitute varieties and not species. As long as I am on anatomy I never feel myself in that disgusting, horrid, cui bono, inquiring, humour. What miserable work, again, it is searching for priority of names. I have just finished two species, which possess seven generic, and twenty-four specific names! My chief comfort is, that the work must be sometime done, and I may as well do it, as any one else. I have given up my agitation against mihi and nobis; my paper is too long to send to you, so you must see it, if you care to do so, on your return. By-the-way, you say in your letter that you care more for my species work than for the Barnacles; now this is too bad of you, for I declare your decided approval of my plain Barnacle work over theoretic species work, had very great influence in deciding me to go on with the former, and defer my species paper... [The following letter refers to the death of his little daughter, which took place at Malvern on April 24, 1851:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, April 29th [1851]. My dear Fox, I do not suppose you will have heard of our bitter and cruel loss. Poor dear little Annie, when going on very well at Malvern, was taken with a vomiting attack, which was at first thought of the smallest importance; but it rapidly assumed the form of a low and dreadful fever, which carried her off in ten days. Thank God, she suffered hardly at all, and expired as tranquilly as a little angel. Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life. She was my favourite child; her cordiality, openness, buoyant joyousness and strong affections made her most lovable. Poor dear little soul. Well it is all over... CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, March 7th [1852]. My dear Fox, It is indeed an age since we have had any communication, and very glad I was to receive your note. Our long silence occurred to me a few weeks since, and I had then thought of writing, but was idle. I congratulate and condole with you on your TENTH child; but please to observe when I have a tenth, send only condolences to me. We have now seven children, all well, thank God, as well as their mother; of these seven, five are boys; and my father used to say that it was certain that a boy gave as much trouble as three girls; so that bona fide we have seventeen children. It makes me sick whenever I think of professions; all seem hopelessly bad, and as yet I cannot see a ray of light. I should very much like to talk over this (by the way, my three bugbears are Californian and Australian gold, beggaring me by making my money on mortgage worth nothing; the French coming by the Westerham and Sevenoaks roads, and therefore enclosing Down; and thirdly, professions for my boys), and I should like to talk about education, on which you ask me what we are doing. No one can more truly despise the old stereotyped stupid classical education than I do; but yet I have not had courage to break through the trammels. After many doubts we have just sent our eldest boy to Rugby, where for his age he has been very well placed...I honour, admire, and envy you for educating your boys at home. What on earth shall you do with your boys? Towards the end of this month we go to see W. at Rugby, and thence for five or six days to Susan (His sister.) at Shrewsbury; I then return home to look after the babies, and E. goes to F. Wedgwood's of Etruria for a week. Very many thanks for your most kind and large invitation to Delamere, but I fear we can hardly compass it. I dread going anywhere, on account of my stomach so easily failing under any excitement. I rarely even now go to London; not that I am at all worse, perhaps rather better, and lead a very comfortable life with my three hours of daily work, but it is the life of a hermit. My nights are ALWAYS bad, and that stops my becoming vigorous. You ask about water-cure. I take at intervals of two or three months, five or six weeks of MODERATELY severe treatment, and always with good effect. Do you come here, I pray and beg whenever you can find time; you cannot tell how much pleasure it would give me and E. I have finished the 1st volume for the Ray Society of Pedunculated Cirripedes, which, as I think you are a member, you will soon get. Read what I describe on the sexes of Ibla and Scalpellum. I am now at work on the Sessile Cirripedes, and am wonderfully tired of my job: a man to be a systematic naturalist ought to work at least eight hours per day. You saw through me, when you said that I must have wished to have seen the effects of the [word illegible] Debacle, for I was saying a week ago to E., that had I been as I was in old days, I would have been certainly off that hour. You ask after Erasmus; he is much as usual, and constantly more or less unwell. Susan (His sister.) is much better, and very flourishing and happy. Catherine (Another sister.) is at Rome, and has enjoyed it in a degree that is quite astonishing to my dry old bones. And now I think I have told you enough, and more than enough about the house of Darwin; so my dear old friend, farewell. What pleasant times we had in drinking coffee in your rooms at Christ's College, and think of the glories of Crux major. (The beetle Panagaeus crux-major.) Ah, in those days there were no professions for sons, no ill-health to fear for them, no Californian gold, no French invasions. How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children. My dread is hereditary ill-health. Even death is better for them. My dear Fox, your sincere friend, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Susan has lately been working in a way which I think truly heroic about the scandalous violation of the Act against children climbing chimneys. We have set up a little Society in Shrewsbury to prosecute those who break the law. It is all Susan's doing. She has had very nice letters from Lord Shaftesbury and the Duke of Sutherland, but the brutal Shropshire squires are as hard as stones to move. The Act out of London seems most commonly violated. It makes one shudder to fancy one of one's own children at seven years old being forced up a chimney--to say nothing of the consequent loathsome disease and ulcerated limbs, and utter moral degradation. If you think strongly on this subject, do make some inquiries; add to your many good works, this other one, and try to stir up the magistrates. There are several people making a stir in different parts of England on this subject. It is not very likely that you would wish for such, but I could send you some essays and information if you so liked, either for yourself or to give away. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down [October 24th, 1852]. My dear Fox, I received your long and most welcome letter this morning, and will answer it this evening, as I shall be very busy with an artist, drawing Cirripedia, and much overworked for the next fortnight. But first you deserve to be well abused--and pray consider yourself well abused--for thinking or writing that I could for one minute be bored by any amount of detail about yourself and belongings. It is just what I like hearing; believe me that I often think of old days spent with you, and sometimes can hardly believe what a jolly careless individual one was in those old days. A bright autumn evening often brings to mind some shooting excursion from Osmaston. I do indeed regret that we live so far off each other, and that I am so little locomotive. I have been unusually well of late (no water-cure), but I do not find that I can stand any change better than formerly...The other day I went to London and back, and the fatigue, though so trifling, brought on my bad form of vomiting. I grieve to hear that your chest has been ailing, and most sincerely do I hope that it is only the muscles; how frequently the voice fails with the clergy. I can well understand your reluctance to break up your large and happy party and go abroad; but your life is very valuable, so you ought to be very cautious in good time. You ask about all of us, now five boys (oh! the professions; oh! the gold; and oh! the French--these three oh's all rank as dreadful bugbears) and two girls...but another and the worst of my bugbears is hereditary weakness. All my sisters are well except Mrs. Parker, who is much out of health; and so is Erasmus at his poor average: he has lately moved into Queen Anne Street. I had heard of the intended marriage (To the Rev. J. Hughes.) of your sister Frances. I believe I have seen her since, but my memory takes me back some twenty-five years, when she was lying down. I remember well the delightful expression of her countenance. I most sincerely wish her all happiness. I see I have not answered half your queries. We like very well all that we have seen and heard of Rugby, and have never repented of sending [W.] there. I feel sure schools have greatly improved since our days; but I hate schools and the whole system of breaking through the affections of the family by separating the boys so early in life; but I see no help, and dare not run the risk of a youth being exposed to the temptations of the world without having undergone the milder ordeal of a great school. I see you even ask after our pears. We have lots of Beurrees d'Aremberg, Winter Nelis, Marie Louise, and "Ne plus Ultra," but all off the wall; the standard dwarfs have borne a few, but I have no room for more trees, so their names would be useless to me. You really must make a holiday and pay us a visit sometime; nowhere could you be more heartily welcome. I am at work at the second volume of the Cirripedia, of which creatures I am wonderfully tired. I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before, not even a sailor in a slow-sailing ship. My first volume is out; the only part worth looking at is on the sexes of Ibla and Scalpellum. I hope by next summer to have done with my tedious work. Farewell,--do come whenever you can possibly manage it. I cannot but hope that the carbuncle may possibly do you good: I have heard of all sorts of weaknesses disappearing after a carbuncle. I suppose the pain is dreadful. I agree most entirely, what a blessed discovery is chloroform. When one thinks of one's children, it makes quite a little difference in one's happiness. The other day I had five grinders (two by the elevator) out at a sitting under this wonderful substance, and felt hardly anything. My dear old friend, yours very affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, January 29th [1853]. My dear Fox, Your last account some months ago was so little satisfactory that I have often been thinking of you, and should be really obliged if you would give me a few lines, and tell me how your voice and chest are. I most sincerely hope that your report will be good...Our second lad has a strong mechanical turn, and we think of making him an engineer. I shall try and find out for him some less classical school, perhaps Bruce Castle. I certainly should like to see more diversity in education than there is in any ordinary school--no exercising of the observing or reasoning faculties, no general knowledge acquired--I must think it a wretched system. On the other hand, a boy who has learnt to stick at Latin and conquer its difficulties, ought to be able to stick at any labour. I should always be glad to hear anything about schools or education from you. I am at my old, never-ending subject, but trust I shall really go to press in a few months with my second volume on Cirripedes. I have been much pleased by finding some odd facts in my first volume believed by Owen and a few others, whose good opinion I regard as final...Do write pretty soon, and tell me all you can about yourself and family; and I trust your report of yourself may be much better than your last. ...I have been very little in London of late, and have not seen Lyell since his return from America; how lucky he was to exhume with his own hand parts of three skeletons of reptiles out of the CARBONIFEROUS strata, and out of the inside of a fossil tree, which had been hollow within. Farewell, my dear Fox, yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. 13 Sea Houses, Eastbourne, [July 15th? 1853]. My dear Fox, Here we are in a state of profound idleness, which to me is a luxury; and we should all, I believe, have been in a state of high enjoyment, had it not been for the detestable cold gales and much rain, which always gives much ennui to children away from their homes. I received your letter of 13th June, when working like a slave with Mr. Sowerby at drawing for my second volume, and so put off answering it till when I knew I should be at leisure. I was extremely glad to get your letter. I had intended a couple of months ago sending you a savage or supplicating jobation to know how you were, when I met Sir P. Egerton, who told me you were well, and, as usual, expressed his admiration of your doings, especially your farming, and the number of animals, including children, which you kept on your land. Eleven children, ave Maria! it is a serious look-out for you. Indeed, I look at my five boys as something awful, and hate the very thoughts of professions, etc. If one could insure moderate health for them it would not signify so much, for I cannot but hope, with the enormous emigration, professions will somewhat improve. But my bugbear is hereditary weakness. I particularly like to hear all that you can say about education, and you deserve to be scolded for saying "you did not mean to TORMENT me with a long yarn." You ask about Rugby. I like it very well, on the same principle as my neighbour, Sir J. Lubbock, likes Eton, viz., that it is not worse than any other school; the expense, WITH ALL ETC., ETC., including some clothes, travelling expenses, etc., is from 110 pounds to 120 pounds per annum. I do not think schools are so wicked as they were, and far more industrious. The boys, I think, live too secluded in their separate studies; and I doubt whether they will get so much knowledge of character as boys used to do; and this, in my opinion, is the ONE good of public schools over small schools. I should think the only superiority of a small school over home was forced regularity in their work, which your boys perhaps get at your home, but which I do not believe my boys would get at my home. Otherwise, it is quite lamentable sending boys so early in life from their home. ...To return to schools. My main objection to them, as places of education, is the enormous proportion of time spent over classics. I fancy (though perhaps it is only fancy) that I can perceive the ill and contracting effect on my eldest boy's mind, in checking interest in anything in which reasoning and observation come into play. Mere memory seems to be worked. I shall certainly look out for some school with more diversified studies for my younger boys. I was talking lately to the Dean of Hereford, who takes most strongly this view; and he tells me that there is a school at Hereford commencing on this plan; and that Dr. Kennedy at Shrewsbury is going to begin vigorously to modify that school... I am EXTREMELY glad to hear that you approved of my cirripedial volume. I have spent an almost ridiculous amount of labour on the subject, and certainly would never have undertaken it had I foreseen what a job it was. I hope to have finished by the end of the year. Do write again before a very long time; it is a real pleasure to me to hear from you. Farewell, with my wife's kindest remembrances to yourself and Mrs. Fox. My dear old friend, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, August 10th [1853]. My dear Fox, I thank you sincerely for writing to me so soon after your most heavy misfortune. Your letter affected me so much. We both most truly sympathise with you and Mrs. Fox. We too lost, as you may remember, not so very long ago, a most dear child, of whom I can hardly yet bear to think tranquilly; yet, as you must know from your own most painful experience, time softens and deadens, in a manner truly wonderful, one's feelings and regrets. At first it is indeed bitter. I can only hope that your health and that of poor Mrs. Fox may be preserved, and that time may do its work softly, and bring you all together, once again, as the happy family, which, as I can well believe, you so lately formed. My dear Fox, your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN. [The following letter refers to the Royal Society's Medal, which was awarded to him in November, 1853:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 5th [1853]. My dear Hooker, Amongst my letters received this morning, I opened first one from Colonel Sabine; the contents certainly surprised me very much, but, though the letter was a VERY KIND ONE, somehow, I cared very little indeed for the announcement it contained. I then opened yours, and such is the effect of warmth, friendship, and kindness from one that is loved, that the very same fact, told as you told it, made me glow with pleasure till my very heart throbbed. Believe me, I shall not soon forget the pleasure of your letter. Such hearty, affectionate sympathy is worth more than all the medals that ever were or will be coined. Again, my dear Hooker, I thank you. I hope Lindley (John Lindley, 1799-1865, was the son of a nurseryman near Norwich, through whose failure in business he was thrown at the age of twenty on his own resources. He was befriended by Sir W. Hooker, and employed as assistant librarian by Sir J. Banks. He seems to have had enormous capacity of work, and is said to have translated Richard's 'Analyse du Fruit' at one sitting of two days and three nights. He became Assistant-Secretary to the Horticultural Society, and in 1829 was appointed Professor of Botany at University College, a post which he held for upwards of thirty years. His writings are numerous: the best known being perhaps his 'Vegetable Kingdom,' published in 1846. His influence in helping to introduce the natural system of classification was considerable, and he brought "all the weight of his teaching and all the force of his controversial powers to support it," as against the Linnean system universally taught in the earlier part of his career. Sachs points out (Geschichte der Botanik, 1875, page 161), that though Lindley adopted in the main a sound classification of plants, he only did so by abandoning his own theoretical principle that the physiological importance of an organ is a measure of its classificatory value.) will never hear that he was a competitor against me; for really it is almost RIDICULOUS (of course you would never repeat that I said this, for it would be thought by others, though not, I believe, by you, to be affectation) his not having the medal long before me; I must feel SURE that you did quite right to propose him; and what a good, dear, kind fellow you are, nevertheless, to rejoice in this honour being bestowed on me. What PLEASURE I have felt on the occasion, I owe almost entirely to you. Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--You may believe what a surprise it was, for I had never heard that the medals could be given except for papers in the 'Transactions.' All this will make me work with better heart at finishing the second volume. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 18th [1854]. My dear Lyell, I should have written before, had it not seemed doubtful whether you would go on to Teneriffe, but now I am extremely glad to hear your further progress is certain; not that I have much of any sort to say, as you may well believe when you hear that I have only once been in London since you started. I was particularly glad to see, two days since, your letter to Mr. Horner, with its geological news; how fortunate for you that your knees are recovered. I am astonished at what you say of the beauty, though I had fancied it great. It really makes me quite envious to think of your clambering up and down those steep valleys. And what a pleasant party on your return from your expeditions. I often think of the delight which I felt when examining volcanic islands, and I can remember even particular rocks which I struck, and the smell of the hot, black, scoriaceous cliffs; but of those HOT smells you do not seem to have had much. I do quite envy you. How I should like to be with you, and speculate on the deep and narrow valleys. How very singular the fact is which you mention about the inclination of the strata being greater round the circumference than in the middle of the island; do you suppose the elevation has had the form of a flat dome? I remember in the Cordillera being OFTEN struck with the greater abruptness of the strata in the LOW EXTREME outermost ranges, compared with the great mass of inner mountains. I dare say you will have thought of measuring exactly the width of any dikes at the top and bottom of any great cliff (which was done by Mr. Searle [?] at St. Helena), for it has often struck me as VERY ODD that the cracks did not die out OFTENER upwards. I can think of hardly any news to tell you, as I have seen no one since being in London, when I was delighted to see Forbes looking so well, quite big and burly. I saw at the Museum some of the surprisingly rich gold ore from North Wales. Ramsay also told me that he has lately turned a good deal of New Red Sandstone into Permian, together with the Labyrinthodon. No doubt you see newspapers, and know that E. de Beaumont is perpetual Secretary, and will, I suppose, be more powerful than ever; and Le Verrier has Arago's place in the Observatory. There was a meeting lately at the Geological Society, at which Prestwich (judging from what R. Jones told me) brought forward your exact theory, viz. that the whole red clay and flints over the chalk plateau hereabouts is the residuum from the slow dissolution of the chalk! As regards ourselves, we have no news, and are all well. The Hookers, sometime ago, stayed a fortnight with us, and, to our extreme delight, Henslow came down, and was most quiet and comfortable here. It does one good to see so composed, benevolent, and intellectual a countenance. There have been great fears that his heart is affected; but, I hope to God, without foundation. Hooker's book (Sir J. Hooker's 'Himalayan Journal.') is out, and MOST BEAUTIFULLY got up. He has honoured me beyond measure by dedicating it to me! As for myself, I am got to the page 112 of the Barnacles, and that is the sum total of my history. By-the-way, as you care so much about North America, I may mention that I had a long letter from a shipmate in Australia, who says the Colony is getting decidedly republican from the influx of Americans, and that all the great and novel schemes for working the gold are planned and executed by these men. What a go-a-head nation it is! Give my kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell, and to Mrs. Bunbury, and to Bunbury. I most heartily wish that the Canaries may be ten times as interesting as Madeira, and that everything may go on most prosperously with your whole party. My dear Lyell, Yours most truly and affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 1st [1854]. My dear Hooker, I finished yesterday evening the first volume, and I very sincerely congratulate you on having produced a FIRST-CLASS book ('Himalayan Journal.')--a book which certainly will last. I cannot doubt that it will take its place as a standard, not so much because it contains real solid matter, but that it gives a picture of the whole country. One can feel that one has seen it (and desperately uncomfortable I felt in going over some of the bridges and steep slopes), and one REALISES all the great Physical features. You have in truth reason to be proud; consider how few travellers there have been with a profound knowledge of one subject, and who could in addition make a map (which, by-the-way, is one of the most distinct ones I ever looked at, wherefore blessings alight on your head), and study geology and meteorology! I thought I knew you very well, but I had not the least idea that your Travels were your hobby; but I am heartily glad of it, for I feel sure that the time will never come when you and Mrs. Hooker will not be proud to look back at the labour bestowed on these beautiful volumes. Your letter, received this morning, has interested me EXTREMELY, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your old thoughts and aspirations. All that you say makes me even more deeply gratified by the Dedication; but you, bad man, do you remember asking me how I thought Lyell would like the work to be dedicated to him? I remember how strongly I answered, and I presume you wanted to know what I should feel; whoever would have dreamed of your being so crafty? I am glad you have shown a little bit of ambition about your Journal, for you must know that I have often abused you for not caring more about fame, though, at the same time, I must confess, I have envied and honoured you for being so free (too free, as I have always thought) of this "last infirmity of, etc." Do not say, "there never was a past hitherto to me--the phantom was always in view," for you will soon find other phantoms in view. How well I know this feeling, and did formerly still more vividly; but I think my stomach has much deadened my former pure enthusiasm for science and knowledge. I am writing an unconscionably long letter, but I must return to the Journals, about which I have hardly said anything in detail. Imprimis, the illustrations and maps appear to me the best I have ever seen; the style seems to me everywhere perfectly clear (how rare a virtue), and some passages really eloquent. How excellently you have described the upper valleys, and how detestable their climate; I felt quite anxious on the slopes of Kinchin that dreadful snowy night. Nothing has astonished me more than your physical strength; and all those devilish bridges! Well, thank goodness! It is not VERY likely that I shall ever go to the Himalaya. Much in a scientific point of view has interested me, especially all about those wonderful moraines. I certainly think I quite realise the valleys, more vividly perhaps from having seen the valleys of Tahiti. I cannot doubt that the Himalaya owe almost all their contour to running water, and that they have been subjected to such action longer than any mountains (as yet described) in the world. What a contrast with the Andes! Perhaps you would like to hear the very little that I can say per contra, and this only applied to the beginning, in which (as it struck me) there was not FLOW enough till you get to Mirzapore on the Ganges (but the Thugs were MOST interesting), where the stream seemed to carry you on more equably with longer sentences and longer facts and discussions, etc. In another edition (and I am delighted to hear that Murray has sold all off), I would consider whether this part could not be condensed. Even if the meteorology was put in foot-notes, I think it would be an improvement. All the world is against me, but it makes me very unhappy to see the Latin names all in Italics, and all mingled with English names in Roman type; but I must bear this burden, for all men of Science seem to think it would corrupt the Latin to dress it up in the same type as poor old English. Well, I am very proud of MY book; but there is one bore, that I do not much like asking people whether they have seen it, and how they like it, for I feel so much identified with it, that such questions become rather personal. Hence, I cannot tell you the opinion of others. You will have seen a fairly good review in the 'Athenaeum.' What capital news from Tasmania: it really is a very remarkable and creditable fact to the Colony. (This refers to an unsolicited grant by the Colonial Government towards the expenses of Sir J. Hooker's 'Flora of Tasmania.') I am always building veritable castles in the air about emigrating, and Tasmania has been my head-quarters of late; so that I feel very proud of my adopted country: is really a very singular and delightful fact, contrasted with the slight appreciation of science in the old country. I thank you heartily for your letter this morning, and for all the gratification your Dedication has given me; I could not help thinking how much -- would despise you for not having dedicated it to some great man, who would have done you and it some good in the eyes of the world. Ah, my dear Hooker, you were very soft on this head, and justify what I say about not caring enough for your own fame. I wish I was in every way more worthy of your good opinion. Farewell. How pleasantly Mrs. Hooker and you must rest from one of your many labours... Again farewell: I have written a wonderfully long letter. Adios, and God bless you. My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I have just looked over my rambling letter; I see that I have not at all expressed my strong admiration at the amount of scientific work, in so many branches, which you have effected. It is really grand. You have a right to rest on your oars; or even to say, if it so pleases you, that "your meridian is past;" but well assured do I feel that the day of your reputation and general recognition has only just begun to dawn. [In September, 1854, his Cirripede work was practically finished, and he wrote to Dr. Hooker: "I have been frittering away my time for the last several weeks in a wearisome manner, partly idleness, and odds and ends, and sending ten thousand Barnacles out of the house all over the world. But I shall now in a day or two begin to look over my old notes on species. What a deal I shall have to discuss with you; I shall have to look sharp that I do not 'progress' into one of the greatest bores in life, to the few like you with lots of knowledge."] CHAPTER 1.X. -- THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [The growth of the 'Origin of Species' has been briefly described in my father's words (above). The letters given in the present and following chapters will illustrate and amplify the history thus sketched out.] It is clear that in the early part of the voyage of the "Beagle" he did not feel it inconsistent with his views to express himself in thoroughly orthodox language as to the genesis of new species. Thus in 1834 he wrote (MS. Journals, page 468.) at Valparaiso: "I have already found beds of recent shells yet retaining their colour at an elevation of 1300 feet, and beneath, the level country is strewn with them. It seems not a very improbable conjecture that the want of animals may be owing to none having been created since this country was raised from the sea." This passage does not occur in the published 'Journal,' the last proof of which was finished in 1837; and this fact harmonizes with the change we know to have been proceeding in his views. But in the published 'Journal' we find passages which show a point of view more in accordance with orthodox theological natural history than with his later views. Thus, in speaking of the birds Synallaxis and Scytalopus (1st edition page 353; 2nd edition page 289), he says: "When finding, as in this case, any animal which seems to play so insignificant a part in the great scheme of nature, one is apt to wonder why a distinct species should have been created." A comparison of the two editions of the 'Journal' is instructive, as giving some idea of the development of his views on evolution. It does not give us a true index of the mass of conjecture which was taking shape in his mind, but it shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth of his belief to allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in the second edition. He has mentioned in the Autobiography that it was not until he read Malthus that he got a clear view of the potency of natural selection. This was in 1838--a year after he finished the first edition (it was not published until 1839), and five years before the second edition was written (1845). Thus the turning-point in the formation of his theory took place between the writing of the two editions. I will first give a few passages which are practically the same in the two editions, and which are, therefore, chiefly of interest as illustrating his frame of mind in 1837. The case of the two species of Molothrus (1st edition page 61; 2nd edition page 53) must have been one of the earliest instances noticed by him of the existence of representative species--a phenomenon which we know ('Autobiography,') struck him deeply. The discussion on introduced animals (1st edition page 139; 2nd edition page 120) shows how much he was impressed by the complicated interdependence of the inhabitants of a given area. An analogous point of view is given in the discussion (1st edition page 98; 2nd edition page 85) of the mistaken belief that large animals require, for their support, a luxuriant vegetation; the incorrectness of this view is illustrated by the comparison of the fauna of South Africa and South America, and the vegetation of the two continents. The interest of the discussion is that it shows clearly our a priori ignorance of the conditions of life suitable to any organism. There is a passage which has been more than once quoted as bearing on the origin of his views. It is where he discusses the striking difference between the species of mice on the east and west of the Andes (1st edition page 399): "Unless we suppose the same species to have been created in two different countries, we ought not to expect any closer similarity between the organic beings on the opposite sides of the Andes than on shores separated by a broad strait of the sea." In the 2nd edition page 327, the passage is almost verbally identical, and is practically the same. There are other passages again which are more strongly evolutionary in the 2nd edition, but otherwise are similar to the corresponding passages in the 1st edition. Thus, in describing the blind Tuco-tuco (1st edition page 60; 2nd edition page 52), in the first edition he makes no allusion to what Lamarck might have thought, nor is the instance used as an example of modification, as in the edition of 1845. A striking passage occurs in the 2nd edition (page 173) on the relationship between the "extinct edentata and the living sloths, ant-eaters, and armadillos." "This wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living, will, I do not doubt, hereafter throw more light on the appearance of organic beings on our earth, and their disappearance from it, than any other class of facts." This sentence does not occur in the 1st edition, but he was evidently profoundly struck by the disappearance of the gigantic forerunners of the present animals. The difference between the discussions in the two editions is most instructive. In both, our ignorance of the conditions of life is insisted on, but in the second edition, the discussion is made to led up to a strong statement of the intensity of the struggle for life. Then follows a comparison between rarity (In the second edition, page 146, the destruction of Niata cattle by droughts is given as a good example of our ignorance of the causes of rarity or extinction. The passage does not occur in the first edition.) and extinction, which introduces the idea that the preservation and dominance of existing species depend on the degree in which they are adapted to surrounding conditions. In the first edition, he is merely "tempted to believe in such simple relations as variation of climate and food, or introduction of enemies, or the increased number of other species, as the cause of the succession of races." But finally (1st edition) he ends the chapter by comparing the extinction of a species to the exhaustion and disappearance of varieties of fruit-trees: as if he thought that a mysterious term of life was impressed on each species at its creation. The difference of treatment of the Galapagos problem is of some interest. In the earlier book, the American type of the productions of the islands is noticed, as is the fact that the different islands possess forms specially their own, but the importance of the whole problem is not so strongly put forward. Thus, in the first edition, he merely says:-- "This similarity of type between distant islands and continents, while the species are distinct, has scarcely been sufficiently noticed. The circumstance would be explained, according to the views of some authors, by saying that the creative power had acted according to the same law over a wide area."--(1st edition page 474.) This passage is not given in the second edition, and the generalisations on geographical distribution are much wider and fuller. Thus he asks:-- "Why were their aboriginal inhabitants, associated...in different proportions both in kind and number from those on the Continent, and therefore acting on each other in a different manner--why were they created on American types of organisation?"--(2nd edition page 393.) The same difference of treatment is shown elsewhere in this chapter. Thus the gradation in the form of beak presented by the thirteen allied species of finch is described in the first edition (page 461) without comment. Whereas in the second edition (page 380) he concludes:-- "One might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this Archipelago, one species has been taken and modified for different ends." On the whole it seems to me remarkable that the difference between the two editions is not greater; it is another proof of the author's caution and self-restraint in the treatment of his theory. After reading the second edition of the 'Journal,' we find with a strong sense of surprise how far developed were his views in 1837. We are enabled to form an opinion on this point from the note-books in which he wrote down detached thoughts and queries. I shall quote from the first note-book, completed between July 1837 and February 1838: and this is the more worth doing, as it gives us an insight into the condition of his thoughts before the reading of Malthus. The notes are written in his most hurried style, so many words being omitted, that it is often difficult to arrive at the meaning. With a few exceptions (indicated by square brackets) (In the extracts from the note-book ordinary brackets represent my father's parentheses.) I have printed the extracts as written; the punctuation, however, has been altered, and a few obvious slips corrected where it seemed necessary. The extracts are not printed in order, but are roughly classified. (On the first page of the note-book, is written "Zoonomia"; this seems to refer to the first few pages in which reproduction by gemmation is discussed, and where the "Zoonomia" is mentioned. Many pages have been cut out of the note-book, probably for use in writing the Sketch of 1844, and these would have no doubt contained the most interesting extracts.) "Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is law, almost proved." "We can see why structure is common in certain countries when we can hardly believe necessary, but if it was necessary to one forefather, the result would be as it is. Hence antelopes at Cape of Good Hope; marsupials at Australia." "Countries longest separated greatest differences--if separated from immersage, possibly two distinct types, but each having its representatives--as in Australia." "Will this apply to whole organic kingdom when our planet first cooled?" The two following extracts show that he applied the theory of evolution to the "whole organic kingdom" from plants to man. "If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine--our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusements--they may partake [of?] our origin in one common ancestor--we may be all melted together." "The different intellects of man and animals not so great as between living things without thought (plants), and living things with thought (animals)." The following extracts are again concerned with an a priori view of the probability of the origin of species by descent ["propagation," he called it.]. "The tree of life should perhaps be called the coral of life, base of branches dead; so that passages cannot be seen." "There never may have been grade between pig and tapir, yet from some common progenitor. Now if the intermediate ranks had produced infinite species, probably the series would have been more perfect." At another place, speaking of intermediate forms he says:-- "Cuvier objects to propagation of species by saying, why have not some intermediate forms been discovered between Palaeotherium, Megalonyx, Mastodon, and the species now living? Now according to my view (in S. America) parent of all Armadilloes might be brother to Megatherium--uncle now dead." Speaking elsewhere of intermediate forms, he remarks:-- "Opponents will say--'show them me.' I will answer yes, if you will show me every step between bulldog and greyhound." Here we see that the case of domestic animals was already present in his mind as bearing on the production of natural species. The disappearance of intermediate forms naturally leads up to the subject of extinction, with which the next extract begins. "It is a wonderful fact, horse, elephant, and mastodon, dying out about same time in such different quarters. "Will Mr. Lyell say that some [same?] circumstance killed it over a tract from Spain to South America?--(Never). "They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a GENERATION OF SPECIES like generation OF INDIVIDUALS. "Why does individual die? To perpetuate certain peculiarities (therefore adaptation), and obliterate accidental varieties, and to accommodate itself to change (for, of course, change, even in varieties, is accommodation). Now this argument applies to species. "If individual cannot propagate he has no issue--so with species. "If SPECIES generate other SPECIES, their race is not utterly cut off:-- like golden pippins, if produced by seed, go on--otherwise all die. "The fossil horse generated, in South Africa, zebra--and continued--perished in America. "All animals of same species are bound together just like buds of plants, which die at one time, though produced either sooner or later. Prove animals like plants--trace gradation between associated and non-associated animals--and the story will be complete." Here we have the view already alluded to of a term of life impressed on a species. But in the following note we get extinction connected with unfavourable variation, and thus a hint is given of natural selection: "With respect to extinction, we can easily see that [a] variety of [the] ostrich (Petise), may not be well adapted, and thus perish out; or, on the other hand, like Orpheus [a Galapagos bird], being favourable, many might be produced. This requires [the] principle that the permanent variations produced by confined breeding and changing circumstances are continued and produced according to the adaptation of such circumstance, and therefore that death of species is a consequence (contrary to what would appear from America) of non-adaptation of circumstances." The first part of the next extract has a similar bearing. The end of the passage is of much interest, as showing that he had at this early date visions of the far-reaching character of the theory of evolution:-- "With belief of transmutation and geographical grouping, we are lead to endeavour to discover CAUSES of change; the manner of adaptation (wish of parents??), instinct and structure becomes full of speculation and lines of observation. View of generation being condensation (I imagine him to mean that each generation is "condensed" to a small number of the best organized individuals.) test of highest organisation intelligible...My theory would give zest to recent and fossil comparative anatomy; it would lead to the study of instincts, heredity, and mind-heredity, whole [of] metaphysics. "It would lead to closest examination of hybridity and generation, causes of change in order to know what we have come from and to what we tend--to what circumstances favour crossing and what prevents it--this, and direct examination of direct passages of structure in species, might lead to laws of change, which would then be [the] main object of study, to guide our speculations." The following two extracts have a similar interest; the second is especially interesting, as it contains the germ of concluding sentence of the 'Origin of Species': ('Origin of Species' (1st edition), page 490:-- "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.")-- "Before the attraction of gravity discovered it might have been said it was as great a difficulty to account for the movement of all [planets] by one law, as to account for each separate one; so to say that all mammalia were born from one stock, and since distributed by such means as we can recognise, may be thought to explain nothing. "Astronomers might formerly have said that God fore-ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal created with certain forms in certain countries, but how much more simple and sublime [a] power--let attraction act according to certain law, such are inevitable consequences--let animals be created, then by the fixed laws of generation, such will be their successors. "Let the powers of transportal be such, and so will be the forms of one country to another--let geological changes go at such a rate, so will be the number and distribution of the species!!" The three next extracts are of miscellaneous interest:-- "When one sees nipple on man's breast, one does not say some use, but sex not having been determined--so with useless wings under elytra of beetles--born from beetles with wings, and modified--if simple creation merely, would have been born without them." "In a decreasing population at any one moment fewer closely related (few species of genera); ultimately few genera (for otherwise the relationship would converge sooner), and lastly, perhaps, some one single one. Will not this account for the odd genera with few species which stand between great groups, which we are bound to consider the increasing ones?" The last extract which I shall quote gives the germ of his theory of the relation between alpine plants in various parts of the world, in the publication of which he was forestalled by E. Forbes (see volume i. page 72). He says, in the 1837 note-book, that alpine plants, "formerly descended lower, therefore [they are] species of lower genera altered, or northern plants." When we turn to the Sketch of his theory, written in 1844 (still therefore before the second edition of the 'Journal' was completed), we find an enormous advance made on the note-book of 1837. The Sketch is an fact a surprisingly complete presentation of the argument afterwards familiar to us in the 'Origin of Species.' There is some obscurity as to the date of the short Sketch which formed the basis of the 1844 Essay. We know from his own words (volume i., page 68), that it was in June 1842 that he first wrote out a short sketch of his views. (This version I cannot find, and it was probably destroyed, like so much of his MS., after it had been enlarged and re-copied in 1844.) This statement is given with so much circumstance that it is almost impossible to suppose that it contains an error of date. It agrees also with the following extract from his Diary. 1842. May 18th. Went to Maer. "June 15th to Shrewsbury, and on 18th to Capel Curig. During my stay at Maer and Shrewsbury (five years after commencement) wrote pencil-sketch of species theory." Again in the introduction to the 'Origin,' page 1, he writes, "after an interval of five years' work" [from 1837, i.e. in 1842], "I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes." Nevertheless in the letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J.D. Hooker, which serves as an introduction to the joint paper of Messrs. C. Darwin and A. Wallace on the 'Tendency of Species to form Varieties,' ('Linn. Soc. Journal,' 1858, page 45.) the essay of 1844 (extracts from which form part of the paper) is said to have been "sketched in 1839, and copied in 1844." This statement is obviously made on the authority of a note written in my father's hand across the Table of Contents of the 1844 Essay. It is to the following effect: "This was sketched in 1839, and copied out in full, as here written and read by you in 1844." I conclude that this note was added in 1858, when the MS. was sent to Sir J.D. Hooker (see Letter of June 29, 1858, page 476). There is also some further evidence on this side of the question. Writing to Mr. Wallace (January 25, 1859) my father says:-- "Every one whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for publication; into the shade." The statement that the earliest sketch was written in 1839 has been frequently made in biographical notices of my father, no doubt on the authority of the 'Linnean Journal,' but it must, I think, be considered as erroneous. The error may possibly have arisen in this way. In writing on the Table of Contents of the 1844 MS. that it was sketched in 1839, I think my father may have intended to imply that the framework of the theory was clearly thought out by him at that date. In the Autobiography he speaks of the time, "about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived," meaning, no doubt, the end of 1838 and beginning of 1839, when the reading of Malthus had given him the key to the idea of natural selection. But this explanation does not apply to the letter to Mr. Wallace; and with regard to the passage (My father certainly saw the proofs of the paper, for he added a foot-note apologising for the style of the extracts, on the ground that the "work was never intended for publication.") in the 'Linnean Journal' it is difficult to understand how it should have been allowed to remain as it now stands, conveying, as it clearly does, the impression that 1839 was the date of his earliest written sketch. The sketch of 1844 is written in a clerk's hand, in two hundred and thirty-one pages folio, blank leaves being alternated with the MS. with a view to amplification. The text has been revised and corrected, criticisms being pencilled by himself on the margin. It is divided into two parts: I. "On the variation of Organic Beings under Domestication and in their Natural State." II. "On the Evidence favourable and opposed to the view that Species are naturally formed races descended from common Stocks." The first part contains the main argument of the 'Origin of Species.' It is founded, as is the argument of that work, on the study of domestic animals, and both the Sketch and the 'Origin' open with a chapter on variation under domestication and on artificial selection. This is followed, in both essays, by discussions on variation under nature, on natural selection, and on the struggle for life. Here, any close resemblance between the two essays with regard to arrangement ceases. Chapter III. of the Sketch, which concludes the first part, treats of the variations which occur in the instincts and habits of animals, and thus corresponds to some extent with Chapter VII. of the 'Origin' (1st edition). It thus forms a complement to the chapters which deal with variation in structure. It seems to have been placed thus early in the Essay to prevent the hasty rejection of the whole theory by a reader to whom the idea of natural selection acting on instincts might seem impossible. This is the more probable, as the Chapter on Instinct in the 'Origin' is specially mentioned (Introduction, page 5) as one of the "most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory." Moreover the chapter in the Sketch ends with a discussion, "whether any particular corporeal structures...are so wonderful as to justify the rejection prima facie of our theory." Under this heading comes the discussion of the eye, which in the 'Origin' finds its place in Chapter VI. under "Difficulties of the Theory." The second part seems to have been planned in accordance with his favourite point of view with regard to his theory. This is briefly given in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, November 11th, 1859: "I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts, as I think it certainly does explain. On these grounds I drop my anchor, and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear." On this principle, having stated the theory in the first part, he proceeds to show to what extent various wide series of facts can be explained by its means. Thus the second part of the Sketch corresponds roughly to the nine concluding Chapters of the First Edition of the 'Origin.' But we must exclude Chapter VII. ('Origin') on Instinct, which forms a chapter in the first part of the Sketch, and Chapter VIII. ('Origin') on Hybridism, a subject treated in the Sketch with 'Variation under Nature' in the first part. The following list of the chapters of the second part of the Sketch will illustrate their correspondence with the final chapters of the 'Origin.' Chapter I. "On the kind of intermediateness necessary, and the number of such intermediate forms." This includes a geological discussion, and corresponds to parts of Chapters VI. and IX. of the 'Origin.' Chapter II. "The gradual appearance and disappearance of organic beings." Corresponds to Chapter X. of the 'Origin.' Chapter III. "Geographical Distribution." Corresponds to Chapters XI. and XII. of the 'Origin.' Chapter IV. "Affinities and Classification of Organic beings." Chapter V. "Unity of Type," Morphology, Embryology. Chapter VI. Rudimentary Organs. These three chapters correspond to Chapter XII. of the 'Origin.' Chapter VII. Recapitulation and Conclusion. The final sentence of the Sketch, which we saw in its first rough form in the Note Book of 1837, closely resembles the final sentence of the 'Origin,' much of it being identical. The 'Origin' is not divided into two "Parts," but we see traces of such a division having been present in the writer's mind, in this resemblance between the second part of the Sketch and the final chapters of the 'Origin.' That he should speak ('Origin,' Introduction, page 5.) of the chapters on transition, on instinct, on hybridism, and on the geological record, as forming a group, may be due to the division of his early MS. into two parts. Mr. Huxley, who was good enough to read the Sketch at my request, while remarking that the "main lines of argument," and the illustrations employed are the same, points out that in the 1844 Essay, "much more weight is attached to the influence of external conditions in producing variation, and to the inheritance of acquired habits than in the Origin.'" It is extremely interesting to find in the Sketch the first mention of principles familiar to us in the 'Origin of Species.' Foremost among these may be mentioned the principle of Sexual Selection, which is clearly enunciated. The important form of selection known as "unconscious," is also given. Here also occurs a statement of the law that peculiarities tend to appear in the offspring at an age corresponding to that at which they occurred in the parent. Professor Newton, who was so kind as to look through the 1844 Sketch, tells me that my father's remarks on the migration of birds, incidentally given in more than one passage, show that he had anticipated the views of some later writers. With regard to the general style of the Sketch, it is not to be expected that it should have all the characteristics of the 'Origin,' and we do not, in fact, find that balance and control, that concentration and grasp, which are so striking in the work of 1859. In the Autobiography (page 68, volume 1) my father has stated what seemed to him the chief flaw of the 1844 Sketch; he had overlooked "one problem of great importance," the problem of the divergence of character. This point is discussed in the 'Origin of Species,' but, as it may not be familiar to all readers, I will give a short account of the difficulty and its solution. The author begins by stating that varieties differ from each other less than species, and then goes on: "Nevertheless, according to my view, varieties are species in process of formation...How then does the lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater difference between species?" ('Origin,' 1st edition, page 111.) He shows how an analogous divergence takes place under domestication where an originally uniform stock of horses has been split up into race-horses, dray-horses, etc., and then goes on to explain how the same principle applies to natural species. "From the simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be enabled to increase in numbers." The principle is exemplified by the fact that if on one plot of ground a single variety of wheat be sown, and on to another a mixture of varieties, in the latter case the produce is greater. More individuals have been able to exist because they were not all of the same variety. An organism becomes more perfect and more fitted to survive when by division of labour the different functions of life are performed by different organs. In the same way a species becomes more efficient and more able to survive when different sections of the species become differentiated so as to fill different stations. In reading the Sketch of 1844, I have found it difficult to recognise the absence of any definite statement of the principle of divergence as a flaw in the Essay. Descent with modification implies divergence, and we become so habituated to a belief in descent, and therefore in divergence, that we do not notice the absence of proof that divergence is in itself an advantage. As shown in the Autobiography, my father in 1876 found it hardly credible that he should have overlooked the problem and its solution. The following letter will be more in place here than its chronological position, since it shows what was my father's feeling as to the value of the Sketch at the time of its completion.] CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. DARWIN. Down, July 5, 1844. I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science. I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if legally entered in my will, that you will devote 400 pounds to its publication, and further, will yourself, or through Hensleigh (Mr. H. Wedgwood.), take trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some competent person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement and enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural History, which are either scored or have references at the end to the pages, begging him carefully to look over and consider such passages as actually bearing, or by possibility bearing, on this subject. I wish you to make a list of all such books as some temptation to an editor. I also request that you will hand over [to] him all those scraps roughly divided in eight or ten brown paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied quotations from various works, are those which may aid my editor. I also request that you, or some amanuensis, will aid in deciphering any of the scraps which the editor may think possibly of use. I leave to the editor's judgment whether to interpolate these facts in the text, or as notes, or under appendices. As the looking over the references and scraps will be a long labour, and as the CORRECTING and enlarging and altering my sketch will also take considerable time, I leave this sum of 400 pounds as some remuneration, and any profits from the work. I consider that for this the editor is bound to get the sketch published either at a publisher's or his own risk. Many of the scrap in the portfolios contains mere rude suggestions and early views, now useless, and many of the facts will probably turn out as having no bearing on my theory. With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he would undertake it; I believe he would find the work pleasant, and he would learn some facts new to him. As the editor must be a geologist as well as a naturalist, the next best editor would be Professor Forbes of London. The next best (and quite best in many respects) would be Professor Henslow. Dr. Hooker would be VERY good. The next, Mr. Strickland. (After Mr. Strickland's name comes the following sentence, which has been erased but remained legible. "Professor Owen would be very good; but I presume he would not undertake such a work." If none of these would undertake it, I would request you to consult with Mr. Lyell, or some other capable man for some editor, a geologist and naturalist. Should one other hundred pounds make the difference of procuring a good editor, request earnestly that you will raise 500 pounds.) My remaining collections in Natural History may be given to any one or any museum where it would be accepted... [The following note seems to have formed part of the original letter, but may have been of later date: "Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and of any good zoological aid), would be best of all. Without an editor will pledge himself to give up time to it, it would be of no use paying such a sum. "If there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who would go thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing of the passages marked in the books and copied out of scraps of paper, then let my sketch be published as it is, stating that it was done several years ago (The words "several years ago and," seem to have been added at a later date.) and from memory without consulting any works, and with no intention of publication in its present form." The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event of his death, as the only record of his work, seems to have been long in his mind, for in August 1854, when he had finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of beginning his "species work," he added on the back of the above letter, "Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August 1854."] CHAPTER 1.XI. -- THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' LETTERS, 1843-1856. [The history of my father's life is told more completely in his correspondence with Sir J.D. Hooker than in any other series of letters; and this is especially true of the history of the growth of the 'Origin of Species.' This, therefore, seems an appropriate place for the following notes, which Sir Joseph Hooker has kindly given me. They give, moreover, an interesting picture of his early friendship with my father:-- "My first meeting with Mr. Darwin was in 1839, in Trafalgar Square. I was walking with an officer who had been his shipmate for a short time in the "Beagle" seven years before, but who had not, I believe, since met him. I was introduced; the interview was of course brief, and the memory of him that I carried away and still retain was that of a rather tall and rather broad-shouldered man, with a slight stoop, an agreeable and animated expression when talking, beetle brows, and a hollow but mellow voice; and that his greeting of his old acquaintance was sailor-like--that is, delightfully frank and cordial. I observed him well, for I was already aware of his attainments and labours, derived from having read various proof-sheets of his then unpublished 'Journal.' These had been submitted to Mr. (afterwards Sir Charles) Lyell by Mr. Darwin, and by him sent to his father, Ch. Lyell, Esq., of Kinnordy, who (being a very old friend of my father and taking a kind interest in my projected career as a naturalist) had allowed me to peruse them. At this time I was hurrying on my studies, so as to take my degree before volunteering to accompany Sir James Ross in the Antarctic Expedition, which had just been determined on by the Admiralty; and so pressed for time was I, that I used to sleep with the sheets of the 'Journal' under my pillow, that I might read them between waking and rising. They impressed me profoundly, I might say despairingly, with the variety of acquirements, mental and physical, required in a naturalist who should follow in Darwin's footsteps, whilst they stimulated me to enthusiasm in the desire to travel and observe. "It has been a permanent source of happiness to me that I knew so much of Mr. Darwin's scientific work so many years before that intimacy began which ripened into feelings as near to those of reverence for his life, works, and character as is reasonable and proper. It only remains to add to this little episode that I received a copy of the 'Journal' complete,--a gift from Mr. Lyell,--a few days before leaving England. "Very soon after the return of the Antarctic Expedition my correspondence with Mr. Darwin began (December, 1843) by his sending me a long letter, warmly congratulating me on my return to my family and friends, and expressing a wish to hear more of the results of the expedition, of which he had derived some knowledge from private letters of my own (written to or communicated through Mr. Lyell). Then, plunging at once into scientific matters, he directed my attention to the importance of correlating the Fuegian Flora with that of the Cordillera and of Europe, and invited me to study the botanical collections which he had made in the Galapagos Islands, as well as his Patagonian and Fuegian plants. "This led to me sending him an outline of the conclusions I had formed regarding the distribution of plants in the southern regions, and the necessity of assuming the destruction of considerable areas of land to account for the relations of the flora of the so-called Antarctic Islands. I do not suppose that any of these ideas were new to him, but they led to an animated and lengthy correspondence full of instruction." Here follows the letter (1843) to Sir J.D. Hooker above referred to.] My dear Sir, I had hoped before this time to have had the pleasure of seeing you and congratulating you on your safe return from your long and glorious voyage. But as I seldom go to London, we may not yet meet for some time--without you are led to attend the Geological Meetings. I am anxious to know what you intend doing with all your materials--I had so much pleasure in reading parts of some of your letters, that I shall be very sorry if I, as one of the public, have no opportunity of reading a good deal more. I suppose you are very busy now and full of enjoyment: how well I remember the happiness of my first few months of England--it was worth all the discomforts of many a gale! But I have run from the subject, which made me write, of expressing my pleasure that Henslow (as he informed me a few days since by letter) has sent to you my small collection of plants. You cannot think how much pleased I am, as I feared they would have been all lost, and few as they are, they cost me a good deal of trouble. There are a very few notes, which I believe Henslow has got, describing the habitats, etc., of some few of the more remarkable plants. I paid particular attention to the Alpine flowers of Tierra del Fuego, and I am sure I got every plant which was in flower in Patagonia at the seasons when we were there. I have long thought that some general sketch of the Flora of the point of land, stretching so far into the southern seas, would be very curious. Do make comparative remarks on the species allied to the European species, for the advantage of botanical ignoramuses like myself. It has often struck me as a curious point to find out, whether there are many European genera in Tierra del Fuego which are not found along the ridge of the Cordillera; the separation in such case would be so enormous. Do point out in any sketch you draw up, what genera are American and what European, and how great the differences of the species are, when the genera are European, for the sake of the ignoramuses. I hope Henslow will send you my Galapagos plants (about which Humboldt even expressed to me considerable curiosity)--I took much pains in collecting all I could. A Flora of this archipelago would, I suspect, offer a nearly parallel case to that of St. Helena, which has so long excited interest. Pray excuse this long rambling note, and believe me, my dear sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. Will you be so good as to present my respectful compliments to Sir W. Hooker. [Referring to Sir J.D. Hooker's work on the Galapagos Flora, my father wrote in 1846: "I cannot tell you how delighted and astonished I am at the results of your examination; how wonderfully they support my assertion on the differences in the animals of the different islands, about which I have always been fearful." Again he wrote (1849):-- "I received a few weeks ago your Galapagos papers (These papers include the results of Sir J.D. Hooker's examination of my father's Galapagos plants, and were published by the Linnean Society in 1849.), and I have read them since being here. I really cannot express too strongly my admiration of the geographical discussion: to my judgment it is a perfect model of what such a paper should be; it took me four days to read and think over. How interesting the Flora of the Sandwich Islands appears to be, how I wish there were materials for you to treat its flora as you have done the Galapagos. In the Systematic paper I was rather disappointed in not finding general remarks on affinities, structures, etc., such as you often give in conversation, and such as De Candolle and St. Hilaire introduced in almost all their papers, and which make them interesting even to a non-Botanist." "Very soon afterwards [continues Sir J.D. Hooker] in a letter dated January 1844, the subject of the 'Origin of Species' was brought forward by him, and I believe that I was the first to whom he communicated his then new ideas on the subject, and which being of interest as a contribution to the history of Evolution, I here copy from his letter":--] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [January 11th, 1844.] Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc. etc., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc. etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so... [The following letter written on February 23, 1844, shows that the acquaintanceship with Sir J.D. Hooker was then fast ripening into friendship. The letter is chiefly of interest as showing the sort of problems then occupying my father's mind:] Dear Hooker, I hope you will excuse the freedom of my address, but I feel that as co-circum-wanderers and as fellow labourers (though myself a very weak one) we may throw aside some of the old-world formality...I have just finished a little volume on the volcanic islands which we visited. I do not know how far you care for dry simple geology, but I hope you will let me send you a copy. I suppose I can send it from London by common coach conveyance. ...I am going to ask you some MORE questions, though I daresay, without asking them, I shall see answers in your work, when published, which will be quite time enough for my purposes. First for the Galapagos, you will see in my Journal, that the Birds, though peculiar species, have a most obvious S. American aspect: I have just ascertained the same thing holds good with the sea-shells. It is so with those plants which are peculiar to this archipelago; you state that their numerical proportions are continental (is not this a very curious fact?) but are they related in forms to S. America. Do you know of any other case of an archipelago, with the separate islands possessing distinct representative species? I have always intended (but have not yet done so) to examine Webb and Berthelot on the Canary Islands for this object. Talking with Mr. Bentham, he told me that the separate islands of the Sandwich Archipelago possessed distinct representative species of the same genera of Labiatae: would not this be worth your enquiry? How is it with the Azores; to be sure the heavy western gales would tend to diffuse the same species over that group. I hope you will (I dare say my hope is quite superfluous) attend to this general kind of affinity in isolated islands, though I suppose it is more difficult to perceive this sort of relation in plants, than in birds or quadrupeds, the groups of which are, I fancy, rather more confined. Can St. Helena be classed, though remotely, either with Africa or S. America? From some facts, which I have collected, I have been led to conclude that the fauna of mountains are EITHER remarkably similar (sometimes in the presence of the same species and at other times of same genera), OR that they are remarkably dissimilar; and it has occurred to me that possibly part of this peculiarity of the St. Helena and Galapagos floras may be attributed to a great part of these two Floras being mountain Floras. I fear my notes will hardly serve to distinguish much of the habitats of the Galapagos plants, but they may in some cases; most, if not all, of the green, leafy plants come from the summits of the islands, and the thin brown leafless plants come from the lower arid parts: would you be so kind as to bear this remark in mind, when examining my collection. I will trouble you with only one other question. In discussion with Mr. Gould, I found that in most of the genera of birds which range over the whole or greater part of the world, the individual species have wider ranges, thus the Owl is mundane, and many of the species have very wide ranges. So I believe it is with land and fresh-water shells--and I might adduce other cases. Is it not so with Cryptogamic plants; have not most of the species wide ranges, in those genera which are mundane? I do not suppose that the converse holds, viz.--that when a species has a wide range, its genus also ranges wide. Will you so far oblige me by occasionally thinking over this? It would cost me vast trouble to get a list of mundane phanerogamic genera and then search how far the species of these genera are apt to range wide in their several countries; but you might occasionally, in the course of your pursuits, just bear this in mind, though perhaps the point may long since have occurred to you or other Botanists. Geology is bringing to light interesting facts, concerning the ranges of shells; I think it is pretty well established, that according as the geographical range of a species is wide, so is its persistence and duration in time. I hope you will try to grudge as little as you can the trouble of my letters, and pray believe me very truly yours, C. DARWIN. P.S. I should feel extremely obliged for your kind offer of the sketch of Humboldt; I venerate him, and after having had the pleasure of conversing with him in London, I shall still more like to have any portrait of him. [What follows is quoted from Sir J. Hooker's notes. "The next act in the drama of our lives opens with personal intercourse. This began with an invitation to breakfast with him at his brother's (Erasmus Darwin's) house in Park Street; which was shortly afterwards followed by an invitation to Down to meet a few brother Naturalists. In the short intervals of good health that followed the long illnesses which oftentimes rendered life a burthen to him, between 1844 and 1847, I had many such invitations, and delightful they were. A more hospitable and more attractive home under every point of view could not be imagined--of Society there were most often Dr. Falconer, Edward Forbes, Professor Bell, and Mr. Waterhouse--there were long walks, romps with the children on hands and knees, music that haunts me still. Darwin's own hearty manner, hollow laugh, and thorough enjoyment of home life with friends; strolls with him all together, and interviews with us one by one in his study, to discuss questions in any branch of biological or physical knowledge that we had followed; and which I at any rate always left with the feeling that I had imparted nothing and carried away more than I could stagger under. Latterly, as his health became more seriously affected, I was for days and weeks the only visitor, bringing my work with me and enjoying his society as opportunity offered. It was an established rule that he every day pumped me, as he called it, for half an hour or so after breakfast in his study, when he first brought out a heap of slips with questions botanical, geographical, etc., for me to answer, and concluded by telling me of the progress he had made in his own work, asking my opinion on various points. I saw no more of him till about noon, when I heard his mellow ringing voice calling my name under my window--this was to join him in his daily forenoon walk round the sand-walk. On joining him I found him in a rough grey shooting-coat in summer, and thick cape over his shoulders in winter, and a stout staff in his hand; away we trudged through the garden, where there was always some experiment to visit, and on to the sand-walk, round which a fixed number of turns were taken, during which our conversation usually ran on foreign lands and seas, old friends, old books, and things far off to both mind and eye. "In the afternoon there was another such walk, after which he again retired till dinner if well enough to join the family; if not, he generally managed to appear in the drawing-room, where seated in his high chair, with his feet in enormous carpet shoes, supported on a high stool--he enjoyed the music or conversation of his family." Here follows a series of letters illustrating the growth of my father's views, and the nature of his work during this period.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844]. ...The conclusion, which I have come at is, that those areas, in which species are most numerous, have oftenest been divided and isolated from other areas, united and again divided; a process implying antiquity and some changes in the external conditions. This will justly sound very hypothetical. I cannot give my reasons in detail; but the most general conclusion, which the geographical distribution of all organic beings, appears to me to indicate, is that isolation is the chief concomitant or cause of the appearance of NEW forms (I well know there are some staring exceptions). Secondly, from seeing how often the plants and animals swarm in a country, when introduced into it, and from seeing what a vast number of plants will live, for instance in England, if kept FREE FROM WEEDS, AND NATIVE PLANTS, I have been led to consider that the spreading and number of the organic beings of any country depend less on its external features, than on the number of forms, which have been there originally created or produced. I much doubt whether you will find it possible to explain the number of forms by proportional differences of exposure; and I cannot doubt if half the species in any country were destroyed or had not been created, yet that country would appear to us fully peopled. With respect to original creation or production of new forms, I have said that isolation appears the chief element. Hence, with respect to terrestrial productions, a tract of country, which had oftenest within the late geological periods subsided and been converted into islands, and reunited, I should expect to contain most forms. But such speculations are amusing only to one self, and in this case useless, as they do not show any direct line of observation: if I had seen how hypothetical [is] the little, which I have unclearly written, I would not have troubled you with the reading of it. Believe me,--at last not hypothetically, Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 1844. ...I forget my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and divided; I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it does follow; but in my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that I shall be able to show even to sound Naturalists, that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species;--that facts can be viewed and grouped under the notion of allied species having descended from common stocks. With respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the immutability. Agassiz lately has brought the strongest argument in favour of immutability. Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written some good Essays, tending towards the mutability-side, in the 'Suites a Buffon,' entitled "Zoolog. Generale." Is it not strange that the author, of such a book as the 'Animaux sans Vertebres,' should have written that insects, which never see their eggs, should WILL (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms, so as to become attached to particular objects. The other, common (specially Germanic) notion is hardly less absurd, viz. that climate, food, etc., should make a Pediculus formed to climb hair, or wood-pecker, to climb trees. I believe all these absurd views arise, from no one having, as far as I know, approached the subject on the side of variation under domestication, and having studied all that is known about domestication. I was very glad to hear your criticism on island-floras and on non-diffusion of plants: the subject is too long for a letter: I could defend myself to some considerable extent, but I doubt whether successfully in your eyes, or indeed in my own... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [July, 1844]. ...I am now reading a wonderful book for facts on variation--Bronn, 'Geschichte der Natur.' It is stiff German: it forestalls me, sometimes I think delightfully, and sometimes cruelly. You will be ten times hereafter more horrified at me than at H. Watson. I hate arguments from results, but on my views of descent, really Natural History becomes a sublimely grand result-giving subject (now you may quiz me for so foolish an escape of mouth)...I must leave this letter till to-morrow, for I am tired; but I so enjoy writing to you, that I must inflict a little more on you. Have you any good evidence for absence of insects in small islands? I found thirteen species in Keeling Atoll. Flies are good fertilizers, and I have seen a microscopic Thrips and a Cecidomya take flight from a flower in the direction of another with pollen adhering to them. In Arctic countries a bee seems to go as far N. as any flower... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [September, 1845]. My dear Hooker, I write a line to say that Cosmos (A translation of Humboldt's 'Kosmos.') arrived quite safely [N.B. One sheet came loose in Part I.], and to thank you for your nice note. I have just begun the introduction, and groan over the style, which in such parts is full half the battle. How true many of the remarks are (i.e. as far as I can understand the wretched English) on the scenery; it is an exact expression of one's own thoughts. I wish I ever had any books to lend you in return for the many you have lent me... All of what you kindly say about my species work does not alter one iota my long self-acknowledged presumption in accumulating facts and speculating on the subject of variation, without having worked out my due share of species. But now for nine years it has been anyhow the greatest amusement to me. Farewell, my dear Hooker, I grieve more than you can well believe, over our prospect of so seldom meeting. I have never perceived but one fault in you, and that you have grievously, viz. modesty; you form an exception to Sydney Smith's aphorism, that merit and modesty have no other connection, except in their first letter. Farewell, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down, October 12th, [1845]. My dear Jenyns, Thanks for your note. I am sorry to say I have not even the tail-end of a fact in English Zoology to communicate. I have found that even trifling observations require, in my case, some leisure and energy, both of which ingredients I have had none to spare, as writing my Geology thoroughly expends both. I had always thought that I would keep a journal and record everything, but in the way I now live I find I observe nothing to record. Looking after my garden and trees, and occasionally a very little walk in an idle frame of mind, fills up every afternoon in the same manner. I am surprised that with all your parish affairs, you have had time to do all that which you have done. I shall be very glad to see your little work (Mr. Jenyns' 'Observations in Natural History.' It is prefaced by an Introduction on "Habits of observing as connected with the study of Natural History," and followed by a "Calendar of Periodic Phenomena in Natural History," with "Remarks on the importance of such Registers." My father seems to be alluding to this Register in the P.S. to the letter dated October 17, 1846.) (and proud should I have been if I could have added a single fact to it). My work on the species question has impressed me very forcibly with the importance of all such works as your intended one, containing what people are pleased generally to call trifling facts. These are the facts which make one understand the working or economy of nature. There is one subject, on which I am very curious, and which perhaps you may throw some light on, if you have ever thought on it; namely, what are the checks and what the periods of life,--by which the increase of any given species is limited. Just calculate the increase of any bird, if you assume that only half the young are reared, and these breed: within the NATURAL (i.e., if free from accidents) life of the parents the number of individuals will become enormous, and I have been much surprised to think how great destruction MUST annually or occasionally be falling on every species, yet the means and period of such destruction is scarcely perceived by us. I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on variation of domestic animals and plants, and on the question of what are species. I have a grand body of facts, and I think I can draw some sound conclusions. The general conclusions at which I have slowly been driven from a directly opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and that allied species are co-descendants from common stocks. I know how much I open myself to reproach for such a conclusion, but I have at least honestly and deliberately come to it. I shall not publish on this subject for several years. At present I am on the Geology of South America. I hope to pick up from your book some facts on slight variations in structure or instincts in the animals of your acquaintance. Believe me, ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (REV. L. BLOMEFIELD). Down, [1845?]. My dear Jenyns, I am very much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken in having written me so long a note. The question of where, when, and how the check to the increase of a given species falls appears to me particularly interesting, and our difficulty in answering it shows how really ignorant we are of the lives and habits of our most familiar species. I was aware of the bare fact of old birds driving away their young, but had never thought of the effect you so clearly point out, of local gaps in number being thus immediately filled up. But the original difficulty remains; for if your farmers had not killed your sparrows and rooks, what would have become of those which now immigrate into your parish? in the middle of England one is too far distant from the natural limits of the rook and sparrow to suppose that the young are thus far expelled from Cambridgeshire. The check must fall heavily at some time of each species' life; for, if one calculates that only half the progeny are reared and bred, how enormous is the increase! One has, however, no business to feel so much surprise at one's ignorance, when one knows how impossible it is without statistics to conjecture the duration of life and percentage of deaths to births in mankind. If it could be shown that apparently the birds of passage WHICH BREED HERE and increase, return in the succeeding years in about the same number, whereas those that come here for their winter and non-breeding season annually, come here with the same numbers, but return with greatly decreased numbers, one would know (as indeed seems probable) that the check fell chiefly on full-grown birds in the winter season, and not on the eggs and very young birds, which has appeared to me often the most probable period. If at any time any remarks on this subject should occur to you, I should be most grateful for the benefit of them. With respect to my far distant work on species, I must have expressed myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you to suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing puzzles, to myself ALONE; but in my wildest day-dream, I never expect more than to be able to show that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether species are DIRECTLY created or by intermediate laws (as with the life and death of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of the difficulty in determining what are species and what are varieties, but (though, why I should give you such a history of my doings it would be hard to say) from such facts as the relationship between the living and extinct mammifers in South America, and between those living on the Continent and on adjoining islands, such as the Galapagos. It occured to me that a collection of all such analogous facts would throw light either for or against the view of related species being co-descendants from a common stock. A long searching amongst agricultural and horticultural books and people makes me believe (I well know how absurdly presumptuous this must appear) that I see the way in which new varieties become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions of life and to other surrounding beings. I am a bold man to lay myself open to being thought a complete fool, and a most deliberate one. From the nature of the grounds which make me believe that species are mutable in form, these grounds cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species; but how far they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by degrees, when applied to species more and more remote from each other. Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions, but they appear to me less than on the common view. I have drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in 200 pages) of my conclusions; and if I thought at some future time that you would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most thankful to have the criticism of so competent a critic. Excuse this very long and egotistical and ill-written letter, which by your remarks you had led me into, and believe me, Yours very truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down, October 17th, 1846. Dear Jenyns, I have taken a most ungrateful length of time in thanking you for your very kind present of your 'Observations.' But I happened to have had in hand several other books, and have finished yours only a few days ago. I found it very pleasant reading, and many of your facts interested me much. I think I was more interested, which is odd, with your notes on some of the lower animals than on the higher ones. The introduction struck me as very good; but this is what I expected, for I well remember being quite delighted with a preliminary essay to the first number of the 'Annals of Natural History.' I missed one discussion, and think myself ill-used, for I remember your saying you would make some remarks on the weather and barometer, as a guide for the ignorant in prediction. I had also hoped to have perhaps met with some remarks on the amount of variation in our common species. Andrew Smith once declared he would get some hundreds of specimens of larks and sparrows from all parts of Great Britain, and see whether, with finest measurements, he could detect any proportional variations in beaks or limbs, etc. This point interests me from having lately been skimming over the absurdly opposite conclusions of Gloger and Brehm; the one making half-a-dozen species out of every common bird, and the other turning so many reputed species into one. Have you ever done anything of this kind, or have you ever studied Gloger's or Brehm's works? I was interested in your account of the martins, for I had just before been utterly perplexed by noticing just such a proceeding as you describe: I counted seven, one day lately, visiting a single nest and sticking dirt on the adjoining wall. I may mention that I once saw some squirrels eagerly splitting those little semi-transparent spherical galls on the back of oak-leaves for the maggot within; so that they are insectivorous. A Cychrus rostratus once squirted into my eyes and gave me extreme pain; and I must tell you what happened to me on the banks of the Cam, in my early entomological days: under a piece of bark I found two Carabi (I forget which), and caught one in each hand, when lo and behold I saw a sacred Panagaeus crux major! I could not bear to give up either of my Carabi, and to lose Panagaeus was out of the question; so that in despair I gently seized one of the Carabi between my teeth, when to my unspeakable disgust and pain the little inconsiderate beast squirted his acid down my throat, and I lost both Carabi and Panagaeus! I was quite astonished to hear of a terrestrial Planaria; for about a year or two ago I described in the 'Annals of Natural History' several beautifully coloured terrestrial species of the Southern Hemisphere, and thought it quite a new fact. By the way, you speak of a sheep with a broken leg not having flukes: I have heard my father aver that a fever, or any SERIOUS ACCIDENT, as a broken limb, will cause in a man all the intestinal worms to be evacuated. Might not this possibly have been the case with the flukes in their early state? I hope you were none the worse for Southampton (The meeting of the British Association.); I wish I had seen you looking rather fatter. I enjoyed my week extremely, and it did me good. I missed you the last few days, and we never managed to see much of each other; but there were so many people there, that I for one hardly saw anything of any one. Once again I thank you very cordially for your kind present, and the pleasure it has given me, and believe me, Ever most truly yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I have quite forgotten to say how greatly interested I was with your discussion on the statistics of animals: when will Natural History be so perfect that such points as you discuss will be perfectly known about any one animal? CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Malvern, June 13 [1849]. ...At last I am going to press with a small poor first-fruit of my confounded Cirripedia, viz. the fossil pedunculate cirripedia. You ask what effect studying species has had on my variation theories; I do not think much--I have felt some difficulties more. On the other hand, I have been struck (and probably unfairly from the class) with the variability of every part in some slight degree of every species. When the same organ is RIGOROUSLY compared in many individuals, I always find some slight variability, and consequently that the diagnosis of species from minute differences is always dangerous. I had thought the same parts of the same species more resemble (than they do anyhow in Cirripedia) objects cast in the same mould. Systematic work would be easy were it not for this confounded variation, which, however, is pleasant to me as a speculatist, though odious to me as a systematist. Your remarks on the distinctness (so unpleasant to me) of the Himalayan Rubi, willows, etc., compared with those of northern [Europe?], etc., are very interesting; if my rude species-sketch had any SMALL share in leading you to these observations, it has already done good and ample service, and may lay its bones in the earth in peace. I never heard anything so strange as Falconer's neglect of your letters; I am extremely glad you are cordial with him again, though it must have cost you an effort. Falconer is a man one must love...May you prosper in every way, my dear Hooker. Your affectionate friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Wednesday [September, n.d.]. ...Many thanks for your letter received yesterday, which, as always, set me thinking: I laughed at your attack at my stinginess in changes of level towards Forbes (Edward Forbes, 1815-1854, born in the Isle of Man. His best known work was his Report on the distribution of marine animals at different depths in the Mediterranean. An important memoir of his is referred to in my father's 'Autobiography.' He held successively the posts of Curator to the Geological Society's Museum, and Professor of Natural History in the Museum of Practical Geology; shortly before he died he was appointed Professor of Natural History in the University of Edinburgh. He seems to have impressed his contemporaries as a man of strikingly versatile and vigorous mind. The above allusion to changes of level refers to Forbes's tendency to explain the facts of geographical distribution by means of an active geological imagination.), being so liberal towards myself; but I must maintain, that I have never let down or upheaved our mother-earth's surface, for the sake of explaining any one phenomenon, and I trust I have very seldom done so without some distinct evidence. So I must still think it a bold step (perhaps a very true one) to sink into the depths of ocean, within the period of existing species, so large a tract of surface. But there is no amount or extent of change of level, which I am not fully prepared to admit, but I must say I should like better evidence, than the identity of a few plants, which POSSIBLY (I do not say probably) might have been otherwise transported. Particular thanks for your attempt to get me a copy of 'L'Espece' (Probably Godron's essay, published by the Academy of Nancy in 1848-49, and afterwards as a separate book in 1859.), and almost equal thanks for your criticisms on him: I rather misdoubted him, and felt not much inclined to take as gospel his facts. I find this one of my greatest difficulties with foreign authors, viz. judging of their credibility. How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that no one has hardly a right to examine the question of species who has not minutely described many. I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen (who is vehemently opposed to any mutability in species), that he thought it was a very fair subject, and that there was a mass of facts to be brought to bear on the question, not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I mean to attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches of Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my species, and know something of geology (an indispensable union); and though I shall get more kicks than half-pennies, I will, life serving, attempt my work. Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of species at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps say) has Mr. D... C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 25th [1853]. My dear Hooker, I have read your paper with great interest; it seems all very clear, and will form an admirable introduction to the New Zealand Flora, or to any Flora in the world. How few generalizers there are among systematists; I really suspect there is something absolutely opposed to each other and hostile in the two frames of mind required for systematising and reasoning on large collections of facts. Many of your arguments appear to me very well put, and, as far as my experience goes, the candid way in which you discuss the subject is unique. The whole will be very useful to me whenever I undertake my volume, though parts take the wind very completely out of my sails; it will be all nuts to me...for I have for some time determined to give the arguments on BOTH sides (as far as I could), instead of arguing on the mutability side alone. In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the dose of soft solder; it does one--or at least me--a great deal of good)--in my own work I have not felt conscious that disbelieving in the mere PERMANENCE of species has made much difference one way or the other; in some few cases (if publishing avowedly on doctrine of non-permanence), I should NOT have affixed names, and in some few cases should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, and examining over and over again, when in my own mind the only doubt has been whether the form varied TO-DAY OR YESTERDAY (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby (In 'Bleak House.') would say). After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps nearly the same thing would have happened to me on any scheme of work. I am heartily glad to hear your Journal (Sir J.D. Hooker's 'Himalayan Journal.') is so much advanced; how magnificently it seems to be illustrated! An "Oriental Naturalist," with lots of imagination and not too much regard to facts, is just the man to discuss species! I think your title of 'A Journal of a Naturalist in the East' very good; but whether "in the Himalaya" would not be better, I have doubted, for the East sounds rather vague... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [1853]. My dear Hooker, I have no remarks at all worth sending you, nor, indeed, was it likely that I should, considering how perfect and elaborated an essay it is. ('New Zealand Flora,' 1853.) As far as my judgment goes, it is the most important discussion on the points in question ever published. I can say no more. I agree with almost everything you say; but I require much time to digest an essay of such quality. It almost made me gloomy, partly from feeling I could not answer some points which theoretically I should have liked to have been different, and partly from seeing SO FAR BETTER DONE than I COULD have done, discussions on some points which I had intended to have taken up... I much enjoyed the slaps you have given to the provincial species-mongers. I wish I could have been of the slightest use: I have been deeply interested by the whole essay, and congratulate you on having produced a memoir which I believe will be memorable. I was deep in it when your most considerate note arrived, begging me not to hurry. I thank Mrs. Hooker and yourself most sincerely for your wish to see me. I will not let another summer pass without seeing you at Kew, for indeed I should enjoy it much... You do me really more honour than I have any claim to, putting me in after Lyell on ups and downs. In a year or two's time, when I shall be at my species book (if I do not break down), I shall gnash my teeth and abuse you for having put so many hostile facts so confoundedly well. Ever yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 26th [1854]. My dear Hooker, I had hoped that you would have had a little breathing-time after your Journal, but this seems to be very far from the case; and I am the more obliged (and somewhat contrite) for the long letter received this morning, MOST juicy with news and MOST interesting to me in many ways. I am very glad indeed to hear of the reforms, etc., in the Royal Society. With respect to the Club (The Philosophical Club, to which my father was elected (as Professor Bonney is good enough to inform me) on April 24, 1854. He resigned his membership in 1864. The Club was founded in 1847. The number of members being limited to 47, it was proposed to christen it "the Club of 47," but the name was never adopted. The nature of the Club may be gathered from its first rule: "The purpose of the Club is to promote as much as possible the scientific objects of the Royal Society; to facilitate intercourse between those Fellows who are actively engaged in cultivating the various branches of Natural Science, and who have contributed to its progress; to increase the attendance at the evening meetings, and to encourage the contribution and discussion of papers." The Club met for dinner (at first) at 6, and the chair was to be quitted at 8.15, it being expected that members would go to the Royal Society. Of late years the dinner has been at 6.30, the Society meeting in the afternoon.), I am deeply interested; only two or three days ago, I was regretting to my wife, how I was letting drop and being dropped by nearly all my acquaintances, and that I would endeavour to go oftener to London; I was not then thinking of the Club, which, as far as any one thing goes, would answer my exact object in keeping up old and making some new acquaintances. I will therefore come up to London for every (with rare exceptions) Club-day, and then my head, I think, will allow me on an average to go to every other meeting. But it is grievous how often any change knocks me up. I will further pledge myself, as I told Lyell, to resign after a year, if I did not attend pretty often, so that I should AT WORST encumber the Club temporarily. If you can get me elected, I certainly shall be very much pleased. Very many thanks for answers about Glaciers. I am very glad to hear of the second Edition (Of the Himalayan Journal.) so very soon; but am not surprised, for I have heard of several, in our small circle, reading it with very much pleasure. I shall be curious to hear what Humboldt will say: it will, I should think, delight him, and meet with more praise from him than any other book of Travels, for I cannot remember one, which has so many subjects in common with him. What a wonderful old fellow he is...By the way, I hope, when you go to Hitcham, towards the end of May, you will be forced to have some rest. I am grieved to hear that all the bad symptoms have not left Henslow; it is so strange and new to feel any uneasiness about his health. I am particularly obliged to you for sending me Asa Gray's letter; how very pleasantly he writes. To see his and your caution on the species-question ought to overwhelm me in confusion and shame; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable...It is delightful to hear all that he says on Agassiz: how very singular it is that so EMINENTLY clever a man, with such IMMENSE knowledge on many branches of Natural History, should write as he does. Lyell told me that he was so delighted with one of his (Agassiz) lectures on progressive development, etc., etc., that he went to him afterwards and told him, "that it was so delightful, that he could not help all the time wishing it was true." I seldom see a Zoological paper from North America, without observing the impress of Agassiz's doctrines--another proof, by the way, of how great a man he is. I was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray's remarks on crossing, obliterating varieties, on which, as you know, I have been collecting facts for these dozen years. How awfully flat I shall feel, if when I get my notes together on species, etc., etc., the whole thing explodes like an empty puff-ball. Do not work yourself to death. Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 5th [1854]. My dear Hooker, I was delighted to get your note yesterday. I congratulate you very heartily (On the award to him of the Royal Society's Medal.), and whether you care much or little, I rejoice to see the highest scientific judgment-court in Great Britain recognise your claims. I do hope Mrs. Hooker is pleased, and E. desires me particularly to send her cordial congratulations ...I pity you from the very bottom of my heart about your after-dinner speech, which I fear I shall not hear. Without you have a very much greater soul than I have (and I believe that you have), you will find the medal a pleasant little stimulus, when work goes badly, and one ruminates that all is vanity, it is pleasant to have some tangible proof, that others have thought something of one's labours. Good-bye my dear Hooker, I can assure [you] that we both most truly enjoyed your and Mrs. Hooker's visit here. Farewell. My dear Hooker, your sincere friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. March 7 [1855]. ...I have just finished working well at Wollaston's (Thomas Vernon Wollaston died (in his fifty-seventh year, as I believe) on January 4, 1878. His health forcing him in early manhood to winter in the south, he devoted himself to a study of the Coleoptera of Madeira, the Cape de Verdes, and St. Helena, whence he deduced evidence in support of the belief in the submerged continent of 'Atlantis.' In an obituary notice by Mr. Rye ('Nature,' 1878) he is described as working persistently "upon a broad conception of the science to which he was devoted," while being at the same time "accurate, elaborate, and precise ad punctum, and naturally of a minutely critical habit." His first scientific paper was written when he was an undergraduate at Jesus College, Cambridge. While at the University, he was an Associate and afterwards a Member of the Ray Club: this is a small society which still meets once a week, and where the undergraduate members, or Associates, receive much kindly encouragement from their elders.) 'Insecta Maderensia': it is an ADMIRABLE work. There is a very curious point in the astounding proportion of Coleoptera that are apterous; and I think I have guessed the reason, viz., that powers of flight would be injurious to insects inhabiting a confined locality, and expose them to be blown to the sea: to test this, I find that the insects inhabiting the Dezerte Grande, a quite small islet, would be still more exposed to this danger, and here the proportion of apterous insects is even considerably greater than on Madeira Proper. Wollaston speaks of Madeira and the other Archipelagoes as being "sure and certain witnesses of Forbes' old continent," and of course the Entomological world implicitly follows this view. But to my eyes it would be difficult to imagine facts more opposed to such a view. It is really disgusting and humiliating to see directly opposite conclusions drawn from the same facts. I have had some correspondence with Wollaston on this and other subjects, and I find that he coolly assumes, (1) that formerly insects possessed greater migratory powers than now, (2) that the old land was SPECIALLY rich in centres of creation, (3) that the uniting land was destroyed before the special creations had time to diffuse, and (4) that the land was broken down before certain families and genera had time to reach from Europe or Africa the points of land in question. Are not these a jolly lot of assumptions? and yet I shall see for the next dozen or score of years Wollaston quoted as proving the former existence of poor Forbes' Atlantis. I hope I have not wearied you, but I thought you would like to hear about this book, which strikes me as EXCELLENT in its facts, and the author a most nice and modest man. Most truly yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, March 19th [1855]. My dear Fox, How long it is since we have had any communication, and I really want to hear how the world goes with you; but my immediate object is to ask you to observe a point for me, and as I know now you are a very busy man with too much to do, I shall have a good chance of your doing what I want, as it would be hopeless to ask a quite idle man. As you have a Noah's Ark, I do not doubt that you have pigeons. (How I wish by any chance they were fantails!) Now what I want to know is, at what age nestling pigeons have their tail feathers sufficiently developed to be counted. I do not think I ever saw a young pigeon. I am hard at work at my notes collecting and comparing them, in order in some two or three years to write a book with all the facts and arguments, which I can collect, FOR AND VERSUS the immutability of species. I want to get the young of our domestic breeds, to see how young, and to what degree the differences appear. I must either breed myself (which is no amusement but a horrid bore to me) the pigeons or buy their young; and before I go to a seller, whom I have heard of from Yarrell, I am really anxious to know something about their development, not to expose my excessive ignorance, and therefore be excessively liable to be cheated and gulled. With respect to the ONE point of the tail feathers, it is of course in relation to the wonderful development of tail feathers in the adult fantail. If you had any breed of poultry pure, I would beg a chicken with exact age stated, about a week or fortnight old! To be sent in a box by post, if you could have the heart to kill one; and secondly, would let me pay postage...Indeed, I should be very glad to have a nestling common pigeon sent, for I mean to make skeletons, and have already just begun comparing wild and tame ducks. And I think the results rather curious ("I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing parts; I have made skeleton of wild and tame duck (oh, the smell of well-boiled, high duck!!) and I find the tame-duck wing ought, according to scale of wild prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight, but it has it only 317."--A letter to Sir J. Hooker, 1855.), for on weighing the several bones very carefully, when perfectly cleaned the proportional weights of the two have greatly varied, the foot of the tame having largely increased. How I wish I could get a little wild duck of a week old, but that I know is almost impossible. With respect to ourselves, I have not much to say; we have now a terribly noisy house with the whooping cough, but otherwise are all well. Far the greatest fact about myself is that I have at last quite done with the everlasting barnacles. At the end of the year we had two of our little boys very ill with fever and bronchitis, and all sorts of ailments. Partly for amusement, and partly for change of air, we went to London and took a house for a month, but it turned out a great failure, for that dreadful frost just set in when we went, and all our children got unwell, and E. and I had coughs and colds and rheumatism nearly all the time. We had put down first on our list of things to do, to go and see Mrs. Fox, but literally after waiting some time to see whether the weather would not improve, we had not a day when we both could go out. I do hope before very long you will be able to manage to pay us a visit. Time is slipping away, and we are getting oldish. Do tell us about yourself and all your large family. I know you will help me IF YOU CAN with information about the young pigeons; and anyhow do write before very long. My dear Fox, your sincere old friend, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Amongst all sorts of odds and ends, with which I am amusing myself, I am comparing the seeds of the variations of plants. I had formerly some wild cabbage seeds, which I gave to some one, was it to you? It is a THOUSAND to one it was thrown away, if not I should be very glad of a pinch of it. [The following extract from a letter to Mr. Fox (March 27th, 1855) refers to the same subject as the last letter, and gives some account of the "species work:" "The way I shall kill young things will be to put them under a tumbler glass with a teaspoon of ether or chloroform, the glass being pressed down on some yielding surface, and leave them for an hour or two, young have such power of revivication. (I have thus killed moths and butterflies.) The best way would be to send them as you procure them, in pasteboard chip-box by post, on which you could write and just tie up with string; and you will REALLY make me happier by allowing me to keep an account of postage, etc. Upon my word I can hardly believe that ANY ONE could be so good-natured as to take such trouble and do such a very disagreeable thing as kill babies; and I am very sure I do not know one soul who, except yourself, would do so. I am going to ask one thing more; should old hens of any above poultry (not duck) die or become so old as to be USELESS, I wish you would send her to me per rail, addressed to C. Darwin, care of Mr. Acton, Post-office, Bromley, Kent." Will you keep this address? as shortest way for parcels. But I do not care so much for this, as I could buy the old birds dead at Baily to make skeletons. I should have written at once even if I had not heard from you, to beg you not to take trouble about pigeons, for Yarrell has persuaded me to attempt it, and I am now fitting up a place, and have written to Baily about prices, etc., etc. SOMETIME (when you are better) I should like very much to hear a little about your "Little Call Duck"; why so-called? And where you got it? and what it is like?... I was so ignorant I do not even know there were three varieties of Dorking fowl: how do they differ?... I forget whether I ever told you what the object of my present work is,--it is to view all facts that I can master (eheu, eheu, how ignorant I find I am) in Natural History (as on geographical distribution, palaeontology, classification, hybridism, domestic animals and plants, etc., etc., etc.) to see how far they favour or are opposed to the notion that wild species are mutable or immutable: I mean with my utmost power to give all arguments and facts on both sides. I have a NUMBER of people helping me in every way, and giving me most valuable assistance; but I often doubt whether the subject will not quite overpower me. So much for the quasi-business part of my letter. I am very very sorry to hear so indifferent account of your health: with your large family your life is very precious, and I am sure with all your activity and goodness it ought to be a happy one, or as happy as can reasonably be expected with all the cares of futurity on one. One cannot expect the present to be like the old Crux-major days at the foot of those noble willow stumps, the memory of which I revere. I now find my little entomology which I wholly owe to you, comes in very useful. I am very glad to hear that you have given yourself a rest from Sunday duties. How much illness you have had in your life! Farewell my dear Fox. I assure you I thank you heartily for your proffered assistance.] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, May 7th [1855]. My dear Fox, My correspondence has cost you a deal of trouble, though this note will not. I found yours on my return home on Saturday after a week's work in London. Whilst there I saw Yarrell, who told me he had carefully examined all points in the Call Duck, and did not feel any doubt about it being specifically identical, and that it had crossed freely with common varieties in St. James's Park. I should therefore be very glad for a seven-days' duckling and for one of the old birds, should one ever die a natural death. Yarrell told me that Sabine had collected forty varieties of the common duck!...Well, to return to business; nobody, I am sure, could fix better for me than you the characteristic age of little chickens; with respect to skeletons, I have feared it would be impossible to make them, but I suppose I shall be able to measure limbs, etc., by feeling the joints. What you say about old cocks just confirms what I thought, and I will make my skeletons of old cocks. Should an old wild turkey ever die, please remember me; I do not care for a baby turkey, nor for a mastiff. Very many thanks for your offer. I have puppies of bull-dogs and greyhound in salt, and I have had cart-horse and race-horse young colts carefully measured. Whether I shall do any good I doubt. I am getting out of my depth. Most truly yours, C. DARWIN. [An extract from a letter to Mr. Fox may find a place here, though of a later date, viz. July, 1855]: "Many thanks for the seven days' old white Dorking, and for the other promised ones. I am getting quite a 'chamber of horrors,' I appreciate your kindness even more than before; for I have done the black deed and murdered an angelic little fantail and pouter at ten days old. I tried chloroform and ether for the first, and though evidently a perfectly easy death, it was prolonged; and for the second I tried putting lumps of cyanide of potassium in a very large damp bottle, half an hour before putting in the pigeon, and the prussic acid gas thus generated was very quickly fatal." A letter to Mr. Fox (May 23rd, 1855) gives the first mention of my father's laborious piece of work on the breeding of pigeons: "I write now to say that I have been looking at some of our mongrel chickens, and I should say ONE WEEK OLD would do very well. The chief points which I am, and have been for years, very curious about, is to ascertain whether the YOUNG of our domestic breeds differ as much from each other as do their parents, and I have no faith in anything short of actual measurement and the Rule of Three. I hope and believe I am not giving so much trouble without a motive of sufficient worth. I have got my fantails and pouters (choice birds, I hope, as I paid 20 shillings for each pair from Baily) in a grand cage and pigeon-house, and they are a decided amusement to me, and delight to H." In the course of my father's pigeon-fancying enterprise he necessarily became acquainted with breeders, and was fond of relating his experiences as a member of the Columbarian and Philoperistera Clubs, where he met the purest enthusiasts of the "fancy," and learnt much of the mysteries of their art. In writing to Mr. Huxley some years afterwards, he quotes from a book on 'Pigeons' by Mr. J. Eaton, in illustration of the "extreme attention and close observation" necessary to be a good fancier. "In his [Mr. Eaton's] treatise, devoted to the Almond Tumbler ALONE, which is a sub-variety of the short-faced variety, which is a variety of the Tumbler, as that is of the Rock-pigeon, Mr. Eaton says: 'There are some of the young fanciers who are over-covetous, who go for all the five properties at once [i.e., the five characteristic points which are mainly attended to,--C.D.], they have their reward by getting nothing.' In short, it is almost beyond the human intellect to attend to ALL the excellencies of the Almond Tumbler! "To be a good breeder, and to succeed in improving any breed, beyond everything enthusiasm is required. Mr. Eaton has gained lots of prizes, listen to him. "'If it was possible for noblemen and gentlemen to know the amazing amount of solace and pleasure derived from the Almond Tumbler, when they begin to understand their (i.e., the tumbler's) properties, I should think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman would be without their aviaries of Almond Tumblers.'" My father was fond of quoting this passage, and always with a tone of fellow-feeling for the author, though, no doubt, he had forgotten his own wonderings as a child that "every gentleman did not become an ornithologist."--('Autobiography,' page 32.) To Mr. W.B. Tegetmeier, the well-known writer on poultry, etc., he was indebted for constant advice and co-operation. Their correspondence began in 1855, and lasted to 1881, when my father wrote: "I can assure you that I often look back with pleasure to the old days when I attended to pigeons, fowls, etc., and when you gave me such valuable assistance. I not rarely regret that I have had so little strength that I have not been able to keep up old acquaintances and friendships." My father's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier consist almost entirely of series of questions relating to the different breeds of fowls, pigeons, etc., and are not, therefore interesting. In reading through the pile of letters, one is much struck by the diligence of the writer's search for facts, and it is made clear that Mr. Tegetmeier's knowledge and judgment were completely trusted and highly valued by him. Numerous phrases, such as "your note is a mine of wealth to me," occur, expressing his sense of the value of Mr. Tegetmeier's help, as well as words expressing his warm appreciation of Mr. Tegetmeier's unstinting zeal and kindness, or his "pure and disinterested love of science." On the subject of hive-bees and their combs, Mr. Tegetmeier's help was also valued by my father, who wrote, "your paper on 'Bees-cells,' read before the British Association, was highly useful and suggestive to me." To work out the problems on the Geographical Distributions of animals and plants on evolutionary principles, he had to study the means by which seeds, eggs, etc., can be transported across wide spaces of ocean. It was this need which gave an interest to the class of experiment to which the following letters allude.] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, May 17th [1855]. My dear Fox, You will hate the very sight of my hand-writing; but after this time I promise I will ask for nothing more, at least for a long time. As you live on sandy soil, have you lizards at all common? If you have, should you think it too ridiculous to offer a reward for me for lizard's eggs to the boys in your school; a shilling for every half-dozen, or more if rare, till you got two or three dozen and send them to me? If snake's eggs were brought in mistake it would be very well, for I want such also; and we have neither lizards nor snakes about here. My object is to see whether such eggs will float on sea water, and whether they will keep alive thus floating for a month or two in my cellar. I am trying experiments on transportation of all organic beings that I can; and lizards are found on every island, and therefore I am very anxious to see whether their eggs stand sea water. Of course this note need not be answered, without, by a strange and favourable chance, you can some day answer it with the eggs. Your most troublesome friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. April 13th [1855]. ...I have had one experiment some little time in progress, which will, I think, be interesting, namely, seeds in salt water immersed in water of 32-33 degrees, which I have and shall long have, as I filled a great tank with snow. When I wrote last I was going to triumph over you, for my experiment had in a slight degree succeeded; but this, with infinite baseness, I did not tell, in hopes that you would say that you would eat all the plants which I could raise after immersion. It is very aggravating that I cannot in the least remember what you did formerly say that made me think you scoffed at the experiments vastly; for you now seem to view the experiment like a good Christian. I have in small bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of temperature, cress, radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery, and onion seed--four great families. These, after immersion for exactly one week, have all germinated, which I did not in the least expect (and thought how you would sneer at me); for the water of nearly all, and of the cress especially, smelt very badly, and the cress seed emitted a wonderful quantity of mucus (the 'Vestiges' would have expected them to turn into tadpoles), so as to adhere in a mass; but these seeds germinated and grew splendidly. The germination of all (especially cress and lettuces) has been accelerated, except the cabbages, which have come up very irregularly, and a good many, I think, dead. One would have thought, from their native habitat, that the cabbage would have stood well. The Umbelliferae and onions seem to stand the salt well. I wash the seed before planting them. I have written to the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (A few words asking for information. The results were published in the 'Gardeners' Chronicle,' May 26, November 24, 1855. In the same year (page 789) he sent a P.S. to his former paper, correcting a misprint and adding a few words on the seeds of the Leguminosae. A fuller paper on the germination of seeds after treatment in salt water, appeared in the 'Linnaean Soc. Journal,' 1857, page 130.), though I doubt whether it was worth while. If my success seems to make it worth while, I will send a seed list, to get you to mark some different classes of seeds. To-day I replant the same seeds as above after fourteen days' immersion. As many sea-currents go a mile an hour, even in a week they might be transported 168 miles; the Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty miles a day. So much and too much on this head; but my geese are always swans... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [April 14th, 1855.] ...You are a good man to confess that you expected the cress would be killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little triumph. The children at first were tremendously eager, and asked me often, "whether I should beat Dr. Hooker!" The cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after twenty-one days' immersion. But I will write no more, which is a great virtue in me; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you everything I do. ...If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be so-called) which I am trying, you would have a good right to sneer, for they are so ABSURD even in MY opinion that I dare not tell you. Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising? I have had a letter telling me that seeds MUST have GREAT power of resisting salt water, for otherwise how could they get to islands? This is the true way to solve a problem! CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1855]. My dear Hooker, You have been a very good man to exhale some of your satisfaction in writing two notes to me; you could not have taken a better line in my opinion; but as for showing your satisfaction in confounding my experiments, I assure you I am quite enough confounded--those horrid seeds, which, as you truly observe, if they sink they won't float. I have written to Scoresby and have had a rather dry answer, but very much to the purpose, and giving me no hopes of any law unknown to me which might arrest their everlasting descent into the deepest depths of the ocean. By the way it was very odd, but I talked to Col. Sabine for half an hour on the subject, and could not make him see with respect to transportal the difficulty of the sinking question! The bore is, if the confounded seeds will sink, I have been taking all this trouble in salting the ungrateful rascals for nothing. Everything has been going wrong with me lately; the fish at the Zoological Society ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in imagination they had in my mind been swallowed, fish and all, by a heron, had been carried a hundred miles, been voided on the banks of some other lake and germinated splendidly, when lo and behold, the fish ejected vehemently, and with disgust equal to my own, ALL the seeds from their mouths. (In describing these troubles to Mr. Fox, my father wrote:--"All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it; and just at present I wish I had my old barnacles to work at, and nothing new." The experiment ultimately succeeded, and he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:--"I find fish will greedily eat seeds of aquatic grasses, and that millet-seed put into fish and given to a stork, and then voided, will germinate. So this is the nursery rhyme of 'this is the stick that beats the pig,' etc., etc.,") But I am not going to give up the floating yet: in first place I must try fresh seeds, though of course it seems far more probable that they will sink; and secondly, as a last resource, I must believe in the pod or even whole plant or branch being washed into the sea; with floods and slips and earthquakes; this must continually be happening, and if kept wet, I fancy the pods, etc. etc., would not open and shed their seeds. Do try your Mimosa seed at Kew. I had intended to have asked you whether the Mimosa scandens and Guilandina bonduc grows at Kew, to try fresh seeds. R. Brown tells me he believes four W. Indian seeds have been washed on shores of Europe. I was assured at Keeling Island that seeds were not rarely washed on shore: so float they must and shall! What a long yarn I have been spinning. If you have several of the Loffoden seeds, do soak some in tepid water, and get planted with the utmost care: this is an experiment after my own heart, with chances 1000 to 1 against its success. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 11th [1855]. My dear Hooker,--I have just received your note. I am most sincerely and heartily glad at the news (The appointment of Sir J.D. Hooker as Assistant Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew.) it contains, and so is my wife. Though the income is but a poor one, yet the certainty, I hope, is satisfactory to yourself and Mrs. Hooker. As it must lead in future years to the Directorship, I do hope you look at it, as a piece of good fortune. For my own taste I cannot fancy a pleasanter position, than the Head of such a noble and splendid place; far better, I should think, than a Professorship in a great town. The more I think of it, the gladder I am. But I will say no more; except that I hope Mrs. Hooker is pretty well pleased... As the "Gardeners' Chronicle" put in my question, and took notice of it, I think I am bound to send, which I had thought of doing next week, my first report to Lindley to give him the option of inserting it; but I think it likely that he may not think it fit for a Gardening periodical. When my experiments are ended (should the results appear worthy) and should the 'Linnean Journal' not object to the previous publication of imperfect and provisional reports, I should be DELIGHTED to insert the final report there; for it has cost me so much trouble, that I should think that probably the result was worthy of more permanent record than a newspaper; but I think I am bound to send it first to Lindley. I begin to think the floating question more serious than the germinating one; and am making all the inquiries which I can on the subject, and hope to get some little light on it... I hope you managed a good meeting at the Club. The Treasurership must be a plague to you, and I hope you will not be Treasurer for long: I know I would much sooner give up the Club than be its Treasurer. Farewell, Mr. Assistant Director and dear friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. June 5th, 1855. ...Miss Thorley (A lady who was for many years a governess in the family.) and I are doing A LITTLE BOTANICAL WORK! for our amusement, and it does amuse me very much, viz., making a collection of all the plants, which grow in a field, which has been allowed to run waste for fifteen years, but which before was cultivated from time immemorial; and we are also collecting all the plants in an adjoining and SIMILAR but cultivated field; just for the fun of seeing what plants have survived or died out. Hereafter we shall want a bit of help in naming puzzlers. How dreadfully difficult it is to name plants. What a REMARKABLY nice and kind letter Dr. A. Gray has sent me in answer to my troublesome queries; I retained your copy of his 'Manual' till I heard from him, and when I have answered his letter, I will return it to you. I thank you much for Hedysarum: I do hope it is not very precious, for as I told you it is for probably a MOST foolish purpose. I read somewhere that no plant closes its leaves so promptly in darkness, and I want to cover it up daily for half an hour, and see if I can teach it to close by itself, or more easily than at first in darkness...I cannot make out why you would prefer a continental transmission, as I think you do, to carriage by sea. I should have thought you would have been pleased at as many means of transmission as possible. For my own pet theoretic notions, it is quite indifferent whether they are transmitted by sea or land, as long as some tolerably probable way is shown. But it shocks my philosophy to create land, without some other and independent evidence. Whenever we meet, by a very few words I should, I think, more clearly understand your views... I have just made out my first grass, hurrah! hurrah! I must confess that fortune favours the bold, for, as good luck would have it, it was the easy Anthoxanthum odoratum: nevertheless it is a great discovery; I never expected to make out a grass in all my life, so hurrah! It has done my stomach surprising good... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [June?] 15th, [1855]. My dear Hooker, I just write one line to say that the Hedysarum is come QUITE SAFELY, and thank you for it. You cannot imagine what amusement you have given me by naming those three grasses: I have just got paper to dry and collect all grasses. If ever you catch quite a beginner, and want to give him a taste of Botany, tell him to make a perfect list of some little field or wood. Both Miss Thorley and I agree that it gives a really uncommon interest to the work, having a nice little definite world to work on, instead of the awful abyss and immensity of all British Plants. Adios. I was really consummately impudent to express my opinion "on the retrograde step" ("To imagine such enormous geological changes within the period of the existence of now living beings, on no other ground but to account for their distribution, seems to me, in our present state of ignorance on the means of transportal, an almost retrograde step in science."--Extract from the paper on 'Salt Water and Seeds' in "Gardeners' Chronicle", May 26, 1855.), and I deserved a good snub, and upon reflection I am very glad you did not answer me in "Gardeners' Chronicle". I have been VERY MUCH interested with the Florula. (Godron's 'Florula Juvenalis,' which gives an interesting account of plants introduced in imported wool.) [Writing on June 5th to Sir J.D. Hooker, my father mentions a letter from Dr. Asa Gray. The letter referred to was an answer to the following:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. (The well-known American Botanist. My father's friendship with Dr. Gray began with the correspondence of which the present is the first letter. An extract from a letter to Sir J. Hooker, 1857, shows that my father's strong personal regard for Dr. Gray had an early origin: "I have been glad to see A. Gray's letters; there is always something in them that shows that he is a very lovable man.") Down, April 25th [1855]. My dear Sir, I hope that you will remember that I had the pleasure of being introduced to you at Kew. I want to beg a great favour of you, for which I well know I can offer no apology. But the favour will not, I think, cause you much trouble, and will greatly oblige me. As I am no botanist, it will seem so absurd to you my asking botanical questions; that I may premise that I have for several years been collecting facts on "variation," and when I find that any general remark seems to hold good amongst animals, I try to test it in Plants. [Here follows a request for information on American Alpine plants, and a suggestion as to publishing on the subject.] I can assure you that I perceive how presumptuous it is in me, not a botanist, to make even the most trifling suggestion to such a botanist as yourself; but from what I saw and have heard of you from our dear and kind friend Hooker, I hope and think you will forgive me, and believe me, with much respect, Dear sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1855]. My dear Sir, I thank you cordially for your remarkably kind letter of the 22d. ult., and for the extremely pleasant and obliging manner in which you have taken my rather troublesome questions. I can hardly tell you how much your list of Alpine plants has interested me, and I can now in some degree picture to myself the plants of your Alpine summits. The new edition of your Manual is CAPITAL news for me. I know from your preface how pressed you are for room, but it would take no space to append (Eu) in brackets to any European plant, and, as far as I am concerned, this would answer every purpose. (This suggestion Dr. Gray adopted in subsequent editions.) From my own experience, whilst making out English plants in our manuals, it has often struck me how much interest it would give if some notion of their range had been given; and so, I cannot doubt, your American inquirers and beginners would much like to know which of their plants were indigenous and which European. Would it not be well in the Alpine plants to append the very same addition which you have now sent me in MS.? though here, owing to your kindness, I do not speak selfishly, but merely pro bono Americano publico. I presume it would be too troublesome to give in your manual the habitats of those plants found west of the Rocky Mountains, and likewise those found in Eastern Asia, taking the Yenesei (?),--which, if I remember right, according to Gmelin, is the main partition line of Siberia. Perhaps Siberia more concerns the northern Flora of North America. The ranges of plants to the east and west, viz., whether most found are in Greenland and Western Europe, or in E. Asia, appears to me a very interesting point as tending to show whether the migration has been eastward or westward. Pray believe me that I am most entirely conscious that the ONLY USE of these remarks is to show a botanist what points a non-botanist is curious to learn; for I think every one who studies profoundly a subject often becomes unaware [on] what points the ignorant require information. I am so very glad that you think of drawing up some notice on your geographical distribution, for the air of the Manual strikes me as in some points better adapted for comparison with Europe than that of the whole of North America. You ask me to state definitely some of the points on which I much wish for information; but I really hardly can, for they are so vague; and I rather wish to see what results will come out from comparisons, than have as yet defined objects. I presume that, like other botanists, you would give, for your area, the proportion (leaving out introduced plants) to the whole of the great leading families: this is one point I had intended (and, indeed, have done roughly) to tabulate from your book, but of course I could have done it only VERY IMPERFECTLY. I should also, of course, have ascertained the proportion, to the whole Flora, of the European plants (leaving out introduced) AND OF THE SEPARATE GREAT FAMILIES, in order to speculate on means of transportal. By the way, I ventured to send a few days ago a copy of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" with a short report by me of some trifling experiments which I have been trying on the power of seeds to withstand sea water. I do not know whether it has struck you, but it has me, that it would be advisable for botanists to give in WHOLE NUMBERS, as well as in the lowest fraction, the proportional numbers of the families, thus I make out from your Manual that of the INDIGENOUS plants the proportion of the Umbelliferae are 36/1798 = 1/49; for, without one knows the WHOLE numbers, one cannot judge how really close the numbers of the plants of the same family are in two distant countries; but very likely you may think this superfluous. Mentioning these proportional numbers, I may give you an instance of the sort of points, and how vague and futile they often are, which I ATTEMPT to work out...; reflecting on R. Brown's and Hooker's remark, that near identity of proportional numbers of the great families in two countries, shows probably that they were once continuously united, I thought I would calculate the proportions of, for instance, the INTRODUCED Compositae in Great Britain to all the introduced plants, and the result was, 10/92 = 1/9.2. In our ABORIGINAL or indigenous flora the proportion is 1/10; and in many other cases I found an equally striking correspondence. I then took your Manual, and worked out the same question; here I find in the Compositae an almost equally striking correspondence, viz. 24/206 = 1/8 in the introduced plants, and 223/1798 = 1/8 in the indigenous; but when I came to the other families I found the proportion entirely different, showing that the coincidences in the British Flora were probably accidental! You will, I presume, give the proportion of the species to the genera, i.e., show on an average how many species each genus contains; though I have done this for myself. If it would not be too troublesome, do you not think it would be very interesting, and give a very good idea of your Flora, to divide the species into three groups, viz., (a) species common to the old world, stating numbers common to Europe and Asia; (b) indigenous species, but belonging to genera found in the old world; and (c) species belonging to genera confined to America or the New World. To make (according to my ideas) perfection perfect, one ought to be told whether there are other cases, like Erica, of genera common in Europe or in Old World not found in your area. But honestly I feel that it is quite ridiculous my writing to you at such length on the subject; but, as you have asked me, I do it gratefully, and write to you as I should to Hooker, who often laughs at me unmercifully, and I am sure you have better reason to do so. There is one point on which I am MOST anxious for information, and I mention it with the greatest hesitation, and only in the FULL BELIEF that you will believe me that I have not the folly and presumption to hope for a second that you will give it, without you can with very little trouble. The point can at present interest no one but myself, which makes the case wholly different from geographical distribution. The only way in which, I think, you possibly could do it with little trouble would be to bear in mind, whilst correcting your proof-sheets of the Manual, my question and put a cross or mark to the species, and whenever sending a parcel to Hooker to let me have such old sheets. But this would give you the trouble of remembering my question, and I can hardly hope or expect that you will do it. But I will just mention what I want; it is to have marked the "close species" in a Flora, so as to compare in DIFFERENT Floras whether the same genera have "close species," and for other purposes too vague to enumerate. I have attempted, by Hooker's help, to ascertain in a similar way whether the different species of the same genera in distant quarters of the globe are variable or present varieties. The definition I should give of a "CLOSE SPECIES" was one that YOU thought specifically distinct, but which you could conceive some other GOOD botanist might think only a race or variety; or, again, a species that you had trouble, though having opportunities of knowing it well, in discriminating from some other species. Supposing that you were inclined to be so very kind as to do this, and could (which I do not expect) spare the time, as I have said, a mere cross to each such species in any useless proof-sheets would give me the information desired, which, I may add, I know must be vague. How can I apologise enough for all my presumption and the extreme length of this letter? The great good nature of your letter to me has been partly the cause, so that, as is too often the case in this world, you are punished for your good deeds. With hearty thanks, believe me, Yours very truly and gratefully, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 18th [July, 1855]. ...I think I am getting a MILD case about Charlock seed (In the "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1855, page 758, appeared a notice (half a column in length) by my father on the "Vitality of Seeds." The facts related refer to the "Sand-walk"; the wood was planted in 1846 on a piece of pasture land laid down as grass in 1840. In 1855, on the soil being dug in several places, Charlock (Brassica sinapistrum) sprang up freely. The subject continued to interest him, and I find a note dated July 2nd, 1874, in which my father recorded that forty-six plants of Charlock sprang up in that year over a space (14 x 7 feet) which had been dug to a considerable depth.); but just as about salting, ill-luck to it, I cannot remember how many years you would allow that Charlock seed might live in the ground. Next time you write, show a bold face, and say in how many years, you think, Charlock seed would probably all be dead. A man told me the other day of, as I thought, a splendid instance,--and SPLENDID it was, for according to his evidence the seed came up alive out of the LOWER PART of the LONDON CLAY!! I disgusted him by telling him that Palms ought to have come up. You ask how far I go in attributing organisms to a common descent; I answer I know not; the way in which I intend treating the subject, is to show (AS FAR AS I CAN) the facts and arguments for and against the common descent of the species of the same genus; and then show how far the same arguments tell for or against forms, more and more widely different: and when we come to forms of different orders and classes, there remain only some such arguments as those which can perhaps be deduced from similar rudimentary structures, and very soon not an argument is left. [The following extract from a letter to Mr. Fox [October, 1855 (In this year he published ('Phil. Mag.' x.) a paper 'On the power of icebergs to make rectilinear uniformly-directed grooves across a submarine undulatory surface.'") gives a brief mention of the last meeting of the British Association which he attended:] "I really have no news: the only thing we have done for a long time, was to go to Glasgow; but the fatigue was to me more than it was worth, and E. caught a bad cold. On our return we stayed a single day at Shrewsbury, and enjoyed seeing the old place. I saw a little of Sir Philip (Sir P. Egerton was a neighbour of Mr. Fox.) (whom I liked much), and he asked me "why on earth I instigated you to rob his poultry-yard?' The meeting was a good one, and the Duke of Argyll spoke excellently."] CHAPTER 1.XII. -- THE UNFINISHED BOOK. MAY 1856 TO JUNE 1858. [In the Autobiographical chapter (page 69,) my father wrote:--"Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my 'Origin of Species;' yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had collected." The letters in the present chapter are chiefly concerned with the preparation of this unfinished book. The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued up to June 1858, when it was interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's MS. During the two years which we are now considering he wrote ten chapters (that is about one-half) of the projected book. He remained for the most part at home, but paid several visits to Dr. Lane's Water-Cure Establishment at Moor Park, during one of which he made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Gilbert White at Selborne.] LETTERS. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL May 3 [1856]. ...With respect to your suggestion of a sketch of my views, I hardly know what to think, but will reflect on it, but it goes against my prejudices. To give a fair sketch would be absolutely impossible, for every proposition requires such an array of facts. If I were to do anything, it could only refer to the main agency of change--selection--and perhaps point out a very few of the leading features, which countenance such a view, and some few of the main difficulties. But I do not know what to think; I rather hate the idea of writing for priority, yet I certainly should be vexed if any one were to publish my doctrines before me. Anyhow, I thank you heartily for your sympathy. I shall be in London next week, and I will call on you on Thursday morning for one hour precisely, so as not to lose much of your time and my own; but will you let me this time come as early as 9 o'clock, for I have much which I must do in the morning in my strongest time? Farewell, my dear old patron. Yours, C. DARWIN. By the way, THREE plants have come up out of the earth, perfectly enclosed in the roots of the trees. And twenty-nine plants in the table-spoonful of mud, out of the little pond; Hooker was surprised at this, and struck with it, when I showed him how much mud I had scraped off one duck's feet. If I did publish a short sketch, where on earth should I publish it? If I do NOT hear, I shall understand that I may come from 9 to 10 on Thursday. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. May 9th, [1856]. ...I very much want advice and TRUTHFUL consolation if you can give it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my species work, and he urges me strongly to publish something. I am fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively will NOT expose myself to an Editor or a Council, allowing a publication for which they might be abused. If I publish anything it must be a VERY THIN and little volume, giving a sketch of my views and difficulties; but it is really dreadfully unphilosophical to give a resume, without exact references, of an unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this, at the suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which I might state, that I had been at work for eighteen (The interval of eighteen years, from 1837 when he began to collect facts, would bring the date of this letter to 1855, not 1856, nevertheless the latter seems the more probable date.) years, and yet could not publish for several years, and especially as I could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require especial investigation. Now what think you? I should be really grateful for advice. I thought of giving up a couple of months and writing such a sketch, and trying to keep my judgment open whether or no to publish it when completed. It will be simply impossible for me to give exact references; anything important I should state on the authority of the author generally; and instead of giving all the facts on which I ground my opinion, I could give by memory only one or two. In the Preface I would state that the work could not be considered strictly scientific, but a mere sketch or outline of a future work in which full references, etc. should be given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I should sneer at any one else doing this, and my only comfort is, that I TRULY never dreamed of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems deliberately to think it advisable. I am in a peck of troubles and do pray forgive me for troubling you. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. May 11th [1856]. ...Now for a MORE IMPORTANT! subject, viz., my own self: I am extremely glad you think well of a separate "Preliminary Essay" (i.e., if anything whatever is published; for Lyell seemed rather to doubt on this head) (The meaning of the sentence in parentheses is obscure.); but I cannot bear the idea of BEGGING some Editor and Council to publish, and then perhaps to have to APOLOGISE humbly for having led them into a scrape. In this one respect I am in the state which, according to a very wise saying of my father's, is the only fit state for asking advice, viz., with my mind firmly made up, and then, as my father used to say, GOOD advice was very comfortable, and it was easy to reject BAD advice. But Heaven knows I am not in this state with respect to publishing at all any preliminary essay. It yet strikes me as quite unphilosophical to publish results without the full details which have lead to such results. It is a melancholy, and I hope not quite true view of yours that facts will prove anything, and are therefore superfluous! But I have rather exaggerated, I see, your doctrine. I do not fear being tied down to error, i.e., I feel pretty sure I should give up anything false published in the preliminary essay, in my larger work; but I may thus, it is very true, do mischief by spreading error, which as I have often heard you say is much easier spread than corrected. I confess I lean more and more to at least making the attempt and drawing up a sketch and trying to keep my judgment, whether to publish, open. But I always return to my fixed idea that it is dreadfully unphilosophical to publish without full details. I certainly think my future work in full would profit by hearing what my friends or critics (if reviewed) thought of the outline. To any one but you I should apologise for such long discussion on so personal an affair; but I believe, and indeed you have proved it by the trouble you have taken, that this would be superfluous. Yours truly obliged, CH. DARWIN. P.S. What you say (for I have just re-read your letter) that the Essay might supersede and take away all novelty and value from any future larger Book, is very true; and that would grieve me beyond everything. On the other hand (again from Lyell's urgent advice), I published a preliminary sketch of the Coral Theory, and this did neither good nor harm. I begin MOST HEARTILY to wish that Lyell had never put this idea of an Essay into my head. FROM A LETTER TO SIR C. LYELL [July, 1856]. "I am delighted that I may say (with absolute truth) that my essay is published at your suggestion, but I hope it will not need so much apology as I at first thought; for I have resolved to make it nearly as complete as my present materials allow. I cannot put in all which you suggest, for it would appear too conceited." FROM A LETTER TO W.D. FOX. Down, June 14th [1856]. "...What you say about my Essay, I dare say is very true; and it gave me another fit of the wibber-gibbers: I hope that I shall succeed in making it modest. One great motive is to get information on the many points on which I want it. But I tremble about it, which I should not do, if I allowed some three or four more years to elapse before publishing anything..." [The following extracts from letters to Mr. Fox are worth giving, as showing how great was the accumulation of material which now had to be dealt with. June 14th [1856]. "Very many thanks for the capital information on cats; I see I had blundered greatly, but I know I had somewhere your original notes; but my notes are so numerous during nineteen years' collection, that it would take me at least a year to go over and classify them." November 1856. "Sometimes I fear I shall break down, for my subject gets bigger and bigger with each month's work."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL Down, 16th [June, 1856]. My dear Lyell, I am going to do the most impudent thing in the world. But my blood gets hot with passion and turns cold alternately at the geological strides, which many of your disciples are taking. Here, poor Forbes made a continent to [i.e., extending to] North America and another (or the same) to the Gulf weed; Hooker makes one from New Zealand to South America and round the World to Kerguelen Land. Here is Wollaston speaking of Madeira and P. Santo "as the sure and certain witnesses of a former continent." Here is Woodward writes to me, if you grant a continent over 200 or 300 miles of ocean depths (as if that was nothing), why not extend a continent to every island in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? And all this within the existence of recent species! If you do not stop this, if there be a lower region for the punishment of geologists, I believe, my great master, you will go there. Why, your disciples in a slow and creeping manner beat all the old Catastrophists who ever lived. You will live to be the great chief of the Catastrophists. There, I have done myself a great deal of good, and have exploded my passion. So my master, forgive me, and believe me, ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S. Don't answer this, I did it to ease myself. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [June] 17th, 1856. ...I have been very deeply interested by Wollaston's book ('The Variation of Species,' 1856.), though I differ GREATLY from many of his doctrines. Did you ever read anything so rich, considering how very far he goes, as his denunciations against those who go further: "Most mischievous," "absurd," "unsound." Theology is at the bottom of some of this. I told him he was like Calvin burning a heretic. It is a very valuable and clever book in my opinion. He has evidently read very little out of his own line. I urged him to read the New Zealand essay. His Geology also is rather eocene, as I told him. In fact I wrote most frankly; he says he is sure that ultra-honesty is my characteristic: I do not know whether he meant it as a sneer; I hope not. Talking of eocene geology, I got so wrath about the Atlantic continent, more especially from a note from Woodward (who has published a capital book on shells), who does not seem to doubt that every island in the Pacific and Atlantic are the remains of continents, submerged within period of existing species, that I fairly exploded, and wrote to Lyell to protest, and summed up all the continents created of late years by Forbes (the head sinner!) YOURSELF, Wollaston, and Woodward, and a pretty nice little extension of land they make altogether! I am fairly rabid on the question and therefore, if not wrong already, am pretty sure to become so... I have enjoyed your note much. Adios, C. DARWIN. P.S. [June] 18th. Lyell has written me a CAPITAL letter on your side, which ought to upset me entirely, but I cannot say it does quite. Though I must try and cease being rabid and try to feel humble, and allow you all to make continents, as easily as a cook does pancakes. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 25th [1856]. My dear Lyell, I will have the following tremendous letter copied to make the reading easier, and as I want to keep a copy. As you say you would like to hear my reasons for being most unwilling to believe in the continental extensions of late authors, I gladly write them, as, without I am convinced of my error, I shall have to give them condensed in my essay, when I discuss single and multiple creation; I shall therefore be particularly glad to have your general opinion on them. I may QUITE LIKELY have persuaded myself in my wrath that there is more in them than there is. If there was much more reason to admit a continental extension in any one or two instances (as in Madeira) than in other cases, I should feel no difficulty whatever. But if on account of European plants, and littoral sea shells, it is thought necessary to join Madeira to the mainland, Hooker is quite right to join New Holland to New Zealand, and Auckland Island (and Raoul Island to N.E.), and these to S. America and the Falklands, and these to Tristan d'Acunha, and these to Kerguelen Land; thus making, either strictly at the same time, or at different periods, but all within the life of recent beings, an almost circumpolar belt of land. So again Galapagos and Juan Fernandez must be joined to America; and if we trust to littoral see shells, the Galapagos must have been joined to the Pacific Islands (2400 miles distant) as well as to America, and as Woodward seems to think all the islands in the Pacific into a magnificent continent; also the islands in the Southern Indian Ocean into another continent, with Madagascar and Africa, and perhaps India. In the North Atlantic, Europe will stretch half-way across the ocean to the Azores, and further north right across. In short, we must suppose probably, half the present ocean was land within the period of living organisms. The Globe within this period must have had a quite different aspect. Now the only way to test this, that I can see, is to consider whether the continents have undergone within this same period such wonderful permutations. In all North and South and Central America, we have both recent and miocene (or eocene) shells, quite distinct on the opposite sides, and hence I cannot doubt that FUNDAMENTALLY America has held its place since at least, the miocene period. In Africa almost all the living shells are distinct on the opposite sides of the inter-tropical regions, short as the distance is compared to the range of marine mollusca, in uninterrupted seas; hence I infer that Africa has existed since our present species were created. Even the isthmus of Suez and the Aralo-Caspian basin have had a great antiquity. So I imagine, from the tertiary deposits, has India. In Australia the great fauna of extinct marsupials shows that before the present mammals appeared, Australia was a separate continent. I do not for one second doubt that very large portions of all these continents have undergone GREAT changes of level within this period, but yet I conclude that fundamentally they stood as barriers in the sea, where they now stand; and therefore I should require the weightiest evidence to make me believe in such immense changes within the period of living organisms in our oceans, where, moreover, from the great depths, the changes must have been vaster in a vertical sense. SECONDLY. Submerge our present continents, leaving a few mountain peaks as islands, and what will the character of the islands be,--Consider that the Pyrenees, Sierra Nevada, Apennines, Alps, Carpathians, are non-volcanic, Etna and Caucasus, volcanic. In Asia, Altai and Himalaya, I believe non-volcanic. In North Africa the non-volcanic, as I imagine, Alps of Abyssinia and of the Atlas. In South Africa, the Snow Mountains. In Australia, the non-volcanic Alps. In North America, the White Mountains, Alleghanies and Rocky Mountains--some of the latter alone, I believe, volcanic. In South America to the east, the non-volcanic [Silla?] of Caracas, and Itacolumi of Brazil, further south the Sierra Ventanas, and in the Cordilleras, many volcanic but not all. Now compare these peaks with the oceanic islands; as far as known all are volcanic, except St. Paul's (a strange bedevilled rock), and the Seychelles, if this latter can be called oceanic, in the line of Madagascar; the Falklands, only 500 miles off, are only a shallow bank; New Caledonia, hardly oceanic, is another exception. This argument has to me great weight. Compare on a Geographical map, islands which, we have SEVERAL reasons to suppose, were connected with mainland, as Sardinia, and how different it appears. Believing, as I am inclined, that continents as continents, and oceans as oceans, are of immense antiquity--I should say that if any of the existing oceanic islands have any relation of any kind to continents, they are forming continents; and that by the time they could form a continent, the volcanoes would be denuded to their cores, leaving peaks of syenite, diorite, or porphyry. But have we nowhere any last wreck of a continent, in the midst of the ocean? St. Paul's Rock, and such old battered volcanic islands, as St. Helena, may be; but I think we can see some reason why we should have less evidence of sinking than of rising continents (if my view in my Coral volume has any truth in it, viz.: that volcanic outbursts accompany rising areas), for during subsidence there will be no compensating agent at work, in rising areas there will be the ADDITIONAL element of outpoured volcanic matter. THIRDLY. Considering the depth of the ocean, I was, before I got your letter, inclined vehemently to dispute the vast amount of subsidence, but I must strike my colours. With respect to coral reefs, I carefully guarded against its being supposed that a continent was indicated by the groups of atolls. It is difficult to guess, as it seems to me, the amount of subsidence indicated by coral reefs; but in such large areas as the Lowe Archipelago, the Marshall Archipelago, and Laccadive group, it would, judging, from the heights of existing oceanic archipelagoes, be odd, if some peaks of from 8000 to 10,000 feet had not been buried. Even after your letter a suspicion crossed me whether it would be fair to argue from subsidences in the middle of the greatest oceans to continents; but refreshing my memory by talking with Ramsay in regard to the probable thickness in one vertical line of the Silurian and carboniferous formation, it seems there must have been AT LEAST 10,000 feet of subsidence during these formations in Europe and North America, and therefore during the continuance of nearly the same set of organic beings. But even 12,000 feet would not be enough for the Azores, or for Hooker's continent; I believe Hooker does not infer a continuous continent, but approximate groups of islands, with, if we may judge from existing continents, not PROFOUNDLY deep sea between them; but the argument from the volcanic nature of nearly every existing oceanic island tell against such supposed groups of islands,--for I presume he does not suppose a mere chain of volcanic islands belting the southern hemisphere. FOURTHLY. The supposed continental extensions do not seem to me, perfectly to account for all the phenomena of distribution on islands; as the absence of mammals and Batrachians; the absence of certain great groups of insects on Madeira, and of Acaciae and Banksias, etc., in New Zealand; the paucity of plants in some cases, etc. Not that those who believe in various accidental means of dispersal, can explain most of these cases; but they may at least say that these facts seem hardly compatible with former continuous land. FINALLY. For these several reasons, and especially considering it certain (in which you will agree) that we are extremely ignorant of means of dispersal, I cannot avoid thinking that Forbes' 'Atlantis,' was an ill-service to science, as checking a close study of means of dissemination. I shall be really grateful to hear, as briefly as you like, whether these arguments have any weight with you, putting yourself in the position of an honest judge. I told Hooker that I was going to write to you on this subject; and I should like him to read this; but whether he or you will think it worth time and postage remains to be proved. Yours most truly, CHARLES DARWIN. [On July 8th he wrote to Sir Charles Lyell. "I am sorry you cannot give any verdict on Continental extensions; and I infer that you think my argument of not much weight against such extensions. I know I wish I could believe so."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 20th [1856]. ...It is not a little egotistical, but I should like to tell you (and I do not THINK I have) how I view my work. Nineteen years (!) ago it occurred to me that whilst otherwise employed on Natural History, I might perhaps do good if I noted any sort of facts bearing on the question of the origin of species, and this I have since been doing. Either species have been independently created, or they have descended from other species, like varieties from one species. I think it can be shown to be probable that man gets his most distinct varieties by preserving such as arise best worth keeping and destroying the others, but I should fill a quire if I were to go on. To be brief, I ASSUME that species arise like our domestic varieties with MUCH extinction; and then test this hypothesis by comparison with as many general and pretty well-established propositions as I can find made out,--in geographical distribution, geological history, affinities, etc., etc. And it seems to me that, SUPPOSING that such hypothesis were to explain such general propositions, we ought, in accordance with the common way of following all sciences, to admit it till some better hypothesis be found out. For to my mind to say that species were created so and so is no scientific explanation, only a reverent way of saying it is so and so. But it is nonsensical trying to show how I try to proceed in the compass of a note. But as an honest man, I must tell you that I have come to the heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently created species--that species are only strongly defined varieties. I know that this will make you despise me. I do not much underrate the many HUGE difficulties on this view, but yet it seems to me to explain too much, otherwise inexplicable, to be false. Just to allude to one point in your last note, viz., about species of the same genus GENERALLY having a common or continuous area; if they are actual lineal descendants of one species, this of course would be the case; and the sadly too many exceptions (for me) have to be explained by climatal and geological changes. A fortiori on this view (but on exactly same grounds), all the individuals of the same species should have a continuous distribution. On this latter branch of the subject I have put a chapter together, and Hooker kindly read it over. I thought the exceptions and difficulties were so great that on the whole the balance weighed against my notions, but I was much pleased to find that it seemed to have considerable weight with Hooker, who said he had never been so much staggered about the permanence of species. I must say one word more in justification (for I feel sure that your tendency will be to despise me and my crotchets), that all my notions about HOW species change are derived from long continued study of the works of (and converse with) agriculturists and horticulturists; and I believe I see my way pretty clearly on the means used by nature to change her species and ADAPT them to the wondrous and exquisitely beautiful contingencies to which every living being is exposed... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 30th 1856. My dear Hooker, Your letter is of MUCH value to me. I was not able to get a definite answer from Lyell (On the continental extensions of Forbes and others.), as you will see in the enclosed letters, though I inferred that he thought nothing of my arguments. Had it not been for this correspondence, I should have written sadly too strongly. You may rely on it I shall put my doubts moderately. There never was such a predicament as mine: here you continental extensionists would remove enormous difficulties opposed to me, and yet I cannot honestly admit the doctrine, and must therefore say so. I cannot get over the fact that not a fragment of secondary or palaeozoic rock has been found on any island above 500 or 600 miles from a mainland. You rather misunderstand me when you think I doubt the POSSIBILITY of subsidence of 20,000 or 30,000 feet; it is only probability, considering such evidence as we have independently of distribution. I have not yet worked out in full detail the distribution of mammalia, both IDENTICAL and allied, with respect to the ONE ELEMENT OF DEPTH OF THE SEA; but as far as I have gone, the results are to me surprisingly accordant with my very most troublesome belief in not such great geographical changes as you believe; and in mammalia we certainly know more of MEANS of distribution than in any other class. Nothing is so vexatious to me, as so constantly finding myself drawing different conclusions from better judges than myself, from the same facts. I fancy I have lately removed many (not geographical) great difficulties opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination. Please return Lyell's letters. What a capital letter of Lyell's that to you is, and what a wonderful man he is. I differ from him greatly in thinking that those who believe that species are NOT fixed will multiply specific names: I know in my own case my most frequent source of doubt was whether others would not think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved a name. Otherwise I should only have thought whether the amount of difference and permanence was sufficient to justify a name: I am, also, surprised at his thinking it immaterial whether species are absolute or not: whenever it is proved that all species are produced by generation, by laws of change, what good evidence we shall have of the gaps in formations. And what a science Natural History will be, when we are in our graves, when all the laws of change are thought one of the most important parts of Natural History. I cannot conceive why Lyell thinks such notions as mine or of 'Vestiges,' will invalidate specific centres. But I must not run on and take up your time. My MS. will not, I fear, be copied before you go abroad. With hearty thanks. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--After giving much condensed, my argument versus continental extensions, I shall append some such sentence, as that two better judges than myself have considered these arguments, and attach no weight to them. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 5th [1856]. ...I quite agree about Lyell's letters to me, which, though to me interesting, have afforded me no new light. Your letters, under the GEOLOGICAL point of view, have been more valuable to me. You cannot imagine how earnestly I wish I could swallow continental extension, but I cannot; the more I think (and I cannot get the subject out of my head), the more difficult I find it. If there were only some half-dozen cases, I should not feel the least difficulty; but the generality of the facts of all islands (except one or two) having a considerable part of their productions in common with one or more mainlands utterly staggers me. What a wonderful case of the Epacridae! It is most vexatious, also humiliating, to me that I cannot follow and subscribe to the way in which you strikingly put your view of the case. I look at your facts (about Eucalyptus, etc.) as DAMNING against continental extension, and if you like also damning against migration, or at least of ENORMOUS difficulty. I see the ground of our difference (in a letter I must put myself on an equality in arguing) lies, in my opinion, that scarcely anything is known of means of distribution. I quite agree with A. De Candolle's (and I dare say your) opinion that it is poor work putting together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution; but I see no other way in which the subject can be attacked, for I think that A. De Candolle's argument, that no plants have been introduced into England except by man's agency, [is] of no weight. I cannot but think that the theory of continental extension does do some little harm as stopping investigation of the means of dispersal, which, whether NEGATIVE or positive, seems to me of value; when negatived, then every one who believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions. ...I see from your remarks that you do not understand my notions (whether or no worth anything) about modification; I attribute very little to the direct action of climate, etc. I suppose, in regard to specific centres, we are at cross purposes; I should call the kitchen garden in which the red cabbage was produced, or the farm in which Bakewell made the Shorthorn cattle, the specific centre of these SPECIES! And surely this is centralisation enough! I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance; and whether or no my book may be wretched, you have done your best to make it less wretched. Sometimes I am in very good spirits and sometimes very low about it. My own mind is decided on the question of the origin of species; but, good heavens, how little that is worth!... [With regard to "specific centres," a passage from a letter dated July 25, 1856, by Sir Charles Lyell to Sir J.D. Hooker ('Life' ii. page 216) is of interest: "I fear much that if Darwin argues that species are phantoms, he will also have to admit that single centres of dispersion are phantoms also, and that would deprive me of much of the value which I ascribe to the present provinces of animals and plants, as illustrating modern and tertiary changes in physical geography." He seems to have recognised, however, that the phantom doctrine would soon have to be faced, for he wrote in the same letter: "Whether Darwin persuades you and me to renounce our faith in species (when geological epochs are considered) or not, I foresee that many will go over to the indefinite modifiability doctrine." In the autumn my father was still working at geographical distribution, and again sought the aid of Sir J.D. Hooker. A LETTER TO SIR J.D. HOOKER [September, 1856]. "In the course of some weeks, you unfortunate wretch, you will have my MS. on one point of Geographical Distribution. I will however, never ask such a favour again; but in regard to this one piece of MS., it is of infinite importance to me for you to see it; for never in my life have I felt such difficulty what to do, and I heartily wish I could slur the whole subject over." In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (June, 1856), the following characteristic passage occurs, suggested, no doubt, by the kind of work which his chapter on Geographical Distribution entailed: "There is wonderful ill logic in his [E. Forbes'] famous and admirable memoir on distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up so as to give the heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true one, viz., that a compiler is a GREAT man, and an original man a commonplace man. Any fool can generalise and speculate; but, oh, my heavens! To get up AT SECOND HAND a New Zealand Flora, that is work." CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. October 3 [1856]. ...I remember you protested against Lyell's advice of writing a SKETCH of my species doctrines. Well, when I began I found it such unsatisfactory work that I have desisted, and am now drawing up my work as perfect as my materials of nineteen years' collecting suffice, but do not intend to stop to perfect any line of investigation beyond current work. Thus far and no farther I shall follow Lyell's urgent advice. Your remarks weighed with me considerably. I find to my sorrow it will run to quite a big book. I have found my careful work at pigeons really invaluable, as enlightening me on many points on variation under domestication. The copious old literature, by which I can trace the gradual changes in the breeds of pigeons has been extraordinarily useful to me. I have just had pigeons and fowls ALIVE from the Gambia! Rabbits and ducks I am attending to pretty carefully, but less so than pigeons. I find most remarkable differences in the skeletons of rabbits. Have you ever kept any odd breeds of rabbits, and can you give me any details? One other question: You used to keep hawks; do you at all know, after eating a bird, how soon after they throw up the pellet? No subject gives me so much trouble and doubt and difficulty as the means of dispersal of the same species of terrestrial productions on the oceanic islands. Land mollusca drive me mad, and I cannot anyhow get their eggs to experimentise their power of floating and resistance to the injurious action of salt water. I will not apologise for writing so much about my own doings, as I believe you will like to hear. Do sometime, I beg you, let me hear how you get on in health; and IF SO INCLINED, let me have some words on call-ducks. My dear Fox, yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [With regard to his book he wrote (November 10th) to Sir Charles Lyell]: "I am working very steadily at my big book; I have found it quite impossible to publish any preliminary essay or sketch; but am doing my work as completely as my present materials allow without waiting to perfect them. And this much acceleration I owe to you."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sunday [October 1856]. My dear Hooker, The seeds are come all safe, many thanks for them. I was very sorry to run away so soon and miss any part of my MOST pleasant evening; and I ran away like a Goth and Vandal without wishing Mrs. Hooker good-bye; but I was only just in time, as I got on the platform the train had arrived. I was particularly glad of our discussion after dinner, fighting a battle with you always clears my mind wonderfully. I groan to hear that A. Gray agrees with you about the condition of Botanical Geography. All I know is that if you had had to search for light in Zoological Geography you would by contrast, respect your own subject a vast deal more than you now do. The hawks have behaved like gentlemen, and have cast up pellets with lots of seeds in them; and I have just had a parcel of partridge's feet well caked with mud!!! (The mud in such cases often contains seeds, so that plants are thus transported.) Adios. Your insane and perverse friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 4th [1856]. My dear Hooker, I thank you more CORDIALLY than you will think probable, for your note. Your verdict (On the MS. relating to geographical distribution.) has been a great relief. On my honour I had no idea whether or not you would say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad, that you would have begged me to have burnt the whole. To my own mind my MS. relieved me of some few difficulties, and the difficulties seemed to me pretty fairly stated, but I had become so bewildered with conflicting facts, evidence, reasoning and opinions, that I felt to myself that I had lost all judgment. Your general verdict is INCOMPARABLY more favourable than I had anticipated... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 23rd [1856]. My dear Hooker, I fear I shall weary you with letters, but do not answer this, for in truth and without flattery, I so value your letters, that after a heavy batch, as of late, I feel that I have been extravagant and have drawn too much money, and shall therefore have to stint myself on another occasion. When I sent my MS. I felt strongly that some preliminary questions on the causes of variation ought to have been sent you. Whether I am right or wrong in these points is quite a separate question, but the conclusion which I have come to, quite independently of geographical distribution, is that external conditions (to which naturalists so often appeal) do by themselves VERY LITTLE. How much they do is the point of all others on which I feel myself very weak. I judge from the facts of variation under domestication, and I may yet get more light. But at present, after drawing up a rough copy on this subject, my conclusion is that external conditions do EXTREMELY little, except in causing mere variability. This mere variability (causing the child NOT closely to resemble its parent) I look at as VERY different from the formation of a marked variety or new species. (No doubt the variability is governed by laws, some of which I am endeavouring very obscurely to trace.) The formation of a strong variety or species I look a as almost wholly due to the selection of what may be incorrectly called CHANCE variations or variability. This power of selection stands in the most direct relation to time, and in the state of nature can be only excessively slow. Again, the slight differences selected, by which a race or species is at last formed, stands, as I think can be shown (even with plants, and obviously with animals), in a far more important relation to its associates than to external conditions. Therefore, according to my principles, whether right or wrong, I cannot agree with your proposition that time, and altered conditions, and altered associates, are 'convertible terms.' I look at the first and the last as FAR more important: time being important only so far as giving scope to selection. God knows whether you will perceive at what I am driving. I shall have to discuss and think more about your difficulty of the temperate and sub-arctic forms in the S. hemisphere than I have yet done. But I am inclined to think that I am right (if my general principles are right), that there would be little tendency to the formation of a new species, during the period of migration, whether shorter or longer, though considerable variability may have supervened... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th [1856]. ...How I do wish I lived near you to discuss matters with. I have just been comparing definitions of species, and stating briefly how systematic naturalists work out their subjects. Aquilegia in the Flora Indica was a capital example for me. It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of "species;" in some, resemblance is everything and descent of little weight--in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation the reigning idea--in some, descent is the key,--in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the undefinable. I suppose you have lost the odd black seed from the birds' dung, which germinated,--anyhow, it is not worth taking trouble over. I have now got about a dozen seeds out of small birds' dung. Adios, My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 1st [1857?]. My dear Dr Gray, I have received the second part of your paper ('Statistics of the Flora of the Northern United States.' "Silliman's Journal", 1857.), and though I have nothing particular to say, I must send you my thanks and hearty admiration. The whole paper strikes me as quite exhausting the subject, and I quite fancy and flatter myself I now appreciate the character of your Flora. What a difference in regard to Europe your remark in relation to the genera makes! I have been eminently glad to see your conclusion in regard to the species of large genera widely ranging; it is in strict conformity with the results I have worked out in several ways. It is of great importance to my notions. By the way you have paid me a GREAT compliment ("From some investigations of his own, this sagacious naturalist inclines to think that [the species of] large genera range over a larger area than the species of small genera do."--Asa Gray, loc. cit.): to be SIMPLY mentioned even in such a paper I consider a very great honour. One of your conclusions makes me groan, viz., that the line of connection of the strictly alpine plants is through Greenland. I should EXTREMELY like to see your reasons published in detail, for it "riles" me (this is a proper expression, is it not?) dreadfully. Lyell told me, that Agassiz having a theory about when Saurians were first created, on hearing some careful observations opposed to this, said he did not believe it, "for Nature never lied." I am just in this predicament, and repeat to you that, "Nature never lies," ergo, theorisers are always right... Overworked as you are, I dare say you will say that I am an odious plague; but here is another suggestion! I was led by one of my wild speculations to conclude (though it has nothing to do with geographical distribution, yet it has with your statistics) that trees would have a strong tendency to have flowers with dioecious, monoecious or polygamous structure. Seeing that this seemed so in Persoon, I took one little British Flora, and discriminating trees from bushes according to Loudon, I have found that the result was in species, genera and families, as I anticipated. So I sent my notions to Hooker to ask him to tabulate the New Zealand Flora for this end, and he thought my result sufficiently curious, to do so; and the accordance with Britain is very striking, and the more so, as he made three classes of trees, bushes, and herbaceous plants. (He says further he shall work the Tasmanian Flora on the same principle.) The bushes hold an intermediate position between the other two classes. It seems to me a curious relation in itself, and is very much so, if my theory and explanation are correct. (See 'Origin,' Edition i., page 100.) With hearty thanks, your most troublesome friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 12th [1857]. My dear Hooker, Your letter has pleased me much, for I never can get it out of my head, that I take unfair advantage of your kindness, as I receive all and give nothing. What a splendid discussion you could write on the whole subject of variation! The cases discussed in your last note are valuable to me (though odious and damnable), as showing how profoundly ignorant we are on the causes of variation. I shall just allude to these cases, as a sort of sub-division of polymorphism a little more definite, I fancy, than the variation of, for instance, the Rubi, and equally or more perplexing. I have just been putting my notes together on variations APPARENTLY due to the immediate and direct action of external causes; and I have been struck with one result. The most firm sticklers for independent creation admit, that the fur of the SAME species is thinner towards the south of the range of the same species than to the north--that the SAME shells are brighter-coloured to the south than north; that the same [shell] is paler-coloured in deep water--that insects are smaller and darker on mountains--more livid and testaceous near sea--that plants are smaller and more hairy and with brighter flowers on mountains: now in all such, and other cases, distinct species in the two zones follow the same rule, which seems to me to be most simply explained by species, being only strongly marked varieties, and therefore following the same laws as recognised and admitted varieties. I mention all this on account of the variation of plants in ascending mountains; I have quoted the foregoing remark only generally with no examples, for I add, there is so much doubt and dispute what to call varieties; but yet I have stumbled on so many casual remarks on VARIETIES of plants on mountains being so characterised, that I presume there is some truth in it. What think you? Do you believe there is ANY tendency in VARIETIES, as GENERALLY so-called, of plants to become more hairy and with proportionally larger and brighter-coloured flowers in ascending a mountain? I have been interested in my "weed garden," of 3 x 2 feet square: I mark each seedling as it appears, and I am astonished at the number that come up, and still more at the number killed by slugs, etc. Already 59 have been so killed; I expected a good many, but I had fancied that this was a less potent check than it seems to be, and I attributed almost exclusively to mere choking, the destruction of the seedlings. Grass-seedlings seem to suffer much less than exogens... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham [April (?) 1857]. My dear Hooker, Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am undergoing hydropathy for a fortnight, having been here a week, and having already received an amount of good which is quite incredible to myself and quite unaccountable. I can walk and eat like a hearty Christian, and even my nights are good. I cannot in the least understand how hydropathy can act as it certainly does on me. It dulls one's brain splendidly; I have not thought about a single species of any kind since leaving home. Your note has taken me aback; I thought the hairiness, etc., of Alpine SPECIES was generally admitted; I am sure I have seen it alluded to a score of times. Falconer was haranguing on it the other day to me. Meyen or Gay, or some such fellow (whom you would despise), I remember, makes some remark on Chilian Cordillera plants. Wimmer has written a little book on the same lines, and on VARIETIES being so characterised in the Alps. But after writing to you, I confess I was staggered by finding one man (Moquin-Tandon, I think) saying that Alpine flowers are strongly inclined to be white, and Linnaeus saying that cold makes plants APETALOUS, even the same species! Are Arctic plants often apetalous? My general belief from my compiling work is quite to agree with what you say about the little direct influence of climate; and I have just alluded to the hairiness of Alpine plants as an EXCEPTION. The odoriferousness would be a good case for me if I knew of VARIETIES being more odoriferous in dry habitats. I fear that I have looked at the hairiness of Alpine plants as so generally acknowledged that I have not marked passages, so as at all to see what kind of evidence authors advance. I must confess, the other day, when I asked Falconer, whether he knew of INDIVIDUAL plants losing or acquiring hairiness when transported, he did not. But now THIS SECOND, my memory flashes on me, and I am certain I have somewhere got marked a case of hairy plants from the Pyrenees losing hairs when cultivated at Montpellier. Shall you think me very impudent if I tell you that I have sometimes thought that (quite independently of the present case), you are a little too hard on bad observers; that a remark made by a bad observer CANNOT be right; an observer who deserves to be damned you would utterly damn. I feel entire deference to any remark you make out of your own head; but when in opposition to some poor devil, I somehow involuntarily feel not quite so much, but yet much deference for your opinion. I do not know in the least whether there is any truth in this my criticism against you, but I have often thought I would tell you it. I am really very much obliged for your letter, for, though I intended to put only one sentence and that vaguely, I should probably have put that much too strongly. Ever, my dear Hooker, yours most truly, C. DARWIN. P.S. This note, as you see, has not anything requiring an answer. The distribution of fresh-water molluscs has been a horrid incubus to me, but I think I know my way now; when first hatched they are very active, and I have had thirty or forty crawl on a dead duck's foot; and they cannot be jerked off, and will live fifteen and even twenty-four hours out of water. [The following letter refers to the expedition of the Austrian frigate "Novara"; Lyell had asked my father for suggestions.] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 11th [1857]. My dear Lyell, I was glad to see in the newspapers about the Austrian Expedition. I have nothing to add geologically to my notes in the Manual. (The article "Geology" in the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry.) I do not know whether the Expedition is tied down to call at only fixed spots. But if there be any choice or power in the scientific men to influence the places--this would be most desirable. It is my most deliberate conviction that nothing would aid more, Natural History, than careful collecting and investigating ALL THE PRODUCTIONS of the most isolated islands, especially of the southern hemisphere. Except Tristan d'Acunha and Kerguelen Land, they are very imperfectly known; and even at Kerguelen Land, how much there is to make out about the lignite beds, and whether there are signs of old Glacial action. Every sea shell and insect and plant is of value from such spots. Some one in the Expedition especially ought to have Hooker's New Zealand Essay. What grand work to explore Rodriguez, with its fossil birds, and little known productions of every kind. Again the Seychelles, which, with the Cocos so near, must be a remnant of some older land. The outer island of Juan Fernandez is little known. The investigation of these little spots by a band of naturalists would be grand; St. Paul's and Amsterdam would be glorious, botanically, and geologically. Can you not recommend them to get my 'Journal' and 'Volcanic Islands' on account of the Galapagos. If they come from the north it will be a shame and a sin if they do not call at Cocos Islet, one of the Galapagos. I always regretted that I was not able to examine the great craters on Albemarle Island, one of the Galapagos. In New Zealand urge on them to look out for erratic boulders and marks of old glaciers. Urge the use of the dredge in the Tropics; how little or nothing we know of the limit of life downward in the hot seas? My present work leads me to perceive how much the domestic animals have been neglected in out of the way countries. The Revillagigedo Island off Mexico, I believe, has never been trodden by foot of naturalist. If the expedition sticks to such places as Rio, Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon and Australia, etc., it will not do much. Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN. [The following passage occurs in a letter to Mr. Fox, February 22, 1857, and has reference to the book on Evolution on which he was still at work. The remainder of the letter is made up in details of no interest: "I am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous, than I do, but not I think, to any extreme degree: yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my book would be published for ever anonymously."] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Moor Park, May 1st, 1857. My dear Sir, I am much obliged for your letter of October 10th, from Celebes, received a few days ago; in a laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter and even still more by your paper ('On the law that has regulated the introduction of new species.'--Ann. Nat. Hist., 1855.) in the Annals, a year or more ago, I can plainly see that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the Annals, I agree to the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I dare say that you will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions from the very same facts. This summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first note-book, on the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from each other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for two years. I have never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before my work appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. I have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domestic varieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals having descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that it is so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the sterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to plants the collection of carefully recorded facts by Kolreuter and Gaertner (and Herbert,) is ENORMOUS. I most entirely agree with you on the little effects of "climatal conditions," which one sees referred to ad nauseam in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very slight. It is really IMPOSSIBLE to explain my views (in the compass of a letter), on the causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea,--whether true or false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth!... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Saturday [May 2nd, 1857]. My dear Hooker, You have shaved the hair off the Alpine plants pretty effectually. The case of the Anthyllis will make a "tie" with the believed case of Pyrenees plants becoming glabrous at low levels. If I DO find that I have marked such facts, I will lay the evidence before you. I wonder how the belief could have originated! Was it through final causes to keep the plants warm? Falconer in talk coupled the two facts of woolly Alpine plants and mammals. How candidly and meekly you took my Jeremiad on your severity to second-class men. After I had sent it off, an ugly little voice asked me, once or twice, how much of my noble defence of the poor in spirit and in fact, was owing to your having not seldom smashed favourite notions of my own. I silenced the ugly little voice with contempt, but it would whisper again and again. I sometimes despise myself as a poor compiler as heartily as you could do, though I do NOT despise my whole work, as I think there is enough known to lay a foundation for the discussion on the origin of species. I have been led to despise and laugh at myself as a compiler, for having put down that "Alpine plants have large flowers," and now perhaps I may write over these very words, "Alpine plants have small or apetalous flowers!"... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May] 16th [1857]. My dear Hooker, You said--I hope honestly--that you did not dislike my asking questions on general points, you of course answering or not as time or inclination might serve. I find in the animal kingdom that the proposition that any part or organ developed normally (i.e., not a monstrosity) in a species in any HIGH or UNUSUAL degree, compared with the same part or organ in allied species, tends to be HIGHLY VARIABLE. I cannot doubt this from my mass of collected facts. To give an instance, the Cross-bill is very abnormal in the structure of its bill compared with other allied Fringillidae, and the beak is EMINENTLY VARIABLE. The Himantopus, remarkable from the wonderful length of its legs, is VERY variable in the length of its legs. I could give MANY most striking and curious illustrations in all classes; so many that I think it cannot be chance. But I have NONE in the vegetable kingdom, owing, as I believe, to my ignorance. If Nepenthes consisted of ONE or two species in a group with a pitcher developed, then I should have expected it to have been very variable; but I do not consider Nepenthes a case in point, for when a whole genus or group has an organ, however anomalous, I do not expect it to be variable,--it is only when one or few species differ greatly in some one part or organ from the forms CLOSELY ALLIED to it in all other respects, that I believe such part or organ to be highly variable. Will you turn this in your mind? It is an important apparent LAW (!) for me. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I do not know how far you will care to hear, but I find Moquin-Tandon treats in his 'Teratologie' on villosity of plants, and seems to attribute more to dryness than altitude; but seems to think that it must be admitted that mountain plants are villose, and that this villosity is only in part explained by De Candolle's remark that the dwarfed condition of mountain plants would condense the hairs, and so give them the APPEARANCE of being more hairy. He quotes Senebier, 'Physiologie Vegetale,' as authority--I suppose the first authority, for mountain plants being hairy. If I could show positively that the endemic species were more hairy in dry districts, then the case of the varieties becoming more hairy in dry ground would be a fact for me. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 3rd [1857]. My dear Hooker, I am going to enjoy myself by having a prose on my own subjects to you, and this is a greater enjoyment to me than you will readily understand, as I for months together do not open my mouth on Natural History. Your letter is of great value to me, and staggers me in regard to my proposition. I dare say the absence of botanical facts may in part be accounted for by the difficulty of measuring slight variations. Indeed, after writing, this occurred to me; for I have Crucianella stylosa coming into flower, and the pistil ought to be very variable in length, and thinking of this I at once felt how could one judge whether it was variable in any high degree. How different, for instance, from the beak of a bird! But I am not satisfied with this explanation, and am staggered. Yet I think there is something in the law; I have had so many instances, as the following: I wrote to Wollaston to ask him to run through the Madeira Beetles and tell me whether any one presented anything very anomalous in relation to its allies. He gave me a unique case of an enormous head in a female, and then I found in his book, already stated, that the size of the head was ASTONISHINGLY variable. Part of the difference with plants may be accounted for by many of my cases being secondary male or FEMALE characters, but then I have striking cases with hermaphrodite Cirripedes. The cases seem to me far too numerous for accidental coincidences, of great variability and abnormal development. I presume that you will not object to my putting a note saying that you had reflected over the case, and though one or two cases seemed to support, quite as many or more seemed wholly contradictory. This want of evidence is the more surprising to me, as generally I find any proposition more easily tested by observations in botanical works, which I have picked up, than in zoological works. I never dreamed that you had kept the subject at all before your mind. Altogether the case is one more of my MANY horrid puzzles. My observations, though on so infinitely a small scale, on the struggle for existence, begin to make me see a little clearer how the fight goes on. Out of sixteen kinds of seed sown on my meadow, fifteen have germinated, but now they are perishing at such a rate that I doubt whether more than one will flower. Here we have choking which has taken place likewise on a great scale, with plants not seedlings, in a bit of my lawn allowed to grow up. On the other hand, in a bit of ground, 2 by 3 feet, I have daily marked each seedling weed as it has appeared during March, April and May, and 357 have come up, and of these 277 have ALREADY been killed chiefly by slugs. By the way, at Moor Park, I saw rather a pretty case of the effects of animals on vegetation: there are enormous commons with clumps of old Scotch firs on the hills, and about eight or ten years ago some of these commons were enclosed, and all round the clumps nice young trees are springing up by the million, looking exactly as if planted, so many are of the same age. In other parts of the common, not yet enclosed, I looked for miles and not ONE young tree could be seen. I then went near (within quarter of a mile of the clumps) and looked closely in the heather, and there I found tens of thousands of young Scotch firs (thirty in one square yard) with their tops nibbled off by the few cattle which occasionally roam over these wretched heaths. One little tree, three inches high, by the rings appeared to be twenty-six years old, with a short stem about as thick as a stick of sealing-wax. What a wondrous problem it is, what a play of forces, determining the kind and proportion of each plant in a square yard of turf! It is to my mind truly wonderful. And yet we are pleased to wonder when some animal or plant becomes extinct. I am so sorry that you will not be at the Club. I see Mrs. Hooker is going to Yarmouth; I trust that the health of your children is not the motive. Good-bye. My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I believe you are afraid to send me a ripe Edwardsia pod, for fear I should float it from New Zealand to Chile!!! CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 5 [1857]. My dear Hooker, I honour your conscientious care about the medals. (The Royal Society's medals.) Thank God! I am only an amateur (but a much interested one) on the subject. It is an old notion of mine that more good is done by giving medals to younger men in the early part of their career, than as a mere reward to men whose scientific career is nearly finished. Whether medals ever do any good is a question which does not concern us, as there the medals are. I am almost inclined to think that I would rather lower the standard, and give medals to young workers than to old ones with no ESPECIAL claims. With regard to especial claims, I think it just deserving your attention, that if general claims are once admitted, it opens the door to great laxity in giving them. Think of the case of a very rich man, who aided SOLELY with his money, but to a grand extent--or such an inconceivable prodigy as a minister of the Crown who really cared for science. Would you give such men medals? Perhaps medals could not be better applied than EXCLUSIVELY to such men. I confess at present I incline to stick to especial claims which can be put down on paper... I am much confounded by your showing that there are not obvious instances of my (or rather Waterhouse's) law of abnormal developments being highly variable. I have been thinking more of your remark about the difficulty of judging or comparing variability in plants from the great general variability of parts. I should look at the law as more completely smashed if you would turn in your mind for a little while for cases of great variability of an organ, and tell me whether it is moderately easy to pick out such cases; For IF THEY CAN BE PICKED OUT, and, notwithstanding, do not coincide with great or abnormal development, it would be a complete smasher. It is only beginning in your mind at the variability end of the question instead of at the abnormality end. PERHAPS cases in which a part is highly variable in all the species of a group should be excluded, as possibly being something distinct, and connected with the perplexing subject of polymorphism. Will you perfect your assistance by further considering, for a little, the subject this way? I have been so much interested this morning in comparing all my notes on the variation of the several species of the genus Equus and the results of their crossing. Taking most strictly analogous facts amongst the blessed pigeons for my guide, I believe I can plainly see the colouring and marks of the grandfather of the Ass, Horse, Quagga, Hemionus and Zebra, some millions of generations ago! Should not I [have] sneer[ed] at any one who made such a remark to me a few years ago; but my evidence seems to me so good that I shall publish my vision at the end of my little discussion on this genus. I have of late inundated you with my notions, you best of friends and philosophers. Adios, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham, June 25th [1857]. My dear Hooker, This requires no answer, but I will ask you whenever we meet. Look at enclosed seedling gorses, especially one with the top knocked off. The leaves succeeding the cotyledons being almost clover-like in shape, seems to me feebly analogous to embryonic resemblances in young animals, as, for instance, the young lion being striped. I shall ask you whether this is so...(See 'Power of Movement in Plants,' page 414.) Dr. Lane (The physician at Moor Park.) and wife, and mother-in-law, Lady Drysdale, are some of the nicest people I ever met. I return home on the 30th. Good-bye, my dear Hooker. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. [Here follows a group of letters, of various dates, bearing on the question of large genera varying.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. March 11th [1858]. I was led to all this work by a remark of Fries, that the species in large genera were more closely related to each other than in small genera; and if this were so, seeing that varieties and species are so hardly distinguishable, I concluded that I should find more varieties in the large genera than in the small...Some day I hope you will read my short discussion on the whole subject. You have done me infinite service, whatever opinion I come to, in drawing my attention to at least the possibility or the probability of botanists recording more varieties in the large than in the small genera. It will be hard work for me to be candid in coming to my conclusion. Ever yours, most truly, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I shall be several weeks at my present job. The work has been turning out badly for me this morning, and I am sick at heart; and, oh! how I do hate species and varieties. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. July 14th [1857?]. ...I write now to supplicate most earnestly a favour, viz., the loan of "Boreau, Flore du centre de la France", either 1st or 2nd edition, last best; also "Flora Ratisbonensis," by Dr. Furnrohr, in 'Naturhist. Topographie von Regensburg, 1839.' If you can POSSIBLY spare them, will you send them at once to the enclosed address. If you have not them, will you send one line by return of post: as I must try whether Kippist (The late Mr. Kippist was at this time in charge of the Linnean Society's Library.) can anyhow find them, which I fear will be nearly impossible in the Linnean Library, in which I know they are. I have been making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to me the grossest blunder which I have made in principle, and which entails two or three weeks' lost work; and I am at a dead-lock till I have these books to go over again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is. I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption. Ever yours, most miserably, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, [July] 14th [1857]. My dear Lubbock, You have done me the greatest possible service in helping me to clarify my brains. If I am as muzzy on all subjects as I am on proportion and chance,--what a book I shall produce! I have divided the New Zealand Flora as you suggested, there are 329 species in genera of 4 and upwards, and 323 in genera of 3 and less. The 339 species have 51 species presenting one or more varieties. The 323 species have only 37. Proportionately (339: 323:: 51: 48.5) they ought to have had 48 1/2 species presenting vars. So that the case goes as I want it, but not strong enough, without it be general, for me to have much confidence in. I am quite convinced yours is the right way; I had thought of it, but should never have done it had it not been for my most fortunate conversation with you. Un quite shocked to find how easily I am muddled, for I had before thought over the subject much, and concluded my way was fair. It is dreadfully erroneous. What a disgraceful blunder you have saved me from. I heartily thank you. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--It is enough to make me tear up all my MS. and give up in despair. It will take me several weeks to go over all my materials. But oh, if you knew how thankful I am to you! CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August [1857]. My dear Hooker, It is a horrid bore you cannot come soon, and I reproach myself that I did not write sooner. How busy you must be! with such a heap of botanists at Kew. Only think, I have just had a letter from Henslow, saying he will come here between 11th and 15th! Is not that grand? Many thanks about Furnrohr. I must humbly supplicate Kippist to search for it: he most kindly got Boreau for me. I am got extremely interested in tabulating, according to mere size of genera, the species having any varieties marked by Greek letters or otherwise: the result (as far as I have yet gone) seems to me one of the most important arguments I have yet met with, that varieties are only small species--or species only strongly marked varieties. The subject is in many ways so very important for me; I wish much you would think of any well-worked Floras with from 1000-2000 species, with the varieties marked. It is good to have hair-splitters and lumpers. (Those who make many species are the "splitters," and those who make few are the "lumpers.") I have done, or am doing:-- Babington....................... Henslow......................... British Flora. London Catalogue. H.C. Watson... Boreau.......................... France. Miquel.......................... Holland. Asa Gray........................ N.U. States. Hooker.......................... New Zealand. Fragment of Indian Flora. Wollaston....................... Madeira insects. Has not Koch published a good German Flora? Does he mark varieties? Could you send it me? Is there not some grand Russian Flora, which perhaps has varieties marked? The Floras ought to be well known. I am in no hurry for a few weeks. Will you turn this in your head when, if ever, you have leisure? The subject is very important for my work, though I clearly see MANY causes of error... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 21st [1859]. My dear Gray, My last letter begged no favour, this one does: but it will really cost you very little trouble to answer to me, and it will be of very GREAT service to me, owing to a remark made to me by Hooker, which I cannot credit, and which was suggested to him by one of my letters. He suggested my asking you, and I told him I would not give the least hint what he thought. I generally believe Hooker implicitly, but he is sometimes, I think, and he confesses it, rather over critical, and his ingenuity in discovering flaws seems to me admirable. Here is my question:--"Do you think that good botanists in drawing up a local Flora, whether small or large, or in making a Prodromus like De Candolle's, would almost universally, but unintentionally and unconsciously, tend to record (i.e., marking with Greek letters and giving short characters) varieties in the large or in the small genera? Or would the tendency be to record the varieties about equally in genera of all sizes? Are you yourself conscious on reflection that you have attended to, and recorded more carefully the varieties in large or small, or very small genera?" I know what fleeting and trifling things varieties very often are; but my query applies to such as have been thought worth marking and recording. If you could screw time to send me ever so brief an answer to this, pretty soon, it would be a great service to me. Yours most truly obliged, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--Do you know whether any one has ever published any remarks on the geographical range of varieties of plants in comparison with the species to which they are supposed to belong? I have in vain tried to get some vague idea, and with the exception of a little information on this head given me by Mr. Watson in a paper on Land Shells in United States, I have quite failed; but perhaps it would be difficult for you to give me even a brief answer on this head, and if so I am not so unreasonable, I ASSURE YOU, as to expect it. If you are writing to England soon, you could enclose other letters [for] me to forward. Please observe the question is not whether there are more or fewer varieties in larger or smaller genera, but whether there is a stronger or weaker tendency in the minds of botanists to RECORD such in large or small genera. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 6th [1858]. ...I send by this post my MS. on the "commonness," "range," and "variation" of species in large and small genera. You have undertaken a horrid job in so very kindly offering to read it, and I thank you warmly. I have just corrected the copy, and am disappointed in finding how tough and obscure it is; I cannot make it clearer, and at present I loathe the very sight of it. The style of course requires further correction, and if published I must try, but as yet see not how, to make it clearer. If you have much to say and can have patience to consider the whole subject, I would meet you in London on the Phil. Club day, so as to save you the trouble of writing. For Heaven's sake, you stern and awful judge and sceptic, remember that my conclusions may be true, notwithstanding that Botanists may have recorded more varieties in large than in small genera. It seems to me a mere balancing of probabilities. Again I thank you most sincerely, but I fear you will find it a horrid job. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--As usual, Hydropathy has made a man of me for a short time: I hope the sea will do Mrs. Hooker much good. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, December 22nd, 1857. My dear Sir, I thank you for your letter of September 27th. I am extremely glad to hear how you are attending to distribution in accordance with theoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation there is no good and original observation. Few travellers have attended to such points as you are now at work on; and, indeed, the whole subject of distribution of animals is dreadfully behind that of plants. You say that you have been somewhat surprised at no notice having been taken of your paper in the Annals. ('On the law that has regulated the introduction of New Species.' Ann. Nat. Hist., 1855.) I cannot say that I am, for so very few naturalists care for anything beyond the mere description of species. But you must not suppose that your paper has not been attended to: two very good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr. E. Blyth at Calcutta, specially called my attention to it. Though agreeing with you on your conclusions in that paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too long a subject to enter on my speculative notions. I have not yet seen your paper on the distribution of animals in the Aru Islands. I shall read it with the utmost interest; for I think that the most interesting quarter of the whole globe in respect to distribution, and I have long been very imperfectly trying to collect data for the Malay Archipelago. I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your doctrine of subsidence; indeed, from the quite independent evidence of the Coral Reefs I coloured my original map (in my Coral volume) of the Aru Islands as one of subsidence, but got frightened and left it uncoloured. But I can see that you are inclined to go much further than I am in regard to the former connection of oceanic islands with continents. Ever since poor E. Forbes propounded this doctrine it has been eagerly followed; and Hooker elaborately discusses the former connection of all the Antarctic Islands and New Zealand and South America. About a year ago I discussed this subject much with Lyell and Hooker (for I shall have to treat of it), and wrote out my arguments in opposition; but you will be glad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker thought much of my arguments. Nevertheless, for once in my life, I dare withstand the almost preternatural sagacity of Lyell. You ask about land-shells on islands far distant from continents: Madeira has a few identical with those of Europe, and here the evidence is really good, as some of them are sub-fossil. In the Pacific Islands there are cases of identity, which I cannot at present persuade myself to account for by introduction through man's agency; although Dr. Aug. Gould has conclusively shown that many land-shells have thus been distributed over the Pacific by man's agency. These cases of introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it so in the Malay Archipelago? It has seemed to me in the lists of mammals of Timor and other islands, that SEVERAL in all probability have been naturalised... You ask whether I shall discuss "man." I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for twenty years, will not fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large collection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole months on one chapter on Hybridism! I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four years more. What a wonderful deal you will have seen, and what interesting areas--the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of South America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the good cause of Natural Science; and you have my very sincere and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I will do battle to the death. Pray believe me, my dear sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. February 8th [1858]. ...I am working very hard at my book, perhaps too hard. It will be very big, and I am become most deeply interested in the way facts fall into groups. I am like Croesus overwhelmed with my riches in facts, and I mean to make my book as perfect as ever I can. I shall not go to press at soonest for a couple of years... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd [1858]. ...I was not much struck with the great Buckle, and I admired the way you stuck up about deduction and induction. I am reading his book ('The History of Civilisation.'), which, with much sophistry, as it seems to me, is WONDERFULLY clever and original, and with astounding knowledge. I saw that you admired Mrs. Farrer's 'Questa tomba' of Beethoven thoroughly; there is something grand in her sweet tones. Farewell. I have partly written this note to drive bee's-cells out of my head; for I am half-mad on the subject to try to make out some simple steps from which all the wondrous angles may result. (He had much correspondence on this subject with the late Professor Miller of Cambridge.) I was very glad to see Mrs. Hooker on Friday; how well she appears to be and looks. Forgive your intolerable but affectionate friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, April 16th [1858]. My dear Fox, I want you to observe one point for me, on which I am extremely much interested, and which will give you no trouble beyond keeping your eyes open, and that is a habit I know full well that you have. I find horses of various colours often have a spinal band or stripe of different and darker tint than the rest of the body; rarely transverse bars on the legs, generally on the under-side of the front legs, still more rarely a very faint transverse shoulder-stripe like an ass. Is there any breed of Delamere forest ponies? I have found out little about ponies in these respects. Sir P. Egerton has, I believe, some quite thoroughbred chestnut horses; have any of them the spinal stripe? Mouse-coloured ponies, or rather small horses, often have spinal and leg bars. So have dun horses (by dun I mean real colour of cream mixed with brown, bay, or chestnut). So have sometimes chestnuts, but I have not yet got a case of spinal stripe in chestnut, race horse, or in quite heavy cart-horse. Any fact of this nature of such stripes in horses would be MOST useful to me. There is a parallel case in the legs of the donkey, and I have collected some most curious cases of stripes appearing in various crossed equine animals. I have also a large mass of parallel facts in the breeds of pigeons about the wing bars. I SUSPECT it will throw light on the colour of the primeval horse. So do help me if occasion turns up...My health has been lately very bad from overwork, and on Tuesday I go for a fortnight's hydropathy. My work is everlasting. Farewell. My dear Fox, I trust you are well. Farewell, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham [April 26th, 1858]. ...I have just had the innermost cockles of my heart rejoiced by a letter from Lyell. I said to him (or he to me) that I believed from the character of the flora of the Azores, that icebergs must have been stranded there; and that I expected erratic boulders would be detected embedded between the upheaved lava-beds; and I got Lyell to write to Hartung to ask, and now H. says my question explains what had astounded him, viz., large boulders (and some polished) of mica-schist, quartz, sandstone, etc., some embedded, and some 40 and 50 feet above the level of the sea, so that he had inferred that they had not been brought as ballast. Is this not beautiful? The water-cure has done me some good, but I [am] nothing to boast of to-day, so good-bye. My dear friend, yours, C.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Moor Park, Farnham, April 26th [1858]. My dear Lyell, I have come here for a fortnight's hydropathy, as my stomach had got, from steady work, into a horrid state. I am extremely much obliged to you for sending me Hartung's interesting letter. The erratic boulders are splendid. It is a grand case of floating ice versus glaciers. He ought to have compared the northern and southern shores of the islands. It is eminently interesting to me, for I have written a very long chapter on the subject, collecting briefly all the geological evidence of glacial action in different parts of the world, and then at great length (on the theory of species changing) I have discussed the migration and modification of plants and animals, in sea and land, over a large part of the world. To my mind, it throws a flood of light on the whole subject of distribution, if combined with the modification of species. Indeed, I venture to speak with some little confidence on this, for Hooker, about a year ago, kindly read over my chapter, and though he then demurred gravely to the general conclusion, I was delighted to hear a week or two ago that he was inclined to come round pretty strongly to my views of distribution and change during the glacial period. I had a letter from Thompson, of Calcutta, the other day, which helps me much, as he is making out for me what heat our temperate plants can endure. But it is too long a subject for a note; and I have written thus only because Hartung's note has set the whole subject afloat in my mind again. But I will write no more, for my object here is to think about nothing, bathe much, walk much, eat much, and read much novels. Farewell, with many thanks, and very kind remembrance to Lady Lyell. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. DARWIN. Moor Park, Wednesday, April [1858]. The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to you, I strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half, and enjoyed myself--the fresh yet dark-green of the grand Scotch firs, the brown of the catkins of the old birches, with their white stems, and a fringe of distant green from the larches made an excessively pretty view. At last I fell fast asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds singing around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some woodpeckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as ever I saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the beasts or birds had been formed. I sat in the drawing-room till after eight, and then went and read the Chief Justice's summing up, and thought Bernard (Simon Bernard was tried in April 1858 as an accessory to Orsini's attempt on the life of the Emperor of the French. The verdict was "not guilty.") guilty, and then read a bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous, clerical, philanthropical, and all that sort of thing, but very decidedly flat. I say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money matters, and not much of a lady--for she makes her men say, "My Lady." I like Miss Craik very much, though we have some battles, and differ on every subject. I like also the Hungarian; a thorough gentleman, formerly attache at Paris, and then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned exile, with broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but says, he is certain [he is] a sincere patriot, most clever and eloquent, but weak, with no determination of character... CHAPTER 1. XIII. -- THE WRITING OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' JUNE 18, 1858, TO NOVEMBER, 1859. [The letters given in the present chapter tell their story with sufficient clearness, and need but a few words of explanation. Mr. Wallace's Essay, referred to in the first letter, bore the sub-title, 'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type,' was published in the Linnean Society's Journal (1858, volume iii. page 53) as part of the joint paper of "Messrs. C. Darwin and A. Wallace," of which the full title was 'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.' My father's contribution to the paper consisted of (1) Extracts from the sketch of 1844; (2) part of a letter addressed to Dr Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857, and which is given above. The paper was "communicated" to the Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker, in whose prefatory letter, a clear account of the circumstances of the case is given. Referring to Mr. Wallace's Essay, they wrote: "So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace's consent to allow the Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us been privy to for many years. On representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we thought proper of his memoir, etc.; and in adopting our present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of science generally."] LETTERS. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 18th [June 1858]. My dear Lyell, Some year or so ago you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the 'Annals' ('Annals and Magazine of Natural History', 1855.), which had interested you, and, as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent me the enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance--that I should be forestalled. You said this, when I explained to you here very briefly my views of 'Natural Selection' depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory. I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say. My dear Lyell, yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Friday [June 25, 1858]. My dear Lyell, I am very sorry to trouble you, busy as you are, in so merely a personal an affair; but if you will give me your deliberate opinion, you will do me as great a service as ever man did, for I have entire confidence in your judgment and honour... There is nothing in Wallace's sketch which is not written out much fuller in my sketch, copied out in 1844, and read by Hooker some dozen years ago. About a year ago I sent a short sketch, of which I have a copy, of my views (owing to correspondence on several points) to Asa Gray, so that I could most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace. I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot persuade myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says nothing about publication, and I enclose his letter. But as I had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so honourably, because Wallace has sent me an outline of his doctrine? I would far rather burn my whole book, than that he or any other man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit. Do you not think his having sent me this sketch ties my hands?... If I could honourably publish, I would state that I was induced now to publish a sketch (and I should be very glad to be permitted to say, to follow your advice long ago given) from Wallace having sent me an outline of my general conclusions. We differ only, [in] that I was led to my views from what artificial selection has done for domestic animals. I would send Wallace a copy of my letter to Asa Gray, to show him that I had not stolen his doctrine. But I cannot tell whether to publish now would not be base and paltry. This was my first impression, and I should have certainly acted on it had it not been for your letter. This is a trumpery affair to trouble you with, but you cannot tell how much obliged I should be for your advice. By the way, would you object to send this and your answer to Hooker to be forwarded to me, for then I shall have the opinion of my two best and kindest friends. This letter is miserably written, and I write it now, that I may for a time banish the whole subject; and I am worn out with musing... My good dear friend forgive me. This is a trumpery letter, influenced by trumpery feelings. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. I will never trouble you or Hooker on the subject again. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 26th [June, 1858]. My dear Lyell, Forgive me for adding a P.S. to make the case as strong as possible against myself. Wallace might say, "You did not intend publishing an abstract of your views till you received my communication. Is it fair to take advantage of my having freely, though unasked, communicated to you my ideas, and thus prevent me forestalling you?" The advantage which I should take being that I am induced to publish from privately knowing that Wallace is in the field. It seems hard on me that I should be thus compelled to lose my priority of many years' standing, but I cannot feel at all sure that this alters the justice of the case. First impressions are generally right, and I at first thought it would be dishonourable in me now to publish. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I have always thought you would make a first-rate Lord Chancellor; and I now appeal to you as a Lord Chancellor. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Tuesday [June 29, 1858]. ...I have received your letters. I cannot think now (So soon after the death, from scarlet fever, of his infant child.) on the subject, but soon will. But I can see that you have acted with more kindness, and so has Lyell, even than I could have expected from you both, most kind as you are. I can easily get my letter to Asa Gray copied, but it is too short. ...God bless you. You shall hear soon, as soon as I can think. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Tuesday night [June 29, 1858]. My dear Hooker, I have just read your letter, and see you want the papers at once. I am quite prostrated, and can do nothing, but I send Wallace, and the abstract ("Abstract" is here used in the sense of "extract;" in this sense also it occurs in the 'Linnean Journal,' where the sources of my father's paper are described.) of my letter to Asa Gray, which gives most imperfectly only the means of change, and does not touch on reasons for believing that species do change. I dare say all is too late. I hardly care about it. But you are too generous to sacrifice so much time and kindness. It is most generous, most kind. I send my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it. I really cannot bear to look at it. Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me to care at all about priority. The table of contents will show what it is. I would make a similar, but shorter and more accurate sketch for the 'Linnean Journal.' I will do anything. God bless you, my dear kind friend. I can write no more. I send this by my servant to Kew. Yours, C. DARWIN. [The following letter is that already referred to as forming part of the joint paper published in the Linnean Society's 'Journal,' 1858]:-- CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 5th [1857]. (The date is given as October in the 'Linnean Journal.' The extracts were printed from a duplicate undated copy in my father's possession, on which he had written, "This was sent to Asa Gray 8 or 9 months ago, I think October 1857.") My dear Gray, I forget the exact words which I used in my former letter, but I dare say I said that I thought you would utterly despise me when I told you what views I had arrived at, which I did because I thought I was bound as an honest man to do so. I should have been a strange mortal, seeing how much I owe to your quite extraordinary kindness, if in saying this I had meant to attribute the least bad feeling to you. Permit me to tell you that, before I had ever corresponded with you, Hooker had shown me several of your letters (not of a private nature), and these gave me the warmest feeling of respect to you; and I should indeed be ungrateful if your letters to me, and all I have heard of you, had not strongly enhanced this feeling. But I did not feel in the least sure that when you knew whither I was tending, that you might not think me so wild and foolish in my views (God knows, arrived at slowly enough, and I hope conscientiously), that you would think me worth no more notice or assistance. To give one example: the last time I saw my dear old friend Falconer, he attacked me most vigorously, but quite kindly, and told me, "You will do more harm than any ten Naturalists will do good. I can see that you have already CORRUPTED and half-spoiled Hooker!!" Now when I see such strong feeling in my oldest friends, you need not wonder that I always expect my views to be received with contempt. But enough and too much of this. I thank you most truly for the kind spirit of your last letter. I agree to every word in it, and think I go as far as almost any one in seeing the grave difficulties against my doctrine. With respect to the extent to which I go, all the arguments in favour of my notions fall RAPIDLY away, the greater the scope of forms considered. But in animals, embryology leads me to an enormous and frightful range. The facts which kept me longest scientifically orthodox are those of adaptation--the pollen-masses in asclepias--the mistletoe, with its pollen carried by insects, and seed by birds--the woodpecker, with its feet and tail, beak and tongue, to climb the tree and secure insects. To talk of climate or Lamarckian habit producing such adaptations to other organic beings is futile. This difficulty I believe I have surmounted. As you seem interested in the subject, and as it is an IMMENSE advantage to me to write to you and to hear, ever so briefly, what you think, I will enclose (copied, so as to save you trouble in reading) the briefest abstract of my notions on the means by which Nature makes her species. Why I think that species have really changed, depends on general facts in the affinities, embryology, rudimentary organs, geological history, and geographical distribution of organic beings. In regard to my Abstract, you must take immensely on trust, each paragraph occupying one or two chapters in my book. You will, perhaps, think it paltry in me, when I ask you not to mention my doctrine; the reason is, if any one, like the author of the 'Vestiges,' were to hear of them, he might easily work them in, and then I should have to quote from a work perhaps despised by naturalists, and this would greatly injure any chance of my views being received by those alone whose opinions I value. [Here follows a discussion on "large genera varying," which has no direct connection with the remainder of the letter.] I. It is wonderful what the principle of Selection by Man, that is the picking out of individuals with any desired quality, and breeding from them, and again picking out, can do. Even breeders have been astonished at their own results. They can act on differences inappreciable to an uneducated eye. Selection has been METHODICALLY followed in Europe for only the last half century. But it has occasionally, and even in some degree methodically, been followed in the most ancient times. There must have been also a kind of unconscious selection from the most ancient times, namely, in the preservation of the individual animals (without any thought of their offspring) most useful to each race of man in his particular circumstances. The "roguing," as nursery-men call the destroying of varieties, which depart from their type, is a kind of selection. I am convinced that intentional and occasional selection has been the main agent in making our domestic races. But, however this may be, its great power of modification has been indisputedly shown in late times. Selection acts only by the accumulation of very slight or greater variations, caused by external conditions, or by the mere fact that in generation the child is not absolutely similar to its parent. Man, by this power of accumulating variations, adapts living beings to his wants--he MAY BE SAID to make the wool of one sheep good for carpets, and another for cloth, etc. II. Now, suppose there was a being, who did not judge by mere external appearance, but could study the whole internal organisation--who never was capricious--who should go on selecting for one end during millions of generations, who will say what he might not effect! In nature we have some SLIGHT variations, occasionally in all parts: and I think it can be shown that a change in the conditions of existence is the main cause of the child not exactly resembling its parents; and in nature, geology shows us what changes have taken place, and are taking place. We have almost unlimited time: no one but a practical geologist can fully appreciate this: think of the Glacial period, during the whole of which the same species of shells at least have existed; there must have been during this period, millions on millions of generations. III. I think it can be shown that there is such an unerring power at work, or NATURAL SELECTION (the title of my book), which selects exclusively for the good of each organic being. The elder De Candolle, W. Herbert, and Lyell, have written strongly on the struggle for life; but even they have not written strongly enough. Reflect that every being (even the elephant) breeds at such a rate that, in a few years, or at most a few centuries or thousands of years, the surface of the earth would not hold the progeny of any one species. I have found it hard constantly to bear in mind that the increase of every single species is checked during some part of its life, or during some shortly recurrent generation. Only a few of those annually born can live to propagate their kind. What a trifling difference must often determine which shall survive and which perish. IV. Now take the case of a country undergoing some change; this will tend to cause some of its inhabitants to vary slightly; not but what I believe most beings vary at all times enough for selection to act on. Some of its inhabitants will be exterminated, and the remainder will be exposed to the mutual action of a different set of inhabitants, which I believe to be more important to the life of each being than mere climate. Considering the infinitely various ways beings have to obtain food by struggling with other beings, to escape danger at various times of life, to have their eggs or seeds disseminated, etc., etc., I cannot doubt that during millions of generations individuals of a species will be born with some slight variation profitable to some part of its economy; such will have a better chance of surviving, propagating this variation, which again will be slowly increased by the accumulative action of natural selection; and the variety thus formed will either coexist with, or more commonly will exterminate its parent form. An organic being like the woodpecker, or the mistletoe, may thus come to be adapted to a score of contingencies; natural selection, accumulating those slight variations in all parts of its structure which are in any way useful to it, during any part of its life. V. Multiform difficulties will occur to every one on this theory. Most can, I think, be satisfactorily answered.--"Natura non facit saltum" answer some of the most obvious. The slowness of the change, and only a very few undergoing change at any one time answers others. The extreme imperfections of our geological records answers others. VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence, plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted twenty species belonging to eighteen genera), or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging to almost as many genera and families as to species. We can understand this with the higher animals, whose habits we best understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight, if cropped with several species of grasses, than with two or three species. Now every single organic being, by propagating rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties, or sub-species, or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts, that the varying offspring of each species will try (only a few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature as possible. Each new variety or species when formed will generally take the place of, and so exterminate its less well-fitted parent. This, I believe, to be the origin of the classification or arrangement of all organic beings at all times. These always SEEM to branch and sub-branch like a tree from a common trunk; the flourishing twigs destroying the less vigorous--the dead and lost branches rudely representing extinct genera and families. This sketch is MOST imperfect; but in so short a space I cannot make it better. Your imagination must fill up many wide blanks. Without some reflection, it will appear all rubbish; perhaps it will appear so after reflection. C.D. P.S.--This little abstract touches only the accumulative power of natural selection, which I look at as by far the most important element in the production of new forms. The laws governing the incipient or primordial variation (unimportant except as the groundwork for selection to act on, in which respect it is all important), I shall discuss under several heads, but I can come, as you may well believe, only to very partial and imperfect conclusions. [The joint paper of Mr. Wallace and my father was read at the Linnean Society on the evening of July 1st. Sir Charles Lyell and Sir J.D. Hooker were present, and both, I believe, made a few remarks, chiefly with a view of impressing on those present the necessity of giving the most careful consideration to what they had heard. There was, however, no semblance of a discussion. Sir Joseph Hooker writes to me: "The interest excited was intense, but the subject was too novel and too ominous for the old school to enter the lists, before armouring. After the meeting it was talked over with bated breath: Lyell's approval, and perhaps in a small way mine, as his lieutenant in the affair, rather overawed the Fellows, who would otherwise have flown out against the doctrine. We had, too, the vantage ground of being familiar with the authors and their theme."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th [1858]. My dear Hooker, We are become more happy and less panic-struck, now that we have sent out of the house every child, and shall remove H.,as soon as she can move. The first nurse became ill with ulcerated throat and quinsey, and the second is now ill with the scarlet fever, but, thank God, is recovering. You may imagine how frightened we have been. It has been a most miserable fortnight. Thank you much for your note, telling me that all had gone on prosperously at the Linnean Society. You must let me once again tell you how deeply I feel your generous kindness and Lyell's on this occasion. But in truth it shames me that you should have lost time on a mere point of priority. I shall be curious to see the proofs. I do not in the least understand whether my letter to A. Gray is to be printed; I suppose not, only your note; but I am quite indifferent, and place myself absolutely in your and Lyell's hands. I can easily prepare an abstract of my whole work, but I can hardly see how it can be made scientific for a Journal, without giving facts, which would be impossible. Indeed, a mere abstract cannot be very short. Could you give me any idea how many pages of the Journal could probably be spared me? Directly after my return home, I would begin and cut my cloth to my measure. If the Referees were to reject it as not strictly scientific, I could, perhaps publish it as a pamphlet. With respect to my big interleaved abstract (The Sketch of 1844.), would you send it any time before you leave England, to the enclosed address? If you do not go till August 7th-10th, I should prefer it left with you. I hope you have jotted criticisms on my MS. on big Genera, etc., sufficient to make you remember your remarks, as I should be infinitely sorry to lose them. And I see no chance of our meeting if you go soon abroad. We thank you heartily for your invitation to join you: I can fancy nothing which I should enjoy more; but our children are too delicate for us to leave; I should be mere living lumber. Lastly, you said you would write to Wallace; I certainly should much like this, as it would quite exonerate me: if you would send me your note, sealed up, I would forward it with my own, as I know the address, etc. Will you answer me sometime about your notions of the length of my abstract. If you see Lyell, will you tell him how truly grateful I feel for his kind interest in this affair of mine. You must know that I look at it, as very important, for the reception of the view of species not being immutable, the fact of the greatest Geologist and Botanist in England taking ANY SORT OF INTEREST in the subject: I am sure it will do much to break down prejudices. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Miss Wedgwood's, Hartfield, Tunbridge Wells, [July 13th, 1858]. My dear Hooker, Your letter to Wallace seems to me perfect, quite clear and most courteous. I do not think it could possibly be improved, and I have to day forwarded it with a letter of my own. I always thought it very possible that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had a grand enough soul not to care; but I found myself mistaken and punished; I had, however, quite resigned myself, and had written half a letter to Wallace to give up all priority to him, and should certainly not have changed had it not been for Lyell's and your quite extraordinary kindness. I assure you I feel it, and shall not forget it. I am MORE than satisfied at what took place at the Linnean Society. I had thought that your letter and mine to Asa Gray were to be only an appendix to Wallace's paper. We go from here in a few days to the sea-side, probably to the Isle of Wight, and on my return (after a battle with pigeon skeletons) I will set to work at the abstract, though how on earth I shall make anything of an abstract in thirty pages of the Journal, I know not, but will try my best. I shall order Bentham; is it not a pity that you should waste time in tabulating varieties? for I can get the Down schoolmaster to do it on my return, and can tell you all the results. I must try and see you before your journey; but do not think I am fishing to ask you to come to Down, for you will have no time for that. You cannot imagine how pleased I am that the notion of Natural Selection has acted as a purgative on your bowels of immutability. Whenever naturalists can look at species changing as certain, what a magnificent field will be open,--on all the laws of variation,--on the genealogy of all living beings,--on their lines of migration, etc., etc. Pray thank Mrs. Hooker for her very kind little note, and pray, say how truly obliged I am, and in truth ashamed to think that she should have had the trouble of copying my ugly MS. It was extraordinarily kind in her. Farewell, my dear kind friend. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making ant; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful stories, but I have now seen a defeated marauding party, and I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are HOUSE, and not field niggers) in their mouths! I am inclined to think that it is a true generalisation that, when honey is secreted at one point of the circle of the corolla, if the pistil bends, it always bends into the line of the gangway to the honey. The Larkspur is a good instance, in contrast to Columbine,--if you think of it, just attend to this little point. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight, July 18th [1858]. ...We are established here for ten days, and then go on to Shanklin, which seems more amusing to one, like myself, who cannot walk. We hope much that the sea may do H. and L. good. And if it does, our expedition will answer, but not otherwise. I have never half thanked you for all the extraordinary trouble and kindness you showed me about Wallace's affair. Hooker told me what was done at the Linnean Society, and I am far more than satisfied, and I do not think that Wallace can think my conduct unfair in allowing you and Hooker to do whatever you thought fair. I certainly was a little annoyed to lose all priority, but had resigned myself to my fate. I am going to prepare a longer abstract; but it is really impossible to do justice to the subject, except by giving the facts on which each conclusion is grounded, and that will, of course, be absolutely impossible. Your name and Hooker's name appearing as in any way the least interested in my work will, I am certain, have the most important bearing in leading people to consider the subject without prejudice. I look at this as so very important, that I am almost glad of Wallace's paper for having led to this. My dear Lyell, yours most gratefully, CH. DARWIN. [The following letter refers to the proof-sheets of the Linnean paper. The 'introduction' means the prefatory letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J.D. Hooker.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight, July 21st [1858]. My dear Hooker, I received only yesterday the proof-sheets, which I now return. I think your introduction cannot be improved. I am disgusted with my bad writing. I could not improve it, without rewriting all, which would not be fair or worth while, as I have begun on a better abstract for the Linnean Society. My excuse is that it NEVER was intended for publication. I have made only a few corrections in the style; but I cannot make it decent, but I hope moderately intelligible. I suppose some one will correct the revise. (Shall I?) Could I have a clean proof to send to Wallace? I have not yet fully considered your remarks on big genera (but your general concurrence is of the HIGHEST POSSIBLE interest to me); nor shall I be able till I re-read my MS.; but you may rely on it that you never make a remark to me which is lost from INATTENTION. I am particularly glad you do not object to my stating your objections in a modified form, for they always struck me as very important, and as having much inherent value, whether or no they were fatal to my notions. I will consider and reconsider all your remarks... I have ordered Bentham, for, as -- says, it will be very curious to see a Flora written by a man who knows nothing of British plants!! I am very glad at what you say about my Abstract, but you may rely on it that I will condense to the utmost. I would aid in money if it is too long. (That is to say, he would help to pay for the printing, if it should prove too long for the Linnean Society.) In how many ways you have aided me! Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. [The 'Abstract' mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding letter was in fact the 'Origin of Species,' on which he now set to work. In his 'Autobiography' he speaks of beginning to write in September, but in his Diary he wrote, "July 20 to August 12, at Sandown, began Abstract of Species book." "September 16, Recommenced Abstract." The book was begun with the idea that it would be published as a paper, or series of papers, by the Linnean Society, and it was only in the late autumn that it became clear that it must take the form of an independent volume.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Friday [July] 30th [1858]. My dear Hooker, Will you give the enclosed scrap to Sir William to thank him for his kindness; and this gives me an excuse to amuse myself by writing to you a note, which requires no answer. This is a very charming place, and we have got a very comfortable house. But, alas, I cannot say that the sea has done H. or L. much good. Nor has my stomach recovered from all our troubles. I am very glad we left home, for six children have now died of scarlet fever in Down. We return on the 14th of August. I have got Bentham ('British Flora.'), and am charmed with it, and William (who has just started for a tour abroad) has been making out all sorts of new (to me) plants capitally. The little scraps of information are so capital...The English names in the analytical keys drive us mad: give them by all means, but why on earth [not] make them subordinate to the Latin; it puts me in a passion. W. charged into the Compositae and Umbelliferae like a hero, and demolished ever so many in grand style. I pass my time by doing daily a couple of hours of my Abstract, and I find it amusing and improving work. I am now most heartily obliged to you and Lyell for having set me on this; for I shall, when it is done, be able to finish my work with greater ease and leisure. I confess I hated the thought of the job; and now I find it very unsatisfactory in not being able to give my reasons for each conclusion. I will be longer than I expected; it will take thirty-five of my MS. folio pages to give an abstract on variation under domestication alone; but I will try to put in nothing which does not seem to me of some interest, and which was once new to me. It seems a queer plan to give an abstract of an unpublished work; nevertheless, I repeat, I am extremely glad I have begun in earnest on it. I hope you and Mrs. Hooker will have a very very pleasant tour. Farewell, my dear Hooker. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Thursday [August 5, 1858]. My dear Hooker, I should think the note apologetical about the style of the abstract was best as a note...But I write now to ask you to send me by return of post the MS. on big genera, that I may make an abstract of a couple of pages in length. I presume that you have quite done with it, otherwise I would not for anything have it back. If you tie it with string, and mark it MS. for printing, it will not cost, I should think, more than 4 pence. I shall wish much to say that you have read this MS. and concur; but you shall, before I read it to the Society, hear the sentence. What you tell me after speaking with Busk about the length of the Abstract is an IMMENSE relief to me; it will make the labour far less, not having to shorten so much every single subject; but I will try not to be too diffusive. I fear it will spoil all interest in my book (The larger book begun in 1856.), whenever published. The Abstract will do very well to divide into several parts: thus I have just finished "Variation under Domestication," in forty-four MS. pages, and that would do for one evening; but I should be extremely sorry if all could not be published together. What else you say about my Abstract pleases me highly, but frightens me, for I fear I shall never be able to make it good enough. But how I do run on about my own affairs to you! I was astonished to see Sir W. Hooker's card here two or three days ago: I was unfortunately out walking. Henslow, also, has written to me, proposing to come to Down on the 9th, but alas, I do not return till the 13th, and my wife not till a week later; so that I am also most sorry to think I shall not see you, for I should not like to leave home so soon. I had thought of going to London and running down for an hour or two to Kew... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, [August] [1858]. My dear Hooker, I write merely to say that the MS. came safely two or three days ago. I am much obliged for the correction of style: I find it unutterably difficult to write clearly. When we meet I must talk over a few points on the subject. You speak of going to the sea-side somewhere; we think this the nicest seaside place which we have ever seen, and we like Shanklin better than other spots on the south coast of the island, though many are charming and prettier, so that I would suggest your thinking of this place. We are on the actual coast; but tastes differ so much about places. If you go to Broadstairs, when there is a strong wind from the coast of France and in fine, dry, warm weather, look out, and you will PROBABLY (!) see thistle-seeds blown across the Channel. The other day I saw one blown right inland, and then in a few minutes a second one and then a third; and I said to myself, God bless me, how many thistles there must be in France; and I wrote a letter in imagination to you. But I then looked at the LOW clouds, and noticed that they were not coming inland, so I feared a screw was loose. I then walked beyond a headland, and found the wind parallel to the coast, and on this very headland a noble bed of thistles, which by every wide eddy were blown far out to sea, and then came right in at right angles to the shore! One day such a number of insects were washed up by the tide, and I brought to life thirteen species of Coleoptera; not that I suppose these came from France. But do you watch for thistle-seed as you saunter along the coast... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. August 11th [1858]. My dear Gray, Your note of July 27th has just reached me in the Isle of Wight. It is a real and great pleasure to me to write to you about my notions; and even if it were not so, I should be a most ungrateful dog, after all the invaluable assistance you have rendered me, if I did not do anything which you asked. I have discussed in my long MS. the later changes of climate and the effect on migration, and I will here give you an ABSTRACT of an ABSTRACT (which latter I am preparing of my whole work for the Linnean Society). I cannot give you facts, and I must write dogmatically, though I do not feel so on any point. I may just mention, in order that you may believe that I have SOME foundation for my views, that Hooker has read my MS., and though he at first demurred to my main point, he has since told me that further reflection and new facts have made him a convert. In the older, or perhaps newer, Pliocene age (a little BEFORE the Glacial epoch) the temperature was higher; of this there can be little doubt; the land, on a LARGE SCALE, held much its present disposition: the species were mainly, judging from shells, what they are now. At this period when all animals and plants ranged 10 or 15 degrees nearer the poles, I believe the northern part of Siberia and of North America being almost CONTINUOUS, were peopled (it is quite possible, considering the shallow water, that Behring Straits were united, perhaps a little southward) by a nearly uniform fauna and flora, just as the Arctic regions now are. The climate then became gradually colder till it became what it now is; and then the temperate parts of Europe and America would be separated, as far as migration is concerned, just as they now are. Then came on the Glacial period, driving far south all living things; middle or even southern Europe being peopled with Arctic productions; as the warmth returned, the Arctic productions slowly crawled up the mountains as they became denuded of snow; and we now see on their summits the remnants of a once continuous flora and fauna. This is E. Forbes' theory, which, however, I may add, I had written out four years before he published. Some facts have made me vaguely SUSPECT that between the glacial and the present temperature there was a period of SLIGHTLY greater warmth. According to my modification-doctrines, I look at many of the species of North America which CLOSELY represent those of Europe, as having become modified since the Pliocene period, when in the northern part of the world there was nearly free communication between the old and new worlds. But now comes a more important consideration; there is a considerable body of geological evidence that during the Glacial epoch the whole world was colder; I inferred that, many years ago, from erratic boulder phenomena carefully observed by me on both the east and west coast of South America. Now I am so bold as to believe that at the height of the Glacial epoch, AND WHEN ALL TROPICAL PRODUCTIONS MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY DISTRESSED, that several temperate forms slowly travelled into the heart of the Tropics, and even reached the southern hemisphere; and some few southern forms penetrated in a reverse direction northward. (Heights of Borneo with Australian forms, Abyssinia with Cape forms.) Wherever there was nearly continuous HIGH land, this migration would have been immensely facilitated; hence the European character of the plants of Tierra del Fuego and summits of Cordilleras; hence ditto on Himalaya. As the temperature rose, all the temperate intruders would crawl up the mountains. Hence the European forms on Nilgherries, Ceylon, summit of Java, Organ Mountains of Brazil. But these intruders being surrounded with new forms would be very liable to be improved or modified by natural selection, to adapt them to the new forms with which they had to compete; hence most of the forms on the mountains of the Tropics are not identical, but REPRESENTATIVE forms of North temperate plants. There are similar classes of facts in marine productions. All this will appear very rash to you, and rash it may be; but I am sure not so rash as it will at first appear to you: Hooker could not stomach it at all at first, but has become largely a convert. From mammalia and shallow sea, I believe Japan to have been joined to main land of China within no remote period; and then the migration north and south before, during, and after the Glacial epoch would act on Japan, as on the corresponding latitude of China and the United States. I should beyond anything like to know whether you have any Alpine collections from Japan, and what is their character. This letter is miserably expressed, but perhaps it will suffice to show what I believe have been the later main migrations and changes of temperature... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [Down] October 6th, 1858. ...If you have or can make leisure, I should very much like to hear news of Mrs. Hooker, yourself, and the children. Where did you go, and what did you do and are doing? There is a comprehensive text. You cannot tell how I enjoyed your little visit here, it did me much good. If Harvey is still with you, pray remember me very kindly to him. ...I am working most steadily at my Abstract, but it grows to an inordinate length; yet fully to make my view clear (and never giving briefly more than a fact or two, and slurring over difficulties), I cannot make it shorter. It will yet take me three or four months; so slow do I work, though never idle. You cannot imagine what a service you have done me in making me make this Abstract; for though I thought I had got all clear, it has clarified my brains very much, by making me weigh the relative importance of the several elements. I have been reading with much interest your (as I believe it to be) capital memoir of R. Brown in the "Gardeners' Chronicle"... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 12th, [1858]. ...I have sent eight copies (Of the joint paper by C. Darwin and A.R. Wallace.) by post to Wallace, and will keep the others for him, for I could not think of any one to send any to. I pray you not to pronounce too strongly against Natural Selection, till you have read my abstract, for though I dare say you will strike out MANY difficulties, which have never occurred to me; yet you cannot have thought so fully on the subject as I have. I expect my Abstract will run into a small volume, which will have to be published separately... What a splendid lot of work you have in hand. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 13th [1858]. ...I have been a little vexed at myself at having asked you not "to pronounce too strongly against Natural Selection." I am sorry to have bothered you, though I have been much interested by your note in answer. I wrote the sentence without reflection. But the truth is, that I have so accustomed myself, partly from being quizzed by my non-naturalist relations, to expect opposition and even contempt, that I forgot for the moment that you are the one living soul from whom I have constantly received sympathy. Believe [me] that I never forget for even a minute how much assistance I have received from you. You are quite correct that I never even suspected that my speculations were a "jam-pot" to you; indeed, I thought, until quite lately, that my MS. had produced no effect on you, and this has often staggered me. Nor did I know that you had spoken in general terms about my work to our friends, excepting to dear old Falconer, who some few years ago once told me that I should do more mischief than any ten other naturalists would do good, [and] that I had half spoiled you already! All this is stupid egotistical stuff, and I write it only because you may think me ungrateful for not having valued and understood your sympathy; which God knows is not the case. It is an accursed evil to a man to become so absorbed in any subject as I am in mine. I was in London yesterday for a few hours with Falconer, and he gave me a magnificent lecture on the age of man. We are not upstarts; we can boast of a pedigree going far back in time coeval with extinct species. He has a grand fact of some large molar tooth in the Trias. I am quite knocked up, and am going next Monday to revive under Water-cure at Moor Park. My dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. November 1858. ...I had vowed not to mention my everlasting Abstract to you again, for I am sure I have bothered you far more than enough about it; but, as you allude to its previous publication, I may say that I have the chapters on Instinct and Hybridism to abstract, which may take a fortnight each; and my materials for Palaeontology, Geographical Distribution, and Affinities, being less worked up, I dare say each of these will take me three weeks, so that I shall not have done at soonest till April, and then my Abstract will in bulk make a small volume. I never give more than one or two instances, and I pass over briefly all difficulties, and yet I cannot make my Abstract shorter, to be satisfactory, than I am now doing, and yet it will expand to a small volume... [About this time my father revived his old knowledge of beetles in helping his boys in their collecting. He sent a short notice to the 'Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer,' June 25th, 1859, recording the capture of Licinus silphoides, Clytus mysticus, Panagaeus 4-pustulatus. The notice begins with the words, "We three very young collectors having lately taken in the parish of Down," etc., and is signed by three of his boys, but was clearly not written by them. I have a vivid recollection of the pleasure of turning out my bottle of dead beetles for my father to name, and the excitement, in which he fully shared, when any of them proved to be uncommon ones. The following letters to Mr. Fox (November 13, 1858), and to Sir John Lubbock, illustrate this point:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, November 13th [1858]. ...W., my son, is now at Christ's College, in the rooms above yours. My old Gyp, Impey, was astounded to hear that he was my son, and very simply asked, "Why, has he been long married?" What pleasant hours those were when I used to come and drink coffee with you daily! I am reminded of old days by my third boy having just begun collecting beetles, and he caught the other day Brachinus crepitans, of immortal Whittlesea Mere memory. My blood boiled with old ardour when he caught a Licinus--a prize unknown to me... CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Thursday [before 1857]. Dear Lubbock, I do not know whether you care about beetles, but for the chance I send this in a bottle, which I never remember having seen; though it is excessively rash to speak from a twenty-five-year old remembrance. Whenever we meet you can tell me whether you know it... I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet, when I read about the capturing of rare beetles--is not this a magnanimous simile for a decayed entomologist?--It really almost makes me long to begin collecting again. Adios. "Floreat Entomologia"!--to which toast at Cambridge I have drunk many a glass of wine. So again, "Floreat Entomologia." N.B. I have NOT now been drinking any glasses full of wine. Yours, C.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO HERBERT SPENCER. Down, November 25th [1858]. Dear Sir, I beg permission to thank you sincerely for your very kind present of your Essays. ('Essays, Scientific, Political, and Speculative,' by Herbert Spencer, 1858-74.) I have already read several of them with much interest. Your remarks on the general argument of the so-called development theory seems to me admirable. I am at present preparing an Abstract of a larger work on the changes of species; but I treat the subject simply as a naturalist, and not from a general point of view, otherwise, in my opinion, your argument could not have been improved on, and might have been quoted by me with great advantage. Your article on Music has also interested me much, for I had often thought on the subject, and had come to nearly the same conclusion with you, though unable to support the notion in any detail. Furthermore, by a curious coincidence, expression has been for years a persistent subject with me for LOOSE speculation, and I must entirely agree with you that all expression has some biological meaning. I hope to profit by your criticism on style, and with very best thanks, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir, Yours truly obliged, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 24th [1858]. My dear Hooker, Your news about your unsolicited salary and house is jolly, and creditable to the Government. My room (28 x 19), with divided room above, with ALL FIXTURES (and painted), not furniture, and plastered outside, cost about 500 pounds. I am heartily glad of this news. Your facts about distribution are, indeed, very striking. I remember well that none of your many wonderful facts in your several works, perplexed me, for years, more than the migration having been mainly from north to south, and not in the reverse direction. I have now at last satisfied MYSELF (but that is very different from satisfying others) on this head; but it would take a little volume to fully explain myself. I did not for long see the bearing of a conclusion, at which I had arrived, with respect to this subject. It is, that species inhabiting a very large area, and therefore existing in large numbers, and which have been subjected to the severest competition with many other forms, will have arrived, through natural selection, at a higher stage of perfection than the inhabitants of a small area. Thus I explain the fact of so many anomalies, or what may be called "living fossils," inhabiting now only fresh water, having been beaten out, and exterminated in the sea, by more improved forms; thus all existing Ganoid fishes are fresh water, as [are] Lepidosiren and Ornithorhynchus, etc. The plants of Europe and Asia, as being the largest territory, I look at as the most "improved," and therefore as being able to withstand the less-perfected Australian plants; [whilst] these could not resist the Indian. See how all the productions of New Zealand yield to those of Europe. I dare say you will think all this utter bosh, but I believe it to be solid truth. You will, I think, admit that Australian plants, flourishing so in India, is no argument that they could hold their own against the ten thousand natural contingencies of other plants, insects, animals, etc., etc. With respect to South West Australia and the Cape, I am shut up, and can only d--n the whole case. ...You say you should like to see my MS., but you did read and approve of my long Glacial chapter, and I have not yet written my Abstract on the whole of the Geographical Distribution, nor shall I begin it for two or three weeks. But either Abstract or the old MS. I should be DELIGHTED to send you, especially the Abstract chapter... I have now written 330 folio pages of my abstract, and it will require 150-200 [more]; so that it will make a printed volume of 400 pages, and must be printed separately, which I think will be better in many respects. The subject really seems to me too large for discussion at any Society, and I believe religion would be brought in by men whom I know. I am thinking of a 12mo volume, like Lyell's fourth or fifth edition of the 'Principles.'... I have written you a scandalously long note. So now good-bye, my dear Hooker, Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 20th, 1859. My dear Hooker, I should very much like to borrow Heer at some future time, for I want to read nothing perplexing at present till my Abstract is done. Your last very instructive letter shall make me very cautious on the hyper-speculative points we have been discussing. When you say you cannot master the train of thoughts, I know well enough that they are too doubtful and obscure to be mastered. I have often experienced what you call the humiliating feeling of getting more and more involved in doubt the more one thinks of the facts and reasoning on doubtful points. But I always comfort myself with thinking of the future, and in the full belief that the problems which we are just entering on, will some day be solved; and if we just break the ground we shall have done some service, even if we reap no harvest. I quite agree that we only differ in DEGREE about the means of dispersal, and that I think a satisfactory amount of accordance. You put in a very striking manner the mutation of our continents, and I quite agree; I doubt only about our oceans. I also agree (I am in a very agreeing frame of mind) with your argumentum ad hominem, about the highness of the Australian Flora from the number of species and genera; but here comes in a superlative bothering element of doubt, viz., the effect of isolation. The only point in which I PRESUMPTUOUSLY rather demur is about the status of the naturalised plants in Australia. I think Muller speaks of their having spread largely beyond cultivated ground; and I can hardly believe that our European plants would occupy stations so barren that the native plants could not live there. I should require much evidence to make me believe this. I have written this note merely to thank you, as you will see it requires no answer. I have heard to my amazement this morning from Phillips that the Geological Council have given me the Wollaston Medal!!! Ever yours, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 23d, 1859. ...I enclose letters to you and me from Wallace. I admire extremely the spirit in which they are written. I never felt very sure what he would say. He must be an amiable man. Please return that to me, and Lyell ought to be told how well satisfied he is. These letters have vividly brought before me how much I owe to your and Lyell's most kind and generous conduct in all this affair. ...How glad I shall be when the Abstract is finished, and I can rest!... CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 25th [1859]. My dear Sir, I was extremely much pleased at receiving three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker. Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought a fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious to hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much to you and them; for I almost think that Lyell would have proved right, and I should never have completed my larger work, for I have found my Abstract hard enough with my poor health, but now, thank God, I am in my last chapter but one. My Abstract will make a small volume of 400 or 500 pages. Whenever published, I will, of course, send you a copy, and then you will see what I mean about the part which I believe selection has played with domestic productions. It is a very different part, as you suppose, from that played by "Natural Selection." I sent off, by the same address as this note, a copy of the 'Journal of the Linnean Society,' and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies of the paper. I have many other copies at your disposal... I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds' nests. I have done so, though almost exclusively under one point of view, viz., to show that instincts vary, so that selection could work on and improve them. Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a Museum. Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes; If there are any donkeys, pray add them. I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees' combs...This is an especial hobby of mine, and I think I can throw a light on the subject. If you can collect duplicates, at no very great expense, I should be glad of some specimens for myself with some bees of each kind. Young, growing, and irregular combs, and those which have not had pupae, are most valuable for measurements and examination. Their edges should be well protected against abrasion. Every one whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for publication, into the shade. You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror, often to me, of what a thing it would be, and what a job it would be for the next edition of 'The Principles,' if he were "PERverted." But he is most candid and honest, and I think will end by being PERverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost as heterodox as you or I, and I look at Hooker as BY FAR the most capable judge in Europe. Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in all your pursuits, and, God knows, if admirable zeal and energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look at my own career as nearly run out. If I can publish my Abstract and perhaps my greater work on the same subject, I shall look at my course as done. Believe me, my dear sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 2nd [1859]. My dear Hooker, Here is an odd, though very little, fact. I think it would be hardly possible to name a bird which apparently could have less to do with distribution than a Petrel. Sir W. Milner, at St. Kilda, cut open some young nestling Petrels, and he found large, curious nuts in their crops; I suspect picked up by parent birds from the Gulf stream. He seems to value these nuts excessively. I have asked him (but I doubt whether he will) to send a nut to Sir William Hooker (I gave this address for grandeur sake) to see if any of you can name it and its native country. Will you PLEASE MENTION this to Sir William Hooker, and if the nut does arrive, will you oblige me by returning it to "Sir W. Milner, Bart., Nunappleton, Tadcaster," in a registered letter, and I will repay you postage. Enclose slip of paper with the name and country if you can, and let me hereafter know. Forgive me asking you to take this much trouble; for it is a funny little fact after my own heart. Now for another subject. I have finished my Abstract of the chapter on Geographical Distribution, as bearing on my subject. I should like you much to read it; but I say this, believing that you will not do so, if, as I believe to be the case, you are extra busy. On my honour, I shall not be mortified, and I earnestly beg you not to do it, if it will bother you. I want it, because I here feel especially unsafe, and errors may have crept in. Also, I should much like to know what parts you will MOST VEHEMENTLY object to. I know we do, and must, differ widely on several heads. Lastly, I should like particularly to know whether I have taken anything from you, which you would like to retain for first publication; but I think I have chiefly taken from your published works, and, though I have several times, in this chapter and elsewhere, acknowledged your assistance, I am aware that it is not possible for me in the Abstract to do it sufficiently. ("I never did pick any one's pocket, but whilst writing my present chapter I keep on feeling (even when differing most from you) just as if I were stealing from you, so much do I owe to your writings and conversation, so much more than mere acknowledgments show."--Letter to Sir J.D. Hooker, 1859.) But again let me say that you must not offer to read it if very irksome. It is long--about ninety pages, I expect, when fully copied out. I hope you are all well. Moor Park has done me some good. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Heaven forgive me, here is another question: How far am I right in supposing that with plants, the most important characters for main divisions are Embryological? The seed itself cannot be considered as such, I suppose, nor the albumens, etc. But I suppose the Cotyledons and their position, and the position of the plumule and the radicle, and the position and form of the whole embryo in the seed are embryological, and how far are these very important? I wish to instance plants as a case of high importance of embryological characters in classification. In the Animal Kingdom there is, of course, no doubt of this. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 5th [1859]. My dear Hooker, Many thanks about the seed...it is curious. Petrels at St. Kilda apparently being fed by seeds raised in the West Indies. It should be noted whether it is a nut ever imported into England. I am VERY glad you will read my Geographical MS.; it is now copying, and it will (I presume) take ten days or so in being finished; it shall be sent as soon as done... I shall be very glad to see your embryological ideas on plants; by the sentence which I sent you, you will see that I only want one sentence; if facts are at all, as I suppose, and I shall see this from your note, for sending which very many thanks. I have been so poorly, the last three days, that I sometimes doubt whether I shall ever get my little volume done, though so nearly completed... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 15th [1859]. My dear Hooker, I am PLEASED at what you say of my chapter. You have not attacked it nearly so much as I feared you would. You do not seem to have detected MANY errors. It was nearly all written from memory, and hence I was particularly fearful; it would have been better if the whole had first been carefully written out, and abstracted afterwards. I look at it as morally certain that it must include much error in some of its general views. I will just run over a few points in your note, but do not trouble yourself to reply without you have something important to say... ...I should like to know whether the case of Endemic bats in islands struck you; it has me especially; perhaps too strongly. With hearty thanks, ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S. You cannot tell what a relief it has been to me your looking over this chapter, as I felt very shaky on it. I shall to-morrow finish my last chapter (except a recapitulation) on Affinities, Homologies, Embryology, etc., and the facts seem to me to come out VERY strong for mutability of species. I have been much interested in working out the chapter. I shall now, thank God, begin looking over the old first chapters for press. But my health is now so very poor, that even this will take me long. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down [March] 24th [1859]. My dear Fox, It was very good of you to write to me in the midst of all your troubles, though you seem to have got over some of them, in the recovery of your wife's and your own health. I had not heard lately of your mother's health, and am sorry to hear so poor an account. But as she does not suffer much, that is the great thing; for mere life I do not think is much valued by the old. What a time you must have had of it, when you had to go backwards and forwards. We are all pretty well, and our eldest daughter is improving. I can see daylight through my work, and am now finally correcting my chapters for the press; and I hope in a month or six weeks to have proof-sheets. I am weary of my work. It is a very odd thing that I have no sensation that I overwork my brain; but facts compel me to conclude that my brain was never formed for much thinking. We are resolved to go for two or three months, when I have finished, to Ilkley, or some such place, to see if I can anyhow give my health a good start, for it certainly has been wretched of late, and has incapacitated me for everything. You do me injustice when you think that I work for fame; I value it to a certain extent; but, if I know myself, I work from a sort of instinct to try to make out truth. How glad I should be if you could sometime come to Down; especially when I get a little better, as I still hope to be. We have set up a billiard table, and I find it does me a deal of good, and drives the horrid species out of my head. Farewell, my dear old friend. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 28th [1859]. My dear Lyell, If I keep decently well, I hope to be able to go to press with my volume early in May. This being so, I want much to beg a little advice from you. From an expression in Lady Lyell's note, I fancy that you have spoken to Murray. Is it so? And is he willing to publish my Abstract? If you will tell me whether anything, and what has passed, I will then write to him. Does he know at all of the subject of the book? Secondly, can you advise me, whether I had better state what terms of publication I should prefer, or first ask him to propose terms? And what do you think would be fair terms for an edition? Share profits, or what? Lastly, will you be so very kind as to look at the enclosed title and give me your opinion and any criticisms; you must remember that, if I have health and it appears worth doing, I have a much larger and full book on the same subject nearly ready. My Abstract will be about five hundred pages of the size of your first edition of the 'Elements of Geology.' Pray forgive me troubling you with the above queries; and you shall have no more trouble on the subject. I hope the world goes well with you, and that you are getting on with your various works. I am working very hard for me, and long to finish and be free and try to recover some health. My dear Lyell, ever yours, C. DARWIN. Very sincere thanks to you for standing my proxy for the Wollaston Medal. P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray that my book is not more UN-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, etc., etc., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair. Or had I better say NOTHING to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs slap counter to Genesis. INCLOSURE. AN ABSTRACT OF AN ESSAY ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES AND VARIETIES THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A. Fellow of the Royal Geological and Linnean Societies... LONDON: etc., etc., etc., etc. 1859. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 30th [1859]. My dear Lyell, You have been uncommonly kind in all you have done. You not only have saved me much trouble and some anxiety, but have done all incomparably better than I could have done it. I am much pleased at all you say about Murray. I will write either to-day or to-morrow to him, and will send shortly a large bundle of MS., but unfortunately I cannot for a week, as the first three chapters are in the copyists' hands. I am sorry about Murray objecting to the term Abstract, as I look at it as the only possible apology for NOT giving references and facts in full, but I will defer to him and you. I am also sorry about the term "natural selection." I hope to retain it with explanation somewhat as thus-- "Through natural selection, or the preservation of favoured Races." Why I like the term is that it is constantly used in all works on breeding, and I am surprised that it is not familiar to Murray; but I have so long studied such works that I have ceased to be a competent judge. I again most truly and cordially thank you for your really valuable assistance. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 2nd [1859]. ...I wrote to him [Mr. Murray] and gave him the headings of the chapters, and told him he could not have the MS. for ten days or so; and this morning I received a letter, offering me handsome terms, and agreeing to publish without seeing the MS.! So he is eager enough; I think I should have been cautious, anyhow, but, owing to your letter, I told him most EXPLICITLY that I accept his offer solely on condition that, after he has seen part or all the MS., he has full power of retracting. You will think me presumptuous, but I think my book will be popular to a certain extent (enough to ensure [against] heavy loss) amongst scientific and semi-scientific men; why I think so is, because I have found in conversation so great and surprising an interest amongst such men, and some o-scientific [non-scientific] men on this subject, and all my chapters are not NEARLY so dry and dull as that which you have read on geographical distribution. Anyhow, Murray ought to be the best judge, and if he chooses to publish it, I think I may wash my hands of all responsibility. I am sure my friends, i.e., Lyell and you, have been EXTRAORDINARILY kind in troubling yourselves on the matter. I shall be delighted to see you the day before Good Friday; there would be one advantage for you in any other day--as I believe both my boys come home on that day--and it would be almost impossible that I could send the carriage for you. There will, I believe, be some relations in the house--but I hope you will not care for that, as we shall easily get as much talking as my IMBECILE STATE allows. I shall deeply enjoy seeing you. ...I am tired, so no more. My dear Hooker, your affectionate, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Please to send, well TIED UP with strong string, my Geographical MS., towards the latter half of next week--i.e., 7th or 8th--that I may send it with more to Murray; and God help him if he tries to read it. ...I cannot help a little doubting whether Lyell would take much pains to induce Murray to publish my book; this was not done at my request, and it rather grates against my pride. I know that Lyell has been INFINITELY kind about my affair, but your dashed (i.e., underlined) "INDUCE" gives the idea that Lyell had unfairly urged Murray. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. April 4th [1859]. ...You ask to see my sheets as printed off; I assure you that it will be the HIGHEST satisfaction to me to do so: I look at the request as a high compliment. I shall not, you may depend, forget a request which I look at as a favour. But (and it is a heavy "but" to me) it will be long before I go to press; I can truly say I am NEVER idle; indeed, I work too hard for my much weakened health; yet I can do only three hours of work daily, and I cannot at all see when I shall have finished: I have done eleven long chapters, but I have got some other very difficult ones: as palaeontology, classifications, and embryology, etc., and I have to correct and add largely to all those done. I find, alas! each chapter takes me on an average three months, so slow I am. There is no end to the necessary digressions. I have just finished a chapter on Instinct, and here I found grappling with such a subject as bees' cells, and comparing all my notes made during twenty years, took up a despairing length of time. But I am running on about myself in a most egotistical style. Yet I must just say how useful I have again and again found your letters, which I have lately been looking over and quoting! but you need not fear that I shall quote anything you would dislike, for I try to be very cautious on this head. I most heartily hope you may succeed in getting your "incubus" of old work off your hands, and be in some degree a free man... Again let me say that I do indeed feel grateful to you... CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, April 5th [1859]. My dear Sir, I send by this post, the Title (with some remarks on a separate page), and the first three chapters. If you have patience to read all Chapter I., I honestly think you will have a fair notion of the interest of the whole book. It may be conceit, but I believe the subject will interest the public, and I am sure that the views are original. If you think otherwise, I must repeat my request that you will freely reject my work; and though I shall be a little disappointed, I shall be in no way injured. If you choose to read Chapters II. and III., you will have a dull and rather abstruse chapter, and a plain and interesting one, in my opinion. As soon as you have done with the MS., please to send it by CAREFUL MESSENGER, AND PLAINLY DIRECTED, to Miss G. Tollett, 14, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square. This lady, being an excellent judge of style, is going to look out for errors for me. You must take your own time, but the sooner you finish, the sooner she will, and the sooner I shall get to press, which I so earnestly wish. I presume you will wish to see Chapter IV., the key-stone of my arch, and Chapters X. and XI., but please to inform me on this head. My dear Sir, yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 11th [1859]. ...I write one line to say that I heard from Murray yesterday, and he says he has read the first three chapters of one MS.(and this includes a very dull one), and he abides by his offer. Hence he does not want more MS., and you can send my Geographical chapter when it pleases you... [Part of the MS. seems to have been lost on its way back to my father; he wrote (April 14) to Sir J.D. Hooker:] "I have the old MS., otherwise, the loss would have killed me! The worst is now that it will cause delay in getting to press, and FAR WORST of all, lose all advantage of your having looked over my chapter, except the third part returned. I am very sorry Mrs. Hooker took the trouble of copying the two pages." CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [April or May, 1859]. ...Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on Species would be fairly popular, and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure, it would make me the more ridiculous. I enclose a criticism, a taste of the future-- REV. S. HAUGHTON'S ADDRESS TO THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, DUBLIN. (February 9, 1859.) "This speculation of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace would not be worthy of notice were it not for the weight of authority of the names (i.e. Lyell's and yours), under whose auspices it has been brought forward. If it means what it says, it is a truism; if it means anything more, it is contrary to fact." Q.E.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 11th [1859]. My dear Hooker, Thank you for telling me about obscurity of style. But on my life no nigger with lash over him could have worked harder at clearness than I have done. But the very difficulty to me, of itself leads to the probability that I fail. Yet one lady who has read all my MS. has found only two or three obscure sentences, but Mrs. Hooker having so found it, makes me tremble. I will do my best in proofs. You are a good man to take the trouble to write about it. With respect to our mutual muddle ("When I go over the chapter I will see what I can do, but I hardly know how I am obscure, and I think we are somehow in a mutual muddle with respect to each other, from starting from some fundamentally different notions."--Letter of May 6, 1859.), I never for a moment thought we could not make our ideas clear to each other by talk, or if either of us had time to write in extenso. I imagine from some expressions (but if you ask me what, I could not answer) that you look at variability as some necessary contingency with organisms, and further that there is some necessary tendency in the variability to go on diverging in character or degree. IF YOU DO, I do not agree. "Reversion" again (a form of inheritance), I look at as in no way directly connected with Variation, though of course inheritance is of fundamental importance to us, for if a variation be not inherited, it is of no significance to us. It was on such points as these I FANCIED that we perhaps started differently. I fear that my book will not deserve at all the pleasant things you say about it; and Good Lord, how I do long to have done with it! Since the above was written, I have received and have been MUCH INTERESTED by A. Gray. I am delighted at his note about my and Wallace's paper. He will go round, for it is futile to give up very many species, and stop at an arbitrary line at others. It is what my grandfather called Unitarianism, "a feather bed to catch a falling Christian."... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 18th [1859]. My dear Hooker, My health has quite failed. I am off to-morrow for a week of Hydropathy. I am very very sorry to say that I cannot look over any proofs (Of Sir J. Hooker's Introduction to the 'Flora of Australia.') in the week, as my object is to drive the subject out of my head. I shall return to-morrow week. If it be worth while, which probably it is not, you could keep back any proofs till my return home. In haste, ever yours, C. DARWIN. [Ten days later he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "...I write one word to say that I shall return on Saturday, and if you have any proof-sheets to send, I shall be glad to do my best in any criticisms. I had... great prostration of mind and body, but entire rest, and the douche, and 'Adam Bede,' have together done me a world of good."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, June 14th [1859]. My dear Sir, The diagram will do very well, and I will send it shortly to Mr. West to have a few trifling corrections made. I get on very slowly with proofs. I remember writing to you that I thought there would not be much correction. I honestly wrote what I thought, but was most grievously mistaken. I find the style incredibly bad, and most difficult to make clear and smooth. I am extremely sorry to say, on account of expense, and loss of time for me, that the corrections are very heavy, as heavy as possible. But from casual glances, I still hope that later chapters are not so badly written. How I could have written so badly is quite inconceivable, but I suppose it was owing to my whole attention being fixed on the general line of argument, and not on details. All I can say is, that I am very sorry. Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S. I have been looking at the corrections, and considering them. It seems to me that I shall put you to a quite unfair expense. If you please I should like to enter into some such arrangement as the following: when work completed, you to allow in the account a fairly moderately heavy charge for corrections, and all excess over that to be deducted from my profits, or paid by me individually. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 21st [1859]. I am working very hard, but get on slowly, for I find that my corrections are terrifically heavy, and the work most difficult to me. I have corrected 130 pages, and the volume will be about 500. I have tried my best to make it clear and striking, but very much fear that I have failed--so many discussions are and must be very perplexing. I have done my best. If you had all my materials, I am sure you would have made a splendid book. I long to finish, for I am nearly worn out. My dear Lyell, ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 22nd [June, 1859]. My dear Hooker, I did not answer your pleasant note, with a good deal of news to me, of May 30th, as I have been expecting proofs from you. But now, having nothing particular to do, I will fly a note, though I have nothing particular to say or ask. Indeed, how can a man have anything to say, who spends every day in correcting accursed proofs; and such proofs! I have fairly to blacken them, and fasten slips of paper on, so miserable have I found the style. You say that you dreamt that my book was ENTERTAINING; that dream is pretty well over with me, and I begin to fear that the public will find it intolerably dry and perplexing. But I will never give up that a better man could have made a splendid book out of the materials. I was glad to hear about Prestwich's paper. (Mr. Prestwich wrote on the occurrence of flint instruments associated with the remains of extinct animals in France.--(Proc. R. Soc., 1859.)) My doubt has been (and I see Wright has inserted the same in the 'Athenaeum') whether the pieces of flint are really tools; their numbers make me doubt, and when I formerly looked at Boucher de Perthe's drawings, I came to the conclusion that they were angular fragments broken by ice action. Did crossing the Acacia do any good? I am so hard worked, that I can make no experiments. I have got only to 150 pages in first proof. Adios, my dear Hooker, ever yours, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, July 25th [1859]. My dear Sir, I write to say that five sheets are returned to the printers ready to strike off, and two more sheets require only a revise; so that I presume you will soon have to decide what number of copies to print off. I am quite incapable of forming an opinion. I think I have got the style FAIRLY good and clear, with infinite trouble. But whether the book will be successful to a degree to satisfy you, I really cannot conjecture. I heartily hope it may. My dear Sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, August 9th, 1859. My dear Mr. Wallace, I received your letter and memoir (This seems to refer to Mr. Wallace's paper, "On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago," 'Linn. Soc. Journ,' 1860.) on the 7th, and will forward it to-morrow to the Linnean Society. But you will be aware that there is no meeting till the beginning of November. Your paper seems to me ADMIRABLE in matter, style, and reasoning; and I thank you for allowing me to read it. Had I read it some months ago, I should have profited by it for my forthcoming volume. But my two chapters on this subject are in type, and, though not yet corrected, I am so wearied out and weak in health, that I am fully resolved not to add one word, and merely improve the style. So you will see that my views are nearly the same with yours, and you may rely on it that not one word shall be altered owing to my having read your ideas. Are you aware that Mr. W. Earl (Probably Mr. W. Earle's paper, Geographical Soc. Journal, 1845.) published several years ago the view of distribution of animals in the Malay Archipelago, in relation to the depth of the sea between the islands? I was much struck with this, and have been in the habit of noting all facts in distribution in that archipelago, and elsewhere, in this relation. I have been led to conclude that there has been a good deal of naturalisation in the different Malay islands, and which I have thought, to a certain extent, would account for anomalies. Timor has been my greatest puzzle. What do you say to the peculiar Felis there? I wish that you had visited Timor; it has been asserted that a fossil mastodon's or elephant's tooth (I forget which) has been found there, which would be a grand fact. I was aware that Celebes was very peculiar; but the relation to Africa is quite new to me, and marvellous, and almost passes belief. It is as anomalous as the relation of PLANTS in S.W. Australia to the Cape of Good Hope. I differ WHOLLY from you on the colonisation of oceanic islands, but you will have EVERY ONE else on your side. I quite agree with respect to all islands not situated far in the ocean. I quite agree on the little occasional intermigration between lands [islands?] when once pretty well stocked with inhabitants, but think this does not apply to rising and ill-stocked islands. Are you aware that ANNUALLY birds are blown to Madeira, the Azores (and to Bermuda from America). I wish I had given a fuller abstract of my reasons for not believing in Forbes' great continental extensions; but it is too late, for I will alter nothing--I am worn out, and must have rest. Owen, I do not doubt, will bitterly oppose us...Hooker is publishing a grand introduction to the Flora of Australia, and goes the whole length. I have seen proofs of about half. With every good wish. Believe me, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 1st [1859]. ...I am not surprised at your finding your Introduction very difficult. But do not grudge the labour, and do not say you "have burnt your fingers," and are "deep in the mud"; for I feel sure that the result will be well worth the labour. Unless I am a fool, I must be a judge to some extent of the value of such general essays, and I am fully convinced that yours are the must valuable ever published. I have corrected all but the last two chapters of my book, and hope to have done revises and all in about three weeks, and then I (or we all) shall start for some months' hydropathy; my health has been very bad, and I am becoming as weak as a child, and incapable of doing anything whatever, except my three hours daily work at proof-sheets. God knows whether I shall ever be good at anything again, perhaps a long rest and hydropathy may do something. I have not had A. Gray's Essay, and should not feel up to criticise it, even if I had the impertinence and courage. You will believe me that I speak strictly the truth when I say that your Australian Essay is EXTREMELY interesting to me, rather too much so. I enjoy reading it over, and if you think my criticisms are worth anything to you, I beg you to send the sheets (if you can give me time for good days); but unless I can render you any little, however little assistance, I would rather read the essay when published. Pray understand that I should be TRULY vexed not to read them, if you wish it for your own sake. I had a terribly long fit of sickness yesterday, which makes the world rather extra gloomy to-day, and I have an insanely strong wish to finish my accursed book, such corrections every page has required as I never saw before. It is so weariful, killing the whole afternoon, after 12 o'clock doing nothing whatever. But I will grumble no more. So farewell, we shall meet in the winter I trust. Farewell, my dear Hooker, your affectionate friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 2nd [1859]. ...I am very glad you wish to see my clean sheets: I should have offered them, but did not know whether it would bore you; I wrote by this morning's post to Murray to send them. Unfortunately I have not got to the part which will interest you, I think most, and which tells most in favour of the view, viz., Geological Succession, Geographical Distribution, and especially Morphology, Embryology and Rudimentary Organs. I will see that the remaining sheets, when printed off, are sent to you. But would you like for me to send the last and perfect revises of the sheets as I correct them? if so, send me your address in a blank envelope. I hope that you will read all, whether dull (especially latter part of Chapter II.) or not, for I am convinced there is not a sentence which has not a bearing on the whole argument. You will find Chapter IV. perplexing and unintelligible, without the aid of the enclosed queer diagram (The diagram illustrates descent with divergence.), of which I send an old and useless proof. I have, as Murray says, corrected so heavily, as almost to have re-written it; but yet I fear it is poorly written. Parts are intricate; and I do not think that even you could make them quite clear. Do not, I beg, be in a hurry in committing yourself (like so many naturalists) to go a certain length and no further; for I am deeply convinced that it is absolutely necessary to go the whole vast length, or stick to the creation of each separate species; I argue this point briefly in the last chapter. Remember that your verdict will probably have more influence than my book in deciding whether such views as I hold will be admitted or rejected at present; in the future I cannot doubt about their admittance, and our posterity will marvel as much about the current belief as we do about fossils shells having been thought to have been created as we now see them. But forgive me for running on about my hobby-horse... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [September] 11th [1859]. My dear Hooker, I corrected the last proof yesterday, and I have now my revises, index, etc., which will take me near to the end of the month. So that the neck of my work, thank God, is broken. I write now to say that I am uneasy in my conscience about hesitating to look over your proofs, but I was feeling miserably unwell and shattered when I wrote. I do not suppose I could be of hardly any use, but if I could, pray send me any proofs. I should be (and fear I was) the most ungrateful man to hesitate to do anything for you after some fifteen or more years' help from you. As soon as ever I have fairly finished I shall be off to Ilkley, or some other Hydropathic establishment. But I shall be some time yet, as my proofs have been so utterly obscured with corrections, that I have to correct heavily on revises. Murray proposes to publish the first week in November. Oh, good heavens, the relief to my head and body to banish the whole subject from my mind! I hope to God, you do not think me a brute about your proof-sheets. Farewell, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 20th [1859]. My dear Lyell, You once gave me intense pleasure, or rather delight, by the way you were interested, in a manner I never expected, in my Coral Reef notions, and now you have again given me similar pleasure by the manner you have noticed my species work. (Sir Charles was President of the Geological section at the meeting of the British Association at Aberdeen in 1859. The following passage occurs in the address: "On this difficult and mysterious subject a work will very shortly appear by Mr. Charles Darwin, the result of twenty years of observations and experiments in Zoology, Botany, and Geology, by which he had been led to the conclusion that those powers of nature which give rise to races and permanent varieties in animals and plants, are the same as those which in much longer periods produce species, and in a still longer series of ages give rise to differences of generic rank. He appears to me to have succeeded by his investigations and reasonings in throwing a flood of light on many classes of phenomena connected with the affinities, geographical distribution, and geological succession of organic beings, for which no other hypothesis has been able, or has even attempted to account.") Nothing could be more satisfactory to me, and I thank you for myself, and even more for the subject's sake, as I know well that the sentence will make many fairly consider the subject, instead of ridiculing it. Although your previously felt doubts on the immutability of species, may have more influence in converting you (if you be converted) than my book; yet as I regard your verdict as far more important in my own eyes, and I believe in the eyes of the world than of any other dozen men, I am naturally very anxious about it. Therefore let me beg you to keep your mind open till you receive (in perhaps a fortnight's time) my latter chapters, which are the most important of all on the favourable side. The last chapter, which sums up and balances in a mass all the arguments contra and pro, will, I think, be useful to you. I cannot too strongly express my conviction of the general truth of my doctrines, and God knows I have never shirked a difficulty. I am foolishly anxious for your verdict, not that I shall be disappointed if you are not converted; for I remember the long years it took me to come round; but I shall be most deeply delighted if you do come round, especially if I have a fair share in the conversion, I shall then feel that my career is run, and care little whether I ever am good for anything again in this life. Thank you much for allowing me to put in the sentence about your grave doubt. (As to the immutability of species, 'Origin,' Edition i., page 310.) So much and too much about myself. I have read with extreme interest in the Aberdeen paper about the flint tools; you have made the whole case far clearer to me; I suppose that you did not think the evidence sufficient about the Glacial period. With cordial thanks for your splendid notice of my book. Believe me, my dear Lyell, your affectionate disciple, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, September 23rd [1859]. My dear Fox, I was very glad to get your letter a few days ago. I was wishing to hear about you, but have been in such an absorbed, slavish, overworked state, that I had not heart without compulsion to write to any one or do anything beyond my daily work. Though your account of yourself is better, I cannot think it at all satisfactory, and I wish you would soon go to Malvern again. My father used to believe largely in an old saying that, if a man grew thinner between fifty and sixty years of age, his chance of long life was poor, and that on the contrary it was a very good sign if he grew fatter; so that your stoutness, I look at as a very good omen. My health has been as bad as it well could be all this summer; and I have kept on my legs, only by going at short intervals to Moor Park; but I have been better lately, and, thank Heaven, I have at last as good as done my book, having only the index and two or three revises to do. It will be published in the first week in November, and a copy shall be sent you. Remember it is only an Abstract (but has cost me above thirteen months to write!!), and facts and authorities are far from given in full. I shall be curious to hear what you think of it, but I am not so silly as to expect to convert you. Lyell has read about half of the volume in clean sheets, and gives me very great kudos. He is wavering so much about the immutability of species, that I expect he will come round. Hooker has come round, and will publish his belief soon. So much for my abominable volume, which has cost me so much labour that I almost hate it. On October 3rd I start for Ilkley, but shall take three days for the journey! It is so late that we shall not take a house; but I go there alone for three or four weeks, then return home for a week and go to Moor Park for three or four weeks, and then I shall get a moderate spell of hydropathy: and I intend, if I can keep to my resolution, of being idle this winter. But I fear ennui will be as bad as a bad stomach... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 25th [1859]. My dear Lyell, I send by this post four corrected sheets. I have altered the sentence about the Eocene fauna being beaten by recent, thanks to your remark. But I imagined that it would have been clear that I supposed the climate to be nearly similar; you do not doubt, I imagine, that the climate of the eocene and recent periods in DIFFERENT parts of the world could be matched. Not that I think climate nearly so important as most naturalists seem to think. In my opinion no error is more mischievous than this. I was very glad to find that Hooker, who read over, in MS., my Geographical chapters, quite agreed in the view of the greater importance of organic relations. I should like you to consider page 77 and reflect on the case of any organism in the midst of its range. I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of distribution during the glacial and preceding warmer periods. I am so glad you do not think the Chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this chapter than about any part. Embryology in Chapter VIII. is one of my strongest points I think. But I must not bore you by running on. My mind is so wearisomely full of the subject. I do thank you for your eulogy at Aberdeen. I have been so wearied and exhausted of late that I have for months doubted whether I have not been throwing away time and labour for nothing. But now I care not what the universal world says; I have always found you right, and certainly on this occasion I am not going to doubt for the first time. Whether you go far, or but a very short way with me and others who believe as I do, I am contented, for my work cannot be in vain. You would laugh if you knew how often I have read your paragraph, and it has acted like a little dram... Farewell, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 30th [1859]. My dear Lyell, I sent off this morning the last sheets, but without index, which is not in type. I look at you as my Lord High Chancellor in Natural Science, and therefore I request you, after you have finished, just to RERUN over the heads in the Recapitulation-part of last chapter. I shall be deeply anxious to hear what you decide (if you are able to decide) on the balance of the pros and contras given in my volume, and of such other pros and contras as may occur to you. I hope that you will think that I have given the difficulties fairly. I feel an entire conviction that if you are now staggered to any moderate extent, that you will come more and more round, the longer you keep the subject at all before your mind. I remember well how many long years it was before I could look into the faces of some of the difficulties and not feel quite abashed. I fairly struck my colours before the case of neuter insects. I suppose that I am a very slow thinker, for you would be surprised at the number of years it took me to see clearly what some of the problems were which had to be solved, such as the necessity of the principle of divergence of character, the extinction of intermediate varieties, on a continuous area, with graduated conditions; the double problem of sterile first crosses and sterile hybrids, etc., etc. Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were than to solve them, so far as I have succeeded in doing, and this seems to me rather curious. Well, good or bad, my work, thank God, is over; and hard work, I can assure you, I have had, and much work which has never borne fruit. You can see, by the way I am scribbling, that I have an idle and rainy afternoon. I was not able to start for Ilkley yesterday as I was too unwell; but I hope to get there on Tuesday or Wednesday. Do, I beg you, when you have finished my book and thought a little over it, let me hear from you. Never mind and pitch into me, if you think it requisite; some future day, in London possibly, you may give me a few criticisms in detail, that is, if you have scribbled any remarks on the margin, for the chance of a second edition. Murray has printed 1250 copies, which seems to me rather too large an edition, but I hope he will not lose. I make as much fuss about my book as if it were my first. Forgive me, and believe me, my dear Lyell, Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, October 15th [1859]. My dear Hooker, Be a good man and screw out time enough to write me a note and tell me a little about yourself, your doings, and belongings. Is your Introduction fairly finished? I know you will abuse it, and I know well how much I shall like it. I have been here nearly a fortnight, and it has done me very much good, though I sprained my ankle last Sunday, which has quite stopped walking. All my family come here on Monday to stop three or four weeks, and then I shall go back to the great establishment, and stay a fortnight; so that if I can keep my spirits, I shall stay eight weeks here, and thus give hydropathy a fair chance. Before starting here I was in an awful state of stomach, strength, temper, and spirits. My book has been completely finished some little time; as soon as copies are ready, of course one will be sent you. I hope you will mark your copy with scores, so that I may profit by any criticisms. I should like to hear your general impression. From Lyell's letters, he thinks favourably of it, but seems staggered by the lengths to which I go. But if you go any considerable length in the admission of modification, I can see no possible means of drawing the line, and saying here you must stop. Lyell is going to reread my book, and I yet entertain hopes that he will be converted, or perverted, as he calls it. Lyell has been EXTREMELY kind in writing me three volume-like letters; but he says nothing about dispersal during the glacial period. I should like to know what he thinks on this head. I have one question to ask: Would it be any good to send a copy of my book to Decaisne? and do you know any philosophical botanists on the Continent, who read English and care for such subjects? if so, give their addresses. How about Andersson in Sweden? You cannot think how refreshing it is to idle away the whole day, and hardly ever think in the least about my confounded book which half-killed me. I much wish I could hear of your taking a real rest. I know how very strong you are, mentally, but I never will believe you can go on working as you have worked of late with impunity. You will some day stretch the string too tight. Farewell, my good, and kind, and dear friend, Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Ilkley, Otley, Yorkshire, October 15th [1859]. My dear Huxley, I am here hydropathising and coming to life again, after having finished my accursed book, which would have been easy work to any one else, but half-killed me. I have thought you would give me one bit of information, and I know not to whom else to apply; viz., the addresses of Barrande, Von Siebold, Keyserling (I dare say Sir Roderick would know the latter). Can you tell me of any good and SPECULATIVE foreigners to whom it would be worth while to send copies of my book, on the 'Origin of Species'? I doubt whether it is worth sending to Siebold. I should like to send a few copies about, but how many I can afford I know not yet till I hear what price Murray affixes. I need not say that I will send, of course, one to you, in the first week of November. I hope to send copies abroad immediately. I shall be INTENSELY curious to hear what effect the book produces on you. I know that there will be much in it which you will object to, and I do not doubt many errors. I am very far from expecting to convert you to many of my heresies; but if, on the whole, you and two or three others think I am on the right road, I shall not care what the mob of naturalists think. The penultimate chapter (Chapter XIII. is on Classification, Morphology, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs.), though I believe it includes the truth, will, I much fear, make you savage. Do not act and say, like Macleay versus Fleming, "I write with aqua fortis to bite into brass." Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, October 20th [1859]. My dear Lyell, I have been reading over all your letters consecutively, and I do not feel that I have thanked you half enough for the extreme pleasure which they have given me, and for their utility. I see in them evidence of fluctuation in the degree of credence you give to the theory; nor am I at all surprised at this, for many and many fluctuations I have undergone. There is one point in your letter which I did not notice, about the animals (and many plants) naturalised in Australia, which you think could not endure without man's aid. I cannot see how man does aid the feral cattle. But, letting that pass, you seem to think, that because they suffer prodigious destruction during droughts, that they would all be destroyed. In the "gran secos" of La Plata, the indigenous animals, such as the American deer, die by thousands, and suffer apparently as much as the cattle. In parts of India, after a drought, it takes ten or more years before the indigenous mammals get up to their full number again. Your argument would, I think, apply to the aborigines as well as to the feral. An animal or plant which becomes feral in one small territory might be destroyed by climate, but I can hardly believe so, when once feral over several large territories. Again, I feel inclined to swear at climate: do not think me impudent for attacking you about climate. You say you doubt whether man could have existed under the Eocene climate, but man can now withstand the climate of Esquimaux-land and West Equatorial Africa; and surely you do not think the Eocene climate differed from the present throughout all Europe, as much as the Arctic regions differ from Equatorial Africa? With respect to organisms being created on the American type in America, it might, I think, be said that they were so created to prevent them being too well created, so as to beat the aborigines; but this seems to me, somehow, a monstrous doctrine. I have reflected a good deal on what you say on the necessity of continued intervention of creative power. I cannot see this necessity; and its admission, I think, would make the theory of Natural Selection valueless. Grant a simple Archetypal creature, like the Mud-fish or Lepidosiren, with the five senses and some vestige of mind, and I believe natural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate animal. Farewell; forgive me for indulging in this prose, and believe me, with cordial thanks, Your ever attached disciple, C. DARWIN. P.S.--When, and if, you reread, I supplicate you to write on the margin the word "expand," when too condensed, or "not clear." or "?." Such marks would cost you little trouble, and I could copy them and reflect on them, and their value would be infinite to me. My larger book will have to be wholly re-written, and not merely the present volume expanded; so that I want to waste as little time over this volume as possible, if another edition be called for; but I fear the subject will be too perplexing, as I have treated it, for general public. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Sunday [October 23rd, 1859]. My dear Hooker, I congratulate you on your 'Introduction' ("Australian Flora".) being in fact finished. I am sure from what I read of it (and deeply I shall be interested in reading it straight through), that it must have cost you a prodigious amount of labour and thought. I shall like very much to see the sheet, which you wish me to look at. Now I am so completely a gentleman, that I have sometimes a little difficulty to pass the day; but it is astonishing how idle a three weeks I have passed. If it is any comfort to you, pray delude yourself by saying that you intend "sticking to humdrum science." But I believe it just as much as if a plant were to say that, "I have been growing all my life, and, by Jove, I will stop growing." You cannot help yourself; you are not clever enough for that. You could not even remain idle, as I have done, for three weeks! What you say about Lyell pleases me exceedingly; I had not at all inferred from his letters that he had come so much round. I remember thinking, above a year ago, that if ever I lived to see Lyell, yourself, and Huxley come round, partly by my book, and partly by their own reflections, I should feel that the subject is safe, and all the world might rail, but that ultimately the theory of Natural Selection (though, no doubt, imperfect in its present condition, and embracing many errors) would prevail. Nothing will ever convince me that three such men, with so much diversified knowledge, and so well accustomed to search for truth, could err greatly. I have spoken of you here as a convert made by me; but I know well how much larger the share has been of your own self-thought. I am intensely curious to hear Huxley's opinion of my book. I fear my long discussion on Classification will disgust him; for it is much opposed to what he once said to me. But, how I am running on. You see how idle I am; but I have so enjoyed your letter that you must forgive me. With respect to migration during the glacial period: I think Lyell quite comprehends, for he has given me a supporting fact. But, perhaps, he unconsciously hates (do not say so to him) the view as slightly staggering him on his favourite theory of all changes of climate being due to changes in the relative position of land and water. I will send copies of my book to all the men specified by you;... you would be so kind as to add title, as Doctor, or Professor, or Monsieur, or Von, and initials (when wanted), and addresses to the names on the enclosed list, and let me have it pretty SOON, as towards the close of this week Murray says the copies to go abroad will be ready. I am anxious to get my view generally known, and not, I hope and think, for mere personal conceit... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, October 25th [1859]. ...Our difference on "principle of improvement" and "power of adaptation" is too profound for discussion by letter. If I am wrong, I am quite blind to my error. If I am right, our difference will be got over only by your re-reading carefully and reflecting on my first four chapters. I supplicate you to read these again carefully. The so-called improvement of our Shorthorn cattle, pigeons, etc., does not presuppose or require any aboriginal "power of adaptation," or "principle of improvement;" it requires only diversified variability, and man to select or take advantage of those modifications which are useful to him; so under nature any slight modification which CHANCES to arise, and is useful to any creature, is selected or preserved in the struggle for life; any modification which is injurious is destroyed or rejected; any which is neither useful nor injurious will be left a fluctuating element. When you contrast natural selection and "improvement," you seem always to overlook (for I do not see how you can deny) that every step in the natural selection of each species implies improvement in that species in relation to its conditions of life. No modification can be selected without it be an improvement or advantage. Improvement implies, I suppose, each form obtaining many parts or organs, all excellently adapted for their functions. As each species is improved, and as the number of forms will have increased, if we look to the whole course of time, the organic condition of life for other forms will become more complex, and there will be a necessity for other forms to become improved, or they will be exterminated; and I can see no limit to this process of improvement, without the intervention of any other and direct principle of improvement. All this seems to me quite compatible with certain forms fitted for simple conditions, remaining unaltered, or being degraded. If I have a second edition, I will reiterate "Natural Selection," and, as a general consequence, "Natural Improvement." As you go, as far as you do, I begin strongly to think, judging from myself, that you will go much further. How slowly the older geologists admitted your grand views on existing geological causes of change! If at any time you think I can answer any question, it is a real pleasure to me to write. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Ilkley, Yorkshire [1859]. My dear Sir, I have received your kind note and the copy; I am infinitely pleased and proud at the appearance of my child. I quite agree to all you propose about price. But you are really too generous about the, to me, scandalously heavy corrections. Are you not acting unfairly towards yourself? Would it not be better at least to share the 72 pounds 8 shillings? I shall be fully satisfied, for I had no business to send, though quite unintentionally and unexpectedly, such badly composed MS. to the printers. Thank you for your kind offer to distribute the copies to my friends and assistors as soon as possible. Do not trouble yourself much about the foreigners, as Messrs. Williams and Norgate have most kindly offered to do their best, and they are accustomed to send to all parts of the world. I will pay for my copies whenever you like. I am so glad that you were so good as to undertake the publication of my book. My dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--Please do not forget to let me hear about two days before the copies are distributed. I do not know when I shall leave this place, certainly not for several weeks. Whenever I am in London I will call on you. CHAPTER 1.XIV. -- BY PROFESSOR HUXLEY. ON THE RECEPTION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' To the present generation, that is to say, the people a few years on the hither and thither side of thirty, the name of Charles Darwin stands alongside of those of Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday; and, like them, calls up the grand ideal of a searcher after truth and interpreter of Nature. They think of him who bore it as a rare combination of genius, industry, and unswerving veracity, who earned his place among the most famous men of the age by sheer native power, in the teeth of a gale of popular prejudice, and uncheered by a sign of favour or appreciation from the official fountains of honour; as one who in spite of an acute sensitiveness to praise and blame, and notwithstanding provocations which might have excused any outbreak, kept himself clear of all envy, hatred, and malice, nor dealt otherwise than fairly and justly with the unfairness and injustice which was showered upon him; while, to the end of his days, he was ready to listen with patience and respect to the most insignificant of reasonable objectors. And with respect to that theory of the origin of the forms of life peopling our globe, with which Darwin's name is bound up as closely as that of Newton with the theory of gravitation, nothing seems to be further from the mind of the present generation than any attempt to smother it with ridicule or to crush it by vehemence of denunciation. "The struggle for existence," and "Natural selection," have become household words and every-day conceptions. The reality and the importance of the natural processes on which Darwin founds his deductions are no more doubted than those of growth and multiplication; and, whether the full potency attributed to them is admitted or not, no one doubts their vast and far-reaching significance. Wherever the biological sciences are studied, the 'Origin of Species' lights the paths of the investigator; wherever they are taught it permeates the course of instruction. Nor has the influence of Darwinian ideas been less profound, beyond the realms of Biology. The oldest of all philosophies, that of Evolution, was bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness during the millennium of theological scholasticism. But Darwin poured new life-blood into the ancient frame; the bonds burst, and the revivified thought of ancient Greece has proved itself to be a more adequate expression of the universal order of things than any of the schemes which have been accepted by the credulity and welcomed by the superstition of seventy later generations of men. To any one who studies the signs of the times, the emergence of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped, forgotten things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century. But the most effective weapons of the modern champions of Evolution were fabricated by Darwin; and the 'Origin of Species' has enlisted a formidable body of combatants, trained in the severe school of Physical Science, whose ears might have long remained deaf to the speculations of a priori philosophers. I do not think any candid or instructed person will deny the truth of that which has just been asserted. He may hate the very name of Evolution, and may deny its pretensions as vehemently as a Jacobite denied those of George the Second. But there it is--not only as solidly seated as the Hanoverian dynasty, but happily independent of Parliamentary sanction--and the dullest antagonists have come to see that they have to deal with an adversary whose bones are to be broken by no amount of bad words. Even the theologians have almost ceased to pit the plain meaning of Genesis against the no less plain meaning of Nature. Their more candid, or more cautious, representatives have given up dealing with Evolution as if it were a damnable heresy, and have taken refuge in one of two courses. Either they deny that Genesis was meant to teach scientific truth, and thus save the veracity of the record at the expense of its authority; or they expend their energies in devising the cruel ingenuities of the reconciler, and torture texts in the vain hope of making them confess the creed of Science. But when the peine forte et dure is over, the antique sincerity of the venerable sufferer always reasserts itself. Genesis is honest to the core, and professes to be no more than it is, a repository of venerable traditions of unknown origin, claiming no scientific authority and possessing none. As my pen finishes these passages, I can but be amused to think what a terrible hubbub would have been made (in truth was made) about any similar expressions of opinion a quarter of a century ago. In fact, the contrast between the present condition of public opinion upon the Darwinian question; between the estimation in which Darwin's views are now held in the scientific world; between the acquiescence, or at least quiescence, of the theologians of the self-respecting order at the present day and the outburst of antagonism on all sides in 1858-9, when the new theory respecting the origin of species first became known to the older generation to which I belong, is so startling that, except for documentary evidence, I should be sometimes inclined to think my memories dreams. I have a great respect for the younger generation myself (they can write our lives, and ravel out all our follies, if they choose to take the trouble, by and by), and I should be glad to be assured that the feeling is reciprocal; but I am afraid that the story of our dealings with Darwin may prove a great hindrance to that veneration for our wisdom which I should like them to display. We have not even the excuse that, thirty years ago, Mr. Darwin was an obscure novice, who had no claims on our attention. On the contrary, his remarkable zoological and geological investigations had long given him an assured position among the most eminent and original investigators of the day; while his charming 'Voyage of a Naturalist' had justly earned him a wide-spread reputation among the general public. I doubt if there was any man then living who had a better right to expect that anything he might choose to say on such a question as the Origin of Species would be listened to with profound attention, and discussed with respect; and there was certainly no man whose personal character should have afforded a better safeguard against attacks, instinct with malignity and spiced with shameless impertinences. Yet such was the portion of one of the kindest and truest men that it was ever my good fortune to know; and years had to pass away before misrepresentation, ridicule, and denunciation, ceased to be the most notable constituents of the majority of the multitudinous criticisms of his work which poured from the press. I am loth to rake any of these ancient scandals from their well-deserved oblivion; but I must make good a statement which may seem overcharged to the present generation, and there is no piece justificative more apt for the purpose, or more worthy of such dishonour, than the article in the 'Quarterly Review' for July, 1860. (I was not aware when I wrote these passages that the authorship of the article had been publicly acknowledged. Confession unaccompanied by penitence, however, affords no ground for mitigation of judgment; and the kindliness with which Mr. Darwin speaks of his assailant, Bishop Wilberforce (vol. ii.), is so striking an exemplification of his singular gentleness and modesty, that it rather increases one's indignation against the presumption of his critic.) Since Lord Brougham assailed Dr. Young, the world has seen no such specimen of the insolence of a shallow pretender to a Master in Science as this remarkable production, in which one of the most exact of observers, most cautious of reasoners, and most candid of expositors, of this or any other age, is held up to scorn as a "flighty" person, who endeavours "to prop up his utterly rotten fabric of guess and speculation," and whose "mode of dealing with nature" is reprobated as "utterly dishonourable to Natural Science." And all this high and mighty talk, which would have been indecent in one of Mr. Darwin's equals, proceeds from a writer whose want of intelligence, or of conscience, or of both, is so great, that, by way of an objection to Mr. Darwin's views, he can ask, "Is it credible that all favourable varieties of turnips are tending to become men;" who is so ignorant of paleontology, that he can talk of the "flowers and fruits" of the plants of the carboniferous epoch; of comparative anatomy, that he can gravely affirm the poison apparatus of the venomous snakes to be "entirely separate from the ordinary laws of animal life, and peculiar to themselves;" of the rudiments of physiology, that he can ask, "what advantage of life could alter the shape of the corpuscles into which the blood can be evaporated?" Nor does the reviewer fail to flavour this outpouring of preposterous incapacity with a little stimulation of the odium theologicum. Some inkling of the history of the conflicts between Astronomy, Geology, and Theology, leads him to keep a retreat open by the proviso that he cannot "consent to test the truth of Natural Science by the word of Revelation;" but, for all that, he devotes pages to the exposition of his conviction that Mr. Darwin's theory "contradicts the revealed relation of the creation to its Creator," and is "inconsistent with the fulness of his glory." If I confine my retrospect of the reception of the 'Origin of Species' to a twelvemonth, or thereabouts, from the time of its publication, I do not recollect anything quite so foolish and unmannerly as the 'Quarterly Review' article, unless, perhaps, the address of a Reverend Professor to the Dublin Geological Society might enter into competition with it. But a large proportion of Mr. Darwin's critics had a lamentable resemblance to the 'Quarterly' reviewer, in so far as they lacked either the will, or the wit, to make themselves masters of his doctrine; hardly any possessed the knowledge required to follow him through the immense range of biological and geological science which the 'Origin' covered; while, too commonly, they had prejudiced the case on theological grounds, and, as seems to be inevitable when this happens, eked out lack of reason by superfluity of railing. But it will be more pleasant and more profitable to consider those criticisms, which were acknowledged by writers of scientific authority, or which bore internal evidence of the greater or less competency and, often, of the good faith, of their authors. Restricting my survey to a twelvemonth, or thereabouts, after the publication of the 'Origin,' I find among such critics Louis Agassiz ("The arguments presented by Darwin in favor of a universal derivation from one primary form of all the peculiarities existing now among living beings have not made the slightest impression on my mind.") "Until the facts of Nature are shown to have been mistaken by those who have collected them, and that they have a different meaning from that now generally assigned to them, I shall therefore consider the transmutation theory as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."--Silliman's 'Journal,' July, 1860, pages 143, 154. Extract from the 3rd volume of 'Contributions to the Natural History of the United States.'); Murray, an excellent entomologist; Harvey, a botanist of considerable repute; and the author of an article in the 'Edinburgh Review,' all strongly adverse to Darwin. Pictet, the distinguished and widely learned paleontogist of Geneva, treats Mr. Darwin with a respect which forms a grateful contrast to the tone of some of the preceding writers, but consents to go with him only a very little way. ("I see no serious objections to the formation of varieties by natural selection in the existing world, and that, so far as earlier epochs are concerned, this law may be assumed to explain the origin of closely allied species, supposing for this purpose a very long period of time." "With regard to simple varieties and closely allied species, I believe that Mr. Darwin's theory may explain many things, and throw a great light upon numerous questions."--'Sur l'Origine de l'Espece. Par Charles Darwin.' ('Archives des Sc. de la Bibliotheque Universelle de Geneve,' pages 242, 243, Mars 1860.) On the other hand, Lyell, up to that time a pillar of the anti-transmutationists (who regarded him, ever afterwards, as Pallas Athene may have looked at Dian, after the Endymion affair), declared himself a Darwinian, though not without putting in a serious caveat. Nevertheless, he was a tower of strength, and his courageous stand for truth as against consistency, did him infinite honour. As evolutionists, sans phrase, I do not call to mind among the biologists more than Asa Gray, who fought the battle splendidly in the United States; Hooker, who was no less vigorous here; the present Sir John Lubbock and myself. Wallace was far away in the Malay Archipelago; but, apart from his direct share in the promulgation of the theory of natural selection, no enumeration of the influences at work, at the time I am speaking of, would be complete without the mention of his powerful essay 'On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species,' which was published in 1855. On reading it afresh, I have been astonished to recollect how small was the impression it made. In France, the influence of Elie de Beaumont and of Flourens--the former of whom is said to have "damned himself to everlasting fame" by inventing the nickname of "la science moussante" for Evolutionism (One is reminded of the effect of another small academic epigram. The so-called vertebral theory of the skull is said to have been nipped in the bud in France by the whisper of an academician to his neighbour, that, in that case, one's head was a "vertebre pensante."),--to say nothing of the ill-will of other powerful members of the Institut, produced for a long time the effect of a conspiracy of silence; and many years passed before the Academy redeemed itself from the reproach that the name of Darwin was not to be found on the list of its members. However, an accomplished writer, out of the range of academical influences, M. Laugel, gave an excellent and appreciative notice of the 'Origin' in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes.' Germany took time to consider; Bronn produced a slightly Bowdlerized translation of the 'Origin'; and 'Kladderadatsch' cut his jokes upon the ape origin of man; but I do not call to mind that any scientific notability declared himself publicly in 1860. (However, the man who stands next to Darwin in his influence on modern biologists, K.E. von Baer, wrote to me, in August 1860, expressing his general assent to evolutionist views. His phrase, "J'ai enonce les memes idees...que M. Darwin" (volume ii.) is shown by his subsequent writings to mean no more than this.) None of us dreamed that, in the course of a few years, the strength (and perhaps I may add the weakness) of "Darwinismus" would have its most extensive and most brilliant illustrations in the land of learning. If a foreigner may presume to speculate on the cause of this curious interval of silence, I fancy it was that one moiety of the German biologists were orthodox at any price, and the other moiety as distinctly heterodox. The latter were evolutionists, a priori, already, and they must have felt the disgust natural to deductive philosophers at being offered an inductive and experimental foundation for a conviction which they had reached by a shorter cut. It is undoubtedly trying to learn that, though your conclusions may be all right, your reasons for them are all wrong, or, at any rate, insufficient. On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860 were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that, if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority. And there is as little doubt that, if such a council gathered now, the decree would be of an exactly contrary nature. It would indicate a lack of sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that generation less capacity or less honesty than their successors possess. What, then, are the causes which led instructed and fair-judging men of that day to arrive at a judgment so different from that which seems just and fair to those who follow them? That is really one of the most interesting of all questions connected with the history of science, and I shall try to answer it. I am afraid that in order to do so I must run the risk of appearing egotistical. However, if I tell my own story it is only because I know it better than that of other people. I think I must have read the 'Vestiges' before I left England in 1846; but, if I did, the book made very little impression upon me, and I was not brought into serious contact with the 'Species' question until after 1850. At that time, I had long done with the Pentateuchal cosmogony, which had been impressed upon my childish understanding as Divine truth, with all the authority of parents and instructors, and from which it had cost me many a struggle to get free. But my mind was unbiassed in respect of any doctrine which presented itself, if it professed to be based on purely philosophical and scientific reasoning. It seemed to me then (as it does now) that "creation," in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism; and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation. I had not then, and I have not now, the smallest a priori objection to raise to the account of the creation of animals and plants given in 'Paradise Lost,' in which Milton so vividly embodies the natural sense of Genesis. Far be it from me to say that it is untrue because it is impossible. I confine myself to what must be regarded as a modest and reasonable request for some particle of evidence that the existing species of animals and plants did originate in that way, as a condition of my belief in a statement which appears to me to be highly improbable. And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8. Within the ranks of the biologists, at that time, I met with nobody, except Dr. Grant, of University College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and his advocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852, and then entered into the bonds of a friendship which, I am happy to think, has known no interruption. Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of apt illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable. In those days I had never even heard of Treviranus' 'Biologie.' However, I had studied Lamarck attentively and I had read the 'Vestiges' with due care; but neither of them afforded me any good ground for changing my negative and critical attitude. As for the 'Vestiges,' I confess that the book simply irritated me by the prodigious ignorance and thoroughly unscientific habit of mind manifested by the writer. If it had any influence on me at all, it set me against Evolution; and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges' while under that influence. With respect to the 'Philosophie Zoologique,' it is no reproach to Lamarck to say that the discussion of the Species question in that work, whatever might be said for it in 1809, was miserably below the level of the knowledge of half a century later. In that interval of time the elucidation of the structure of the lower animals and plants had given rise to wholly new conceptions of their relations; histology and embryology, in the modern sense, had been created; physiology had been reconstituted; the facts of distribution, geological and geographical, had been prodigiously multiplied and reduced to order. To any biologist whose studies had carried him beyond mere species-mongering in 1850, one-half of Lamarck's arguments were obsolete and the other half erroneous, or defective, in virtue of omitting to deal with the various classes of evidence which had been brought to light since his time. Moreover his one suggestion as to the cause of the gradual modification of species--effort excited by change of conditions--was, on the face of it, inapplicable to the whole vegetable world. I do not think that any impartial judge who reads the 'Philosophie Zoologique' now, and who afterwards takes up Lyell's trenchant and effectual criticism (published as far back as 1830), will be disposed to allot to Lamarck a much higher place in the establishment of biological evolution than that which Bacon assigns to himself in relation to physical science generally,--buccinator tantum. (Erasmus Darwin first promulgated Lamarck's fundamental conceptions, and, with greater logical consistency, he had applied them to plants. But the advocates of his claims have failed to show that he, in any respect, anticipated the central idea of the 'Origin of Species.') But, by a curious irony of fate, the same influence which led me to put as little faith in modern speculations on this subject, as in the venerable traditions recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis, was perhaps more potent than any other in keeping alive a sort of pious conviction that Evolution, after all, would turn out true. I have recently read afresh the first edition of the 'Principles of Geology'; and when I consider that this remarkable book had been nearly thirty years in everybody's hands, and that it brings home to any reader of ordinary intelligence a great principle and a great fact--the principle, that the past must be explained by the present, unless good cause be shown to the contrary; and the fact, that, so far as our knowledge of the past history of life on our globe goes, no such cause can be shown (The same principle and the same fact guide the result from all sound historical investigation. Grote's 'History of Greece' is a product of the same intellectual movement as Lyell's 'Principles.')--I cannot but believe that Lyell, for others, as for myself, was the chief agent for smoothing the road for Darwin. For consistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the organic as in the inorganic world. The origin of a new species by other than ordinary agencies would be a vastly greater "catastrophe" than any of those which Lyell successfully eliminated from sober geological speculation. In fact, no one was better aware of this than Lyell himself. (Lyell, with perfect right, claims this position for himself. He speaks of having "advocated a law of continuity even in the organic world, so far as possible without adopting Lamarck's theory of transmutation"...) "But while I taught that as often as certain forms of animals and plants disappeared, for reasons quite intelligible to us, others took their place by virtue of a causation which was beyond our comprehension; it remained for Darwin to accumulate proof that there is no break between the incoming and the outgoing species, that they are the work of evolution, and not of special creation... "I had certainly prepared the way in this country, in six editions of my work before the 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1842 [1844], for the reception of Darwin's gradual and insensible evolution of species."--('Life and Letters,' Letter to Haeckel, volume ii. page 436. November 23, 1868.) If one reads any of the earlier editions of the 'Principles' carefully (especially by the light of the interesting series of letters recently published by Sir Charles Lyell's biographer), it is easy to see that, with all his energetic opposition to Lamarck, on the one hand, and to the ideal quasi-progressionism of Agassiz, on the other, Lyell, in his own mind, was strongly disposed to account for the origination of all past and present species of living things by natural causes. But he would have liked, at the same time, to keep the name of creation for a natural process which he imagined to be incomprehensible. In a letter addressed to Mantell (dated March 2, 1827), Lyell speaks of having just read Lamarck; he expresses his delight at Lamarck's theories, and his personal freedom from any objection based on theological grounds. And though he is evidently alarmed at the pithecoid origin of man involved in Lamarck's doctrine, he observes:-- "But, after all, what changes species may really undergo! How impossible will it be to distinguish and lay down a line, beyond which some of the so-called extinct species have never passed into recent ones." Again, the following remarkable passage occurs in the postscript of a letter addressed to Sir John Herschel in 1836:-- "In regard to the origination of new species, I am very glad to find that you think it probable that it may be carried on through the intervention of intermediate causes. I left this rather to be inferred, not thinking it worth while to offend a certain class of persons by embodying in words what would only be a speculation." (In the same sense, see the letter to Whewell, March 7, 1837, volume ii., page 5):-- "In regard to this last subject [the changes from one set of animal and vegetable species to another]...you remember what Herschel said in his letter to me. If I had stated as plainly as he has done the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects." See also letter to Sedgwick, January 12, 1838 ii. page 35.) He goes on to refer to the criticisms which have been directed against him on the ground that, by leaving species to be originated by miracle, he is inconsistent with his own doctrine of uniformitarianism; and he leaves it to be understood that he had not replied, on the ground of his general objection to controversy. Lyell's contemporaries were not without some inkling of his esoteric doctrine. Whewell's 'History of the Inductive Sciences,' whatever its philosophical value, is always worth reading and always interesting, if under no other aspect than that of an evidence of the speculative limits within which a highly-placed divine might, at that time, safely range at will. In the course of his discussion of uniformitarianism, the encyclopaedic Master of Trinity observes:-- "Mr. Lyell, indeed, has spoken of an hypothesis that 'the successive creation of species may constitute a regular part of the economy of nature,' but he has nowhere, I think, so described this process as to make it appear in what department of science we are to place the hypothesis. Are these new species created by the production, at long intervals, of an offspring different in species from the parents? Or are the species so created produced without parents? Are they gradually evolved from some embryo substance? Or do they suddenly start from the ground, as in the creation of the poet?... "Some selection of one of these forms of the hypothesis, rather than the others, with evidence for the selection, is requisite to entitle us to place it among the known causes of change, which in this chapter we are considering. The bare conviction that a creation of species has taken place, whether once or many times, so long as it is unconnected with our organical sciences, is a tenet of Natural Theology rather than of Physical Philosophy." (Whewell's 'History,' volume iii. page 639-640 (Edition 2, 1847.)) The earlier part of this criticism appears perfectly just and appropriate; but, from the concluding paragraph, Whewell evidently imagines that by "creation" Lyell means a preternatural intervention of the Deity; whereas the letter to Herschel shows that, in his own mind, Lyell meant natural causation; and I see no reason to doubt (The following passages in Lyell's letters appear to me decisive on this point):-- To Darwin, October 3, 1859 (ii, 325), on first reading the 'Origin.' "I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. "It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the case of Man and his Races, and of other animals, and that of plants, is one and the same, and that if a vera causa be admitted for one instant, [instead] of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word 'creation,' all the consequences must follow." To Darwin, March 15, 1863 (volume ii. page 365). "I remember that it was the conclusion he [Lamarck] came to about man that fortified me thirty years ago against the great impression which his arguments at first made on my mind, all the greater because Constant Prevost, a pupil of Cuvier's forty years ago, told me his conviction 'that Cuvier thought species not real, but that science could not advance without assuming that they were so.'" To Hooker, March 9, 1863 (volume ii. page 361), in reference to Darwin's feeling about the 'Antiquity of Man.' "He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go farther with him, or do not speak out more. I can only say that I have spoken out to the full extent of my present convictions, and even beyond my state of FEELING as to man's unbroken descent from the brutes, and I find I am half converting not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even now against Huxley." He speaks of having had to abandon "old and long cherished ideas, which constituted the charm to me of the theoretical part of the science in my earlier day, when I believed with Pascal in the theory, as Hallam terms it, of 'the arch-angel ruined.'" See the same sentiment in the letter to Darwin, March 11, 1863, page 363:-- "I think the old 'creation' is almost as much required as ever, but of course it takes a new form if Lamarck's views improved by yours are adopted." that, if Sir Charles could have avoided the inevitable corollary of the pithecoid origin of man--for which, to the end of his life, he entertained a profound antipathy--he would have advocated the efficiency of causes now in operation to bring about the condition of the organic world, as stoutly as he championed that doctrine in reference to inorganic nature. The fact is, that a discerning eye might have seen that some form or other of the doctrine of transmutation was inevitable, from the time when the truth enunciated by William Smith that successive strata are characterised by different kinds of fossil remains, became a firmly established law of nature. No one has set forth the speculative consequences of this generalisation better than the historian of the 'Inductive Sciences':-- "But the study of geology opens to us the spectacle of many groups of species which have, in the course of the earth's history, succeeded each other at vast intervals of time; one set of animals and plants disappearing, as it would seem, from the face of our planet, and others, which did not before exist, becoming the only occupants of the globe. And the dilemma then presents itself to us anew:--either we must accept the doctrine of the transmutation of species, and must suppose that the organized species of one geological epoch were transmuted into those of another by some long-continued agency of natural causes; or else, we must believe in many successive acts of creation and extinction of species, out of the common course of nature; acts which, therefore, we may properly call miraculous." (Whewell's 'History of the Inductive Sciences.' Edition ii., 1847, volume iii. pages 624-625. See for the author's verdict, pages 638- 39.) Dr. Whewell decides in favour of the latter conclusion. And if any one had plied him with the four questions which he puts to Lyell in the passage already cited, all that can be said now is that he would certainly have rejected the first. But would he really have had the courage to say that a Rhinoceros tichorhinus, for instance, "was produced without parents;" or was "evolved from some embryo substance;" or that it suddenly started from the ground like Milton's lion "pawing to get free his hinder parts." I permit myself to doubt whether even the Master of Trinity's well-tried courage--physical, intellectual, and moral--would have been equal to this feat. No doubt the sudden concurrence of half-a-ton of inorganic molecules into a live rhinoceros is conceivable, and therefore may be possible. But does such an event lie sufficiently within the bounds of probability to justify the belief in its occurrence on the strength of any attainable, or, indeed, imaginable, evidence? In view of the assertion (often repeated in the early days of the opposition to Darwin) that he had added nothing to Lamarck, it is very interesting to observe that the possibility of a fifth alternative, in addition to the four he has stated, has not dawned upon Dr. Whewell's mind. The suggestion that new species may result from the selective action of external conditions upon the variations from their specific type which individuals present--and which we call "spontaneous," because we are ignorant of their causation--is as wholly unknown to the historian of scientific ideas as it was to biological specialists before 1858. But that suggestion is the central idea of the 'Origin of Species,' and contains the quintessence of Darwinism. Thus, looking back into the past, it seems to me that my own position of critical expectancy was just and reasonable, and must have been taken up, on the same grounds, by many other persons. If Agassiz told me that the forms of life which had successively tenanted the globe were the incarnations of successive thoughts of the Deity; and that he had wiped out one set of these embodiments by an appalling geological catastrophe as soon as His ideas took a more advanced shape, I found myself not only unable to admit the accuracy of the deductions from the facts of paleontology, upon which this astounding hypothesis was founded, but I had to confess my want of any means of testing the correctness of his explanation of them. And besides that, I could by no means see what the explanation explained. Neither did it help me to be told by an eminent anatomist that species had succeeded one another in time, in virtue of "a continuously operative creational law." That seemed to me to be no more than saying that species had succeeded one another, in the form of a vote-catching resolution, with "law" to please the man of science, and "creational" to draw the orthodox. So I took refuge in that "thatige Skepsis" which Goethe has so well defined; and, reversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do with the transmutationists; and stood up for the possibility of transmutation among the orthodox--thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness. I remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin, expressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence of transitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and imperfect knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he had then been many years brooding over the species-question; and the humorous smile which accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me. But it would seem that four or five years' hard work had enabled me to understand what it meant; for Lyell ('Life and Letters,' volume ii. page 212.), writing to Sir Charles Bunbury (under date of April 30, 1856), says:-- "When Huxley, Hooker, and Wollaston were at Darwin's last week they (all four of them) ran a tilt against species--further, I believe, than they are prepared to go." I recollect nothing of this beyond the fact of meeting Mr. Wollaston; and except for Sir Charles' distinct assurance as to "all four," I should have thought my "outrecuidance" was probably a counterblast to Wollaston's conservatism. With regard to Hooker, he was already, like Voltaire's Habbakuk, "capable du tout" in the way of advocating Evolution. As I have already said, I imagine that most of those of my contemporaries who thought seriously about the matter, were very much in my own state of mind--inclined to say to both Mosaists and Evolutionists, "a plague on both your houses!" and disposed to turn aside from an interminable and apparently fruitless discussion, to labour in the fertile fields of ascertainable fact. And I may, therefore, further suppose that the publication of the Darwin and Wallace papers in 1858, and still more that of the 'Origin' in 1859, had the effect upon them of the flash of light, which to a man who has lost himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, whether it takes him straight home or not, certainly goes his way. That which we were looking for, and could not find, was a hypothesis respecting the origin of known organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested. The 'Origin' provided us with the working hypothesis we sought. Moreover, it did the immense service of freeing us for ever from the dilemma--refuse to accept the creation hypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner? In 1857, I had no answer ready, and I do not think that any one else had. A year later, we reproached ourselves with dullness for being perplexed by such an inquiry. My reflection, when I first made myself master of the central idea of the 'Origin,' was, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" I suppose that Columbus' companions said much the same when he made the egg stand on end. The facts of variability, of the struggle for existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious enough; but none of us had suspected that the road to the heart of the species problem lay through them, until Darwin and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon-fire of the 'Origin' guided the benighted. Whether the particular shape which the doctrine of evolution, as applied to the organic world, took in Darwin's hands, would prove to be final or not, was, to me, a matter of indifference. In my earliest criticisms of the 'Origin' I ventured to point out that its logical foundation was insecure so long as experiments in selective breeding had not produced varieties which were more or less infertile; and that insecurity remains up to the present time. But, with any and every critical doubt which my sceptical ingenuity could suggest, the Darwinian hypothesis remained incomparably more probable than the creation hypothesis. And if we had none of us been able to discern the paramount significance of some of the most patent and notorious of natural facts, until they were, so to speak, thrust under our noses, what force remained in the dilemma--creation or nothing? It was obvious that, hereafter, the probability would be immensely greater, that the links of natural causation were hidden from our purblind eyes, than that natural causation should be incompetent to produce all the phenomena of nature. The only rational course for those who had no other object than the attainment of truth, was to accept "Darwinism" as a working hypothesis, and see what could be made of it. Either it would prove its capacity to elucidate the facts of organic life, or it would break down under the strain. This was surely the dictate of common sense; and, for once, common sense carried the day. The result has been that complete volte-face of the whole scientific world, which must seem so surprising to the present generation. I do not mean to say that all the leaders of biological science have avowed themselves Darwinians; but I do not think that there is a single zoologist, or botanist, or palaeontologist, among the multitude of active workers of this generation, who is other than an evolutionist, profoundly influenced by Darwin's views. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the particular theory put forth by Darwin, I venture to affirm that, so far as my knowledge goes, all the ingenuity and all the learning of hostile critics have not enabled them to adduce a solitary fact, of which it can be said, this is irreconcilable with the Darwinian theory. In the prodigious variety and complexity of organic nature, there are multitudes of phenomena which are not deducible from any generalisations we have yet reached. But the same may be said of every other class of natural objects. I believe that astronomers cannot yet get the moon's motions into perfect accordance with the theory of gravitation. It would be inappropriate, even if it were possible, to discuss the difficulties and unresolved problems which have hitherto met the evolutionist, and which will probably continue to puzzle him for generations to come, in the course of this brief history of the reception of Mr. Darwin's great work. But there are two or three objections of a more general character, based, or supposed to be based, upon philosophical and theological foundations, which were loudly expressed in the early days of the Darwinian controversy, and which, though they have been answered over and over again, crop up now and then to the present day. The most singular of these, perhaps immortal, fallacies, which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted them, is that which charges Mr. Darwin with having attempted to reinstate the old pagan goddess, Chance. It is said that he supposes variations to come about "by chance," and that the fittest survive the "chances" of the struggle for existence, and thus "chance" is substituted for providential design. It is not a little wonderful that such an accusation as this should be brought against a writer who has, over and over again, warned his readers that when he uses the word "spontaneous," he merely means that he is ignorant of the cause of that which is so termed; and whose whole theory crumbles to pieces if the uniformity and regularity of natural causation for illimitable past ages is denied. But probably the best answer to those who talk of Darwinism meaning the reign of "chance," is to ask them what they themselves understand by "chance"? Do they believe that anything in this universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been illumined by a ray of scientific thought. The one act of faith in the convert to science, is the confession of the universality of order and of the absolute validity in all times and under all circumstances, of the law of causation. This confession is an act of faith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions is not susceptible of proof. But such faith is not blind, but reasonable; because it is invariably confirmed by experience, and constitutes the sole trustworthy foundation for all action. If one of these people, in whom the chance-worship of our remoter ancestors thus strangely survives, should be within reach of the sea when a heavy gale is blowing, let him betake himself to the shore and watch the scene. Let him note the infinite variety of form and size of the tossing waves out at sea; or of the curves of their foam-crested breakers, as they dash against the rocks; let him listen to the roar and scream of the shingle as it is cast up and torn down the beach; or look at the flakes of foam as they drive hither and thither before the wind; or note the play of colours, which answers a gleam of sunshine as it falls upon the myriad bubbles. Surely here, if anywhere, he will say that chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict, every one of these "chance" events. A second very common objection to Mr. Darwin's views was (and is), that they abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the argument from design. It is nearly twenty years since I ventured to offer some remarks on this subject, and as my arguments have as yet received no refutation, I hope I may be excused for reproducing them. I observed, "that the doctrine of Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all the commoner and coarser forms of Teleology. But perhaps the most remarkable service to the Philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his views offer. The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the whole world, living and not living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the forces (I should now like to substitute the word powers for "forces.") possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapour, and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of the fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the vapour of the breath on a cold winter's day... ...The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe." (The "Genealogy of Animals" ('The Academy,' 1869), reprinted in 'Critiques and Addresses.') The acute champion of Teleology, Paley, saw no difficulty in admitting that the "production of things" may be the result of trains of mechanical dispositions fixed beforehand by intelligent appointment and kept in action by a power at the centre ('Natural Theology,' chapter xxiii.), that is to say, he proleptically accepted the modern doctrine of Evolution; and his successors might do well to follow their leader, or at any rate to attend to his weighty reasonings, before rushing into an antagonism which has no reasonable foundation. Having got rid of the belief in chance and the disbelief in design, as in no sense appurtenances of Evolution, the third libel upon that doctrine, that it is anti-theistic, might perhaps be left to shift for itself. But the persistence with which many people refuse to draw the plainest consequences from the propositions they profess to accept, renders it advisable to remark that the doctrine of Evolution is neither Anti-theistic nor Theistic. It simply has no more to do with Theism than the first book of Euclid has. It is quite certain that a normal fresh-laid egg contains neither cock nor hen; and it is also as certain as any proposition in physics or morals, that if such an egg is kept under proper conditions for three weeks, a cock or hen chicken will be found in it. It is also quite certain that if the shell were transparent we should be able to watch the formation of the young fowl, day by day, by a process of evolution, from a microscopic cellular germ to its full size and complication of structure. Therefore Evolution, in the strictest sense, is actually going on in this and analogous millions and millions of instances, wherever living creatures exist. Therefore, to borrow an argument from Butler, as that which now happens must be consistent with the attributes of the Deity, if such a Being exists, Evolution must be consistent with those attributes. And, if so, the evolution of the universe, which is neither more nor less explicable than that of a chicken, must also be consistent with them. The doctrine of Evolution, therefore, does not even come into contact with Theism, considered as a philosophical doctrine. That with which it does collide, and with which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the conception of creation, which theological speculators have based upon the history narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis. There is a great deal of talk and not a little lamentation about the so-called religious difficulties which physical science has created. In theological science, as a matter of fact, it has created none. Not a solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not existed from the time that philosophers began to think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism. All the real or imaginary perplexities which flow from the conception of the universe as a determinate mechanism, are equally involved in the assumption of an Eternal, Omnipotent and Omniscient Deity. The theological equivalent of the scientific conception of order is Providence; and the doctrine of determinism follows as surely from the attributes of foreknowledge assumed by the theologian, as from the universality of natural causation assumed by the man of science. The angels in 'Paradise Lost' would have found the task of enlightening Adam upon the mysteries of "Fate, Foreknowledge, and Free-will," not a whit more difficult, if their pupil had been educated in a "Real-schule" and trained in every laboratory of a modern university. In respect of the great problems of Philosophy, the post-Darwinian generation is, in one sense, exactly where the prae-Darwinian generations were. They remain insoluble. But the present generation has the advantage of being better provided with the means of freeing itself from the tyranny of certain sham solutions. The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. And even a cursory glance at the history of the biological sciences during the last quarter of a century is sufficient to justify the assertion, that the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands, since the publication of Newton's 'Principia,' is Darwin's 'Origin of Species.' It was badly received by the generation to which it was first addressed, and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which it gave rise is sad to think upon. But the present generation will probably behave just as badly if another Darwin should arise, and inflict upon them that which the generality of mankind most hate--the necessity of revising their convictions. Let them, then, be charitable to us ancients; and if they behave no better than the men of my day to some new benefactor, let them recollect that, after all, our wrath did not come to much, and vented itself chiefly in the bad language of sanctimonious scolds. Let them as speedily perform a strategic right-about-face, and follow the truth wherever it leads. The opponents of the new truth will discover, as those of Darwin are doing, that, after all, theories do not alter facts, and that the universe remains unaffected even though texts crumble. Or, it may be, that, as history repeats itself, their happy ingenuity will also discover that the new wine is exactly of the same vintage as the old, and that (rightly viewed) the old bottles prove to have been expressly made for holding it. 
2088	----	THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN INCLUDING AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHAPTER EDITED BY HIS SON FRANCIS DARWIN IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME II TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOLUME II. CHAPTER 2.I.--The Publication of the 'Origin of Species'--October 3, 1859, to December 31, 1859. CHAPTER 2.II.--The 'Origin of Species' (continued)--1860. CHAPTER 2.III.--The Spread of Evolution--1861-1862. CHAPTER 2.IV.--The Spread of Evolution. 'Variation of Animals and Plants' --1863-1866. CHAPTER 2.V.--The Publication of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication'--January 1867-June 1868. CHAPTER 2.VI.--Work on 'Man'--1864-1870. CHAPTER 2.VII.--The Publication of the 'Descent of Man.' Work on 'Expression'--1871-1873. CHAPTER 2.VIII.--Miscellanea, including Second Editions of 'Coral Reefs,' the 'Descent of Man,' and the 'Variation of Animals and Plants'--1874 and 1875. CHAPTER 2.IX.--Miscellanea (continued). A Revival of Geological Work--The Book on Earthworms--Life of Erasmus Darwin--Miscellaneous Letters--1876-1882. BOTANICAL LETTERS. CHAPTER 2.X.--Fertilisation of Flowers--1839-1880. CHAPTER 2.XI.--The 'Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom'--1866-1877. CHAPTER 2.XII.--'Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species' --1860-1878. CHAPTER 2.XIII.--Climbing and Insectivorous Plants--1863-1875. CHAPTER 2.XIV.--The 'Power of Movement in Plants'--1878-1881. CHAPTER 2.XV.--Miscellaneous Botanical Letters--1873-1882.... CHAPTER 2.XVI.--Conclusion. APPENDICES. I.--The Funeral in Westminster Abbey. II.--List of Works by C. Darwin. III.--Portraits. IV.--Honours, Degrees, Societies, etc. TRANSCRIPT OF A FACSIMILE OF A PAGE FROM A NOTE-BOOK OF 1837. --led to comprehend true affinities. My theory would give zest to recent & Fossil Comparative Anatomy: it would lead to study of instincts, heredity, & mind heredity, whole metaphysics, it would lead to closest examination of hybridity & generation, causes of change in order to know what we have come from & to what we tend, to what circumstances favour crossing & what prevents it, this & direct examination of direct passages of structure in species, might lead to laws of change, which would then be main object of study, to guide our speculations. LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN. VOLUME II. CHAPTER 2.I. -- THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' OCTOBER 3, 1859, TO DECEMBER 31, 1859. 1859. [Under the date of October 1st, 1859, in my father's Diary occurs the entry: "Finished proofs (thirteen months and ten days) of Abstract on 'Origin of Species'; 1250 copies printed. The first edition was published on November 24th, and all copies sold first day." On October 2d he started for a water-cure establishment at Ilkley, near Leeds, where he remained with his family until December, and on the 9th of that month he was again at Down. The only other entry in the Diary for this year is as follows: "During end of November and beginning of December, employed in correcting for second edition of 3000 copies; multitude of letters." The first and a few of the subsequent letters refer to proof sheets, and to early copies of the 'Origin' which were sent to friends before the book was published.] C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN. (Part of this letter is given in the 'Life of Sir Charles Lyell,' volume ii. page 325.) October 3d, 1859. My dear Darwin, I have just finished your volume and right glad I am that I did my best with Hooker to persuade you to publish it without waiting for a time which probably could never have arrived, though you lived till the age of a hundred, when you had prepared all your facts on which you ground so many grand generalizations. It is a splendid case of close reasoning, and long substantial argument throughout so many pages; the condensation immense, too great perhaps for the uninitiated, but an effective and important preliminary statement, which will admit, even before your detailed proofs appear, of some occasional useful exemplification, such as your pigeons and cirripedes, of which you make such excellent use. I mean that, when, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon called for, you may here and there insert an actual case to relieve the vast number of abstract propositions. So far as I am concerned, I am so well prepared to take your statements of facts for granted, that I do not think the "pieces justificatives" when published will make much difference, and I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the case of Man and his races, and of other animals, and that of plants is one and the same, and that if a "vera causa" be admitted for one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word "Creation," all the consequences must follow. I fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this place, to indulge in a variety of comments, and to say how much I was delighted with Oceanic Islands--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--the genealogical key to the Natural System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should be copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a word of the Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration, or at least, omission of a word or two be still possible in that. In the first place, at page 480, it cannot surely be said that the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of the mutability of species? You do not mean to ignore G. St. Hilaire and Lamarck. As to the latter, you may say, that in regard to animals you substitute natural selection for volition to a certain considerable extent, but in his theory of the changes of plants he could not introduce volition; he may, no doubt, have laid an undue comparative stress on changes in physical conditions, and too little on those of contending organisms. He at least was for the universal mutability of species and for a genealogical link between the first and the present. The men of his school also appealed to domesticated varieties. (Do you mean LIVING naturalists?) (In the published copies of the first edition, page 480, the words are "eminent living naturalists.") The first page of this most important summary gives the adversary an advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and crudely such a startling objection as the formation of "the eye," not by means analogous to man's reason, or rather by some power immeasurably superior to human reason, but by superinduced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder avails himself. Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several sentences, and in a future edition bring it out more fully. Between the throwing down of such a stumbling-block in the way of the reader, and the passage to the working ants, in page 460, there are pages required; and these ants are a bathos to him before he has recovered from the shock of being called upon to believe the eye to have been brought to perfection, from a state of blindness or purblindness, by such variations as we witness. I think a little omission would greatly lessen the objectionableness of these sentences if you have not time to recast and amplify. ... But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun. Your comparison of the letters retained in words, when no longer wanted for the sound, to rudimentary organs is excellent, as both are truly genealogical. The want of peculiar birds in Madeira is a greater difficulty than seemed to me allowed for. I could cite passages where you show that variations are superinduced from the new circumstances of new colonists, which would require some Madeira birds, like those of the Galapagos, to be peculiar. There has been ample time in the case of Madeira and Porto Santo... You enclose your sheets in old MS., so the Post Office very properly charge them as letters, 2 pence extra. I wish all their fines on MS. were worth as much. I paid 4 shillings 6 pence for such wash the other day from Paris, from a man who can prove 300 deluges in the valley of the Seine. With my hearty congratulations to you on your grand work, believe me, Ever very affectionately yours, CHAS. LYELL. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, October 11th [1859]. My dear Lyell, I thank you cordially for giving me so much of your valuable time in writing me the long letter of 3d, and still longer of 4th. I wrote a line with the missing proof-sheet to Scarborough. I have adopted most thankfully all your minor corrections in the last chapter, and the greater ones as far as I could with little trouble. I damped the opening passage about the eye (in my bigger work I show the gradations in structure of the eye) by putting merely "complex organs." But you are a pretty Lord Chancellor to tell the barrister on one side how best to win the cause! The omission of "living" before eminent naturalists was a dreadful blunder. MADEIRA AND BERMUDA BIRDS NOT PECULIAR. You are right, there is a screw out here; I thought no one would have detected it; I blundered in omitting a discussion, which I have written out in full. But once for all, let me say as an excuse, that it was most difficult to decide what to omit. Birds, which have struggled in their own homes, when settled in a body, nearly simultaneously in a new country, would not be subject to much modification, for their mutual relations would not be much disturbed. But I quite agree with you, that in time they ought to undergo some. In Bermuda and Madeira they have, as I believe, been kept constant by the frequent arrival, and the crossing with unaltered immigrants of the same species from the mainland. In Bermuda this can be proved, in Madeira highly probable, as shown me by letters from E.V. Harcourt. Moreover, there are ample grounds for believing that the crossed offspring of the new immigrants (fresh blood as breeders would say), and old colonists of the same species would be extra vigorous, and would be the most likely to survive; thus the effects of such crossing in keeping the old colonists unaltered would be much aided. ON GALAPAGOS PRODUCTIONS HAVING AMERICAN TYPE ON VIEW OF CREATION. I cannot agree with you, that species if created to struggle with American forms, would have to be created on the American type. Facts point diametrically the other way. Look at the unbroken and untilled ground in La Plata, COVERED with European products, which have no near affinity to the indigenous products. They are not American types which conquer the aborigines. So in every island throughout the world. Alph. De Candolle's results (though he does not see its full importance), that thoroughly well naturalised [plants] are in general very different from the aborigines (belonging in large proportion of cases to non-indigenous genera) is most important always to bear in mind. Once for all, I am sure, you will understand that I thus write dogmatically for brevity sake. ON THE CONTINUED CREATION Of MONADS. This doctrine is superfluous (and groundless) on the theory of Natural Selection, which implies no NECESSARY tendency to progression. A monad, if no deviation in its structure profitable to it under its EXCESSIVELY SIMPLE conditions of life occurred, might remain unaltered from long before the Silurian Age to the present day. I grant there will generally be a tendency to advance in complexity of organisation, though in beings fitted for very simple conditions it would be slight and slow. How could a complex organisation profit a monad? if it did not profit it there would be no advance. The Secondary Infusoria differ but little from the living. The parent monad form might perfectly well survive unaltered and fitted for its simple conditions, whilst the offspring of this very monad might become fitted for more complex conditions. The one primordial prototype of all living and extinct creatures may, it is possible, be now alive! Moreover, as you say, higher forms might be occasionally degraded, the snake Typhlops SEEMS (?!) to have the habits of earth-worms. So that fresh creatures of simple forms seem to me wholly superfluous. "MUST YOU NOT ASSUME A PRIMEVAL CREATIVE POWER WHICH DOES NOT ACT WITH UNIFORMITY, OR HOW COULD MAN SUPERVENE?" I am not sure that I understand your remarks which follow the above. We must under present knowledge assume the creation of one or of a few forms in the same manner as philosophers assume the existence of a power of attraction without any explanation. But I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition "of new powers and attributes and forces;" or of any "principle of improvement," except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish, but I have firm faith in it, as I cannot believe, that if false, it would explain so many whole classes of facts, which, if I am in my senses, it seems to explain. As far as I understand your remarks and illustrations, you doubt the possibility of gradations of intellectual powers. Now, it seems to me, looking to existing animals alone, that we have a very fine gradation in the intellectual powers of the Vertebrata, with one rather wide gap (not half so wide as in many cases of corporeal structure), between say a Hottentot and a Ourang, even if civilised as much mentally as the dog has been from the wolf. I suppose that you do not doubt that the intellectual powers are as important for the welfare of each being as corporeal structure; if so, I can see no difficulty in the most intellectual individuals of a species being continually selected; and the intellect of the new species thus improved, aided probably by effects of inherited mental exercise. I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated. But there is not space to discuss this point. If I understand you, the turning-point in our difference must be, that you think it impossible that the intellectual powers of a species should be much improved by the continued natural selection of the most intellectual individuals. To show how minds graduate, just reflect how impossible every one has yet found it, to define the difference in mind of man and the lower animals; the latter seem to have the very same attributes in a much lower stage of perfection than the lowest savage. I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent. I think Embryology, Homology, Classification, etc., etc., show us that all vertebrata have descended from one parent; how that parent appeared we know not. If you admit in ever so little a degree, the explanation which I have given of Embryology, Homology and Classification, you will find it difficult to say: thus far the explanation holds good, but no further; here we must call in "the addition of new creative forces." I think you will be driven to reject all or admit all: I fear by your letter it will be the former alternative; and in that case I shall feel sure it is my fault, and not the theory's fault, and this will certainly comfort me. With regard to the descent of the great Kingdoms (as Vertebrata, Articulata, etc.) from one parent, I have said in the conclusion, that mere analogy makes me think it probable; my arguments and facts are sound in my judgment only for each separate kingdom. THE FORMS WHICH ARE BEATEN INHERITING SOME INFERIORITY IN COMMON. I dare say I have not been guarded enough, but might not the term inferiority include less perfect adaptation to physical conditions? My remarks apply not to single species, but to groups or genera; the species of most genera are adapted at least to rather hotter, and rather less hot, to rather damper and dryer climates; and when the several species of a group are beaten and exterminated by the several species of another group, it will not, I think, generally be from EACH new species being adapted to the climate, but from all the new species having some common advantage in obtaining sustenance, or escaping enemies. As groups are concerned, a fairer illustration than negro and white in Liberia would be the almost certain future extinction of the genus ourang by the genus man, not owing to man being better fitted for the climate, but owing to the inherited intellectual inferiority of the Ourang-genus to Man-genus, by his intellect, inventing fire-arms and cutting down forests. I believe from reasons given in my discussion, that acclimatisation is readily effected under nature. It has taken me so many years to disabuse my mind of the TOO great importance of climate--its important influence being so conspicuous, whilst that of a struggle between creature and creature is so hidden--that I am inclined to swear at the North Pole, and, as Sydney Smith said, even to speak disrespectfully of the Equator. I beg you often to reflect (I have found NOTHING so instructive) on the case of thousands of plants in the middle point of their respective ranges, and which, as we positively know, can perfectly well withstand a little more heat and cold, a little more damp and dry, but which in the metropolis of their range do not exist in vast numbers, although if many of the other inhabitants were destroyed [they] would cover the ground. We thus clearly see that their numbers are kept down, in almost every case, not by climate, but by the struggle with other organisms. All this you will perhaps think very obvious; but, until I repeated it to myself thousands of times, I took, as I believe, a wholly wrong view of the whole economy of nature... HYBRIDISM. I am so much pleased that you approve of this chapter; you would be astonished at the labour this cost me; so often was I, on what I believe was, the wrong scent. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS. On the theory of Natural Selection there is a wide distinction between Rudimentary Organs and what you call germs of organs, and what I call in my bigger book "nascent" organs. An organ should not be called rudimentary unless it be useless--as teeth which never cut through the gums--the papillae, representing the pistil in male flowers, wing of Apteryx, or better, the little wings under soldered elytra. These organs are now plainly useless, and a fortiori, they would be useless in a less developed state. Natural Selection acts exclusively by preserving successive slight, USEFUL modifications. Hence Natural Selection cannot possibly make a useless or rudimentary organ. Such organs are solely due to inheritance (as explained in my discussion), and plainly bespeak an ancestor having the organ in a useful condition. They may be, and often have been, worked in for other purposes, and then they are only rudimentary for the original function, which is sometimes plainly apparent. A nascent organ, though little developed, as it has to be developed must be useful in every stage of development. As we cannot prophesy, we cannot tell what organs are now nascent; and nascent organs will rarely have been handed down by certain members of a class from a remote period to the present day, for beings with any important organ but little developed, will generally have been supplanted by their descendants with the organ well developed. The mammary glands in Ornithorhynchus may, perhaps, be considered as nascent compared with the udders of a cow--Ovigerous frena, in certain cirripedes, are nascent branchiae--in [illegible] the swim bladder is almost rudimentary for this purpose, and is nascent as a lung. The small wing of penguin, used only as a fin, might be nascent as a wing; not that I think so; for the whole structure of the bird is adapted for flight, and a penguin so closely resembles other birds, that we may infer that its wings have probably been modified, and reduced by natural selection, in accordance with its sub-aquatic habits. Analogy thus often serves as a guide in distinguishing whether an organ is rudimentary or nascent. I believe the Os coccyx gives attachment to certain muscles, but I can not doubt that it is a rudimentary tail. The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit; and I believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy! To admit prophetic germs, is tantamount to rejecting the theory of Natural Selection. I am very glad you think it worth while to run through my book again, as much, or more, for the subject's sake as for my own sake. But I look at your keeping the subject for some little time before your mind--raising your own difficulties and solving them--as far more important than reading my book. If you think enough, I expect you will be perverted, and if you ever are, I shall know that the theory of Natural Selection, is, in the main, safe; that it includes, as now put forth, many errors, is almost certain, though I cannot see them. Do not, of course, think of answering this; but if you have other OCCASION to write again, just say whether I have, in ever so slight a degree, shaken any of your objections. Farewell. With my cordial thanks for your long letters and valuable remarks, Believe me, yours most truly, C. DARWIN. P.S.--You often allude to Lamarck's work; I do not know what you think about it, but it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. AGASSIZ. (Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, born at Mortier, on the lake of Morat in Switzerland, on May 28, 1807. He emigrated to America in 1846, where he spent the rest of his life, and died December 14, 1873. His 'Life,' written by his widow, was published in 1885. The following extract from a letter to Agassiz (1850) is worth giving, as showing how my father regarded him, and it may be added that his cordial feelings towards the great American naturalist remained strong to the end of his life:-- "I have seldom been more deeply gratified than by receiving your most kind present of 'Lake Superior.' I had heard of it, and had much wished to read it, but I confess that it was the very great honour of having in my possession a work with your autograph as a presentation copy that has given me such lively and sincere pleasure. I cordially thank you for it. I have begun to read it with uncommon interest, which I see will increase as I go on.") Down, November 11th [1859]. My dear Sir, I have ventured to send you a copy of my book (as yet only an abstract) on the 'Origin of Species.' As the conclusions at which I have arrived on several points differ so widely from yours, I have thought (should you at any time read my volume) that you might think that I had sent it to you out of a spirit of defiance or bravado; but I assure you that I act under a wholly different frame of mind. I hope that you will at least give me credit, however erroneous you may think my conclusions, for having earnestly endeavoured to arrive at the truth. With sincere respect, I beg leave to remain, Yours, very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, November 11th [1859]. Dear Sir, I have thought that you would permit me to send you (by Messrs. Williams and Norgate, booksellers) a copy of my work (as yet only an abstract) on the 'Origin of Species.' I wish to do this, as the only, though quite inadequate manner, by which I can testify to you the extreme interest which I have felt, and the great advantage which I have derived, from studying your grand and noble work on Geographical Distribution. Should you be induced to read my volume, I venture to remark that it will be intelligible only by reading the whole straight through, as it is very much condensed. It would be a high gratification to me if any portion interested you. But I am perfectly well aware that you will entirely disagree with the conclusion at which I have arrived. You will probably have quite forgotten me; but many years ago you did me the honour of dining at my house in London to meet M. and Madame Sismondi (Jessie Allen, sister of Mrs. Josiah Wedgwood of Maer.), the uncle and aunt of my wife. With sincere respect, I beg to remain, Yours, very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 11th [1859]. My dear Falconer, I have told Murray to send you a copy of my book on the 'Origin of Species,' which as yet is only an abstract. If you read it, you must read it straight through, otherwise from its extremely condensed state it will be unintelligible. Lord, how savage you will be, if you read it, and how you will long to crucify me alive! I fear it will produce no other effect on you; but if it should stagger you in ever so slight a degree, in this case, I am fully convinced that you will become, year after year, less fixed in your belief in the immutability of species. With this audacious and presumptuous conviction, I remain, my dear Falconer, Yours most truly, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 11th [1859]. My dear Gray, I have directed a copy of my book (as yet only an abstract) on the 'Origin of Species' to be sent you. I know how you are pressed for time; but if you can read it, I shall be infinitely gratified...If ever you do read it, and can screw out time to send me (as I value your opinion so highly), however short a note, telling me what you think its weakest and best parts, I should be extremely grateful. As you are not a geologist, you will excuse my conceit in telling you that Lyell highly approves of the two Geological chapters, and thinks that on the Imperfection of the Geological Record not exaggerated. He is nearly a convert to my views... Let me add I fully admit that there are very many difficulties not satisfactorily explained by my theory of descent with modification, but I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts as I think it certainly does explain. On these grounds I drop my anchor, and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, November 11th, 1859. My dear Henslow, I have told Murray to send a copy of my book on Species to you, my dear old master in Natural History; I fear, however, that you will not approve of your pupil in this case. The book in its present state does not show the amount of labour which I have bestowed on the subject. If you have time to read it carefully, and would take the trouble to point out what parts seem weakest to you and what best, it would be a most material aid to me in writing my bigger book, which I hope to commence in a few months. You know also how highly I value your judgment. But I am not so unreasonable as to wish or expect you to write detailed and lengthy criticisms, but merely a few general remarks, pointing out the weakest parts. If you are IN EVEN SO SLIGHT A DEGREE staggered (which I hardly expect) on the immutability of species, then I am convinced with further reflection you will become more and more staggered, for this has been the process through which my mind has gone. My dear Henslow, Yours affectionately and gratefully, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. (The present Sir John Lubbock.) Ilkley, Yorkshire, Saturday [November 12th, 1859]. ... Thank you much for asking me to Brighton. I hope much that you will enjoy your holiday. I have told Murray to send a copy for you to Mansion House Street, and I am surprised that you have not received it. There are so many valid and weighty arguments against my notions, that you, or any one, if you wish on the other side, will easily persuade yourself that I am wholly in error, and no doubt I am in part in error, perhaps wholly so, though I cannot see the blindness of my ways. I dare say when thunder and lightning were first proved to be due to secondary causes, some regretted to give up the idea that each flash was caused by the direct hand of God. Farewell, I am feeling very unwell to-day, so no more. Yours very truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Tuesday [November 15th, 1859]. My dear Lubbock, I beg pardon for troubling you again. I do not know how I blundered in expressing myself in making you believe that we accepted your kind invitation to Brighton. I meant merely to thank you sincerely for wishing to see such a worn-out old dog as myself. I hardly know when we leave this place,--not under a fortnight, and then we shall wish to rest under our own roof-tree. I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart. I am glad you have got my book, but I fear that you value it far too highly. I should be grateful for any criticisms. I care not for Reviews; but for the opinion of men like you and Hooker and Huxley and Lyell, etc. Farewell, with our joint thanks to Mrs. Lubbock and yourself. Adios. C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS. (Now Rev. L. Blomefield.) Ilkley, Yorkshire, November 13th, 1859. My dear Jenyns, I must thank you for your very kind note forwarded to me from Down. I have been much out of health this summer, and have been hydropathising here for the last six weeks with very little good as yet. I shall stay here for another fortnight at least. Please remember that my book is only an abstract, and very much condensed, and, to be at all intelligible, must be carefully read. I shall be very grateful for any criticisms. But I know perfectly well that you will not at all agree with the lengths which I go. It took long years to convert me. I may, of course, be egregiously wrong; but I cannot persuade myself that a theory which explains (as I think it certainly does) several large classes of facts, can be wholly wrong; notwithstanding the several difficulties which have to be surmounted somehow, and which stagger me even to this day. I wish that my health had allowed me to publish in extenso; if ever I get strong enough I will do so, as the greater part is written out, and of which MS. the present volume is an abstract. I fear this note will be almost illegible; but I am poorly, and can hardly sit up. Farewell; with thanks for your kind note and pleasant remembrance of good old days. Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Ilkley, November 13th, 1859. My dear Sir, I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) a copy of my book, and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the same time with this note. (N.B. I have got a bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.) If you are so inclined, I should very much like to hear your general impression of the book, as you have thought so profoundly on the subject, and in so nearly the same channel with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much. Remember it is only an abstract, and very much condensed. God knows what the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell, with whom I have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but he does not seem so in his letters to me; but is evidently deeply interested in the subject. I do not think your share in the theory will be overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, etc. I have heard from Mr. Slater that your paper on the Malay Archipelago has been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was EXTREMELY much interested by it. I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months, owing to the state of my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I am writing this at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger book. I sincerely hope that you keep your health; I suppose that you will be thinking of returning (Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago.) soon with your magnificent collections, and still grander mental materials. You will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society fund will be worth your consideration. With every good wish, pray believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S. I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If I can convert Huxley I shall be content. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Wednesday [November 16th, 1859]. ... I like the place very much, and the children have enjoyed it much, and it has done my wife good. It did H. good at first, but she has gone back again. I have had a series of calamities; first a sprained ankle, and then a badly swollen whole leg and face, much rash, and a frightful succession of boils--four or five at once. I have felt quite ill, and have little faith in this "unique crisis," as the doctor calls it, doing me much good...You will probably have received, or will very soon receive, my weariful book on species, I naturally believe it mainly includes the truth, but you will not at all agree with me. Dr. Hooker, whom I consider one of the best judges in Europe, is a complete convert, and he thinks Lyell is likewise; certainly, judging from Lyell's letters to me on the subject, he is deeply staggered. Farewell. If the spirit moves you, let me have a line... CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, November 18th [1859]. My dear Carpenter, I must thank you for your letter on my own account, and if I know myself, still more warmly for the subject's sake. As you seem to have understood my last chapter without reading the previous chapters, you must have maturely and most profoundly self-thought out the subject; for I have found the most extraordinary difficulty in making even able men understand at what I was driving. There will be strong opposition to my views. If I am in the main right (of course including partial errors unseen by me), the admission in my views will depend far more on men, like yourself, with well-established reputations, than on my own writings. Therefore, on the supposition that when you have read my volume you think the view in the main true, I thank and honour you for being willing to run the chance of unpopularity by advocating the view. I know not in the least whether any one will review me in any of the Reviews. I do not see how an author could enquire or interfere; but if you are willing to review me anywhere, I am sure from the admiration which I have long felt and expressed for your 'Comparative Physiology,' that your review will be excellently done, and will do good service in the cause for which I think I am not selfishly deeply interested. I am feeling very unwell to-day, and this note is badly, perhaps hardly intelligibly, expressed; but you must excuse me, for I could not let a post pass, without thanking you for your note. You will have a tough job even to shake in the slightest degree Sir H. Holland. I do not think (privately I say it) that the great man has knowledge enough to enter on the subject. Pray believe me with sincerity, Yours truly obliged, C. DARWIN. P.S.--As you are not a practical geologist, let me add that Lyell thinks the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record NOT exaggerated. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, November 19th [1859]. My dear Carpenter, I beg pardon for troubling you again. If, after reading my book, you are able to come to a conclusion in any degree definite, will you think me very unreasonable in asking you to let me hear from you. I do not ask for a long discussion, but merely for a brief idea of your general impression. From your widely extended knowledge, habit of investigating the truth, and abilities, I should value your opinion in the very highest rank. Though I, of course, believe in the truth of my own doctrine, I suspect that no belief is vivid until shared by others. As yet I know only one believer, but I look at him as of the greatest authority, viz., Hooker. When I think of the many cases of men who have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded themselves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel sometimes a little frightened, whether I may not be one of these mon-maniacs. Again pray excuse this, I fear, unreasonable request. A short note would suffice, and I could bear a hostile verdict, and shall have to bear many a one. Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Sunday [November 1859]. My dear Hooker, I have just read a review on my book in the "Athenaeum" (November 19, 1859.), and it excites my curiosity much who is the author. If you should hear who writes in the "Athenaeum" I wish you would tell me. It seems to me well done, but the reviewer gives no new objections, and, being hostile, passes over every single argument in favour of the doctrine,... I fear from the tone of the review, that I have written in a conceited and cocksure style (The Reviewer speaks of the author's "evident self-satisfaction," and of his disposing of all difficulties "more or less confidently."), which shames me a little. There is another review of which I should like to know the author, viz., of H.C. Watson in the "Gardener's Chronicle". Some of the remarks are like yours, and he does deserve punishment; but surely the review is too severe. Don't you think so? I hope you got the three copies for Foreign Botanists in time for your parcel, and your own copy. I have heard from Carpenter, who, I think, is likely to be a convert. Also from Quatrefages, who is inclined to go a long way with us. He says that he exhibited in his lecture a diagram closely like mine! I shall stay here one fortnight more, and then go to Down, staying on the road at Shrewsbury a week. I have been very unfortunate: out of seven weeks I have been confined for five to the house. This has been bad for me, as I have not been able to help thinking to a foolish extent about my book. If some four or five GOOD men came round nearly to our view, I shall not fear ultimate success. I long to learn what Huxley thinks. Is your introduction (Introduction to the 'Flora of Australia.') published? I suppose that you will sell it separately. Please answer this, for I want an extra copy to send away to Wallace. I am very bothersome, farewell. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. I was very glad to see the Royal Medal for Mr. Bentham. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 21st, 1859. My dear Hooker, Pray give my thanks to Mrs. Hooker for her extremely kind note, which has pleased me much. We are very sorry she cannot come here, but shall be delighted to see you and W. (our boys will be at home) here in the 2nd week of January, or any other time. I shall much enjoy discussing any points in my book with you... I hate to hear you abuse your own work. I, on the contrary, so sincerely value all that you have written. It is an old and firm conviction of mine, that the Naturalists who accumulate facts and make many partial generalisations are the REAL benefactors of science. Those who merely accumulate facts I cannot very much respect. I had hoped to have come up for the Club to-morrow, but very much doubt whether I shall be able. Ilkley seems to have done me no essential good. I attended the Bench on Monday, and was detained in adjudicating some troublesome cases 1 1/2 hours longer than usual, and came home utterly knocked up, and cannot rally. I am not worth an old button... Many thanks for your pleasant note. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I feel confident that for the future progress of the subject of the origin and manner of formation of species, the assent and arguments and facts of working naturalists, like yourself, are far more important than my own book; so for God's sake do not abuse your Introduction. H.C. WATSON TO CHARLES DARWIN. Thames Ditton, November 21st [1859]. My dear Sir, Once commenced to read the 'Origin,' I could not rest till I had galloped through the whole. I shall now begin to re-read it more deliberately. Meantime I am tempted to write you the first impressions, not doubting that they will, in the main, be the permanent impressions:-- 1st. Your leading idea will assuredly become recognised as an established truth in science, i.e. "Natural Selection." It has the characteristics of all great natural truths, clarifying what was obscure, simplifying what was intricate, adding greatly to previous knowledge. You are the greatest revolutionist in natural history of this century, if not of all centuries. 2nd. You will perhaps need, in some degree, to limit or modify, possibly in some degree also to extend, your present applications of the principle of natural selection. Without going to matters of more detail, it strikes me that there is one considerable primary inconsistency, by one failure in the analogy between varieties and species; another by a sort of barrier assumed for nature on insufficient grounds and arising from "divergence." These may, however, be faults in my own mind, attributable to yet incomplete perception of your views. And I had better not trouble you about them before again reading the volume. 3rd. Now these novel views are brought fairly before the scientific public, it seems truly remarkable how so many of them could have failed to see their right road sooner. How could Sir C. Lyell, for instance, for thirty years read, write, and think, on the subject of species AND THEIR SUCCESSION, and yet constantly look down the wrong road! A quarter of a century ago, you and I must have been in something like the same state of mind on the main question, but you were able to see and work out the quo modo of the succession, the all-important thing, while I failed to grasp it. I send by this post a little controversial pamphlet of old date--Combe and Scott. If you will take the trouble to glance at the passages scored on the margin, you will see that, a quarter of a century ago, I was also one of the few who then doubted the absolute distinctness of species, and special creations of them. Yet I, like the rest, failed to detect the quo modo which was reserved for your penetration to DISCOVER, and your discernment to APPLY. You answered my query about the hiatus between Satyrus and Homo as was expected. The obvious explanation really never occurred to me till some months after I had read the papers in the 'Linnean Proceedings.' The first species of Fere-homo ("Almost-man.") would soon make direct and exterminating war upon his Infra-homo cousins. The gap would thus be made, and then go on increasing, into the present enormous and still widening hiatus. But how greatly this, with your chronology of animal life, will shock the ideas of many men! Very sincerely, HEWETT C. WATSON. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Athenaeum, Monday [November 21st, 1859]. My dear Darwin, I am a sinner not to have written you ere this, if only to thank you for your glorious book--what a mass of close reasoning on curious facts and fresh phenomena--it is capitally written, and will be very successful. I say this on the strength of two or three plunges into as many chapters, for I have not yet attempted to read it. Lyell, with whom we are staying, is perfectly enchanted, and is absolutely gloating over it. I must accept your compliment to me, and acknowledgment of supposed assistance from me, as the warm tribute of affection from an honest (though deluded) man, and furthermore accept it as very pleasing to my vanity; but, my dear fellow, neither my name nor my judgment nor my assistance deserved any such compliments, and if I am dishonest enough to be pleased with what I don't deserve, it must just pass. How different the BOOK reads from the MS. I see I shall have much to talk over with you. Those lazy printers have not finished my luckless Essay; which, beside your book, will look like a ragged handkerchief beside a Royal Standard... All well, ever yours affectionately, JOS. D. HOOKER. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire [November 1859]. My dear Hooker, I cannot help it, I must thank you for your affectionate and most kind note. My head will be turned. By Jove, I must try and get a bit modest. I was a little chagrined by the review. (This refers to the review in the "Athenaeum", November 19, 1859, where the reviewer, after touching on the theological aspects of the book, leaves the author to "the mercies of the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room, and the Museum.") I hope it was NOT --. As advocate, he might think himself justified in giving the argument only on one side. But the manner in which he drags in immortality, and sets the priests at me, and leaves me to their mercies, is base. He would, on no account, burn me, but he will get the wood ready, and tell the black beasts how to catch me... It would be unspeakably grand if Huxley were to lecture on the subject, but I can see this is a mere chance; Faraday might think it too unorthodox. ... I had a letter from [Huxley] with such tremendous praise of my book, that modesty (as I am trying to cultivate that difficult herb) prevents me sending it to you, which I should have liked to have done, as he is very modest about himself. You have cockered me up to that extent, that I now feel I can face a score of savage reviewers. I suppose you are still with the Lyells. Give my kindest remembrance to them. I triumph to hear that he continues to approve. Believe me, your would-be modest friend, C.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire, November 23 [1859]. My dear Lyell, You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition (It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the 'Manual,' but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at work on the 'Antiquity of Man' in 1860, and had already determined to discuss the 'Origin' at the end of the book.); nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots. I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man domesticated the species. In the case of multiple origins part of the difference was produced under natural conditions. I should INFINITELY prefer the theory of single origin in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there seems to me some a priori improbability (seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that throughout all times, and throughout all the world, that man should have domesticated one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis. Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that more than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man. I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and interest you have shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell, Your affectionate friend and disciple, CHARLES DARWIN. Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after he has read me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will not write; and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a mind. T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Jermyn Street W., November 23rd, 1859. My dear Darwin, I finished your book yesterday, a lucky examination having furnished me with a few hours of continuous leisure. Since I read Von Baer's (Karl Ernst von Baer, born 1792, died at Dorpat 1876--one of the most distinguished biologists of the century. He practically founded the modern science of embryology.) essays, nine years ago, no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. Nothing, I think, can be better than the tone of the book, it impresses those who know nothing about the subject. As for your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in support of Chapter IX., and most parts of Chapters X., XI., XII., and Chapter XIII. contains much that is most admirable, but on one or two points I enter a caveat until I can see further into all sides of the question. As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully with all the principles laid down in them. I think you have demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and have thrown the onus probandi that species did not arise in the way you suppose, on your adversaries. But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully realized the bearings of those most remarkable and original Chapters III., IV. and V., and I will write no more about them just now. The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly... And 2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should occur at all. However, I must read the book two or three times more before I presume to begin picking holes. I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead. I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness. Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly all I think about you and your noble book that I am half ashamed of it; but you will understand that, like the parrot in the story, "I think the more." Ever yours faithfully, T.H. HUXLEY. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Ilkley, November 25th [1859]. My dear Huxley, Your letter has been forwarded to me from Down. Like a good Catholic who has received extreme unction, I can now sing "nunc dimittis." I should have been more than contented with one quarter of what you have said. Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to paper for this volume, I had awful misgivings; and thought perhaps I had deluded myself, like so many have done, and I then fixed in my mind three judges, on whose decision I determined mentally to abide. The judges were Lyell, Hooker, and yourself. It was this which made me so excessively anxious for your verdict. I am now contented, and can sing my nunc dimittis. What a joke it would be if I pat you on the back when you attack some immovable creationist! You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must think, external conditions produce little DIRECT effect, what the devil determines each particular variation? What makes a tuft of feathers come on a cock's head, or moss on a moss-rose? I shall much like to talk over this with you... My dear Huxley, I thank you cordially for your letter. Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Hereafter I shall be particularly curious to hear what you think of my explanation of Embryological similarity. On classification I fear we shall split. Did you perceive the argumentum ad hominem Huxley about kangaroo and bear? ERASMUS DARWIN (His brother.) TO CHARLES DARWIN. November 23rd [1859]. Dear Charles, I am so much weaker in the head, that I hardly know if I can write, but at all events I will jot down a few things that the Dr. (Dr., afterwards Sir Henry Holland.) has said. He has not read much above half, so as he says he can give no definite conclusion, and it is my private belief he wishes to remain in that state... He is evidently in a dreadful state of indecision, and keeps stating that he is not tied down to either view, and that he has always left an escape by the way he has spoken of varieties. I happened to speak of the eye before he had read that part, and it took away his breath--utterly impossible--structure, function, etc., etc., etc., but when he had read it he hummed and hawed, and perhaps it was partly conceivable, and then he fell back on the bones of the ear, which were beyond all probability or conceivability. He mentioned a slight blot, which I also observed, that in speaking of the slave-ants carrying one another, you change the species without giving notice first, and it makes one turn back... ... For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution, I mean the relation of islands to continents, is the most convincing of the proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I don't feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I don't in the least know if everything now living were fossilized whether the paleontologists could distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling. My ague has left me in such a state of torpidity that I wish I had gone through the process of natural selection. Yours affectionately, E.A.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, November [24th, 1859]. My dear Lyell, Again I have to thank you for a most valuable lot of criticisms in a letter dated 22nd. This morning I heard also from Murray that he sold the whole edition (First edition, 1250 copies.) the first day to the trade. He wants a new edition instantly, and this utterly confounds me. Now, under water-cure, with all nervous power directed to the skin, I cannot possibly do head-work, and I must make only actually necessary corrections. But I will, as far as I can without my manuscript, take advantage of your suggestions: I must not attempt much. Will you send me one line to say whether I must strike out about the secondary whale (The passage was omitted in the second edition.), it goes to my heart. About the rattle-snake, look to my Journal, under Trigonocephalus, and you will see the probable origin of the rattle, and generally in transitions it is the premier pas qui coute. Madame Belloc wants to translate my book into French; I have offered to look over proofs for SCIENTIFIC errors. Did you ever hear of her? I believe Murray has agreed at my urgent advice, but I fear I have been rash and premature. Quatrefages has written to me, saying he agrees largely with my views. He is an excellent naturalist. I am pressed for time. Will you give us one line about the whales? Again I thank you for neve-tiring advice and assistance; I do in truth reverence your unselfish and pure love of truth. My dear Lyell, ever yours, C. DARWIN. [With regard to a French translation, he wrote to Mr. Murray in November 1859: "I am EXTREMELY anxious, for the subject's sake (and God knows not for mere fame), to have my book translated; and indirectly its being known abroad will do good to the English sale. If it depended on me, I should agree without payment, and instantly send a copy, and only beg that she [Mme. Belloc] would get some scientific man to look over the translation... You might say that, though I am a very poor French scholar, I could detect any scientific mistake, and would read over the French proofs." The proposed translation was not made, and a second plan fell through in the following year. He wrote to M. de Quatrefages: "The gentleman who wished to translate my 'Origin of Species' has failed in getting a publisher. Balliere, Masson, and Hachette all rejected it with contempt. It was foolish and presumptuous in me, hoping to appear in a French dress; but the idea would not have entered my head had it not been suggested to me. It is a great loss. I must console myself with the German edition which Prof. Bronn is bringing out." (See letters to Bronn, page 70.) A sentence in another letter to M. de Quatrefages shows how anxious he was to convert one of the greatest of contemporary Zoologists: "How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards had read the copy which I sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to expect to change his opinion."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, [November 26th, 1859]. My dear Lyell, I have received your letter of the 24th. It is no use trying to thank you; your kindness is beyond thanks. I will certainly leave out the whale and bear... The edition was 1250 copies. When I was in spirits, I sometimes fancied that my book would be successful, but I never even built a castle in the air of such success as it has met with; I do not mean the sale, but the impression it has made on you (whom I have always looked at as chief judge) and Hooker and Huxley. The whole has infinitely exceeded my wildest hopes. Farewell, I am tired, for I have been going over the sheets. My kind friend, farewell, yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, December 2nd [1859]. My dear Lyell, Every note which you have sent me has interested me much. Pray thank Lady Lyell for her remark. In the chapters she refers to, I was unable to modify the passage in accordance with your suggestion; but in the final chapter I have modified three or four. Kingsley, in a note (The letter is given below) to me, had a capital paragraph on such notions as mine being NOT opposed to a high conception of the Deity. I have inserted it as an extract from a letter to me from a celebrated author and divine. I have put in about nascent organs. I had the greatest difficulty in partially making out Sedgwick's letter, and I dare say I did greatly underrate its clearness. Do what I could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In answer to Sedgwick's remark that my book would be "mischievous," I asked him whether truth can be known except by being victorious over all attacks. But it is no use. H.C. Watson tells me that one zoologist says he will read my book, "but I will never believe it." What a spirit to read any book in! Crawford writes to me that his notice (John Crawford, orientalist, ethnologist, etc., 1783-1868. The review appeared in the "Examiner", and, though hostile, is free from bigotry, as the following citation will show: "We cannot help saying that piety must be fastidious indeed that objects to a theory the tendency of which is to show that all organic beings, man included, are in a perpetual progress of amelioration, and that is expounded in the reverential language which we have quoted.") will be hostile, but that "he will not calumniate the author." He says he has read my book, "at least such parts as he could understand." He sent me some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant), and they show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject, by publishing an abstract. He is a real Pallasian; nearly all our domestic races descended from a multitude of wild species now commingled. I expected Murchison to be outrageous. How little he could ever have grappled with the subject of denudation! How singular so great a geologist should have so unphilosophical a mind! I have had several notes from --, very civil and less decided. Says he shall not pronounce against me without much reflection, PERHAPS WILL SAY NOTHING on the subject. X. says -- will go to that part of hell, which Dante tells us is appointed for those who are neither on God's side nor on that of the devil. I fully believe that I owe the comfort of the next few years of my life to your generous support, and that of a very few others. I do not think I am brave enough to have stood being odious without support; now I feel as bold as a lion. But there is one thing I can see I must learn, viz., to think less of myself and my book. Farewell, with cordial thanks. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. I return home on the 7th, and shall sleep at Erasmus's. I will call on you about ten o'clock, on Thursday, the 8th, and sit with you, as I have so often sat, during your breakfast. I wish there was any chance of Prestwich being shaken; but I fear he is too much of a catastrophist. [In December there appeared in 'Macmillan's Magazine' an article, "Time and Life," by Professor Huxley. It is mainly occupied by an analysis of the argument of the 'Origin,' but it also gives the substance of a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution before that book was published. Professor Huxley spoke strongly in favour of evolution in his Lecture, and explains that in so doing he was to a great extent resting on a knowledge of "the general tenor of the researches in which Mr. Darwin had been so long engaged," and was supported in so doing by his perfect confidence in his knowledge, perseverance, and "high-minded love of truth." My father was evidently deeply pleased by Mr. Huxley's words, and wrote: "I must thank you for your extremely kind notice of my book in 'Macmillan.' No one could receive a more delightful and honourable compliment. I had not heard of your Lecture, owing to my retired life. You attribute much too much to me from our mutual friendship. You have explained my leading idea with admirable clearness. What a gift you have of writing (or more properly) thinking clearly."] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, December 3rd [1859]. My dear Carpenter, I am perfectly delighted at your letter. It is a great thing to have got a great physiologist on our side. I say "our" for we are now a good and compact body of really good men, and mostly not old men. In the long run we shall conquer. I do not like being abused, but I feel that I can now bear it; and, as I told Lyell, I am well convinced that it is the first offender who reaps the rich harvest of abuse. You have done an essential kindness in checking the odium theologicum in the E.R. (This must refer to Carpenter's critique which would now have been ready to appear in the January number of the "Edinburgh Review", 1860, and in which the odium theologicum is referred to.) It much pains all one's female relations and injures the cause. I look at it as immaterial whether we go quite the same lengths; and I suspect, judging from myself, that you will go further, by thinking of a population of forms like Ornithorhyncus, and by thinking of the common homological and embryological structure of the several vertebrate orders. But this is immaterial. I quite agree that the principle is everything. In my fuller MS. I have discussed a good many instincts; but there will surely be more unfilled gaps here than with corporeal structure, for we have no fossil instincts, and know scarcely any except of European animals. When I reflect how very slowly I came round myself, I am in truth astonished at the candour shown by Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, and yourself. In my opinion it is grand. I thank you cordially for taking the trouble of writing a review for the 'National.' God knows I shall have few enough in any degree favourable. (See a letter to Dr. Carpenter below.) CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Saturday [December 5th, 1859]. ... I have had a letter from Carpenter this morning. He reviews me in the 'National.' He is a convert, but does not go quite so far as I, but quite far enough, for he admits that all birds are from one progenitor, and probably all fishes and reptiles from another parent. But the last mouthful chokes him. He can hardly admit all vertebrates from one parent. He will surely come to this from Homology and Embryology. I look at it as grand having brought round a great physiologist, for great I think he certainly is in that line. How curious I shall be to know what line Owen will take; dead against us, I fear; but he wrote me a most liberal note on the reception of my book, and said he was quite prepared to consider fairly and without prejudice my line of argument. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Monday. Dear Darwin, You have, I know, been drenched with letters since the publication of your book, and I have hence forborne to add my mite. I hope now that you are well through Edition II., and I have heard that you were flourishing in London. I have not yet got half-through the book, not from want of will, but of time--for it is the very hardest book to read, to full profits, that I ever tried--it is so cram-full of matter and reasoning. I am all the more glad that you have published in this form, for the three volumes, unprefaced by this, would have choked any Naturalist of the nineteenth century, and certainly have softened my brain in the operation of assimilating their contents. I am perfectly tired of marvelling at the wonderful amount of facts you have brought to bear, and your skill in marshalling them and throwing them on the enemy; it is also extremely clear as far as I have gone, but very hard to fully appreciate. Somehow it reads very different from the MS., and I often fancy I must have been very stupid not to have more fully followed it in MS. Lyell told me of his criticisms. I did not appreciate them all, and there are many little matters I hope one day to talk over with you. I saw a highly flattering notice in the 'English Churchman,' short and not at all entering into discussion, but praising you and your book, and talking patronizingly of the doctrine!... Bentham and Henslow will still shake their heads I fancy... Ever yours affectionately, JOS. D. HOOKER. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Saturday [December 12th, 1859]. ... I had very long interviews with --, which perhaps you would like to hear about... I infer from several expressions that, at bottom, he goes an immense way with us... He said to the effect that my explanation was the best ever published of the manner of formation of species. I said I was very glad to hear it. He took me up short: "You must not at all suppose that I agree with you in all respects." I said I thought it no more likely that I should be right in nearly all points, than that I should toss up a penny and get heads twenty times running. I asked him what he thought the weakest part. He said he had no particular objection to any part. He added:-- "If I must criticise, I should say, 'we do not want to know what Darwin believes and is convinced of, but what he can prove.'" I agreed most fully and truly that I have probably greatly sinned in this line, and defended my general line of argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many classes of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would endeavour to modify the "believes" and "convinceds." He took me up short: "You will then spoil your book, the charm of (!) it is that it is Darwin himself." He added another objection, that the book was too teres atque rotundus--that it explained everything, and that it was improbable in the highest degree that I should succeed in this. I quite agree with this rather queer objection, and it comes to this that my book must be very bad or very good... I have heard, by roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book "is the law of higgledy-piggledy." What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discouragement. CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. December 14th [1859]. ... The latter part of my stay at Ilkley did me much good, but I suppose I never shall be strong, for the work I have had since I came back has knocked me up a little more than once. I have been busy in getting a reprint (with a very few corrections) through the press. My book has been as yet VERY MUCH more successful than I ever dreamed of: Murray is now printing 3000 copies. Have you finished it? If so, pray tell me whether you are with me on the GENERAL issue, or against me. If you are against me, I know well how honourable, fair, and candid an opponent I shall have, and which is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents... Pray tell me what you have been doing. Have you had time for any Natural History?... P.S.--I have got--I wish and hope I might say that WE have got--a fair number of excellent men on our side of the question on the mutability of species. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 14th [1859]. My dear Hooker, Your approval of my book, for many reasons, gives me intense satisfaction; but I must make some allowance for your kindness and sympathy. Any one with ordinary faculties, if he had PATIENCE enough and plenty of time, could have written my book. You do not know how I admire your and Lyell's generous and unselfish sympathy, I do not believe either of you would have cared so much about your own work. My book, as yet, has been far more successful than I ever even formerly ventured in the wildest day-dreams to anticipate. We shall soon be a good body of working men, and shall have, I am convinced, all young and rising naturalists on our side. I shall be intensely interested to hear whether my book produces any effect on A. Gray; from what I heard at Lyell's, I fancy your correspondence has brought him some way already. I fear that there is no chance of Bentham being staggered. Will he read my book? Has he a copy? I would send him one of the reprints if he has not. Old J.E. Gray (John Edward Gray (1800-1875), was the son of S.F. Gray, author of the 'Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia.' In 1821 he published in his father's name 'The Natural Arrangement of British Plants,' one of the earliest works in English on the natural method. In 1824 he became connected with the Natural History Department of the British Museum, and was appointed Keeper of the Zoological collections in 1840. He was the author of 'Illustrations of Indian Zoology,' 'The Knowsley Menagerie,' etc., and of innumerable descriptive Zoological papers.), at the British Museum, attacked me in fine style: "You have just reproduced Lamarck's doctrine and nothing else, and here Lyell and others have been attacking him for twenty years, and because YOU (with a sneer and laugh) say the very same thing, they are all coming round; it is the most ridiculous inconsistency, etc., etc." You must be very glad to be settled in your house, and I hope all the improvements satisfy you. As far as my experience goes, improvements are never perfection. I am very sorry to hear that you are still so very busy, and have so much work. And now for the main purport of my note, which is to ask and beg you and Mrs. Hooker (whom it is really an age since I have seen), and all your children, if you like, to come and spend a week here. It would be a great pleasure to me and to my wife... As far as we can see, we shall be at home all the winter; and all times probably would be equally convenient; but if you can, do not put it off very late, as it may slip through. Think of this and persuade Mrs. Hooker, and be a good man and come. Farewell, my kind and dear friend, Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I shall be very curious to hear what you think of my discussion on Classification in Chapter XIII.; I believe Huxley demurs to the whole, and says he has nailed his colours to the mast, and I would sooner die than give up; so that we are in as fine a frame of mind to discuss the point as any two religionists. Embryology is my pet bit in my book, and, confound my friends, not one has noticed this to me. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 21st [1859]. My dear Gray, I have just received your most kind, long, and valuable letter. I will write again in a few days, for I am at present unwell and much pressed with business: to-day's note is merely personal. I should, for several reasons, be very glad of an American Edition. I have made up my mind to be well abused; but I think it of importance that my notions should be read by intelligent men, accustomed to scientific argument, though NOT naturalists. It may seem absurd, but I think such men will drag after them those naturalists who have too firmly fixed in their heads that a species is an entity. The first edition of 1250 copies was sold on the first day, and now my publisher is printing off, as RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE, 3000 more copies. I mention this solely because it renders probable a remunerative sale in America. I should be infinitely obliged if you could aid an American reprint; and could make, for my sake and the publisher's, any arrangement for any profit. The new edition is only a reprint, yet I have made a FEW important corrections. I will have the clean sheets sent over in a few days of as many sheets as are printed off, and the remainder afterwards, and you can do anything you like,--if nothing, there is no harm done. I should be glad for the new edition to be reprinted and not the old.--In great haste, and with hearty thanks, Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. I will write soon again. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 22nd [December, 1859]. My dear Lyell, Thanks about "Bears" (See 'Origin,' edition i., page 184.), a word of il-omen to me. I am too unwell to leave home, so shall not see you. I am very glad of your remarks on Hooker. (Sir C. Lyell wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker, December 19, 1859 ('Life,' ii. page 327): "I have just finished the reading of your splendid Essay [the 'Flora of Australia'] on the origin of species, as illustrated by your wide botanical experience, and think it goes very far to raise the variety-making hypothesis to the rank of a theory, as accounting for the manner in which new species enter the world.") I have not yet got the essay. The parts which I read in sheets seemed to me grand, especially the generalization about the Australian flora itself. How superior to Robert Brown's celebrated essay! I have not seen Naudin's paper ('Revue Horticole,' 1852. See historical Sketch in the later editions of the 'Origin of Species.'), and shall not be able till I hunt the libraries. I am very anxious to see it. Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory. I do not know when I shall have time and strength to grapple with Hooker... P.S.--I have heard from Sir W. Jardine (Jardine, Sir William, Bart., 1800-1874), was the son of Sir A. Jardine of Applegarth, Dumfriesshire. He was educated at Edinburgh, and succeeded to the title on his father's decease in 1821. He published, jointly with Mr. Prideaux, J. Selby, Sir Stamford Raffles, Dr. Horsfield, and other ornithologists, 'Illustrations of Ornithology,' and edited the 'Naturalist's Library,' in 40 volumes, which included the four branches: Mammalia, Ornithology, Ichnology, and Entomology. Of these 40 volumes 14 were written by himself. In 1836 he became editor of the 'Magazine of Zoology and Botany,' which, two years later, was transformed into 'Annals of Natural History,' but remained under his direction. For Bohn's Standard Library he edited White's 'Natural History of Selborne.' Sir W. Jardine was also joint editor of the 'Edinburgh Philosophical Journal,' and was author of 'British Salmonidae,' 'Ichthyology of Annandale,' 'Memoirs of the late Hugh Strickland,' 'Contributions to Ornithology,' 'Ornithological Synonyms,' etc.--(Taken from Ward, 'Men of the Reign,' and Cates, 'Dictionary of General Biography.'): his criticisms are quite unimportant; some of the Galapagos so-called species ought to be called varieties, which I fully expected; some of the sub-genera, thought to be wholly endemic, have been found on the Continent (not that he gives his authority), but I do not make out that the species are the same. His letter is brief and vague, but he says he will write again. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [23rd December, 1859]. My dear Hooker, I received last night your 'Introduction,' for which very many thanks; I am surprised to see how big it is: I shall not be able to read it very soon. It was very good of you to send Naudin, for I was very curious to see it. I am surprised that Decaisne should say it was the same as mine. Naudin gives artificial selection, as well as a score of English writers, and when he says species were formed in the same manner, I thought the paper would certainly prove exactly the same as mine. But I cannot find one word like the struggle for existence and natural selection. On the contrary, he brings in his principle (page 103) of finality (which I do not understand), which, he says, with some authors is fatality, with others providence, and which adapts the forms of every being, and harmonises them all throughout nature. He assumes like old geologists (who assumed that the forces of nature were formerly greater), that species were at first more plastic. His simile of tree and classification is like mine (and others), but he cannot, I think, have reflected much on the subject, otherwise he would see that genealogy by itself does not give classification; I declare I cannot see a MUCH closer approach to Wallace and me in Naudin than in Lamarck--we all agree in modification and descent. If I do not hear from you I will return the 'Revue' in a few days (with the cover). I dare say Lyell would be glad to see it. By the way, I will retain the volume till I hear whether I shall or not send it to Lyell. I should rather like Lyell to see this note, though it is foolish work sticking up for independence or priority. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. A. SEDGWICK (Rev. Adam Sedgwick, 1785-1873, Woodwardian Professor of Geology in the University of Cambridge.) TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, December 24th, [1859]. My dear Darwin, I write to thank you for your work on the 'Origin of Species.' It came, I think, in the latter part of last week; but it MAY have come a few days sooner, and been overlooked among my book-parcels, which often remain unopened when I am lazy or busy with any work before me. So soon as I opened it I began to read it, and I finished it, after many interruptions, on Tuesday. Yesterday I was employed--1st, in preparing for my lecture; 2ndly, in attending a meeting of my brother Fellows to discuss the final propositions of the Parliamentary Commissioners; 3rdly, in lecturing; 4thly, in hearing the conclusion of the discussion and the College reply, whereby, in conformity with my own wishes, we accepted the scheme of the Commissioners; 5thly, in dining with an old friend at Clare College; 6thly, in adjourning to the weekly meeting of the Ray Club, from which I returned at 10 P.M., dog-tired, and hardly able to climb my staircase. Lastly, in looking through the "Times" to see what was going on in the busy world. I do not state this to fill space (though I believe that Nature does abhor a vacuum), but to prove that my reply and my thanks are sent to you by the earliest leisure I have, though that is but a very contracted opportunity. If I did not think you a good-tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell you that (spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital views of the correlation of the various parts of organic nature, admirable hints about the diffusion, through wide regions of many related organic beings, etc., etc.) I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have DESERTED--after a start in that tra-road of all solid physical truth--the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle--NATURAL SELECTION--what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts! Development is a better word, because more close to the cause of the fact? For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God; and I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study and comprehend. Acting by law, and under what is called final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of "natural selection" as if it were done curiously by the selecting agent. 'Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, and the subsequent battle for life. This view of nature you have stated admirably, though admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common sense. We all admit development as a fact of history: but how came it about? Here, in language, and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. 'Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it DOES through FINAL CAUSE, link material and moral; and yet DOES NOT allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-cells. If your development produced the successive modification of the bee and its cells (which no mortal can prove), final cause would stand good as the directing cause under which the successive generations acted and gradually improved. Passages in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I think, in speculating on organic descent, you OVER-state the evidence of geology; and that you UNDER-state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree: but my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter--not as a summary, for in that light it appears good--but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the 'Vestiges') and prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found anywhere but in the fertile womb of man's imagination. And now to say a word about a son of a monkey and an old friend of yours: I am better, far better, than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days a week (formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the loss of activity and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily frame is sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions of the future. They are as much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and these visions are to have their antitype in solid fruition of what is best and greatest. But on one condition only--that I humbly accept God's revelation of Himself both in his works and in His word, and do my best to act in conformity with that knowledge which He only can give me, and He only can sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this we shall meet in heaven. I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love, therefore forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and believe me, spite of any disagreement in some points of the deepest moral interest, your tru-hearted old friend, A. SEDGWICK. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 25th [1859]. My dear Huxley, One part of your note has pleased me so much that I must thank you for it. Not only Sir H.H. [Holland], but several others, have attacked me about analogy leading to belief in one primordial CREATED form. ('Origin,' edition i. page 484.--"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.") (By which I mean only that we know nothing as yet [of] how life originates.) I thought I was universally condemned on this head. But I answered that though perhaps it would have been more prudent not to have put it in, I would not strike it out, as it seemed to me probable, and I give it on no other grounds. You will see in your mind the kind of arguments which made me think it probable, and no one fact had so great an effect on me as your most curious remarks on the apparent homologies of the head of Vertebrata and Articulata. You have done a real good turn in the Agency business ("My General Agent" was a sobriquet applied at this time by my father to Mr. Huxley.) (I never before heard of a hard-working, unpaid agent besides yourself), in talking with Sir H.H., for he will have great influence over many. He floored me from my ignorance about the bones of the ear, and I made a mental note to ask you what the facts were. With hearty thanks and real admiration for your generous zeal for the subject. Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. You may smile about the care and precautions I have taken about my ugly MS. (Manuscript left with Mr. Huxley for his perusal.); it is not so much the value I set on them, but the remembrance of the intolerable labour--for instance, in tracing the history of the breeds of pigeons. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 25th [December, 1859]. ... I shall not write to Decaisne (With regard to Naudin's paper in the 'Revue Horticole,' 1852.); I have always had a strong feeling that no one had better defend his own priority. I cannot say that I am as indifferent to the subject as I ought to be, but one can avoid doing anything in consequence. I do not believe one iota about your having assimilated any of my notions unconsciously. You have always done me more than justice. But I do think I did you a bad turn by getting you to read the old MS., as it must have checked your own original thoughts. There is one thing I am fully convinced of, that the future progress (which is the really important point) of the subject will have depended on really good and well-known workers, like yourself, Lyell, and Huxley, having taken up the subject, than on my own work. I see plainly it is this that strikes my no-scientific friends. Last night I said to myself, I would just cut your Introduction, but would not begin to read, but I broke down, and had a good hour's read. Farewell, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. December 28th, 1859. ... Have you seen the splendid essay and notice of my book in the "Times"? (December 26th.) I cannot avoid a strong suspicion that it is by Huxley; but I never heard that he wrote in the "Times". It will do grand service,... C. DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 28th [1859]. My dear Huxley, Yesterday evening, when I read the "Times" of a previous day, I was amazed to find a splendid essay and review of me. Who can the author be? I am intensely curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite touched me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved. The author is a literary man, and German scholar. He has read my book very attentively; but, what is very remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He knows my Barnacle-book, and appreciates it too highly. Lastly, he writes and thinks with quite uncommon force and clearness; and what is even still rarer, his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit. We all laughed heartily over some of the sentences. I was charmed with those unreasonable mortals, who know anything, all thinking fit to range themselves on one side. (The reviewer proposes to pass by the orthodox view, according to which the phenomena of the organic world are "the immediate product of a creative fiat, and consequently are out of the domain of science altogether." And he does so "with less hesitation, as it so happens that those persons who are practically conversant with the facts of the case (plainly a considerable advantage) have always thought fit to range themselves" in the category of those holding "views which profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and therefore admit of being argued to their consequences.") Who can it be? Certainly I should have said that there was only one man in England who could have written this essay, and that YOU were the man. But I suppose I am wrong, and that there is some hidden genius of great calibre. For how could you influence Jupiter Olympius and make him give three and a half columns to pure science? The old fogies will think the world will come to an end. Well, whoever the man is, he has done great service to the cause, far more than by a dozen reviews in common periodicals. The grand way he soars above common religious prejudices, and the admission of such views into the "Times", I look at as of the highest importance, quite independently of the mere question of species. If you should happen to be ACQUAINTED with the author, for Heaven-sake tell me who he is? My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. [It is impossible to give in a short space an adequate idea of Mr. Huxley's article in the "Times" of December 26. It is admirably planned, so as to claim for the 'Origin' a respectful hearing, and it abstains from anything like dogmatism in asserting the truth of the doctrines therein upheld. A few passages may be quoted:--"That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in the distribution of living beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted by the main phenomena of life and organisation, appear to us to be unquestionable." Mr. Huxley goes on to recommend to the readers of the 'Origin' a condition of "thatige Skepsis"--a state of "doubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief." The final paragraph is in a strong contrast to Professor Sedgwick and his "ropes of bubbles" (see below). Mr. Huxley writes: "Mr. Darwin abhors mere speculation as nature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of cases and precedents as any constitutional lawyer, and all the principles he lays down are capable of being brought to the test of observation and experiment. The path he bids us follow professes to be not a mere airy track, fabricated of ideal cobwebs, but a solid and broad bridge of facts. If it be so, it will carry us safely over many a chasm in our knowledge, and lead us to a region free from the snares of those fascinating but barren virgins, the Final Causes, against whom a high authority has so justly warned us." There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing as it did in the leading daily Journal, must have had a strong influence on the reading public. Mr. Huxley allows me to quote from a letter an account of the happy chance that threw into his hands the opportunity of writing it. "The 'Origin' was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of the "Times" writers at that day, in what I suppose was the ordinary course of business. Mr. Lucas, though an excellent journalist, and, at a later period, editor of 'Once a Week,' was as innocent of any knowledge of science as a babe, and bewailed himself to an acquaintance on having to deal with such a book. Whereupon he was recommended to ask me to get him out of his difficulty, and he applied to me accordingly, explaining, however, that it would be necessary for him formally to adopt anything I might be disposed to write, by prefacing it with two or three paragraphs of his own. "I was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus offered of giving the book a fair chance with the multitudinous readers of the "Times" to make any difficulty about conditions; and being then very full of the subject, I wrote the article faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my life, and sent it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening sentences. "When the article appeared, there was much speculation as to its authorship. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets will, but not by my aid; and then I used to derive a good deal of innocent amusement from the vehement assertions of some of my more acute friends, that they knew it was mine from the first paragraph! "As the "Times" some years since, referred to my connection with the review, I suppose there will be no breach of confidence in the publication of this little history, if you think it worth the space it will occupy."] CHAPTER 2.II. -- THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES' (continued). 1860. [I extract a few entries from my father's Diary:-- "January 7th. The second edition, 3000 copies, of 'Origin' was published." "May 22nd. The first edition of 'Origin' in the United States was 2500 copies." My father has here noted down the sums received for the 'Origin.' First Edition......180 pounds Second Edition.....636 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence Total..............816 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence. After the publication of the second edition he began at once, on January 9th, looking over his materials for the 'Variation of Animals and Plants;' the only other work of the year was on Drosera. He was at Down during the whole of this year, except for a visit to Dr. Lane's Water-cure Establishment at Sudbrooke, and in June, and for visits to Miss Elizabeth Wedgwood's house at Hartfield, in Sussex (July), and to Eastbourne, September 22 to November 16.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 3rd [1860]. My dear Hooker, I have finished your Essay. ('Australian Flora.') As probably you would like to hear my opinion, though a non-botanist, I will give it without any exaggeration. To my judgment it is by far the grandest and most interesting essay, on subjects of the nature discussed, I have ever read. You know how I admired your former essays, but this seems to me far grander. I like all the part after page xxvi better than the first part, probably because newer to me. I dare say you will demur to this, for I think every author likes the most speculative parts of his own productions. How superior your essay is to the famous one of Brown (here will be sneer 1st from you). You have made all your conclusions so admirably clear, that it would be no use at all to be a botanist (sneer No. 2). By Jove, it would do harm to affix any idea to the long names of outlandish orders. One can look at your conclusions with the philosophic abstraction with which a mathematician looks at his a times x + the square root of z squared, etc. etc. I hardly know which parts have interested me most; for over and over again I exclaimed, "this beats all." The general comparison of the Flora of Australia with the rest of the world, strikes me (as before) as extremely original, good, and suggestive of many reflections. ... The invading Indian Flora is very interesting, but I think the fact you mention towards the close of the essay--that the Indian vegetation, in contradistinction to the Malayan vegetation, is found in low and level parts of the Malay Islands, GREATLY lessens the difficulty which at first (page 1) seemed so great. There is nothing like one's own hobby-horse. I suspect it is the same case as of glacial migration, and of naturalised production--of production of greater area conquering those of lesser; of course the Indian forms would have a greater difficulty in seizing on the cool parts of Australia. I demur to your remarks (page 1), as not "conceiving anything in soil, climate, or vegetation of India," which could stop the introduction of Australian plants. Towards the close of the essay (page civ), you have admirable remarks on our profound ignorance of the cause of possible naturalisation or introduction; I would answer page 1, by a later page, viz. page civ. Your contrast of the south-west and south-east corners is one of the most wonderful cases I ever heard of... You show the case with wonderful force. Your discussion on mixed invaders of the south-east corner (and of New Zealand) is as curious and intricate a problem as of the races of men in Britain. Your remark on mixed invading Flora keeping down or destroying an original Flora, which was richer in number of species, strikes me as EMINENTLY NEW AND IMPORTANT. I am not sure whether to me the discussion on the New Zealand Flora is not even more instructive. I cannot too much admire both. But it will require a long time to suck in all the facts. Your case of the largest Australian orders having none, or very few, species in New Zealand, is truly marvellous. Anyhow, you have now DEMONSTRATED (together with no mammals in New Zealand) (bitter sneer No. 3), that New Zealand has never been continuously, or even nearly continuously, united by land to Australia!! At page lxxxix, is the only sentence (on this subject) in the whole essay at which I am much inclined to quarrel, viz. that no theory of trans-oceanic migration can explain, etc. etc. Now I maintain against all the world, that no man knows anything about the power of trans-oceanic migration. You do not know whether or not the absent orders have seeds which are killed by sea-water, like almost all Leguminosae, and like another order which I forget. Birds do not migrate from Australia to New Zealand, and therefore floatation SEEMS the only possible means; but yet I maintain that we do not know enough to argue on the question, especially as we do not know the main fact whether the seeds of Australian orders are killed by sea-water. The discussion on European Genera is profoundly interesting; but here alone I earnestly beg for more information, viz. to know which of these genera are absent in the Tropics of the world, i.e. confined to temperate regions. I excessively wish to know, ON THE NOTION OF GLACIAL MIGRATION, how much modification has taken place in Australia. I had better explain when we meet, and get you to go over and mark the list. ... The list of naturalised plants is extremely interesting, but why at the end, in the name of all that is good and bad, do you not sum up and comment on your facts? Come, I will have a sneer at you in return for the many which you will have launched at this letter. Should you have remarked on the number of plants naturalised in Australia and the United States UNDER EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CLIMATES, as showing that climate is so important, and [on] the considerable sprinkling of plants from India, North America, and South Africa, as showing that the frequent introduction of seeds is so important? With respect to "abundance of unoccupied ground in Australia," do you believe that European plants introduced by man now grow on spots in Australia which were absolutely bare? But I am an impudent dog, one must defend one's own fancy theories against such cruel men as you. I dare say this letter will appear very conceited, but one must form an opinion on what one reads with attention, and in simple truth, I cannot find words strong enough to express my admiration of your essay. My dear old friend, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I differ about the "Saturday Review". ("Saturday Review", December 24, 1859. The hostile arguments of the reviewer are geological, and he deals especially with the denudation of the Weald. The reviewer remarks that, "if a million of centuries, more or less, is needed for any part of his argument, he feels no scruple in taking them to suit his purpose.") One cannot expect fairness in a reviewer, so I do not complain of all the other arguments besides the 'Geological Record' being omitted. Some of the remarks about the lapse of years are very good, and the reviewer gives me some good and well-deserved raps--confound it. I am sorry to confess the truth: but it does not at all concern the main argument. That was a nice notice in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". I hope and imagine that Lindley is almost a convert. Do not forget to tell me if Bentham gets all the more staggered. With respect to tropical plants during the Glacial period, I throw in your teeth your own facts, at the base of the Himalaya, on the possibility of the co-existence of at least forms of the tropical and temperate regions. I can give a parallel case for animals in Mexico. Oh! my dearly beloved puny child, how cruel men are to you! I am very glad you approve of the Geographical chapters... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [January 4th, 1860]. My dear L. "Gardeners' Chronicle" returned safe. Thanks for note. I am beyond measure glad that you get more and more roused on the subject of species, for, as I have always said, I am well convinced that your opinions and writings will do far more to convince the world than mine. You will make a grand discussion on man. You are very bold in this, and I honour you. I have been, like you, quite surprised at the want of originality in opposed arguments and in favour too. Gwyn Jeffreys attacks me justly in his letter about strictly littoral shells not being often embedded at least in Tertiary deposits. I was in a muddle, for I was thinking of Secondary, yet Chthamalus applied to Tertiary... Possibly you might like to see the enclosed note (Dr. Whewell wrote (January 2, 1860): "... I cannot, yet at least, become a convert. But there is so much of thought and of fact in what you have written that it is not to be contradicted without careful selection of the ground and manner of the dissent." Dr. Whewell dissented in a practical manner for some years, by refusing to allow a copy of the 'Origin of Species' to be placed in the Library of Trinity College.) from Whewell, merely as showing that he is not horrified with us. You can return it whenever you have occasion to write, so as not to waste your time. C.D. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [January 4th? 1860]. ... I have had a brief note from Keyserling (Joint author with Murchison of the 'Geology of Russia,' 1845.), but not worth sending you. He believes in change of species, grants that natural selection explains well adaptation of form, but thinks species change too regularly, as if by some chemical law, for natural selection to be the sole cause of change. I can hardly understand his brief note, but this is I think the upshot. ... I will send A. Murray's paper whenever published. (The late Andrew Murray wrote two papers on the 'Origin' in the Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 1860. The one referred to here is dated January 16, 1860. The following is quoted from page 6 of the separate copy: "But the second, and, as it appears to me, by much the most important phase of reversion to type (and which is practically, if not altogether ignored by Mr. Darwin), is the instinctive inclination which induces individuals of the same species by preference to intercross with those possessing the qualities which they themselves want, so as to preserve the purity or equilibrium of the breed... It is trite to a proverb, that tall men marry little women... a man of genius marries a fool... and we are told that this is the result of the charm of contrast, or of qualities admired in others because we do not possess them. I do not so explain it. I imagine it is the effort of nature to preserve the typical medium of the race.") It includes speculations (which he perhaps will modify) so rash, and without a single fact in support, that had I advanced them he or other reviewers would have hit me very hard. I am sorry to say that I have no "consolatory view" on the dignity of man. I am content that man will probably advance, and care not much whether we are looked at as mere savages in a remotely distant future. Many thanks for your last note. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. I have received, in a Manchester newspaper, rather a good squib, showing that I have proved "might is right," and therefore that Napoleon is right, and every cheating tradesman is also right. CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Down, January 6th [1860]? My dear Carpenter, I have just read your excellent article in the 'National.' It will do great good; especially if it becomes known as your production. It seems to me to give an excellently clear account of Mr. Wallace's and my views. How capitally you turn the flanks of the theological opposers by opposing to them such men as Bentham and the more philosophical of the systematists! I thank you sincerely for the EXTREMELY honourable manner in which you mention me. I should have liked to have seen some criticisms or remarks on embryology, on which subject you are so well instructed. I do not think any candid person can read your article without being much impressed with it. The old doctrine of immutability of specific forms will surely but slowly die away. It is a shame to give you trouble, but I should be very much obliged if you could tell me where differently coloured eggs in individuals of the cuckoo have been described, and their laying in twent-seven kinds of nests. Also do you know from your own observation that the limbs of sheep imported into the West Indies change colour? I have had detailed information about the loss of wool; but my accounts made the change slower than you describe. With most cordial thanks and respect, believe me, my dear Carpenter, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS. (Rev. L. Blomefield.) Down, January 7th, 1860. My dear Jenyns, I am very much obliged for your letter. It is of great use and interest to me to know what impression my book produces on philosophical and instructed minds. I thank you for the kind things which you say; and you go with me much further than I expected. You will think it presumptuous, but I am convinced, IF CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD YOU TO KEEP THE SUBJECT IN MIND, that you will go further. No one has yet cast doubts on my explanation of the subordination of group to group, on homologies, embryology, and rudimentary organs; and if my explanation of these classes of facts be at all right, whole classes of organic beings must be included in one line of descent. The imperfection of the Geological Record is one of the greatest difficulties... During the earliest period the record would be most imperfect, and this seems to me sufficient to account for our not finding intermediate forms between the classes in the same great kingdoms. It was certainly rash in me putting in my belief of the probability of all beings having descended from ONE primordial form; but as this seems yet to me probable, I am not willing to strike it out. Huxley alone supports me in this, and something could be said in its favour. With respect to man, I am very far from wishing to obtrude my belief; but I thought it dishonest to quite conceal my opinion. Of course it is open to every one to believe that man appeared by a separate miracle, though I do not myself see the necessity or probability. Pray accept my sincere thanks for your kind note. Your going some way with me gives me great confidence that I am not very wrong. For a very long time I halted half way; but I do not believe that any enquiring mind will rest half-way. People will have to reject all or admit all; by ALL I mean only the members of each great kingdom. My dear Jenyns, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 10th [1860]. ... It is perfectly true that I owe nearly all the corrections (The second edition of 3000 copies of the 'Origin' was published on January 7th.) to you, and several verbal ones to you and others; I am heartily glad you approve of them, as yet only two things have annoyed me; those confounded millions (This refers to the passage in the 'Origin of Species' (2nd edition, page 285), in which the lapse of time implied by the denudation of the Weald is discussed. The discussion closes with the sentence: "So that it is not improbable that a longer period than 300 million years has elapsed since the latter part of the Secondary period." This passage is omitted in the later editions of the 'Origin,' against the advice of some of his friends, as appears from the pencil notes in my father's copy of the second edition.) of years (not that I think it is probably wrong), and my not having (by inadvertance) mentioned Wallace towards the close of the book in the summary, not that any one has noticed this to me. I have now put in Wallace's name at page 484 in a conspicuous place. I cannot refer you to tables of mortality of children, etc. etc. I have notes somewhere, but I have not the LEAST idea where to hunt, and my notes would now be old. I shall be truly glad to read carefully any MS. on man, and give my opinion. You used to caution me to be cautious about man. I suspect I shall have to return the caution a hundred fold! Yours will, no doubt, be a grand discussion; but it will horrify the world at first more than my whole volume; although by the sentence (page 489, new edition (First edition, page 488.)) I show that I believe man is in the same predicament with other animals. It is, in fact, impossible to doubt it. I have thought (only vaguely) on man. With respect to the races, one of my best chances of truth has broken down from the impossibility of getting facts. I have one good speculative line, but a man must have entire credence in Natural Selection before he will even listen to it. Psychologically, I have done scarcely anything. Unless, indeed, expression of countenance can be included, and on that subject I have collected a good many facts, and speculated, but I do not suppose I shall ever publish, but it is an uncommonly curious subject. By the way, I sent off a lot of questions the day before yesterday to Tierra del Fuego on expression! I suspect (for I have never read it) that Spencer's 'Psychology' has a bearing on Psychology as we should look at it. By all means read the Preface, in about 20 pages, of Hensleigh Wedgwood's new Dictionary on the first origin of Language; Erasmus would lend it. I agree about Carpenter, a very good article, but with not much original... Andrew Murray has criticised, in an address to the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, the notice in the 'Linnean Journal,' and "has disposed of" the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty, which I was very stupid not to have thought of; for I express surprise at more and analogous cases not being known. The difficulty is, that amongst the blind insects of the caves in distant parts of the world there are some of the same genus, and yet the genus is not found out of the caves or living in the free world. I have little doubt that, like the fish Amblyopsis, and like Proteus in Europe, these insects are "wrecks of ancient life," or "living fossils," saved from competition and extermination. But that formerly SEEING insects of the same genus roamed over the whole area in which the cases are included. Farewell, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--OUR ancestor was an animal which breathed water, had a swim bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect skull, and undoubtedly was an hermaphrodite! Here is a pleasant genealogy for mankind. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 14th [1860]. ... I shall be much interested in reading your man discussion, and will give my opinion carefully, whatever that may be worth; but I have so long looked at you as the type of cautious scientific judgment (to my mind one of the highest and most useful qualities), that I suspect my opinion will be superfluous. It makes me laugh to think what a joke it will be if I have to caution you, after your cautions on the same subject to me! I will order Owen's book ('Classification of the Mammalia,' 1859.); I am very glad to hear Huxley's opinion on his classification of man; without having due knowledge, it seemed to me from the very first absurd; all classifications founded on single characters I believe have failed. ... What a grand, immense benefit you conferred on me by getting Murray to publish my book. I never till to-day realised that it was getting widely distributed; for in a letter from a lady to-day to E., she says she heard a man enquiring for it at the RAILWAY STATION!!! at Waterloo Bridge; and the bookseller said that he had none till the new edition was out. The bookseller said he had not read it, but had heard it was a very remarkable book!!!... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 14th [January, 1860]. ... I heard from Lyell this morning, and he tells me a piece of news. You are a good-for-nothing man; here you are slaving yourself to death with hardly a minute to spare, and you must write a review of my book! I thought it ('Gardeners' Chronicle', 1860. Referred to above. Sir J.D. Hooker took the line of complete impartiality, so as not to commit Lindley.) a very good one, and was so much struck with it that I sent it to Lyell. But I assumed, as a matter of course, that it was Lindley's. Now that I know it is yours, I have re-read it, and, my kind and good friend, it has warmed my heart with all the honourable and noble things you say of me and it. I was a good deal surprised at Lindley hitting on some of the remarks, but I never dreamed of you. I admired it chiefly as so well adapted to tell on the readers of the 'Gardeners' Chronicle'; but now I admired it in another spirit. Farewell, with hearty thanks... Lyell is going at man with an audacity that frightens me. It is a good joke; he used always to caution me to slip over man. [In the "Gardeners' Chronicle", January 21, 1860, appeared a short letter from my father which was called forth by Mr. Westwood's communication to the previous number of the journal, in which certain phenomena of cros-breeding are discussed in relation to the 'Origin of Species.' Mr. Westwood wrote in reply (February 11) and adduced further evidence against the doctrine of descent, such as the identity of the figures of ostriches on the ancient "Egyptian records," with the bird as we now know it. The correspondence is hardly worth mentioning, except as one of the very few cases in which my father was enticed into anything resembling a controversy.] ASA GRAY TO J.D. HOOKER. Cambridge, Mass., January 5th, 1860. My dear Hooker, Your last letter, which reached me just before Christmas, has got mislaid during the upturnings in my study which take place at that season, and has not yet been discovered. I should be very sorry to lose it, for there were in it some botanical mems. which I had not secured... The principal part of your letter was high laudation of Darwin's book. Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful perusal four days ago; and I freely say that your laudation is not out of place. It is done in a MASTERLY MANNER. It might well have taken twenty years to produce it. It is crammed full of most interesting matter--thoroughly digested--well expressed--close, cogent, and taken as a system it makes out a better case than I had supposed possible... Agassiz, when I saw him last, had read but a part of it. He says it is POOR--VERY POOR!! (entre nous). The fact [is] he is very much annoyed by it,... and I do not wonder at it. To bring all IDEAL systems within the domain of science, and give good physical or natural explanations of all his capital points, is as bad as to have Forbes take the glacier materials... and give scientific explanation of all the phenomena. Tell Darwin all this. I will write to him when I get a chance. As I have promised, he and you shall have fair-play here... I must myself write a review of Darwin's book for 'Silliman's Journal' (the more so that I suspect Agassiz means to come out upon it) for the next (March) No., and I am now setting about it (when I ought to be every moment working the Expl[oring] Expedition Compositae, which I know far more about). And really it is no easy job, as you may well imagine. I doubt if I shall please you altogether. I know I shall not please Agassiz at all. I hear another reprint is in the Press, and the book will excite much attention here, and some controversy... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 28th [1860]. My dear Gray, Hooker has forwarded to me your letter to him; and I cannot express how deeply it has gratified me. To receive the approval of a man whom one has long sincerely respected. And whose judgment and knowledge are most universally admitted, is the highest reward an author can possibly wish for; and I thank you heartily for your most kind expressions. I have been absent from home for a few days, and so could not earlier answer your letter to me of the 10th of January. You have been extremely kind to take so much trouble and interest about the edition. It has been a mistake of my publisher not thinking of sending over the sheets. I had entirely and utterly forgotten your offer of receiving the sheets as printed off. But I must not blame my publisher, for had I remembered your most kind offer I feel pretty sure I should not have taken advantage of it; for I never dreamed of my book being so successful with general readers; I believe I should have laughed at the idea of sending the sheets to America. (In a letter to Mr. Murray, 1860, my father wrote:--"I am amused by Asa Gray's account of the excitement my book has made amongst naturalists in the United States. Agassiz has denounced it in a newspaper, but yet in such terms that it is in fact a fine advertisement!" This seems to refer to a lecture given before the Mercantile Library Association.) After much consideration, and on the strong advice of Lyell and others, I have resolved to leave the present book as it is (excepting correcting errors, or here and there inserting short sentences) and to use all my strength, WHICH IS BUT LITTLE, to bring out the first part (forming a separate volume with index, etc.) of the three volumes which will make my bigger work; so that I am very unwilling to take up time in making corrections for an American edition. I enclose a list of a few corrections in the second reprint, which you will have received by this time complete, and I could send four or five corrections or additions of equally small importance, or rather of equal brevity. I also intend to write a SHORT preface with a brief history of the subject. These I will set about, as they must some day be done, and I will send them to you in a short time--the few corrections first, and the preface afterwards, unless I hear that you have given up all idea of a separate edition. You will then be able to judge whether it is worth having the new edition with YOUR REVIEW PREFIXED. Whatever be the nature of your review, I assure you I should feel it a GREAT honour to have my book thus preceded... ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, January 23rd, 1860. My dear Darwin, You have my hurried letter telling you of the arrival of the remainder of the sheets of the reprint, and of the stir I had made for a reprint in Boston. Well, all looked pretty well, when, lo, we found that a second New York publishing house had announced a reprint also! I wrote then to both New York publishers, asking them to give way to the AUTHOR and his reprint of a revised edition. I got an answer from the Harpers that they withdraw --from the Appletons that they had got the book OUT (and the next day I saw a copy); but that, "if the work should have any considerable sale, we certainly shall be disposed to pay the author reasonably and liberally." The Appletons being thus out with their reprint, the Boston house declined to go on. So I wrote to the Appletons taking them at their word, offering to aid their reprint, to give them the use of the alterations in the London reprint, as soon as I find out what they are, etc. etc. And I sent them the first leaf, and asked them to insert in their future issue the additional matter from Butler (A quotation from Butler's 'Analogy,' on the use of the word natural, which in the second edition is placed with the passages from Whewell and Bacon on page ii, opposite the title-page.), which tells just right. So there the matter stands. If you furnish any matter in advance of the London third edition, I will make them pay for it. I may get something for you. All got is clear gain; but it will not be very much, I suppose. Such little notices in the papers here as have yet appeared are quite handsome and considerate. I hope next week to get printed sheets of my review from New Haven, and send [them] to you, and will ask you to pass them on to Dr. Hooker. To fulfil your request, I ought to tell you what I think the weakest, and what the best, part of your book. But this is not easy, nor to be done in a word or two. The BEST PART, I think, is the WHOLE, i.e., its PLAN and TREATMENT, the vast amount of facts and acute inferences handled as if you had a perfect mastery of them. I do not think twenty years too much time to produce such a book in. Style clear and good, but now and then wants revision for little matters (page 97, self-fertilises ITSELF, etc.). Then your candour is worth everything to your cause. It is refreshing to find a person with a new theory who frankly confesses that he finds difficulties, insurmountable, at least for the present. I know some people who never have any difficulties to speak of. The moment I understood your premisses, I felt sure you had a real foundation to hold on. Well, if one admits your premisses, I do not see how he is to stop short of your conclusions, as a probable hypothesis at least. It naturally happens that my review of your book does not exhibit anything like the full force of the impression the book has made upon me. Under the circumstances I suppose I do your theory more good here, by bespeaking for it a fair and favourable consideration, and by standing non-committed as to its full conclusions, than I should if I announced myself a convert; nor could I say the latter, with truth. Well, what seems to me the weakest point in the book is the attempt to account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, etc., by natural selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian. The chapter on HYBRIDISM is not a WEAK, but a STRONG chapter. You have done wonders there. But still you have not accounted, as you may be held to account, for divergence up to a certain extent producing increased fertility of the crosses, but carried one short almost imperceptible step more, giving rise to sterility, or reversing the tendency. Very likely you are on the right track; but you have something to do yet in that department. Enough for the present. ... I am not insensible to your compliments, the very high compliment which you pay me in valuing my opinion. You evidently think more of it than I do, though from the way I write [to] you, and especially [to] Hooker, this might not be inferred from the reading of my letters. I am free to say that I never learnt so much from one book as I have from yours, there remain a thousand things I long to say about it. Ever yours, ASA GRAY. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [February? 1860]. ... Now I will just run through some points in your letter. What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I could feel all was deserved by me. I quite think a review from a man, who is not an entire convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of review. About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Pray kindly remember and tell Prof. Wyman how very grateful I should be for any hints, information, or criticisms. I have the highest respect for his opinion. I am so sorry about Dana's health. I have already asked him to pay me a visit. Farewell, you have laid me under a load of obligation--not that I feel it a load. It is the highest possible gratification to me to think that you have found my book worth reading and reflection; for you and three others I put down in my own mind as the judges whose opinions I should value most of all. My dear Gray, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I feel pretty sure, from my own experience, that if you are led by your studies to keep the subject of the origin of species before your mind, you will go further and further in your belief. It took me long years, and I assure you I am astonished at the impression my book has made on many minds. I fear twenty years ago, I should not have been half as candid and open to conviction. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [January 31st, 1860]. My dear Hooker, I have resolved to publish a little sketch of the progress of opinion on the change of species. Will you or Mrs. Hooker do me the favour to copy ONE sentence out of Naudin's paper in the 'Revue Horticole,' 1852, page 103, namely, that on his principle of Finalite. Can you let me have it soon, with those confounded dashes over the vowels put in carefully? Asa Gray, I believe, is going to get a second edition of my book, and I want to send this little preface over to him soon. I did not think of the necessity of having Naudin's sentence on finality, otherwise I would have copied it. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I shall end by just alluding to your Australian Flora Introduction. What was the date of publication: December 1859, or January 1860? Please answer this. My preface will also do for the French edition, which I BELIEVE, is agreed on. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February [1860]. ... As the 'Origin' now stands, Harvey's (William Henry Harvey was descended from a Quaker family of Youghal, and was born in February, 1811, at Summerville, a country house on the banks of the Shannon. He died at Torquay in 1866. In 1835, Harvey went to Africa (Table Bay) to pursue his botanical studies, the results of which were given in his 'Genera of South African Plants.' In 1838, ill-health compelled him to obtain leave of absence, and return to England for a time; in 1840 he returned to Cape Town, to be again compelled by illness to leave. In 1843 he obtained the appointment of Botanical Professor at Trinity College, Dublin. In 1854, 1855, and 1856 he visited Australia, New Zealand, the Friendly and Fiji Islands. In 1857 Dr. Harvey reached home, and was appointed the successor of Professor Allman to the Chair of Botany in Dublin University. He was author of several botanical works, principally on Algae.--(From a Memoir published in 1869.)) is a good hit against my talking so much of the insensibly fine gradations; and certainly it has astonished me that I should be pelted with the fact, that I had not allowed abrupt and great enough variations under nature. It would take a good deal more evidence to make me admit that forms have often changed by saltum. Have you seen Wollaston's attack in the 'Annals'? ('Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' 1860.) The stones are beginning to fly. But Theology has more to do with these two attacks than Science... [In the above letter a paper by Harvey in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", February 18, 1860, is alluded to. He describes a case of monstrosity in Begonia frigida, in which the "sport" differed so much from a normal Begonia that it might have served as the type of a distinct natural order. Harvey goes on to argue that such a case is hostile to the theory of natural selection, according to which changes are not supposed to take place per saltum, and adds that "a few such cases would overthrow it [Mr. Darwin's hypothesis] altogether." In the following number of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" Sir J.D. Hooker showed that Dr. Harvey had misconceived the bearing of the Begonia case, which he further showed to be by no means calculated to shake the validity of the doctrine of modification by means of natural selection. My father mentions the Begonia case in a letter to Lyell (February 18, 1860):-- "I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", by Harvey (a first-rate Botanist, as you probably know). It seems to me rather strange; he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas, monsters are generally sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes that I have been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my ABSTRACT. In the fuller MS. I have discussed a parallel case of a normal fish like the monstrous gold-fish." With reference to Sir J.D. Hooker's reply, my father wrote:] Down, [February 26th, 1860]. My dear Hooker, Your answer to Harvey seems to me ADMIRABLY good. You would have made a gigantic fortune as a barrister. What an omission of Harvey's about the graduated state of the flowers! But what strikes me most is that surely I ought to know my own book best, yet, by Jove, you have brought forward ever so many arguments which I did not think of! Your reference to classification (viz. I presume to such cases as Aspicarpa) is EXCELLENT, for the monstrous Begonia no doubt in all details would be Begonia. I did not think of this, nor of the RETROGRADE step from separated sexes to an hermaphrodite state; nor of the lessened fertility of the monster. Proh pudor to me. The world would say what a lawyer has been lost in a MERE botanist! Farewell, my dear master in my own subject, Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. I am so heartily pleased to see that you approve of the chapter on Classification. I wonder what Harvey will say. But no one hardly, I think, is able at first to see when he is beaten in an argument. [The following letters refer to the first translation (1860) of the 'Origin of Species' into German, which was superintended by H.G. Bronn, a good zoologist and palaeontologist, who was at the time at Freiburg, but afterwards Professor at Heidelberg. I have been told that the translation was not a success, it remained an obvious translation, and was correspondingly unpleasant to read. Bronn added to the translation an appendix of the difficulties that occurred to him. For instance, how can natural selection account for differences between species, when these differences appear to be of no service to their possessors; e.g., the length of the ears and tail, or the folds in the enamel of the teeth of various species of rodents? Krause, in his book, 'Charles Darwin,' page 91, criticises Bronn's conduct in this manner, but it will be seen that my father actually suggested the addition of Bronn's remarks. A more serious charge against Bronn made by Krause (op. cit. page 87) is that he left out passages of which he did not approve, as, for instance, the passage ('Origin,' first edition, page 488) "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." I have no evidence as to whether my father did or did not know of these alterations.] CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, February 4 [1860]. Dear and much honoured Sir, I thank you sincerely for your most kind letter; I feared that you would much disapprove of the 'Origin,' and I sent it to you merely as a mark of my sincere respect. I shall read with much interest your work on the productions of Islands whenever I receive it. I thank you cordially for the notice in the 'Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie,' and still more for speaking to Schweitzerbart about a translation; for I am most anxious that the great and intellectual German people should know something about my book. I have told my publisher to send immediately a copy of the NEW (Second edition.) edition to Schweitzerbart, and I have written to Schweitzerbart that I gave up all right to profit for myself, so that I hope a translation will appear. I fear that the book will be difficult to translate, and if you could advise Schweitzerbart about a GOOD translator, it would be of very great service. Still more, if you would run your eye over the more difficult parts of the translation; but this is too great a favour to expect. I feel sure that it will be difficult to translate, from being so much condensed. Again I thank you for your noble and generous sympathy, and I remain, with entire respect, Yours, truly obliged, C. DARWIN. P.S.--The new edition has some few corrections, and I will send in MS. some additional corrections, and a short historical preface, to Schweitzerbart. How interesting you could make the work by EDITING (I do not mean translating) the work, and appending notes of REFUTATION or confirmation. The book has sold so very largely in England, that an editor would, I think, make profit by the translation. CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, February 14 [1860]. My dear and much honoured Sir, I thank you cordially for your extreme kindness in superintending the translation. I have mentioned this to some eminent scientific men, and they all agree that you have done a noble and generous service. If I am proved quite wrong, yet I comfort myself in thinking that my book may do some good, as truth can only be known by rising victorious from every attack. I thank you also much for the review, and for the kind manner in which you speak of me. I send with this letter some corrections and additions to M. Schweitzerbart, and a short historical preface. I am not much acquainted with German authors, as I read German very slowly; therefore I do not know whether any Germans have advocated similar views with mine; if they have, would you do me the favour to insert a foot-note to the preface? M. Schweitzerbart has now the reprint ready for a translator to begin. Several scientific men have thought the term "Natural Selection" good, because its meaning is NOT obvious, and each man could not put on it his own interpretation, and because it at once connects variation under domestication and nature. Is there any analogous term used by German breeders of animals? "Adelung," ennobling, would, perhaps, be too metaphysical. It is folly in me, but I cannot help doubting whether "Wahl der Lebensweise" expresses my notion. It leaves the impression on my mind of the Lamarckian doctrine (which I reject) of habits of life being al-important. Man has altered, and thus improved the English race-horse by SELECTING successive fleeter individuals; and I believe, owing to the struggle for existence, that similar SLIGHT variations in a wild horse, IF ADVANTAGEOUS TO IT, would be SELECTED or PRESERVED by nature; hence Natural Selection. But I apologise for troubling you with these remarks on the importance of choosing good German terms for "Natural Selection." With my heartfelt thanks, and with sincere respect, I remain, dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, July 14 [1860]. Dear and honoured Sir, On my return home, after an absence of some time, I found the translation of the third part (The German translation was published in three pamphle-like numbers.) of the 'Origin,' and I have been delighted to see a final chapter of criticisms by yourself. I have read the first few paragraphs and final paragraph, and am perfectly contented, indeed more than contented, with the generous and candid spirit with which you have considered my views. You speak with too much praise of my work. I shall, of course, carefully read the whole chapter; but though I can read descriptive books like Gaertner's pretty easily, when any reasoning comes in, I find German excessively difficult to understand. At some FUTURE time I should very much like to hear how my book has been received in Germany, and I most sincerely hope M. Schweitzerbart will not lose money by the publication. Most of the reviews have been bitterly opposed to me in England, yet I have made some converts, and SEVERAL naturalists who would not believe in a word of it, are now coming slightly round, and admit that natural selection may have done something. This gives me hope that more will ultimately come round to a certain extent to my views. I shall ever consider myself deeply indebted to you for the immense service and honour which you have conferred on me in making the excellent translation of my book. Pray believe me, with most sincere respect, Dear Sir, yours gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [February 12th, 1860]. ... I think it was a great pity that Huxley wasted so much time in the lecture on the preliminary remarks;... but his lecture seemed to me very fine and very bold. I have remonstrated (and he agrees) against the impression that he would leave, that sterility was a universal and infallible criterion of species. You will, I am sure, make a grand discussion on man. I am so glad to hear that you and Lady Lyell will come here. Pray fix your own time; and if it did not suit us we would say so. We could then discuss man well... How much I owe to you and Hooker! I do not suppose I should hardly ever have published had it not been for you. [The lecture referred to in the last letter was given at the Royal Institution, February 10, 1860. The following letter was written in reply to Mr. Huxley's request for information about breeding, hybridisation, etc. It is of interest as giving a vivid retrospect of the writer's experience on the subject.] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Ilkley, Yorks, November 27 [1859]. My dear Huxley, Gartner grand, Kolreuter grand, but papers scattered through many volumes and very lengthy. I had to make an abstract of the whole. Herbert's volume on Amaryllidaceae very good, and two excellent papers in the 'Horticultural Journal.' For animals, no resume to be trusted at all; facts are to be collected from all original sources. (This caution is exemplified in the following extract from an earlier letter to Professor Huxley:--"The inaccuracy of the blessed gang (of which I am one) of compilers passes all bounds. MONSTERS have frequently been described as hybrids without a tittle of evidence. I must give one other case to show how we jolly fellows work. A Belgian Baron (I forget his name at this moment) crossed two distinct geese and got SEVEN hybrids, which he proved subsequently to be quite sterile; well, compiler the first, Chevreul, says that the hybrids were propagated for SEVEN generations inter se. Compiler second (Morton) mistakes the French name, and gives Latin names for two more distinct geese, and says CHEVREUL himself propagated them inter se for seven generations; and the latter statement is copied from book to book.") I fear my MS. for the bigger book (twice or thrice as long as in present book), with all references, would be illegible, but it would save you infinite labour; of course I would gladly lend it, but I have no copy, so care would have to be taken of it. But my accursed handwriting would be fatal, I fear. About breeding, I know of no one book. I did not think well of Lowe, but I can name none better. Youatt I look at as a far better and MORE PRACTICAL authority; but then his views and facts are scattered through three or four thick volumes. I have picked up most by reading really numberless special treatises and ALL agricultural and horticultural journals; but it is a work of long years. THE DIFFICULTY IS TO KNOW WHAT TO TRUST. No one or two statements are worth a farthing; the facts are so complicated. I hope and think I have been really cautious in what I state on this subject, although all that I have given, as yet, is FAR too briefly. I have found it very important associating with fanciers and breeders. For instance, I sat one evening in a gin palace in the Borough amongst a set of pigeon fanciers, when it was hinted that Mr. Bull had crossed his Pouters with Runts to gain size; and if you had seen the solemn, the mysterious, and awful shakes of the head which all the fanciers gave at this scandalous proceeding, you would have recognised how little crossing has had to do with improving breeds, and how dangerous for endless generations the process was. All this was brought home far more vividly than by pages of mere statements, etc. But I am scribbling foolishly. I really do not know how to advise about getting up facts on breeding and improving breeds. Go to Shows is one way. Read ALL treatises on any ONE domestic animal, and believe nothing without largely confirmed. For your lectures I can give you a few amusing anecdotes and sentences, if you want to make the audience laugh. I thank you particularly for telling me what naturalists think. If we can once make a compact set of believers we shall in time conquer. I am EMINENTLY glad Ramsey is on our side, for he is, in my opinion, a firs-rate geologist. I sent him a copy. I hope he got it. I shall be very curious to hear whether any effect has been produced on Prestwich; I sent him a copy, not as a friend, but owing to a sentence or two in some paper, which made me suspect he was doubting. Rev. C. Kingsley has a mind to come round. Quatrefages writes that he goes some long way with me; says he exhibited diagrams like mine. With most hearty thanks, Yours very tired, C. DARWIN. [I give the conclusion of Professor Huxley's lecture, as being one of the earliest, as well as one of the most eloquent of his utterances in support of the 'Origin of Species']: "I have said that the man of science is the sworn interpreter of nature in the high court of reason. But of what avail is his honest speech, if ignorance is the assessor of the judge, and prejudice the foreman of the jury? I hardly know of a great physical truth, whose universal reception has not been preceded by an epoch in which most estimable persons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile, but blasphemous. And there is a wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo. "But to those whose life is spent, to use Newton's noble words, in picking up here a pebble and there a pebble on the shores of the great ocean of truth--who watch, day by day, the slow but sure advance of that mighty tide, bearing on its bosom the thousand treasures wherewith man ennobles and beautifies his life--it would be laughable, if it were not so sad, to see the little Canutes of the hour enthroned in solemn state, bidding that great wave to stay, and threatening to check its beneficent progress. The wave rises and they fly; but, unlike the brave old Dane, they learn no lesson of humility: the throne is pitched at what seems a safe distance, and the folly is repeated. "Surely it is the duty of the public to discourage anything of this kind, to discredit these foolish meddlers who think they do the Almighty a service by preventing a thorough study of His works. "The Origin of Species is not the first, and it will not be the last, of the great questions born of science, which will demand settlement from this generation. The general mind is seething strangely, and to those who watch the signs of the times, it seems plain that this nineteenth century will see revolutions of thought and practice as great as those which the sixteenth witnessed. Through what trials and sore contests the civilised world will have to pass in the course of this new reformation, who can tell? "But I verily believe that come what will, the part which England may play in the battle is a grand and a noble one. She may prove to the world that, for one people, at any rate, despotism and demagogy are not the necessary alternatives of government; that freedom and order are not incompatible; that reverence is the handmaid of knowledge; that free discussion is the life of truth, and of true unity in a nation. "Will England play this part? That depends upon how you, the public, deal with science. Cherish her, venerate her, follow her methods faithfully and implicitly in their application to all branches of human thought, and the future of this people will be greater than the past. "Listen to those who would silence and crush her, and I fear our children will see the glory of England vanishing like Arthur in the mist; they will cry too late the woful cry of Guinever:-- 'It was my duty to have loved the highest; It surely was my profit had I known; It would have been my pleasure had I seen.'"] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [February 15th, 1860]. ... I am perfectly convinced (having read this morning) that the review in the 'Annals' (Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist. third series, vol. 5, page 132. My father has obviously taken the expression "pestilent" from the following passage (page 138): "But who is this Nature, we have a right to ask, who has such tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes, when dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of an Intelligent First Cause of all?" The reviewer pays a tribute to my father's candour, "so manly and outspoken as almost to 'cover a multitude of sins.'" The parentheses (to which allusion is made above) are so frequent as to give a characteristic appearance to Mr. Wollaston's pages.) is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses. I have written to him, and told him that the "pestilent" fellow thanks him for his kind manner of speaking about him. I have also told him that he would be pleased to hear that the Bishop of Oxford says it is the most unphilosophical (Another version of the words is given by Lyell, to whom they were spoken, viz. "the most illogical book ever written."--'Life,' volume ii. page 358.) work he ever read. The review seems to me clever, and only misinterprets me in a few places. Like all hostile men, he passes over the explanation given of Classification, Morphology, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs, etc. I read Wallace's paper in MS. ("On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago."--Linn. Soc. Journ. 1860.), and thought it admirably good; he does not know that he has been anticipated about the depth of intervening sea determining distribution... The most curious point in the paper seems to me that about the African character of the Celebes productions, but I should require further confirmation... Henslow is staying here; I have had some talk with him; he is in much the same state as Bunbury (The late Sir Charles Bunbury, well-known as a Palaeo-botanist.), and will go a very little way with us, but brings up no real argument against going further. He also shudders at the eye! It is really curious (and perhaps is an argument in our favour) how differently different opposers view the subject. Henslow used to rest his opposition on the imperfection of the Geological Record, but he now thinks nothing of this, and says I have got well out of it; I wish I could quite agree with him. Baden Powell says he never read anything so conclusive as my statement about the eye!! A stranger writes to me about sexual selection, and regrets that I boggle about such a trifle as the brush of hair on the male turkey, and so on. As L. Jenyns has a really philosophical mind, and as you say you like to see everything, I send an old letter of his. In a later letter to Henslow, which I have seen, he is more candid than any opposer I have heard of, for he says, though he CANNOT go so far as I do, yet he can give no good reason why he should not. It is funny how each man draws his own imaginary line at which to halt. It reminds me so vividly what I was told (By Professor Henslow.) about you when I first commenced geology--to believe a LITTLE, but on no account to believe all. Ever yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 18th [1860]. My dear Gray, I received about a week ago two sheets of your Review (The 'American Journal of Science and Arts,' March, 1860. Reprinted in 'Darwiniana,' 1876.); read them, and sent them to Hooker; they are now returned and r-read with care, and to-morrow I send them to Lyell. Your Review seems to me ADMIRABLE; by far the best which I have read. I thank you from my heart both for myself, but far more for the subject's sake. Your contrast between the views of Agassiz and such as mine is very curious and instructive. (The contrast is briefly summed up thus: "The theory of Agassiz regards the origin of species and their present general distribution over the world as equally primordial, equally supernatural; that of Darwin as equally derivative, equally natural."--'Darwiniana,' page 14.) By the way, if Agassiz writes anything on the subject, I hope you will tell me. I am charmed with your metaphor of the streamlet never running against the force of gravitation. Your distinction between an hypothesis and theory seems to me very ingenious; but I do not think it is ever followed. Every one now speaks of the undulatory THEORY of light; yet the ether is itself hypothetical, and the undulations are inferred only from explaining the phenomena of light. Even in the THEORY of gravitation is the attractive power in any way known, except by explaining the fall of the apple, and the movements of the Planets? It seems to me that an hypothesis is DEVELOPED into a theory solely by explaining an ample lot of facts. Again and again I thank you for your generous aid in discussing a view, about which you very properly hold yourself unbiassed. My dear Gray, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Several clergymen go far with me. Rev. L. Jenyns, a very good naturalist. Henslow will go a very little way with me, and is not shocked with me. He has just been visiting me. [With regard to the attitude of the more liberal representatives of the Church, the following letter (already referred to) from Charles Kingsley is of interest:] C. KINGSLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, November 18th, 1859. Dear Sir, I have to thank you for the unexpected honour of your book. That the Naturalist whom, of all naturalists living, I most wish to know and to learn from, should have sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me at least to observe more carefully, and perhaps more slowly. I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your book just now as I ought. All I have seen of it AWES me; both with the heap of facts and the prestige of your name, and also with the clear intuition, that if you be right, I must give up much that I have believed and written. In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Let us know what IS, and, as old Socrates has it, epesthai to logo--follow up the villainous shifty fox of an argument, into whatsoever unexpected bogs and brakes he may lead us, if we do but run into him at last. From two common superstitions, at least, I shall be free while judging of your books:-- 1. I have long since, from watching the crossing of domesticated animals and plants, learnt to disbelieve the dogma of the permanence of species. 2. I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought. Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a person as Your faithful servant, C. KINGSLEY. [My father's old friend, the Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton Brodie, who was for many years Vicar of Down, writes in the same spirit: "We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin I had adopted, and publicly expressed, the principle that the study of natural history, geology, and science in general, should be pursued without reference to the Bible. That the Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood would never cross... "His views on this subject were very much to the same effect from his side. Of course any conversations we may have had on purely religious subjects are as sacredly private now as in his life; but the quaint conclusion of one may be given. We had been speaking of the apparent contradiction of some supposed discoveries with the Book of Genesis; he said, 'you are (it would have been more correct to say you ought to be) a theologian, I am a naturalist, the lines are separate. I endeavour to discover facts without considering what is said in the Book of Genesis. I do not attack Moses, and I think Moses can take care of himself.' To the same effect he wrote more recently, 'I cannot remember that I ever published a word directly against religion or the clergy; but if you were to read a little pamphlet which I received a couple of days ago by a clergyman, you would laugh, and admit that I had some excuse for bitterness. After abusing me for two or three pages, in language sufficiently plain and emphatic to have satisfied any reasonable man, he sums up by saying that he has vainly searched the English language to find terms to express his contempt for me and all Darwinians.' In another letter, after I had left Down, he writes, 'We often differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing [of] which I should feel very proud, if any one could say [it] of me.' "On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-table, 'Brodie Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty years, and we never thoroughly agreed on any subject but once, and then we stared hard at each other, and thought one of us must be very ill.'"] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 23rd [1860]. My dear Lyell, That is a splendid answer of the father of Judge Crompton. How curious that the Judge should have hit on exactly the same points as yourself. It shows me what a capital lawyer you would have made, how many unjust acts you would have made appear just! But how much grander a field has science been than the law, though the latter might have made you Lord Kinnordy. I will, if there be another edition, enlarge on gradation in the eye, and on all forms coming from one prototype, so as to try and make both less glaringly improbable... With respect to Bronn's objection that it cannot be shown how life arises, and likewise to a certain extent Asa Gray's remark that natural selection is not a vera causa, I was much interested by finding accidentally in Brewster's 'Life of Newton,' that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity because Newton could not show what gravity itself is. As it has chanced, I have used in letters this very same argument, little knowing that any one had really thus objected to the law of gravity. Newton answers by saying that it is philosophy to make out the movements of a clock, though you do not know why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz further objected that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural Religion! Is this not curious? I really think I shall use the facts for some introductory remarks for my bigger book. ... You ask (I see) why we do not have monstrosities in higher animals; but when they live they are almost always sterile (even giants and dwarfs are GENERALLY sterile), and we do not know that Harvey's monster would have bred. There is I believe only one case on record of a peloric flower being fertile, and I cannot remember whether this reproduced itself. To recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not to have faced the difficulty; and worse (as Talleyrand would have said), it would have been impolitic I think, for it would have been thrown in my teeth, as H. Holland threw the bones of the ear, till Huxley shut him up by showing what a fine gradation occurred amongst living creatures. I thank you much for your most pleasant letter. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I send a letter by Herbert Spencer, which you can read or not as you think fit. He puts, to my mind, the philosophy of the argument better than almost any one, at the close of the letter. I could make nothing of Dana's idealistic notions about species; but then, as Wollaston says, I have not a metaphysical head. By the way, I have thrown at Wollaston's head, a paper by Alexander Jordan, who demonstrates metaphysically that all our cultivated races are Go-created species. Wollaston misrepresents accidentally, to a wonderful extent, some passages in my book. He reviewed, without relooking at certain passages. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 25th [1860]. ... I cannot help wondering at your zeal about my book. I declare to heaven you seem to care as much about my book as I do myself. You have no right to be so eminently unselfish! I have taken off my spit [i.e. file] a letter of Ramsay's, as every geologist convert I think very important. By the way, I saw some time ago a letter from H.D. Rogers (Professor of Geology in the University of Glasgow. Born in the United States 1809, died 1866.) to Huxley, in which he goes very far with us... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Saturday, March 3rd, [1860]. My dear Hooker, What a day's work you had on that Thursday! I was not able to go to London till Monday, and then I was a fool for going, for, on Tuesday night, I had an attack of fever (with a touch of pleurisy), which came on like a lion, but went off as a lamb, but has shattered me a good bit. I was much interested by your last note... I think you expect too much in regard to change of opinion on the subject of Species. One large class of men, more especially I suspect of naturalists, never will care about ANY general question, of which old Gray, of the British Museum, may be taken as a type; and secondly, nearly all men past a moderate age, either in actual years or in mind, are, I am fully convinced, incapable of looking at facts under a new point of view. Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the progress which the subject has made; look at the enclosed memorandum. (See table of names below.) -- says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so; but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not. The outsiders, as you say, are strong. You say that you think that Bentham is touched, "but, like a wise man, holds his tongue." Perhaps you only mean that he cannot decide, otherwise I should think such silence the reverse of magnanimity; for if others behaved the same way, how would opinion ever progress? It is a dereliction of actual duty. (In a subsequent letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (March 12th, 1860), my father wrote, "I now quite understand Bentham's silence.") I am so glad to hear about Thwaites. (Dr. G.J.K. Thwaites, who was born in 1811, established a reputation in this country as an expert microscopist, and an acute observer, working especially at cryptogamic botany. On his appointment as Director of the Botanic Gardens at Peradenyia, Ceylon, Dr. Thwaites devoted himself to the flora of Ceylon. As a result of this he has left numerous and valuable collections, a description of which he embodied in his 'Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae' (1864). Dr. Thwaites was a fellow of the Linnean Society, but beyond the above facts little seems to have been recorded of his life. His death occurred in Ceylon on September 11th, 1882, in his seventy-second year. "Athenaeum", October 14th, 1882, page 500.)... I have had an astounding letter from Dr. Boott (The letter is enthusiastically laudatory, and obviously full of genuine feeling.); it might be turned into ridicule against him and me, so I will not send it to any one. He writes in a noble spirit of love of truth. I wonder what Lindley thinks; probably too busy to read or think on the question. I am vexed about Bentham's reticence, for it would have been of real value to know what parts appeared weakest to a man of his powers of observation. Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Is not Harvey in the class of men who do not at all care for generalities? I remember your saying you could not get him to write on Distribution. I have found his works very unfruitful in every respect. [Here follows the memorandum referred to:] Geologists. Zoologists and Physiologists. Botanists. Palaeontologists. Lyell. Huxley. Carpenter. Hooker. Ramsay.* J. Lubbock. Sir H. Holland H.C. Watson. (to large extent). Jukes.* L. Jenyns Asa Gray (to large extent). (to some extent). H.D. Rogers. Searles Wood.* Dr. Boott (to large extent). Thwaites. (*Andrew Ramsay, late Director-General of the Geological Survey. Joseph Beete Jukes, M.A., F.R.S., 1811-1869. He was educated at Cambridge, and from 1842 to 1846 he acted as naturalist to H.M.S. "Fly", on an exploring expedition in Australia and New Guinea. He was afterwards appointed Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland. He was the author of many papers, and of more than one good hand-book of geology. Searles Valentine Wood, February 14, 1798-1880. Chiefly known for his work on the Mollusca of the 'Crag.') [The following letter is of interest in connection with the mention of Mr. Bentham in the last letter:] G. BENTHAM TO FRANCIS DARWIN. 25 Wilton Place, S.W., May 30th, 1882. My dear Sir, In compliance with your note which I received last night, I send herewith the letters I have from your father. I should have done so on seeing the general request published in the papers, but that I did not think there were any among them which could be of any use to you. Highly flattered as I was by the kind and friendly notice with which Mr. Darwin occasionally honoured me, I was never admitted into his intimacy, and he therefore never made any communications to me in relation to his views and labours. I have been throughout one of his most sincere admirers, and fully adopted his theories and conclusions, notwithstanding the severe pain and disappointment they at first occasioned me. On the day that his celebrated paper was read at the Linnean Society, July 1st, 1858, a long paper of mine had been set down for reading, in which, in commenting on the British Flora, I had collected a number of observations and facts illustrating what I then believed to be a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to assign their limits, and showing a tendency of abnormal forms produced by cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those original limits when left to themselves. Most fortunately my paper had to give way to Mr. Darwin's and when once that was read, I felt bound to defer mine for reconsideration; I began to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the appearance of the 'Origin of Species,' I was forced, however reluctantly, to give up my long-cherished convictions, the results of much labour and study, and I cancelled all that part of my paper which urged original fixity, and published only portions of the remainder in another form, chiefly in the 'Natural History Review.' I have since acknowledged on various occasions my full adoption of Mr. Darwin's views, and chiefly in my Presidential Address of 1863, and in my thirteenth and last address, issued in the form of a report to the British Association at its meeting at Belfast in 1874. I prize so highly the letters that I have of Mr. Darwin's, that I should feel obliged by your returning them to me when you have done with them. Unfortunately I have not kept the envelopes, and Mr. Darwin usually only dated them by the month not by the year, so that they are not in any chronological order. Yours very sincerely, GEORGE BENTHAM. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [March] 12th [1860]. My dear Lyell, Thinking over what we talked about, the high state of intellectual development of the old Grecians with the little or no subsequent improvement, being an apparent difficulty, it has just occurred to me that in fact the case harmonises perfectly with our views. The case would be a decided difficulty on the Lamarckian or Vestigian doctrine of necessary progression, but on the view which I hold of progression depending on the conditions, it is no objection at all, and harmonises with the other facts of progression in the corporeal structure of other animals. For in a state of anarchy, or despotism, or bad government, or after irruption of barbarians, force, strength, or ferocity, and not intellect, would be apt to gain the day. We have so enjoyed your and Lady Lyell's visit. Good-night. C. DARWIN. P.S.--By an odd chance (for I had not alluded even to the subject) the ladies attacked me this evening, and threw the high state of old Grecians into my teeth, as an unanswerable difficulty, but by good chance I had my answer all pat, and silenced them. Hence I have thought it worth scribbling to you... CHARLES DARWIN TO J. PRESTWICH. (Now Professor of Geology in the University of Oxford.) Down, March 12th [1860]. ... At some future time, when you have a little leisure, and when you have read my 'Origin of Species,' I should esteem it a SINGULAR favour if you would send me any general criticisms. I do not mean of unreasonable length, but such as you could include in a letter. I have always admired your various memoirs so much that I should be eminently glad to receive your opinion, which might be of real service to me. Pray do not suppose that I expect to CONVERT or PERVERT you; if I could stagger you in ever so slight a degree I should be satisfied; nor fear to annoy me by severe criticisms, for I have had some hearty kicks from some of my best friends. If it would not be disagreeable to you to send me your opinion, I certainly should be truly obliged... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 3rd [1860]. ... I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!... You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedgwick (as I and Lyell feel CERTAIN from internal evidence) has reviewed me savagely and unfairly in the "Spectator". (See the quotations which follow the present letter.) The notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps between successive geological formations, instead of its being an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old friend Sedgwick, with his noble heart, is old, and is rabid with indignation. It is hard to please every one; you may remember that in my last letter I asked you to leave out about the Weald denudation: I told Jukes this (who is head man of the Irish geological survey), and he blamed me much, for he believed every word of it, and thought it not at all exaggerated! In fact, geologists have no means of gauging the infinitude of past time. There has been one prodigy of a review, namely, an OPPOSED one (by Pictet (Francois Jules Pictet, in the 'Archives des Sciences de la Bibliotheque Universelle,' Mars 1860. The article is written in a courteous and considerate tone, and concludes by saying that the 'Origin' will be of real value to naturalists, especially if they are not led away by its seductive arguments to believe in the dangerous doctrine of modification. A passage which seems to have struck my father as being valuable, and opposite which he has made double pencil marks and written the word "good," is worth quoting: "La theorie de M. Darwin s'accorde mal avec l'histoire des types a formes bien tranchees et definies qui paraissent n'avoir vecu que pendant un temps limite. On en pourrait citer des centaines d'exemples, tel que les reptiles volants, les ichthyosaures, les belemnites, les ammonites, etc." Pictet was born in 1809, died 1872; he was Professor of Anatomy and Zoology at Geneva.), the palaeontologist, in the Bib. Universelle of Geneva) which is PERFECTLY fair and just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference being that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour, and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the opposed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never expected to see one. Please observe that I do not class your review by any means as opposed, though you think so yourself! It has done me MUCH too good service ever to appear in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with so much about my book. I should rather think there was a good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all Europe! What a proud pre-eminence! Well, you have helped to make me so and therefore you must forgive me if you can. My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully, C. DARWIN. [In a letter to Sir Charles Lyell reference is made to Sedgwick's review in the "Spectator", March 24: "I now feel certain that Sedgwick is the author of the article in the "Spectator". No one else could use such abusive terms. And what a misrepresentation of my notions! Any ignoramus would suppose that I had FIRST broached the doctrine, that the breaks between successive formations marked long intervals of time. It is very unfair. But poor dear old Sedgwick seems rabid on the question. "Demoralised understanding!" If ever I talk with him I will tell him that I never could believe that an inquisitor could be a good man: but now I know that a man may roast another, and yet have as kind and noble a heart as Sedgwick's." The following passages are taken from the review: "I need hardly go on any further with these objections. But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism;--because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth;--because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates." "Not that I believe that Darwin is an atheist; though I cannot but regard his materialism as atheistical. I think it untrue, because opposed to the obvious course of nature, and the very opposite of inductive truth. And I think it intensely mischievous." "Each series of facts is laced together by a series of assumptions, and repetitions of the one false principle. You cannot make a good rope out of a string of air bubbles." "But any startling and (supposed) novel paradox, maintained very boldly and with something of imposing plausibility, produces in some minds a kind of pleasing excitement which predisposes them in its favour; and if they are unused to careful reflection, and averse to the labour of accurate investigation, they will be likely to conclude that what is (apparently) ORIGINAL, must be a production of original GENIUS, and that anything very much opposed to prevailing notions must be a grand DISCOVERY,--in short, that whatever comes from the 'bottom of a well' must be the 'truth' supposed to be hidden there." In a review in the December number of 'Macmillan's Magazine,' 1860, Fawcett vigorously defended my father from the charge of employing a false method of reasoning; a charge which occurs in Sedgwick's review, and was made at the time ad nauseam, in such phrases as: "This is not the true Baconian method." Fawcett repeated his defence at the meeting of the British Association in 1861. (See an interesting letter from my father in Mr. Stephen's 'Life of Henry Fawcett,' 1886, page 101.)] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B CARPENTER. Down, April 6th [1860]. My dear Carpenter, I have this minute finished your review in the 'Med. Chirurg. Review.' (April 1860.) You must let me express my admiration at this most able essay, and I hope to God it will be largely read, for it must produce a great effect. I ought not, however, to express such warm admiration, for you give my book, I fear, far too much praise. But you have gratified me extremely; and though I hope I do not care very much for the approbation of the non-scientific readers, I cannot say that this is at all so with respect to such few men as yourself. I have not a criticism to make, for I object to not a word; and I admire all, so that I cannot pick out one part as better than the rest. It is all so well balanced. But it is impossible not to be struck with your extent of knowledge in geology, botany, and zoology. The extracts which you give from Hooker seem to me EXCELLENTLY chosen, and most forcible. I am so much pleased in what you say also about Lyell. In fact I am in a fit of enthusiasm, and had better write no more. With cordial thanks, Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 10th [1860]. My dear Lyell, Thank you much for your note of the 4th; I am very glad to hear that you are at Torquay. I should have amused myself earlier by writing to you, but I have had Hooker and Huxley staying here, and they have fully occupied my time, as a little of anything is a full dose for me... There has been a plethora of reviews, and I am really quite sick of myself. There is a very long review by Carpenter in the 'Medical and Chirurg. Review,' very good and well balanced, but not brilliant. He discusses Hooker's books at as great length as mine, and makes excellent extracts; but I could not get Hooker to feel the least interest in being praised. Carpenter speaks of you in thoroughly proper terms. There is a BRILLIANT review by Huxley ('Westminster Review,' April 1860.), with capital hits, but I do not know that he much advances the subject. I THINK I have convinced him that he has hardly allowed weight enough to the case of varieties of plants being in some degrees sterile. To diverge from reviews: Asa Gray sends me from Wyman (who will write), a good case of all the pigs being black in the Everglades of Virginia. On asking about the cause, it seems (I have got capital analogous cases) that when the BLACK pigs eat a certain nut their bones become red, and they suffer to a certain extent, but that the WHITE pigs lose their hoofs and perish, "and we aid by SELECTION, for we kill most of the young white pigs." This was said by men who could hardly read. By the way, it is a great blow to me that you cannot admit the potency of natural selection. The more I think of it, the less I doubt its power for great and small changes. I have just read the 'Edinburgh' ('Edinburgh Review,' April 1860.), which without doubt is by --. It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley's lecture, and very bitter against Hooker. So we three ENJOYED it together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me uncomfortable for one night; but I have got quite over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents many parts. He misquotes some passages, altering words within inverted commas... It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which -- hates me. Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have done. In last Saturday's "Gardeners' Chronicle" (April 7th, 1860.), a Mr. Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few passages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on Naval Timber. I heartily hope that your Torquay work may be successful. Give my kindest remembrances to Falconer, and I hope he is pretty well. Hooker and Huxley (with Mrs. Huxley) were extremely pleasant. But poor dear Hooker is tired to death of my book, and it is a marvel and a prodigy if you are not worse tired--if that be possible. Farewell, my dear Lyell, Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April 13th, 1860]. My dear Hooker, Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if you would read the enclosed. ((My father wrote ("Gardeners' Chronicle", 1860, page 362, April 21st): "I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the number of your paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of this publication. If any other edition of my work is called for, I will insert to the foregoing effect." In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."--"Saturday Analyst and Leader", November 24, 1860.) If you think it proper that I should send it (and of this there can hardly be any question), and if you think it full and ample enough, please alter the date to the day on which you post it, and let that be soon. The case in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" seems a LITTLE stronger than in Mr. Matthew's book, for the passages are therein scattered in three places; but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that. If you object to my letter, please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much for science to my friends. Many thanks for Huxley's lecture. The latter part seemed to be grandly eloquent. ... I have gone over [the 'Edinburgh'] review again, and compared passages, and I am astonished at the misrepresentations. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has been thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care about the gratuitous attack on you. Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember how many and many a man has done this--who thought it absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April [1860]. My dear Lyell, I was very glad to get your nice long letter from Torquay. A press of letters prevented me writing to Wells. I was particularly glad to hear what you thought about not noticing [the 'Edinburgh'] review. Hooker and Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark; but I so hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come up to London on Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will (if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before ten on Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but will not sit long, and so take up much of your time. I must say one more word about our quasi-theological controversy about natural selection, and let me have your opinion when we meet in London. Do you consider that the successive variations in the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has accumulated to please his caprice, have been due to "the creative and sustaining powers of Brahma?" In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universe should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man's silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an interposition of the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason whatever for believing in such interpositions in the case of natural beings, in which strange and admirable peculiarities have been naturally selected for the creature's own benefit. Imagine a Pouter in a state of nature wading into the water and then, being buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about in search of food. What admiration this would have excited--adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic pressure, etc. etc. For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, IF SUCH STRUCTURE CAN BE ARRIVED AT BY GRADATION, and I know from experience how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations are not known. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told Asa Gray, is that such a question, as is touched on in this note, is beyond the human intellect, like "predestination and free will," or the "origin of evil." CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April 18th, 1860]. My dear Hooker, I return --'s letter... Some of my relations say it cannot POSSIBLY be --'s article (The 'Edinburgh Review.'), because the reviewer speaks so very highly of --. Poor dear simple folk! My clever neighbour, Mr. Norman, says the article is so badly written, with no definite object, that no one will read it. Asa Gray has sent me an article ('North American Review,' April, 1860. "By Professor Bowen," is written on my father's copy. The passage referred to occurs at page 488, where the author says that we ought to find "an infinite number of other varieties--gross, rude, and purposeless--the unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause.") from the United States, clever, and dead against me. But one argument is funny. The reviewer says, that if the doctrine were true, geological strata would be full of monsters which have failed! A very clear view this writer had of the struggle for existence! ... I am glad you like Adam Bede so much. I was charmed with it... We think you must by mistake have taken with your own numbers of the 'National Review' my precious number. (This no doubt refers to the January number, containing Dr. Carpenter's review of the 'Origin.') I wish you would look. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 25th [1860]. My dear Gray, I have no doubt I have to thank you for the copy of a review on the 'Origin' in the 'North American Review.' It seems to me clever, and I do not doubt will damage my book. I had meant to have made some remarks on it; but Lyell wished much to keep it, and my head is quite confused between the many reviews which I have lately read. I am sure the reviewer is wrong about bees' cells, i.e. about the distance; any lesser distance would do, or even greater distance, but then some of the places would lie outside the generative spheres; but this would not add much difficulty to the work. The reviewer takes a strange view of instinct: he seems to regard intelligence as a developed instinct; which I believe to be wholly false. I suspect he has never much attended to instinct and the minds of animals, except perhaps by reading. My chief object is to ask you if you could procure for me a copy of the "New York Times" for Wednesday, March 28th. It contains A VERY STRIKING review of my book, which I should much like to keep. How curious that the two most striking reviews (i.e. yours and this) should have appeared in America. This review is not really useful, but somehow is impressive. There was a good review in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes,' April 1st, by M. Laugel, said to be a very clever man. Hooker, about a fortnight ago, stayed here a few days, and was very pleasant; but I think he overworks himself. What a gigantic undertaking, I imagine, his and Bentham's 'Genera Plantarum' will be! I hope he will not get too much immersed in it, so as not to spare some time for Geographical Distribution and other such questions. I have begun to work steadily, but very slowly as usual, at details on variation under domestication. My dear Gray, Yours always truly and gratefully, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [May 8th, 1860]. ... I have sent for the 'Canadian Naturalist.' If I cannot procure a copy I will borrow yours. I had a letter from Henslow this morning, who says that Sedgwick was, on last Monday night, to open a battery on me at the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Anyhow, I am much honoured by being attacked there, and at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I do not think it worth while to contradict single cases nor is it worth while arguing against those who do not attend to what I state. A moment's reflection will show you that there must be (on our doctrine) large genera not varying (see page 56 on the subject, in the second edition of the 'Origin'). Though I do not there discuss the case in detail. It may be sheer bigotry for my own notions, but I prefer to the Atlantis, my notion of plants and animals having migrated from the Old to the New World, or conversely, when the climate was much hotter, by approximately the line of Behring's Straits. It is most important, as you say, to see living forms of plants going back so far in time. I wonder whether we shall ever discover the flora of the dry land of the coal period, and find it not so anomalous as the swamp or coal-making flora. I am working away over the blessed Pigeon Manuscript; but, from one cause or another, I get on very slowly... This morning I got a letter from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, announcing that I am elected a correspondent... It shows that some Naturalists there do not think me such a scientific profligate as many think me here. My dear Lyell, yours gratefully, C. DARWIN. P.S.--What a grand fact about the extinct stag's horn worked by man! CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 13th, 1860]. My dear Hooker, I return Henslow, which I was very glad to see. How good of him to defend me. (Against Sedgwick's attack before the Cambridge Philosophical Society.) I will write and thank him. As you said you were curious to hear Thomson's (Dr. Thomas Thomson the Indian Botanist. He was a collaborateur in Hooker and Thomson's Flora Indica. 1855.) opinion, I send his kind letter. He is evidently a strong opposer to us... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 15th, 1860]. ... How paltry it is in such men as X, Y and Co. not reading your essay. It is incredibly paltry. (These remarks do not apply to Dr. Harvey, who was, however, in a somewhat similar position. See below.) They may all attack me to their hearts' content. I am got case-hardened. As for the old fogies in Cambridge, it really signifies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work is worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight. But think of Lyell's progress with Geology. One thing I see most plainly, that without Lyell's, yours, Huxley's and Carpenter's aid, my book would have been a mere flash in the pan. But if we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now see that the battle is worth fighting. I deeply hope that you think so. Does Bentham progress at all? I do not know what to say about Oxford. (His health prevented him from going to Oxford for the meeting of the British Association.) I should like it much with you, but it must depend on health... Yours must affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, May 18th [1860]. My dear Lyell, I send a letter from Asa Gray to show how hotly the battle rages there. Also one from Wallace, very just in his remarks, though too laudatory and too modest, and how admirably free from envy or jealousy. He must be a good fellow. Perhaps I will enclose a letter from Thomson of Calcutta; not that it is much, but Hooker thinks so highly of him... Henslow informs me that Sedgwick (Sedgwick's address is given somewhat abbreviated in "The Cambridge Chronicle", May 19th, 1860.) and then Professor Clarke [sic] (The late William Clark, Professor of Anatomy, my father seems to have misunderstood his informant. I am assured by Mr. J.W. Clark that his father (Prof. Clark) did not support Sedgwick in the attack.) made a regular and savage onslaught on my book lately at the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but Henslow seems to have defended me well, and maintained that the subject was a legitimate one for investigation. Since then Phillips (John Phillips, M.A., F.R.S., born 1800, died 1874, from the effects of a fall. Professor of Geology at King's College, London, and afterwards at Oxford. He gave the 'Rede' lecture at Cambridge on May 15th, 1860, on 'The Succession of Life on the earth.' The Rede Lecturer is appointed annually by the Vice-Chancellor, and is paid by an endowment left in 1524 by Sir Robert Rede, Lord Chief Justice, in the reign of Henry VIII.) has given lectures at Cambridge on the same subject, but treated it very fairly. How splendidly Asa Gray is fighting the battle. The effect on me of these multiplied attacks is simply to show me that the subject is worth fighting for, and assuredly I will do my best... I hope all the attacks make you keep up your courage, and courage you assuredly will require... CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 18th, 1860. My dear Mr. Wallace, I received this morning your letter from Amboyna, dated February 16th, containing some remarks and your too high approval of my book. Your letter has pleased me very much, and I most completely agree with you on the parts which are strongest and which are weakest. The imperfection of the Geological Record is, as you say, the weakest of all; but yet I am pleased to find that there are almost more geological converts than of pursuers of other branches of natural science... I think geologists are more easily converted than simple naturalists, because more accustomed to reasoning. Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the subject, you must let me say how I admire the generous manner in which you speak of my book. Most persons would in your position have felt some envy or jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself. You would, if you had my leisure, have done the work just as well, perhaps better, than I have done it... ... Agassiz sends me a personal civil message, but incessantly attacks me; but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a tower, and this Autumn will publish on the 'Geological History of Man,' and will then declare his conversion, which now is universally known. I hope that you have received Hooker's splendid essay... Yesterday I heard from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaaffhausen (Hermann Schaaffhausen 'Ueber Bestandigkeit und Umwandlung der Arten.' Verhandl. d. Naturhist. Vereins, Bonn, 1853. See 'Origin,' Historical Sketch.), has sent him a pamphlet published some years ago, in which the same view is nearly anticipated; but I have not yet seen this pamphlet. My brother, who is a very sagacious man, always said, "you will find that some one will have been before you." I am at work at my larger work, which I shall publish in a separate volume. But from ill-health and swarms of letters, I get on very very slowly. I hope that I shall not have wearied you with these details. With sincere thanks for your letter, and with most deeply felt wishes for your success in science, and in every way, believe me, Your sincere well-wisher, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 22nd 1860. My dear Gray, Again I have to thank you for one of your very pleasant letters of May 7th, enclosing a very pleasant remittance of 22 pounds. I am in simple truth astonished at all the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appleton's account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknowledgment I send one. If you have any further communication to the Appletons, pray express my acknowledgment for [their] generosity; for it is generosity in my opinion. I am not at all surprised at the sale diminishing; my extreme surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public has been SHAMEFULLY imposed on! for they bought the book thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you will notice in 'Silliman' the additions in the 'Origin.' Judging from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can now be SIMPLE organisms still existing... I hear there is a VERY severe review on me in the 'North British,' by a Rev. Mr. Dunns (This statement as to authorship was made on the authority of Robert Chambers.), a Free Kirk minister, and dabbler in Natural History. I should be very glad to see any good American reviews, as they are all more or less useful. You say that you shall touch on other reviews. Huxley told me some time ago that after a time he would write a review on all the reviews, whether he will I know not. If you allude to the 'Edinburgh,' pray notice SOME of the points which I will point out on a separate slip. In the "Saturday Review" (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, page 573, there is a nice article on [the 'Edinburgh'] review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker; and the latter, I think, [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] treats most ungenerously. (In a letter to Mr. Huxley my father wrote: "Have you seen the last "Saturday Review"? I am very glad of the defence of you and of myself. I wish the reviewer had noticed Hooker. The reviewer, whoever he is, is a jolly good fellow, as this review and the last on me showed. He writes capitally, and understands well his subject. I wish he had slapped [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] a little bit harder.") But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my reviewers. With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, CHARLES DARWIN. {Here follow my father's criticisms on the 'Edinburgh Review'}: "What a quibble to pretend he did not understand what I meant by INHABITANTS of South America; and any one would suppose that I had not throughout my volume touched on Geographical Distribution. He ignores also everything which I have said on Classification, Geological Succession, Homologies, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs--page 496. He falsely applies what I said (too rudely) about "blindness of preconceived opinions" to those who believe in creation, whereas I exclusively apply the remark to those who give up multitudes of species as true species, but believe in the remainder--page 500. He slightly alters what I say,--I ASK whether creationists really believe that elemental atoms have flashed into life. He says that I describe them as so believing, and this, surely, is a difference--page 501. He speaks of my "clamouring against" all who believe in creation, and this seems to me an unjust accusation--page 501. He makes me say that the dorsal vertebrae vary; this is simply false: I nowhere say a word about dorsal vertebrae--page 522. What an illiberal sentence that is about my pretension to candour, and about my rushing through barriers which stopped Cuvier: such an argument would stop any progress in science--page 525. How disingenuous to quote from my remark to you about my BRIEF letter [published in the 'Linn. Soc. Journal'], as if it applied to the whole subject--page 530. How disingenuous to say that we are called on to accept the theory, from the imperfection of the geological record, when I over and over again [say] how grave a difficulty the imperfection offers--page 530."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 30th [1860]. My dear Hooker, I return Harvey's letter, I have been very glad to see the reason why he has not read your Essay. I feared it was bigotry, and I am glad to see that he goes a little way (VERY MUCH further than I supposed) with us... I was not sorry for a natural opportunity of writing to Harvey, just to show that I was not piqued at his turning me and my book into ridicule (A "serio-comic squib," read before the 'Dublin University Zoological and Botanical Association,' February 17, 1860, and privately printed. My father's presentation copy is inscribed "With the writer's REPENTANCE, October 1860."), not that I think it was a proceeding which I deserved, or worthy of him. It delights me that you are interested in watching the progress of opinion on the change of Species; I feared that you were weary of the subject; and therefore did not send A. Gray's letters. The battle rages furiously in the United States. Gray says he was preparing a speech, which would take 1 1/2 hours to deliver, and which he "fondly hoped would be a stunner." He is fighting splendidly, and there seems to have been many discussions with Agassiz and others at the meetings. Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded. As for the progress of opinion, I clearly see that it will be excessively slow, almost as slow as the change of species... I am getting wearied at the storm of hostile reviews and hardly any useful... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Friday night [June 1st, 1860]. ... Have you seen Hopkins (William Hopkins died in 1866, "in his sevent-third year." He began life with a farm in Suffolk, but ultimately entered, comparatively late in life, at Peterhouse, Cambridge; he took his degree in 1827, and afterward became an Esquire Bedell of the University. He was chiefly known as a mathematical "coach," and was eminently successful in the manufacture of Senior Wranglers. Nevertheless Mr. Stephen says ('Life of Fawcett,' page 26) that he "was conspicuous for inculcating" a "liberal view of the studies of the place. He endeavoured to stimulate a philosophical interest in the mathematical sciences, instead of simply rousing an ardour for competition." He contributed many papers on geological and mathematical subjects to the scientific journals. He had a strong influence for good over the younger men with whom he came in contact. The letter which he wrote to Henry Fawcett on the occasion of his blindness illustrates this. Mr. Stephen says ('Life of Fawcett,' page 48) that by "this timely word of good cheer," Fawcett was roused from "his temporary prostration," and enabled to take a "more cheerful and resolute tone.") in the new 'Fraser'? the public will, I should think, find it heavy. He will be dead against me, as you prophesied; but he is generally civil to me personally. ('Fraser's Magazine,' June 1860. My father, no doubt, refers to the following passage, page 752, where the Reviewer Expresses his "full participation in the high respect in which the author is universally held, both as a man and a naturalist; and the more so, because in the remarks which will follow in the second part of this Essay we shall be found to differ widely from him as regards many of his conclusions and the reasonings on which he has founded them, and shall claim the full right to express such differences of opinion with all that freedom which the interests of scientific truth demands, and which we are sure Mr. Darwin would be one of the last to refuse to any one prepared to exercise it with candour and courtesy." Speaking of this review, my father wrote to Dr. Asa Gray: "I have remonstrated with him [Hopkins] for so coolly saying that I base my views on what I reckon as great difficulties. Any one, by taking these difficulties alone, can make a most strong case against me. I could myself write a more damning review than has as yet appeared!" A second notice by Hopkins appeared in the July number of 'Fraser's Magazine.') On his standard of proof, NATURAL science would never progress, for without the making of theories I am convinced there would be no observation. ... I have begun reading the 'North British' (May 1860.), which so far strikes me as clever. Phillips's Lecture at Cambridge is to be published. All these reiterated attacks will tell heavily; there will be no more converts, and probably some will go back. I hope you do not grow disheartened, I am determined to fight to the last. I hear, however, that the great Buckle highly approves of my book. I have had a note from poor Blyth (Edward Blyth, 1810-1873. His indomitable love of natural history made him neglect the druggist's business with which he started in life, and he soon got into serious difficulties. After supporting himself for a few years as a writer on Field Natural History, he ultimately went out to India as Curator of the Museum of the R. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, where the greater part of his working life was spent. His chief publications were the monthly reports made as part of his duty to the Society. He had stored in his remarkable memory a wonderful wealth of knowledge, especially with regard to the mammalia and birds of India--knowledge of which he freely gave to those who asked. His letters to my father give evidence of having been carefully studied, and the long list of entries after his name in the index to 'Animals and Plants,' show how much help was received from him. His life was an unprosperous and unhappy one, full of money difficulties and darkened by the death of his wife after a few years of marriage.), of Calcutta, who is much disappointed at hearing that Lord Canning will not grant any money; so I much fear that all your great pains will be thrown away. Blyth says (and he is in many respects a very good judge) that his ideas on species are quite revolutionised... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 5th [1860]. My dear Hooker, It is a pleasure to me to write to you, as I have no one to talk about such matters as we write on. But I seriously beg you not to write to me unless so inclined; for busy as you are, and seeing many people, the case is very different between us... Have you seen --'s abusive article on me?... It out does even the 'North British' and 'Edinburgh' in misapprehension and misrepresentation. I never knew anything so unfair as in discussing cells of bees, his ignoring the case of Melipona, which builds combs almost exactly intermediate between hive and humble bees. What has -- done that he feels so immeasurably superior to all us wretched naturalists, and to all political economists, including that great philosopher Malthus? This review, however, and Harvey's letter have convinced me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither really understand what I mean by Natural Selection. I am inclined to give up the attempt as hopeless. Those who do not understand, it seems, cannot be made to understand. By the way, I think, we entirely agree, except perhaps that I use too forcible language about selection. I entirely agree, indeed would almost go further than you when you say that climate (i.e. variability from all unknown causes) is "an active handmaid, influencing its mistress most materially." Indeed, I have never hinted that Natural Selection is "the efficient cause to the exclusion of the other," i.e. variability from Climate, etc. The very term SELECTION implies something, i.e. variation or difference, to be selected... How does your book progress (I mean your general sort of book on plants), I hope to God you will be more successful than I have been in making people understand your meaning. I should begin to think myself wholly in the wrong, and that I was an utter fool, but then I cannot yet persuade myself, that Lyell, and you and Huxley, Carpenter, Asa Gray, and Watson, etc., are all fools together. Well, time will show, and nothing but time. Farewell... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 6th [1860]. ... It consoles me that -- sneers at Malthus, for that clearly shows, mathematician though he may be, he cannot understand common reasoning. By the way what a discouraging example Malthus is, to show during what long years the plainest case may be misrepresented and misunderstood. I have read the 'Future'; how curious it is that several of my reviewers should advance such wild arguments, as that varieties of dogs and cats do not mingle; and should bring up the old exploded doctrine of definite analogies... I am beginning to despair of ever making the majority understand my notions. Even Hopkins does not thoroughly. By the way, I have been so much pleased by the way he personally alludes to me. I must be a very bad explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will succeed better. Several reviews and several letters have shown me too clearly how little I am understood. I suppose "natural selection" was a bad term; but to change it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I think of a better; "Natural Preservation" would not imply a preservation of particular varieties, and would seem a truism, and would not bring man's and nature's selection under one point of view. I can only hope by reiterated explanations finally to make the matter clearer. If my MS. spreads out, I think I shall publish one volume exclusively on variation of animals and plants under domestication. I want to show that I have not been quite so rash as many suppose. Though weary of reviews, I should like to see Lowell's (The late J.A. Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner' (Boston, U.S., May, 1860.) some time... I suppose Lowell's difficulty about instinct is the same as Bowen's; but it seems to me wholly to rest on the assumption that instincts cannot graduate as finely as structures. I have stated in my volume that it is hardly possible to know which, i.e. whether instinct or structure, change first by insensible steps. Probably sometimes instinct, sometimes structure. When a British insect feeds on an exotic plant, instinct has changed by very small steps, and their structures might change so as to fully profit by the new food. Or structure might change first, as the direction of tusks in one variety of Indian elephants, which leads it to attack the tiger in a different manner from other kinds of elephants. Thanks for your letter of the 2nd, chiefly about Murray. (N.B. Harvey of Dublin gives me, in a letter, the argument of tall men marrying short women, as one of great weight!) I do not quite understand what you mean by saying, "that the more they prove that you underrate physical conditions, the better for you, as Geology comes in to your aid." ... I see in Murray and many others one incessant fallacy, when alluding to slight differences of physical conditions as being very important; namely, oblivion of the fact that all species, except very local ones, range over a considerable area, and though exposed to what the world calls considerable DIVERSITIES, yet keep constant. I have just alluded to this in the 'Origin' in comparing the productions of the Old and the New Worlds. Farewell, shall you be at Oxford? If H. gets quite well, perhaps I shall go there. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [June 14th, 1860]. ... Lowell's review (J.A. Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner,' May 1860.) is pleasantly written, but it is clear that he is not a naturalist. He quite overlooks the importance of the accumulation of mere individual differences, and which, I think I can show, is the great agency of change under domestication. I have not finished Schaaffhausen, as I read German so badly. I have ordered a copy for myself, and should like to keep yours till my own arrives, but will return it to you instantly if wanted. He admits statements rather rashly, as I dare say I do. I see only one sentence as yet at all approaching natural selection. There is a notice of me in the penultimate number of 'All the Year Round,' but not worth consulting; chiefly a well-done hash of my own words. Your last note was very interesting and consolatory to me. I have expressly stated that I believe physical conditions have a more direct effect on plants than on animals. But the more I study, the more I am led to think that natural selection regulates, in a state of nature, most trifling differences. As squared stone, or bricks, or timber, are the indispensable materials for a building, and influence its character, so is variability not only indispensable, but influential. Yet in the same manner as the architect is the ALL important person in a building, so is selection with organic bodies... [The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is famous for two pitched battles over the 'Origin of Species.' Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication to Section D: "On the final causes of the sexuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the 'Origin of Species.'" Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but tried (according to the "Athenaeum" report) to avoid a discussion, on the ground "that a general audience, in which sentiment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public before which such a discussion should be carried on." However, the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the "Athenaeum", July 7, 1860), who "wished to approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher," expressed his "conviction that there were facts by which the public could come to some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to say that the brain of the gorilla "presented more differences, as compared with the brain of man, than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and most problematical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these assertions a "direct and unqualified contradiction," pledging himself to "justify that unusual procedure elsewhere" ('Man's Place in Nature,' by T.H. Huxley, 1863, page 114.), a pledge which he amply fulfilled. (See the 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861.) On Friday there was peace, but on Saturday 30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York, on the 'Intellectual development of Europe considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.' The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene. "The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had been arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum, which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered the lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the bold Bishop. Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied the chair and wisely announced in limine that none who had not valid arguments to bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to address the meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their indulgence in vague declamation. "The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was evident from his handling of the subject that he had been 'crammed' up to the throat, and that he knew nothing at first hand; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his 'Quarterly' article. He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner, and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined to blame the President for allowing a discussion that could serve no scientific purpose now forgave him from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately the Bishop, hurried along on the current of his own eloquence, so far forgot himself as to push his attempted advantage to the verge of personality in a telling passage in which he turned round and addressed Huxley: I forgot the precise words, and quote from Lyell. 'The Bishop asked whether Huxley was related by his grandfather's or grandmother's side to an ape.' (Lyell's 'Letters,' vol. ii. page 335.) Huxley replied to the scientific argument of his opponent with force and eloquence, and to the personal allusion with a sel-restraint, that gave dignity to his crushing rejoinder." Many versions of Mr. Huxley's speech were current: the following report of his conclusion is from a letter addressed by the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins. "I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an equivocal (Prof. V. Carus, who has a distinct recollection of the scene, does not remember the word equivocal. He believes too that Lyell's version of the "ape" sentence is slightly incorrect.) success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." The letter above quoted continues: "The excitement was now at its height; a lady fainted and had to be carried out, and it was some time before the discussion was resumed. Some voices called for Hooker, and his name having been handed up, the President invited him to give his view of the theory from the Botanical side. This he did, demonstrating that the Bishop, by his own showing, had never grasped the principles of the 'Origin' (With regard to the Bishop's 'Quarterly Review,' my father wrote: "These very clever men think they can write a review with a very slight knowledge of the book reviewed or subject in question."), and that he was absolutely ignorant of the elements of botanical science. The Bishop made no reply, and the meeting broke up. "There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the rooms of the hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr. Daubeny, where the almost sole topic was the battle of the 'Origin,' and I was much struck with the fair and unprejudiced way in which the black coats and white cravats of Oxford discussed the question, and the frankness with which they offered their congratulations to the winners in the combat.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Sudbrook Park, Monday night [July 2nd, 1860]. My dear Hooker, I have just received your letter. I have been very poorly, with almost continuous bad headache for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and thinking what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when your letter came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with affection; and this is a doctrine with which, I know, from your letter, that you will agree with from the bottom of your heart... How I should have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you, if I had been well enough; and how still more I should have liked to have heard you triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished at your success and audacity. It is something unintelligible to me how any one can argue in public like orators do. I had no idea you had this power. I have read lately so many hostile views, that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that -- was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-run, prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should have been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, July 3rd [1860]. ... I had a letter from Oxford, written by Hooker late on Sunday night, giving me some account of the awful battles which have raged about species at Oxford. He tells me you fought nobly with Owen (but I have heard no particulars), and that you answered the B. of O. capitally. I often think that my friends (and you far beyond others) have good cause to hate me, for having stirred up so much mud, and led them into so much odious trouble. If I had been a friend of myself, I should have hated me. (How to make that sentence good English, I know not.) But remember, if I had not stirred up the mud, some one else certainly soon would. I honour your pluck; I would as soon have died as tried to answer the Bishop in such an assembly... [On July 20th, my father wrote to Mr. Huxley: "From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the subject great good. It is of enormous importance, the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [July 1860]. ... I have just read the 'Quarterly.' ('Quarterly Review,' July 1860. The article in question was by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and was afterwards published in his "Essays Contributed to the 'Quarterly Review,' 1874." The passage from the 'Anti-Jacobin' gives the history of the evolution of space from the "primaeval point or punctum saliens of the universe," which is conceived to have moved "forward in a right line ad infinitum, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which it had generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral direction, describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon as it became conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or descend according as its specific gravity would determine it, forming an immense solid space filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the present universe." The following (page 263) may serve as an example of the passages in which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell:--"That Mr. Darwin should have wandered from this broad highway of nature's works into the jungle of fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is mistaken in believing that he may count Sir C. Lyell as one of his converts. We know, indeed, that the strength of the temptations which he can bring to bear upon his geological brother... Yet no man has been more distinct and more logical in the denial of the transmutation of species than Sir C. Lyell, and that not in the infancy of his scientific life, but in its full vigour and maturity." The Bishop goes on to appeal to Lyell, in order that with his help "this flimsy speculation may be as completely put down as was what in spite of all denials we must venture to call its twin though less instructed brother, the 'Vestiges of Creation.'" With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father's old friend and neighbour, writes:--"Most men would have been annoyed by an article written with the Bishop's accustomed vigour, a mixture of argument and ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a postscript--'If you have not seen the last 'Quarterly,' do get it; the Bishop of Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.' By a curious coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the same house with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, 'I am very glad he takes it in that way, he is such a capital fellow.'") It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the 'Anti-Jacobin' versus my Grandfather. You are not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley; and I can plainly see, here and there, --'s hand. The concluding pages will make Lyell shake in his shoes. By Jove, if he sticks to us, he will be a real hero. Good-night. Your wel-quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate friend. C.D. I can see there has been some queer tampering with the Review, for a page has been cut out and reprinted. [Writing on July 22 to Dr. Asa Gray my father thus refers to Lyell's position:-- "Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think his conduct has been heroic on this subject."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd [1860]. My dear Gray, Owing to absence from home at water-cure and then having to move my sick girl to whence I am now writing, I have only lately read the discussion in Proc. American Acad. (April 10, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail "several of the positions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr. [J.A.] Lowell, Prof. Bowen and Prof. Agassiz." It was reprinted in the "Athenaeum", August 4, 1860.), and now I cannot resist expressing my sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than ANY ONE else the thorough master of the subject. I declare that you know my book as well as I do myself; and bring to the question new lines of illustration and argument in a manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy! I admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your article in Silliman's Journal. Every single word seems weighed carefully, and tells like a 32-pound shot. It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts on the variability of the American wild fruits. The "Athenaeum" has the largest circulation, and I have sent my copy to the editor with a request that he would republish the first discussion; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed the subject in so hostile a spirit... I shall be curious [to see] and will order the August number, as soon as I know that it contains your review of Reviews. My conclusion is that you have made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to have been a lawyer. ... Henslow (Professor Henslow was mentioned in the December number of 'Macmillan's Magazine' as being an adherent of Evolution. In consequence of this he published, in the February number of the following year, a letter defining his position. This he did by means of an extract from a letter addressed to him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blomefield) which "very nearly," as he says, expressed his views. Mr. Blomefield wrote, "I was not aware that you had become a convert to his (Darwin's) theory, and can hardly suppose you have accepted it as a whole, though, like myself, you may go to the length of imagining that many of the smaller groups, both of animals and plants, may at some remote period have had a common parentage. I do not with some say that the whole of his theory cannot be true--but that it is very far from proved; and I doubt its ever being possible to prove it.") and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from Hooker that he hears from Hochstetter that my views are making very considerable progress in Germany, and the good workers are discussing the question. Bronn at the end of his translation has a chapter of criticism, but it is such difficult German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins's review in 'Fraser' is thought the best which has appeared against us. I believe that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course of study has never led him to reflect much on such subjects as geographical distribution, classification, homologies, etc., so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of explanation. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [1860]. ... I had lots of pleasant letters about the British Association, and our side seems to have got on very well. There has been as much discussion on the other side of the Atlantic as on this. No one I think understands the whole case better than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He is a capital reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions to our "Athenaeum", and the editor says he will print it. The 'Quarterly' has been out some time. It contains no malice, which is wonderful... It makes me say many things which I do not say. At the end it quotes all your conclusions against Lamarck, and makes a solemn appeal to you to keep firm in the true faith. I fancy it will make you quake a little. -- has ingeniously primed the Bishop (with Murchison) against you as head of the uniformitarians. The only other review worth mentioning, which I can think of, is in the third No. of the 'London Review,' by some geologist, and favorable for a wonder. It is very ably done, and I should like much to know who is the author. I shall be very curious to hear on your return whether Bronn's German translation of the 'Origin' has drawn any attention to the subject. Huxley is eager about a 'Natural History Review,' which he and others are going to edit, and he has got so many first-rate assistants, that I really believe he will make it a first-rate production. I have been doing nothing, except a little botanical work as amusement. I shall hereafter be very anxious to hear how your tour has answered. I expect your book on the geological history of Man will, with a vengeance, be a bomb-shell. I hope it will not be very long delayed. Our kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell. This is not worth sending, but I have nothing better to say. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO F. WATKINS. (See Volume I.) Down, July 30th, [1860?]. My dear Watkins, Your note gave me real pleasure. Leading the retired life which I do, with bad health, I oftener think of old times than most men probably do; and your face now rises before me, with the pleasant old expression, as vividly as if I saw you. My book has been well abused, praised, and splendidly quizzed by the Bishop of Oxford; but from what I see of its influence on really good workers in science, I feel confident that, IN THE MAIN, I am on the right road. With respect to your question, I think the arguments are valid, showing that all animals have descended from four or five primordial forms; and that analogy and weak reasons go to show that all have descended from some single prototype. Farewell, my old friend. I look back to old Cambridge days with unalloyed pleasure. Believe me, yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. August 6th, 1860. My dear Darwin, I have to announce a new and great ally for you... Von Baer writes to me thus:--Et outre cela, je trouve que vous ecrivez encore des redactions. Vous avez ecrit sur l'ouvrage de M. Darwin une critique dont je n'ai trouve que des debris dans un journal allemand. J'ai oublie le nom terrible du journal anglais dans lequel se trouve votre recension. En tout cas aussi je ne peux pas trouver le journal ici. Comme je m'interesse beaucoup pour les idees de M. Darwin, sur lesquelles j'ai parle publiquement et sur lesquelles je ferai peut-etre imprimer quelque chose--vous m'obligeriez infiniment si vous pourriez me faire parvenir ce que vous avez ecrit sur ces idees. "J'ai enonce les memes idees sur la transformation des types ou origine d'especes que M. Darwin. (See Vol. I.) Mais c'est seulement sur la geographie zoologique que je m'appuie. Vous trouverez, dans le dernier chapitre du traite 'Ueber Papuas und Alfuren,' que j'en parle tres decidement sans savoir que M. Darwin s'occupait de cet objet." The treatise to which Von Baer refers he gave me when over here, but I have not been able to lay hands on it since this letter reached me two days ago. When I find it I will let you know what there is in it. Ever yours faithfully, T.H. HUXLEY. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, August 8 [1860]. My dear Huxley, Your note contained magnificent news, and thank you heartily for sending it me. Von Baer weighs down with a vengeance all the virulence of [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] and weak arguments of Agassiz. If you write to Von Baer, for heaven's sake tell him that we should think one nod of approbation on our side, of the greatest value; and if he does write anything, beg him to send us a copy, for I would try and get it translated and published in the "Athenaeum" and in 'Silliman' to touch up Agassiz... Have you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical and theological attack on the 'Origin' in the last 'Silliman'? (The 'American Journal of Science and Arts' (commonly called 'Silliman's Journal'), July 1860. Printed from advanced sheets of vol. iii. of 'Contributions to the Nat. Hist. of the U.S.' My father's copy has a pencilled "Truly" opposite the following passage:--"Unless Darwin and his followers succeed in showing that the struggle for life tends to something beyond favouring the existence of certain individuals over that of other individuals, they will soon find that they are following a shadow.") I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look at it in London than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet ('Louis Agassiz's Prinzipien der Classification, etc., mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten. Separat-Abdruck aus den Gottingischen gelehrten Anzeigen,' 1860.), giving an abstract of Agassiz's 'Essay on Classification,' "mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten," etc. etc. He won't go very "dangerous lengths," but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and the 'Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens, have to go further. He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel--i.e. the devil's gospel. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 11th [1860]. ... I have laughed at Woodward thinking that you were a man who could be influenced in your judgment by the voice of the public; and yet after mortally sneering at him, I was obliged to confess to myself, that I had had fears, what the effect might be of so many heavy guns fired by great men. As I have (sent by Murray) a spare 'Quarterly Review,' I send it by this post, as it may amuse you. The Anti-Jacobin part amused me. It is full of errors, and Hooker is thinking of answering it. There has been a cancelled page; I should like to know what gigantic blunder it contained. Hooker says that -- has played on the Bishop, and made him strike whatever note he liked; he has wished to make the article as disagreeable to you as possible. I will send the "Athenaeum" in a day or two. As you wish to hear what reviews have appeared, I may mention that Agassiz has fired off a shot in the last 'Silliman,' not good at all, denies variations and rests on the perfection of Geological evidence. Asa Gray tells me that a very clever friend has been almost converted to our side by this review of Agassiz's... Professor Parsons (Theophilus Parsons, Professor of Law in Harvard University.) has published in the same 'Silliman' a speculative paper correcting my notions, worth nothing. In the 'Highland Agricultural Journal' there is a review by some Entomologist, not worth much. This is all that I can remember... As Huxley says, the platoon firing must soon cease. Hooker and Huxley, and Asa Gray, I see, are determined to stick to the battle and not give in; I am fully convinced that whenever you publish, it will produce a great effect on all TRIMMERS, and on many others. By the way I forgot to mention Daubeny's pamphlet ('Remarks on the final causes of the sexuality of plants with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species."'--British Association Report, 1860.), very liberal and candid, but scientifically weak. I believe Hooker is going nowhere this summer; he is excessively busy... He has written me many, most nice letters. I shall be very curious to hear on your return some account of your Geological doings. Talking of Geology, you used to be interested about the "pipes" in the chalk. About three years ago a perfectly circular hole suddenly appeared in a flat grass field to everyone's astonishment, and was filled up with many waggon loads of earth; and now two or three days ago, again it has circularly subsided about two feet more. How clearly this shows what is still slowly going on. This morning I recommenced work, and am at dogs; when I have written my short discussion on them, I will have it copied, and if you like, you can then see how the argument stands, about their multiple origin. As you seemed to think this important, it might be worth your reading; though I do not feel sure that you will come to the same probable conclusion that I have done. By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak very doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 11 [1860]. My dear Gray, On my return home from Sussex about a week ago, I found several articles sent by you. The first article, from the 'Atlantic Monthly,' I am very glad to possess. By the way, the editor of the "Athenaeum" (August 4, 1860.) has inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when I therein read them, I admired them even more than at first. They really seemed to be admirable in their condensation, force, clearness and novelty. I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better. How absurd that logical quibble--"if species do not exist, how can they vary?" As if any one doubted their temporary existence. How coolly he assumes that there is some clearly defined distinction between individual differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man who calls identical forms, when found in two countries, distinct species, cannot find variation in nature. Again, how unreasonable to suppose that domestic varieties selected by man for his own fancy should resemble natural varieties or species. The whole article seems to me poor; it seems to me hardly worth a detailed answer (even if I could do it, and I much doubt whether I possess your skill in picking out salient points and driving a nail into them), and indeed you have already answered several points. Agassiz's name, no doubt, is a heavy weight against us... If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the extremely liberal and fair spirit in which his Essay ('Silliman's Journal,' July, 1860.) is written. Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance of favourable monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great aid, but I do not allude to the subject, for, after much labour, I could find nothing which satisfied me of the probability of such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every structure, to believe in its sudden production. I have alluded under the head of beautifully hooked seeds to such possibility. Monsters are apt to be sterile, or NOT to transmit monstrous peculiarities. Look at the fineness of gradation in the shells of successive SUB-STAGES of the same great formation; I could give many other considerations which made me doubt such view. It holds, to a certain extent, with domestic productions no doubt, where man preserves some abrupt change in structure. It amused me to see Sir R. Murchison quoted as a judge of affinities of animals, and it gave me a cold shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true crustacean giving birth to a true fish! (Parson's, loc. cit. page 5, speaking of Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, says:--"Now is it too much to infer from these facts that either of these animals, if a crustacean, was so nearly a fish that some of its ova may have become fish; or, if itself a fish, was so nearly a crustacean that it may have been born from the ovum of a crustacean?") Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 1st [1860]. My dear Lyell, I have been much interested by your letter of the 28th, received this morning. It has DELIGHTED me, because it demonstrates that you have thought a good deal lately on Natural Selection. Few things have surprised me more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties new to me in the published reviews. Your remarks are of a different stamp and new to me. I will run through them, and make a few pleadings such as occur to me. I put in the possibility of the Galapagos having been CONTINUOUSLY joined to America, out of mere subservience to the many who believe in Forbes's doctrine, and did not see the danger of admission, about small mammals surviving there in such case. The case of the Galapagos, from certain facts on littoral sea-shells (viz. Pacific Ocean and South American littoral species), in fact convinced me more than in any other case of other islands, that the Galapagos had never been continuously united with the mainland; it was mere base subservience, and terror of Hooker and Co. With respect to atolls, I think mammals would hardly survive VERY LONG, even if the main islands (for as I have said in the Coral Book, the outline of groups of atolls do not look like a former CONTINENT) had been tenanted by mammals, from the extremely small area, the very peculiar conditions, and the probability that during subsidence all or nearly all atolls have been breached and flooded by the sea many times during their existence as atolls. I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal. From homologies I should look at it as certain that all mammals had descended from some single progenitor. What its nature was, it is impossible to speculate. More like, probably, the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna than any known form; as these animals combine reptilian characters (and in a less degree bird character) with mammalian. We must imagine some form as intermediate, as is Lepidosiren now, between reptiles and fish, between mammals and birds on the one hand (for they retain longer the same embryological character) and reptiles on the other hand. With respect to a mammal not being developed on any island, besides want of time for so prodigious a development, there must have arrived on the island the necessary and peculiar progenitor, having a character like the embryo of a mammal; and not an ALREADY DEVELOPED reptile, bird or fish. We might give to a bird the habits of a mammal, but inheritance would retain almost for eternity some of the bird-like structure, and prevent a new creature ranking as a true mammal. I have often speculated on antiquity of islands, but not with your precision, or at all under the point of view of Natural Selection NOT having done what might have been anticipated. The argument of littoral Miocene shells at the Canary Islands is new to me. I was deeply impressed (from the amount of the denudation) [with the] antiquity of St. Helena, and its age agrees with the peculiarity of the flora. With respect to bats at New Zealand (N.B. There are two or three European bats in Madeira, and I think in the Canary Islands) not having given rise to a group of non-volant bats, it is, now you put the case, surprising; more especially as the genus of bats in New Zealand is very peculiar, and therefore has probably been long introduced, and they now speak of Cretacean fossils there. But the first necessary step has to be shown, namely, of a bat taking to feed on the ground, or anyhow, and anywhere, except in the air. I am bound to confess I do know one single such fact, viz. of an Indian species killing frogs. Observe, that in my wretched Polar Bear case, I do show the first step by which conversion into a whale "would be easy," "would offer no difficulty"!! So with seals, I know of no fact showing any the least incipient variation of seals feeding on the shore. Moreover, seals wander much; I searched in vain, and could not find ONE case of any species of seal confined to any islands. And hence wanderers would be apt to cross with individuals undergoing any change on an island, as in the case of land birds of Madeira and Bermuda. The same remark applies even to bats, as they frequently come to Bermuda from the mainland, though about 600 miles distant. With respect to the Amblyrhynchus of the Galapagos, one may infer as probable, from marine habits being so rare with Saurians, and from the terrestrial species being confined to a few central islets, that its progenitor first arrived at the Galapagos; from what country it is impossible to say, as its affinity I believe is not very clear to any known species. The offspring of the terrestrial species was probably rendered marine. Now in this case I do not pretend I can show variation in habits; but we have in the terrestrial species a vegetable feeder (in itself a rather unusual circumstance), largely on LICHENS, and it would not be a great change for its offspring to feed first on littoral algae and then on submarine algae. I have said what I can in defence, but yours is a good line of attack. We should, however, always remember that no change will ever be effected till a variation in the habits or structure or of both CHANCE to occur in the right direction, so as to give the organism in question an advantage over other already established occupants of land or water, and this may be in any particular case indefinitely long. I am very glad you will read my dogs MS., for it will be important to me to see what you think of the balance of evidence. After long pondering on a subject it is often hard to judge. With hearty thanks for your most interesting letter. Farewell. My dear old master, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 2nd [1860]. My dear Hooker, I am astounded at your news received this morning. I am become such an old fogy that I am amazed at your spirit. For God's sake do not go and get your throat cut. Bless my soul, I think you must be a little insane. I must confess it will be a most interesting tour; and, if you get to the top of Lebanon, I suppose extremely interesting--you ought to collect any beetles under stones there; but the Entomologists are such slow coaches. I dare say no result could be made out of them. [They] have never worked the Alpines of Britain. If you come across any Brine lakes, do attend to their minute flora and fauna; I have often been surprised how little this has been attended to. I have had a long letter from Lyell, who starts ingenious difficulties opposed to Natural Selection, because it has not done more than it has. This is very good, as it shows that he has thoroughly mastered the subject; and shows he is in earnest. Very striking letter altogether and it rejoices the cockles of my heart. ... How I shall miss you, my best and kindest of friends. God bless you. Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 10 [1860]. ... You will be weary of my praise, but it (Dr. Gray in the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July, 1860.) does strike me as quite admirably argued, and so well and pleasantly written. Your many metaphors are inimitably good. I said in a former letter that you were a lawyer, but I made a gross mistake, I am sure that you are a poet. No, by Jove, I will tell you what you are, a hybrid, a complex cross of lawyer, poet, naturalist and theologian! Was there ever such a monster seen before? I have just looked through the passages which I have marked as appearing to me extra good, but I see that they are too numerous to specify, and this is no exaggeration. My eye just alights on the happy comparison of the colours of the prism and our artificial groups. I see one little error of fossil CATTLE in South America. It is curious how each one, I suppose, weighs arguments in a different balance: embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this. Variation not coming on at a very early age, and being inherited at not a very early corresponding period, explains, as it seems to me, the grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in zoology, viz. the resemblance of embryos. [Dr. Gray wrote three articles in the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July, August, and October, which were reprinted as a pamphlet in 1861, and now form chapter iii. in 'Darwiniana' (1876), with the heading 'Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.'] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL Down, September 12th [1860]. My dear Lyell, I never thought of showing your letter to any one. I mentioned in a letter to Hooker that I had been much interested by a letter of yours with original objections, founded chiefly on Natural Selection not having done so much as might have been expected... In your letter just received, you have improved your case versus Natural Selection; and it would tell with the public (do not be tempted by its novelty to make it too strong); yet is seems to me, not REALLY very killing, though I cannot answer your case, especially, why Rodents have not become highly developed in Australia. You must assume that they have inhabited Australia for a very long period, and this may or may not be the case. But I feel that our ignorance is so profound, why one form is preserved with nearly the same structure, or advances in organisation or even retrogrades, or becomes extinct, that I cannot put very great weight on the difficulty. Then, as you say often in your letter, we know not how many geological ages it may have taken to make any great advance in organisation. Remember monkeys in the Eocene formations: but I admit that you have made out an excellent objection and difficulty, and I can give only unsatisfactory and quite vague answers, such as you have yourself put; however, you hardly put weight enough on the absolute necessity of variations first arising in the right direction, videlicet, of seals beginning to feed on the shore. I entirely agree with what you say about only one species of many becoming modified. I remember this struck me much when tabulating the varieties of plants, and I have a discussion somewhere on this point. It is absolutely implied in my ideas of classification and divergence that only one or two species, of even large genera, give birth to new species; and many whole genera become WHOLLY extinct... Please see page 341 of the 'Origin.' But I cannot remember that I have stated in the 'Origin' the fact of only very few species in each genus varying. You have put the view much better in your letter. Instead of saying, as I often have, that very few species vary at the same time, I ought to have said, that very few species of a genus EVER vary so as to become modified; for this is the fundamental explanation of classification, and is shown in my engraved diagram... I quite agree with you on the strange and inexplicable fact of Ornithorhynchus having been preserved, and Australian Trigonia, or the Silurian Lingula. I always repeat to myself that we hardly know why any one single species is rare or common in the best-known countries. I have got a set of notes somewhere on the inhabitants of fresh water; and it is singular how many of these are ancient, or intermediate forms; which I think is explained by the competition having been less severe, and the rate of change of organic forms having been slower in small confined areas, such as all the fresh waters make compared with sea or land. I see that you do allude in the last page, as a difficulty, to Marsupials not having become Placentals in Australia; but this I think you have no right at all to expect; for we ought to look at Marsupials and Placentals as having descended from some intermediate and lower form. The argument of Rodents not having become highly developed in Australia (supposing that they have long existed there) is much stronger. I grieve to see you hint at the creation "of distinct successive types, as well as of a certain number of distinct aboriginal types." Remember, if you admit this, you give up the embryological argument (THE WEIGHTIEST OF ALL TO ME), and the morphological or homological argument. You cut my throat, and your own throat; and I believe will live to be sorry for it. So much for species. The striking extract which E. copied was your own writing!! in a note to me, many long years ago--which she copied and sent to Mme. Sismondi; and lately my aunt, in sorting her letters, found E.'s and returned them to her... I have been of late shamefully idle, i.e. observing (Drosera) instead of writing, and how much better fun observing is than writing. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Sunday [September 23rd, 1860]. My dear Lyell, I got your letter of the 18th just before starting here. You speak of saving me trouble in answering. Never think of this, for I look at every letter of yours as an honour and pleasure, which is a pretty deal more than I can say of some of the letters which I receive. I have now one of 13 CLOSELY WRITTEN FOLIO PAGES to answer on species!... I have a very decided opinion that all mammals must have descended from a SINGLE parent. Reflect on the multitude of details, very many of them of extremely little importance to their habits (as the number of bones of the head, etc., covering of hair, identical embryological development, etc. etc.). Now this large amount of similarity I must look at as certainly due to inheritance from a common stock. I am aware that some cases occur in which a similar or nearly similar organ has been acquired by independent acts of natural selection. But in most of such cases of these apparently so closely similar organs, some important homological difference may be detected. Please read page 193, beginning, "The electric organs," and trust me that the sentence, "In all these cases of two very distinct species," etc. etc., was not put in rashly, for I went carefully into every case. Apply this argument to the whole frame, internal and external, of mammifers, and you will see why I think so strongly that all have descended from one progenitor. I have just re-read your letter, and I am not perfectly sure that I understand your point. I enclose two diagrams showing the sort of manner I CONJECTURE that mammals have been developed. I thought a little on this when writing page 429, beginning, "Mr. Waterhouse." (Please read the paragraph.) I have not knowledge enough to choose between these two diagrams. If the brain of Marsupials in embryo closely resembles that of Placentals, I should strongly prefer No.2, and this agrees with the antiquity of Microlestes. As a general rule I should prefer No.1 diagram; whether or not Marsupials have gone on being developed, or rising in rank, from a very early period would depend on circumstances too complex for even a conjecture. Lingula has not risen since the Silurian epoch, whereas other molluscs may have risen. Here appear two diagrams. Diagram I. A - Mammals, not true Marsupials nor true Placentals. - 2 branches - Branch I, True Placental, from which branch off Rodents, Insectivora, a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae and terminates in Quadrumana. - Branch II, True Marsupial, from which branches off Kangaroo family an unnamed branch terminating in 2 unnamed branches and terminates in Didelphys Family. Diagram II. A - True Marsupials, lowly developed. - True Marsupials, highly developed. - 2 branches - Branch I, Placentals, from which branch off Rodents, Insectivora, a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae and terminates in Quadrumana. - Branch II, Present Marsupials, splitting into two branches terminating in Kangaroo family (with 2 unnamed branches) and Didelphys family. A, in the two diagrams, represents an unknown form, probably intermediate between Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds, as intermediate as Lepidosiren now is between Fish and Batrachians. This unknown form is probably more closely related to Ornithorhynchus than to any other known form. I do not think that the multiple origin of dogs goes against the single origin of man... All the races of man are so infinitely closer together than to any ape, that (as in the case of descent of all mammals from one progenitor), I should look at all races of men as having certainly descended from one parent. I should look at it as probable that the races of men were less numerous and less divergent formerly than now, unless, indeed, some lower and more aberrant race even than the Hottentot has become extinct. Supposing, as I do for one believe, that our dogs have descended from two or three wolves, jackals, etc., yet these have, on OUR VIEW, descended from a single remote unknown progenitor. With domestic dogs the question is simply whether the whole amount of difference has been produced since man domesticated a single species; or whether part of the difference arises in the state of nature. Agassiz and Co. think the negro and Caucasian are now distinct species, and it is a mere vain discussion whether, when they were rather less distinct, they would, on this standard of specific value, deserve to be called species. I agree with your answer which you give to yourself on this point; and the simile of man now keeping down any new man which might be developed, strikes me as good and new. The white man is "improving off the face of the earth" even races nearly his equals. With respect to islands, I think I would trust to want of time alone, and not to bats and Rodents. N.B.--I know of no rodents on oceanic islands (except my Galapagos mouse, which MAY have been introduced by man) keeping down the development of other classes. Still MUCH more weight I should attribute to there being now, neither in islands nor elsewhere, [any] known animals of a grade of organisation intermediate between mammals, fish, reptiles, etc., whence a new mammal could be developed. If every vertebrate were destroyed throughout the world, except our NOW WELL-ESTABLISHED reptiles, millions of ages might elapse before reptiles could become highly developed on a scale equal to mammals; and, on the principle of inheritance, they would make some quite NEW CLASS, and not mammals; though POSSIBLY more intellectual! I have not an idea that you will care for this letter, so speculative. Most truly yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 26 [1860]. ... I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from Harvey against my book, with some ingenious and new remarks; but it is an extraordinary fact that he does not understand at all what I mean by Natural Selection. I have begged him to read the Dialogue in next 'Silliman,' as you never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at it as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet which does not express fully my meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others, who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur. Well, your extraordinary labour is over; if there is any fair amount of truth in my view, I am well assured that your great labour has not been thrown away... I yet hope and almost believe, that the time will come when you will go further, in believing a very large amount of modification of species, than you did at first or do now. Can you tell me whether you believe further or more firmly than you did at first? I should really like to know this. I can perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, who objected to much at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciousnessly to himself, converted himself very much during the last six months, and I think this is the case even with Hooker. This fact gives me far more confidence than any other fact. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday evening [September 28th, 1860]. ... I am very glad to hear about the Germans reading my book. No one will be converted who has not independently begun to doubt about species. Is not Krohn (There are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement Glands, and the other on the development of Cirripedes, 'Wiegmann's Archiv,' xxv. and xxvi. My father has remarked that he "blundered dreadfully about the cement glands," 'Autobiography.') a good fellow? I have long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and has detected two or three gigantic blunders,... about which, I thank Heaven, I spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley failed. It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is so wrong, and not the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic blunders, and why I say all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at all, pointed out my errors with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness. I have always meant to write to him and thank him. I suppose Dr. Krohn, Bonn, would reach him. I cannot see yet how the multiple origin of dog can be properly brought as argument for the multiple origin of man. Is not your feeling a remnant of the deeply impressed one on all our minds, that a species is an entity, something quite distinct from a variety? Is it not that the dog case injures the argument from fertility, so that one main argument that the races of man are varieties and not species--i.e., because they are fertile inter se, is much weakened? I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever variation is possible under culture, is POSSIBLE under nature; not that the same form would ever be accumulated and arrived at by selection for man's pleasure, and by natural selection for the organism's own good. Talking of "natural selection;" if I had to commence de novo, I would have used "natural preservation." For I find men like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me, though he has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the British Museum remarked to me that, "SELECTION was obviously impossible with plants! No one could tell him how it could be possible!" And he may now add that the author did not attempt it to him! Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 8th [1860]. My dear Lyell, I send the [English] translation of Bronn (A MS. translation of Bronn's chapter of objections at the end of his German translation of the 'Origin of Species.'), the first part of the chapter with generalities and praise is not translated. There are some good hits. He makes an apparently, and in part truly, telling case against me, says that I cannot explain why one rat has a longer tail and another longer ears, etc. But he seems to muddle in assuming that these parts did not all vary together, or one part so insensibly before the other, as to be in fact contemporaneous. I might ask the creationist whether he thinks these differences in the two rats of any use, or as standing in some relation from laws of growth; and if he admits this, selection might come into play. He who thinks that God created animals unlike for mere sport or variety, as man fashions his clothes, will not admit any force in my argumentum ad hominem. Bronn blunders about my supposing several Glacial periods, whether or no such ever did occur. He blunders about my supposing that development goes on at the same rate in all parts of the world. I presume that he has misunderstood this from the supposed migration into all regions of the more dominant forms. I have ordered Dr. Bree ('Species not Transmutable,' by C.R. Bree, 1860.), and will lend it to you, if you like, and if it turns out good. ... I am very glad that I misunderstood you about species not having the capacity to vary, though in fact few do give birth to new species. It seems that I am very apt to misunderstand you; I suppose I am always fancying objections. Your case of the Red Indian shows me that we agree entirely... I had a letter yesterday from Thwaites of Ceylon, who was much opposed to me. He now says, "I find that the more familiar I become with your views in connection with the various phenomena of nature, the more they commend themselves to my mind." CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. RODWELL. (Rev. J.M. Rodwell, who was at Cambridge with my father, remembers him saying:--"It strikes me that all our knowledge about the structure of our earth is very much like what an old hen would know of a hundred acre field, in a corner of which she is scratching.") 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne. November 5th [1860]. My dear Sir, I am extremely much obliged for your letter, which I can compare only to a plum-pudding, so full it is of good things. I have been rash about the cats ("Cats with blue eyes are invariably deaf," 'Origin of Species,' edition i. page 12.): yet I spoke on what seemed to me, good authority. The Rev. W.D. Fox gave me a list of cases of various foreign breeds in which he had observed the correlation, and for years he had vainly sought an exception. A French paper also gives numerous cases, and one very curious case of a kitten which GRADUALLY lost the blue colour in its eyes and as gradually acquired its power of hearing. I had not heard of your uncle, Mr. Kirby's case (William Kirby, joint author with Spence, of the well-known 'Introduction to Entomology,' 1818.) (whom I, for as long as I can remember, have venerated) of care in breeding cats. I do not know whether Mr. Kirby was your uncle by marriage, but your letters show me that you ought to have Kirby blood in your veins, and that if you had not taken to languages you would have been a first-rate naturalist. I sincerely hope that you will be able to carry out your intention of writing on the "Birth, Life, and Death of Words." Anyhow, you have a capital title, and some think this the most difficult part of a book. I remember years ago at the Cape of Good Hope, Sir J. Herschel saying to me, I wish some one would treat language as Lyell has treated geology. What a linguist you must be to translate the Koran! Having a vilely bad head for languages, I feel an awful respect for linguists. I do not know whether my brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood's 'Etymological Dictionary' would be at all in your line; but he treats briefly on the genesis of words; and, as it seems to me, very ingeniously. You kindly say that you would communicate any facts which might occur to you, and I am sure that I should be most grateful. Of the multitude of letters which I receive, not one in a thousand is like yours in value. With my cordial thanks, and apologies for this untidy letter written in haste, pray believe me, my dear Sir, Yours sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. November 20th [1860]. ... I have not had heart to read Phillips ('Life on the Earth.') yet, or a tremendous long hostile review by Professor Bowen in the 4to Mem. of the American Academy of Sciences. ("Remarks on the latest form of the Development Theory." By Francis Bowen, Professor of Natural Religion and Moral Philosophy, at Harvard University. 'American Academy of Arts and Sciences,' vol. viii.) (By the way, I hear Agassiz is going to thunder against me in the next part of the 'Contributions.') Thank you for telling me of the sale of the 'Origin,' of which I had not heard. There will be some time, I presume, a new edition, and I especially want your advice on one point, and you know I think you the wisest of men, and I shall be ABSOLUTELY GUIDED BY YOUR ADVICE. It has occurred to me, that it would PERHAPS be a good plan to put a set of notes (some twenty to forty or fifty) to the 'Origin,' which now has none, exclusively devoted to errors of my reviewers. It has occurred to me that where a reviewer has erred, a common reader might err. Secondly, it will show the reader that he must not trust implicitly to reviewers. Thirdly, when any special fact has been attacked, I should like to defend it. I would show no sort of anger. I enclose a mere rough specimen, done without any care or accuracy--done from memory alone--to be torn up, just to show the sort of thing that has occurred to me. WILL YOU DO ME THE GREAT KINDNESS TO CONSIDER THIS WELL? It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some confidence to the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going through all the reviews. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. [Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume and page being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases he seems to have forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and to have continued as if writing to Lyell:-- *Dr. Bree asserts that I explain the structure of the cells of the Hive Bee by "the exploded doctrine of pressure." But I do not say one word which directly or indirectly can be interpreted into any reference to pressure. *The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer quotes my work as saying that the "dorsal vertebrae of pigeons vary in number, and disputes the fact." I nowhere even allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only to the sacral and caudal vertebrae. *The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer throws a doubt on these organs being the Branchiae of Cirripedes. But Professor Owen in 1854 admits, without hesitation, that they are Branchiae, as did John Hunter long ago. *The confounded Wealden Calculation to be struck out, and a note to be inserted to the effect that I am convinced of its inaccuracy from a review in the "Saturday Review", and from Phillips, as I see in his Table of Contents that he alludes to it. *Mr. Hopkins ('Fraser') states--I am quoting only from vague memory--that, "I argue in favour of my views from the extreme imperfection of the Geological Record," and says this is the first time in the history of Science he has ever heard of ignorance being adduced as an argument. But I repeatedly admit, in the most emphatic language which I can use, that the imperfect evidence which Geology offers in regard to transitorial forms is most strongly opposed to my views. Surely there is a wide difference in fully admitting an objection, and then in endeavouring to show that it is not so strong as it at first appears, and in Mr. Hopkins's assertion that I found my argument on the Objection. *I would also put a note to "Natural Selection," and show how variously it has been misunderstood. *A writer in the 'Edinburgh Philosophical Journal' denies my statement that the Woodpecker of La Plata never frequents trees. I observed its habits during two years, but, what is more to the purpose, Azara, whose accuracy all admit, is more emphatic than I am in regard to its never frequenting trees. Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought to be called a woodpecker; it has two toes in front and two behind, pointed tail feathers, a long pointed tongue, and the same general form of body, the same manner of flight, colouring and voice. It was classed, until recently, in the same genus--Picus--with all other woodpeckers, but now has been ranked as a distinct genus amongst the Picidae. It differs from the typical Picus only in the beak, not being quite so strong, and in the upper mandible being slightly arched. I think these facts fully justify my statement that it is "in all essential parts of its organisation" a Woodpecker.] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 22 [1860]. My dear Huxley, For heaven's sake don't write an anti-Darwinian article; you would do it so confoundedly well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two or three good digs; but I will see you -- first before I will try. I shall be very impatient to see the Review. (The first number of the new series of the 'Nat. Hist. Review' appeared in 1861.) If it succeeds it may really do much, very much good... I heard to-day from Murray that I must set to work at once on a new edition (The 3rd edition.) of the 'Origin.' [Murray] says the Reviews have not improved the sale. I shall always think those early reviews, almost entirely yours, did the subject an ENORMOUS service. If you have any important suggestions or criticisms to make on any part of the 'Origin,' I should, of course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean to correct as far as I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied with and hate the subject, and it is God's blessing if you do not get to hate me. Adios. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, November 24th [1860]. My dear Lyell, I thank you much for your letter. I had got to take pleasure in thinking how I could best snub my reviewers; but I was determined, in any case, to follow your advice, and, before I had got to the end of your letter, I was convinced of the wisdom of your advice. ("I get on slowly with my new edition. I find that your advice was EXCELLENT. I can answer all reviews, without any direct notice of them, by a little enlargement here and there, with here and there a new paragraph. Bronn alone I shall treat with the respect of giving his objections with his name. I think I shall improve my book a good deal, and add only some twenty pages."--From a letter to Lyell, December 4th, 1860.) What an advantage it is to me to have such friends as you. I shall follow every hint in your letter exactly. I have just heard from Murray; he says he sold 700 copies at his sale, and that he has not half the number to supply; so that I must begin at once (On the third edition of the 'Origin of Species,' published in April 1861.)... P.S.--I must tell you one little fact which has pleased me. You may remember that I adduce electrical organs of fish as one of the greatest difficulties which have occurred to me, and -- notices the passage in a singularly disingenuous spirit. Well, McDonnell, of Dublin (a first-rate man), writes to me that he felt the difficulty of the whole case as overwhelming against me. Not only are the fishes which have electric organs very remote in scale, but the organ is near the head in some, and near the tail in others, and supplied by wholly different nerves. It seems impossible that there could be any transition. Some friend, who is much opposed to me, seems to have crowed over McDonnell, who reports that he said to himself, that if Darwin is right, there must be homologous organs both near the head and tail in other non-electric fish. He set to work, and, by Jove, he has found them! ('On an organ in the Skate, which appears to be the homologue of the electrical organ of the Torpedo,' by R. McDonnell, 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861, page 57.) so that some of the difficulty is removed; and is it not satisfactory that my hypothetical notions should have led to pretty discoveries? McDonnell seems very cautious; he says, years must pass before he will venture to call himself a believer in my doctrine, but that on the subjects which he knows well, viz., Morphology and Embryology, my views accord well, and throw light on the whole subject. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 26th, 1860. My dear Gray, I have to thank you for two letters. The latter with corrections, written before you received my letter asking for an American reprint, and saying that it was hopeless to print your reviews as a pamphlet, owing to the impossibility of getting pamphlets known. I am very glad to say that the August or second 'Atlantic' article has been reprinted in the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History'; but I have not seen it there. Yesterday I read over with care the third article; and it seems to me, as before, ADMIRABLE. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design. To take a crucial example, you lead me to infer (page 414) that you believe "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines." I cannot believe this; and I think you would have to believe, that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary in the number and direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of a few men. Yet if the Fantail had been a wild bird, and had used its abnormal tail for some special end, as to sail before the wind, unlike other birds, every one would have said, "What a beautiful and designed adaptation." Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle. Thank you much for Bowen's 4to. review. ('Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,' vol. viii.) The coolness with which he makes all animals to be destitute of reason is simply absurd. It is monstrous at page 103, that he should argue against the possibility of accumulative variation, and actually leave out, entirely, selection! The chance that an improved Short-horn, or improved Pouter-pigeon, should be produced by accumulative variation without man's selection is as almost infinity to nothing; so with natural species without natural selection. How capitally in the 'Atlantic' you show that Geology and Astronomy are, according to Bowen, Metaphysics; but he leaves out this in the 4to. Memoir. I have not much to tell you about my Book. I have just heard that Du Boi-Reymond agrees with me. The sale of my book goes on well, and the multitude of reviews has not stopped the sale...; so I must begin at once on a new corrected edition. I will send you a copy for the chance of your ever re-reading; but, good Heavens, how sick you must be of it! CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 2nd [1860]. ... I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless, they have been of use in showing me when to expatiate a little and to introduce a few new discussions. OF COURSE I will send you a copy of the new edition. I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions are terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have said against me, I have far more confidence in the GENERAL truth of the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing gives me confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed are now less bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a little disappointed that you are not inclined to think the general view in some slight degree more probable than you did at first. This I consider rather ominous. Otherwise I should be more contented with your degree of belief. I can pretty plainly see that, if my view is ever to be generally adopted, it will be by young men growing up and replacing the old workers, and then young ones finding that they can group facts and search out new lines of investigation better on the notion of descent, than on that of creation. But forgive me for running on so egotistically. Living so solitary as I do, one gets to think in a silly manner of one's own work. Ever yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 11th [1860]. ... I heard from A. Gray this morning; at my suggestion he is going to reprint the three 'Atlantic' articles as a pamphlet, and send 250 copies to England, for which I intend to pay half the cost of the whole edition, and shall give away, and try to sell by getting a few advertisements put in, and if possible notices in Periodicals. ... David Forbes has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as I value praise for accurate observation far higher than for any other quality, forgive (if you can) the INSUFFERABLE vanity of my copying the last sentence in his note: "I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without exception, one of the finest specimens of Geological enquiry." I feel inclined to strut like a Turkey-cock! CHAPTER 2.III. -- SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. 1861-1862. [The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father with the third chapter of 'The Variation of Animals and Plants' still on his hands. It had been begun in the previous August, and was not finished until March 1861. He was, however, for part of this time (I believe during December 1860 and January 1861) engaged in a new edition (2000 copies) of the 'Origin,' which was largely corrected and added to, and was published in April 1861. With regard to this, the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in December 1860:-- "I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will print off--the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible with safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall improve the book considerably." An interesting feature in the new edition was the "Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species" (The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, page 1) that it was his critique in the 'N. Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie' that suggested the idea of such a sketch to my father.) which now appeared for the first time, and was continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong impress of the author's personal character in the obvious wish to do full justice to all his predecessors,--though even in this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism. Towards the end of the present year (1861), the final arrangements for the first French edition of the 'Origin' were completed, and in September a copy of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle. Clemence Royer, who undertook the work of translation. The book was now spreading on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen, a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, "My book seems exciting much attention in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent me." The silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German science was to become one of the strongest of the advocates of evolution. During all the early part of the year (1861) he was working at the mass of details which are marshalled in order in the early chapter of 'Animals and Plants.' Thus in his Diary occur the laconic entries, "May 16, Finished Fowls (eight weeks); May 31, Ducks." On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained until August 27--a holiday which he characteristically enters in his diary as "eight weeks and a day." The house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed from what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey's Cove. During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the record of his life, as told in his letters, seems to become clearer when the whole of his botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present series of chapters will, therefore, include only the progress of his works in the direction of a general amplification of the 'Origin of Species'--e.g., the publication of 'Animals and Plants,' 'Descent of Man,' etc.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 15 [1861]. My dear Hooker, The sight of your handwriting always rejoices the very cockles of my heart... I most fully agree to what you say about Huxley's Article ('Natural History Review,' 1861, page 67, "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals." This memoir had its origin in a discussion at the previous meeting of the British Association, when Professor Huxley felt himself "compelled to give a diametrical contradiction to certain assertions respecting the differences which obtain between the brains of the higher apes and of man, which fell from Professor Owen." But in order that his criticisms might refer to deliberately recorded words, he bases them on Professor Owen's paper, "On the Characters, etc., of the Class Mammalia," read before the Linnean Society in February and April, 1857, in which he proposed to place man not only in a distinct order, but in "a distinct su-class of the Mammalia"--the Archencephala.), and the power of writing... The whole review seems to me excellent. How capitally Oliver has done the resume of botanical books. Good Heavens, how he must have read!... I quite agree that Phillips ('Life on the Earth' (1860), by Prof. Phillips, containing the substance of the Rede Lecture (May 1860).) is unreadably dull. You need not attempt Bree. (The following sentence (page 16) from 'Species not Transmutable,' by Dr. Bree, illustrates the degree in which he understood the 'Origin of Species': "The only real difference between Mr. Darwin and his two predecessors" [Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'] "is this:--that while the latter have each given a mode by which they conceive the great changes they believe in have been brought about, Mr. Darwin does no such thing." After this we need not be surprised at a passage in the preface: "No one has derived greater pleasure than I have in past days from the study of Mr. Darwin's other works, and no one has felt a greater degree of regret that he should have imperilled his fame by the publication of his treatise upon the 'Origin of Species.'")... If you come across Dr. Freke on 'Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity,' read a page here and there... He tells the reader to observe [that his result] has been arrived at by "induction," whereas all my results are arrived at only by "analogy." I see a Mr. Neale has read a paper before the Zoological Society on 'Typical Selection;' what it means I know not. I have not read H. Spencer, for I find that I must more and more husband the very little strength which I have. I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail... As soon as this dreadful weather gets a little milder, I must try a little water cure. Have you read the 'Woman in White'? the plot is wonderfully interesting. I can recommend a book which has interested me greatly, viz. Olmsted's 'Journey in the Back Country.' It is an admirably lively picture of man and slavery in the Southern States... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. February 2, 1861. My dear Lyell, I have thought you would like to read the enclosed passage in a letter from A. Gray (who is printing his reviews as a pamphlet ("Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology," from the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July, August, and October, 1860; published by Trubner.), and will send copies to England), as I think his account is really favourable in high degree to us:-- "I wish I had time to write you an account of the lengths to which Bowen and Agassiz, each in their own way, are going. The first denying all heredity (all transmission except specific) whatever. The second coming near to deny that we are genetically descended from our great-grea-grandfathers; and insisting that evidently affiliated languages, e.g. Latin, Greek, Sanscrit, owe none of their similarities to a community of origin, are all autochthonal; Agassiz admits that the derivation of languages, and that of species or forms, stand on the same foundation, and that he must allow the latter if he allows the former, which I tell him is perfectly logical." Is not this marvellous? Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 4 [1861]. My dear Hooker, I was delighted to get your long chatty letter, and to hear that you are thawing towards science. I almost wish you had remained frozen rather longer; but do not thaw too quickly and strongly. No one can work long as you used to do. Be idle; but I am a pretty man to preach, for I cannot be idle, much as I wish it, and am never comfortable except when at work. The word holiday is written in a dead language for me, and much I grieve at it. We thank you sincerely for your kind sympathy about poor H. [his daughter]... She has now come up to her old point, and can sometimes get up for an hour or two twice a day... Never to look to the future or as little as possible is becoming our rule of life. What a different thing life was in youth with no dread in the future; all golden, if baseless, hopes. ... With respect to the 'Natural History Review' I can hardly think that ladies would be so very sensitive about "lizards' guts;" but the publication is at present certainly a sort of hybrid, and original illustrated papers ought hardly to appear in a review. I doubt its ever paying; but I shall much regret if it dies. All that you say seems very sensible, but could a review in the strict sense of the word be filled with readable matter? I have been doing little, except finishing the new edition of the 'Origin,' and crawling on most slowly with my volume of 'Variation under Domestication'... [The following letter refers to Mr. Bates's paper, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," in the 'Transactions of the Entomological Society,' vol.5, N.S. (The paper was read November 24, 1860.) Mr. Bates points out that with the return, after the glacial period, of a warmer climate in the equatorial regions, the "species then living near the equator would retreat north and south to their former homes, leaving some of their congeners, slowly modified subsequently... to re-people the zone they had forsaken." In this case the species now living at the equator ought to show clear relationship to the species inhabiting the regions about the 25th parallel, whose distant relatives they would of course be. But this is not the case, and this is the difficulty my father refers to. Mr. Belt has offered an explanation in his 'Naturalist in Nicaragua' (1874), page 266. "I believe the answer is that there was much extermination during the glacial period, that many species (and some genera, etc., as, for instance, the American horse), did not survive it... but that a refuge was found for many species on lands now below the ocean, that were uncovered by the lowering of the sea, caused by the immense quantity of water that was locked up in frozen masses on the land."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 27th [March 1861]. My dear Hooker, I had intended to have sent you Bates's article this very day. I am so glad you like it. I have been extremely much struck with it. How well he argues, and with what crushing force against the glacial doctrine. I cannot wriggle out of it: I am dumbfounded; yet I do believe that some explanation some day will appear, and I cannot give up equatorial cooling. It explains so much and harmonises with so much. When you write (and much interested I shall be in your letter) please say how far floras are generally uniform in generic character from 0 to 25 degrees N. and S. Before reading Bates, I had become thoroughly dissatisfied with what I wrote to you. I hope you may get Bates to write in the 'Linnean.' Here is a good joke: H.C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to review the new edition (third edition of 2000 copies, published in April, 1861.) of the 'Origin') says that in the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words "I," "me," "my," occur forty-three times! I was dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I wonder whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the parentheses in Wollaston's writing. _I_ am, MY dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April] 23? [1861]. ... I quite agree with what you say on Lieutenant Hutton's Review (In the 'Geologist,' 1861, page 132, by Lieutenant Frederick Wollaston Hutton, now Professor of Biology and Geology at Canterbury College, New Zealand.) (who he is I know not); it struck me as very original. He is one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved, and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way. I have been much interested by Bentham's paper ("On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc.," 'Natural History Review,' 1861, page 133.) in the N.H.R., but it would not, of course, from familiarity strike you as it did me. I liked the whole; all the facts on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up their noses, and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject in the 'Origin.' I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock, and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially with us or dead against us, he would write EXCELLENT matter. He made no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged; so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow. (Prof. Henslow was in his last illness.) I dined with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner... Dining out is such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not sel-evident as his 'Canons.' (George Rolleston, M.D., F.R.S., 1829-1881. Linacre Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at Oxford. A man of much learning, who left but few published works, among which may be mentioned his handbook 'Forms of Animal Life.' For the 'Canons,' see 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861, page 206.)... I called on R. Chambers, at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very pleasant half-hour's talk; he is really a capital fellow. He made one good remark and chuckled over it, that the laymen universally had treated the controversy on the 'Essays and Reviews' as a merely professional subject, and had not joined in it, but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow. (Sir Joseph Hooker was Prof. Henslow's son-in-law.) Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend, C. DARWIN. P.S.--We are very much obliged for the 'London Review.' We like reading much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum". You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies and trouble, but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum" and the "Gardener's Chronicle", but I have taken them in for so many years, that I CANNOT give them up. [The next letter refers to Lyell's visit to the Biddenham gravel-pits near Bedford in April 1861. The visit was made at the invitation of Mr. James Wyatt, who had recently discovered two stone implements "at the depth of thirteen feet from the surface of the soil," resting "immediately on solid beds of oolitic-limestone." ('Antiquity of Man,' fourth edition, page 214.) Here, says Sir C. Lyell, "I... for the first time, saw evidence which satisfied me of the chronological relations of those three phenomena--the antique tools, the extinct mammalia, and the glacial formation."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 12 [1861]. My dear Lyell, I have been most deeply interested by your letter. You seem to have done the grandest work, and made the greatest step, of any one with respect to man. It is an especial relief to hear that you think the French superficial deposits are deltoid and semi-marine; but two days ago I was saying to a friend, that the unknown manner of the accumulation of these deposits, seemed the great blot in all the work done. I could not stomach debacles or lacustrine beds. It is grand. I remember Falconer told me that he thought some of the remains in the Devonshire caverns were pre-glacial, and this, I presume, is now your conclusion for the older celts with hyena and hippopotamus. It is grand. What a fine long pedigree you have given the human race! I am sure I never thought of parallel roads having been accumulated during subsidence. I think I see some difficulties on this view, though, at first reading your note, I jumped at the idea. But I will think over all I saw there. I am (stomacho volente) coming up to London on Tuesday to work on cocks and hens, and on Wednesday morning, about a quarter before ten, I will call on you (unless I hear to the contrary), for I long to see you. I congratulate you on your grand work. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. P.S.--Tell Lady Lyell that I was unable to digest the funereal ceremonies of the ants, notwithstanding that Erasmus has often told me that I should find some day that they have their bishops. After a battle I have always seen the ants carry away the dead for food. Ants display the utmost economy, and always carry away a dead fellow-creature as food. But I have just forwarded two most extraordinary letters to Busk, from a backwoodsman in Texas, who has evidently watched ants carefully, and declares most positively that they plant and cultivate a kind of grass for store food, and plant other bushes for shelter! I do not know what to think, except that the old gentleman is not fibbing intentionally. I have left the responsibility with Busk whether or no to read the letters. (I.e. to read them before the Linnean Society.) CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. (Thomas Davidson, F.R.S., born in Edinburgh, May 17, 1817; died 1885. His researches were chiefly connected with the sciences of geology and palaeontology, and were directed especially to the elucidation of the characters, classification, history, geological and geographical distribution of recent and fossil Brachiopoda. On this subject he brought out an important work, 'British Fossil Brachiopoda,' 5 vols. 4to. (Cooper, 'Men of the Time,' 1884.)) Down, April 26, 1861. My dear Sir, I hope that you will excuse me for venturing to make a suggestion to you which I am perfectly well aware it is a very remote chance that you would adopt. I do not know whether you have read my 'Origin of Species'; in that book I have made the remark, which I apprehend will be universally admitted, that AS A WHOLE, the fauna of any formation is intermediate in character between that of the formations above and below. But several really good judges have remarked to me how desirable it would be that this should be exemplified and worked out in some detail and with some single group of beings. Now every one will admit that no one in the world could do this better than you with Brachiopods. The result might turn out very unfavourable to the views which I hold; if so, so much the better for those who are opposed to me. ("Mr. Davidson is not at all a full believer in great changes of species, which will make his work all the more valuable.--C. Darwin to R. Chambers (April 30, 1861).) But I am inclined to suspect that on the whole it would be favourable to the notion of descent with modification; for about a year ago, Mr. Salter (John William Salter; 1820- 1869. He entered the service of the Geological Survey in 1846, and ultimately became its Palaeontologist, on the retirement of Edward Forbes, and gave up the office in 1863. He was associated with several well-known naturalists in their work--with Sedgwick, Murchison, Lyell, Ramsay, and Huxley. There are sixty entries under his name in the Royal Society Catalogue. The above facts are taken from an obituary notice of Mr. Salter in the 'Geological Magazine,' 1869.) in the Museum in Jermyn Street, glued on a board some Spirifers, etc., from three palaeozoic stages, and arranged them in single and branching lines, with horizontal lines marking the formations (like the diagram in my book, if you know it), and the result seemed to me very striking, though I was too ignorant fully to appreciate the lines of affinities. I longed to have had these shells engraved, as arranged by Mr. Salter, and connected by dotted lines, and would have gladly paid the expense: but I could not persuade Mr. Salter to publish a little paper on the subject. I can hardly doubt that many curious points would occur to any one thoroughly instructed in the subject, who would consider a group of beings under this point of view of descent with modification. All those forms which have come down from an ancient period very slightly modified ought, I think, to be omitted, and those forms alone considered which have undergone considerable change at each successive epoch. My fear is whether brachiopods have changed enough. The absolute amount of difference of the forms in such groups at the opposite extremes of time ought to be considered, and how far the early forms are intermediate in character between those which appeared much later in time. The antiquity of a group is not really diminished, as some seem vaguely to think, because it has transmitted to the present day closely allied forms. Another point is how far the succession of each genus is unbroken, from the first time it appeared to its extinction, with due allowance made for formations poor in fossils. I cannot but think that an important essay (far more important than a hundred literary reviews) might be written by one like yourself, and without very great labour. I know it is highly probable that you may not have leisure, or not care for, or dislike the subject, but I trust to your kindness to forgive me for making this suggestion. If by any extraordinary good fortune you were inclined to take up this notion, I would ask you to read my Chapter X. on Geological Succession. And I should like in this case to be permitted to send you a copy of the new edition, just published, in which I have added and corrected somewhat in Chapters IX. and X. Pray excuse this long letter, and believe me, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, C. DARWIN. P.S.--I write so bad a hand that I have had this note copied. CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. Down, April 30, 1861. My dear Sir, I thank you warmly for your letter; I did not in the least know that you had attended to my work. I assure you that the attention which you have paid to it, considering your knowledge and the philosophical tone of your mind (for I well remember one remarkable letter you wrote to me, and have looked through your various publications), I consider one of the highest, perhaps the very highest, compliments which I have received. I live so solitary a life that I do not often hear what goes on, and I should much like to know in what work you have published some remarks on my book. I take a deep interest in the subject, and I hope not simply an egotistical interest; therefore you may believe how much your letter has gratified me; I am perfectly contented if any one will fairly consider the subject, whether or not he fully or only very slightly agrees with me. Pray do not think that I feel the least surprise at your demurring to a ready acceptance; in fact, I should not much respect anyone's judgment who did so: that is, if I may judge others from the long time which it has taken me to go round. Each stage of belief cost me years. The difficulties are, as you say, many and very great; but the more I reflect, the more they seem to me to be due to our underestimating our ignorance. I belong so much to old times that I find that I weigh the difficulties from the imperfection of the geological record, heavier than some of the younger men. I find, to my astonishment and joy, that such good men as Ramsay, Jukes, Geikie, and one old worker, Lyell, do not think that I have in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the record. (Professor Sedgwick treated this part of the 'Origin of Species' very differently, as might have been expected from his vehement objection to Evolution in general. In the article in the "Spectator" of March 24, 1860, already noticed, Sedgwick wrote: "We know the complicated organic phenomena of the Mesozoic (or Oolitic) period. It defies the transmutationist at every step. Oh! but the document, says Darwin, is a fragment; I will interpolate long periods to account for all the changes. I say, in reply, if you deny my conclusion, grounded on positive evidence, I toss back your conclusion, derived from negative evidence,--the inflated cushion on which you try to bolster up the defects of your hypothesis." [The punctuation of the imaginary dialogue is slightly altered from the original, which is obscure in one place.]) If my views ever are proved true, our current geological views will have to be considerably modified. My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every living creature. With respect to a person's belief, what does rather surprise me is that any one (like Carpenter) should be willing TO GO SO VERY FAR as to believe that all birds may have descended from one parent, and not go a little farther and include all the members of the same great division; for on such a scale of belief, all the facts in Morphology and in Embryology (the most important in my opinion of all subjects) become mere Divine mockeries... I cannot express how profoundly glad I am that some day you will publish your theoretical view on the modification and endurance of Brachiopodous species; I am sure it will be a most valuable contribution to knowledge. Pray forgive this very egotistical letter, but you yourself are partly to blame for having pleased me so much. I have told Murray to send a copy of my new edition to you, and have written your name. With cordial thanks, pray believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [In Mr. Davidson's Monograph on British Brachiopoda, published shortly afterwards by the Palaeontographical Society, results such as my father anticipated were to some extent obtained. "No less than fifteen commonly received species are demonstrated by Mr. Davidson by the aid of a long series of transitional forms to appertain to... one type." "Lyell, 'Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 428.) In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, my father had a good deal of correspondence with Professor Asa Gray on a subject to which reference has already been made--the publication in the form of a pamphlet, of Professor Gray's three articles in the July, August, and October numbers of the 'Atlantic Monthly,' 1860. The pamphlet was published by Messrs. Trubner, with reference to whom my father wrote, "Messrs. Trubner have been most liberal and kind, and say they shall make no charge for all their trouble. I have settled about a few advertisements, and they will gratuitously insert one in their own periodicals." The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray's 'Darwiniana,' page 87, under the title "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology." The pamphlet found many admirers among those most capable of judging of its merits, and my father believed that it was of much value in lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a most prominent place in the third edition of the 'Origin.' Lyell, among others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote to Dr. Gray:--"Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the 'Quarterly,' and Lyell answered, 'Read Asa Gray in the 'Atlantic.'". It comes out very clearly that in the case of such publications as Dr. Gray's, my father did not rejoice over the success of his special view of Evolution, viz. that modification is mainly due to Natural Selection; on the contrary, he felt strongly that the really important point was that the doctrine of Descent should be accepted. Thus he wrote to Professor Gray (May 11, 1863), with reference to Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man':-- "You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he declines to be a judge... I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When I say 'me,' I only mean CHANGE OF SPECIES BY DESCENT. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant, compared to the question of Creation OR Modification."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 11 [1861]. My dear Gray, I was very glad to get your photograph: I am expecting mine, which I will send off as soon as it comes. It is an ugly affair, and I fear the fault does not lie with the photographer... Since writing last, I have had several letters full of the highest commendation of your Essay; all agree that it is by far the best thing written, and I do not doubt it has done the 'Origin' much good. I have not yet heard how it has sold. You will have seen a review in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Poor dear Henslow, to whom I owe much, is dying, and Hooker is with him. Many thanks for two sets of sheets of your Proceedings. I cannot understand what Agassiz is driving at. You once spoke, I think, of Professor Bowen as a very clever man. I should have thought him a singularly unobservant man from his writings. He never can have seen much of animals, or he would have seen the difference of old and wise dogs and young ones. His paper about hereditariness beats everything. Tell a breeder that he might pick out his worst INDIVIDUAL animals and breed from them, and hope to win a prize, and he would think you... insane. [Professor Henslow died on May 16, 1861, from a complication of bronchitis, congestion of the lungs, and enlargement of the heart. His strong constitution was slow in giving way, and he lingered for weeks in a painful condition of weakness, knowing that his end was near, and looking at death with fearless eyes. In Mr. Blomefield's (Jenyns) 'Memoir of Henslow' (1862) is a dignified and touching description of Prof. Sedgwick's farewell visit to his old friend. Sedgwick said afterwards that he had never seen "a human being whose soul was nearer heaven." My father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker on hearing of Henslow's death, "I fully believe a better man never walked this earth." He gave his impressions of Henslow's character in Mr. Blomefield's 'Memoir.' In reference to these recollections he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (May 30, 1861):-- "This morning I wrote my recollections and impressions of character of poor dear Henslow about the year 1830. I liked the job, and so have written four or five pages, now being copied. I do not suppose you will use all, of course you can chop and change as much as you like. If more than a sentence is used, I should like to see a proof-page, as I never can write decently till I see it in print. Very likely some of my remarks may appear too trifling, but I thought it best to give my thoughts as they arose, for you or Jenyns to use as you think fit. "You will see that I have exceeded your request, but, as I said when I began, I took pleasure in writing my impression of his admirable character."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1861]. My dear Gray, I have been rather extra busy, so have been slack in answering your note of May 6th. I hope you have received long ago the third edition of the 'Origin.'... I have heard nothing from Trubner of the sale of your Essay, hence fear it has not been great; I wrote to say you could supply more. I send a copy to Sir J. Herschel, and in his new edition of his 'Physical Geography' he has a note on the 'Origin of Species,' and agrees, to a certain limited extent, but puts in a caution on design--much like yours... I have been led to think more on this subject of late, and grieve to say that I come to differ more from you. It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity "Natural Selection" superfluous, but rather from studying, lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature. I thank you much for sending me your review of Phillips. ('Life on the Earth,' 1860.) I remember once telling you a lot of trades which you ought to have followed, but now I am convinced that you are a born reviewer. By Jove, how well and often you hit the nail on the head! You rank Phillips's book higher than I do, or than Lyell does, who thinks it fearfully retrograde. I amused myself by parodying Phillips's argument as applied to domestic variation; and you might thus prove that the duck or pigeon has not varied because the goose has not, though more anciently domesticated, and no good reason can be assigned why it has not produced many varieties ... I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth--slavery--abolished! Farewell. Hooker has been absorbed with poor dear revered Henslow's affairs. Farewell. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. HUGH FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN. 31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861. My dear Darwin, I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me a live Proteus anguinus, designed for you from the moment I got it; i.e. if you have got an aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last night from the continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The poor dear animal is still alive--although it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a month--and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving it longer. In your hands it will thrive and have a fair chance of being developed without delay into some type of the Columbidae--say a Pouter or a Tumbler. My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy, and Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your views and your admirable essay canvassed--the views of course often dissented from, according to the special bias of the speaker--but the work, its honesty of purpose, grandeur of conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous exposition, always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in the just appreciation of Charles Darwin than did Yours very truly, H. FALCONER. CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH FALCONER. Down [June 24, 1861]. My dear Falconer, I have just received your note, and by good luck a day earlier than properly, and I lose not a moment in answering you, and thanking you heartily for your offer of the valuable specimen; but I have no aquarium and shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand pities that I should have it. Yet I should certainly much like to see it, but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoological Society be the best place? and then the interest which many would take in this extraordinary animal would repay you for your trouble. Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering me this specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more than the specimen. I shall keep your note amongst a very few precious letters. Your kindness has quite touched me. Yours affectionately and gratefully, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. 2 Hesketh Crescent, Torquay, July 13 [1861]. ... I hope Harvey is better; I got his review (The 'Dublin Hospital Gazette,' May 15, 1861. The passage referred to is at page 150.) of me a day or two ago, from which I infer he must be convalescent; it's very good and fair; but it is funny to see a man argue on the succession of animals from Noah's Deluge; as God did not then wholly destroy man, probably he did not wholly destroy the races of other animals at each geological period! I never expected to have a helping hand from the Old Testament... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Crescent, Torquay, July 20 [1861]. My dear Lyell, I sent you two or three days ago a duplicate of a good review of the 'Origin' by a Mr. Maw (Mr. George Maw, of Benthall Hall. The review was published in the 'Zoologist,' July, 1861. On the back of my father's copy is written, "Must be consulted before new edit. of 'Origin'"--words which are wanting on many more pretentious notices, on which frequently occur my father's brief o/-, or "nothing new."), evidently a thoughtful man, as I thought you might like to have it, as you have so many... This is quite a charming place, and I have actually walked, I believe, good two miles out and back, which is a grand feat. I saw Mr. Pengelly (William Pengelly, the geologist, and well-known explorer of the Devonshire caves.) the other day, and was pleased at his enthusiasm. I do not in the least know whether you are in London. Your illness must have lost you much time, but I hope you have nearly got your great job of the new edition finished. You must be very busy, if in London, so I will be generous, and on honour bright do not expect any answer to this dull little note... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 17 [1861?]. My dear Gray, I thank you sincerely for your very long and interesting letter, political and scientific, of August 27th and 29th, and September 2nd received this morning. I agree with much of what you say, and I hope to God we English are utterly wrong in doubting (1) whether the N. can conquer the S.; (2) whether the N. has many friends in the South, and (3) whether you noble men of Massachusetts are right in transferring your own good feelings to the men of Washington. Again I say I hope to God we are wrong in doubting on these points. It is number (3) which alone causes England not to be enthusiastic with you. What it may be in Lancashire I know not, but in S. England cotton has nothing whatever to do with our doubts. If abolition does follow with your victory, the whole world will look brighter in my eyes, and in many eyes. It would be a great gain even to stop the spread of slavery into the Territories; if that be possible without abolition, which I should have doubted. You ought not to wonder so much at England's coldness, when you recollect at the commencement of the war how many propositions were made to get things back to the old state with the old line of latitude, but enough of this, all I can say is that Massachusetts and the adjoining States have the full sympathy of every good man whom I see; and this sympathy would be extended to the whole Federal States, if we could be persuaded that your feelings were at all common to them. But enough of this. It is out of my line, though I read every word of news, and formerly well studied Olmsted... Your question what would convince me of Design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If I could be convinced thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing. I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have asked him (and he says he will hereafter reflect and answer me) whether he believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does I have nothing more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting individual differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which natural selection preserves for the good of any being have been designed. But I know that I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said before) as all the world seems to be in with respect to free will, yet with everything supposed to have been foreseen or pre-ordained. Farewell, my dear Gray, with many thanks for your interesting letter. Your unmerciful correspondent. C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, December 3 [1861]. My dear Sir, I thank you for your extremely interesting letter, and valuable references, though God knows when I shall come again to this part of my subject. One cannot of course judge of style when one merely hears a paper (On Mimetic Butterflies, read before the Linnean Soc., November 21, 1861. For my father's opinion of it when published, see below.), but yours seemed to me very clear and good. Believe me that I estimate its value most highly. Under a general point of view, I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley took the same view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature can solely be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects as you have done. Under a special point of view, I think you have solved one of the most perplexing problems which could be given to solve. I am glad to hear from Hooker that the Linnean Society will give plates if you can get drawings... Do not complain of want of advice during your travels; I dare say part of your great originality of views may be due to the necessity of sel-exertion of thought. I can understand that your reception at the British Museum would damp you; they are a very good set of men, but not the sort to appreciate your work. In fact I have long thought that TOO MUCH systematic work [and] description somehow blunts the faculties. The general public appreciates a good dose of reasoning, or generalisation, with new and curious remarks on habits, final causes, etc. etc., far more than do the regular naturalists. I am extremely glad to hear that you have begun your travels... I am very busy, but I shall be TRULY glad to render any aid which I can by reading your first chapter or two. I do not think I shall be able to correct style, for this reason, that after repeated trials I find I cannot correct my own style till I see the MS. in type. Some are born with a power of good writing, like Wallace; others like myself and Lyell have to labour very hard and slowly at every sentence. I find it a very good plan, when I cannot get a difficult discussion to please me, to fancy that some one comes into the room and asks me what I am doing; and then try at once and explain to the imaginary person what it is all about. I have done this for one paragraph to myself several times, and sometimes to Mrs. Darwin, till I see how the subject ought to go. It is, I think, good to read one's MS. aloud. But style to me is a great difficulty; yet some good judges think I have succeeded, and I say this to encourage you. What I THINK I can do will be to tell you whether parts had better be shortened. It is good, I think, to dash "in media res," and work in later any descriptions of country or any historical details which may be necessary. Murray likes lots of wood-cuts--give some by all means of ants. The public appreciate monkeys--our poor cousins. What sexual differences are there in monkeys? Have you kept them tame? if so, about their expression. I fear that you will hardly read my vile hand-writing, but I cannot without killing trouble write better. You shall have my candid opinion on your MS., but remember it is hard to judge from MS., one reads slowly, and heavy parts seem much heavier. A first-rate judge thought my Journal very poor; now that it is in print, I happen to know, he likes it. I am sure you will understand why I am so egotistical. I was a LITTLE disappointed in Wallace's book ('Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,' 1853.) on the Amazon; hardly facts enough. On the other hand, in Gosse's book (Probably the 'Naturalist's Sojourn in Jamaica,' 1851.) there is not reasoning enough to my taste. Heaven knows whether you will care to read all this scribbling... I am glad you had a pleasant day with Hooker (In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 1861), my father wrote: "I am very glad to hear that you like Bates. I have seldom in my life been more struck with a man's power of mind."), he is an admirably good man in every sense. [The following extract from a letter to Mr. Bates on the same subject is interesting as giving an idea of the plan followed by my father in writing his 'Naturalist's Voyage:' "As an old hackneyed author, let me give you a bit of advice, viz. to strike out every word which is not quite necessary to the current subject, and which could not interest a stranger. I constantly asked myself, would a stranger care for this? and struck out or left in accordingly. I think too much pains cannot be taken in making the style transparently clear and throwing eloquence to the dogs." Mr. Bates's book, 'The Naturalist on the Amazons,' was published in 1865, but the following letter may be given here rather than in its due chronological position:] CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 18, 1863. Dear Bates, I have finished volume i. My criticisms may be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is the best work of Natural History Travels ever published in England. Your style seems to me admirable. Nothing can be better than the discussion on the struggle for existence, and nothing better than the description of the Forest scenery. (In a letter to Lyell my father wrote: "He [i.e. Mr. Bates] is second only to Humboldt in describing a tropical forest.") It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells quickly, it will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species; and boldness on the subject seems to get rarer and rarer. How beautifully illustrated it is. The cut on the back is most tasteful. I heartily congratulate you on its publication. The "Athenaeum" ("I have read the first volume of Bates's Book; it is capital, and I think the best Natural History Travels ever published in England. He is bold about Species, etc., and the "Athenaeum" coolly says 'he bends his facts' for this purpose."--(From a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker.)) was rather cold, as it always is, and insolent in the highest degree about your leading facts. Have you seen the "Reader"? I can send it to you if you have not seen it... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 11 [1861]. My dear Gray, Many and cordial thanks for your two last most valuable notes. What a thing it is that when you receive this we may be at war, and we two be bound, as good patriots, to hate each other, though I shall find this hating you very hard work. How curious it is to see two countries, just like two angry and silly men, taking so opposite a view of the same transaction! I fear there is no shadow of doubt we shall fight if the two Southern rogues are not given up. (The Confederate Commissioners Slidell and Mason were forcibly removed from the "Trent", a West India mail steamer on November 8, 1861. The news that the U.S. agreed to release them reached England on January 8, 1862.) And what a wretched thing it will be if we fight on the side of slavery. No doubt it will be said that we fight to get cotton; but I fully believe that this has not entered into the motive in the least. Well, thank Heaven, we private individuals have nothing to do with so awful a responsibility. Again, how curious it is that you seem to think that you can conquer the South; and I never meet a soul, even those who would most wish it, who thinks it possible--that is, to conquer and retain it. I do not suppose the mass of people in your country will believe it, but I feel sure if we do go to war it will be with the utmost reluctance by all classes, Ministers of Government and all. Time will show, and it is no use writing or thinking about it. I called the other day on Dr. Boott, and was pleased to find him pretty well and cheerful. I see, by the way, he takes quite an English opinion of American affairs, though an American in heart. (Dr. Boott was born in the U.S.) Buckle might write a chapter on opinion being entirely dependent on longitude! ... With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show a white flag than to fire my usual long-range shot. I like to try and ask you a puzzling question, but when you return the compliment I have great doubts whether it is a fair way of arguing. If anything is designed, certainly man must be: one's "inner consciousness" (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae... were designed. If I was to say I believed this, I should believe it in the same incredible manner as the orthodox believe the Trinity in Unity. You say that you are in a haze; I am in thick mud; the orthodox would say in fetid, abominable mud; yet I cannot keep out of the question. My dear Gray, I have written a deal of nonsense. Yours most cordially, C. DARWIN. 1862. [Owing to the illness from scarlet fever of one of his boys, he took a house at Bournemouth in the autumn. He wrote to Dr. Gray from Southampton (August 21, 1862):-- "We are a wretched family, and ought to be exterminated. We slept here to rest our poor boy on his journey to Bournemouth, and my poor dear wife sickened with scarlet fever, and has had it pretty sharply, but is recovering well. There is no end of trouble in this weary world. I shall not feel safe till we are all at home together, and when that will be I know not. But it is foolish complaining." Dr. Gray used to send postage stamps to the scarlet fever patient; with regard to this good-natured deed my father wrote-- "I must just recur to stamps; my little man has calculated that he will now have 6 stamps which no other boy in the school has. Here is a triumph. Your last letter was plaistered with many coloured stamps, and he long surveyed the envelope in bed with much quiet satisfaction." The greater number of the letters of 1862 deal with the Orchid work, but the wave of conversion to Evolution was still spreading, and reviews and letters bearing on the subject still came in numbers. As an example of the odd letters he received may be mentioned one which arrived in January of this year "from a German homoeopathic doctor, an ardent admirer of the 'Origin.' Had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much deeper. Explains the origin of plants and animals on the principles of homoeopathy or by the law of spirality. Book fell dead in Germany. Therefore would I translate it and publish it in England."] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [January?] 14 [1862]. My dear Huxley, I am heartily glad of your success in the North (This refers to two of Mr. Huxley's lectures, given before the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh in 1862. The substance of them is given in 'Man's Place in Nature.'), and thank you for your note and slip. By Jove you have attacked Bigotry in its stronghold. I thought you would have been mobbed. I am so glad that you will publish your Lectures. You seem to have kept a due medium between extreme boldness and caution. I am heartily glad that all went off so well. I hope Mrs. Huxley is pretty well... I must say one word on the Hybrid question. No doubt you are right that here is a great hiatus in the argument; yet I think you overrate it--you never allude to the excellent evidence of VARIETIES of Verbascum and Nicotiana being partially sterile together. It is curious to me to read (as I have to-day) the greatest crossing GARDENER utterly pooh-poohing the distinction which BOTANISTS make on this head, and insisting how frequently crossed VARIETIES produce sterile offspring. Do oblige me by reading the latter half of my Primula paper in the 'Linn. Journal,' for it leads me to suspect that sterility will hereafter have to be largely viewed as an acquired or SELECTED character--a view which I wish I had had facts to maintain in the 'Origin.' (The view here given will be discussed in the chapter on hetero-styled plants.) CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 25 [1862]. My dear Hooker, Many thanks for your last Sunday's letter, which was one of the pleasantest I ever received in my life. We are all pretty well redivivus, and I am at work again. I thought it best to make a clean breast to Asa Gray; and told him that the Boston dinner, etc. etc., had quite turned my stomach, and that I almost thought it would be good for the peace of the world if the United States were split up; on the other hand, I said that I groaned to think of the slave-holders being triumphant, and that the difficulties of making a line of separation were fearful. I wonder what he will say... Your notion of the Aristocrat being kenspeckle, and the best men of a good lot being thus easily selected is new to me, and striking. The 'Origin' having made you in fact a jolly old Tory, made us all laugh heartily. I have sometimes speculated on this subject; primogeniture (My father had a strong feeling as to the injustice of primogeniture, and in a similar spirit was often indignant over the unfair wills that appear from time to time. He would declare energetically that if he were law-giver no will should be valid that was not published in the testator's lifetime; and this he maintained would prevent much of the monstrous injustice and meanness apparent in so many wills.) is dreadfully opposed to selection; suppose the first-born bull was necessarily made by each farmer the begetter of his stock! On the other hand, as you say, ablest men are continually raised to the peerage, and get crossed with the older Lord-breeds, and the Lords continually select the most beautiful and charming women out of the lower ranks; so that a good deal of indirect selection improves the Lords. Certainly I agree with you the present American row has a very Torifying influence on us all. I am very glad to hear you are beginning to print the 'Genera;' it is a wonderful satisfaction to be thus brought to bed, indeed it is one's chief satisfaction, I think, though one knows that another bantling will soon be developing... CHARLES DARWIN TO MAXWELL MASTERS. (Dr. Masters is a well-known vegetable teratologist, and has been for many years the editor of the "Gardeners' Chronicle".) Down, February 26 [1862]. My dear Sir, I am much obliged to you for sending me your article (Refers to a paper on "Vegetable Morphology," by Dr. Masters, in the 'British and Foreign Medic-Chirurgical Review' for 1862), which I have just read with much interest. The history, and a good deal besides, was quite new to me. It seems to me capitally done, and so clearly written. You really ought to write your larger work. You speak too generously of my book; but I must confess that you have pleased me not a little; for no one, as far as I know, has ever remarked on what I say on classification--a part, which when I wrote it, pleased me. With many thanks to you for sending me your article, pray believe me, My dear Sir, yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. [In the spring of this year (1862) my father read the second volume of Buckle's 'History of Civilisation." The following strongly expressed opinion about it may be worth quoting:-- "Have you read Buckle's second volume? It has interested me greatly; I do not care whether his views are right or wrong, but I should think they contained much truth. There is a noble love of advancement and truth throughout; and to my taste he is the very best writer of the English language that ever lived, let the other be who he may."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, March 15 [1862]. My dear Gray, Thanks for the newspapers (though they did contain digs at England), and for your note of February 18th. It is really almost a pleasure to receive stabs from so smooth, polished, and sharp a dagger as your pen. I heartily wish I could sympathise more fully with you, instead of merely hating the South. We cannot enter into your feelings; if Scotland were to rebel, I presume we should be very wrath, but I do not think we should care a penny what other nations thought. The millennium must come before nations love each other; but try and do not hate me. Think of me, if you will as a poor blinded fool. I fear the dreadful state of affairs must dull your interest in Science... I believe that your pamphlet has done my book GREAT good; and I thank you from my heart for myself; and believing that the views are in large part true, I must think that you have done natural science a good turn. Natural Selection seems to be making a little progress in England and on the Continent; a new German edition is called for, and a French (In June, 1862, my father wrote to Dr. Gray: "I received, 2 or 3 days ago, a French translation of the 'Origin,' by a Madlle. Royer, who must be one of the cleverest and oddest women in Europe: is an ardent Deist, and hates Christianity, and declares that natural selection and the struggle for life will explain all morality, nature of man, politics, etc. etc.! She makes some very curious and good hits, and says she shall publish a book on these subjects." Madlle. Royer added foot-notes to her translation, and in many places where the author expresses great doubt, she explains the difficulty, or points out that no real difficulty exists.) one has just appeared. One of the best men, though at present unknown, who has taken up these views, is Mr. Bates; pray read his 'Travels in Amazonia,' when they appear; they will be very good, judging from MS. of the first two chapters. ... Again I say, do not hate me. Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton (The house of his son William.), August 22, [1862]. ... I heartily hope that you (I.e. 'The Antiquity of Man.') will be out in October... you say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you; the latter hardly can, for I was assured that Owen in his Lectures this spring advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse, also that magpies stole spoons, etc., from a REMNANT of some instinct like that of the Bower-Bird, which ornaments its playing-passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all birds are descended from one... Your P.S. touches on, as it seems to me, very difficult points. I am glad to see [that] in the 'Origin,' I only say that the naturalists generally consider that low organisms vary more than high; and this I think certainly is the general opinion. I put the statement this way to show that I considered it only an opinion probably true. I must own that I do not at all trust even Hooker's contrary opinion, as I feel pretty sure that he has not tabulated any result. I have some materials at home, I think I attempted to make this point out, but cannot remember the result. Mere variability, though the necessary foundation of all modifications, I believe to be almost always present, enough to allow of any amount of selected change; so that it does not seem to me at all incompatible that a group which at any one period (or during all successive periods) varies less, should in the long course of time have undergone more modification than a group which is generally more variable. Placental animals, e.g. might be at each period less variable than Marsupials, and nevertheless have undergone more DIFFERENTIATION and development than marsupials, owing to some advantage, probably brain development. I am surprised, but do not pretend to form an opinion at Hooker's statement that higher species, genera, etc., are best limited. It seems to me a bold statement. Looking to the 'Origin,' I see that I state that the productions of the land seem to change quicker than those of the sea (Chapter X., page 339, 3d edition), and I add there is some reason to believe that organisms considered high in the scale change quicker than those that are low. I remember writing these sentences after much deliberation... I remember well feeling much hesitation about putting in even the guarded sentences which I did. My doubts, I remember, related to the rate of change of the Radiata in the Secondary formation, and of the Foraminifera in the oldest Tertiary beds... Good night, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, October 1 [1862]. ... I found here (On his return from Bournemouth.) a short and very kind note of Falconer, with some pages of his 'Elephant Memoir,' which will be published, in which he treats admirably on long persistence of type. I thought he was going to make a good and crushing attack on me, but to my great satisfaction, he ends by pointing out a loophole, and adds (Falconer, "On the American Fossil Elephant," in the 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1863, page 81. The words preceding those cited by my father make the meaning of his quotation clearer. The passage begins as follows: "The inferences which I draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of Darwin's theory. With him," etc. etc.) "with him I have no faith that the mammoth and other extinct elephants made their appearance suddenly... The most rational view seems to be that they are the modified descendants of earlier progenitors, etc." This is capital. There will not be soon one good palaeontologist who believes in immutability. Falconer does not allow for the Proboscidean group being a failing one, and therefore not likely to be giving off new races. He adds that he does not think Natural Selection suffices. I do not quite see the force of his argument, and he apparently overlooks that I say over and over again that Natural Selection can do nothing without variability, and that variability is subject to the most complex fixed laws... [In his letters to Sir J.D. Hooker, about the end of this year, are occasional notes on the progress of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.' Thus on November 24th he wrote: "I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of natural selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be." Again, on December 22nd, "To-day I have begun to think of arranging my concluding chapters on Inheritance, Reversion, Selection, and such things, and am fairly paralyzed how to begin and how to end, and what to do, with my huge piles of materials."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 6 [1862]. My dear Gray, When your note of October 4th and 13th (chiefly about Max Muller) arrived, I was nearly at the end of the same book ('Lectures on the Science of Language,' 1st edition 1861.), and had intended recommending you to read it. I quite agree that it is extremely interesting, but the latter part about the FIRST origin of language much the least satisfactory. It is a marvellous problem...[There are] covert sneers at me, which he seems to get the better of towards the close of the book. I cannot quite see how it will forward "my cause," as you call it; but I can see how any one with literary talent (I do not feel up to it) could make great use of the subject in illustration. (Language was treated in the manner here indicated by Sir C. Lyell in the 'Antiquity of Man.' Also by Prof. Schleicher, whose pamphlet was fully noticed in the "Reader", February 27, 1864 (as I learn from one of Prof. Huxley's 'Lay Sermons').) What pretty metaphors you would make from it! I wish some one would keep a lot of the most noisy monkeys, half free, and study their means of communication! A book has just appeared here which will, I suppose, make a noise, by Bishop Colenso ('The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined,' six parts, 1862-71.), who, judging from extracts, smashes most of the Old testament. Talking of books, I am in the middle of one which pleases me, though it is very innocent food, viz., Miss Coopers 'Journal of a Naturalist.' Who is she? She seems a very clever woman, and gives a capital account of the battle between OUR and YOUR weeds. Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest, downright good sort of weeds. The book gives an extremely pretty picture of one of your villages; but I see your autumn, though so much more gorgeous than ours, comes on sooner, and that is one comfort... CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 20 [1862]. Dear Bates, I have just finished, after several reads, your paper. (This refers to Mr. Bates's paper, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons Valley" ('Linn. Soc. Trans.' xxiii., 1862), in which the now familiar subject of mimicry was founded. My father wrote a short review of it in the 'Natural History Review,' 1863, page 219, parts of which occur in this review almost verbatim in the later editions of the 'Origin of Species.' A striking passage occurs showing the difficulties of the case from a creationist's point of view:-- "By what means, it may be asked, have so many butterflies of the Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation--an answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only by long-drawn arguments; but it is made at the expense of putting an effectual bar to all further enquiry. In this particular case, moreover, the creationist will meet with special difficulties; for many of the mimicking forms of Leptalis can be shown by a graduated series to be merely varieties of one species; other mimickers are undoubtedly distinct species, or even distinct genera. So again, some of the mimicked forms can be shown to be merely varieties; but the greater number must be ranked as distinct species. Hence the creationist will have to admit that some of these forms have become imitators, by means of the laws of variation, whilst others he must look at as separately created under their present guise; he will further have to admit that some have been created in imitation of forms not themselves created as we now see them, but due to the laws of variation? Prof. Agassiz, indeed, would think nothing of this difficulty; for he believes that not only each species and each variety, but that groups of individuals, though identically the same, when inhabiting distinct countries, have been all separately created in due proportional numbers to the wants of each land. Not many naturalists will be content thus to believe that varieties and individuals have been turned out all ready made, almost as a manufacturer turns out toys according to the temporary demand of the market.") In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and admirable papers I ever read in my life. The mimetic cases are truly marvellous, and you connect excellently a host of analogous facts. The illustrations are beautiful, and seem very well chosen; but it would have saved the reader not a little trouble, if the name of each had been engraved below each separate figure. No doubt this would have put the engraver into fits, as it would have destroyed the beauty of the plate. I am not at all surprised at such a paper having consumed much time. I am rejoiced that I passed over the whole subject in the 'Origin,' for I should have made a precious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved a wonderful problem. No doubt with most people this will be the cream of the paper; but I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on variation, and on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species, is not really more, or at least as valuable, a part. I never conceived the process nearly so clearly before; one feels present at the creation of new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a little more on the pairing of similar varieties; a rather more numerous body of facts seems here wanted. Then, again, what a host of curious miscellaneous observations there are--as on related sexual and individual variability: these will some day, if I live, be a treasure to me. With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common with insects, do you not think it may be connected with their small size; they cannot defend themselves; they cannot escape by flight, at least, from birds, therefore they escape by trickery and deception? I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the title of the paper; I cannot but think that you ought to have called prominent attention in it to the mimetic resemblances. Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by the mob of naturalists without souls; but, rely on it, that it will have LASTING value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first great work. You will find, I should think, that Wallace will fully appreciate it. How gets on your book? Keep your spirits up. A book is no light labour. I have been better lately, and working hard, but my health is very indifferent. How is your health? Believe me, dear Bates, Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.IV. -- THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS' 1863-1866. [His book on animals and plants under domestication was my father's chief employment in the year 1863. His diary records the length of time spent over the composition of its chapters, and shows the rate at which he arranged and wrote out for printing the observations and deductions of several years. The three chapters in volume ii. on inheritance, which occupy 84 pages of print, were begun in January and finished on April 1st; the five on crossing, making 106 pages, were written in eight weeks, while the two chapters on selection, covering 57 pages, were begun on June 16th and finished on July 20th. The work was more than once interrupted by ill health, and in September, what proved to be the beginning of a six month's illness, forced him to leave home for the water-cure at Malvern. He returned in October and remained ill and depressed, in spite of the hopeful opinion of one of the most cheery and skilful physicians of the day. Thus he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker in November:-- "Dr. Brinton has been here (recommended by Busk); he does not believe my brain or heart are primarily affected, but I have been so steadily going down hill, I cannot help doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very short, for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to the best and kindest of wives and good dear children is dreadful." The minor works in this year were a short paper in the 'Natural History Review' (N.S. vol. iii. page 115), entitled "On the so-called 'Auditor-Sac' of Cirripedes," and one in the 'Geological Society's Journal' (vol. xix), on the "Thickness of the Pampaean Formation near Buenos Ayres." The paper on Cirripedes was called forth by the criticisms of a German naturalist Krohn (Krohn stated that the structures described by my father as ovaries were in reality salivary glands, also that the oviduct runs down to the orifice described in the 'Monograph of the Cirripedia' as the auditory meatus.), and is of some interest in illustration of my father's readiness to admit an error. With regard to the spread of a belief in Evolution, it could not yet be said that the battle was won, but the growth of belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance, Charles Kingsley could write to F.D. Maurice (Kingsley's 'Life,' ii, page 171.): "The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact." Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the 'Origin of Species.' He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of Mines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4 pence each, under the title, 'Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature.' When published they were read with interest by my father, who thus refers to them in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "I am very glad you like Huxley's lectures. I have been very much struck with them, especially with the 'Philosophy of Induction.' I have quarrelled with him for overdoing sterility and ignoring cases from Gartner and Kolreuter about sterile varieties. His Geology is obscure; and I rather doubt about man's mind and language. But it seems to me ADMIRABLY done, and, as you say, "Oh my," about the praise of the 'Origin.' I can't help liking it, which makes me rather ashamed of myself." My father admired the clearness of exposition shown in the lectures, and in the following letter urges their author to make use of his powers for the advantage of students:] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 5 [1864]. I want to make a suggestion to you, but which may probably have occurred to you. -- was reading your Lectures and ended by saying, "I wish he would write a book." I answered, "he has just written a great book on the skull." "I don't call that a book," she replied, and added, "I want something that people can read; he does write so well." Now, with your ease in writing, and with knowledge at your fingers' ends, do you not think you could write a popular Treatise on Zoology? Of course it would be some waste of time, but I have been asked more than a dozen times to recommend something for a beginner and could only think of Carpenter's Zoology. I am sure that a striking Treatise would do real service to science by educating naturalists. If you were to keep a portfolio open for a couple of years, and throw in slips of paper as subjects crossed your mind, you would soon have a skeleton (and that seems to me the difficulty) on which to put the flesh and colours in your inimitable manner. I believe such a book might have a brilliant success, but I did not intend to scribble so much about it. Give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Huxley, and tell her I was looking at 'Enoch Arden,' and as I know how she admires Tennyson, I must call her attention to two sweetly pretty lines (page 105)... ... and he meant, he said he meant, Perhaps he meant, or partly meant, you well. Such a gem as this is enough to make me young again, and like poetry with pristine fervour. My dear Huxley, Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [In another letter (January 1865) he returns to the above suggestion, though he was in general strongly opposed to men of science giving up to the writing of text-books, or to teaching, the time that might otherwise have been given to original research. "I knew there was very little chance of your having time to write a popular Treatise on Zoology, but you are about the one man who could do it. At the time I felt it would be almost a sin for you to do it, as it would of course destroy some original work. On the other hand I sometimes think that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress of science as original work." The series of letters will continue the history of the year 1863.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 3 [1863]. My dear Hooker, I am burning with indignation and must exhale... I could not get to sleep till past 3 last night for indignation (It would serve no useful purpose if I were to go into the matter which so strongly roused my father's anger. It was a question of literary dishonesty, in which a friend was the sufferer, but which in no way affected himself.)... Now for pleasanter subjects; we were all amused at your defence of stamp collecting and collecting generally... But, by Jove, I can hardly stomach a grown man collecting stamps. Who would ever have thought of your collecting Wedgwoodware! but that is wholly different, like engravings or pictures. We are degenerate descendants of old Josiah W., for we have not a bit of pretty ware in the house. ... Notwithstanding the very pleasant reason you give for our not enjoying a holiday, namely, that we have no vices, it is a horrid bore. I have been trying for health's sake to be idle, with no success. What I shall now have to do, will be to erect a tablet in Down Church, "Sacred to the Memory, etc.," and officially die, and then publish books, "by the late Charles Darwin," for I cannot think what has come over me of late; I always suffered from the excitement of talking, but now it has become ludicrous. I talked lately 1 1/2 hours (broken by tea by myself) with my nephew, and I was [ill] half the night. It is a fearful evil for self and family. Good-night. Ever yours. C. DARWIN. [The following letter to Sir Julius von Haast (Sir Julius von Haast was a German by birth, but had long been resident in New Zealand. He was, in 1862, Government Geologist to the Province of Canterbury.), is an example of the sympathy which he felt with the spread and growth of science in the colonies. It was a feeling not expressed once only, but was frequently present in his mind, and often found utterance. When we, at Cambridge, had the satisfaction of receiving Sir J. von Haast into our body as a Doctor of Science (July 1886), I had the opportunity of hearing from him of the vivid pleasure which this, and other letters from my father, gave him. It was pleasant to see how strong had been the impression made by my father's warm-hearted sympathy--an impression which seemed, after more than twenty years, to be as fresh as when it was first received:] CHARLES DARWIN TO JULIUS VON HAAST. Down, January 22 [1863]. Dear Sir, I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Address and the Geological Report. (Address to the 'Philosophical Institute of Canterbury (N.Z.).' The "Report" is given in "The New Zealand Government Gazette, Province of Canterbury", October 1862.) I have seldom in my life read anything more spirited and interesting than your address. The progress of your colony makes one proud, and it is really admirable to see a scientific institution founded in so young a nation. I thank you for the very honourable notice of my 'Origin of Species.' You will easily believe how much I have been interested by your striking facts on the old glacial period, and I suppose the world might be searched in vain for so grand a display of terraces. You have, indeed, a noble field for scientific research and discovery. I have been extremely much interested by what you say about the tracks of supposed [living] mammalia. Might I ask, if you succeed in discovering what the creatures are, you would have the great kindness to inform me? Perhaps they may turn out something like the Solenhofen bird creature, with its long tail and fingers, with claws to its wings! I may mention that in South America, in completely uninhabited regions, I found spring rat-traps, baited with CHEESE, were very successful in catching the smaller mammals. I would venture to suggest to you to urge on some of the capable members of your institution to observe annually the rate and manner of spreading of European weeds and insects, and especially to observe WHAT NATIVE PLANTS MOST FAIL; this latter point has never been attended to. Do the introduced hive-bees replace any other insect? etc. All such points are, in my opinion, great desiderata in science. What an interesting discovery that of the remains of prehistoric man! Believe me, dear Sir, With the most cordial respect and thanks, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO CAMILLE DARESTE. (Professor Dareste is a well-known worker in Animal Teratology. He was in 1863 living at Lille, but has since then been called to Paris. My father took a special interest in Dareste's work on the production of monsters, as bearing on the causes of variation.) Down, February 16 [1863]. Dear and respected Sir, I thank you sincerely for your letter and your pamphlet. I had heard (I think in one of M. Quatrefages' books) of your work, and was most anxious to read it, but did not know where to find it. You could not have made me a more valuable present. I have only just returned home, and have not yet read your work; when I do if I wish to ask any questions I will venture to trouble you. Your approbation of my book on Species has gratified me extremely. Several naturalists in England, North America, and Germany, have declared that their opinions on the subject have in some degree been modified, but as far as I know, my book has produced no effect whatever in France, and this makes me the more gratified by your very kind expression of approbation. Pray believe me, dear Sir, with much respect, Yours faithfully and obliged, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 24 [1863]. My dear Hooker, I am astonished at your note, I have not seen the "Athenaeum" (In the 'Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 480, Lyell criticised somewhat severely Owen's account of the difference between the Human and Simian brains. The number of the "Athenaeum" here referred to (1863, page 262) contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell's strictures. The surprise expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which every one believed to be closed. Prof. Huxley ("Medical Times", October 25, 1862, quoted in 'Man's Place in Nature,' page 117) spoke of the "two years during which this preposterous controversy has dragged its weary length." And this no doubt expressed a very general feeling.) but I have sent for it, and may get it to-morrow; and will then say what I think. I have read Lyell's book. ['The Antiquity of Man.'] the whole certainty struck me as a compilation, but of the highest class, for when possible the facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original work. The Glacial chapters seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could hardly judge about Man, as all the gloss of novelty was completely worn off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a very striking effect on my mind. The chapter comparing language and changes of species, seems most ingenious and interesting. He has shown great skill in picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any judgment... From all my communications with him I must ever think that he has really entirely lost faith in the immutability of species; and yet one of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows: "If it should EVER (The italics are not Lyell's.) be rendered highly probable that species change by variation and natural selection," etc., etc. I had hoped he would have guided the public as far as his own belief went... One thing does please me on this subject, that he seems to appreciate your work. No doubt the public or a part may be induced to think that as he gives to us a larger space than to Lamarck, he must think there is something in our views. When reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if he had said openly that he believed in change of species, and as a consequence that man was derived from some Quadrumanous animal, it would have been very proper to have discussed by compilation the differences in the most important organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the chapter seems to me to come in rather by the head and shoulders. I do not think (but then I am as prejudiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that it is too severe; it struck me as given with judicial force. It might perhaps be said with truth that he had no business to judge on a subject on which he knows nothing; but compilers must do this to a certain extent. (You know I value and rank high compilers, being one myself!) I have taken you at your word, and scribbled at great length. If I get the "Athenaeum" to-morrow, I will add my impression of Owen's letter. ... The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till Wednesday. I dread it, but I must say how much disappointed I am that he has not spoken out on species, still less on man. And the best of the joke is that he thinks he has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may have taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall PARTICULARLY be glad of your opinion on this head. (On this subject my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker: "Cordial thanks for your deeply interesting letters about Lyell, Owen, and Co. I cannot say how glad I am to hear that I have not been unjust about the species-question towards Lyell. I feared I had been unreasonable.") When I got his book I turned over the pages, and saw he had discussed the subject of species, and said that I thought he would do more to convert the public than all of us, and now (which makes the case worse for me) I must, in common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had said not a word on the subject. WEDNESDAY MORNING: I have read the "Athenaeum". I do not think Lyell will be nearly so much annoyed as you expect. The concluding sentence is no doubt very stinging. No one but a good anatomist could unravel Owen's letter; at least it is quite beyond me. ... Lyell's memory plays him false when he says all anatomists were astonished at Owen's paper ("On the Characters, etc., of the Class Mammalia." 'Linn. Soc. Journal,' ii, 1858.); it was often quoted with approbation. I WELL remember Lyell's admiration at this new classification! (Do not repeat this.) I remember it, because, though I knew nothing whatever about the brain, I felt a conviction that a classification thus founded on a single character would break down, and it seemed to me a great error not to separate more completely the Marsupialia... What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quarrelling within, what ought to be, the peaceful realms of science. I will go to my own present subject of inheritance and forget it all for a time. Farewell, my dear old friend, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 23 [1863]. ... If you have time to read you will be interested by parts of Lyell's book on man; but I fear that the best part, about the Glacial period, may be too geological for any one except a regular geologist. He quotes you at the end with gusto. By the way, he told me the other day how pleased some had been by hearing that they could purchase your pamphlet. The "Parthenon" also speaks of it as the ablest contribution to the literature of the subject. It delights me when I see your work appreciated. The Lyells come here this day week, and I shall grumble at his excessive caution... The public may well say, if such a man dare not or will not speak out his mind, how can we who are ignorant form even a guess on the subject? Lyell was pleased when I told him lately that you thought that language might be used as an excellent illustration of derivation of species; you will see that he has an ADMIRABLE chapter on this... I read Cairns's excellent Lecture (Prof. J.E. Cairns, 'The Slave Power, etc.: an attempt to explain the real issues involved in the American contest.' 1862.), which shows so well how your quarrel arose from Slavery. It made me for a time wish honestly for the North; but I could never help, though I tried, all the time thinking how we should be bullied and forced into a war by you, when you were triumphant. But I do most truly think it dreadful that the South, with its accursed slavery, should triumph, and spread the evil. I think if I had power, which thank God, I have not, I would let you conquer the border States, and all west of the Mississippi, and then force you to acknowledge the cotton States. For do you not now begin to doubt whether you can conquer and hold them? I have inflicted a long tirade on you. "The Times" is getting more detestable (but that is too weak a word) than ever. My good wife wishes to give it up, but I tell her that is a pitch of heroism to which only a woman is equal. To give up the "Bloody Old 'Times'," as Cobbett used to call it, would be to give up meat, drink and air. Farewell, my dear Gray, Yours most truly, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 6, [1863]. ... I have been of course deeply interested by your book. ('Antiquity of Man.') I have hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a little on what most interested me. But I will first get out what I hate saying, viz., that I have been greatly disappointed that you have not given judgment and spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of species. I should have been contented if you had boldly said that species have not been separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like on how far variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to Heaven I am wrong (and from what you say about Whewell it seems so), but I cannot see how your chapters can do more good than an extraordinary able review. I think the "Parthenon" is right, that you will leave the public in a fog. No doubt they may infer that as you give more space to myself, Wallace, and Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I had always thought that your judgment would have been an epoch in the subject. All that is over with me, and I will only think on the admirable skill with which you have selected the striking points, and explained them. No praise can be too strong, in my opinion, for the inimitable chapter on language in comparison with species. (After speculating on the sudden appearance of individuals far above the average of the human race, Lyell asks if such leaps upwards in the scale of intellect may not "have cleared at one bound the space which separated the higher stage of the unprogressive intelligence of the inferior animals from the first and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man.") page 505--A sentence at the top of the page makes me groan... I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, for you must know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured guide and master. I heartily hope and expect that your book will have gigantic circulation and may do in many ways as much good as it ought to do. I am tired, so no more. I have written so briefly that you will have to guess my meaning. I fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell, with kindest remembrance to Lady Lyell. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. [Mr. Huxley has quoted (vol. i. page 546) some passages from Lyell's letters which show his state of mind at this time. The following passage, from a letter of March 11th to my father, is also of much interest:-- "My feelings, however, more than any thought about policy or expediency, prevent me from dogmatising as to the descent of man from the brutes, which, though I am prepared to accept it, takes away much of the charm from my speculations on the past relating to such matters... But you ought to be satisfied, as I shall bring hundreds towards you who, if I treated the matter more dogmatically, would have rebelled."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 12 [March, 1863]. My dear Lyell, I thank you for your very interesting and kind, I may say, charming letter. I feared you might be huffed for a little time with me. I know some men would have been so. I have hardly any more criticisms, anyhow, worth writing. But I may mention that I felt a little surprise that old B. de Perthes (1788-1868. See footnote below.) was not rather more honourably mentioned. I would suggest whether you could not leave out some references to the 'Principles;' one for the real student is as good as a hundred, and it is rather irritating, and gives a feeling of incompleteness to the general reader to be often referred to other books. As you say that you have gone as far as you believe on the species question, I have not a word to say; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation, expressions, letters, etc., you have as completely given up belief in immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still think a clear expression from you, IF YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN IT, would have been potent with the public, and all the more so, as you formerly held opposite opinions. The more I work the more satisfied I become with variation and natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as less important, though more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms on this head (and believe me that I should not have made them unasked), I may specify (pages 412, 413) that such words as "Mr. D. labours to show," "is believed by the author to throw light," would lead a common reader to think that you yourself do NOT at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the OBVIOUS views that if species were not created separately they must have descended from other species, and I can see nothing else in common between the 'Origin' and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough. Please remember you have brought it all down on yourself!!! I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's "reclamation." ("Falconer, whom I referred to oftener than to any other author, says I have not done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall come out with a separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in the new edition, but this he declined.--C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863; Lyell's 'Life,' vol. ii. page 364.) I hate the very word, and have a sincere affection for him. Did you ever read anything so wretched as the "Athenaeum" reviews of you, and of Huxley ('Man's Place in Nature,' 1863.) especially. Your OBJECT to make man old, and Huxley's OBJECT to degrade him. The wretched writer has not a glimpse what the discovery of scientific truth means. How splendid some pages are in Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [March 13, 1863]. I should have thanked you sooner for the "Athenaeum" and very pleasant previous note, but I have been busy, and not a little uncomfortable from frequent uneasy feeling of fullness, slight pain and tickling about the heart. But as I have no other symptoms of heart complaint I do not suppose it is affected... I have had a most kind and delightfully candid letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he no more believed in Creation than you or I. I have grumbled a bit in my answer to him at his ALWAYS classing my work as a modification of Lamarck's, which it is no more than any author who did not believe in immutability of species, and did believe in descent. I am very sorry to hear from Lyell that Falconer is going to publish a formal reclamation of his own claims... It is cruel to think of it, but we must go to Malvern in the middle of April; it is ruin to me. (He went to Hartfield in Sussex, on April 27, and to Malvern in the autumn.)... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 17 [1863]. My dear Lyell, I have been much interested by your letters and enclosure, and thank you sincerely for giving me so much time when you must be so busy. What a curious letter from B. de P. [Boucher de Perthes]. He seems perfectly satisfied, and must be a very amiable man. I know something about his errors, and looked at his book many years ago, and am ashamed to think that I concluded the whole was rubbish! Yet he has done for man something like what Agassiz did for glaciers. (In his 'Antiquites Celtiques' (1847), Boucher de Perthes described the flint tools found at Abbeville with bones of rhinoceros, hyaena, etc. "But the scientific world had no faith in the statement that works of art, however rude, had been met with in undisturbed beds of such antiquity." ('Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 95).) I cannot say that I agree with Hooker about the public not liking to be told what to conclude, IF COMING FROM ONE IN YOUR POSITION. But I am heartily sorry that I was led to make complaints, or something very like complaints, on the manner in which you have treated the subject, and still more so anything about myself. I steadily ENDEAVOUR never to forget my firm belief that no one can at all judge about his own work. As for Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with you, you are triumphant; not that I can alter my opinion that to me it was an absolutely useless book. Perhaps this was owing to my always searching books for facts, perhaps from knowing my grandfather's earlier and identically the same speculation. I will only further say that if I can analyse my own feelings (a very doubtful process), it is nearly as much for your sake as for my own, that I so much wish that your state of belief could have permitted you to say boldly and distinctly out that species were not separately created. I have generally told you the progress of opinion, as I have heard it, on the species question. A first-rate German naturalist (No doubt Haeckel, whose monograph on the Radiolaria was published in 1862. In the same year Professor W. Preyer of Jena published a dissertation on Alca impennis, which was one of the earliest pieces of special work on the basis of the 'Origin of Species.') (I now forget the name!), who has lately published a grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on the 'Origin.' De Candolle, in a very good paper on "Oaks," goes, in Asa Gray's opinion, as far as he himself does; but De Candolle, in writing to me, says WE, "we think this and that;" so that I infer he really goes to the full extent with me, and tells me of a French good botanical palaeontologist (name forgotten) (The Marquis de Saporta.), who writes to De Candolle that he is sure that my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to have written all this. It satisfies me with the final results, but this result, I begin to see, will take two or three lifetimes. The entomologists are enough to keep the subject back for half a century. I really pity your having to balance the claims of so many eager aspirants for notice; it is clearly impossible to satisfy all... Certainly I was struck with the full and due honour you conferred on Falconer. I have just had a note from Hooker... I am heartily glad that you have made him so conspicuous; he is so honest, so candid, and so modest... I have read --. I could find nothing to lay hold of, which in one sense I am very glad of, as I should hate a controversy; but in another sense I am very sorry for, as I long to be in the same boat with all my friends... I am heartily glad the book is going off so well. Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [March 29, 1863]. ... Many thanks for "Athenaeum", received this morning, and to be returned to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old stupid "Athenaeum" taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in Owenian style! (This refers to a review of Dr. Carpenter's 'Introduction to the study of Foraminifera,' that appeared in the "Athenaeum" of March 28, 1863 (page 417). The reviewer attacks Dr. Carpenter's views in as much as they support the doctrine of Descent; and he upholds spontaneous generation (Heterogeny) in place of what Dr. Carpenter, naturally enough, believed in, viz. the genetic connection of living and extinct Foraminifera. In the next number is a letter by Dr. Carpenter, which chiefly consists of a protest against the reviewer's somewhat contemptuous classification of Dr. Carpenter and my father as disciple and master. In the course of the letter Dr. Carpenter says--page 461:-- "Under the influence of his foregone conclusion that I have accepted Mr. Darwin as my master, and his hypothesis as my guide, your reviewer represents me as blind to the significance of the general fact stated by me, that 'there has been no advance in the foraminiferous type from the palaeozoic period to the present time.' But for such a foregone conclusion he would have recognised in this statement the expression of my conviction that the present state of scientific evidence, instead of sanctioning the idea that the descendants of the primitive type or types of Foraminifera can ever rise to any higher grade, justifies the ANTI-DARWINIAN influence, that however widely they diverge from each other and from their originals, THEY STILL REMAIN FORAMINIFERA.")... It will be some time before we see "slime, protoplasm, etc.," generating a new animal. (On the same subject my father wrote in 1871: "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.") But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation (This refers to a passage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter's books speaks of "an operation of force," or "a concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature," as being, "a creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the primordial form 'into which life was first breathed.'" The conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the Reviewer's.), by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Friday night [April 17, 1863]. My dear Hooker, I have heard from Oliver that you will be now at Kew, and so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling a bit. I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed your tour. I never in my life saw anything like the spring flowers this year. What a lot of interesting things have been lately published. I liked extremely your review of De Candolle. What an awfully severe article that by Falconer on Lyell ("Athenaeum", April 4, 1863, page 459. The writer asserts that justice has not been done either to himself or Mr. Prestwich--that Lyell has not made it clear that it was their original work which supplied certain material for the 'Antiquity of Man.' Falconer attempts to draw an unjust distinction between a "philosopher" (here used as a polite word for compiler) like Sir Charles Lyell, and original observers, presumably such as himself, and Mr. Prestwich. Lyell's reply was published in the "Athenaeum", April 18, 1863. It ought to be mentioned that a letter from Mr. Prestwich ("Athenaeum", page 555), which formed part of the controversy, though of the nature of a reclamation, was written in a very different spirit and tone from Dr. Falconer's.); I am very sorry for it; I think Falconer on his side does not do justice to old Perthes and Schmerling... I shall be very curious to see how he [Lyell] answers it t-morrow. (I have been compelled to take in the "Athenaeum" for a while.) I am very sorry that Falconer should have written so spitefully, even if there is some truth in his accusations; I was rather disappointed in Carpenter's letter, no one could have given a better answer, but the chief object of his letter seems to me to be to show that though he has touched pitch he is not defiled. No one would suppose he went so far as to believe all birds came from one progenitor. I have written a letter to the "Athenaeum" ("Athenaeum", 1863, page 554: "The view given by me on the origin or derivation of species, whatever its weaknesses may be, connects (as has been candidly admitted by some of its opponents, such as Pictet, Bronn, etc.), by an intelligible thread of reasoning, a multitude of facts: such as the formation of domestic races by man's selection,--the classification and affinities of all organic beings,--the innumerable gradations in structure and instincts,--the similarity of pattern in the hand, wing, or paddle of animals of the same great class,--the existence of organs become rudimentary by disuse,--the similarity of an embryonic reptile, bird, and mammal, with the retention of traces of an apparatus fitted for aquatic respiration; the retention in the young calf of incisor teeth in the upper jaw, etc.--the distribution of animals and plants, and their mutual affinities within the same region,--their general geological succession, and the close relationship of the fossils in closely consecutive formations and within the same country; extinct marsupials having preceded living marsupials in Australia, and armadillo-like animals having preceded and generated armadilloes in South America,--and many other phenomena, such as the gradual extinction of old forms and their gradual replacement by new forms better fitted for their new conditions in the struggle for life. When the advocate of Heterogeny can thus connect large classes of facts, and not until then, he will have respectful and patient listeners.") (the first and last time I shall take such a step) to say, under the cloak of attacking Heterogeny, a word in my own defence. My letter is to appear next week, so the Editor says; and I mean to quote Lyell's sentence (See the next letter.) in his second edition, on the principle if one puffs oneself, one had better puff handsomely... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 18 [1863]. My dear Lyell, I was really quite sorry that you had sent me a second copy (The second edition of the 'Antiquity of Man' was published a few months after the first had appeared.) of your valuable book. But after a few hours my sorrow vanished for this reason: I have written a letter to the "Athenaeum", in order, under the cloak of attacking the monstrous article on Heterogeny, to say a word for myself in answer to Carpenter, and now I have inserted a few sentences in allusion to your analogous objection (Lyell objected that the mammalia (e.g. bats and seals) which alone have been able to reach oceanic islands ought to have become modified into various terrestrial forms fitted to fill various places in their new home. My father pointed out in the "Athenaeum" that Sir Charles has in some measure answered his own objection, and went on to quote the "amended sentence" ('Antiquity of Man,' 2nd Edition page 469) as showing how far Lyell agreed with the general doctrines of the "Origin of Species': "Yet we ought by no means to undervalue the importance of the step which will have been made, should it hereafter become the generally received opinion of men of science (as I fully expect it will) that the past changes of the organic world have been brought about by the subordinate agency of such causes as Variation and Natural Selection." In the first edition the words (as I fully expect it will," do not occur.) about bats on islands, and then with infinite slyness have quoted your amended sentence, with your parenthesis ("as I fully believe") (My father here quotes Lyell incorrectly; see the previous foot-note.); I do not think you can be annoyed at my doing this, and you see, that I am determined as far as I can, that the public shall see how far you go. This is the first time I have ever said a word for myself in any journal, and it shall, I think, be the last. My letter is short, and no great things. I was extremely concerned to see Falconer's disrespectful and virulent letter. I like extremely your answer just read; you take a lofty and dignified position, to which you are so well entitled. (In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he wrote: "I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will greatly sink scientific men. I have seen sneers already in the 'Times'.") I suspect that if you had inserted a few more superlatives in speaking of the several authors there would have been none of this horrid noise. No one, I am sure, who knows you could doubt about your hearty sympathy with every one who makes any little advance in science. I still well remember my surprise at the manner in which you listened to me in Hart Street on my return from the "Beagle's" voyage. You did me a world of good. It is horridly vexatious that so frank and apparently amiable a man as Falconer should have behaved so. (It is to this affair that the extract from a letter to Falconer, given in volume i., refers.) Well it will all soon be forgotten... [In reply to the above-mentioned letter of my father's to the "Athenaeum", an article appeared in that Journal (May 2nd, 1863, page 586), accusing my father of claiming for his views the exclusive merit of "connecting by an intelligible thread of reasoning" a number of facts in morphology, etc. The writer remarks that, "The different generalizations cited by Mr. Darwin as being connected by an intelligible thread of reasoning exclusively through his attempt to explain specific transmutation are in fact related to it in this wise, that they have prepared the minds of naturalists for a better reception of such attempts to explain the way of the origin of species from species." To this my father replied in the "Athenaeum" of May 9th, 1863:] Down, May 5 [1863]. I hope that you will grant me space to own that your reviewer is quite correct when he states that any theory of descent will connect, "by an intelligible thread of reasoning," the several generalizations before specified. I ought to have made this admission expressly; with the reservation, however, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well explains or connects these several generalizations (more especially the formation of domestic races in comparison with natural species, the principles of classification, embryonic resemblance, etc.) as the theory, or hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of Natural Selection. Nor has any other satisfactory explanation been ever offered of the almost perfect adaptation of all organic beings to each other, and to their physical conditions of life. Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffrey St. Hilaire, by the author of the 'Vestiges,' by Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable; for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however, from what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate modifications and improvements. CHARLES DARWIN. [In the following, he refers to the above letter to the "Athenaeum:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Leith Hill Place, Saturday [May 11, 1863]. My dear Hooker, You give good advice about not writing in newspapers; I have been gnashing my teeth at my own folly; and this not caused by --'s sneers, which were so good that I almost enjoyed them. I have written once again to own to a certain extent of truth in what he says, and then if I am ever such a fool again, have no mercy on me. I have read the squib in "Public Opinion" ("Public Opinion", April 23, 1863. A lively account of a police case, in which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John Bull gives evidence that-- "The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley quarrelled with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and Prestwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had pleasure, however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set. They were always picking bones with each other and fighting over their gains. If either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything, he was obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone collectors would be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft afterwards, and the consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as they were wearisome. "Lord Mayor.--Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some influence over them? "The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to say that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the clergy as that to which these unhappy men belonged."); it is capital; if there is more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific man had better be trampled in dirt than squabble. I have been drawing diagrams, dissecting shoots, and muddling my brains to a hopeless degree about the divergence of leaves, and have of course utterly failed. But I can see that the subject is most curious, and indeed astonishing... [The next letter refers to Mr. Bentham's presidential address to the Linnean Society (May 25, 1863). Mr. Bentham does not yield to the new theory of Evolution, "cannot surrender at discretion as long as many important outworks remain contestable." But he shows that the great body of scientific opinion is flowing in the direction of belief. The mention of Pasteur by Mr. Bentham is in reference to the promulgation "as it were ex cathedra," of a theory of spontaneous generation by the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter in the "Athenaeum" (March 28, 1863). Mr. Bentham points out that in ignoring Pasteur's refutation of the supposed facts of spontaneous generation, the writer fails to act with "that impartiality which every reviewer is supposed to possess."] CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. Down, May 22 [1863]. My dear Bentham, I am much obliged for your kind and interesting letter. I have no fear of anything that a man like you will say annoying me in the very least degree. On the other hand, any approval from one whose judgment and knowledge I have for many years so sincerely respected, will gratify me much. The objection which you well put, of certain forms remaining unaltered through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? I have literally found nothing so difficult as to try and always remember our ignorance. I am never weary, when walking in any new adjoining district or country, of reflecting how absolutely ignorant we are why certain old plants are not there present, and other new ones are, and others in different proportions. If we once fully feel this, then in judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change much slower and much less, and some few should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very different. Certainly a priori we might have anticipated that all the plants anciently introduced into Australia would have undergone some modification; but the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments. I have expressed myself miserably, but I am far from well to-day. I am very glad that you are going to allude to Pasteur; I was struck with infinite admiration at his work. With cordial thanks, believe me, dear Bentham, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. Down, June 19 [1863]. My dear Bentham, I have been extremely much pleased and interested by your address, which you kindly sent me. It seems to be excellently done, with as much judicial calmness and impartiality as the Lord Chancellor could have shown. But whether the "immutable" gentlemen would agree with the impartiality may be doubted, there is too much kindness shown towards me, Hooker, and others, they might say. Moreover I verily believe that your address, written as it is, will do more to shake the unshaken and bring on those leaning to our side, than anything written directly in favour of transmutation. I can hardly tell why it is, but your address has pleased me as much as Lyell's book disappointed me, that is, the part on species, though so cleverly written. I agree with all your remarks on the reviewers. By the way, Lecoq (Author of 'Geographie Botanique.' 9 vols. 1854-58.) is a believer in the change of species. I, for one, can conscientiously declare that I never feel surprised at any one sticking to the belief of immutability; though I am often not a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this side. I remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and difficulty. It is to me really laughable when I think of the years which elapsed before I saw what I believe to be the explanation of some parts of the case; I believe it was fifteen years after I began before I saw the meaning and cause of the divergence of the descendants of any one pair. You pay me some most elegant and pleasing compliments. There is much in your address which has pleased me much, especially your remarks on various naturalists. I am so glad that you have alluded so honourably to Pasteur. I have just read over this note; it does not express strongly enough the interest which I have felt in reading your address. You have done, I believe, a real good turn to the RIGHT SIDE. Believe me, dear Bentham, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 1864. [In my father's diary for 1864 is the entry, "Ill all January, February, March." About the middle of April (seven months after the beginning of the illness in the previous autumn) his health took a turn for the better. As soon as he was able to do any work, he began to write his papers on Lythrum, and on Climbing Plants, so that the work which now concerns us did not begin until September, when he again set to work on 'Animals and Plants.' A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker gives some account of the r-commencement of the work: "I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as if I had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet worth printing, I think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am a complete millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and I have been really astounded at my own industry whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. God knows when the book will ever be completed, for I find that I am very weak and on my best days cannot do more than one or one and a half hours' work. It is a good deal harder than writing about my dear climbing plants." In this year he received the greatest honour which a scientific man can receive in this country--the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. It is presented at the Anniversary Meeting on St. Andrew's Day (November 30), the medalist being usually present to receive it, but this the state of my father's health prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox on this subject:-- "I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being open to all sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great honour; but excepting from several kind letters, such things make little difference to me. It shows, however, that Natural Selection is making some progress in this country, and that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands." To Sir J.D. Hooker, also, he wrote:-- "How kind you have been about this medal; indeed, I am blessed with many good friends, and I have received four or five notes which have warmed my heart. I often wonder that so old a worn-out dog as I am is not quite forgotten. Talking of medals, has Falconer had the Royal? he surely ought to have it, as ought John Lubbock. By the way, the latter tells me that some old members of the Royal are quite shocked at my having the Copley. Do you know who?" He wrote to Mr. Huxley:-- "I must and will answer you, for it is a real pleasure for me to thank you cordially for your note. Such notes as this of yours, and a few others, are the real medal to me, and not the round bit of gold. These have given me a pleasure which will long endure; so believe in my cordial thanks for your note." Sir Charles Lyell, writing to my father in November 1864 ('Life,' vol. ii. page 384), speaks of the supposed malcontents as being afraid to crown anything so unorthodox as the 'Origin.' But he adds that if such were their feelings "they had the good sense to draw in their horns." It appears, however, from the same letter, that the proposal to give the Copley Medal to my father in the previous year failed owing to a similar want of courage--to Lyell's great indignation. In the "Reader", December 3, 1864, General Sabine's presidential address at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at some length. Special weight was laid on my father's work in Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the 'Origin of Species' is praised chiefly as containing "a mass of observations," etc. It is curious that as in the case of his election to the French Institution, so in this case, he was honoured not for the great work of his life, but for his less important work in special lines. The paragraph in General Sabine's address which refers to the 'Origin of Species,' is as follows:-- "In his most recent work 'On the Origin of Species,' although opinions may be divided or undecided with respect to its merits in some respects, all will allow that it contains a mass of observations bearing upon the habits, structure, affinities, and distribution of animals, perhaps unrivalled for interest, minuteness, and patience of observation. Some amongst us may perhaps incline to accept the theory indicated by the title of this work, while others may perhaps incline to refuse, or at least to remit it to a future time, when increased knowledge shall afford stronger grounds for its ultimate acceptance or rejection. Speaking generally and collectively, we have expressly omitted it from the grounds of our award." I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction at the President's manner of allusion to the 'Origin' was felt by some Fellows of the Society. The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in another way, inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in his after-dinner speech, a "confession of faith as to the 'Origin.'" He wrote to my father ('Life,' vol. ii. page 384), "I said I had been forced to give up my old faith without thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you would have been satisfied with the length I went."] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3 [1864]. My dear Huxley, If I do not pour out my admiration of your article ("Criticisms on the Origin of Species," 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1864. Republished in 'Lay Sermons,' 1870, page 328. The work of Professor Kolliker referred to is 'Ueber die Darwin'sche Schopfungstheorie' (Leipzig, 1864). Toward Professor Kolliker my father felt not only the respect due to so distinguished a naturalist (a sentiment well expressed in Professor Huxley's review), but he had also a personal regard for him, and often alluded with satisfaction to the visit which Professor Kolliker paid at Down.) on Kolliker, I shall explode. I never read anything better done. I had much wished his article answered, and indeed thought of doing so myself, so that I considered several points. You have hit on all, and on some in addition, and oh! by Jove, how well you have done it. As I read on and came to point after point on which I had thought, I could not help jeering and scoffing at myself, to see how infinitely better you had done it than I could have done. Well, if any one, who does not understand Natural Selection, will read this, he will be a blockhead if it is not as clear as daylight. Old Flourens ('Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des especes.' Par P. Flourens. 8vo. Paris, 1864.) was hardly worth the powder and shot; but how capitally you bring in about the Academician, and your metaphor of the sea-sand is INIMITABLE. It is a marvel to me how you can resist becoming a regular reviewer. Well, I have exploded now, and it has done me a deal of good... [In the same article in the 'Natural History Review,' Mr. Huxley speaks of the book above alluded to by Flourens, the Secretaire Perpetuel of the Academie des Sciences, as one of the two "most elaborate criticisms" of the 'Origin of Species' of the year. He quotes the following passage:-- "M. Darwin continue: 'Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete et ne peut etre entre les especes et les varietes!' Je vous ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d'avec les especes." Mr. Huxley remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M. Flourens' misapprehension of Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at page 65 'Je laisse M. Darwin.'" On the same subject my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:-- "A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book against me which pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading in France. He speaks of the "engouement" about this book [the 'Origin'] "so full of empty and presumptuous thoughts." The passage here alluded to is as follows:-- "Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu'etre frappe du talent de l'auteur. Mais que d'idees obscures, que d'idees fausses! Quel jargon metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes. Quel langage pretentieux et vide! Quelles personifications pueriles et surannees! O lucidite! O solidite de l'esprit francais, que devene-vous?"] 1865. [This was again a time of much ill-health, but towards the close of the year he began to recover under the care of the late Dr. Bence-Jones, who dieted him severely, and as he expressed it, "half-starved him to death." He was able to work at 'Animals and Plants' until nearly the end of April, and from that time until December he did practically no work, with the exception of looking over the 'Origin of Species' for a second French edition. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--"I am, as it were, reading the 'Origin' for the first time, for I am correcting for a second French edition: and upon my life, my dear fellow, it is a very good book, but oh! my gracious, it is tough reading, and I wish it were done." (Towards the end of the year my father received the news of a new convert to his views, in the person of the distinguished American naturalist Lesquereux. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I have had an enormous letter from Leo Lesquereux (after doubts, I did not think it worth sending you) on Coal Flora. He wrote some excellent articles in 'Silliman' against 'Origin' views; but he says now, after repeated reading of the book, he is a convert!") The following letter refers to the Duke of Argyll's address to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, December 5th, 1864, in which he criticises the 'Origin of Species.' My father seems to have read the Duke's address as reported in the "Scotsman" of December 6th, 1865. In a letter to my father (January 16, 1865, 'Life,' vol. ii. page 385), Lyell wrote, "The address is a great step towards your views--far greater, I believe, than it seems when read merely with reference to criticisms and objections."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 22, [1865]. My dear Lyell, I thank you for your very interesting letter. I have the true English instinctive reverence for rank, and therefore liked to hear about the Princess Royal. ("I had... an animated conversation on Darwinism with the Princess Royal, who is a worthy daughter of her father, in the reading of good books, and thinking of what she reads. She was very much au fait at the 'Origin,' and Huxley's book, the 'Antiquity,' etc."--(Lyell's 'Life,' vol. ii. page 385.) You ask what I think of the Duke's address, and I shall be glad to tell you. It seems to me EXTREMELY clever, like everything I have read of his; but I am not shaken--perhaps you will say that neither gods nor men could shake me. I demur to the Duke reiterating his objection that the brilliant plumage of the male humming-bird could not have been acquired through selection, at the same time entirely ignoring my discussion (page 93, 3rd edition) on beautiful plumage being acquired through SEXUAL selection. The duke may think this insufficient, but that is another question. All analogy makes me quite disagree with the Duke that the difference in the beak, wing and tail, are not of importance to the several species. In the only two species which I have watched, the difference in flight and in the use of the tail was conspicuously great. The Duke, who knows my Orchid book so well, might have learnt a lesson of caution from it, with respect to his doctrine of differences for mere variety or beauty. It may be confidently said that no tribe of plants presents such grotesque and beautiful differences, which no one until lately, conjectured were of any use; but now in almost every case I have been able to show their important service. It should be remembered that with humming birds or orchids, a modification in one part will cause correlated changes in other parts. I agree with what you say about beauty. I formerly thought a good deal on the subject, and was led quite to repudiate the doctrine of beauty being created for beauty's sake. I demur also to the Duke's expression of "new births." That may be a very good theory, but it is not mine, unless indeed he calls a bird born with a beak 1/100th of an inch longer than usual "a new birth;" but this is not the sense in which the term would usually be understood. The more I work the more I feel convinced that it is by the accumulation of such extremely slight variations that new species arise. I do not plead guilty to the Duke's charge that I forget that natural selection means only the preservation of variations which independently arise. ("Strictly speaking, therefore, Mr. Darwin's theory is not a theory on the Origin of Species at all, but only a theory on the causes which lead to the relative success and failure of such new forms as may be born into the world."--"Scotsman", December 6, 1864.) I have expressed this in as strong language as I could use, but it would have been infinitely tedious had I on every occasion thus guarded myself. I will cry "peccavi" when I hear of the Duke or you attacking breeders for saying that man has made his improved shorthorns, or pouter pigeons, or bantams. And I could quote still stronger expressions used by agriculturists. Man does make his artificial breeds, for his selective power is of such importance relatively to that of the slight spontaneous variations. But no one will attack breeders for using such expressions, and the rising generation will not blame me. Many thanks for your offer of sending me the 'Elements.' (Sixth edition in one volume.) I hope to read it all, but unfortunately reading makes my head whiz more than anything else. I am able most days to work for two or three hours, and this makes all the difference in my happiness. I have resolved not to be tempted astray, and to publish nothing till my volume on Variation is completed. You gave me excellent advice about the footnotes in my Dog chapter, but their alteration gave me infinite trouble, and I often wished all the dogs, and I fear sometimes you yourself, in the nether regions. We (dictator and writer) send our best love to Lady Lyell. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--If ever you should speak with the Duke on the subject, please say how much interested I was with his address. [In his autobiographical sketch my father has remarked that owing to certain early memories he felt the honour of being elected to the Royal and Royal Medical Societies of Edinburgh "more than any similar honour." The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker refers to his election to the former of these societies. The latter part of the extract refers to the Berlin Academy, to which he was elected in 1878:-- "Here is a really curious thing, considering that Brewster is President and Balfour Secretary. I have been elected Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. And this leads me to a third question. Does the Berlin Academy of Sciences send their Proceedings to Honorary Members? I want to know, to ascertain whether I am a member; I suppose not, for I think it would have made some impression on me; yet I distinctly remember receiving some diploma signed by Ehrenberg. I have been so careless; I have lost several diplomas, and now I want to know what Societies I belong to, as I observe every [one] tacks their titles to their names in the catalogue of the Royal Soc."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 21 [1865]. My dear Lyell, I have taken a long time to thank you very much for your present of the 'Elements.' I am going through it all, reading what is new, and what I have forgotten, and this is a good deal. I am simply astonished at the amount of labour, knowledge, and clear thought condensed in this work. The whole strikes me as something quite grand. I have been particularly interested by your account of Heer's work and your discussion on the Atlantic Continent. I am particularly delighted at the view which you take on this subject; for I have long thought Forbes did an ill service in so freely making continents. I have also been very glad to read your argument on the denudation of the Weald, and your excellent resume on the Purbeck Beds; and this is the point at which I have at present arrived in your book. I cannot say that I am quite convinced that there is no connection beyond that pointed out by you, between glacial action and the formation of lake basins; but you will not much value my opinion on this head, as I have already changed my mind some half-dozen times. I want to make a suggestion to you. I found the weight of your volume intolerable, especially when lying down, so with great boldness cut it into two pieces, and took it out of its cover; now could not Murray without any other change add to his advertisement a line saying, "if bound in two volumes, one shilling or one shilling and sixpence extra." You thus might originate a change which would be a blessing to all weak-handed readers. Believe me, my dear Lyell, Yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. Originate a second REAL BLESSING and have the edges of the sheets cut like a bound book. (This was a favourite reform of my father's. He wrote to the "Athenaeum" on the subject, February 5, 1867, pointing out how that a book cut, even carefully, with a paper knife collects dust on its edges far more than a machine-cut book. He goes on to quote the case of a lady of his acquaintance who was in the habit of cutting books with her thumb, and finally appeals to the "Athenaeum" to earn the gratitude of children "who have to cut through dry and pictureless books for the benefit of their elders." He tried to introduce the reform in the case of his own books, but found the conservatism of booksellers too strong for him. The presentation copies, however, of all his later books were sent out with the edges cut.) CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, June 11 [1865]. My dear Lubbock, The latter half of your book ('Prehistoric Times,' 1865.) has been read aloud to me, and the style is so clear and easy (we both think it perfection) that I am now beginning at the beginning. I cannot resist telling you how excellently well, in my opinion, you have done the very interesting chapter on savage life. Though you have necessarily only compiled the materials the general result is most original. But I ought to keep the term original for your last chapter, which has struck me as an admirable and profound discussion. It has quite delighted me, for now the public will see what kind of man you are, which I am proud to think I discovered a dozen years ago. I do sincerely wish you all success in your election and in politics; but after reading this last chapter, you must let me say: oh, dear! oh, dear! oh dear! Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--You pay me a superb compliment ('Prehistoric Times,' page 487, where the words, "the discoveries of a Newton or a Darwin," occur.), but I fear you will be quizzed for it by some of your friends as too exaggerated. [The following letter refers to Fritz Muller's book, 'Fur Darwin,' which was afterwards translated, at my father's suggestion, by Mr. Dallas. It is of interest as being the first of the long series of letters which my father wrote to this distinguished naturalist. They never met, but the correspondence with Muller, which continued to the close of my father's life, was a source of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his unseen friends Fritz Muller was the one for whom he had the strongest regard. Fritz Muller is the brother of another distinguished man, the late Hermann Muller, the author of 'Die Befruchtung der Blumen,' and of much other valuable work:] CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, August 10 [1865]. My dear Sir, I have been for a long time so ill that I have only just finished hearing read aloud your work on species. And now you must permit me to thank you cordially for the great interest with which I have read it. You have done admirable service in the cause in which we both believe. Many of your arguments seem to me excellent, and many of your facts wonderful. Of the latter, nothing has surprised me so much as the two forms of males. I have lately investigated the cases of dimorphic plants, and I should much like to send you one or two of my papers if I knew how. I did send lately by post a paper on climbing plants, as an experiment to see whether it would reach you. One of the points which has struck me most in your paper is that on the differences in the air-breathing apparatus of the several forms. This subject appeared to me very important when I formerly considered the electric apparatus of fishes. Your observations on Classification and Embryology seem to me very good and original. They show what a wonderful field there is for enquiry on the development of crustacea, and nothing has convinced me so plainly what admirable results we shall arrive at in Natural History in the course of a few years. What a marvellous range of structure the crustacea present, and how well adapted they are for your enquiry! Until reading your book I knew nothing of the Rhizocephala; pray look at my account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems to me that this latter cirripede is a beautiful connecting link with the Rhizocephala. If ever you have any opportunity, as you are so skilful a dissector, I much wish that you would look to the orifice at the base of the first pair of cirrhi in cirripedes, and at the curious organ in it, and discover what its nature is; I suppose I was quite in error, yet I cannot feel fully satisfied at Krohn's (See vol. ii., pages 138, 187.) observations. Also if you ever find any species of Scalpellum, pray look for complemental males; a German author has recently doubted my observations for no reason except that the facts appeared to him so strange. Permit me again to thank you cordially for the pleasure which I have derived from your work and to express my sincere admiration for your valuable researches. Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, Yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I do not know whether you care at all about plants, but if so, I should much like to send you my little work on the 'Fertilization of Orchids,' and I think I have a German copy. Could you spare me a photograph of yourself? I should much like to possess one. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday, 27th [September, 1865]. My dear Hooker, I had intended writing this morning to thank Mrs. Hooker most sincerely for her last and several notes about you, and now your own note in your hand has rejoiced me. To walk between five and six miles is splendid, with a little patience you must soon be well. I knew you had been very ill, but I hardly knew how ill, until yesterday, when Bentham (from the Cranworths (Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth, and Lord Chancellor of England, lived at Holwood, near Down.)) called here, and I was able to see him for ten minutes. He told me also a little about the last days of your father (Sir William Hooker; 1785-1865. He took charge of the Royal Gardens at Kew, in 1840, when they ceased to be the private gardens of the Royal Family. In doing so, he gave up his professorship at Glasgow--and with it half of his income. He founded the herbarium and library, and within ten years he succeeded in making the gardens the first in the world. It is, thus, not too much to say that the creation of the establishment at Kew is due to the abilities and self-devotion of Sir William Hooker. While, for the subsequent development of the gardens up to their present magnificent condition, the nation must thank Sir Joseph Hooker, in whom the same qualities are so conspicuous.); I wish I had known your father better, my impression is confined to his remarkably cordial, courteous, and frank bearing. I fully concur and understand what you say about the difference of feeling in the loss of a father and child. I do not think any one could love a father much more than I did mine, and I do not believe three or four days ever pass without my still thinking of him, but his death at eight-four caused me nothing of that insufferable grief (I may quote here a passage from a letter of November, 1863. It was written to a friend who had lost his child: "How well I remember your feeling, when we lost Annie. It was my greatest comfort that I had never spoken a harsh word to her. Your grief has made me shed a few tears over our poor darling; but believe me that these tears have lost that unutterable bitterness of former days.") which the loss of our poor dear Annie caused. And this seems to me perfectly natural, for one knows for years previously that one's father's death is drawing slowly nearer and nearer, while the death of one's child is a sudden and dreadful wrench. What a wonderful deal you read; it is a horrid evil for me that I can read hardly anything, for it makes my head almost immediately begin to sing violently. My good womenkind read to me a great deal, but I dare not ask for much science, and am not sure that I could stand it. I enjoyed Tylor ('Researches into the Early History of Mankind,' by E.B. Tylor. 1865.) EXTREMELY, and the first part of Lecky 'The Rise of Rationalism in Europe,' by W.E.H. Lecky. 1865.); but I think the latter is often vague, and gives a false appearance of throwing light on his subject by such phrases as "spirit of the age," "spread of civilization," etc. I confine my reading to a quarter or half hour per day in skimming through the back volumes of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, and find much that interests me. I miss my climbing plants very much, as I could observe them when very poorly. I did not enjoy the 'Mill on the Floss' so much as you, but from what you say we will read it again. Do you know 'Silas Marner'? it is a charming little story; if you run short, and like to have it, we could send it by post... We have almost finished the first volume of Palgrave (William Gifford Palgrave's 'Travels in Arabia,' published in 1865.), and I like it much; but did you ever see a book so badly arranged? The frequency of the allusions to what will be told in the future are quite laughable... By the way, I was very much pleased with the foot-note (The passage which seems to be referred to occurs in the text (page 479) of 'Prehistoric Times.' It expresses admiration of Mr. Wallace's paper in the 'Anthropological Review' (May, 1864), and speaks of the author's "characteristic unselfishness" in ascribing the theory of Natural Selection "unreservedly to Mr. Darwin." about Wallace in Lubbock's last chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had backed up Lubbock about Parliament... Did you see a sneer some time ago in the "Times" about how incomparably more interesting politics were compared with science even to scientific men? Remember what Trollope says, in 'Can you Forgive her,' about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly ambition. Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than writing the grandest history. All this seems to me a poor short-sighted view. I cannot tell you how it has rejoiced me once again seeing your handwriting-- my best of old friends. Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [In October he wrote Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "Talking of the 'Origin,' a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to Dr. Wells's famous 'Essay on Dew,' which was read in 1813 to the Royal Society, but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor old Patrick Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on his title-pages, 'Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!"] CHARLES DARWIN TO F.W. FARRAR. (Canon of Westminster.) Down, November 2 [1865?]. Dear Sir, As I have never studied the science of language, it may perhaps seem presumptuous, but I cannot resist the pleasure of telling you what interest and pleasure I have derived from hearing read aloud your volume ('Chapters on Language,' 1865.) I formerly read Max Muller, and thought his theory (if it deserves to be called so) both obscure and weak; and now, after hearing what you say, I feel sure that this is the case, and that your cause will ultimately triumph. My indirect interest in your book has been increased from Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother-in-law. No one could dissent from my views on the modification of species with more courtesy than you do. But from the tenor of your mind I feel an entire and comfortable conviction (and which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if your studies led you to attend much to general questions in natural history you would come to the same conclusion that I have done. Have you ever read Huxley's little book of Lectures? I would gladly send a copy if you think you would read it. Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument from the supposed immutability of specific types seems to me much the same as if, in a nation which had no old writings, some wise old savage was to say that his language had never changed; but my metaphor is too long to fill up. Pray believe me, dear Sir, yours very sincerely obliged, C. DARWIN. 1866. [The year 1866 is given in my father's Diary in the following words:-- "Continued correcting chapters of 'Domestic Animals.' March 1st.--Began on 4th edition of 'Origin' of 1250 copies (received for it 238 pounds), making 7500 copies altogether. May 10th.--Finished 'Origin,' except revises, and began going over Chapter XIII. of 'Domestic Animals.' November 21st.--Finished 'Pangenesis.' December 21st.--Finished re-going over all chapters, and sent them to printers. December 22nd.--Began concluding chapter of book." He was in London on two occasions for a week at a time, staying with his brother, and for a few days (May 29th-June 2nd) in Surrey; for the rest of the year he was at Down. There seems to have been a gradual mending in his health; thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (January 1866):--"My health is so far improved that I am able to work one or two hours a day." With respect to the 4th edition he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "The new edition of the 'Origin' has caused me two great vexations. I forgot Bates's paper on variation (This appears to refer to "Notes on South American Butterflies," Trans. Entomolog. Soc., vol. v. (N.S.).), but I remembered in time his mimetic work, and now, strange to say, I find I have forgotten your Arctic paper! I know how it arose; I indexed for my bigger work, and never expected that a new edition of the 'Origin' would be wanted. "I cannot say how all this has vexed me. Everything which I have read during the last four years I find is quite washy in my mind." As far as I know, Mr. Bates's paper was not mentioned in the later editions of the 'Origin,' for what reason I cannot say. In connection with his work on 'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' I give here extracts from three letters addressed to Mr. Huxley, which are of interest as giving some idea of the development of the theory of 'Pangenesis,' ultimately published in 1868 in the book in question:] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, May 27, [1865?]. ... I write now to ask a favour of you, a very great favour from one so hard worked as you are. It is to read thirty pages of MS., excellently copied out and give me, not lengthened criticism, but your opinion whether I may venture to publish it. You may keep the MS. for a month or two. I would not ask this favour, but I REALLY know no one else whose judgment on the subject would be final with me. The case stands thus: in my next book I shall publish long chapters on bud- and seminal-variation, on inheritance, reversion, effects of use and disuse, etc. I have also for many years speculated on the different forms of reproduction. Hence it has come to be a passion with me to try to connect all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The MS. which I wish to send you gives such a hypothesis; it is a very rash and crude hypothesis, yet it has been a considerable relief to my mind, and I can hang on it a good many groups of facts. I well know that a mere hypothesis, and this is nothing more, is of little value; but it is very useful to me as serving as a kind of summary for certain chapters. Now I earnestly wish for your verdict given briefly as, "Burn it"--or, which is the most favourable verdict I can hope for, "It does rudely connect together certain facts, and I do not think it will immediately pass out of my mind." If you can say this much, and you do not think it absolutely ridiculous, I shall publish it in my concluding chapter. Now will you grant me this favour? You must refuse if you are too much overworked. I must say for myself that I am a hero to expose my hypothesis to the fiery ordeal of your criticism. July 12, [1865?]. My dear Huxley, I thank you most sincerely for having so carefully considered my MS. It has been a real act of kindness. It would have annoyed me extremely to have re-published Buffon's views, which I did not know of, but I will get the book; and if I have strength I will also read Bonnet. I do not doubt your judgment is perfectly just, and I will try to persuade myself not to publish. The whole affair is much too speculative; yet I think some such view will have to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as the inherited effects of use and disuse, etc. But I will try to be cautious... [1865?]. My dear Huxley, Forgive my writing in pencil, as I can do so lying down. I have read Buffon: whole pages are laughably like mine. It is surprising how candid it makes one to see one's views in another man's words. I am rather ashamed of the whole affair, but not converted to a no-belief. What a kindness you have done me with your "vulpine sharpness." Nevertheless, there is a fundamental distinction between Buffon's views and mine. He does not suppose that each cell or atom of tissue throws off a little bud; but he supposes that the sap or blood includes his "organic molecules," WHICH ARE READY FORMED, fit to nourish each organ, and when this is fully formed, they collect to form buds and the sexual elements. It is all rubbish to speculate as I have done; yet, if I ever have strength to publish my next book, I fear I shall not resist "Pangenesis," but I assure you I will put it humbly enough. The ordinary course of development of beings, such as the Echinodermata, in which new organs are formed at quite remote spots from the analogous previous parts, seem to me extremely difficult to reconcile on any view except the free diffusion in the parent of the germs or gemmules of each separate new organ; and so in cases of alternate generation. But I will not scribble any more. Hearty thanks to you, you best of critics and most learned man... [The letters now take up the history of the year 1866.] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, July 5 [1866]. My dear Wallace, I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of "the survival of the fittest." (Extract from a letter of Mr. Wallace's, July 2, 1866: "The term 'survival of the fittest' is the plain expression of the fact; 'natural selection' is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since... Nature... does not so much select special varieties as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.") This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words, natural selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in "the survival, etc.," often in the new edition of the 'Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of which I will of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on Domestic Animals, etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect MUCH, too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home, that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the survival of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the misstatement of my views. As for M. Janet (This no doubt refers to Janet's 'Materialisme Contemporain.'), he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the double sense ("I find you use 'Natural Selection' in two senses. 1st, for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection of unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent to the 'survival of the fittest,'--and 2ndly, for the effect or CHANGE produced by this preservation." Extract from Mr. Wallace's letter above quoted.) in which I have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that any one, excepting you, has ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about "favourable variations;" but I am inclined to think that you put the opposite side too strongly; if every part of every being varied, I do not think we should see the same end, or object, gained by such wonderfully diversified means. I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are working hard at your Malay Archipelago book, for I will always put this wish in every note I write to you, like some good people always put in a text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to work some hours daily. With many thanks for your interesting letter. Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 30 [1866]. My dear Hooker, I was very glad to get your note and the Notts. Newspaper. I have seldom been more pleased in my life than at hearing how successfully your lecture (At the Nottingham meeting of the British Association, August 27, 1866. The subject of the lecture was 'Insular Floras.' See "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1866.) went off. Mrs. H. Wedgwood sent us an account, saying that you read capitally, and were listened to with profound attention and great applause. She says, when your final allegory (Sir Joseph Hooker allegorized the Oxford meeting of the British Association as the gathering of a tribe of savages who believed that the new moon was created afresh each month. The anger of the priests and medicine man at a certain heresy, according to which the new moon is but the offspring of the old one, is excellently given.) began, "for a minute or two we were all mystified, and then came such bursts of applause from the audience. It was thoroughly enjoyed amid roars of laughter and noise, making a most brilliant conclusion." I am rejoiced that you will publish your lecture, and felt sure that sooner or later it would come to this, indeed it would have been a sin if you had not done so. I am especially rejoiced as you give the arguments for occasional transport, with such perfect fairness; these will now receive a fair share of attention, as coming from you a professed botanist. Thanks also for Grove's address; as a whole it strikes me as very good and original, but I was disappointed in the part about Species; it dealt in such generalities that it would apply to any view or no view in particular... And now farewell. I do most heartily rejoice at your success, and for Grove's sake at the brilliant success of the whole meeting. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. [The next letter is of interest, as giving the beginning of the connection which arose between my father and Professor Victor Carus. The translation referred to is the third German edition made from the fourth English one. From this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father's books into German. The conscientious care with which this work was done was of material service, and I well remember the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation at his own short-comings) with which my father used to receive the lists of oversights, etc., which Professor Carus discovered in the course of translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but was cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.] CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, November 10, 1866. My dear Sir, I thank you for your extremely kind letter. I cannot express too strongly my satisfaction that you have undertaken the revision of the new edition, and I feel the honour which you have conferred on me. I fear that you will find the labour considerable, not only on account of the additions, but I suspect that Bronn's translation is very defective, at least I have heard complaints on this head from quite a large number of persons. It would be a great gratification to me to know that the translation was a really good one, such as I have no doubt you will produce. According to our English practice, you will be fully justified in entirely omitting Bronn's Appendix, and I shall be very glad of its omission. A new edition may be looked at as a new work... You could add anything of your own that you liked, and I should be much pleased. Should you make any additions or append notes, it appears to me that Nageli "Entstehung und Begriff," etc. ('Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art.' An address given at a public meeting of the 'R. Academy of Sciences' at Munich, March 28, 1865.), would be worth noticing, as one of the most able pamphlets on the subject. I am, however, far from agreeing with him that the acquisition of certain characters which appear to be of no service to plants, offers any great difficulty, or affords a proof of some innate tendency in plants towards perfection. If you intend to notice this pamphlet, I should like to write hereafter a little more in detail on the subject. ... I wish I had known when writing my Historical Sketch that you had in 1853 published your views on the genealogical connection of past and present forms. I suppose you have the sheets of the last English edition on which I marked with pencil all the chief additions, but many little corrections of style were not marked. Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful for the great service and honour which you do me by the present translation. I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--I should be VERY MUCH pleased to possess your photograph, and I send mine in case you should like to have a copy. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. NAGELI. (Professor of Botany at Munich.) Down, June 12 [1866]. Dear Sir, I hope you will excuse the liberty which I take in writing to you. I have just read, though imperfectly, your 'Entstehung und Begriff,' and have been so greatly interested by it, that I have sent it to be translated, as I am a poor German scholar. I have just finished a new [4th] edition of my 'Origin,' which will be translated into German, and my object in writing to you is to say that if you should see this edition you would think that I had borrowed from you, without acknowledgment, two discussions on the beauty of flowers and fruit; but I assure you every word was printed off before I had opened your pamphlet. Should you like to possess a copy of either the German or English new edition, I should be proud to send one. I may add, with respect to the beauty of flowers, that I have already hinted the same views as you hold in my paper on Lythrum. Many of your criticisms on my views are the best which I have met with, but I could answer some, at least to my own satisfaction; and I regret extremely that I had not read your pamphlet before printing my new edition. On one or two points, I think, you have a little misunderstood me, though I dare say I have not been cautious in expressing myself. The remark which has struck me most, is that on the position of the leaves not having been acquired through natural selection, from not being of any special importance to the plant. I well remember being formerly troubled by an analogous difficulty, namely, the position of the ovules, their anatropous condition, etc. It was owing to forgetfulness that I did not notice this difficulty in the 'Origin.' (Nageli's Essay is noticed in the 5th edition.) Although I can offer no explanation of such facts, and only hope to see that they may be explained, yet I hardly see how they support the doctrine of some law of necessary development, for it is not clear to me that a plant, with its leaves placed at some particular angle, or with its ovules in some particular position, thus stands higher than another plant. But I must apologise for troubling you with these remarks. As I much wish to possess your photograph, I take the liberty of enclosing my own, and with sincere respect I remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [I give a few extracts from letters of various dates showing my father's interest, alluded to in the last letter, in the problem of the arrangement of the leaves on the stems of plants. It may be added that Professor Schwendener of Berlin has successfully attacked the question in his 'Mechanische Theorie der Blattstellungen,' 1878. TO DR. FALCONER. August 26 [1863]. "Do you remember telling me that I ought to study Phyllotaxy? Well I have often wished you at the bottom of the sea; for I could not resist, and I muddled my brains with diagrams, etc., and specimens, and made out, as might have been expected, nothing. Those angles are a most wonderful problem and I wish I could see some one give a rational explanation of them." TO DR. ASA GRAY. May 11 [1861]. "If you wish to save me from a miserable death, do tell me why the angles 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 3/8, etc, series occur, and no other angles. It is enough to drive the quietest man mad. Did you and some mathematician (Probably my father was thinking of Chauncey Wright's work on Phyllotaxy, in Gould's 'Astronomical Journal,' No.99, 1856, and in the 'Mathematical Monthly,' 1859. These papers are mentioned in the "Letters of Chauncey Wright.' Mr. Wright corresponded with my father on the subject.) publish some paper on the subject? Hooker says you did; where is it? TO DR. ASA GRAY. [May 31, 1863?]. "I have been looking at Nageli's work on this subject, and am astonished to see that the angle is not always the same in young shoots when the lea-buds are first distinguishable, as in full-grown branches. This shows, I think, that there must be some potent cause for those angles which do occur: I dare say there is some explanation as simple as that for the angles of the Bees-cells." My father also corresponded with Dr. Hubert Airy and was interested in his views on the subject, published in the Royal Soc. Proceedings, 1873, page 176. We now return to the year 1866. In November, when the prosecution of Governor Eyre was dividing England into two bitterly opposed parties, he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:-- "You will shriek at me when you hear that I have just subscribed to the Jamaica Committee." (He subscribed 10 pounds.) On this subject I quote from a letter of my brother's:-- "With respect to Governor Eyre's conduct in Jamaica, he felt strongly that J.S. Mill was right in prosecuting him. I remember one evening, at my Uncle's, we were talking on the subject, and as I happened to think it was too strong a measure to prosecute Governor Eyre for murder, I made some foolish remark about the prosecutors spending the surplus of the fund in a dinner. My father turned on me almost with fury, and told me, if those were my feelings, I had better go back to Southampton; the inhabitants having given a dinner to Governor Eyre on his landing, but with which I had had nothing to do." The end of the incident, as told by my brother, is so characteristic of my father that I cannot resist giving it, though it has no bearing on the point at issue. "Next morning at 7 o'clock, or so, he came into my bedroom and sat on my bed, and said that he had not been able to sleep from the thought that he had been so angry with me, and after a few more kind words he left me." The same restless desire to correct a disagreeable or incorrect impression is well illustrated in an extract which I quote from some notes by Rev. J. Brodie Innes:-- "Allied to the extreme carefulness of observation was his most remarkable truthfulness in all matters. On one occasion, when a parish meeting had been held on some disputed point of no great importance, I was surprised by a visit from Mr. Darwin at night. He came to say that, thinking over the debate, though what he had said was quite accurate, he thought I might have drawn an erroneous conclusion, and he would not sleep till he had explained it. I believe that if on any day some certain fact had come to his knowledge which contradicted his most cherished theories, he would have placed the fact on record for publication before he slept." This tallies with my father's habits, as described by himself. When a difficulty or an objection occurred to him, he thought it of paramount importance to make a note of it instantly because he found hostile facts to be especially evanescent. The same point is illustrated by the following incident, for which I am indebted to Mr. Romanes:-- "I have always remembered the following little incident as a good example of Mr. Darwin's extreme solicitude on the score of accuracy. One evening at Down there was a general conversation upon the difficulty of explaining the evolution of some of the distinctively human emotions, especially those appertaining to the recognition of beauty in natural scenery. I suggested a view of my own upon the subject, which, depending upon the principle of association, required the supposition that a long line of ancestors should have inhabited regions, the scenery of which is now regarded as beautiful. Just as I was about to observe that the chief difficulty attaching to my hypothesis arose from feelings of the sublime (seeing that these are associated with awe, and might therefore be expected not to be agreeable), Mr. Darwin anticipated the remark, by asking how the hypothesis was to meet the case of these feelings. In the conversation which followed, he said the occasion in his own life, when he was most affected by the emotions of the sublime was when he stood upon one of the summits of the Cordillera, and surveyed the magnificent prospect all around. It seemed, as he quaintly observed, as if his nerves had become fiddle strings, and had all taken to rapidly vibrating. This remark was only made incidentally, and the conversation passed into some other branch. About an hour afterwards Mr. Darwin retired to rest, while I sat up in the smoking-room with one of his sons. We continued smoking and talking for several hours, when at about one o'clock in the morning the door gently opened and Mr. Darwin appeared, in his slippers and dressing-gown. As nearly as I can remember, the following are the words he used:-- "'Since I went to bed I have been thinking over our conversation in the drawing-room, and it has just occurred to me that I was wrong in telling you I felt most of the sublime when on the top of the Cordillera; I am quite sure that I felt it even more when in the forests of Brazil. I thought it best to come and tell you this at once in case I should be putting you wrong. I am sure now that I felt most sublime in the forests.' "This was all he had come to say, and it was evident that he had come to do so, because he thought that the fact of his feeling 'most sublime in forests' was more in accordance with the hypothesis which we had been discussing, than the fact which he had previously stated. Now, as no one knew better than Mr. Darwin the difference between a speculation and a fact, I thought this little exhibition of scientific conscientiousness very noteworthy, where the only question concerned was of so highly speculative a character. I should not have been so much impressed if he had thought that by his temporary failure of memory he had put me on a wrong scent in any matter of fact, although even in such a case he is the only man I ever knew who would care to get out of bed at such a time at night in order to make the correction immediately, instead of waiting till next morning. But as the correction only had reference to a flimsy hypothesis, I certainly was very much impressed by this display of character."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 10 [1866]. ... I have now read the last No. of H. Spencer. ('Principles of Biology.') I do not know whether to think it better than the previous number, but it is wonderfully clever, and I dare say mostly true. I feel rather mean when I read him: I could bear, and rather enjoy feeling that he was twice as ingenious and clever as myself, but when I feel that he is about a dozen times my superior, even in the master art of wriggling, I feel aggrieved. If he had trained himself to observe more, even if at the expense, by the law of balancement, of some loss of thinking power, he would have been a wonderful man. ... I am HEARTILY glad you are taking up the Distribution of Plants in New Zealand, and suppose it will make part of your new book. Your view, as I understand it, that New Zealand subsided and formed two or more small islands, and then rose again, seems to me extremely probable... When I puzzled my brains about New Zealand, I remember I came to the conclusion, as indeed I state in the 'Origin,' that its flora, as well as that of other southern lands, had been tinctured by an Antarctic flora, which must have existed before the Glacial period. I concluded that New Zealand never could have been closely connected with Australia, though I supposed it had received some few Australian forms by occasional means of transport. Is there any reason to suppose that New Zealand could have been more closely connected with South Australia during the glacial period, when the Eucalypti, etc., might have been driven further North? Apparently there remains only the line, which I think you suggested, of sunken islands from New Caledonia. Please remember that the Edwardsia was certainly drifted there by the sea. I remember in old days speculating on the amount of life, i.e. of organic chemical change, at different periods. There seems to me one very difficult element in the problem, namely, the state of development of the organic beings at each period, for I presume that a Flora and Fauna of cellular cryptogamic plants, of Protozoa and Radiata would lead to much less chemical change than is now going on. But I have scribbled enough. Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [The following letter is in acknowledgment of Mr. Rivers' reply to an earlier letter in which my father had asked for information on bu-variation: It may find a place here in illustration of the manner of my father's intercourse with those "whose avocations in life had to do with the rearing or use of living things" ("Mr. Dyer in 'Charles Darwin,'" "Nature Series", 1882, page 39.)--an intercourse which bore such good fruit in the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.' Mr. Dyer has some excellent remarks on the unexpected value thus placed on apparently trivial facts disinterred from weekly journals, or amassed by correspondence. He adds: "Horticulturists who had... moulded plants almost at their will at the impulse of taste or profit were at once amazed and charmed to find that they had been doing scientific work and helping to establish a great theory."] CHARLES DARWIN TO T. RIVERS. (The late Mr. Rivers was an eminent horticulturist and writer on horticulture.) Down, December 28 [1866?]. My dear Sir, Permit me to thank you cordially for your most kind letter. For years I have read with interest every scrap which you have written in periodicals, and abstracted in MS. your book on Roses, and several times I thought I would write to you, but did not know whether you would think me too intrusive. I shall, indeed, be truly obliged for any information you can supply me on bud-variation or sports. When any extra difficult points occur to me in my present subject (which is a mass of difficulties), I will apply to you, but I will not be unreasonable. It is most true what you say that any one to study well the physiology of the life of plants, ought to have under his eye a multitude of plants. I have endeavoured to do what I can by comparing statements by many writers and observing what I could myself. Unfortunately few have observed like you have done. As you are so kind, I will mention one other point on which I am collecting facts; namely, the effect produced on the stock by the graft; thus, it is SAID, that the purple-leaved filbert affects the leaves of the common hazel on which it is grafted (I have just procured a plant to try), so variegated jessamine is SAID to affect its stock. I want these facts partly to throw light on the marvellous laburnum Adami, trifacial oranges, etc. That laburnum case seems one of the strangest in physiology. I have now growing splendid, FERTILE, yellow laburnums (with a long raceme like the so-called Waterer's laburnum) from seed of yellow flowers on the C. Adami. To a man like myself, who is compelled to live a solitary life, and sees few persons, it is no slight satisfaction to hear that I have been able at all [to] interest by my books observers like yourself. As I shall publish on my present subject, I presume, within a year, it will be of no use your sending me the shoots of peaches and nectarines which you so kindly offer; I have recorded your facts. Permit me again to thank you cordially; I have not often in my life received a kinder letter. My dear Sir, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.V. -- THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS UNDER DOMESTICATION.' JANUARY 1867, TO JUNE 1868. [At the beginning of the year 1867 he was at work on the final chapter--"Concluding Remarks" of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' which was begun after the rest of the MS. had been sent to the printers in the preceding December. With regard to the publication of the book he wrote to Mr. Murray, on January 3:-- "I cannot tell you how sorry I am to hear of the enormous size of my book. (On January 9 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I have been these last few days vexed and annoyed to a foolish degree by hearing that my MS. on Dom. An. and Cult. Plants will make 2 volumes, both bigger than the 'Origin.' The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I have written to Murray to suggest details to be printed in small type. But I feel that the size is quite ludicrous in relation to the subject. I am ready to swear at myself and at every fool who writes a book.") I fear it can never pay. But I cannot shorten it now; nor, indeed, if I had foreseen its length, do I see which parts ought to have been omitted. "If you are afraid to publish it, say so at once, I beg you, and I will consider your note as cancelled. If you think fit, get any one whose judgment you rely on, to look over some of the more legible chapters, namely, the Introduction, and on dogs and plants, the latter chapters being in my opinion, the dullest in the book... The list of chapters, and the inspection of a few here and there, would give a good judge a fair idea of the whole book. Pray do not publish blindly, as it would vex me all my life if I led you to heavy loss." Mr. Murray referred the MS. to a literary friend, and, in spite of a somewhat adverse opinion, willingly agreed to publish the book. My father wrote:-- "Your note has been a great relief to me. I am rather alarmed about the verdict of your friend, as he is not a man of science. I think if you had sent the 'Origin' to an unscientific man, he would have utterly condemned it. I am, however, VERY GLAD that you have consulted any one on whom you can rely. "I must add, that my 'Journal of Researches' was seen in MS. by an eminent semi-scientific man, and was pronounced unfit for publication." The proofs were begun in March, and the last revise was finished on November 15th, and during this period the only intervals of rest were two visits of a week each at his brother Erasmus's house in Queen Anne Street. He notes in his Diary:-- "I began this book [in the] beginning of 1860 (and then had some MS.), but owing to interruptions from my illness, and illness of children; from various editions of the 'Origin,' and Papers, especially Orchis book and Tendrils, I have spent four years and two months over it." The edition of 'Animals and Plants' was of 1500 copies, and of these 1260 were sold at Mr. Murray's autumnal sale, but it was not published until January 30, 1868. A new edition of 1250 copies was printed in February of the same year. In 1867 he received the distinction of being made a knight of the Prussian Order "Pour le Merite." (The Order "Pour le Merite" was founded in 1740 by Frederick II. by the re-christening of an "Order of Generosity," founded in 1665. It was at one time strictly military, having been previously both civil and military, and in 1840 the Order was again opened to civilians. The order consists of thirty members of German extraction, but distinguished foreigners are admitted to a kind of extraordinary membership. Faraday, Herschel, and Thomas Moore, have belonged to it in this way. From the thirty members a chancellor is elected by the king (the first officer of this kind was Alexander v. Humboldt); and it is the duty of the chancellor to notify a vacancy in the Order to the remainder of the thirty, who then elect by vote the new member--but the king has technically the appointment in his own hands.) He seems not to have known how great the distinction was, for in June 1868 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "What a man you are for sympathy. I was made "Eques" some months ago, but did not think much about it. Now, by Jove, we all do; but you, in fact, have knighted me." The letters may now take up the story.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 8 [1867]. My dear Hooker, I am heartily glad that you have been offered the Presidentship of the British Association, for it is a great honour, and as you have so much work to do, I am equally glad that you have declined it. I feel, however, convinced that you would have succeeded very well; but if I fancy myself in such a position, it actually makes my blood run cold. I look back with amazement at the skill and taste with which the Duke of Argyll made a multitude of little speeches at Glasgow. By the way, I have not seen the Duke's book ('The Reign of Law,' 1867.), but I formerly thought that some of the articles which appeared in periodicals were very clever, but not very profound. One of these was reviewed in the "Saturday Review" ("Saturday Review", November 15, 1862, 'The "Edinburgh Review" on the Supernatural.' Written by my cousin, Mr. Henry Parker.) some years ago, and the fallacy of some main argument was admirably exposed, and I sent the article to you, and you agreed strongly with it... There was the other day a rather good review of the Duke's book in the "Spectator", and with a new explanation, either by the Duke or the reviewer (I could not make out which), of rudimentary organs, namely, that economy of labour and material was a great guiding principle with God (ignoring waste of seed and of young monsters, etc.), and that making a new plan for the structure of animals was thought, and thought was labour, and therefore God kept to a uniform plan, and left rudiments. This is no exaggeration. In short, God is a man, rather cleverer than us... I am very much obliged for the "Nation" (returned by this post); it is ADMIRABLY good. You say I always guess wrong, but I do not believe any one, except Asa Gray, could have done the thing so well. I would bet even, or three to two, that it is Asa Gray, though one or two passages staggered me. I finish my book on 'Domestic Animals,' etc., by a single paragraph, answering, or rather throwing doubt, in so far as so little space permits, on Asa Gray's doctrine that each variation has been specially ordered or led along a beneficial line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but there have been so many allusions to what I think about the part which God has played in the formation of organic beings (Prof. Judd allows me to quote from some notes which he has kindly given me:--"Lyell once told me that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was not one of the most unhappy of men, it being suggested that his outrage upon public opinion should have filled him with remorse." Sir Charles Lyell must have been able, I think, to give a satisfactory answer on this point. Professor Judd continues:-- "I made a note of this and other conversations of Lyell's at the time. At the present time such statements must appear strange to any one who does not recollect the revolution in opinion which has taken place during the last 23 years [1882]."), that I thought it shabby to evade the question... I have even received several letters on the subject... I overlooked your sentence about Providence, and suppose I treated it as Buckland did his own theology, when his Bridgewater Treatise was read aloud to him for correction... [The following letter, from Mrs. Boole, is one of those referred to in the last letter to Sir J.D. Hooker:] Dear Sir, Will you excuse my venturing to ask you a question, to which no one's answer but your own would be quite satisfactory? Do you consider the holding of your theory of Natural Selection, in its fullest and most unreserved sense, to be inconsistent--I do not say with any particular scheme of theological doctrine--but with the following belief, namely:-- That knowledge is given to man by the direct inspiration of the Spirit of God. That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being. That the effect of the action of the Spirit of God on the brain of man is especially a moral effect. And that each individual man has within certain limits a power of choice as to how far he will yield to his hereditary animal impulses, and how far he will rather follow the guidance of the Spirit, who is educating him into a power of resisting those impulses in obedience to moral motives? The reason why I ask you is this: my own impression has always been, not only that your theory was perfectly COMPATIBLE with the faith to which I have just tried to give expression, but that your books afforded me a clue which would guide me in applying that faith to the solution of certain complicated psychological problems which it was of practical importance to me as a mother to solve. I felt that you had supplied one of the missing links--not to say THE missing link--between the facts of science and the promises of religion. Every year's experience tends to deepen in me that impression. But I have lately read remarks on the probable bearing of your theory on religious and moral questions which have perplexed and pained me sorely. I know that the persons who make such remarks must be cleverer and wiser than myself. I cannot feel sure that they are mistaken, unless you will tell me so. And I think--I cannot know for certain--but I THINK--that if I were an author, I would rather that the humblest student of my works should apply to me directly in a difficulty, than that she should puzzle too long over adverse and probably mistaken or thoughtless criticisms. At the same time I feel that you have a perfect right to refuse to answer such questions as I have asked you. Science must take her path, and Theology hers, and they will meet when and where and how God pleases, and you are in no sense responsible for it if the meeting-point should still be very far off. If I receive no answer to this letter I shall infer nothing from your silence, except that you felt I had no right to make such enquiries of a stranger. [My father replied as follows:] Down, December 14, [1866]. Dear Madam, It would have gratified me much if I could have sent satisfactory answers to your questions, or, indeed, answers of any kind. But I cannot see how the belief that all organic beings, including man, have been genetically derived from some simple being, instead of having been separately created, bears on your difficulties. These, as it seems to me, can be answered only by widely different evidence from science, or by the so-called "inner consciousness." My opinion is not worth more than that of any other man who has thought on such subjects, and it would be folly in me to give it. I may, however, remark that it has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of the natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God, though I am aware this is not logical with reference to an omniscient Deity. Your last question seems to resolve itself into the problem of free will and necessity, which has been found by most persons insoluble. I sincerely wish that this note had not been as utterly valueless as it is. I would have sent full answers, though I have little time or strength to spare, had it been in my power. I have the honour to remain, dear Madam, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--I am grieved that my views should incidentally have caused trouble to your mind, but I thank you for your judgment, and honour you for it, that theology and science should each run its own course, and that in the present case I am not responsible if their meeting-point should still be far off. [The next letter discusses the 'Reign of Law,' referred to a few pages back:] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 1 [1867]. ... I am at present reading the Duke, and am VERY MUCH interested by him; yet I cannot but think, clever as the whole is, that parts are weak, as when he doubts whether each curvature of the beak of humming-birds is of service to each species. He admits, perhaps too fully, that I have shown the use of each little ridge and shape of each petal in orchids, and how strange he does not extend the view to humming-birds. Still odder, it seems to me, all that he says on beauty, which I should have thought a nonentity, except in the mind of some sentient being. He might have as well said that love existed during the secondary or Palaeozoic periods. I hope you are getting on with your book better than I am with mine, which kills me with the labour of correcting, and is intolerably dull, though I did not think so when I was writing it. A naturalist's life would be a happy one if he had only to observe, and never to write. We shall be in London for a week in about a fortnight's time, and I shall enjoy having a breakfast talk with you. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. [The following letter refers to the new and improved translation of the 'Origin,' undertaken by Professor Carus:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J. VICTOR CARUS. Down, February 17 [1867]. My dear Sir, I have read your preface with care. It seems to me that you have treated Bronn with complete respect and great delicacy, and that you have alluded to your own labour with much modesty. I do not think that any of Bronn's friends can complain of what you say and what you have done. For my own sake, I grieve that you have not added notes, as I am sure that I should have profited much by them; but as you have omitted Bronn's objections, I believe that you have acted with excellent judgment and fairness in leaving the text without comment to the independent verdict of the reader. I heartily congratulate you that the main part of your labour is over; it would have been to most men a very troublesome task, but you seem to have indomitable powers of work, judging from those two wonderful and most useful volumes on zoological literature ('Bibliotheca Zoologica,' 1861.) edited by you, and which I never open without surprise at their accuracy, and gratitude for their usefulness. I cannot sufficiently tell you how much I rejoice that you were persuaded to superintend the translation of the present edition of my book, for I have now the great satisfaction of knowing that the German public can judge fairly of its merits and demerits... With my cordial and sincere thanks, believe me, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time forward they corresponded (though not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of my father's life. His friendship with Haeckel was not nearly growth of correspondence, as was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz Muller. Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his correspondent--a feeling which I have often heard him emphatically express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred to is Haeckel's 'Generelle Morphologie,' published in 1866, a copy of which my father received from the author in January 1867. Dr. E. Krause ('Charles Darwin und sein Verhaltniss zu Deutschland,' 1885.) has given a good account of Professor Haeckel's services to the cause of Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm reception which the 'Origin' met with in Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers, not especially likely to advance its acceptance with the professorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his 'Radiolaria' (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of Naturalists at Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the first time publicly before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its success. Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his 'Generelle Morphologie,' "an attempt to work out the practical application" of the doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the "force and suggestiveness, and... systematising power of Oken without his extravagance." Professor Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel's 'Schopfungs-Geschichte' as an exposition of the 'Generelle Morphologie' "for an educated public." Again, in his 'Evolution in Biology' (An article in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica,' 9th edition, reprinted in 'Science and Culture,' 1881, page 298.), Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever hesitation may, not unfrequently, be felt by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution, and to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science." In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 'Darwinismus,' and on this subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (page 162). He asks whether much that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this. Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by his 'Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts,' his 'Generelle Morphologie,' and 'Schopfungs-Geschichte,' all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly short time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and moderation."] CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, May 21, 1867. Dear Haeckel, Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for you have received what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken what I said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for a moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many new facts and arguments, would not advance our common object in the highest degree. All that I think is that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely blinds every one, that your arguments would have no chance of influencing those who are already opposed to our views. Moreover, I do not at all like that you, towards whom I feel so much friendship, should unnecessarily make enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that your work will greatly advance our subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into English, for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what you say about my advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some of my English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good policy. The belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in England (In October 1867 he wrote to Mr. Wallace:--"Mr. Warrington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the 'Origin' before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the name of the Devil's Advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number I could send it you."), even amongst those who can give no reason for their belief. No body of men were at first so much opposed to my views as the members of the London Entomological Society, but now I am assured that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the members concur with me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappointment to me that I have never received your long letter written to me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which seems to have been a most interesting one, has done your health much good. I am working away at my new book, but make very slow progress, and the work tries my health, which is much the same as when you were here. Victor Carus is going to translate it, but whether it is worth translation, I am rather doubtful. I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of your visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see you here. Believe me, my dear Haeckel, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, July 31 [1867]. My dear Sir, I received a week ago your letter of June 2, full as usual of valuable matter and specimens. It arrived at exactly the right time, for I was enabled to give a pretty full abstract of your observations on the plant's own pollen being poisonous. I have inserted this abstract in the proo-sheets in my chapter on sterility, and it forms the most striking part of my whole chapter. (In 'The Variation of Animals and Plants.') I thank you very sincerely for the most interesting observations, which, however, I regret that you did not publish independently. I have been forced to abbreviate one or two parts more than I wished... Your letters always surprise me, from the number of points to which you attend. I wish I could make my letters of any interest to you, for I hardly ever see a naturalist, and live as retired a life as you in Brazil. With respect to mimetic plants, I remember Hooker many years ago saying he believed that there were many, but I agree with you that it would be most difficult to distinguish between mimetic resemblance and the effects of peculiar conditions. Who can say to which of these causes to attribute the several plants with heath-like foliage at the Cape of Good Hope? Is it not also a difficulty that quadrupeds appear to recognise plants more by their [scent] than their appearance? What I have just said reminds me to ask you a question. Sir J. Lubbock brought me the other day what appears to be a terrestrial Planaria (the first ever found in the northern hemisphere) and which was coloured exactly like our dark-coloured slugs. Now slugs are not devoured by birds, like the shell-bearing species, and this made me remember that I found the Brazilian Planariae actually together with striped Vaginuli which I believe were similarly coloured. Can you throw any light on this? I wish to know, because I was puzzled some months ago how it would be possible to account for the bright colours of the Planariae in reference to sexual selection. By the way, I suppose they are hermaphrodites. Do not forget to aid me, if in your power, with answers to ANY of my questions on expression, for the subject interests me greatly. With cordial thanks for your never-failing kindness, believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, July 18 [1867]. My dear Lyell, Many thanks for your long letter. I am sorry to hear that you are in despair about your book (The 2nd volume of the 10th Edition of the 'Principles.'); I well know that feeling, but am now getting out of the lower depths. I shall be very much pleased, if you can make the least use of my present book, and do not care at all whether it is published before yours. Mine will appear towards the end of November of this year; you speak of yours as not coming out till November, 1868, which I hope may be an error. There is nothing about Man in my book which can interfere with you, so I will order all the completed clean sheets to be sent (and others as soon as ready) to you, but please observe you will not care for the first volume, which is a mere record of the amount of variation; but I hope the second will be somewhat more interesting. Though I fear the whole must be dull. I rejoice from my heart that you are going to speak out plainly about species. My book about Man, if published, will be short, and a large portion will be devoted to sexual selection, to which subject I alluded in the 'Origin' as bearing on Man... CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 22 [1867]. My dear Lyell, I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me REAL good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could hardly bear to correct the proofs (The proofs of 'Animals and Plants,' which Lyell was then reading.), and you gave me fresh heart. I remember thinking that when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would pass it over as quite unreadable. Your last letter has interested me in very many ways, and I have been glad to hear about those horrid unbelieving Frenchmen. I have been particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know whether you ever had the feeling of having thought so much over a subject that you had lost all power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in Biology. I cannot help still regretting that you have ever looked at the slips, for I hope to improve the whole a good deal. It is surprising to me, and delightful, that you should care in the least about the plants. Altogether you have given me one of the best cordials I ever had in my life, and I heartily thank you. I despatched this morning the French edition. (Of the 'Origin.' It appears that my father was sending a copy of the French edition to Sir Charles. The introduction was by Mdlle. Royer, who translated the book.) The introduction was a complete surprise to me, and I dare say has injured the book in France; nevertheless... it shows, I think, that the woman is uncommonly clever. Once again many thanks for the renewed courage with which I shall attack the horrid proof-sheets. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--A Russian who is translating my new book into Russian has been here, and says you are immensely read in Russia, and many editions--how many I forget. Six editions of Buckle and four editions of the 'Origin.' CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, October 16 [1867]. My dear Gray, I send by this post clean sheets of Volume I. up to page 336, and there are only 411 pages in this volume. I am VERY glad to hear that you are going to review my book; but if the "Nation" (The book was reviewed by Dr. Gray in the "Nation", March 19, 1868.) is a newspaper I wish it were at the bottom of the sea, for I fear that you will thus be stopped reviewing me in a scientific journal. The first volume is all details, and you will not be able to read it; and you must remember that the chapters on plants are written for naturalists who are not botanists. The last chapter in Volume I. is, however, I think, a curious compilation of facts; it is on bu-variation. In Volume II. some of the chapters are more interesting; and I shall be very curious to hear your verdict on the chapter on close inte-breeding. The chapter on what I call Pangenesis will be called a mad dream, and I shall be pretty well satisfied if you think it a dream worth publishing; but at the bottom of my own mind I think it contains a great truth. I finish my book with a semi-theological paragraph, in which I quote and differ from you; what you will think of it, I know not... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 17 [1867]. My dear Hooker, Congratulate me, for I have finished the last revise of the last sheet of my book. It has been an awful job: seven and a half months correcting the press: the book, from much small type, does not look big, but is really very big. I have had hard work to keep up to the mark, but during the last week only few revises came, so that I have rested and feel more myself. Hence, after our long mutual silence, I enjoy myself by writing a note to you, for the sake of exhaling, and hearing from you. On account of the index (The index was made by Mr. W.S. Dallas; I have often heard my father express his admiration of this excellent piece of work.), I do not suppose that you will receive your copy till the middle of next month. I shall be intensely anxious to hear what you think about Pangenesis; though I can see how fearfully imperfect, even in mere conjectural conclusions, it is; yet it has been an infinite satisfaction to me somehow to connect the various large groups of facts, which I have long considered, by an intelligible thread. I shall not be at all surprised if you attack it and me with unparalleled ferocity. It will be my endeavour to do as little as possible for some time, but [I] shall soon prepare a paper or two for the Linnean Society. In a short time we shall go to London for ten days, but the time is not yet fixed. Now I have told you a deal about myself, and do let me hear a good deal about your own past and future doings. Can you pay us a visit, early in December?... I have seen no one for an age, and heard no news. ... About my book I will give you a bit of advice. Skip the WHOLE of Volume I., except the last chapter (and that need only be skimmed) and skip largely in the 2nd volume; and then you will say it is a very good book. 1868. ['The Variation of Animals and Plants' was, as already mentioned, published on January 30, 1868, and on that day he sent a copy to Fritz Muller, and wrote to him:-- "I send by this post, by French packet, my new book, the publication of which has been much delayed. The greater part, as you will see, is not meant to be read; but I should very much like to hear what you think of 'Pangenesis,' though I fear it will appear to EVERY ONE far too speculative."] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February 3 [1868]. ... I am very much pleased at what you say about my Introduction; after it was in type I was as near as possible cancelling the whole. I have been for some time in despair about my book, and if I try to read a few pages I feel fairly nauseated, but do not let this make you praise it; for I have made up my mind that it is not worth a fifth part of the enormous labour it has cost me. I assure you that all that is worth your doing (if you have time for so much) is glancing at Chapter VI., and reading parts of the later chapters. The facts on self-impotent plants seem to me curious, and I have worked out to my own satisfaction the good from crossing and evil from interbreeding. I did read Pangenesis the other evening, but even this, my beloved child, as I had fancied, quite disgusted me. The devil take the whole book; and yet now I am at work again as hard as I am able. It is really a great evil that from habit I have pleasure in hardly anything except Natural History, for nothing else makes me forget my eve-recurrent uncomfortable sensations. But I must not howl any more, and the critics may say what they like; I did my best, and man can do no more. What a splendid pursuit Natural History would be if it was all observing and no writing!... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 10 [1868]. My dear Hooker, What is the good of having a friend, if one may not boast to him? I heard yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book. And now there has appeared a review in the "Pall Mall" which has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how much I may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote the article in the "Pall Mall", do please tell me; it is some one who writes capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to Lubbock's, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were not there. Your cock-a-hoop friend, C.D. [Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in the "Pall Mall Gazette" (February 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have been gratified by the following passages:-- "We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with which he expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on his antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other side, this forbearance is supremely dignified." And again in the third notice, February 17:-- "Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive sel-love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators... but while abstaining from impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he may owe; and his book will make many men happy." I am indebted to Messrs. Smith & Elder for the information that these articles were written by Mr. G.H. Lewes.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 23 [1868]. My dear Hooker, I have had almost as many letters to write of late as you can have, viz. from 8 to 10 per diem, chiefly getting up facts on sexual selection, therefore I have felt no inclination to write to you, and now I mean to write solely about my book for my own satisfaction, and not at all for yours. The first edition was 1500 copies, and now the second is printed off; sharp work. Did you look at the review in the "Athenaeum" ("Athenaeum", February 15, 1868. My father quoted Pouchet's assertion that "variation under domestication throws no light on the natural modification of species." The reviewer quotes the end of a passage in which my father declares that he can see no force in Pouchet's arguments, or rather assertions, and then goes on: "We are sadly mistaken if there are not clear proofs in the pages of the book before us that, on the contrary, Mr. Darwin has perceived, felt, and yielded to the force of the arguments or assertions of his French antagonist." The following may serve as samples of the rest of the review:-- "Henceforth the rhetoricians will have a better illustration of anti-climax than the mountain which brought forth a mouse,... in the discoverer of the origin of species, who tried to explain the variation of pigeons! "A few summary words. On the 'Origin of Species' Mr. Darwin has nothing, and is never likely to have anything, to say; but on the vastly important subject of inheritance, the transmission of peculiarities once acquired through successive generations, this work is a valuable store-house of facts for curious students and practical breeders."), showing profound contempt of me?... It is a shame that he should have said that I have taken much from Pouchet, without acknowledgment; for I took literally nothing, there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" which will sell the book if anything will. I don't quite see whether I or the writer is in a muddle about man CAUSING variability. If a man drops a bit of iron into sulphuric acid he does not cause the affinities to come into play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron. I do not know how to avoid ambiguity. After what the "Pall Mall Gazette" and the "Chronicle" have said I do not care a d--. I fear Pangenesis is stillborn; Bates says he has read it twice, and is not sure that he understands it. H. Spencer says the view is quite different from his (and this is a great relief to me, as I feared to be accused of plagiarism, but utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it safest to give my view as almost the same as his), and he says he is not sure he understands it... Am I not a poor devil? yet I took such pains, I must think that I expressed myself clearly. Old Sir H. Holland says he has read it twice, and thinks it very tough; but believes that sooner or later "some view akin to it" will be accepted. You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that I feel SURE if Pangenesis is now stillborn it will, thank God, at some future time reappear, begotten by some other father, and christened by some other name. Have you ever met with any tangible and clear view of what takes place in generation, whether by seeds or buds, or how a long-lost character can possibly reappear; or how the male element can possibly affect the mother plant, or the mother animal, so that her future progeny are affected? Now all these points and many others are connected together, whether truly or falsely is another question, by Pangenesis. You see I die hard, and stick up for my poor child. This letter is written for my own satisfaction, and not for yours. So bear it. Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A. NEWTON. (Prof. of Zoology at Cambridge.) Down, February 9 [1870]. Dear Newton, I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour; and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said in the 'Record' ('Zoological Record.' The volume for 1868, published December 1869.) about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. I have sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatrefages), who seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I thought the article in the "Athenaeum" was very unjust; but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your sympathy and too warm praise. What labour you have bestowed on your part of the 'Record'! I ought to be ashamed to speak of my amount of work. I thoroughly enjoyed the Sunday, which you and the others spent here, and I remain, dear Newton, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 27 [1868]. My dear Wallace, You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about 'Pangenesis.' None of my friends will speak out... Hooker, as far as I understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz. that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my foot-note refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived. I shall be very glad to hear at some future day your criticisms on the "causes of variability." Indeed I feel sure that I am right about sterility and natural selection... I do not quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish sometime you would consider the case under the following point of view:--If sterility is caused or accumulated through natural selection, than as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness, natural selection must have the power of increasing it. Now take two species, A and B, and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e. produce half the full number of offspring. Now try and make (by natural selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant indeed, it is certain, that the degree of sterility of the individuals A and B will vary, but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I do not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on paper with diagrams. ... Hearty thanks for your letter. You have indeed pleased me, for I had given up the great god Pan as a stillborn deity. I wish you could be induced to make it clear with your admirable powers of elucidation in one of the scientific journals... CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 28 [1868]. My dear Hooker, I have been deeply interested by your letter, and we had a good laugh over Huxley's remark, which was so deuced clever that you could not recollect it. I cannot quite follow your train of thought, for in the last page you admit all that I wish, having apparently denied all, or thought all mere words in the previous pages of your note; but it may be my muddle. I see clearly that any satisfaction which Pan may give will depend on the constitution of each man's mind. If you have arrived already at any similar conclusion, the whole will of course appear stale to you. I heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), "I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on 'Pangenesis.' It is a POSITIVE COMFORT to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly possible, etc." Now his foregoing [italicised] words express my sentiments exactly and fully: though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from having during many years vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or the stump of an amputated limb, have the "potentiality" of reproducing the whole--or "diffuse an influence," these words give me no positive idea;--but when it is said that the cells of a plant, or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the whole organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct idea. But this idea would not be worth a rush, if it applied to one case alone; but it seems to me to apply to all the forms of reproduction--inheritance--metamorphosis--to the abnormal transposition of organs--to the direct action of the male element on the mother plant, etc. Therefore I fully believe that each cell does ACTUALLY throw off an atom or gemmule of its contents;--but whether or not, this hypothesis serves as a useful connecting link for various grand classes of physiological facts, which at present stand absolutely isolated. I have touched on the doubtful point (alluded to by Huxley) how far atoms derived from the same cell may become developed into different structure accordingly as they are differently nourished; I advanced as illustrations galls and polypoid excrescences... It is a real pleasure to me to write to you on this subject, and I should be delighted if we can understand each other; but you must not let your good nature lead you on. Remember, we always fight tooth and nail. We go to London on Tuesday, first for a week to Queen Anne Street, and afterwards to Miss Wedgwood's, in Regent's Park, and stay the whole month, which, as my gardener truly says, is a "terrible thing" for my experiments. CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. (Dr. William Ogle, now the Superintendent of Statistics to the Registrar-General.) Down, March 6 [1868]. Dear Sir, I thank you most sincerely for your letter, which is very interesting to me. I wish I had known of these views of Hippocrates before I had published, for they seem almost identical with mine--merely a change of terms--and an application of them to classes of facts necessarily unknown to the old philosopher. The whole case is a good illustration of how rarely anything is new. Hippocrates has taken the wind out of my sails, but I care very little about being forestalled. I advance the views merely as a provisional hypothesis, but with the secret expectation that sooner or later some such view will have to be admitted. ... I do not expect the reviewers will be so learned as you: otherwise, no doubt, I shall be accused of wilfully stealing Pangenesis from Hippocrates,--for this is the spirit some reviewers delight to show. CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, March 21 [1868]. ... I am very much obliged to you for sending me so frankly your opinion on Pangenesis, and I am sorry it is unfavourable, but I cannot quite understand your remark on pangenesis, selection, and the struggle for life not being more methodical. I am not at all surprised at your unfavourable verdict; I know many, probably most, will come to the same conclusion. One English Review says it is much too complicated... Some of my friends are enthusiastic on the hypothesis... Sir C. Lyell says to every one, "you may not believe in 'Pangenesis,' but if you once understand it, you will never get it out of your mind." And with this criticism I am perfectly content. All cases of inheritance and reversion and development now appear to me under a new light... [An extract from a letter to Fritz Muller, though of later date (June), may be given here:-- "Your letter of April 22 has much interested me. I am delighted that you approve of my book, for I value your opinion more than that of almost any one. I have yet hopes that you will think well of Pangenesis. I feel sure that our minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great relief to have some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect on the wonderful transformations of animals,--the re-growth of parts,--and especially the direct action of pollen on the mother-form, etc. It often appears to me almost certain that the characters of the parents are "photographed" on the child, only by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 8 [1868]. My dear Gray, I have been a most ungrateful and ungracious man not to have written to you an immense time ago to thank you heartily for the "Nation", and for all your most kind aid in regard to the American edition [of 'Animals and Plants']. But I have been of late overwhelmed with letters, which I was forced to answer, and so put off writing to you. This morning I received the American edition (which looks capital), with your nice preface, for which hearty thanks. I hope to heaven that the book will succeed well enough to prevent you repenting of your aid. This arrival has put the finishing stroke to my conscience, which will endure its wrongs no longer. ... Your article in the "Nation" [March 19] seems to me very good, and you give an excellent idea of Pangenesis--an infant cherished by few as yet, except his tender parent, but which will live a long life. There is parental presumption for you! You give a good slap at my concluding metaphor (A short abstract of the precipice metaphor is given in Volume I. Dr. Gray's criticism on this point is as follows: "But in Mr. Darwin's parallel, to meet the case of nature according to his own view of it, not only the fragments of rock (answering to variation) should fall, but the edifice (answering to natural selection) should rise, irrespective of will or choice!" But my father's parallel demands that natural selection shall be the architect, not the edifice--the question of design only comes in with regard to the form of the building materials.): undoubtedly I ought to have brought in and contrasted natural and artificial selection; but it seems so obvious to me that natural selection depended on contingencies even more complex than those which must have determined the shape of each fragment at the base of my precipice. What I wanted to show was that in reference to pre-ordainment whatever holds good in the formation of a pouter pigeon holds good in the formation of a natural species of pigeon. I cannot see that this is false. If the right variations occurred, and no others, natural selection would be superfluous. A reviewer in an Edinburgh paper, who treats me with profound contempt, says on this subject that Professor Asa Gray could with the greatest ease smash me into little pieces. (The "Daily Review", April 27, 1868. My father has given rather a highly coloured version of the reviewer's remarks: "We doubt not that Professor Asa Gray... could show that natural selection... is simply an instrument in the hands of an omnipotent and omniscient creator." The reviewer goes on to say that the passage in question is a "very melancholy one," and that the theory is the "apotheosis of materialism.") Believe me, my dear Gray, Your ungrateful but sincere friend, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. Down, June 23, 1868. My dear Mr. Bentham, As your address (Presidential Address to the Linnean Society.) is somewhat of the nature of a verdict from a judge, I do not know whether it is proper for me to do so, but I must and will thank you for the pleasure which you have given me. I am delighted at what you say about my book. I got so tired of it, that for months together I thought myself a perfect fool for having given up so much time in collecting and observing little facts, but now I do not care if a score of common critics speak as contemptuously of the book as did the "Athenaeum". I feel justified in this, for I have so complete a reliance on your judgment that I feel certain that I should have bowed to your judgment had it been as unfavourable as it is the contrary. What you say about Pangenesis quite satisfies me, and is as much perhaps as any one is justified in saying. I have read your whole Address with the greatest interest. It must have cost you a vast amount of trouble. With cordial thanks, pray believe me, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I fear that it is not likely that you have a superfluous copy of your Address; if you have, I should much like to send one to Fritz Muller in the interior of Brazil. By the way let me add that I discussed bud-variation chiefly from a belief which is common to several persons, that all variability is related to sexual generation; I wished to show clearly that this was an error. [The above series of letters may serve to show to some extent the reception which the new book received. Before passing on (in the next chapter) to the 'Descent of Man,' I give a letter referring to the translation of Fritz Muller's book, 'Fur Darwin,' it was originally published in 1864, but the English translation, by Mr. Dallas, which bore the title suggested by Sir C. Lyell, of 'Facts and Arguments for Darwin,' did not appear until 1869:] CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, March 16 [1868]. My dear Sir, Your brother, as you will have heard from him, felt so convinced that you would not object to a translation of 'Fur Darwin' (In a letter to Fritz Muller, my father wrote:--"I am vexed to see that on the title my name is more conspicuous than yours, which I especially objected to, and I cautioned the printers after seeing one proof."), that I have ventured to arrange for a translation. Engelmann has very liberally offered me cliches of the woodcuts for 22 thalers; Mr. Murray has agreed to bring out a translation (and he is our best publisher) on commission, for he would not undertake the work on his own risk; and I have agreed with Mr. W.S. Dallas (who has translated Von Siebold on Parthenogenesis, and many German works, and who writes very good English) to translate the book. He thinks (and he is a good judge) that it is important to have some few corrections or additions, in order to account for a translation appearing so lately [i.e. at such a long interval of time] after the original; so that I hope you will be able to send some... [Two letters may be placed here as bearing on the spread of Evolutionary ideas in France and Germany:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GAUDRY. Down, January 21 [1868]. Dear Sir, I thank you for your interesting essay on the influence of the Geological features of the country on the mind and habits of the Ancient Athenians (This appears to refer to M. Gaudry's paper translated in the 'Geol. Mag.,' 1868, page 372.), and for your very obliging letter. I am delighted to hear that you intend to consider the relations of fossil animals in connection with their genealogy; it will afford you a fine field for the exercise of your extensive knowledge and powers of reasoning. Your belief will I suppose, at present, lower you in the estimation of your countrymen; but judging from the rapid spread in all parts of Europe, excepting France, of the belief in the common descent of allied species, I must think that this belief will before long become universal. How strange it is that the country which gave birth to Buffon, the elder Geoffroy, and especially to Lamarck, should now cling so pertinaciously to the belief that species are immutable creations. My work on Variation, etc., under domestication, will appear in a French translation in a few months' time, and I will do myself the pleasure and honour of directing the publisher to send a copy to you to the same address as this letter. With sincere respect, I remain, dear sir, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. [The next letter is of especial interest, as showing how high a value my father placed on the support of the younger German naturalists:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. PREYER. (Now Professor of Physiology at Jena.) March 31, 1868. ... I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine of the Modification of Species, and defend my views. The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To the present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt by writers of my own country; but the younger naturalists are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public must follow those who make the subject their special study. The abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very little... CHAPTER 2.VI. -- WORK ON 'MAN.' 1864-1870. [In the autobiographical chapter in Volume I., my father gives the circumstances which led to his writing the 'Descent of Man.' He states that his collection of facts, begun in 1837 or 1838, was continued for many years without any definite idea of publishing on the subject. The following letter to Mr. Wallace shows that in the period of ill-health and depression about 1864 he despaired of ever being able to do so:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, [May?] 28 [1864]. Dear Wallace, I am so much better that I have just finished a paper for Linnean Society (On the three forms, etc., of Lythrum.); but I am not yet at all strong, I felt much disinclination to write, and therefore you must forgive me for not having sooner thanked you for your paper on 'Man' ('Anthropological Review,' March 1864.), received on the 11th. But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my life been more struck by any paper than that on 'Variation,' etc. etc., in the "Reader". ('"Reader", April 16, 1864. "On the Phenomena of Variation," etc. Abstract of a paper read before the Linnean Society, March 17, 1864.) I feel sure that such papers will do more for the spreading of our views on the modification of species than any separate Treatises on the simple subject itself. It is really admirable; but you ought not in the Man paper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just as much yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to me your "high-minded" conduct on this head. But now for your Man paper, about which I should like to write more than I can. The great leading idea is quite new to me, viz. that during late ages, the mind will have been modified more than the body; yet I had got as far as to see with you that the struggle between the races of man depended entirely on intellectual and MORAL qualities. The latter part of the paper I can designate only as grand and most eloquently done. I have shown your paper to two or three persons who have been here, and they have been equally struck with it. I am not sure that I go with you on all minor points: when reading Sir G. Grey's account of the constant battles of Australian savages, I remember thinking that natural selection would come in, and likewise with the Esquimaux, with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes is said to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank, under a classificatory point of view, which you assign to man; I do not think any character simply in excess ought ever to be used for the higher divisions. Ants would not be separated from other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct of the one, and however low the instincts of the other. With respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has occurred to me that much may be due to the correlation of complexion (and consequently hair) with constitution. Assume that a dusky individual best escaped miasma, and you will readily see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General of the Medical Department of the Army to send printed forms to the surgeons of all regiments in tropical countries to ascertain this point, but I dare say I shall never get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the most powerful means of changing the races of man. I can show that the different races have a widely different standard of beauty. Among savages the most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and they will generally leave the most descendants. I have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose that I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so, would you like at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of chaos. There is much more that I should like to write, but I have not strength. Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--Our aristocracy is handsomer (more hideous according to a Chinese or Negro) than the middle classes, from (having the) pick of the women; but oh, what a scheme is primogeniture for destroying natural selection! I fear my letter will be barely intelligible to you. [In February 1867, when the manuscript of 'Animals and Plants' had been sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and before the proofs began to come in, he had an interval of spare time, and began a "chapter on Man," but he soon found it growing under his hands, and determined to publish it separately as a "very small volume." The work was interrupted by the necessity of correcting the proofs of 'Animals and Plants,' and by some botanical work, but was resumed in the following year, 1868, the moment he could give himself up to it. He recognized with regret the gradual change in his mind that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to him as he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent what is expressed in the Autobiography:-- "I am glad you were at the 'Messiah,' it is the one thing that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days; and then I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest, which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed stomach." The work on Man was interrupted by illness in the early summer of 1868, and he left home on July 16th for Freshwater, in the Isle of Wight, where he remained with his family until August 21st. Here he made the acquaintance of Mrs. Cameron. She received the whole family with open-hearted kindness and hospitality, and my father always retained a warm feeling of friendship for her. She made an excellent photograph of him, which was published with the inscription written by him: "I like this photograph very much better than any other which has been taken of me." Further interruption occurred in the autumn so that continuous work on the 'Descent of Man' did not begin until 1869. The following letters give some idea of the earlier work in 1867:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 22, [1867?]. My dear Wallace, I am hard at work on sexual selection, and am driven half mad by the number of collateral points which require investigation, such as the relative number of the two sexes, and especially on polygamy. Can you aid me with respect to birds which have strongly marked secondary sexual characters, such as birds of paradise, humming-birds, the Rupicola, or any other such cases? Many gallinaceous birds certainly are polygamous. I suppose that birds may be known not to be polygamous if they are seen during the whole breeding season to associate in pairs, or if the male incubates or aids in feeding the young. Will you have the kindness to turn this in your mind? But it is a shame to trouble you now that, as I am HEARTILY glad to hear, you are at work on your Malayan travels. I am fearfully puzzled how far to extend your protective views with respect to the females in various classes. The more I work the more important sexual selection apparently comes out. Can butterflies be polygamous! i.e. will one male impregnate more than one female? Forgive me troubling you, and I dare say I shall have to ask forgiveness again... CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 23 [1867]. Dear Wallace, I much regretted that I was unable to call on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave the house. On Monday evening I called on Bates, and put a difficulty before him, which he could not answer, and, as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion was, "You had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a sphinx) was conspicuous at the distance of yards, from its black and red colours, whilst feeding on large green leaves. If any one objected to male butterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, and asked why should they not have been made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but should maintain my ground. Will you think over this, and some time, either by letter or when we meet, tell me what you think? Also I want to know whether your FEMALE mimetic butterfly is more beautiful and brighter than the male. When next in London I must get you to show me your kingfishers. My health is a dreadful evil; I failed in half my engagements during this last visit to London. Believe me, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 26 [1867]. My dear Wallace, Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to in a difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than your suggestion (The suggestion that conspicuous caterpillars or perfect insects (e.g. white butterflies), which are distasteful to birds, are protected by being easily recognised and avoided. See Mr. Wallace's 'Natural Selection,' 2nd edition, page 117.), and I hope you may be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the white moths; it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus almost proved to be true. (Mr. Jenner Weir's observations published in the Transactions of the Entomolog. Soc. (1869 and 1870) give strong support to the theory in question.) With respect to the beauty of male butterflies, I must as yet think it is due to sexual selection. There is some evidence that dragon-flies are attracted by bright colours; but what leads me to the above belief is, so many male Orthoptera and Cicadas having musical instruments. This being the case, the analogy of birds makes me believe in sexual selection with respect to colour in insects. I wish I had strength and time to make some of the experiments suggested by you, but I thought butterflies would not pair in confinement. I am sure I have heard of some such difficulty. Many years ago I had a dragon-fly painted with gorgeous colours, but I never had an opportunity of fairly trying it. The reason of my being so much interested just at present about sexual selection is, that I have almost resolved to publish a little essay on the origin of Mankind, and I still strongly think (though I failed to convince you, and this, to me, is the heaviest blow possible) that sexual selection has been the main agent in forming the races of man. By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce in my essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, do you happen to know by any odd chance a very good-natured and acute observer in the Malay Archipelago, who you think would make a few easy observations for me on the expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions? For in this case I would send to such person a list of queries. I thank you for your most interesting letter, and remain, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, March [1867]. My dear Wallace, I thank you much for your two notes. The case of Julia Pastrana (A bearded woman having an irregular double set of teeth. 'Animals and Plants,' volume ii. page 328.) is a splendid addition to my other cases of correlated teeth and hair, and I will add it in correcting the press of my present volume. Pray let me hear in the course of the summer if you get any evidence about the gaudy caterpillars. I should much like to give (or quote if published) this idea of yours, if in any way supported, as suggested by you. It will, however, be a long time hence, for I can see that sexual selection is growing into quite a large subject, which I shall introduce into my essay on Man, supposing that I ever publish it. I had intended giving a chapter on man, inasmuch as many call him (not QUITE truly) an eminently domesticated animal, but I found the subject too large for a chapter. Nor shall I be capable of treating the subject well, and my sole reason for taking it up is, that I am pretty well convinced that sexual selection has played an important part in the formation of races, and sexual selection has always been a subject which has interested me much. I have been very glad to see your impression from memory on the expression of Malays. I fully agree with you that the subject is in no way an important one; it is simply a "hobby-horse" with me, about twenty-seven years old; and AFTER thinking that I would write an essay on man, it flashed on me that I could work in some "supplemental remarks on expression." After the horrid, tedious, dull work of my present huge, and I fear unreadable, book ['The Variation of Animals and Plants'], I thought I would amuse myself with my hobby-horse. The subject is, I think, more curious and more amenable to scientific treatment than you seem willing to allow. I want, anyhow, to upset Sir C. Bell's view, given in his most interesting work, 'The Anatomy of Expression,' that certain muscles have been given to man solely that he may reveal to other men his feelings. I want to try and show how expressions have arisen. That is a good suggestion about newspapers, but my experience tells me that private applications are generally most fruitful. I will, however, see if I can get the queries inserted in some Indian paper. I do not know the names or addresses of any other papers. ... My two female amanuenses are busy with friends, and I fear this scrawl will give you much trouble to read. With many thanks, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [The following letter may be worth giving, as an example of his sources of information, and as showing what were the thoughts at this time occupying him:] CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, February 22 [1867]. ... Many thanks for all the curious facts about the unequal number of the sexes in Crustacea, but the more I investigate this subject the deeper I sink in doubt and difficulty. Thanks also for the confirmation of the rivalry of Cicadae. I have often reflected with surprise on the diversity of the means for producing music with insects, and still more with birds. We thus get a high idea of the importance of song in the animal kingdom. Please to tell me where I can find any account of the auditory organs in the Orthoptera. Your facts are quite new to me. Scudder has described an insect in the Devonian strata, furnished with a stridulating apparatus. I believe he is to be trusted, and, if so, the apparatus is of astonishing antiquity. After reading Landois's paper I have been working at the stridulating organ in the Lamellicorn beetles, in expectation of finding it sexual; but I have only found it as yet in two cases, and in these it was equally developed in both sexes. I wish you would look at any of your common lamellicorns, and take hold of both males and females, and observe whether they make the squeaking or grating noise equally. If they do not, you could, perhaps, send me a male and female in a light little box. How curious it is that there should be a special organ for an object apparently so unimportant as squeaking. Here is another point; have you any toucans? if so, ask any trustworthy hunter whether the beaks of the males, or of both sexes, are more brightly coloured during the breeding season than at other times of the year... Heaven knows whether I shall ever live to make use of half the valuable facts which you have communicated to me! Your paper on Balanus armatus, translated by Mr. Dallas, has just appeared in our 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' and I have read it with the greatest interest. I never thought that I should live to hear of a hybrid Balanus! I am very glad that you have seen the cement tubes; they appear to me extremely curious, and, as far as I know, you are the first man who has verified my observations on this point. With most cordial thanks for all your kindness, my dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, July 6, 1868. My dear Sir, I return you my SINCERE thanks for your long letter, which I consider a great compliment, and which is quite full of most interesting facts and views. Your references and remarks will be of great use should a new edition of my book ('Variation of Animals and Plants.') be demanded, but this is hardly probable, for the whole edition was sold within the first week, and another large edition immediately reprinted, which I should think would supply the demand for ever. You ask me when I shall publish on the 'Variation of Species in a State of Nature.' I have had the MS. for another volume almost ready during several years, but I was so much fatigued by my last book that I determined to amuse myself by publishing a short essay on the 'Descent of Man.' I was partly led to do this by having been taunted that I concealed my views, but chiefly from the interest which I had long taken in the subject. Now this essay has branched out into some collateral subjects, and I suppose will take me more than a year to complete. I shall then begin on 'Species,' but my health makes me a very slow workman. I hope that you will excuse these details, which I have given to show that you will have plenty of time to publish your views first, which will be a great advantage to me. Of all the curious facts which you mention in your letter, I think that of the strong inheritance of the scalp-muscles has interested me most. I presume that you would not object to my giving this very curious case on your authority. As I believe all anatomists look at the scalp-muscles as a remnant of the Panniculus carnosus which is common to all the lower quadrupeds, I should look at the unusual development and inheritance of these muscles as probably a case of reversion. Your observation on so many remarkable men in noble families having been illegitimate is extremely curious; and should I ever meet any one capable of writing an essay on this subject, I will mention your remarks as a good suggestion. Dr. Hooker has several times remarked to me that morals and politics would be very interesting if discussed like any branch of natural history, and this is nearly to the same effect with your remarks... CHARLES DARWIN TO L. AGASSIZ. Down, August 19, 1868. Dear Sir, I thank you cordially for your very kind letter. I certainly thought that you had formed so low an opinion of my scientific work that it might have appeared indelicate in me to have asked for information from you, but it never occurred to me that my letter would have been shown to you. I have never for a moment doubted your kindness and generosity, and I hope you will not think it presumption in me to say, that when we met, many years ago, at the British Association at Southampton, I felt for you the warmest admiration. Your information on the Amazonian fishes has interested me EXTREMELY, and tells me exactly what I wanted to know. I was aware, through notes given me by Dr. Gunther, that many fishes differed sexually in colour and other characters, but I was particularly anxious to learn how far this was the case with those fishes in which the male, differently from what occurs with most birds, takes the largest share in the care of the ova and young. Your letter has not only interested me much, but has greatly gratified me in other respects, and I return you my sincere thanks for your kindness. Pray believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sunday, August 23 [1868]. My dear old Friend, I have received your note. I can hardly say how pleased I have been at the success of your address (Sir Joseph Hooker was President of the British Association at the Norwich Meeting in 1868.), and of the whole meeting. I have seen the "Times", "Telegraph", "Spectator", and "Athenaeum", and have heard of other favourable newspapers, and have ordered a bundle. There is a "chorus of praise." The "Times" reported miserably, i.e. as far as errata was concerned; but I was very glad at the leader, for I thought the way you brought in the megalithic monuments most happy. (The British Association was desirous of interesting the Government in certain modern cromlech builders, the Khasia race of East Bengal, in order that their megalithic monuments might be efficiently described.) I particularly admired Tyndall's little speech (Professor Tyndall was President of Section A.)... The "Spectator" pitches a little into you about Theology, in accordance with its usual spirit... Your great success has rejoiced my heart. I have just carefully read the whole address in the "Athenaeum"; and though, as you know, I liked it very much when you read it to me, yet, as I was trying all the time to find fault, I missed to a certain extent the effect as a whole; and this now appears to me most striking and excellent. How you must rejoice at all your bothering labour and anxiety having had so grand an end. I must say a word about myself; never has such a eulogium been passed on me, and it makes me very proud. I cannot get over my AMAZEMENT at what you say about my botanical work. By Jove, as far as my memory goes, you have strengthened instead of weakened some of the expressions. What is far more important than anything personal, is the conviction which I feel that you will have immensely advanced the belief in the evolution of species. This will follow from the publicity of the occasion, your position, so responsible, as President, and your own high reputation. It will make a great step in public opinion, I feel sure, and I had not thought of this before. The "Athenaeum" takes your snubbing (Sir Joseph Hooker made some reference to the review of 'Animals and Plants' in the "Athenaeum" of February 15, 1868.) with the utmost mildness. I certainly do rejoice over the snubbing, and hope [the reviewer] will feel it a little. Whenever you have SPARE time to write again, tell me whether any astronomers (In discussing the astronomer's objection to Evolution, namely that our globe has not existed for a long enough period to give time for the assumed transmutation of living beings, Hooker challenged Whewell's dictum that, astronomy is the queen of sciences--the only perfect science.) took your remarks in ill part; as they now stand they do not seem at all too harsh and presumptuous. Many of your sentences strike me as extremely felicitous and eloquent. That of Lyell's "under-pinning" (After a eulogium on Sir Charles Lyell's heroic renunciation of his old views in accepting Evolution, Sir J.D. Hooker continued, "Well may he be proud of a superstructure, raised on the foundations of an insecure doctrine, when he finds that he can underpin it and substitute a new foundation; and after all is finished, survey his edifice, not only more secure but more harmonious in its proportion than it was before."), is capital. Tell me, was Lyell pleased? I am so glad that you remembered my old dedication. (The 'Naturalist's Voyage' was dedicated to Lyell.) Was Wallace pleased? How about photographs? Can you spare time for a line to our dear Mrs. Cameron? She came to see us off, and loaded us with presents of photographs, and Erasmus called after her, "Mrs. Cameron, there are six people in this house all in love with you." When I paid her, she cried out, "Oh what a lot of money!" and ran to boast to her husband. I must not write any more, though I am in tremendous spirits at your brilliant success. Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN. [In the "Athenaeum" of November 29, 1868, appeared an article which was in fact a reply to Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks at Norwich. He seems to have consulted my father as to the wisdom of answering the article. My father wrote on September 1: "In my opinion Dr. Joseph Dalton Hooker need take no notice of the attack in the "Athenaeum" in reference to Mr. Charles Darwin. What an ass the man is to think he cuts one to the quick by giving one's Christian name in full. How transparently false is the statement that my sole groundwork is from pigeons, because I state I have worked them out more fully than other beings! He muddles together two books of Flourens." The following letter refers to a paper ('Transactions of the Ottawa Academy of Natural Sciences,' 1868, by John D. Caton, late Chief Justice of Illinois.) by Judge Caton, of which my father often spoke with admiration:] CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN D. CATON. Down, September 18, 1868. Dear Sir, I beg leave to thank you very sincerely for your kindness in sending me, through Mr. Walsh, your admirable paper on American Deer. It is quite full of most interesting observations, stated with the greatest clearness. I have seldom read a paper with more interest, for it abounds with facts of direct use for my work. Many of them consist of little points which hardly any one besides yourself has observed, or perceived the importance of recording. I would instance the age at which the horns are developed (a point on which I have lately been in vain searching for information), the rudiment of horns in the female elk, and especially the different nature of the plants devoured by the deer and elk, and several other points. With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which you have afforded me, and with high respect for your power of observation, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. [The following extract from a letter (September 24, 1868) to the Marquis de Saporta, the eminent palaeo-botanist, refers to the growth of evolutionary views in France (In 1868 he was pleased at being asked to authorise a French translation of his 'Naturalist's Voyage.':-- "As I have formerly read with great interest many of your papers on fossil plants, you may believe with what high satisfaction I hear that you are a believer in the gradual evolution of species. I had supposed that my book on the 'Origin of Species' had made very little impression in France, and therefore it delights me to hear a different statement from you. All the great authorities of the Institute seem firmly resolved to believe in the immutability of species, and this has always astonished me... almost the one exception, as far as I know, is M. Gaudry, and I think he will be soon one of the chief leaders in Zoological Palaeontology in Europe; and now I am delighted to hear that in the sister department of Botany you take nearly the same view."] CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, November 19 [1868]. My dear Haeckel, I must write to you again, for two reasons. Firstly, to thank you for your letter about your baby, which has quite charmed both me and my wife; I heartily congratulate you on its birth. I remember being surprised in my own case how soon the paternal instincts became developed, and in you they seem to be unusually strong,... I hope the large blue eyes and the principles of inheritance will make your child as good a naturalist as you are; but, judging from my own experience, you will be astonished to find how the whole mental disposition of your children changes with advancing years. A young child, and the same when nearly grown, sometimes differ almost as much as do a caterpillar and butterfly. The second point is to congratulate you on the projected translation of your great work ('Generelle Morphologie,' 1866. No English translation of this book has appeared.), about which I heard from Huxley last Sunday. I am heartily glad of it, but how it has been brought about, I know not, for a friend who supported the supposed translation at Norwich, told me he thought there would be no chance of it. Huxley tells me that you consent to omit and shorten some parts, and I am confident that this is very wise. As I know your object is to instruct the public, you will assuredly thus get many more readers in England. Indeed, I believe that almost every book would be improved by condensation. I have been reading a good deal of your last book ('Die Naturliche Schopfungs-Geschichte,' 1868. It was translated and published in 1876, under the title, 'The History of Creation.'), and the style is beautifully clear and easy to me; but why it should differ so much in this respect from your great work I cannot imagine. I have not yet read the first part, but began with the chapter on Lyell and myself, which you will easily believe pleased me VERY MUCH. I think Lyell, who was apparently much pleased by your sending him a copy, is also much gratified by this chapter. (See Lyell's interesting letter to Haeckel. 'Life of Sir C. Lyell,' ii. page 435.) Your chapters on the affinities and genealogy of the animal kingdom strike me as admirable and full of original thought. Your boldness, however, sometimes makes me tremble, but as Huxley remarked, some one must be bold enough to make a beginning in drawing up tables of descent. Although you fully admit the imperfection of the geological record, yet Huxley agreed with me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash in venturing to say at what periods the several groups first appeared. I have this advantage over you, that I remember how wonderfully different any statement on this subject made 20 years ago, would have been to what would now be the case, and I expect the next 20 years will make quite as great a difference. Reflect on the monocotyledonous plant just discovered in the PRIMORDIAL formation in Sweden. I repeat how glad I am at the prospect of the translation, for I fully believe that this work and all your works will have a great influence in the advancement of Science. Believe me, my dear Haeckel, your sincere friend, CHARLES DARWIN. [It was in November of this year that he sat for the bust by Mr. Woolner: he wrote:-- "I should have written long ago, but I have been pestered with stupid letters, and am undergoing the purgatory of sitting for hours to Woolner, who, however, is wonderfully pleasant, and lightens as much as man can, the penance; as far as I can judge, it will make a fine bust." If I may criticise the work of so eminent a sculptor as Mr. Woolner, I should say that the point in which the bust fails somewhat as a portrait, is that it has a certain air, almost of pomposity, which seems to me foreign to my father's expression.] 1869. [At the beginning of the year he was at work in preparing the fifth edition of the 'Origin.' This work was begun on the day after Christmas, 1868, and was continued for "forty-six days," as he notes in his diary, i.e. until February 10th, 1869. He then, February 11th, returned to Sexual Selection, and continued at this subject (excepting for ten days given up to Orchids, and a week in London), until June 10th, when he went with his family to North Wales, where he remained about seven weeks, returning to Down on July 31st. Caerdeon, the house where he stayed, is built on the north shore of the beautiful Barmouth estuary, and is pleasantly placed, in being close to wild hill country behind, as well as to the picturesque wooded "hummocks," between the steeper hills and the river. My father was ill and somewhat depressed throughout this visit, and I think felt saddened at being imprisoned by his want of strength, and unable even to reach the hills over which he had once wandered for days together. He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J.D. Hooker (June 22nd):-- "We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to pay us a visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden, and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a grand fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light. We remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as the stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then have been fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a comfortable tomb." With regard to the fifth edition of the 'Origin,' he wrote to Mr. Wallace (January 22, 1869):-- "I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition of the 'Origin,' which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I have considerably improved in two or three important points. I always thought individual differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced me." This somewhat obscure sentence was explained, February 2, in another letter to Mr. Wallace:-- "I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant to say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued in the 'North British Review' against single variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always thought individual differences more important; but I was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note merely because I believed that you had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man selects." The late Mr. Fleeming Jenkin's review, on the 'Origin of Species,' was published in the 'North British Review' for June 1867. It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering. It is impossible to give in a short compass an account of Fleeming Jenkin's argument. My father's copy of the paper (ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I may quote one passage opposite which my father has written "good sneers"--but it should be remembered that he used the word "sneer" in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying a feeling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of "banter." Speaking of the 'true believer,' Fleeming Jenkin says, page 293:-- "He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no evidence; he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary foes; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with these advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of animals and circumstances explaining our assumed difficulty quite naturally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and trust to those which at least cannot be assailed by mere efforts of imagination." In the fifth edition of the 'Origin,' my father altered a passage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition page xviii.). He thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding whether or no Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the principle of Natural Selection. Adding, "As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthew." A somewhat severe critique on the fifth edition, by Mr. John Robertson, appeared in the "Athenaeum", August 14, 1869. The writer comments with some little bitterness on the success of the 'Origin:' "Attention is not acceptance. Many editions do not mean real success. The book has sold; the guess has been talked over; and the circulation and discussion sum up the significance of the editions." Mr. Robertson makes the true, but misleading statement: "Mr. Darwin prefaces his fifth English edition with an Essay, which he calls 'An Historical Sketch,' etc." As a matter of fact the Sketch appeared in the third edition in 1861. Mr. Robertson goes on to say that the Sketch ought to be called a collection of extracts anticipatory or corroborative of the hypothesis of Natural Selection. "For no account is given of any hostile opinions. The fact is very significant. This historical sketch thus resembles the histories of the reign of Louis XVIII., published after the Restoration, from which the Republic and the Empire, Robespierre and Buonaparte were omitted." The following letter to Prof. Victor Carus gives an idea of the character of the new edition of the 'Origin:'] CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, May 4, 1869. ... I have gone very carefully through the whole, trying to make some parts clearer, and adding a few discussions and facts of some importance. The new edition is only two pages at the end longer than the old; though in one part nine pages in advance, for I have condensed several parts and omitted some passages. The translation I fear will cause you a great deal of trouble; the alterations took me six weeks, besides correcting the press; you ought to make a special agreement with M. Koch [the publisher]. Many of the corrections are only a few words, but they have been made from the evidence on various points appearing to have become a little stronger or weaker. Thus I have been led to place somewhat more value on the definite and direct action of external conditions; to think the lapse of time, as measured by years, not quite so great as most geologists have thought; and to infer that single variations are of even less importance, in comparison with individual differences, than I formerly thought. I mention these points because I have been thus led to alter in many places A FEW WORDS; and unless you go through the whole new edition, one part will not agree with another, which would be a great blemish... [The desire that his views might spread in France was always strong with my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to find that in 1869 the Editor of the first French edition had brought out a third edition without consulting the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition; this was undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant relations as the publisher of many of his books into French. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, who translated the 'Origin' into French, and for whose second edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just brought out a third edition without informing me, so that all the corrections, etc., in the fourth and fifth English editions are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a pick-pocket for Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to the 'Origin.' So I wrote to Paris; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new translation from the fifth English edition, in competition with her third edition... This fact shows that "evolution of species" must at last be spreading in France." With reference to the spread of Evolution among the orthodox, the following letter is of some interest. In March he received, from the author, a copy of a lecture by Rev. T.R.R. Stebbing, given before the Torquay Natural History Society, February 1, 1869, bearing the title "Darwinism." My father wrote to Mr. Stebbing:] Dear Sir, I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me your spirited and interesting lecture; if a layman had delivered the same address, he would have done good service in spreading what, as I hope and believe, is to a large extent the truth; but a clergyman in delivering such an address does, as it appears to me, much more good by his power to shake ignorant prejudices, and by setting, if I may be permitted to say so, an admirable example of liberality. With sincere respect, I beg leave to remain, Dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. [The references to the subject of expression in the following letter are explained by the fact that my father's original intention was to give his essay on this subject as a chapter in the 'Descent of Man,' which in its turn grew, as we have seen, out of a proposed chapter in 'Animals and Plants:'] CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, February 22 [1869?]. ... Although you have aided me to so great an extent in many ways, I am going to beg for any information on two other subjects. I am preparing a discussion on "Sexual Selection," and I want much to know how low down in the animal scale sexual selection of a particular kind extends. Do you know of any lowly organised animals, in which the sexes are separated, and in which the male differs from the female in arms of offence, like the horns and tusks of male mammals, or in gaudy plumage and ornaments, as with birds and butterflies? I do not refer to secondary sexual characters, by which the male is able to discover the female, like the plumed antennae of moths, or by which the male is enabled to seize the female, like the curious pincers described by you in some of the lower Crustaceans. But what I want to know is, how low in the scale sexual differences occur which require some degree of self-consciousness in the males, as weapons by which they fight for the female, or ornaments which attract the opposite sex. Any differences between males and females which follow different habits of life would have to be excluded. I think you will easily see what I wish to learn. A priori, it would never have been anticipated that insects would have been attracted by the beautiful colouring of the opposite sex, or by the sounds emitted by the various musical instruments of the male Orthoptera. I know no one so likely to answer this question as yourself, and should be grateful for any information, however small. My second subject refers to expression of countenance, to which I have long attended, and on which I feel a keen interest; but to which, unfortunately, I did not attend when I had the opportunity of observing various races of man. It has occurred to me that you might, without much trouble, make a FEW observations for me, in the course of some months, on Negroes, or possibly on native South Americans, though I care most about Negroes; accordingly I enclose some questions as a guide, and if you could answer me even one or two I should feel truly obliged. I am thinking of writing a little essay on the Origin of Mankind, as I have been taunted with concealing my opinions, and I should do this immediately after the completion of my present book. In this case I should add a chapter on the cause or meaning of expression... [The remaining letters of this year deal chiefly with the books, reviews, etc., which interested him.] CHARLES DARWIN TO H. THIEL. Down, February 25, 1869. Dear Sir, On my return home after a short absence, I found your very courteous note, and the pamphlet ('Ueber einige Formen der Landwirthschaftlichen Genossenschaften.' by Dr. H. Thiel, then of the Agricultural Station at Poppelsdorf.), and I hasten to thank you for both, and for the very honourable mention which you make of my name. You will readily believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important, subjects. With much respect, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, March 19 [1869]. My dear Huxley, Thanks for your 'Address.' (In his 'Anniversary Address' to the Geological Society, 1869, Mr. Huxley criticised Sir William Thomson's paper ('Trans. Geol. Soc., Glasgow,' volume iii.) "On Geological Time.") People complain of the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is a much greater shame and injustice that any one man should have the power to write so many brilliant essays as you have lately done. There is no one who writes like you... If I were in your shoes, I should tremble for my life. I agree with all you say, except that I must think that you draw too great a distinction between the evolutionists and the uniformitarians. I find that the few sentences which I have sent to press in the 'Origin' about the age of the world will do fairly well... Ever yours, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, March 22 [1869]. My dear Wallace, I have finished your book ('The Malay Archipelago,' etc., 1869.); it seems to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read. That you ever returned alive is wonderful after all your risks from illness and sea voyages, especially that most interesting one to Waigiou and back. Of all the impressions which I have received from your book, the strongest is that your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Your descriptions of catching the splendid butterflies have made me quite envious, and at the same time have made me feel almost young again, so vividly have they brought before my mind old days when I collected, though I never made such captures as yours. Certainly collecting is the best sport in the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a great success; and your splendid generalizations on Geographical Distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will be new to most of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the Timor case, as it is best demonstrated; but perhaps Celebes is really the most valuable. I should prefer looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerly been more African in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of a continent across the Indian Ocean... [The following letter refers to Mr. Wallace's article in the April number of the 'Quarterly Review' (My father wrote to Mr. Murray: "The article by Wallace is inimitably good, and it is a great triumph that such an article should appear in the 'Quarterly,' and will make the Bishop of Oxford and --gnash their teeth."), 1869, which to a large extent deals with the tenth edition of Sir Charles Lyell's 'Principles,' published in 1867 and 1868. The review contains a striking passage on Sir Charles Lyell's confession of evolutionary faith in the tenth edition of his 'Principles,' which is worth quoting: "The history of science hardly presents so striking an instance of youthfulness of mind in advanced life as is shown by this abandonment of opinions so long held and so powerfully advocated; and if we bear in mind the extreme caution, combined with the ardent love of truth which characterise every work which our author has produced, we shall be convinced that so great a change was not decided on without long and anxious deliberation, and that the views now adopted must indeed be supported by arguments of overwhelming force. If for no other reason than that Sir Charles Lyell in his tenth edition has adopted it, the theory of Mr. Darwin deserves an attentive and respectful consideration from every earnest seeker after truth."] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 14, 1869. My dear Wallace, I have been wonderfully interested by your article, and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor, and had the power of directing you, I should have selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I have often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me. Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation. Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a better expounder than you. I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justice to myself compels me to say," etc., but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice, and never demands justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the 'Linnean Journal,' and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this. But you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear. I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him. Altogether I look at your article as appearing in the 'Quarterly' as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that your remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note. If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it. I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause in regard to man. (Mr. Wallace points out that any one acquainted merely with the "unaided productions of nature," might reasonably doubt whether a dray-horse, for example, could have been developed by the power of man directing the "action of the laws of variation, multiplication, and survival, for his own purpose. We know, however, that this has been done, and we must therefore admit the possibility that in the development of the human race, a higher intelligence has guided the same laws for nobler ends.") But the subject is too long for a letter. I have been particularly glad to read your discussion because I am now writing and thinking much about man. I hope that your Malay book sells well; I was extremely pleased with the article in the 'Quarterly Journal of Science,' inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work: alas! you will probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo. I hear that there is also a good article in the "Saturday Review", but have heard nothing more about it. Believe me my dear Wallace, Yours ever sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, May 4 [1869]. My dear Lyell, I have been applied to for some photographs (carte de visite) to be copied to ornament the diplomas of honorary members of a new Society in Servia! Will you give me one for this purpose? I possess only a full-length one of you in my own album, and the face is too small, I think, to be copied. I hope that you get on well with your work, and have satisfied yourself on the difficult point of glacier lakes. Thank heaven, I have finished correcting the new edition of the 'Origin,' and am at my old work of Sexual Selection. Wallace's article struck me as ADMIRABLE; how well he brought out the revolution which you effected some 30 years ago. I thought I had fully appreciated the revolution, but I was astounded at the extracts from Cuvier. What a good sketch of natural selection! but I was dreadfully disappointed about Man, it seems to me incredibly strange...; and had I not known to the contrary, would have sworn it had been inserted by some other hand. But I believe that you will not agree quite in all this. My dear Lyell, ever yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, May 28 [1869 or 1870]. Dear Sir, I have received and read your volume (Essays reprinted from the 'Revue des Deux Mondes,' under the title 'Histoire Naturelle Generale,' etc., 1869.), and am much obliged for your present. The whole strikes me as a wonderfully clear and able discussion, and I was much interested by it to the last page. It is impossible that any account of my views could be fairer, or, as far as space permitted, fuller, than that which you have given. The way in which you repeatedly mention my name is most gratifying to me. When I had finished the second part, I thought that you had stated the case so favourably that you would make more converts on my side than on your own side. On reading the subsequent parts I had to change my sanguine view. In these latter parts many of your strictures are severe enough, but all are given with perfect courtesy and fairness. I can truly say I would rather be criticised by you in this manner than praised by many others. I agree with some of your criticisms, but differ entirely from the remainder; but I will not trouble you with any remarks. I may, however, say, that you must have been deceived by the French translation, as you infer that I believe that the Parus and the Nuthatch (or Sitta) are related by direct filiation. I wished only to show by an imaginary illustration, how either instincts or structures might first change. If you had seen Canis Magellanicus alive you would have perceived how foxlike its appearance is, or if you had heard its voice, I think that you would never have hazarded the idea that it was a domestic dog run wild; but this does not much concern me. It is curious how nationality influences opinion; a week hardly passes without my hearing of some naturalist in Germany who supports my views, and often puts an exaggerated value on my works; whilst in France I have not heard of a single zoologist, except M. Gaudry (and he only partially), who supports my views. But I must have a good many readers as my books are translated, and I must hope, notwithstanding your strictures, that I may influence some embryo naturalists in France. You frequently speak of my good faith, and no compliment can be more delightful to me, but I may return you the compliment with interest, for every word which you write bears the stamp of your cordial love for the truth. Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 14 [1869]. My dear Huxley, I have been delighted to see your review of Haeckel (A review of Haeckel's 'Schopfungs-Geschichte.' The "Academy", 1869. Reprinted in 'Critiques and Addresses,' page 303.), and as usual you pile honours high on my head. But I write now (REQUIRING NO ANSWER) to groan a little over what you have said about rudimentary organs. (In discussing Teleology and Haeckel's "Dysteleology," Prof. Huxley says:--"Such cases as the existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in the foot of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For either these rudiments are of no use to the animals, in which case... they surely ought to have disappeared; or they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no use as arguments against Teleology."--('Critiques and Addresses,' page 308.) Many heretics will take advantage of what you have said. I cannot but think that the explanation given at page 541 of the last edition of the 'Origin' of the long retention of rudimentary organs and of their greater relative size during early life, is satisfactory. Their final and complete abortion seems to me a much greater difficulty. Do look in my 'Variations under Domestication,' volume ii. page 397, at what Pangenesis suggests on this head, though I did not dare to put in the 'Origin.' The passage bears also a little on the struggle between the molecules or gemmules. ("It is a probable hypothesis, that what the world is to organisms in general, each organism is to the molecules of which it is composed. Multitudes of these having diverse tendencies, are competing with one another for opportunity to exist and multiply; and the organism, as a whole, is as much the product of the molecules which are victorious as the Fauna, or Flora, of a country is the product of the victorious organic beings in it."--('Critiques and Addresses,' page 309.) There is likewise a word or two indirectly bearing on this subject at pages 394-395. It won't take you five minutes, so do look at these passages. I am very glad that you have been bold enough to give your idea about Natural Selection amongst the molecules, though I can not quite follow you. 1870 AND BEGINNING OF 1871. [My father wrote in his Diary:--"The whole of this year [1870] at work on the 'Descent of Man.'... Went to Press August 30, 1870." The letters are again of miscellaneous interest, dealing, not only with his work, but also serving to indicate the course of his reading.] CHARLES DARWIN TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, March 15 [1870]. My dear Sir, I do not know whether you will consider me a very troublesome man, but I have just finished your book ('Comparative Longevity.'), and can not resist telling you how the whole has much interested me. No doubt, as you say, there must be much speculation on such a subject, and certain results can not be reached; but all your views are highly suggestive, and to my mind that is high praise. I have been all the more interested as I am now writing on closely allied though not quite identical points. I was pleased to see you refer to my much despised child, 'Pangenesis,' who I think will some day, under some better nurse, turn out a fine stripling. It has also pleased me to see how thoroughly you appreciate (and I do not think that this is general with the men of science) H. Spencer; I suspect that hereafter he will be looked at as by far the greatest living philosopher in England; perhaps equal to any that have lived. But I have no business to trouble you with my notions. With sincere thanks for the interest which your work has given me, I remain, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The next letter refers to Mr. Wallace's 'Natural Selection' (1870), a collection of essays reprinted with certain alterations of which a list is given in the volume:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 20 [1870]. My dear Wallace, I have just received your book, and read the preface. There never has been passed on me, or indeed on any one, a higher eulogium than yours. I wish that I fully deserved it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to me. I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me--that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe that I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you. You have been a good Christian to give a list of your additions, for I want much to read them, and I should hardly have had time just at present to have gone through all your articles. Of course I shall immediately read those that are new or greatly altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as can reasonably be expected. Your book looks remarkably well got up. Believe me, my dear Wallace, to remain, Yours very cordially, CH. DARWIN. [Here follow one or two letters indicating the progress of the 'Descent of Man;' the woodcuts referred to were being prepared for that work:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GUNTHER. (Dr. Gunther, Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum.) March 23, [1870?]. Dear Gunther, As I do not know Mr. Ford's address, will you hand him this note, which is written solely to express my unbounded admiration of the woodcuts. I fairly gloat over them. The only evil is that they will make all the other woodcuts look very poor! They are all excellent, and for the feathers I declare I think it the most wonderful woodcut I ever saw; I can not help touching it to make sure that it is smooth. How I wish to see the two other, and even more important, ones of the feathers, and the four [of] reptiles, etc. Once again accept my very sincere thanks for all your kindness. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ford. Engravings have always hitherto been my greatest misery, and now they are a real pleasure to me. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I thought I should have been in press by this time, but my subject has branched off into sub-branches, which have cost me infinite time, and heaven knows when I shall have all my MS. ready, but I am never idle. CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GUNTHER. May 15 [1870]. My dear Dr. Gunther, Sincere thanks. Your answers are wonderfully clear and complete. I have some analogous questions on reptiles, etc., which I will send in a few days, and then I think I shall cause no more trouble. I will get the books you refer me to. The case of the Solenostoma (In most of the Lophobranchii the male has a marsupial sack in which the eggs are hatched, and in these species the male is slightly brighter coloured than the female. But in Solenostoma the female is the hatcher, and is also the more brightly coloured.--'Descent of Man,' ii. 21.) is magnificent, so exactly analogous to that of those birds in which the female is the more gay, but ten times better for me, as she is the incubator. As I crawl on with the successive classes I am astonished to find how similar the rules are about the nuptial or "wedding dress" of all animals. The subject has begun to interest me in an extraordinary degree; but I must try not to fall into my common error of being too speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would drink a little and not too much! My essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles are concerned, will be in fact yours, only written by me. With hearty thanks. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [The following letter is of interest, as showing the excessive care and pains which my father took in forming his opinion on a difficult point:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, September 23 [undated]. My dear Wallace, I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writing me your long letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answer it would require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I have re-written some pages you would know how anxious I am to arrive as near as I can to the truth. I lay great stress on what I know takes place under domestication; I think we start with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it is most difficult, but not I think impossible, to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which ARE AT FIRST TRANSMITTED TO BOTH SEXES, could come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not enough that females should be produced from the males with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but these females must have a LATENT TENDENCY to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of their male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by their producing the red feathers when old, or diseased in their ovaria. But I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if the few red feathers in the male from the first tended to be sexually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female may have been modified, either at the same time or subsequently, for protection by the accumulation of variations limited in their transmission to the female sex. I owe to your writings the consideration of this latter point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females ALONE have often been modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble briefly to tell me whether you believe that the plainer head and less bright colours of a female chaffinch, the less red on the head and less clean colours of the female goldfinch, the much less red on the breast of the female bull-finch, the paler crest of golden-crested wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection. I cannot think so any more than I can that the considerable differences between female and male house sparrow, or much greater brightness of the male Parus coeruleus (both of which build under cover) than of the female Parus, are related to protection. I even mis-doubt much whether the less blackness of the female blackbird is for protection. Again, can you give me reasons for believing that the moderate differences between the female pheasant, the female Gallus bankiva, the female black grouse, the pea-hen, the female partridge, [and their respective males,] have all special references to protection under slightly different conditions? I, of course, admit that they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think, from some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for their difference by partial transference of colour from the male and by other means too long to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason to believe that each is specially adapted for concealment to its environment. I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and makes me constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each other. I value the cases of bright-coloured, incubating male fishes, and brilliant female butterflies, solely as showing that one sex may be made brilliant without any necessary transference of beauty to the other sex; for in these cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was checked by selection. I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answer about your belief in regard to the female finches and gallinaceae would suffice. Believe me, my dear Wallace, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 25 [1870]. ... Last Friday we all went to the Bull Hotel at Cambridge to see the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment. The backs of the Colleges are simply paradisaical. On Monday I saw Sedgwick, who was most cordial and kind; in the morning I thought his brain was enfeebled; in the evening he was brilliant and quite himself. His affection and kindness charmed us all. My visit to him was in one way unfortunate; for after a long sit he proposed to take me to the museum, and I could not refuse, and in consequence he utterly prostrated me; so that we left Cambridge next morning, and I have not recovered the exhaustion yet. Is it not humiliating to be thus killed by a man of eighty-six, who evidently never dreamed that he was killing me? As he said to me, "Oh, I consider you as a mere baby to me!" I saw Newton several times, and several nice friends of F.'s. But Cambridge without dear Henslow was not itself; I tried to get to the two old houses, but it was too far for me... CHARLES DARWIN TO B.J. SULIVAN. (Admiral Sir James Sulivan was a lieutenant on board the "Beagle".) Down, June 30 [1870]. My dear Sulivan, It was very good of you to write to me so long a letter, telling me much about yourself and your children, which I was extremely glad to hear. Think what a benighted wretch I am, seeing no one and reading but little in the newspapers, for I did not know (until seeing the paper of your Natural History Society) that you were a K.C.B. Most heartily glad I am that the Government have at last appreciated your most just claim for this high distinction. On the other hand, I am sorry to hear so poor an account of your health; but you were surely very rash to do all that you did and then pass through so exciting a scene as a ball at the Palace. It was enough to have tired a man in robust health. Complete rest will, however, I hope, quite set you up again. As for myself, I have been rather better of late, and if nothing disturbs me I can do some hours' work every day. I shall this autumn publish another book partly on man, which I dare say many will decry as very wicked. I could have travelled to Oxford, but could no more have withstood the excitement of a commemoration (This refers to an invitation to receive the honorary degree of D.C.L. He was one of those nominated for the degree by Lord Salisbury on assuming the office of Chancellor of the University of Oxford. The fact that the honour was declined on the score of ill-health was published in the "Oxford University Gazette", June 17, 1870.) than I could a ball at Buckingham Palace. Many thanks for your kind remarks about my boys. Thank God, all give me complete satisfaction; my fourth stands second at Woolwich, and will be an Engineer Officer at Christmas. My wife desires to be very kindly remembered to Lady Sulivan, in which I very sincerely join, and in congratulation about your daughter's marriage. We are at present solitary, for all our younger children are gone a tour in Switzerland. I had never heard a word about the success of the T. del Fuego mission. It is most wonderful, and shames me, as I always prophesied utter failure. It is a grand success. I shall feel proud if your Committee think fit to elect me an honorary member of your society. With all good wishes and affectionate remembrances of ancient days, Believe me, my dear Sulivan, Your sincere friend, CH. DARWIN. [My father's connection with the South American Mission, which is referred to in the above letter, has given rise to some public comment, and has been to some extent misunderstood. The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking at the annual meeting of the South American Missionary Society, April 21st, 1885 (I quote a 'Leaflet,' published by the Society.), said that the Society "drew the attention of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more lasting." Some discussion on the subject appeared in the "Daily News" of April 23rd, 24th, 29th, 1885, and finally Admiral Sir James Sulivan, on April 24th, wrote to the same journal, giving a clear account of my father's connection with the Society:-- "Your article in the "Daily News" of yesterday induces me to give you a correct statement of the connection between the South American Missionary Society and Mr. Charles Darwin, my old friend and shipmate for five years. I have been closely connected with the Society from the time of Captain Allen Gardiner's death, and Mr. Darwin has often expressed to me his conviction that it was utterly useless to send Missionaries to such a set of savages as the Fuegians, probably the very lowest of the human race. I had always replied that I did not believe any human beings existed too low to comprehend the simple message of the Gospel of Christ. After many years, I think about 1869 (It seems to have been in 1867.), but I cannot find the letter, he wrote to me that the recent accounts of the Mission proved to him that he had been wrong and I right in our estimates of the native character, and the possibility of doing them good through Missionaries; and he requested me to forward to the Society an enclosed cheque for 5 pounds, as a testimony of the interest he took in their good work. On June 6th, 1874, he wrote: 'I am very glad to hear so good an account of the Fuegians, and it is wonderful.' On June 10th, 1879: 'The progress of the Fuegians is wonderful, and had it not occurred would have been to me quite incredible.' On January 3rd, 1880: 'Your extracts' [from a journal] 'about the Fuegians are extremely curious, and have interested me much. I have often said that the progress of Japan was the greatest wonder in the world, but I declare that the progress of Fuegia is almost equally wonderful. On March 20th, 1881: 'The account of the Fuegians interested not only me, but all my family. It is truly wonderful what you have heard from Mr. Bridges about their honesty and their language. I certainly should have predicted that not all the Missionaries in the world could have done what has been done.' On December 1st, 1881, sending me his annual subscription to the Orphanage at the Mission Station, he wrote: 'Judging from the "Missionary Journal", the Mission in Tierra del Fuego seems going on quite wonderfully well.'"] CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, July 17, 1870. My dear Lubbock, As I hear that the Census will be brought before the House to-morrow, I write to say how much I hope that you will express your opinion on the desirability of queries in relation to consanguineous marriages being inserted. As you are aware, I have made experiments on the subject during several years; AND IT IS MY CLEAR CONVICTION THAT THERE IS NOW AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GREAT PHYSIOLOGICAL LAW, RENDERING AN ENQUIRY WITH REFERENCE TO MANKIND OF MUCH IMPORTANCE. IN ENGLAND AND MANY PARTS OF EUROPE THE MARRIAGES OF COUSINS ARE OBJECTED TO FROM THEIR SUPPOSED INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES; BUT THIS BELIEF RESTS ON NO DIRECT EVIDENCE. IT IS THEREFORE MANIFESTLY DESIRABLE THAT THE BELIEF SHOULD EITHER BE PROVED FALSE, OR SHOULD BE CONFIRMED, so that in this latter case the marriages of cousins might be discouraged. If the proper queries are inserted, the returns would show whether married cousins have in their households on the night of the census as many children as have parents of who are not related; and should the number prove fewer, we might safely infer either lessened fertility in the parents, or which is more probable, lessened vitality in the offspring. It is, moreover, much to be wished that the truth of the often repeated assertion that consanguineous marriages lead to deafness, and dumbness, blindness, etc., should be ascertained; and all such assertions could be easily tested by the returns from a single census. Believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [When the Census Act was passing through the House of Commons, Sir John Lubbock and Dr. Playfair attempted to carry out this suggestion. The question came to a division, which was lost, but not by many votes. The subject of cousin marriages was afterwards investigated by my brother. ("Marriages between First Cousins in England, and their Effects.' By George Darwin. 'Journal of the Statistical Society,' June, 1875.) The results of this laborious piece of work were negative; the author sums up in the sentence:-- "My paper is far from giving any thing like a satisfactory solution of the question as to the effects of consanguineous marriages, but it does, I think, show that the assertion that this question has already been set at rest, cannot be substantiated."] CHAPTER 2.VII. -- PUBLICATION OF THE 'DESCENT OF MAN.' WORK ON 'EXPRESSION.' 1871-1873. [The last revise of the 'Descent of Man' was corrected on January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker: "I finished the last proofs of my book a few days ago, the work half-killed me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the book is worth publishing." He also wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I have finished my book on the 'Descent of Man,' etc., and its publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I will send you a copy, but I do not know that you will care about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare say, aggravate you, and if I hear from you, I shall probably receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen." The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 copies were printed at first, and 5000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he received for this edition 1470 pounds. The letters given in the present chapter deal with its reception, and also with the progress of the work on Expression. The letters are given, approximately, in chronological order, an arrangement which necessarily separates letters of kindred subjec-matter, but gives perhaps a truer picture of the mingled interests and labours of my father's life. Nothing can give a better idea (in small compass) of the growth of Evolutionism and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr. Huxley ('Contemporary Review,' 1871.):-- "The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade from the date of the publication of the 'Origin of Species;' and whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the 'Origin of Species' has worked as complete a revolution in Biological Science as the 'Principia' did in Astronomy;" and it has done so, "because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contains 'an essentially new creative thought.' And, as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism." A passage in the Introduction to the 'Descent of Man' shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in the position of Evolution. "When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the National Institution of Geneva (1869), 'personne en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes pieces, des especes,' it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every form." In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Reminiscence of Mr. Darwin" ('Harper's Magazine,' October 1884), he describes a visit to my father "early in 1871" (it must have been at the end of February, within a week after the publication of the book.), shortly after the publication of the 'Descent of Man.' Mr. Hague represents my father as "much impressed by the general assent with which his views had been received," and as remarking that "everybody is talking about it without being shocked." Later in the year the reception of the book is described in different language in the 'Edinburgh Review' (July 1871. An adverse criticism. The reviewer sums up by saying that: "Never perhaps in the history of philosophy have such wide generalisations been derived from such a small basis of fact."): "On every side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder, and admiration." With regard to the subsequent reception of the 'Descent of Man,' my father wrote to Dr. Dohrn, February 3, 1872:-- "I did not know until reading your article (In 'Das Ausland.'), that my 'Descent of Man' had excited so much furore in Germany. It has had an immense circulation in this country and in America, but has met the approval of hardly any naturalists as far as I know. Therefore I suppose it was a mistake on my part to publish it; but, anyhow, it will pave the way for some better work." The book on the 'Expression of the Emotions' was begun on January 17th, 1871, the last proof of the 'Descent of Man' having been finished on January 15th. The rough copy was finished by April 27th, and shortly after this (in June) the work was interrupted by the preparation of a sixth edition of the 'Origin.' In November and December the proofs of the 'Expression' book were taken in hand, and occupied him until the following year, when the book was published. Some references to the work on Expression have occurred in letters already given, showing that the foundation of the book was, to some extent, laid down for some years before he began to write it. Thus he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray, April 15, 1867:-- "I have been lately getting up and looking over my old notes on Expression, and fear that I shall not make so much of my hobby-horse as I thought I could; nevertheless, it seems to me a curious subject which has been strangely neglected." It should, however, be remembered that the subject had been before his mind, more or less, from 1837 or 1838, as I judge from entries in his early note-books. It was in December, 1839, that he began to make observations on children. The work required much correspondence, not only with missionaries and others living among savages, to whom he sent his printed queries, but among physiologists and physicians. He obtained much information from Professor Donders, Sir W. Bowman, Sir James Paget, Dr. W. Ogle, Dr. Crichton Browne, as well as from other observers. The first letter refers to the 'Descent of Man.'] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 30 [1871]. My dear Wallace, (In the note referred to, dated January 27, Mr. Wallace wrote:-- "Many thanks for your first volume which I have just finished reading through with the greatest pleasure and interest; and I have also to thank you for the great tenderness with which you have treated me and my heresies." The heresy is the limitation of natural selection as applied to man. My father wrote ('Descent of Man,' i. page 137):--"I cannot therefore understand how it is that Mr. Wallace maintains that 'natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape.'" In the above quoted letter Mr. Wallace wrote:--"Your chapters on 'Man' are of intense interest, but as touching my special heresy not as yet altogether convincing, though of course I fully agree with every word and every argument which goes to prove the evolution or development of man out of a lower form.") Your note has given me very great pleasure, chiefly because I was so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak fairly when differing from any one. If I had offended you, it would have grieved me more than you will readily believe. Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Volume I. interests you; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in utter doubt about the value of any part. I intended, when speaking of females not having been specially modified for protection, to include the prevention of characters acquired by the male being transmitted to the female; but I now see it would have been better to have said "specially acted on," or some such term. Possibly my intention may be clearer in Volume II. Let me say that my conclusions are chiefly founded on the consideration of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. The first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty closely with you. I then worked on, came back to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelled to alter it--finished Sexual Selection and for the last time went over Lepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it. I hope to God there will be nothing disagreeable to you in Volume II., and that I have spoken fairly of your views; I am fearful on this head, because I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book ('The Genesis of Species,' by St. G. Mivart, 1871.), and I feel ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he meant to be fair (but he was stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he has been quite fair... The part which, I think, will have most influence is where he gives the whole series of cases like that of the whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational steps; but such cases have no weight on my mind--if a few fish were extinct, who on earth would have ventured even to conjecture that lungs had originated in a swi-bladder? In such a case as the Thylacine, I think he was bound to say that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is superficial; the number and correspondence and development of teeth being widely different. I think again when speaking of the necessity of altering a number of characters together, he ought to have thought of man having power by selection to modify simultaneously or almost simultaneously many points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse--as enlarged upon in my 'Domestic Animals.' Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my "moral sense," and so probably will you be. I am extremely pleased that he agrees with my position, AS FAR AS ANIMAL NATURE IS CONCERNED, of man in the series; or if anything, thinks I have erred in making him too distinct. Forgive me for scribbling at such length. You have put me quite in good spirits; I did so dread having been unintentionally unfair towards your views. I hope earnestly the second volume will escape as well. I care now very little what others say. As for our not quite agreeing, really in such complex subjects, it is almost impossible for two men who arrive independently at their conclusions to agree fully, it would be unnatural for them to do so. Yours ever, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [Professor Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my father about the 'Descent of Man.' I quote from his reply:-- "I must send you a few words to thank you for your interesting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted that you approve of my book, as far as you have read it. I felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought to allude to what you have published; strictly speaking every idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your works, but this would have made my book very dull reading; and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the beginning would suffice. (In the introduction to the 'Descent of Man' the author wrote:-- "This last naturalist [Haeckel]... has recently... published his 'Naturliche Schopfungs-geschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.") I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that I have expressed my high admiration of your labours with sufficient clearness; I am sure that I have not expressed it too strongly."] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, March 16, 1871. My dear Wallace, I have just read your grand review. ("Academy", March 15, 1871.) It is in every way as kindly expressed towards myself as it is excellent in matter. The Lyells have been here, and Sir C. remarked that no one wrote such good scientific reviews as you, and as Miss Buckley added, you delight in picking out all that is good, though very far from blind to the bad. In all this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider your review as a great honour; and however much my book may hereafter be abused, as no doubt it will be, your review will console me, notwithstanding that we differ so greatly. I will keep your objections to my views in my mind, but I fear that the latter are almost stereotyped in my mind. I thought for long weeks about the inheritance and selection difficulty, and covered quires of paper with notes in trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearly seeing that it would be a great relief if I could. I will confine myself to two or three remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urge against colour (Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is probably determined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged, or more pertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females. He quotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yet sexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that the 'Descent of Man' consists of two books mixed together.) in the case of insects, having been acquired through sexual selection. I always saw that the evidence was very weak; but I still think, if it be admitted that the musical instruments of insects have been gained through sexual selection, that there is not the least improbability in colour having been thus gained. Your argument with respect to the denudation of mankind and also to insects, that taste on the part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same during many generations, in order that sexual selection should produce any effect, I agree to; and I think this argument would be sound if used by one who denied that, for instance, the plumes of birds of Paradise had been so gained. I believe you admit this, and if so I do not see how your argument applies in other cases. I have recognized for some short time that I have made a great omission in not having discussed, as far as I could, the acquisition of taste, its inherited nature, and its permanence within pretty close limits for long periods. [With regard to the success of the 'Descent of Man,' I quote from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):-- "I think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the increasing liberality of England, that my book has sold wonderfully... and as yet no abuse (though some, no doubt, will come, strong enough), and only contempt even in the poor old 'Athenaeum'." As to reviews that struck him he wrote to Mr. Wallace (March 24, 1871):-- "There is a very striking second article on my book in the 'Pall Mall'. The articles in the "Spectator" ("Spectator", March 11 and 18, 1871. With regard to the evolution of conscience the reviewer thinks that my father comes much nearer to the "kernel of the psychological problem" than many of his predecessors. The second article contains a good discussion of the bearing of the book on the question of design, and concludes by finding in it a vindication of Theism more wonderful than that in Paley's 'Natural Theology.') have also interested me much." On March 20 he wrote to Mr. Murray:-- "Many thanks for the "Nonconformist" [March 8, 1871]. I like to see all that is written, and it is of some real use. If you hear of reviewers in out-of-the-way papers, especially the religious, as "Record", "Guardian", "Tablet", kindly inform me. It is wonderful that there has been no abuse ("I feel a full conviction that my chapter on man will excite attention and plenty of abuse, and I suppose abuse is as good as praise for selling a book."--(from a letter to Mr. Murray, January 31, 1867.) as yet, but I suppose I shall not escape. On the whole, the reviews have been highly favourable." The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 13, 1871) refers to a review in the "Times". ("Times", April 7 and 8, 1871. The review is not only unfavourable as regards the book under discussion, but also as regards Evolution in general, as the following citation will show: "Even had it been rendered highly probable, which we doubt, that the animal creation has been developed into its numerous and widely different varieties by mere evolution, it would still require an independent investigation of overwhelming force and completeness to justify the presumption that man is but a term in this self-evolving series.") "I have no idea who wrote the "Times" review. He has no knowledge of science, and seems to me a wind-bag full of metaphysics and classics, so that I do not much regard his adverse judgment, though I suppose it will injure the sale." A review of the 'Descent of Man,' which my father spoke of as "capital," appeared in the "Saturday Review" (March 4 and 11, 1871). A passage from the first notice (March 4) may be quoted in illustration of the broad basis as regards general acceptance, on which the doctrine of Evolution now stood: "He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and constitution, within that unity which he had previously sought to trace through all lower animal forms. The growth of opinion in the interval, due in chief measure to his own intermediate works, has placed the discussion of this problem in a position very much in advance of that held by it fifteen years ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any longer to be treated as one of first principles; nor has Mr. Darwin to do battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne as it is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise, in either hemisphere." The infolded point of the human ear, discovered by Mr. Woolner, and described in the 'Descent of Man,' seems especially to have struck the popular imagination; my father wrote to Mr. Woolner:-- "The tips to the ears have become quite celebrated. One reviewer ('Nature') says they ought to be called, as I suggested in joke, Angulus Woolnerianus. ('Nature' April 6, 1871. The term suggested is Angulus Woolnerii.) A German is very proud to find that he has the tips well developed, and I believe will send me a photograph of his ears."] CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN BRODIE INNES. (Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton Brodie, formerly Vicar of Down.) Down, May 29 [1871]. My dear Innes, I have been very glad to receive your pleasant letter, for to tell you the truth, I have sometimes wondered whether you would not think me an outcast and a reprobate after the publication of my last book ['Descent']. (In a former letter of my father's to Mr. Innes:--"We often differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing which I should feel very proud of, if any one could say it of me.") I do not wonder at all at your not agreeing with me, for a good many professed naturalists do not. Yet when I see in how extraordinary a manner the judgment of naturalists has changed since I published the 'Origin,' I feel convinced that there will be in ten years quite as much unanimity about man, as far as his corporeal frame is concerned... [The following letters addressed to Dr. Ogle deal with the progress of the work on expression.] Down, March 12 [1871]. My dear Dr. Ogle, I have received both your letters, and they tell me all that I wanted to know in the clearest possible way, as, indeed, all your letters have ever done. I thank you cordially. I will give the case of the murderer ('Expression of the Emotions,' page 294. The arrest of a murderer, as witnessed by Dr. Ogle in a hospital.) in my hobby-horse essay on expression. I fear that the Eustachian tube question must have cost you a deal of labour; it is quite a complete little essay. It is pretty clear that the mouth is not opened under surprise merely to improve the hearing. Yet why do deaf men generally keep their mouths open? The other day a man here was mimicking a deaf friend, leaning his head forward and sideways to the speaker, with his mouth well open; it was a lifelike representation of a deaf man. Shakespeare somewhere says: "Hold your breath, listen" or "hark," I forget which. Surprise hurries the breath, and it seems to me one can breathe, at least hurriedly, much quieter through the open mouth than through the nose. I saw the other day you doubted this. As objection is your province at present, I think breathing through the nose ought to come within it likewise, so do pray consider this point, and let me hear your judgment. Consider the nose to be a flower to be fertilised, and then you will make out all about it. (Dr. Ogle had corresponded with my father on his own observations on the fertilisation of flowers.) I have had to allude to your paper on 'Sense of Smell' (Medico-chirurg. Trans. liii.); is the paging right, namely, 1, 2, 3? If not, I protest by all the gods against the plan followed by some, of having presentation copies falsely paged; and so does Rolleston, as he wrote to me the other day. In haste. Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. Down, March 25 [1871]. My dear Dr. Ogle, You will think me a horrid bore, but I beg you, IN RELATION TO A NEW POINT FOR OBSERVATION, to imagine as well as you can that you suddenly come across some dreadful object, and act with a sudden little start, a SHUDDER OF HORROR; please do this once or twice, and observe yourself as well as you can, and AFTERWARDS read the rest of this note, which I have consequently pinned down. I find, to my surprise, whenever I act thus my platysma contracts. Does yours? (N.B.--See what a man will do for science; I began this note with a horrid fib, namely, that I want you to attend to a new point. (The point was doubtless described as a new one, to avoid the possibility of Dr. Ogle's attention being directed to the platysma, a muscle which had been the subject of discussion in other letters.)) I will try and get some persons thus to act who are so lucky as not to know that they even possess this muscle, so troublesome for any one making out about expression. Is a shudder akin to the rigor or shivering before fever? If so, perhaps the platysma could be observed in such cases. Paget told me that he had attended much to shivering, and had written in MS. on the subject, and been much perplexed about it. He mentioned that passing a catheter often causes shivering. Perhaps I will write to him about the platysma. He is always most kind in aiding me in all ways, but he is so overworked that it hurts my conscience to trouble him, for I have a conscience, little as you have reason to think so. Help me if you can, and forgive me. Your murderer case has come in splendidly as the acme of prostration from fear. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO DR. OGLE. Down, April 29 [1871]. My dear Dr. Ogle, I am truly obliged for all the great trouble which you have so kindly taken. I am sure you have no cause to say that you are sorry you can give me no definite information, for you have given me far more than I ever expected to get. The action of the platysma is not very important for me, but I believe that you will fully understand (for I have always fancied that our minds were very similar) the intolerable desire I had not to be utterly baffled. Now I know that it sometimes contracts from fear and from shuddering, but not apparently from a prolonged state of fear such as the insane suffer... [Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,'--a contribution to the literature of Evolution, which excited much attention--was published in 1871, before the appearance of the 'Descent of Man.' To this book the following letter (June 21, 1871) from the late Chauncey Wright to my father refers. (Chauncey Wright was born at Northampton, Massachusetts, September 20, 1830, and came of a family settled in that town since 1654. He became in 1852 a computer in the Nautical Almanac office at Cambridge, Mass., and lived a quiet uneventful life, supported by the small stipend of his office, and by what he earned from his occasional articles, as well as by a little teaching. He thought and read much on metaphysical subjects, but on the whole with an outcome (as far as the world was concerned) not commensurate to the power of his mind. He seems to have been a man of strong individuality, and to have made a lasting impression on his friends. He died in September, 1875.)]: "I send... revised proofs of an article which will be published in the July number of the 'North American Review,' sending it in the hope that it will interest or even be of greater value to you. Mr. Mivart's book ['Genesis of Species'] of which this article is substantially a review, seems to me a very good background from which to present the considerations which I have endeavoured to set forth in the article, in defence and illustration of the theory of Natural Selection. My special purpose has been to contribute to the theory by placing it in its proper relations to philosophical enquiries in general." ('Letters of Chauncey Wright,' by J.B. Thayer. Privately printed, 1878, page 230.) With regard to the proofs received from Mr. Wright, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:] Down, July 9 [1871]. My dear Wallace, I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as I much want your opinion of it as soon as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably better critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly written, and poor in parts from want of knowledge, seems to me admirable. Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection, and more especially against me. Therefore if you think the article even somewhat good I will write and get permission to publish it as a shilling pamphlet, together with the MS. additions (enclosed), for which there was not room at the end of the review... I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the 'Origin,' and shall answer several points in Mivart's book, and introduce a new chapter for this purpose; but I treat the subject so much more concretely, and I dare say less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the GENERAL (i.e. not in detail) truth of the views in the 'Origin.' I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright. ('North American Review,' volume 113, pages 83, 84. Chauncey Wright points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned that the passage from which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by Mr. Mivart.) I complained to Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfair treatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly... CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, July 14, 1871. My dear Sir, I have hardly ever in my life read an article which has given me so much satisfaction as the review which you have been so kind as to send me. I agree to almost everything which you say. Your memory must be wonderfully accurate, for you know my works as well as I do myself, and your power of grasping other men's thoughts is something quite surprising; and this, as far as my experience goes, is a very rare quality. As I read on I perceived how you have acquired this power, viz. by thoroughly analyzing each word. ... Now I am going to beg a favour. Will you provisionally give me permission to reprint your article as a shilling pamphlet? I ask only provisionally, as I have not yet had time to reflect on the subject. It would cost me, I fancy, with advertisements, some 20 or 30 pounds; but the worst is that, as I hear, pamphlets never will sell. And this makes me doubtful. Should you think it too much trouble to send me a title FOR THE CHANCE? The title ought, I think, to have Mr. Mivart's name on it. ... If you grant permission and send a title, you will kindly understand that I will first make further enquiries whether there is any chance of a pamphlet being read. Pray believe me yours very sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN. [The pamphlet was published in the autumn, and on October 23 my father wrote to Mr. Wright:-- "It pleases me much that you are satisfied with the appearance of your pamphlet. I am sure it will do our cause good service; and this same opinion Huxley has expressed to me. ('Letters of Chauncey Wright,' page 235."] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, July 12 [1871]. ... I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart, it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points, and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points, it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts, or rather miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having only just got over a bad attack. Farewell; God knows why I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre. Farewell. ... There is a most cutting review of me in the 'Quarterly' (July 1871.); I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This 'Quarterly Review' tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by any one, just to show some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his (i.e. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some reflection... God knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly. [The above-mentioned 'Quarterly' review was the subject of an article by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the 'Contemporary Review.' Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace's 'Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection,' and the second edition of Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species.' What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley's article. The 'Quarterly' reviewer, though being to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that my father has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley passes from the 'Quarterly' reviewer's further statement, that there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that "their teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require." Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy" (at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St. Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:-- "By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy of Suarez (The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.), in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them 'as the careful robin eyes the delver's toil' (vide 'Idylls'), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley's unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet." The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied with a dissection of the 'Quarterly' reviewer's psychology, and his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of the 'Quarterly' reviewer's "treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and unbecoming." It will be seen that the two following letters were written before the publication of Mr. Huxley's article.] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 21 [1871]. My dear Huxley, Your letter has pleased me in many ways, to a wonderful degree... What a wonderful man you are to grapple with those old metaphysico-divinity books. It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to answer and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has produced a great effect; yesterday I perceived the reverberations from it, even from Italy. It was this that made me ask Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his article, which seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think there can be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the article in the 'Quarterly Review'... I am preparing a new edition of the 'Origin,' and shall introduce a new chapter in answer to miscellaneous objections, and shall give up the greater part to answer Mivart's cases of difficulty of incipient structures being of no use: and I find it can be done easily. He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders... The pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I feel positive it will soon swing the other way; and no mortal man will do half as much as you in giving it a start in the right direction, as you did at the first commencement. God forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a letter; but it is your fault, for you have so delighted me; I never dreamed that you would have time to say a word in defence of the cause which you have so often defended. It will be a long battle, after we are dead and gone... Great is the power of misrepresentation... CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 30 [1871]. My dear Huxley, It was very good of you to send the proof-sheets, for I was VERY anxious to read your article. I have been delighted with it. How you do smash Mivart's theology: it is almost equal to your article versus Comte ('Fortnightly Review,' 1869. With regard to the relations of Positivism to Science my father wrote to Mr. Spencer in 1875: "How curious and amusing it is to see to what an extent the Positivists hate all men of science; I fancy they are dimly conscious what laughable and gigantic blunders their prophet made in predicting the course of science."),--that never can be transcended... But I have been preeminently glad to read your discussion on [the 'Quarterly' reviewer's] metaphysics, especially about reason and his definition of it. I felt sure he was wrong, but having only common observation and sense to trust to, I did not know what to say in my second edition of my 'Descent.' Now a footnote and reference to you will do the work... For me, this is one of the most IMPORTANT parts of the review. But for PLEASURE, I have been particularly glad that my few words ('Descent of Man,' volume i. page 87. A discussion on the question whether an act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral.) on the distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart's two forms of morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased that you take the same view, and give authorities for it; but I searched Mill in vain on this head. How well you argue the whole case. I am mounting climax on climax; for after all there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review than your arguments v. Wallace on the intellect of savages. I must tell you what Hooker said to me a few years ago. "When I read Huxley, I feel quite infantile in intellect." By Jove I have felt the truth of this throughout your review. What a man you are. There are scores of splendid passages, and vivid flashes of wit. I have been a good deal more than merely pleased by the concluding part of your review; and all the more, as I own I felt mortified by the accusation of bigotry, arrogance, etc., in the 'Quarterly Review.' But I assure you, he may write his worst, and he will never mortify me again. My dear Huxley, yours gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Haredene, Albury, August 2 [1871]. My dear Sir, Your last letter has interested me greatly; it is wonderfully rich in facts and original thoughts. First, let me say that I have been much pleased by what you say about my book. It has had a VERY LARGE sale; but I have been much abused for it, especially for the chapter on the moral sense; and most of my reviewers consider the book as a poor affair. God knows what its merits may really be; all that I know is that I did my best. With familiarity I think naturalists will accept sexual selection to a greater extent than they now seem inclined to do. I should very much like to publish your letter, but I do not see how it could be made intelligible, without numerous coloured illustrations, but I will consult Mr. Wallace on this head. I earnestly hope that you keep notes of all your letters, and that some day you will publish a book: 'Notes of a Naturalist in S. Brazil,' or some such title. Wallace will hardly admit the possibility of sexual selection with Lepidoptera, and no doubt it is very improbable. Therefore, I am very glad to hear of your cases (which I will quote in the next edition) of the two sets of Hesperiadae, which display their wings differently, according to which surface is coloured. I cannot believe that such display is accidental and purposeless... No fact of your letter has interested me more than that about mimicry. It is a capital fact about the males pursuing the wrong females. You put the difficulty of the first steps in imitation in a most striking and CONVINCING manner. Your idea of sexual selection having aided protective imitation interests me greatly, for the same idea had occurred to me in quite different cases, viz. the dulness of all animals in the Galapagos Islands, Patagonia, etc., and in some other cases; but I was afraid even to hint at such an idea. Would you object to my giving some such sentence as follows: "F. Muller suspects that sexual selection may have come into play, in aid of protective imitation, in a very peculiar manner, which will appear extremely improbable to those who do not fully believe in sexual selection. It is that the appreciation of certain colour is developed in those species which frequently behold other species thus ornamented." Again let me thank you cordially for your most interesting letter... CHARLES DARWIN TO E.B. TYLOR. Down, [September 24, 1871]. My dear Sir, I hope that you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you how greatly I have been interested by your 'Primitive Culture,' now that I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound work, which will be certain to have permanent value, and to be referred to for years to come. It is wonderful how you trace animism from the lower races up to the religious belief of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at religion--a belief in the soul, etc.--from a new point of view. How curious, also, are the survivals or rudiments of old customs... You will perhaps be surprised at my writing at so late a period, but I have had the book read aloud to me, and from much ill-health of late could only stand occasional short reads. The undertaking must have cost you gigantic labour. Nevertheless, I earnestly hope that you may be induced to treat morals in the same enlarged yet careful manner, as you have animism. I fancy from the last chapter that you have thought of this. No man could do the work so well as you, and the subject assuredly is a most important and interesting one. You must now possess references which would guide you to a sound estimation of the morals of savages; and how writers like Wallace, Lubbock, etc., etc., do differ on this head. Forgive me for troubling you, and believe me, with much respect, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 1872. [At the beginning of the year the sixth edition of the 'Origin,' which had been begun in June, 1871, was nearly completed. The last sheet was revised on January 10, 1872, and the book was published in the course of the month. This volume differs from the previous ones in appearance and size--it consists of 458 pages instead of 596 pages and is a few ounces lighter; it is printed on bad paper, in small type, and with the lines unpleasantly close together. It had, however, one advantage over previous editions, namely that it was issued at a lower price. It is to be regretted that this the final edition of the 'Origin' should have appeared in so unattractive a form; a form which has doubtless kept off many readers from the book. The discussion suggested by the 'Genesis of Species' was perhaps the most important addition to the book. The objection that incipient structures cannot be of use was dealt with in some detail, because it seemed to the author that this was the point in Mr. Mivart's book which has struck most readers in England. It is a striking proof of how wide and general had become the acceptance of his views that my father found it necessary to insert (sixth edition, page 424), the sentence: "As a record of a former state of things, I have retained in the foregoing paragraphs and also elsewhere, several sentences which imply that naturalists believe in the separate creation of each species; and I have been much censured for having thus expressed myself. But undoubtedly this was the general belief when the first edition of the present work appeared... Now things are wholly changed, and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution." A small correction introduced into this sixth edition is connected with one of his minor papers: "Note on the habits of the Pampas Woodpecker." (Zoolog. Soc. Proc. 1870.) In the fifth edition of the 'Origin,' page 220, he wrote:-- "Yet as I can assert not only from my own observation, but from that of the accurate Azara, it [the ground woodpecker] never climbs a tree." The paper in question was a reply to Mr. Hudson's remarks on the woodpecker in a previous number of the same journal. The last sentence of my father's paper is worth quoting for its temperate tone: "Finally, I trust that Mr. Hudson is mistaken when he says that any one acquainted with the habits of this bird might be induced to believe that I 'had purposely wrested the truth' in order to prove my theory. He exonerates me from this charge; but I should be loath to think that there are many naturalists who, without any evidence, would accuse a fellow-worker of telling a deliberate falsehood to prove his theory." In the sixth edition, page 142, the passage runs "in certain large districts it does not climb trees." And he goes on to give Mr. Hudson's statement that in other regions it does frequent trees. One of the additions in the sixth edition (page 149), was a reference to Mr. A. Hyatt's and Professor Cope's theory of "acceleration." With regard to this he wrote (October 10, 1872) in characteristic words to Mr. Hyatt:-- "Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere regret at having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my 'Origin of Species,' in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views on acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that Professor Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly read with lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my library, on fossil Cephalapods with remarks on the subject. It seems also that I have quite misrepresented your joint view. This has vexed me much. I confess that I have never been able to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my part." Lastly, it may be mentioned that this cheap edition being to some extent intended as a popular one, was made to include a glossary of technical terms, "given because several readers have complained... that some of the terms used were unintelligible to them." The glossary was compiled by Mr. Dallas, and being an excellent collection of clear and sufficient definitions, must have proved useful to many readers.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, January 15, 1872. My dear Sir, I am much obliged for your very kind letter and exertions in my favour. I had thought that the publication of my last book ['Descent of Man'] would have destroyed all your sympathy with me, but though I estimated very highly your great liberality of mind, it seems that I underrated it. I am gratified to hear that M. Lacaze-Duthiers will vote (He was not elected as a corresponding member of the French Academy until 1878.) for me, for I have long honoured his name. I cannot help regretting that you should expend your valuable time in trying to obtain for me the honour of election, for I fear, judging from the last time, that all your labour will be in vain. Whatever the result may be, I shall always retain the most lively recollection of your sympathy and kindness, and this will quite console me for my rejection. With much respect and esteem, I remain, dear Sir, Yours truly obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--With respect to the great stress which you lay on man walking on two legs, whilst the quadrumana go on all fours, permit me to remind you that no one much values the great difference in the mode of locomotion, and consequently in structure, between seals and the terrestrial carnivora, or between the almost biped kangaroos and other marsupials. CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN. (Professor of Zoology in Freiburg.) Down, April 5, 1872. My dear Sir, I have now read your essay ('Ueber den Einfluss der Isolirung auf die Artbildung.' Leipzig, 1872.) with very great interest. Your view of the 'Origin' of local races through "Amixie," is altogether new to me, and seems to throw an important light on an obscure problem. There is, however, something strange about the periods or endurance of variability. I formerly endeavoured to investigate the subject, not by looking to past time, but to species of the same genus widely distributed; and I found in many cases that all the species, with perhaps one or two exceptions, were variable. It would be a very interesting subject for a conchologist to investigate, viz., whether the species of the same genus were variable during many successive geological formations. I began to make enquiries on this head, but failed in this, as in so many other things, from the want of time and strength. In your remarks on crossing, you do not, as it seems to me, lay nearly stress enough on the increased vigour of the offspring derived from parents which have been exposed to different conditions. I have during the last five years been making experiments on this subject with plants, and have been astonished at the results, which have not yet been published. In the first part of your essay, I thought that you wasted (to use an English expression) too much powder and shot on M. Wagner (Prof. Wagner has written two essays on the same subject. 'Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz, in 1868, and 'Ueber den Einfluss der Geographischen Isolirung, etc.,' an address to the Bavarian Academy of Sciences at Munich, 1870.); but I changed my opinion when I saw how admirably you treated the whole case, and how well you used the facts about the Planorbis. I wish I had studied this latter case more carefully. The manner in which, as you show, the different varieties blend together and make a constant whole, agrees perfectly with my hypothetical illustrations. Many years ago the late E. Forbes described three closely consecutive beds in a secondary formation, each with representative forms of the same fres-water shells: the case is evidently analogous with that of Hilgendorf ("Ueber Planorbis multiformis im Steinheimer Susswasser-kalk." Monatsbericht of the Berlin Academy, 1866.), but the interesting connecting varieties or links were here absent. I rejoice to think that I formerly said as emphatically as I could, that neither isolation nor time by themselves do anything for the modification of species. Hardly anything in your essay has pleased me so much personally, as to find that you believe to a certain extent in sexual selection. As far as I can judge, very few naturalists believe in this. I may have erred on many points, and extended the doctrine too far, but I feel a strong conviction that sexual selection will hereafter be admitted to be a powerful agency. I cannot agree with what you say about the taste for beauty in animals not easily varying. It may be suspected that even the habit of viewing differently coloured surrounding objects would influence their taste, and Fritz Muller even goes so far as to believe that the sight of gaudy butterflies might influence the taste of distinct species. There are many remarks and statements in your essay which have interested me greatly, and I thank you for the pleasure which I have received from reading it. With sincere respect, I remain, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--If you should ever be induced to consider the whole doctrine of sexual selection, I think that you will be led to the conclusion, that characters thus gained by one sex are very commonly transferred in a greater or less degree to the other sex. [With regard to Moritz Wagner's first Essay, my father wrote to that naturalist, apparently in 1868:] Dear and respected Sir, I thank you sincerely for sending me your 'Migrationsgesetz, etc.,' and for the very kind and most honourable notice which you have taken of my works. That a naturalist who has travelled into so many and such distant regions, and who has studied animals of so many classes, should, to a considerable extent, agree with me, is, I can assure you, the highest gratification of which I am capable... Although I saw the effects of isolation in the case of islands and mountain-ranges, and knew of a few instances of rivers, yet the greater number of your facts were quite unknown to me. I now see that from the want of knowledge I did not make nearly sufficient use of the views which you advocate; and I almost wish I could believe in its importance to the same extent with you; for you well show, in a manner which never occurred to me, that it removes many difficulties and objections. But I must still believe that in many large areas all the individuals of the same species have been slowly modified, in the same manner, for instance, as the English race-horse has been improved, that is by the continued selection of the fleetest individuals, without any separation. But I admit that by this process two or more new species could hardly be found within the same limited area; some degree of separation, if not indispensable, would be highly advantageous; and here your facts and views will be of great value... [The following letter bears on the same subject. It refers to Professor M. Wagner's Essay, published in "Das Ausland", May 31, 1875:] CHARLES DARWIN TO MORITZ WAGNER. Down, October 13, 1876. Dear Sir, I have now finished reading your essays, which have interested me in a very high degree, notwithstanding that I differ much from you on various points. For instance, several considerations make me doubt whether species are much more variable at one period than at another, except through the agency of changed conditions. I wish, however, that I could believe in this doctrine, as it removes many difficulties. But my strongest objection to your theory is that it does not explain the manifold adaptations in structure in every organic being--for instance in a Picus for climbing trees and catching insects--or in a Strix for catching animals at night, and so on ad infinitum. No theory is in the least satisfactory to me unless it clearly explains such adaptations. I think that you misunderstand my views on isolation. I believe that all the individuals of a species can be slowly modified within the same district, in nearly the same manner as man effects by what I have called the process of unconscious selection... I do not believe that one species will give birth to two or more new species as long as they are mingled together within the same district. Nevertheless I cannot doubt that many new species have been simultaneously developed within the same large continental area; and in my 'Origin of Species' I endeavoured to explain how two new species might be developed, although they met and intermingled on the BORDERS of their range. It would have been a strange fact if I had overlooked the importance of isolation, seeing that it was such cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago, which chiefly led me to study the origin of species. In my opinion the greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc., independently of natural selection. Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, by isolation in a small area, where only a few individuals lived under nearly uniform conditions. When I wrote the 'Origin,' and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence, and your case of the Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which I have heard. Although we differ so greatly, I hope that you will permit me to express my respect for your long-continued and successful labours in the good cause of natural science. I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. [The two following letters are also of interest as bearing on my father's views on the action of isolation as regards the origin of new species:] CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, November 26, 1878. My dear Professor Semper, When I published the sixth edition of the 'Origin,' I thought a good deal on the subject to which you refer, and the opinion therein expressed was my deliberate conviction. I went as far as I could, perhaps too far in agreement with Wagner; since that time I have seen no reason to change my mind, but then I must add that my attention has been absorbed on other subjects. There are two different classes of cases, as it appears to me, viz. those in which a species becomes slowly modified in the same country (of which I cannot doubt there are innumerable instances) and those cases in which a species splits into two or three or more new species, and in the latter case, I should think nearly perfect separation would greatly aid in their "specification," to coin a new word. I am very glad that you are taking up this subject, for you will be sure to throw much light on it. I remember well, long ago, oscillating much; when I thought of the Fauna and Flora of the Galapagos Islands I was all for isolation, when I thought of S. America I doubted much. Pray believe me, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I hope that this letter will not be quite illegible, but I have no amanuensis at present. CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, November 30, 1878. Dear Professor Semper, Since writing I have recalled some of the thoughts and conclusions which have passed through my mind of late years. In North America, in going from north to south or from east to west, it is clear that the changed conditions of life have modified the organisms in the different regions, so that they now form distinct races or even species. It is further clear that in isolated districts, however small, the inhabitants almost always get slightly modified, and how far this is due to the nature of the slightly different conditions to which they are exposed, and how far to mere interbreeding, in the manner explained by Weismann, I can form no opinion. The same difficulty occurred to me (as shown in my 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication') with respect to the aboriginal breeds of cattle, sheep, etc., in the separated districts of Great Britain, and indeed throughout Europe. As our knowledge advances, very slight differences, considered by systematists as of no importance in structure, are continually found to be functionally important; and I have been especially struck with this fact in the case of plants to which my observations have of late years been confined. Therefore it seems to me rather rash to consider the slight differences between representative species, for instance those inhabiting the different islands of the same archipelago, as of no functional importance, and as not in any way due to natural selection. With respect to all adapted structures, and these are innumerable, I cannot see how M. Wagner's view throws any light, nor indeed do I see at all more clearly than I did before, from the numerous cases which he has brought forward, how and why it is that a long isolated form should almost always become slightly modified. I do not know whether you will care about hearing my further opinion on the point in question, for as before remarked I have not attended much of late years to such questions, thinking it prudent, now that I am growing old, to work at easier subjects. Believe me, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. I hope and trust that you will throw light on these points. P.S.--I will add another remark which I remember occurred to me when I first read M. Wagner. When a species first arrives on a small island, it will probably increase rapidly, and unless all the individuals change instantaneously (which is improbable in the highest degree), the slowly, more or less, modifying offspring must intercross one with another, and with their unmodified parents, and any offspring not as yet modified. The case will then be like that of domesticated animals which have slowly become modified, either by the action of the external conditions or by the process which I have called the UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION by man--i.e., in contrast with methodical selection. [The letters continue the history of the year 1872, which has been interrupted by a digression on Isolation.] CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, April 8, 1872. Dear Sir, I thank you very sincerely and feel much honoured by the trouble which you have taken in giving me your reflections on the origin of Man. It gratifies me extremely that some parts of my work have interested you, and that we agree on the main conclusion of the derivation of man from some lower form. I will reflect on what you have said, but I cannot at present give up my belief in the close relationship of Man to the higher Simiae. I do not put much trust in any single character, even that of dentition; but I put the greatest faith in resemblances in many parts of the whole organisation, for I cannot believe that such resemblances can be due to any cause except close blood relationship. That man is closely allied to the higher Simiae is shown by the classification of Linnaeus, who was so good a judge of affinity. The man who in England knows most about the structure of the Simiae, namely, Mr. Mivart, and who is bitterly opposed to my doctrines about the derivation of the mental powers, yet has publicly admitted that I have not put man too close to the higher Simiae, as far as bodily structure is concerned. I do not think the absence of reversions of structure in man is of much weight; C. Vogt, indeed, argues that [the existence of] Micr-cephalous idiots is a case of reversion. No one who believes in Evolution will doubt that the Phocae are descended from some terrestrial Carnivore. Yet no one would expect to meet with any such reversion in them. The lesser divergence of character in the races of man in comparison with the species of Simiadae may perhaps be accounted for by man having spread over the world at a much later period than did the Simiadae. I am fully prepared to admit the high antiquity of man; but then we have evidence, in the Dryopithecus, of the high antiquity of the Anthropomorphous Simiae. I am glad to hear that you are at work on your fossil plants, which of late years have afforded so rich a field for discovery. With my best thanks for your great kindness, and with much respect, I remain, Dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. [In April, 1872, he was elected to the Royal Society of Holland, and wrote to Professor Donders:-- "Very many thanks for your letter. The honour of being elected a foreign member of your Royal Society has pleased me much. The sympathy of his fellow workers has always appeared to me by far the highest reward to which any scientific man can look. My gratification has been not a little increased by first hearing of the honour from you."] CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, June 3, 1872. My dear Sir, Many thanks for your article (The proof-sheets of an article which appeared in the July number of the 'North American Review.' It was a rejoinder to Mr. Mivart's reply ('North American Review,' April 1872) to Mr. Chauncey Wright's pamphlet. Chauncey Wright says of it ('Letters,' page 238):--"It is not properly a rejoinder but a new article, repeating and expounding some of the points of my pamphlet, and answering some of Mr. Mivart's replies incidentally.") in the 'North American Review,' which I have read with great interest. Nothing can be clearer than the way in which you discuss the permanence or fixity of species. It never occurred to me to suppose that any one looked at the case as it seems Mr. Mivart does. Had I read his answer to you, perhaps I should have perceived this; but I have resolved to waste no more time in reading reviews of my works or on Evolution, excepting when I hear that they are good and contain new matter... It is pretty clear that Mr. Mivart has come to the end of his tether on this subject. As your mind is so clear, and as you consider so carefully the meaning of words, I wish you would take some incidental occasion to consider when a thing may properly be said to be effected by the will of man. I have been led to the wish by reading an article by your Professor Whitney versus Schleicher. He argues, because each step of change in language is made by the will of man, the whole language so changes; but I do not think that this is so, as man has no intention or wish to change the language. It is a parallel case with what I have called "unconscious selection," which depends on men consciously preserving the best individuals, and thus unconsciously altering the breed. My dear Sir, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [Not long afterwards (September) Mr. Chauncey Wright paid a visit to Down (Mr. and Mrs. C.L. Brace, who had given much of their lives to philanthropic work in New York, also paid a visit at Down in this summer. Some of their work is recorded in Mr. Brace's 'The Dangerous Classes of New York,' and of this book my father wrote to the author:-- "Since you were here my wife has read aloud to me more than half of your work, and it has interested us both in the highest degree, and we shall read every word of the remainder. The facts seem to me very well told, and the inferences very striking. But after all this is but a weak part of the impression left on our minds by what we have read; for we are both filled with earnest admiration at the heroic labours of yourself and others."), which he described in a letter ('Letters, page 246-248.) to Miss S. Sedgwick (now Mrs. William Darwin): "If you can imagine me enthusiastic--absolutely and unqualifiedly so, without a BUT or criticism, then think of my last evening's and this morning's talks with Mr. Darwin... I was never so worked up in my life, and did not sleep many hours under the hospitable roof... It would be quite impossible to give by way of report any idea of these talks before and at and after dinner, at breakfast, and at leav-taking; and yet I dislike the egotism of 'testifying' like other religious enthusiasts, without any verification, or hint of similar experience."] CHARLES DARWIN TO HERBERT SPENCER. Bassett, Southampton, June 10, [1872]. Dear Spencer, I dare say you will think me a foolish fellow, but I cannot resist the wish to express my unbounded admiration of your article ('Mr. Martineau on Evolution,' by Herbert Spencer, 'Contemporary Review,' July 1872.) in answer to Mr. Martineau. It is, indeed, admirable, and hardly less so your second article on Sociology (which, however, I have not yet finished): I never believed in the reigning influence of great men on the world's progress; but if asked why I did not believe, I should have been sorely perplexed to have given a good answer. Every one with eyes to see and ears to hear (the number, I fear, are not many) ought to bow their knee to you, and I for one do. Believe me, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 12 [1872]. My dear Hooker, I must exhale and express my joy at the way in which the newspapers have taken up your case. I have seen the "Times", the "Daily News", and the "Pall Mall", and hear that others have taken up the case. The Memorial has done great good this way, whatever may be the result in the action of our wretched Government. On my soul, it is enough to make one turn into an old honest Tory... If you answer this, I shall be sorry that I have relieved my feelings by writing. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. [The memorial here referred to was addressed to Mr. Gladstone, and was signed by a number of distinguished men, including Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Huxley, and Sir James Paget. It gives a complete account of the arbitrary and unjust treatment received by Sir J.D. Hooker at the hands of his official chief, the First Commissioner of Works. The document is published in full in 'Nature' (July 11, 1872), and is well worth studying as an example of the treatment which it is possible for science to receive from officialism. As 'Nature' observes, it is a paper which must be read with the greatest indignation by scientific men in every part of the world, and with shame by all Englishmen. The signatories of the memorial conclude by protesting against the expected consequences of Sir Joseph Hooker's persecution--namely his resignation, and the loss of "a man honoured for his integrity, beloved for his courtesy and kindliness of heart; and who has spent in the public service not only a stainless but an illustrious life." Happily this misfortune was averted, and Sir Joseph was freed from further molestation.] CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, August 3 [1872]. My dear Wallace, I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you (Mr. Wallace had reviewed Dr. Bree's book, 'An Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin,' in 'Nature,' July 25, 1872.) of "blundering," I have thought myself bound to send the enclosed letter (The letter is as follows:--"Bree on Darwinism." 'Nature,' August 8, 1872. Permit me to state--though the statement is almost superfluous--that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believe was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man in the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's recent work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning: but, perhaps, no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one, will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his part.--Charles Darwin. August 3.) to 'Nature,' that is if you in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not AT ALL wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case please to tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than I should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the letter. My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, August 28, 1872. My dear Wallace, I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading Dr. Bastian's book ('The Beginnings of Life.' H.C. Bastian, 1872.) and have been deeply interested by it. You wished to hear my impression, but it is not worth sending. He seems to me an extremely able man, as, indeed, I thought when I read his first essay. His general argument in favour of Archebiosis (That is to say, Spontaneous Generation. For the distinction between Archebiosis and Heterogenesis, see Bastian, chapter vi.) is wonderfully strong, though I cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but am not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me probable that Archebiosis is true. I am not convinced, partly I think owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. Bastian's book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with the various cases of Heterogenesis, and then gone on to organic, and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence that germs, or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms, are always killed by 212 degrees of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by Dr. Bastian [by] other men, whose judgment I respect, and who have worked long on the lower organisms, would suffice to convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of belief! As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump of lead. Dr. Bastian is always comparing Archebiosis, as well as growth, to crystallisation; but, on this view, a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy accident, and this I cannot believe... He must have worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms appeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen. I wholly disagree with Dr. Bastian about many points in his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recent forms. Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about Pangenesis. I should like to live to see Archebiosis proved true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance; or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall not live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. Bastian will have taken a prominent part in the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it is enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed, and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up. This is all I have to say about Dr. Bastian's book, and it certainly has not been worth saying... CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, December 11, 1872. My dear Sir, I began reading your new book ('Histoire des Sciences et des Savants.' 1873.) sooner than I intended, and when I once began, I could not stop; and now you must allow me to thank you for the very great pleasure which it has given me. I have hardly ever read anything more original and interesting than your treatment of the causes which favour the development of scientific men. The whole was quite new to me, and most curious. When I began your essay I was afraid that you were going to attack the principle of inheritance in relation to mind, but I soon found myself fully content to follow you and accept your limitations. I have felt, of course, special interest in the latter part of your work, but there was here less novelty to me. In many parts you do me much honour, and everywhere more than justice. Authors generally like to hear what points most strike different readers, so I will mention that of your shorter essays, that on the future prevalence of languages, and on vaccination interested me the most, as, indeed, did that on statistics, and free will. Great liability to certain diseases, being probably liable to atavism, is quite a new idea to me. At page 322 you suggest that a young swallow ought to be separated, and then let loose in order to test the power of instinct; but nature annually performs this experiment, as old cuckoos migrate in England some weeks before the young birds of the same year. By the way, I have just used the forbidden word "nature," which, after reading your essay, I almost determined never to use again. There are very few remarks in your book to which I demur, but when you back up Asa Gray in saying that all instincts are congenital habits, I must protest. Finally, will you permit me to ask you a question: have you yourself, or some one who can be quite trusted, observed (page 322) that the butterflies on the Alps are tamer than those on the lowlands? Do they belong to the same species? Has this fact been observed with more than one species? Are they brightly coloured kinds? I am especially curious about their alighting on the brightly coloured parts of ladies' dresses, more especially because I have been more than once assured that butterflies like bright colours, for instance, in India the scarlet leaves of Poinsettia. Once again allow me to thank you for having sent me your work, and for the very unusual amount of pleasure which I have received in reading it. With much respect, I remain, my dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [The last revise of the 'Expression of the Emotions' was finished on August 22nd, 1872, and he wrote in his Diary:--"Has taken me about twelve months." As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book being generally successful. The following passage in a letter to Haeckel gives the impression that he had felt the writing of this book as a somewhat severe strain:-- "I have finished my little book on 'Expression,' and when it is published in November I will of course send you a copy, in case you would like to read it for amusement. I have resumed some old botanical work, and perhaps I shall never again attempt to discuss theoretical views. "I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to you for your own sake and for that of science." It was published in the autumn. The edition consisted of 7000, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray's sale in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards sell so rapidly, and thus a mass of notes collected by the author was never employed for a second edition during his lifetime. Among the reviews of the 'Expression of the Emotions' may be mentioned the unfavourable notices in the "Athenaeum", November 9, 1872, and the "Times", December 13, 1872. A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the 'Quarterly Journal of Science,' January 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the book exhibits certain "characteristics of the author's mind in an eminent degree," namely, "the insatiable longing to discover the causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by living things." He adds that in the case of the author "the restless curiosity of the child to know the 'what for?' the 'why?' and the 'how?' of everything" seems "never to have abated its force." A writer in one of the theological reviews describes the book as the most "powerful and insidious" of all the author's works. Professor Alexander Bain criticised the book in a postscript to the 'Senses and the Intellect;' to this essay the following letter refers:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ALEXANDER BAIN. Down, October 9, 1873. My dear Sir, I am particularly obliged to you for having send me your essay. Your criticisms are all written in a quite fair spirit, and indeed no one who knows you or your works would expect anything else. What you say about the vagueness of what I have called the direct action of the nervous system, is perfectly just. I felt it so at the time, and even more of late. I confess that I have never been able fully to grasp your principle of spontaneity, as well as some other of your points, so as to apply them to special cases. But as we look at everything from different points of view, it is not likely that we should agree closely. (Professor Bain expounded his theory of Spontaneity in the essay here alluded to. It would be impossible to do justice to it within the limits of a foot-note. The following quotations may give some notion of it:-- "By Spontaneity I understand the readiness to pass into movement in the absence of all stimulation whatever; the essential requisite being that the nerve-centres and muscles shall be fresh and vigorous... The gesticulations and the carols of young and active animals are mere overflow of nervous energy; and although they are very apt to concur with pleasing emotion, they have an independent source... They are not properly movements of expression; they express nothing at all except an abundant stock of physical power.") I have been greatly pleased by what you say about the crying expression and about blushing. Did you read a review in a late 'Edinburgh?' (The review on the 'Expression of the Emotions' appeared in the April number of the 'Edinburgh Review,' 1873. The opening sentence is a fair sample of the general tone of the article: "Mr. Darwin has added another volume of amusing stories and grotesque illustrations to the remarkable series of works already devoted to the exposition and defence of the evolutionary hypothesis." A few other quotations may be worth giving. "His one-sided devotion to an a priori scheme of interpretation seems thus steadily tending to impair the author's hitherto unrivalled powers as an observer. However this may be, most impartial critics will, we think, admit that there is a marked falling off both in philosophical tone and scientific interest in the works produced since Mr. Darwin committed himself to the crude metaphysical conception so largely associated with his name." The article is directed against Evolution as a whole, almost as much as against the doctrines of the book under discussion. We find throughout plenty of that effective style of criticism which consists in the use of such expressions as "dogmatism," "intolerance," "presumptuous," "arrogant." Together with accusations of such various faults a "virtual abandonment of the inductive method," and the use of slang and vulgarisms. The part of the article which seems to have interested my father is the discussion on the use which he ought to have made of painting and sculpture.) It was magnificently contemptuous towards myself and many others. I retain a very pleasant recollection of our sojourn together at that delightful place, Moor Park. With my renewed thanks, I remain, my dear Sir, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. (Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father's old friend, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse. Her husband, Judge Haliburton, was the well-known author of 'Sam Slick.') Down, November 1 [1872]. My dear Mrs. Haliburton, I dare say you will be surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to say that I have just published a book on the 'Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals;' and it has occurred to me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it; and I can hardly think that this would have been the case with any of the books which I have already published. So I send by this post my present book. Although I have had no communication with you or the other members of your family for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much like to hear a little news about yourself and the other members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from my sisters. I have had many years of bad health and have not been able to visit anywhere; and now I feel very old. As long as I pass a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily work in Natural History, which is still my passion, as it was in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my continued il-health, which has excluded me from society, my life has been a very happy one; the greatest drawback being that several of my children have inherited from me feeble health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to a large extent, the famous "Owen constitution." With sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all bearing the name of Owen, I venture to sign myself, Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. Down, November 6 [1872]. My dear Sarah, I have been very much pleased by your letter, which I must call charming. I hardly ventured to think that you would have retained a friendly recollection of me for so many years. Yet I ought to have felt assured that you would remain as warm-hearted and as true-hearted as you have ever been from my earliest recollection. I know well how many grievous sorrows you have gone through; but I am very sorry to hear that your health is not good. In the spring or summer, when the weather is better, if you can summon up courage to pay us a visit here, both my wife, as she desires me to say, and myself, would be truly glad to see you, and I know that you would not care about being rather dull here. It would be a real pleasure to me to see you.--Thank you much for telling about your family,--much of which was new to me. How kind you all were to me as a boy, and you especially, and how much happiness I owe to you. Believe me your affectionate and obliged friend, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--Perhaps you would like to see a photograph of me now that I am old. 1873. [The only work (other than botanical) of this year was the preparation of a second edition of the 'Descent of Man,' the publication of which is referred to in the following chapter. This work was undertaken much against the grain, as he was at the time deeply immersed in the manuscript of 'Insectivorous Plants.' Thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (November 19), "I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so much as this new edition of the 'Descent.'" And later (in December) he wrote to Mr. Huxley: "The new edition of the 'Descent' has turned out an awful job. It took me ten days merely to glance over letters and reviews with criticisms and new facts. It is a devil of a job." The work was continued until April 1, 1874, when he was able to return to his much loved Drosera. He wrote to Mr. Murray:-- "I have at last finished, after above three months as hard work as I have ever had in my life, a corrected edition of the 'Descent,' and I much wish to have it printed off as soon as possible. As it is to be stereotyped I shall never touch it again." The first of the miscellaneous letters of 1873 refers to a pleasant visit received from Colonel Higginson of Newport, U.S.] CHARLES DARWIN TO THOS. WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. Down, February 27th [1873]. My dear Sir, My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips. Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which were kindly sent us by Mr. [Moncure] Conway, but have not yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news of you in the 'Index'; and within the last hour have read an interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought. Believe me, my dear sir, with sincere admiration, Yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [On May 28th he sent the following answers to the questions that Mr. Galton was at that time addressing to various scientific men, in the course of the inquiry which is given in his 'English Men of Science, their Nature and Nurture,' 1874. With regard to the questions my father wrote, "I have filled up the answers as well as I could, but it is simply impossible for me to estimate the degrees." For the sake of convenience, the questions and answers relating to "Nurture" are made to precede those on "Nature": NURTURE. EDUCATION? How taught? I consider that all I have learnt of any value has been sel-taught. Conducive to or restrictive of habits of observation? Restrictive of observation, being almost entirely classical. Conducive to health or otherwise? Yes. Peculiar merits? None whatever. Chief omissions? No mathematics or modern languages, nor any habits of observation or reasoning. RELIGION. Has the religious creed taught in your youth had any deterrent effect on the freedom of your researches? No. SCIENTIFIC TASTES. Do your scientific tastes appear to have been innate? Certainly innate. Were they determined by any and what events? My innate taste for natural history strongly confirmed and directed by the voyage in the "Beagle". NATURE. Specify any interests that have been very actively pursued. Science, and field sports to a passionate degree during youth. (C.D. = CHARLES DARWIN, R.D. = ROBERT DARWIN, his father.) RELIGION? C.D.--Nominally to Church of England. R.D.--Nominally to Church of England. POLITICS? C.D.--Liberal or Radical. R.D.--Liberal. HEALTH? C.D.--Good when young--bad for last 33 years. R.D.--Good throughout life, except from gout. HEIGHT, ETC? C.D.--6ft. Figure, etc.?--Spare, whilst young rather stout. Measurement round inside of hat?--22 1/4 in. Colour of Hair?--Brown. Complexion?--Rather sallow. R.D.--6ft. 2 in. Figure, etc?--Very broad and corpulent. Colour of hair? --Brown. Complexion?--Ruddy. TEMPERAMENT? C.D.--Somewhat nervous. R.D.--Sanguine. ENERGY OF BODY, ETC.? C.D.--Energy shown by much activity, and whilst I had health, power of resisting fatigue. I and one other man were alone able to fetch water for a large party of officers and sailors utterly prostrated. Some of my expeditions in S. America were adventurous. An early riser in the morning. R.D.--Great power of endurance although feeling much fatigue, as after consultations after long journeys; very active--not restless--very early riser, no travels. My father said his father suffered much from sense of fatigue, that he worked very hard. ENERGY OF MIND, ETC.? C.D.--Shown by rigorous and long-continued work on same subject, as 20 years on the 'Origin of Species,' and 9 years on 'Cirripedia.' R.D.--Habitually very active mind--shown in conversation with a succession of people during the whole day. MEMORY? C.D.--Memory very bad for dates, and for learning by rote; but good in retaining a general or vague recollection of many facts. R.D.--Wonderful memory for dates. In old age he told a person, reading aloud to him a book only read in youth, the passages which were coming--knew the birthdays and death, etc., of all friends and acquaintances. STUDIOUSNESS? C.D.--Very studious, but not large acquirements. R.D.--Not very studious or mentally receptive, except for facts in conversation--great collector of anecdotes. INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT? C.D.--I think fairly independent; but I can give no instances. I gave up common religious belief almost independently from my own reflections. R.D.--Free thinker in religious matters. Liberal, with rather a tendency to Toryism. ORIGINALITY OR ECCENTRICITY? C.D.-- -- Thinks this applies to me; I do not think so--i.e., as far as eccentricity. I suppose that I have shown originality in science, as I have made discoveries with regard to common objects. R.D.--Original character, had great personal influence and power of producing fear of himself in others. He kept his accounts with great care in a peculiar way, in a number of separate little books, without any general ledger. SPECIAL TALENTS? C.D.--None, except for business as evinced by keeping accounts, replies to correspondence, and investing money very well. Very methodical in all my habits. R.D.--Practical business--made a large fortune and incurred no losses. STRONGLY MARKED MENTAL PECULIARITIES, BEARING ON SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS, AND NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE? C.D.--Steadiness--great curiosity about facts and their meaning. Some love of the new and marvellous. R.D.--Strong social affection and great sympathy in the pleasures of others. Sceptical as to new things. Curious as to facts. Great foresight. Not much public spirit--great generosity in giving money and assistance. N.B.--I find it quite impossible to estimate my character by your degrees. The following letter refers inter alia to a letter which appeared in 'Nature' (September 25, 1873), "On the Males and Complemental Males of certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Organs:"] CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, September 25, 1873. My dear Haeckel, I thank you for the present of your book ('Schopfungs-geschichte,' 4th edition. The translation ('The History of Creation') was not published until 1876.), and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. I have read the new preface with very great interest. The delay in the appearance of the English translation vexes and surprises me, for I have never been able to read it thoroughly in German, and I shall assuredly do so when it appears in English. Has the problem of the later stages of reduction of useless structures ever perplexed you? This problem has of late caused me much perplexity. I have just written a letter to 'Nature' with a hypothetical explanation of this difficulty, and I will send you the paper with the passage marked. I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us... Wishing you every success in your admirable labours, I remain, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.VIII. -- MISCELLANEA INCLUDING SECOND EDITIONS OF 'CORAL REEFS,' THE 'DESCENT OF MAN,' AND THE 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.' 1874 AND 1875. [The year 1874 was given up to 'Insectivorous Plants,' with the exception of the months devoted to the second edition of the 'Descent of Man,' and with the further exception of the time given to a second edition of his 'Coral Reefs' (1874). The Preface to the latter states that new facts have been added, the whole book revised, and "the latter chapters almost rewritten." In the Appendix some account is given of Professor Semper's objections, and this was the occasion of correspondence between that naturalist and my father. In Professor Semper's volume, 'Animal Life' (one of the International Series), the author calls attention to the subject in the following passage which I give in German, the published English translation being, as it seems to me, incorrect: "Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe seines allgemein bekannten Werks uber Korallenriffe einem Irrthume uber meine Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist, indem er die Angaben, die ich allerdings bisher immer nur sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch wiedergegeben hat." The proof-sheets containing this passage were sent by Professor Semper to my father before 'Animal Life' was published, and this was the occasion for the following letter, which was afterwards published in Professor Semper's book.] CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, October 2, 1879. My dear Professor Semper, I thank you for your extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the proo-sheets. I believe that I understand all, excepting one or two sentences, where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered. This is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I made in the second edition of my 'Coral' book. Your account of the Pellew Islands is a fine addition to our knowledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say on the subject, even if I had formerly read your account and seen your maps, but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation, and of your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I have no doubt that I should have considered them as formed during subsidence. But I should have been much troubled in my mind by the sea not being so deep as it usually is round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so gradually beneath the sea; for this latter fact, as far as my memory serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I always foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the surface would give rise to a reef which could not be distinguished from an atoll, formed during subsidence. I must still adhere to my opinion that the atolls and barrier reefs in the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate subsidence; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of the Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would make my general conclusions of very little value. Future observers must decide between us. It will be a strange fact if there has not been subsidence of the beds of the great oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the coral reefs. In the last three pages of the last sheet sent I am extremely glad to see that you are going to treat of the dispersion of animals. Your preliminary remarks seem to me quite excellent. There is nothing about M. Wagner, as I expected to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley's last book, which contains some good observations on dispersion. I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I can read it with ease. Pray believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by Mr. Murray, one of the staff of the "Challenger", who read a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880. (An abstract is published in volume x. of the 'Proceedings,' page 505, and in 'Nature,' August 12, 1880.) The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the building up of submarine mountains, which may serve as foundations for coral reefs. Mr. Murray also seeks to prove that "the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general subsidence." The following letter refers to this subject:] CHARLES DARWIN TO A. AGASSIZ. Down, May 5, 1881. ... You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the "Beagle", in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the smaller corals, etc., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, etc., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of many hundred feet... Pray forgive me for troubling you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet... [The second edition of the 'Descent of Man' was published in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the "monistic hypothesis" appeared in the July (The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the 'Descent of Man.') number of the 'Quarterly Review' (page 45). The Reviewer expresses his astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary distinctions and principles (e.g. with regard to the verbum mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who does not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them, yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed examination of his facts with regard to them, "was a sine qua non for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of the mystery as to the descent of man." Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded to. In the 'Academy,' 1876 (pages 562, 587), appeared a review of Mr. Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' by Mr. Wallace. When considering the part of Mr. Mivart's book relating to Natural and Sexual Selection, Mr. Wallace says: "In his violent attack on Mr. Darwin's theories our author uses unusually strong language. Not content with mere argument, he expresses 'reprobation of Mr. Darwin's views'; and asserts that though he (Mr. Darwin) has been obliged, virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by Darwinians with 'unscrupulous audacity,' and the actual repudiation of it concealed by the 'conspiracy of silence.'" Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without foundation, and points out that, "if there is one thing more than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by himself." The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement ('Lessons from Nature,' page 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the "bestiality of man":-- "I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the 'Origin' I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my 'Descent of Man.' Therefore it is very unjust,... of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment." The letter which here follows is of interest in connection with the discussion, in the 'Descent of Man,' on the origin of the musical sense in man:] CHARLES DARWIN TO E. GURNEY. (Author of 'The Power of Sound.') Down, July 8, 1876. My dear Mr. Gurney, I have read your article ("Some disputed Points in Music."--'Fortnightly Review,' July, 1876.) with much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good; but though not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function throughout the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you. I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of pleasure derived from different music could be explained by the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does not the fact that different people belonging to the same civilised nation are very differently affected by the same music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure have been acquired during their individual lives? Your simile of architecture seems to me particularly good; for in this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral, may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror and superstition in our savage ancestors, when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could analyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how horrified some high flying aesthetic men will be at your encouraging such low degraded views as mine. Believe me, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. The first extract (from a letter, January 18, 1874) refers to a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin's house, 6 Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known medium:] "... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery points jump about in my brother's diningroom, in a manner that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium's hands and feet on both sides all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. How the man could possibly do what was done passes my understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs, etc., on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of those sitting round it. The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish. F. Galton was there, and says it was a good seance..." The Seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was present, and on which he reported to my father:] CHARLES DARWIN TO PROFESSOR T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 29 [1874]. My dear Huxley, It was very good of you to write so long an account. Though the seance did tire you so much it was, I think, really worth the exertion, as the same sort of things are done at all the seances, even at --'s; and now to my mind an enormous weight of evidence would be requisite to make one believe in anything beyond mere trickery... I am pleased to think that I declared to all my family, the day before yesterday, that the more I thought of all that I had heard happened at Queen Anne St., the more convinced I was it was all imposture... my theory was that [the medium] managed to get the two men on each side of him to hold each other's hands, instead of his, and that he was thus free to perform his antics. I am very glad that I issued my ukase to you to attend. Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [In the spring of this year (1874) he read a book which gave him great pleasure and of which he often spoke with admiration:--'The Naturalist in Nicaragua,' by the late Thomas Belt. Mr. Belt, whose untimely death may well be deplored by naturalists, was by profession an Engineer, so that all his admirable observations in Natural History in Nicaragua and elsewhere were the fruit of his leisure. The book is direct and vivid in style and is full of description and suggestive discussions. With reference to it my father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "Belt I have read, and I am delighted that you like it so much, it appears to me the best of all natural history journals which have ever been published."] CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, May 30, 1874. Dear Sir, I have been very neglectful in not having sooner thanked you for your kindness in having sent me your 'Etudes sur la Vegetation,' etc., and other memoirs. I have read several of them with very great interest, and nothing can be more important, in my opinion, than your evidence of the extremely slow and gradual manner in which specific forms change. I observe that M. A. De Candolle has lately quoted you on this head versus Heer. I hope that you may be able to throw light on the question whether such protean, or polymorphic forms, as those of Rubus, Hieracium, etc., at the present day, are those which generate new species; as for myself, I have always felt some doubt on this head. I trust that you may soon bring many of your countrymen to believe in Evolution, and my name will then perhaps cease to be scorned. With the most sincere respect, I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1874]. My dear Gray, I have now read your article (The article, "Charles Darwin," in the series of "Scientific Worthies" ('Nature,' June 4, 1874). This admirable estimate of my father's work in science is given in the form of a comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.) in 'Nature,' and the last two paragraphs were not included in the slip sent before. I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally. What you say about Teleology ("Let us recognise Darwin's great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.") pleases me especially, and I do not think any one else has ever noticed the point. (See, however, Mr. Huxley's chapter on the 'Reception of the Origin of Species' in volume i.) I have always said you were the man to hit the nail on the head. Yours gratefully and affectionately, CH. DARWIN. [As a contribution to the history of the reception of the 'Origin of Species,' the meeting of the British Association in 1874, at Belfast, should be mentioned. It is memorable for Professor Tyndall's brilliant presidential address, in which a sketch of the history of Evolution is given culminating in an eloquent analysis of the 'Origin of Species,' and of the nature of its great success. With regard to Prof. Tyndall's address, Lyell wrote ('Life,' ii. page 455) congratulating my father on the meeting, "on which occasion you and your theory of Evolution may be fairly said to have had an ovation." In the same letter Sir Charles speaks of a paper (On the Ancient Volcanoes of the Highlands, 'Journal of Geological Soc.,' 1874.) of Professor Judd's, and it is to this that the following letter refers:] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 23, 1874. My dear Lyell, I suppose that you have returned, or will soon return, to London (Sir Charles Lyell returned from Scotland towards the end of September.); and, I hope, reinvigorated by your outing. In your last letter you spoke of Mr. Judd's paper on the Volcanoes of the Hebrides. I have just finished it, and to ease my mind must express my extreme admiration. It is years since I have read a purely geological paper which has interested me so greatly. I was all the more interested, as in the Cordillera I often speculated on the sources of the deluges of submarine porphyritic lavas, of which they are built; and, as I have stated, I saw to a certain extent the causes of the obliteration of the points of eruption. I was also not a little pleased to see my volcanic book quoted, for I thought it was completely dead and forgotten. What fine work will Mr. Judd assuredly do!... Now I have eased my mind; and so farewell, with both E.D.'s and C.D.'s very kind remembrances to Miss Lyell. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. [Sir Charles Lyell's reply to the above letter must have been one of the latest that my father received from his old friend, and it is with this letter that the volumes of his published correspondence closes.] CHARLES DARWIN TO AUG. FOREL. Down, October 15, 1874. My dear Sir, I have now read the whole of your admirable work ('Les Fourmis de la Suisse,' 4to, 1874.) and seldom in my life have I been more interested by any book. There are so many interesting facts and discussions, that I hardly know which to specify; but I think, firstly, the newest points to me have been about the size of the brain in the three sexes, together with your suggestion that increase of mind power may have led to the sterility of the workers. Secondly about the battles of the ants, and your curious account of the enraged ants being held by their comrades until they calmed down. Thirdly, the evidence of ants of the same community being the offspring of brothers and sisters. You admit, I think, that new communities will often be the product of a cross between not-related ants. Fritz Muller has made some interesting observations on this head with respect to Termites. The case of Anergates is most perplexing in many ways, but I have such faith in the law of occasional crossing that I believe an explanation will hereafter be found, such as the dimorphism of either sex and the occasional production of winged males. I see that you are puzzled how ants of the same community recognize each other; I once placed two (F. rufa) in a pill-box smelling strongly of asafoetida and after a day returned them to their homes; they were threatened, but at last recognized. I made the trial thinking that they might know each other by their odour; but this cannot have been the case, and I have often fancied that they must have some common signal. Your last chapter is one great mass of wonderful facts and suggestions, and the whole profoundly interesting. I have seldom been more gratified than by [your] honourable mention of my work. I should like to tell you one little observation which I made with care many years ago; I saw ants (Formica rufa) carrying cocoons from a nest which was the largest I ever saw and which was well-known to all the country people near, and an old man, apparently about eighty years of age, told me that he had known it ever since he was a boy. The ants carrying the cocoons did not appear to be emigrating; following the line, I saw many ascending a tall fir tree still carrying their cocoons. But when I looked closely I found that all the cocoons were empty cases. This astonished me, and next day I got a man to observe with me, and we again saw ants bringing empty cocoons out of the nest; each of us fixed on one ant and slowly followed it, and repeated the observation on many others. We thus found that some ants soon dropped their empty cocoons; others carried them for many yards, as much as thirty paces, and others carried them high up the fir tree out of sight. Now here I think we have one instinct in contest with another and mistaken one. The first instinct being to carry the empty cocoons out of the nest, and it would have been sufficient to have laid them on the heap of rubbish, as the first breath of wind would have blown them away. And then came in the contest with the other very powerful instinct of preserving and carrying their cocoons as long as possible; and this they could not help doing although the cocoons were empty. According as the one or other instinct was the stronger in each individual ant, so did it carry the empty cocoon to a greater or less distance. If this little observation should ever prove of any use to you, you are quite at liberty to use it. Again thanking you cordially for the great pleasure which your work has given me, I remain with much respect, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--If you read English easily I should like to send you Mr. Belt's book, as I think you would like it as much as did Fritz Muller. CHARLES DARWIN TO J. FISKE. Down, December 8, 1874. My dear Sir, You must allow me to thank you for the very great interest with which I have at last slowly read the whole of your work. ('Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy,' 2 volumes, 8vo. 1874.) I have long wished to know something about the views of the many great men whose doctrines you give. With the exception of special points I did not even understand H. Spencer's general doctrine; for his style is too hard work for me. I never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are; and I think that I understand nearly the whole--perhaps less clearly about Cosmic Theism and Causation than other parts. It is hopeless to attempt out of so much to specify what has interested me most, and probably you would not care to hear. I wish some chemist would attempt to ascertain the result of the cooling of heated gases of the proper kinds, in relation to your hypothesis of the origin of living matter. It pleased me to find that here and there I had arrived from my own crude thoughts at some of the same conclusions with you; though I could seldom or never have given my reasons for such conclusions. I find that my mind is so fixed by the inducive method, that I cannot appreciate deductive reasoning: I must begin with a good body of facts and not from a principle (in which I always suspect some fallacy) and then as much deduction as you please. This may be very narrow-minded; but the result is that such parts of H. Spencer, as I have read with care impress my mind with the idea of his inexhaustible wealth of suggestion, but never convince me; and so I find it with some others. I believe the cause to lie in the frequency with which I have found first-formed theories [to be] erroneous. I thank you for the honourable mention which you make of my works. Parts of the 'Descent of Man' must have appeared laughably weak to you: nevertheless, I have sent you a new edition just published. Thanking you for the profound interest and profit with which I have read your work. I remain, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. 1875. [The only work, not purely botanical, which occupied my father in the present year was the correction of the second edition of 'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' and on this he was engaged from the beginning of July till October 3rd. The rest of the year was taken up with his work on insectivorous plants, and on cross-fertilisation, as will be shown in a later chapter. The chief alterations in the second edition of 'Animals and Plants' are in the eleventh chapter on "Bud-variation and on certain anomalous modes of reproduction;" the chapter on Pangenesis "was also largely altered and remodelled." He mentions briefly some of the authors who have noticed the doctrine. Professor Delpino's 'Sulla Darwiniana Teoria della Pangenesi' (1869), an adverse but fair criticism, seems to have impressed him as valuable. Of another critique my father characteristically says ('Animals and Plants,' 2nd edition volume ii. page 350.), "Dr. Lionel Beale ('Nature,' May 11, 1871, page 26) sneers at the whole doctrine with much acerbity and some justice." He also points out that, in Mantegazza's 'Elementi di Igiene,' the theory of Pangenesis was clearly foreseen. In connection with this subject, a letter of my father's to 'Nature' (April 27, 1871) should be mentioned. A paper by Mr. Galton had been read before the Royal Society (March 30, 1871) in which were described experiments, on intertransfusion of blood, designed to test the truth of the hypothesis of pangenesis. My father, while giving all due credit to Mr. Galton for his ingenious experiments, does not allow that pangenesis has "as yet received its death-blow, though from presenting so many vulnerable points its life is always in jeopardy." He seems to have found the work of correcting very wearisome, for he wrote:-- "I have no news about myself, as I am merely slaving over the sickening work of preparing new editions. I wish I could get a touch of poor Lyell's feelings, that it was delightful to improve a sentence, like a painter improving a picture." The feeling of effort or strain over this piece of work, is shown in a letter to Professor Haeckel:-- "What I shall do in future if I live, Heaven only knows; I ought perhaps to avoid general and large subjects, as too difficult for me with my advancing years, and I suppose enfeebled brain." At the end of March, in this year, the portrait for which he was sitting to Mr. Ouless was finished. He felt the sittings a great fatigue, in spite of Mr. Ouless's considerate desire to spare him as far as was possible. In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he wrote, "I look a very venerable, acute, melancholy old dog; whether I really look so I do not know." The picture is in the possession of the family, and is known to many through M. Rajon's etching. Mr. Ouless's portrait is, in my opinion, the finest representation of my father that has been produced. The following letter refers to the death of Sir Charles Lyell, which took place on February 22nd, 1875, in his seventy-eighth year.] CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS BUCKLEY (NOW MRS. FISHER). (Mrs. Fisher acted as Secretary to Sir Charles Lyell.) Down, February 23, 1875. My dear Miss Buckley, I am grieved to hear of the death of my old and kind friend, though I knew that it could not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing that his life should not have been prolonged, as I suppose that his mind would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady Lyell (Lady Lyell died in 1873.) has been saved this terrible blow. His death makes me think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of coral reefs and South America. I think that this sympathy with the work of every other naturalist was one of the finest features of his character. How completely he revolutionised Geology: for I can remember something of pre-Lyellian days. I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with a truer zeal in a noble cause. It seems strange to me that I shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell at their breakfast. I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly written to me. Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell, and I hope that she has not suffered much in health, from fatigue and anxiety. Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 25 [1875]. My dear Hooker, Your letter so full of feeling has interested me greatly. I cannot say that I felt his [Lyell's] death much, for I fully expected it, and have looked for some little time at his career as finished. I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired mental powers. He was, indeed, a noble man in very many ways; perhaps in none more than in his warm sympathy with the work of others. How vividly I can recall my first conversation with him, and how he astonished me by his interest in what I told him. How grand also was his candour and pure love of truth. Well, he is gone, and I feel as if we were all soon to go... I am deeply rejoiced about Westminster Abbey (Sir C. Lyell was buried in Westminster Abbey.), the possibility of which had not occurred to me when I wrote before. I did think that his works were the most enduring of all testimonials (as you say) to him; but then I did not like the idea of his passing away with no outward sign of what scientific men thought of his merits. Now all this is changed, and nothing can be better than Westminster Abbey. Mrs. Lyell has asked me to be one of the pall-bearers, but I have written to say that I dared not, as I should so likely fail in the midst of the ceremony, and have my head whirling off my shoulders. All this affair must have cost you much fatigue and worry, and how I do wish you were out of England... [In 1881 he wrote to Mrs. Fisher in reference to her article on Sir Charles Lyell in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica':-- "For such a publication I suppose you do not want to say much about his private character, otherwise his strong sense of humour and love of society might have been added. Also his extreme interest in the progress of the world, and in the happiness of mankind. Also his freedom from all religious bigotry, though these perhaps would be a superfluity." The following refers to the Zoological station at Naples, a subject on which my father felt an enthusiastic interest:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ANTON DOHRN. Down, [1875?]. My dear Dr. Dohrn, Many thanks for your most kind letter, I most heartily rejoice at your improved health and at the success of your grand undertaking, which will have so much influence on the progress of Zoology throughout Europe. If we look to England alone, what capital work has already been done at the Station by Balfour and Ray Lankester... When you come to England, I suppose that you will bring Mrs. Dohrn, and we shall be delighted to see you both here. I have often boasted that I have had a live Uhlan in my house! It will be very interesting to me to read your new views on the ancestry of the Vertebrates. I shall be sorry to give up the Ascidians, to whom I feel profound gratitude; but the great thing, as it appears to me, is that any link whatever should be found between the main divisions of the Animal Kingdom... CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, December 6, 1875. My dear Sir, I have been profoundly interested by your essay on Amblystoma ('Umwandlung des Axolotl.'), and think that you have removed a great stumbling block in the way of Evolution. I once thought of reversion in this case; but in a crude and imperfect manner. I write now to call your attention to the sterility of moths when hatched out of their proper season; I give references in chapter 18 of my 'Variation under Domestication' (volume ii. page 157, of English edition), and these cases illustrate, I think, the sterility of Amblystoma. Would it not be worth while to examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of WINGLESS Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case of the bed-bug. I think I have heard that the females of Mutilla sometimes have wings. These cases must be due to reversion. I dare say many anomalous cases will be hereafter explained on the same principle. I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of the blac-shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis given in my 'Variation under Domestication;' and I might have been bolder, as the variety is in many respects intermediate between the two known species. With much respect, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. [It was in November 1875 that my father gave his evidence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection. (See volume i.) I have, therefore, placed together here the matter relating to this subject, irrespective of date. Something has already been said of my father's strong feeling with regard to suffering both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing dogs, or in his horror at the sufferings of slaves. (He once made an attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as he wrongly supposed) was sane. He had some correspondence with the gardener at the asylum, and on one occasion he found a letter from a patient enclosed with one from the gardener. The letter was rational in tone and declared that the writer was sane and wrongfully confined. My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had been visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Sometime afterwards the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father for his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane, when he wrote his former letter.) The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion he saw a hors-breaker teaching his son to ride, the little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms. One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to animals was well-known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told the man to go faster, "Why," said the driver, "If I had whipped the horse THIS much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have got out of the carriage and abused me well." With respect to the special point under consideration,--the sufferings of animals subjected to experiment,--nothing could show a stronger feeling than the following extract from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):-- "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." An extract from Sir Thomas Farrer's notes shows how strongly he expressed himself in a similar manner in conversation:-- "The last time I had any conversation with him was at my house in Bryanston Square, just before one of his last seizures. He was then deeply interested in the vivisection question; and what he said made a deep impression on me. He was a man eminently fond of animals and tender to them; he would not knowingly have inflicted pain on a living creature; but he entertained the strongest opinion that to prohibit experiments on living animals, would be to put a stop to the knowledge of and the remedies for pain and disease." The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, e.g. by the index to 'Nature' for that year, in which the word "Vivisection," suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed, which reported, defining the circumstances and conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research. Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W.E. Forster, Sir J.B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R.H. Hutton: they commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the following year. In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill, entitled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals," was introduced. It cannot be denied that the framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a correspondent in 'Nature' put it (1876, page 248), "the evidence on the strength of which legislation was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the Report; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond the Recommendations; but rather to have contradicted them." The legislation which my father worked for, as described in the following letters, was practically what was introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair's Bill.] CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. LITCHFIELD. (His daughter.) January 4, 1875. My dear H. Your letter has led me to think over vivisection (I wish some new word like anaes-section could be invented (He communicated to 'Nature' (September 30, 1880) an article by Dr. Wilder, of Cornell University, an abstract of which was published (page 517). Dr. Wilder advocated the use of the word 'Callisection' for painless operations on animals.) for some hours, and I will jot down my conclusions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you. I have long thought physiology one of the greatest of sciences, sure sooner, or more probably later, greatly to benefit mankind; but, judging from all other sciences, the benefits will accrue only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain that physiology can progress only by experiments on living animals. Therefore the proposal to limit research to points of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health, etc., I look at as puerile. I thought at first it would be good to limit vivisection to public laboratories; but I have heard only of those in London and Cambridge, and I think Oxford; but probably there may be a few others. Therefore only men living in a few great towns would carry on investigation, and this I should consider a great evil. If private men were permitted to work in their own houses, and required a licence, I do not see who is to determine whether any particular man should receive one. It is young unknown men who are the most likely to do good work. I would gladly punish severely any one who operated on an animal not rendered insensible, if the experiment made this possible; but here again I do not see that a magistrate or jury could possibly determine such a point. Therefore I conclude, if (as is likely) some experiments have been tried too often, or anaesthetics have not been used when they could have been, the cure must be in the improvement of humanitarian feelings. Under this point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation. If stringent laws are passed, and this is likely, seeing how unscientific the House of Commons is, and that the gentlemen of England are humane, as long as their sports are not considered, which entailed a hundred or thousand-fold more suffering than the experiments of physiologists--if such laws are passed, the result will assuredly be that physiology, which has been until within the last few years at a standstill in England, will languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely on the Continent; and there will be so many the fewer workers on this grand subject, and this I should greatly regret. By the way, F. Balfour, who has worked for two or three years in the laboratory at Cambridge, declares to George that he has never seen an experiment, except with animals rendered insensible. No doubt the names of Doctors will have great weight with the House of Commons; but very many practitioners neither know nor care anything about the progress of knowledge. I cannot at present see my way to sign any petition, without hearing what physiologists thought would be its effect, and then judging for myself. I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous (as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on the Trichinae. I am tired and so no more. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 14 [1875]. My dear Hooker, I worked all the time in London on the vivisection question; and we now think it advisable to go further than a mere petition. Litchfield (Mr. R.B. Litchfield, his son-in-law.) drew up a sketch of a Bill, the essential features of which have been approved by Sanderson, Simon and Huxley, and from conversation, will, I believe, be approved by Paget, and almost certainly, I think, by Michael Foster. Sanderson, Simon and Paget wish me to see Lord Derby, and endeavour to gain his advocacy with the Home Secretary. Now, if this is carried into effect, it will be of great importance to me to be able to say that the Bill in its essential features has the approval of some half-dozen eminent scientific men. I have therefore asked Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first rough form; and if it is not essentially modified may I say that it meets with your approval as President of the Royal Society? The object is to protect animals, and at the same time not to injure Physiology, and Huxley and Sanderson's approval almost suffices on this head. Pray let me have a line from you soon. Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. [The Physiological Society, which was founded in 1876, was in some measure the outcome of the anti-vivisection movement, since it was this agitation which impressed on Physiologists the need of a centre for those engaged in this particular branch of science. With respect to the Society, my father wrote to Mr. Romanes (May 29, 1876):-- "I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected honour of being elected one of the Honorary Members. This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high degree." The following letter appeared in the "Times", April 18th, 1881:] CHARLES DARWIN TO FRITHIOF HOLMGREN. (Professor of Physiology at Upsala.) Down, April 14, 1881. Dear Sir, In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches,--a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago, must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology. Dear Sir, yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. [In the "Times" of the following day appeared a letter headed "Mr. Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this my father replied in the "Times" of April 22, 1881. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes:-- "As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the "Times" on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists.] CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir, I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the "Times" of the 19th inst.; but as she asserts that I have "misinformed" my correspondent in Sweden in saying that "the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the Report of the Commission. 1. The sentence--"It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists," which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, "can necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is immediately followed by the words "We have seen that it was so in Magendie." Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals. 2. The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general sentiment of humanity" prevailing in this country, say (page 10):-- "This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid before us." Again, according to the Commissioners (page 10):-- "The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be very different, indeed, from that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists have used anaesthetics where they think they can do so with safety to the experiment." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES DARWIN. April 21. [In the "Times" of Saturday, April 23, 1881, appeared a letter from Miss Cobbe in reply:] CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 25, 1881. My dear Romanes, I was very glad to read your last note with much news interesting to me. But I write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the house have admired your letter in the "Times". (April 25, 1881.--Mr. Romanes defended Dr. Sanderson against the accusations made by Miss Cobbe.) It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad about Burton Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years a great admirer. I was also especially glad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with several letters, but none abusive. Under a SELFISH point of view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud. Now I feel sure that I have done good. Mr. Jesse has written to me very politely, he says his Society has had nothing to do with placards and diagrams against physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these all originate with Miss Cobbe... Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that the "Times" will "burke" all his letters to this newspaper, nor am I surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in "Nature". Ever yours, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on vivisection, to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to contribute:] CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, September 2, 1881. My dear Romanes, Your letter has perplexed me beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of every one whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his opinion publicly on vivisection; and this made me send my letter to the "Times". I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I could say, and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth saying. You and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and who can express them easily, cannot understand the state of mental paralysis in which I find myself. What is most wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what physiology has already done for man, and even still more strongly what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do. Now I am absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing the other points suggested by you. If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it should appear with that of others in the same cause), could you not quote some sentence from my letter in the "Times" which I enclose, but please return it. If you thought fit you might say you quoted it with my approval, and that after still further reflection I still abide most strongly in my expressed conviction. For Heaven's sake, do think of this. I do not grudge the labour and thought; but I could write nothing worth any one reading. Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a "symposium" strictly a "drinking party." This seems to me very bad taste, and I do hope every one of you will avoid any semblance of a joke on the subject. I KNOW that words, like a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted some persons not at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of the fantastic SENSUALITY ('Transactions of the International Medical Congress,' 1881, volume iv. page 413. The expression "lackadaisical" (not fantastic), and "feeble sensuality," are used with regard to the feelings of the ant-vivisectionists.) (or some such term) of the many mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on the subject... [To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February 1882:-- "Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney's articles in the 'Fortnightly' ("A chapter in the Ethics of Pain," 'Fortnightly Review,' 1881, volume xxx. page 778.) and 'Cornhill?' ("An Epilogue on Vivisection," 'Cornhill Magazine,' 1882, volume xlv. page 191.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science."] CHAPTER 2.IX. -- MISCELLANEA (continued) A REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK--THE BOOK ON EARTHWORMS--LIFE OF ERASMUS DARWIN--MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS. 1876-1882. [We have now to consider the work (other than botanical) which occupied the concluding six years of my father's life. A letter to his old friend Rev. L. Blomefield (Jenyns), written in March, 1877, shows what was my father's estimate of his own powers of work at this time:-- "My dear Jenyns (I see I have forgotten your proper names).--Your extremely kind letter has given me warm pleasure. As one gets old, one's thoughts turn back to the past rather than to the future, and I often think of the pleasant, and to me valuable, hours which I spent with you on the borders of the Fens. "You ask about my future work; I doubt whether I shall be able to do much more that is new, and I always keep before my mind the example of poor old --, who in his old age had a cacoethes for writing. But I cannot endure doing nothing, so I suppose that I shall go on as long as I can without obviously making a fool of myself. I have a great mass of matter with respect to variation under nature; but so much has been published since the appearance of the 'Origin of Species,' that I very much doubt whether I retain power of mind and strength to reduce the mass into a digested whole. I have sometimes thought that I would try, but dread the attempt..." His prophecy proved to be a true one with regard to any continuation of any general work in the direction of Evolution, but his estimate of powers which could afterwards prove capable of grappling with the 'Power of Movement in Plants,' and with the work on 'Earthworms,' was certainly a low one. The year 1876, with which the present chapter begins, brought with it a revival of geological work. He had been astonished, as I hear from Professor Judd, and as appears in his letters, to learn that his books on 'Volcanic Islands,' 1844, and on 'South America,' 1846, were still consulted by geologists, and it was a surprise to him that new editions should be required. Both these works were originally published by Messrs. Smith and Elder, and the new edition of 1876 was also brought out by them. This appeared in one volume with the title 'Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, and Parts of South America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. "Beagle".' He has explained in the preface his reasons for leaving untouched the text of the original editions: "They relate to parts of the world which have been so rarely visited by men of science, that I am not aware that much could be corrected or added from observations subsequently made. Owing to the great progress which Geology has made within recent times, my views on some few points may be somewhat antiquated; but I have thought it best to leave them as they originally appeared." It may have been the revival of geological speculation, due to the revision of his early books, that led to his recording the observations of which some account is given in the following letter. Part of it has been published in Professor James Geikie's 'Prehistoric Europe,' chapters vii. and ix. (My father's suggestion is also noticed in Prof. Geikie's address on the 'Ice Age in Europe and North America,' given at Edinburgh, November 20, 1884.), a few verbal alterations having been made at my father's request in the passages quoted. Mr. Geikie lately wrote to me: "The views suggested in his letter as to the origin of the angular gravels, etc., in the South of England will, I believe, come to be accepted as the truth. This question has a much wider bearing than might at first appear. In point of fact it solves one of the most difficult problems in Quaternary Geology--and has already attracted the attention of German geologists."] CHARLES DARWIN TO JAMES GEIKIE. Down, November 16, 1876. My dear Sir, I hope that you will forgive me for troubling you with a very long letter. But first allow me to tell you with what extreme pleasure and admiration I have just finished reading your 'Great Ice Age.' It seems to me admirably done, and most clear. Interesting as many chapters are in the history of the world, I do not think that any one comes [up] nearly to the glacial period or periods. Though I have steadily read much on the subject, your book makes the whole appear almost new to me. I am now going to mention a small observation, made by me two or three years ago, near Southampton, but not followed out, as I have no strength for excursions. I need say nothing about the character of the drift there (which includes palaeolithic celts), for you have described its essential features in a few words at page 506. It covers the whole country [in an] even plain-like surface, almost irrespective of the present outline of the land. The coarse stratification has sometimes been disturbed. I find that you allude "to the larger stones often standing on end;" and this is the point which struck me so much. Not only moderately sized angular stones, but small oval pebbles often stand vertically up, in a manner which I have never seen in ordinary gravel beds. This fact reminded me of what occurs near my home, in the stiff red clay, full of unworn flints over the chalk, which is no doubt the residue left undissolved by rain water. In this clay, flints as long and thin as my arm often stand perpendicularly up; and I have been told by the tank-diggers that it is their "natural position!" I presume that this position may safely be attributed to the differential movement of parts of the red clay as it subsided very slowly from the dissolution of the underlying chalk; so that the flints arrange themselves in the lines of least resistance. The similar but less strongly marked arrangement of the stones in the drift near Southampton makes me suspect that it also must have slowly subsided; and the notion has crossed my mind that during the commencement and height of the glacial period great beds of frozen snow accumulated over the south of England, and that, during the summer, gravel and stones were washed from the higher land over its surface, and in superficial channels. The larger streams may have cut right through the frozen snow, and deposited gravel in lines at the bottom. But on each succeeding autumn, when the running water failed, I imagine that the lines of drainage would have been filled up by blown snow afterwards congealed, and that, owing to great surface accumulations of snow, it would be a mere chance whether the drainage, together with gravel and sand, would follow the same lines during the next summer. Thus, as I apprehend, alternate layers of frozen snow and drift, in sheets and lines, would ultimately have covered the country to a great thickness, with lines of drift probably deposited in various directions at the bottom by the larger streams. As the climate became warmer, the lower beds of frozen snow would have melted with extreme slowness, and the many irregular beds of interstratified drift would have sunk down with equal slowness; and during this movement the elongated pebbles would have arranged themselves more or less vertically. The drift would also have been deposited almost irrespective of the outline of the underlying land. When I viewed the country I could not persuade myself that any flood, however great, could have deposited such coarse gravel over the almost level platforms between the valleys. My view differs from that of Holst, page 415 ['Great Ice Age'], of which I had never heard, as his relates to channels cut through glaciers, and mine to beds of drift interstratified with frozen snow where no glaciers existed. The upshot of this long letter is to ask you to keep my notion in your head, and look out for upright pebbles in any lowland country which you may examine, where glaciers have not existed. Or if you think the notion deserves any further thought, but not otherwise, to tell any one of it, for instance Mr. Skertchly, who is examining such districts. Pray forgive me for writing so long a letter, and again thanking you for the great pleasure derived from your book, I remain yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. P.S.... I am glad that you have read Blytt (Axel Blytt.--'Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora during alternate rainy and dry Seasons.' Christiania, 1876.); his paper seemed to me a most important contribution to Botanical Geography. How curious that the same conclusions should have been arrived at by Mr. Skertchly, who seems to be a first-rate observer; and this implies, as I always think, a sound theoriser. I have told my publisher to send you in two or three days a copy (second edition) of my geological work during the voyage of the "Beagle". The sole point which would perhaps interest you is about the steppe-like plains of Patagonia. For many years past I have had fearful misgivings that it must have been the level of the sea, and not that of the land which has changed. I read a few months ago your [brother's] very interesting life of Murchison. (By Mr. Archibald Geikie.) Though I have always thought that he ranked next to W. Smith in the classification of formations, and though I knew how kind-hearted [he was], yet the book has raised him greatly in my respect, notwithstanding his foibles and want of broad philosophical views. [The only other geological work of his later years was embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This subject was one which had interested him many years before this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould was published in the Proceedings of the Geological Society (see volume i.). Here he showed that "fragments of burnt marl, cinders, etc., which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer." For the explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of the geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing earth to the surface in their castings, must undermine any objects lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking. In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this burying action, and devised a number of different ways of checking his estimates as to the amount of work done. (He received much valuable help from Dr. King, of the Botanical Gardens, Calcutta. The following passage is from a letter to Dr. King, dated January 18, 1873:-- "I really do not know how to thank you enough for the immense trouble which you have taken. You have attended EXACTLY and FULLY to the points about which I was most anxious. If I had been each evening by your side, I could not have suggested anything else.") He also added a mass of observations on the habits, natural history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which added greatly to its popularity. In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times, and thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself the effects produced by earthworms' work on the old concrete-floors, walls, etc. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer: "I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last. I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms were by no means the sole charm." In the autumn of 1880, when the 'Power of Movement in Plants' was nearly finished, he began once more on the subject. He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21):-- "In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title will be (as at present designed) 'The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms.' (The full title is 'The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms with Observations on their Habits,' 1881.) As far as I can judge it will be a curious little book." The manuscript was sent to the printers in April, 1881, and when the proo-sheets were coming in he wrote to Professor Carus: "The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and I have perhaps treated it in foolish detail." It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold at once. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker, "I am glad that you approve of the 'Worms.' When in old days I used to tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I always felt as most men do when their work is finally published." To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8): "It has been a complete surprise to me how many persons have cared for the subject." And to Mr. Dyer (in November): "My book has been received with almost laughable enthusiasm, and 3500 copies have been sold!!!" Again, to his friend Mr. Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, "I have been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish and enthusiastic; but some containing good facts which I have used in correcting yesterday the 'Sixth Thousand.'" The popularity of the book may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three years following its publication, 8500 copies were sold--a sale relatively greater than that of the 'Origin of Species.' It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so familiar, and treated with unabated vigour and freshness, may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks: "In the eyes of most men... the earthworm is a mere blind, dumb, senseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. Mr. Darwin undertakes to rehabilitate his character, and the earthworm steps forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent personage, a worker of vast geological changes, a planer down of mountain sides... a friend of man... and an ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monuments." The "St. James Gazette", October 17, 1881, pointed out that the teaching of the cumulative importance of the infinitely little is the point of contact between this book and the author's previous work. One more book remains to be noticed, the 'Life of Erasmus Darwin.' In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the scientific work of Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolutionary journal, 'Kosmos.' The number of 'Kosmos' in question was a "Gratulationsheft" (The same number contains a good biographical sketch of my father, of which the material was to a large extent supplied by him to the writer, Professor Preyer of Jena. The article contains an excellent list of my father's publications.), or special congratulatory issue in honour of my father's birthday, so that Dr. Krause's essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish (The wish to do so was shared by his brother, Erasmus Darwin the younger, who continued to be associated with the project.) an English translation of the Essay. His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's life was "to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward." This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any documents and letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus. This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father's hands a quantity of valuable material, including a curious folio common-place book, of which he wrote: "I have been deeply interested by the great book,... reading and looking at it is like having communion with the dead...[it] has taught me a good deal about the occupations and tastes of our grandfather." A subsequent letter (April 8) to the same correspondent describes the source of a further supply of material:-- Since my last letter I have made a strange discovery; for an old box from my father marked "Old Deeds," and which consequently I had never opened, I found full of letters--hundreds from Dr. Erasmus--and others from old members of the Family: some few very curious. Also a drawing of Elston before it was altered, about 1750, of which I think I will give a copy." Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the 'Life of Erasmus Darwin,' my father supplying a "preliminary notice." This expression on the title-page is somewhat misleading; my father's contribution is more than half the book, and should have been described as a biography. Work of this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. Thiselton Dyer, June 18th: "God only knows what I shall make of his life, it is such a new kind of work to me." The strong interest he felt about his forebears helped to give zest to the work, which became a decided enjoyment to him. With the general public the book was not markedly successful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J.D. Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote, "Your praise of the Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceedingly, for I despised my work, and thought myself a perfect fool to have undertaken such a job." To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14:-- "I am EXTREMELY glad that you approve of the little 'Life' of our grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether." The publication of the 'Life of Erasmus Darwin' led to an attack by Mr. Samuel Butler, which amounted to a charge of falsehood against my father. After consulting his friends, he came to the determination to leave the charge unanswered, as unworthy of his notice. (He had, in a letter to Mr. Butler, expressed his regret at the oversight which caused so much offence.) Those who wish to know more of the matter, may gather the facts of the case from Ernst Krause's 'Charles Darwin,' and they will find Mr. Butler's statement of his grievance in the "Athenaeum", January 31, 1880, and in the "St. James's Gazette", December 8, 1880. The affair gave my father much pain, but the warm sympathy of those whose opinion he respected soon helped him to let it pass into a well-merited oblivion. The following letter refers to M. J.H. Fabre's 'Souvenirs Entomologiques.' It may find a place here, as it contains a defence of Erasmus Darwin on a small point. The postscript is interesting, as an example of one of my father's bold ideas both as to experiment and theory:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.H. FABRE. Down, January 31, 1880. My dear Sir, I hope that you will permit me to have the satisfaction of thanking you cordially for the lively pleasure which I have derived from reading your book. Never have the wonderful habits of insects been more vividly described, and it is almost as good to read about them as to see them. I feel sure that you would not be unjust to even an insect, much less to a man. Now, you have been misled by some translator, for my grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, states ('Zoonomia,' volume i. page 183, 1794) that it was a wasp (guepe) which he saw cutting off the wings of a large fly. I have no doubt that you are right in saying that the wings are generally cut off instinctively; but in the case described by my grandfather, the wasp, after cutting off the two ends of the body, rose in the air, and was turned round by the wind; he then alighted and cut off the wings. I must believe, with Pierre Huber, that insects have "une petite dose de raison." In the next edition of your book, I hope that you will alter PART of what you say about my grandfather. I am sorry that you are so strongly opposed to the Descent theory; I have found the searching for the history of each structure or instinct an excellent aid to observation; and wonderful observer as you are, it would suggest new points to you. If I were to write on the evolution of instincts, I could make good use of some of the facts which you give. Permit me to add, that when I read the last sentence in your book, I sympathised deeply with you. (The book is intended as a memorial of the early death of M. Fabre's son, who had been his father's assistant in his observations on insect life.) With the most sincere respect, I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--Allow me to make a suggestion in relation to your wonderful account of insects finding their way home. I formerly wished to try it with pigeons: namely, to carry the insects in their paper "cornets," about a hundred paces in the opposite direction to that which you ultimately intended to carry them; but before turning round to return, to put the insect in a circular box, with an axle which could be made to revolve very rapidly, first in one direction, and then in another, so as to destroy for a time all sense of direction in the insects. I have sometimes IMAGINED that animals may feel in which direction they were at the first start carried. (This idea was a favourite one with him, and he has described in 'Nature' (volume vii. 1873, page 360) the behaviour of his cob Tommy, in whom he fancied he detected a sense of direction. The horse had been taken by rail from Kent to the Isle of Wight; when there he exhibited a marked desire to go eastward, even when his stable lay in the opposite direction. In the same volume of 'Nature,' page 417, is a letter on the 'Origin of Certain Instincts,' which contains a short discussion on the sense of direction.) If this plan failed, I had intended placing the pigeons within an induction coil, so as to disturb any magnetic or dia-magnetic sensibility, which it seems just possible that they may possess. C.D. [During the latter years of my father's life there was a growing tendency in the public to do him honour. In 1877 he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the University of Cambridge. The degree was conferred on November 17, and with the customary Latin speech from the Public Orator, concluding with the words: "Tu vero, qui leges naturae tam docte illustraveris, legum doctor nobis esto." The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot in the University to obtain some permanent memorial of my father. A sum of about 400 pounds was subscribed, and after the rejection of the idea that a bust would be the best memorial, a picture was determined on. In June 1879 he sat to Mr. W. Richmond for the portrait in the possession of the University, now placed in the Library of the philosophical Society at Cambridge. He is represented seated in his Doctor's gown, the head turned towards the spectator: the picture has many admirers, but, according to my own view, neither the attitude nor the expression are characteristic of my father. A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society-- with which my father was so closely associated--led to his sitting in August, 1881, to Mr. John Collier, for the portrait now in the possession of the Society. Of the artist, he wrote, "Collier was the most considerate, kind and pleasant painter a sitter could desire." The portrait represents him standing facing the observer in the loose cloak so familiar to those who knew him, and with his slouch hat in his hand. Many of those who knew his face most intimately, think that Mr. Collier's picture is the best of the portraits, and in this judgment the sitter himself was inclined to agree. According to my feeling it is not so simple or strong a representation of him as that given by Mr. Ouless. There is a certain expression in Mr. Collier's portrait which I am inclined to consider an exaggeration of the almost painful expression which Professor Cohn has described in my father's face, and which he had previously noticed in Humboldt. Professor Cohn's remarks occur in a pleasantly written account of a visit to Down in 1876, published in the "Breslauer Zeitung", April 23, 1882. (In this connection may be mentioned a visit (1881) from another distinguished German, Hans Richter. The occurrence is otherwise worthy of mention, inasmuch as it led to the publication, after my father's death, of Herr Richter's recollections of the visit. The sketch is simply and sympathetically written, and the author has succeeded in giving a true picture of my father as he lived at Down. It appeared in the "Neue Tagblatt" of Vienna, and was republished by Dr. O. Zacharias in his 'Charles R. Darwin,' Berlin, 1882.) Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same time honours of an academic kind from some foreign societies. On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding Member of the French Institute ("Lyell always spoke of it as a great scandal that Darwin was so long kept out of the French Institute. As he said, even if the development hypothesis were objected to, Darwin's original works on Coral Reefs, the Cirripedia, and other subjects, constituted a more than sufficient claim"--From Professor Judd's notes.), in the Botanical Section, and wrote to Dr. Asa Gray:-- "I see that we are both elected Corresponding Members of the Institute. It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one." (The statement has been more than once published that he was elected to the Zoological Section, but this was not the case. He received twenty-six votes out of a possible 39, five blank papers were sent in, and eight votes were recorded for the other candidates. In 1872 an attempt had been made to elect him to the Section of Zoology, when, however, he only received 15 out of 48 votes, and Loven was chosen for the vacant place. It appears ('Nature,' August 1, 1872) that an eminent member of the Academy wrote to "Les Mondes" to the following effect:-- "What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame-the 'Origin of Species,' and still more the 'Descent of Man,' is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.") In the early part of the same year he was elected a Corresponding Member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and he wrote (March 12) to Professor Du Bois Reymond, who had proposed him for election:-- "I thank you sincerely for your most kind letter, in which you announce the great honour conferred on me. The knowledge of the names of the illustrious men, who seconded the proposal is even a greater pleasure to me than the honour itself." The seconders were Helmholtz, Peters, Ewald, Pringsheim and Virchow. In 1879 he received the Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physicians. (The visit to London, necessitated by the presentation of the Baly Medal, was combined with a visit to Miss Forster's house at Abinger, in Surrey, and this was the occasion of the following characteristic letter:--"I must write a few words to thank you cordially for lending us your house. It was a most kind thought, and has pleased me greatly; but I know well that I do not deserve such kindness from any one. On the other hand, no one can be too kind to my dear wife, who is worth her weight in gold many times over, and she was anxious that I should get some complete rest, and here I cannot rest. Your house will be a delightful haven and again I thank you truly.") Again in 1879 he received from the Royal Academy of Turin the "Bressa" prize for the years 1875-78, amounting to the sum of 12,000 francs. In the following year he received on his birthday, as on previous occasions, a kind letter of congratulation from Dr. Dohrn of Naples. In writing (February 15th) to thank him and the other naturalists at the Zoological Station, my father added:-- "Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society honoured me to an extraordinary degree by awarding me the "Bressa" Prize. Now it occurred to me that if your station wanted some pieces of apparatus, of about the value of 100 pounds, I should very much like to be allowed to pay for it. Will you be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want should occur to you, I would send you a cheque at any time." I find from my father's accounts that 100 pounds was presented to the Naples Station. He received also several tokens of respect and sympathy of a more private character from various sources. With regard to such incidents and to the estimation of the public generally, his attitude may be illustrated by a passage from a letter to Mr. Romanes:--(The lecture referred to was given at the Dublin meeting of the British association.) "You have indeed passed a most magnificent eulogium upon me, and I wonder that you were not afraid of hearing 'oh! oh!' or some other sign of disapprobation. Many persons think that what I have done in science has been much overrated, and I very often think so myself; but my comfort is that I have never consciously done anything to gain applause. Enough and too much about my dear self." Among such expressions of regard he valued very highly the two photographic albums received from Germany and Holland on his birthday, 1877. Herr Emil Rade of Munster, originated the idea of the German birthday gift, and undertook the necessary arrangements. To him my father wrote (February 16, 1877):-- "I hope that you will inform the one hundred and fifty-four men of science, including some of the most highly honoured names in the world, how grateful I am for their kindness and generous sympathy in having sent me their photographs on my birthday." To Professor Haeckel he wrote (February 16, 1877):-- The album has just arrived quite safe. It is most superb. (The album is magnificently bound and decorated with a beautifully illuminated title page, the work of an artist, Herr A. Fitger of Bremen, who also contributed the dedicatory poem.) It is by far the greatest honour which I have ever received, and my satisfaction has been greatly enhanced by your most kind letter of February 9... I thank you all from my heart. I have written by this post to Herr Rade, and I hope he will somehow manage to thank all my generous friends." To Professor A. van Bemmelen he wrote, on receiving a similar present from a number of distinguished men and lovers of Natural History in the Netherlands:-- "Sir, I received yesterday the magnificent present of the album, together with your letter. I hope that you will endeavour to find some means to express to the two hundred and seventeen distinguished observers and lovers of natural science, who have sent me their photographs, my gratitude for their extreme kindness. I feel deeply gratified by this gift, and I do not think that any testimonial more honourable to me could have been imagined. I am well aware that my books could never have been written, and would not have made any impression on the public mind, had not an immense amount of material been collected by a long series of admirable observers; and it is to them that honour is chiefly due. I suppose that every worker at science occasionally feels depressed, and doubts whether what he has published has been worth the labour which it has cost him, but for the few remaining years of my life, whenever I want cheering, I will look at the portraits of my distinguished co-workers in the field of science, and remember their generous sympathy. When I die, the album will be a most precious bequest to my children. I must further express my obligation for the very interesting history contained in your letter of the progress of opinion in the Netherlands, with respect to Evolution, the whole of which is quite new to me. I must again thank all my kind friends, from my heart, for their ever-memorable testimonial, and I remain, Sir, Your obliged and grateful servant, CHARLES R. DARWIN." [In the June of the following year (1878) he was gratified by learning that the Emperor of Brazil had expressed a wish to meet him. Owing to absence from home my father was unable to comply with this wish; he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "The Emperor has done so much for science, that every scientific man is bound to show him the utmost respect, and I hope that you will express in the strongest language, and which you can do with entire truth, how greatly I feel honoured by his wish to see me; and how much I regret my absence from home." Finally it should be mentioned that in 1880 he received an address personally presented by members of the Council of the Birmingham Philosophical Society, as well as a memorial from the Yorkshire Naturalist Union presented by some of the members, headed by Dr. Sorby. He also received in the same year a visit from some of the members of the Lewisham and Blackheath Scientific Association,--a visit which was, I think, enjoyed by both guests and host.] MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS--1876-1882. [The chief incident of a personal kind (not already dealt with) in the years which we are now considering was the death of his brother Erasmus, who died at his house in Queen Anne Street, on August 26th, 1881. My father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (August 30):-- "The death of Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us, for he had a most affectionate disposition. He always appeared to me the most pleasant and clearest headed man, whom I have ever known. London will seem a strange place to me without his presence; I am deeply glad that he died without any great suffering, after a very short illness from mere weakness and not from any definite disease. ("He was not, I think, a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never complaining."--From a letter to Sir Thomas Farrer.) "I cannot quite agree with you about the death of the old and young. Death in the latter case, when there is a bright future ahead, causes grief never to be wholly obliterated." An incident of a happy character may also be selected for especial notice, since it was one which strongly moved my father's sympathy. A letter (December 17, 1879) to Sir Joseph Hooker shows that the possibility of a Government Pension being conferred on Mr. Wallace first occurred to my father at this time. The idea was taken up by others, and my father's letters show that he felt the most lively interest in the success of the plan. He wrote, for instance, to Mrs. Fisher, "I hardly ever wished for anything more than I do for the success of our plan." He was deeply pleased when this thoroughly deserved honour was bestowed on his friend, and wrote to the same correspondent (January 7, 1881), on receiving a letter from Mr. Gladstone announcing the fact: "How extraordinarily kind of Mr. Gladstone to find time to write under the present circumstances. (Mr. Gladstone was then in office, and the letter must have been written when he was overwhelmed with business connected with the opening of Parliament (January 6). Good heavens! how pleased I am!" The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous character and refer principally to the books he read, and to his minor writings.] CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS BUCKLEY (MRS. FISHER). Down, February 11 [1876]. My dear Miss Buckley, You must let me have the pleasure of saying that I have just finished reading with very great interest your new book. ('A Short History of Natural Science.') The idea seems to me a capital one, and as far as I can judge very well carried out. There is much fascination in taking a bird's eye view of all the grand leading steps in the progress of science. At first I regretted that you had not kept each science more separate; but I dare say you found it impossible. I have hardly any criticisms, except that I think you ought to have introduced Murchison as a great classifier of formations, second only to W. Smith. You have done full justice, and not more than justice, to our dear old master, Lyell. Perhaps a little more ought to have been said about botany, and if you should ever add this, you would find Sachs' 'History,' lately published, very good for your purpose. You have crowned Wallace and myself with much honour and glory. I heartily congratulate you on having produced so novel and interesting a work, and remain, My dear Miss Buckley, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. [Hopedene] (Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey.), June 5, 1876. My dear Wallace, I must have the pleasure of expressing to you my unbounded admiration of your book ('Geographical Distribution,' 1876.), though I have read only to page 184--my object having been to do as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plants treated in strict relation to your views; and then all insects, pulmonate molluscs and fresh-water fishes, in greater detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals. The point which has interested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point, is your protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and [Andrew] Murray! By the way, the main impression that the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the above view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will succeed, owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart. Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that we must determine the areas, chiefly by the nature of the mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject, I doubted much whether the now called Palaearctic and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and I determined if I made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have, therefore, been able to appreciate your evidence on these points. What progress Palaeontology has made during the last 20 years; but if it advances at the same rate in the future, our views on the migration and birth-place of the various groups will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel quite easy about the Glacial period, and the extinction of large mammals, but I must hope that you are right. I think you will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal of land molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentize on the just hatched young adhering to the feet of groun-roosting birds. I differ on one other point, viz. in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the southern extremities of our present continents. But I could go on scribbling forever. You have written, as I believe, a grand and memorable work which will last for years as the foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution. My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment, by what you say of your work in relation to my chapters on distribution in the 'Origin,' and I heartily thank you for it. [The following letters illustrate my father's power of taking a vivid interest in work bearing on Evolution, but unconnected with his own special researches at the time. The books referred to in the first letter are Professor Weismann's 'Studien zur Descendenzlehre' (My father contributed a prefatory note to Mr. Meldola's translation of Prof. Weismann's 'Studien,' 1880-81.), being part of the series of essays by which the author has done such admirable service to the cause of evolution:] CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN. January 12, 1877. ... I read German so slowly, and have had lately to read several other papers, so that I have as yet finished only half of your first essay and two-thirds of your second. They have excited my interest and admiration in the highest degree, and whichever I think of last, seems to me the most valuable. I never expected to see the coloured marks on caterpillars so well explained; and the case of the ocelli delights me especially... ... There is one other subject which has always seemed to me more difficult to explain than even the colours of caterpillars, and that is the colour of birds' eggs, and I wish you would take this up. CHARLES DARWIN TO MELCHIOR NEUMAYR (Professor of Palaeontology at Vienna.), VIENNA. Down, Beckenham, Kent, March 9, 1877. Dear Sir, From having been obliged to read other books, I finished only yesterday your essay on 'Die Congerien,' etc. ('Die Congerien und Paludinenschichten Slavoneins.' 4to, 1875.) I hope that you will allow me to express my gratitude for the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from reading it. It seems to me to be an admirable work; and is by far the best case which I have ever met with, showing the direct influence of the conditions of life on the organization. Mr. Hyatt, who has been studying the Hilgendorf case, writes to me with respect to the conclusions at which he has arrived, and these are nearly the same as yours. He insists that closely similar forms may be derived from distinct lines of descent; and this is what I formerly called analogical variation. There can now be no doubt that species may become greatly modified through the direct action of the environment. I have some excuse for not having formerly insisted more strongly on this head in my 'Origin of Species,' as most of the best facts have been observed since its publication. With my renewed thanks for your most interesting essay, and with the highest respect, I remain, dear Sir, Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO E.S. MORSE. Down, April 23, 1877. My dear Sir, You must allow me just to tell you how very much I have been interested with the excellent Address ("What American Zoologists have done for Evolution," an Address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, August, 1876. Volume xxv. of the Proceedings of the Association.) which you have been so kind as to send me, and which I had much wished to read. I believe that I had read all, or very nearly all, the papers by your countrymen to which you refer, but I have been fairly astonished at their number and importance when seeing them thus put together. I quite agree about the high value of Mr. Allen's works (Mr. J.A. Allen shows the existence of geographical races of birds and mammals. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. volume xv.), as showing how much change may be expected apparently through the direct action of the conditions of life. As for the fossil remains in the West, no words will express how wonderful they are. There is one point which I regret that you did not make clear in your Address, namely what is the meaning and importance of Professors Cope and Hyatt's views on acceleration and retardation. I have endeavoured, and given up in despair, the attempt to grasp their meaning. Permit me to thank you cordially for the kind feeling shown towards me through your Address, and I remain, my dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The next letter refers to his 'Biographical Sketch of an Infant,' written from notes made 37 years previously, and published in 'Mind,' July, 1877. The article attracted a good deal of attention, and was translated at the time in 'Kosmos,' and the 'Revue Scientifique,' and has been recently published in Dr. Krause's 'Gesammelte kleinere SchrifteN von Charles Darwin,' 1887:] CHARLES DARWIN TO G. CROOM ROBERTSON. (The editor of 'Mind.') Down, April 27, 1877. Dear Sir, I hope that you will be so good as to take the trouble to read the enclosed MS., and if you think it fit for publication in your admirable journal of 'Mind,' I shall be gratified. If you do not think it fit, as is very likely, will you please to return it to me. I hope that you will read it in an extra critical spirit, as I cannot judge whether it is worth publishing from having been so much interested in watching the dawn of the several faculties in my own infant. I may add that I should never have thought of sending you the MS., had not M. Taine's article appeared in your Journal. (1877, page 252. The original appeared in the 'Revue Philosophique' 1876.) If my MS. is printed, I think that I had better see a proof. I remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The two following extracts show the lively interest he preserved in diverse fields of enquiry. Professor Cohn of Breslau had mentioned, in a letter, Koch's researches on Splenic Fever, my father replied, January 3:-- "I well remember saying to myself, between twenty and thirty years ago, that if ever the origin of any infectious disease could be proved, it would be the greatest triumph to science; and now I rejoice to have seen the triumph." In the spring he received a copy of Dr. E. von Mojsisovics' 'Dolomit Riffe,' his letter to the author (June 1, 1878) is interesting as bearing on the influence of his own work on the methods of geology. "I have at last found time to read the first chapter of your 'Dolomit Riffe,' and have been EXCEEDINGLY interested by it. What a wonderful change in the future of Geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the descent theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to live to see such a step even proposed by any one." Another geological research which roused my father's admiration was Mr. D. Mackintosh's work on erratic blocks. Apart from its intrinsic merit the work keenly excited his sympathy from the conditions under which it was executed, Mr. Mackintosh being compelled to give nearly his whole time to tuition. The following passage is from a letter to Mr. Mackintosh of October 9, 1879, and refers to his paper in the Journal of the Geological Society, 1878:-- "I hope that you will allow me to have the pleasure of thanking you for the very great pleasure which I have derived from just reading your paper on erratic blocks. The map is wonderful, and what labour each of those lines show! I have thought for some years that the agency of floating ice, which nearly half a century ago was overrated, has of late been underrated. You are the sole man who has ever noticed the distinction suggested by me (In his paper on the 'Ancient Glaciers of Carnarvonshire,' Phil. Mag. xxi. 1842.) between flat or planed scored rocks, and mammillated scored rocks."] CHARLES DARWIN TO C. RIDLEY. Down, November 28, 1878. Dear Sir, I just skimmed through Dr. Pusey's sermon, as published in the "Guardian", but it did [not] seem to me worthy of any attention. As I have never answered criticisms excepting those made by scientific men, I am not willing that this letter should be published; but I have no objection to your saying that you sent me the three questions, and that I answered that Dr. Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I wrote the 'Origin' with any relation whatever to Theology. I should have thought that this would have been evident to any one who had taken the trouble to read the book, more especially as in the opening lines of the introduction I specify how the subject arose in my mind. This answer disposes of your two other questions; but I may add that many years ago, when I was collecting facts for the 'Origin,' my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself, and as to the eternity of matter I have never troubled myself about such insoluble questions. Dr. Pusey's attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in Evolution, as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty years ago against Geology, and the still older ones of the Catholic Church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough always to follow Scientific men when they agree on any subject; and now there is almost complete unanimity amongst Biologists about Evolution, though there is still considerable difference as to the means, such as how far natural selection has acted, and how far external conditions, or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to perfectability. I remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [Theologians were not the only adversaries of freedom in science. On September 22, 1877, Prof. Virchow delivered an address at the Munich meeting of German Naturalists and Physicians, which had the effect of connecting Socialism with the Descent theory. This point of view was taken up by anti-evolutionists to such an extent that, according to Haeckel, the "Kreuz Zeitung" threw "all the blame of" the "treasonable attempts of the democrats Hodel and Nobiling... directly on the theory of Descent." Prof. Haeckel replied with vigour and ability in his 'Freedom in Science and Teaching' (English Translation 1879), an essay which must have the sympathy of all lovers of freedom. The following passage from a letter (December 26, 1879) to Dr. Scherzer, the author of the 'Voyage of the "Novara",' gives a hint of my father's views on this once burning question:-- "What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany on the connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural Selection."] CHARLES DARWIN TO H.N. MOSELEY. (Professor of Zoology at Oxford. The book alluded to is Prof. Moseley's 'Notes by a Naturalist on the "Challenger".') Down, January 20, 1879. Dear Moseley, I have just received your book, and I declare that never in my life have I seen a dedication which I admired so much. ("To Charles Darwin, Esquire, LL.D., F.R.S., etc., from the study of whose 'Journal of Researches' I mainly derived my desire to travel round the world; to the development of whose theory I owe the principal pleasures and interests of my life, and who has personally given me much kindly encouragement in the prosecution of my studies, this book is, by permission, gratefully dedicated.") Of course I am not a fair judge, but I hope that I speak dispassionately, though you have touched me in my very tenderest point, by saying that my old Journal mainly gave you the wish to travel as a Naturalist. I shall begin to read your book this very evening, and am sure that I shall enjoy it much. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, February 4, 1879. Dear Moseley, I have at last read every word of your book, and it has excited in me greater interest than any other scientific book which I have read for a long time. You will perhaps be surprised how slow I have been, but my head prevents me reading except at intervals. If I were asked which parts have interested me most, I should be somewhat puzzled to answer. I fancy that the general reader would prefer your account of Japan. For myself I hesitate between your discussions and description of the Southern ice, which seems to me admirable, and the last chapter which contained many facts and views new to me, though I had read your papers on the stony Hydroid Corals, yet your resume made me realise better than I had done before, what a most curious case it is. You have also collected a surprising number of valuable facts bearing on the dispersal of plants, far more than in any other book known to me. In fact your volume is a mass of interesting facts and discussions, with hardly a superfluous word; and I heartily congratulate you on its publication. Your dedication makes me prouder than ever. Believe me, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [In November, 1879, he answered for Mr. Galton a series of questions utilised in his 'Inquiries into Human Faculty,' 1883. He wrote to Mr. Galton:-- "I have answered the questions as well as I could, but they are miserably answered, for I have never tried looking into my own mind. Unless others answer very much better than I can do, you will get no good from your queries. Do you not think you ought to have the age of the answerer? I think so, because I can call up faces of many schoolboys, not seen for sixty years, with MUCH DISTINCTNESS, but nowadays I may talk with a man for an hour, and see him several times consecutively, and, after a month, I am utterly unable to recollect what he is at all like. The picture is quite washed out. The greater number of the answers are given in the annexed table."] QUESTIONS ON THE FACULTY OF VISUALISING. 1. ILLUMINATION? Moderate, but my solitary breakfast was early, and the morning dark. 2. DEFINITION? Some objects quite defined, a slice of cold beef, some grapes and a pear, the state of my plate when I had finished, and a few other objects, are as distinct as if I had photo's before me. 3. COMPLETENESS? Very moderately so. 4. COLOURING? The objects above named perfectly coloured. 5. EXTENT OF FIELD OF VIEW? Rather small. DIFFERENT KINDS OF IMAGERY. 6. PRINTED PAGES. I cannot remember a single sentence, but I remember the place of the sentence and the kind of type. 7. FURNITURE? I have never attended to it. 8. PERSONS? I remember the faces of persons formerly well-known vividly, and can make them do anything I like. 9. SCENERY? Remembrance vivid and distinct, and gives me pleasure. 10. GEOGRAPHY? No. 11. MILITARY MOVEMENTS? No. 12. MECHANISM? Never tried. 13. GEOMETRY? I do not think I have any power of the kind. 14. NUMERALS? When I think of any number, printed figures arise before my mind. I can't remember for an hour four consecutive figures. 15. CARD PLAYING? Have not played for many years, but I am sure should not remember. 16. CHESS? Never played. [In 1880 he published a short paper in 'Nature' (volume xxi. page 207) on the "Fertility of Hybrids from the common and Chinese goose." He received the hybrids from the Rev. Dr. Goodacre, and was glad of the opportunity of testing the accuracy of the statement that these species are fertile inter se. This fact, which was given in the 'Origin' on the authority of Mr. Eyton, he considered the most remarkable as yet recorded with respect to the fertility of hybrids. The fact (as confirmed by himself and Dr. Goodacre) is of interest as giving another proof that sterility is no criterion of specific difference, since the two species of goose now shown to be fertile inter se are so distinct that they have been placed by some authorities in distinct genera or sub-genera. The following letter refers to Mr. Huxley's lecture: "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species" (This same "Coming of Age" was the subject of an address from the Council of the Otago Institute. It is given in 'Nature,' February 24, 1881.), given at the Royal Institution, April 9, 1880, published in 'Nature,' and in 'Science and Culture,' page 310:] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Abinger Hall, Dorking, Sunday, April 11, 1880. My dear Huxley, I wished much to attend your Lecture, but I have had a bad cough, and we have come here to see whether a change would do me good, as it has done. What a magnificent success your lecture seems to have been, as I judge from the reports in the "Standard" and "Daily News", and more especially from the accounts given me by three of my children. I suppose that you have not written out your lecture, so I fear there is no chance of its being printed in extenso. You appear to have piled, as on so many other occasions, honours high and thick on my old head. But I well know how great a part you have played in establishing and spreading the belief in the descen-theory, ever since that grand review in the "Times" and the battle royal at Oxford up to the present day. Ever my dear Huxley, Yours sincerely and gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the announcement of your Lecture, and thought that you meant the maturity of the subject, until my wife one day remarked, "it is almost twenty-one years since the 'Origin' appeared," and then for the first time the meaning of your words flashed on me! [In the above-mentioned lecture Mr. Huxley made a strong point of the accumulation of palaeontological evidence which the years between 1859 and 1880 have given us in favour of Evolution. On this subject my father wrote (August 31, 1880):] My dear Professor Marsh, I received some time ago your very kind note of July 28th, and yesterday the magnificent volume. (Odontornithes. A Monograph on the extinct Toothed Birds of North America. 1880. By O.C. Marsh.) I have looked with renewed admiration at the plates, and will soon read the text. Your work on these old birds, and on the many fossil animals of North America has afforded the best support to the theory of Evolution, which has appeared within the last twenty years. (Mr. Huxley has well pointed out ('Science and Culture,' page 317) that: "In 1875, the discovery of the toothed birds of the cretaceous formation in North America, by Prof. Marsh, completed the series of transitional forms between birds and reptiles, and removed Mr. Darwin's proposition that, 'many animal forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes,' from the region of hypothesis to that of demonstrable fact.") The general appearance of the copy which you have sent me is worthy of its contents, and I can say nothing stronger than this. With cordial thanks, believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [In November, 1880, he received an account of a flood in Brazil, from which his friend Fritz Muller had barely escaped with his life. My father immediately wrote to Hermann Muller anxiously enquiring whether his brother had lost books, instruments, etc., by this accident, and begging in that case "for the sake of science, so that science should not suffer," to be allowed to help in making good the loss. Fortunately, however, the injury to Fritz Muller's possessions was not so great as was expected, and the incident remains only as a memento, which I trust cannot be otherwise than pleasing to the survivor, of the friendship of the two naturalists. In 'Nature' (November 11, 1880) appeared a letter from my father, which is, I believe, the only instance in which he wrote publicly with anything like severity. The late Sir Wyville Thomson wrote, in the Introduction to the 'Voyage of the "Challenger"': "The character of the abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by natural selection." My father, after characterising these remarks as a "standard of criticism, not uncommonly reached by theologians and metaphysicians," goes on to take exception to the term "extreme variation," and challenges Sir Wyville to name any one who has "said that the evolution of species depends only on natural selection." The letter closes with an imaginary scene between Sir Wyville and a breeder, in which Sir Wyville criticises artificial selection in a somewhat similar manner. The breeder is silent, but on the departure of his critic he is supposed to make use of "emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists." The letter, as originally written, ended with a quotation from Sedgwick on the invulnerability of those who write on what they do not understand, but this was omitted on the advice of a friend, and curiously enough a friend whose combativeness in the good cause my father had occasionally curbed.] CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 16, 1881. My dear Romanes, My MS. on 'Worms' has been sent to the printers, so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling to you on a few points; but you must not waste your time in answering at any length this scribble. Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful to me and I tor up and re-wrote what I sent to you. I have not attempted to define intelligence; but have quoted your remarks on experience, and have shown how far they apply to worms. It seems to me that they must be said to work with some intelligence, anyhow they are not guided by a blind instinct. Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract in 'Nature' of your work on Echinoderms ("On the locomotor system of Echinoderms," by G.J. Romanes and J. Cossar Ewart. 'Philosophical Transactions,' 1881, page 829.), the complexity with simplicity, and with such curious co-ordination of the nervous system is marvellous; and you showed me before what splendid gymnastic feats they can perform. Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just published by him: 'Der Kampf der Theile,' etc., 1881 (240 pages in length). He is manifestly a well-read physiologist and pathologist, and from his position a good anatomist. It is full of reasoning, and this in German is very difficult to me, so that I have only skimmed through each page; here and there reading with a little more care. As far as I can imperfectly judge, it is the most important book on Evolution, which has appeared for some time. I believe that G.H. Lewes hinted at the same fundamental idea, viz. that there is a struggle going on within every organism between the organic molecules, the cells and the organs. I think that his basis is, that every cell which best performs its function is, in consequence, at the same time best nourished and best propagates its kind. The book does not touch on mental phenomena, but there is much discussion on rudimentary or atrophied parts, to which subject you formerly attended. Now if you would like to read this book, I would sent it... If you read it, and are struck with it (but I may be WHOLLY mistaken about its value), you would do a public service by analysing and criticising it in 'Nature.' Dr. Roux makes, I think, a gigantic oversight in never considering plants; these would simplify the problem for him. Fourthly, I do not know whether you will discuss in your book on the mind of animals any of the more complex and wonderful instincts. It is unsatisfactory work, as there can be no fossilised instincts, and the sole guide is their state in other members of the same order, and mere PROBABILITY. But if you do discuss any (and it will perhaps be expected of you), I should think that you could not select a better case than that of the sand wasps, which paralyse their prey, as formerly described by Fabre, in his wonderful paper in the 'Annales des Sciences,' and since amplified in his admirable 'Souvenirs.' Whilst reading this latter book, I speculated a little on the subject. Astonishing nonsense is often spoken of the sand wasp's knowledge of anatomy. Now will any one say that the Gauchos on the plains of La Plata have such knowledge, yet I have often seen them pith a struggling and lassoed cow on the ground with unerring skill, which no mere anatomist could imitate. The pointed knife was infallibly driven in between the vertebrae by a single slight thrust. I presume that the art was first discovered by chance, and that each young Gaucho sees exactly how the others do it, and then with a very little practice learns the art. Now I suppose that the sand wasps originally merely killed their prey by stinging them in many places (see page 129 of Fabre's 'Souvenirs,' and page 241) on the lower and softest side of the body--and that to sting a certain segment was found by far the most successful method; and was inherited like the tendency of a bulldog to pin the nose of a bull, or of a ferret to bite the cerebellum. It would not be a very great step in advance to prick the ganglion of its prey only slightly, and thus to give its larvae fresh meat instead of old dried meat. Though Fabre insists so strongly on the unvarying character of instinct, yet it is shown that there is some variability, as at pages 176, 177. I fear that I shall have utterly wearied you with my scribbling and bad handwriting. My dear Romanes, yours, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. POSTSCRIPT OF A LETTER TO PROFESSOR A. AGASSIZ, MAY 5TH, 1881:-- I read with much interest your address before the American Association. However true your remarks on the genealogies of the several groups may be, I hope and believe that you have over-estimated the difficulties to be encountered in the future:--A few days after reading your address, I interpreted to myself your remarks on one point (I hope in some degree correctly) in the following fashion:-- Any character of an ancient, generalised, or intermediate form may, and often does, re-appear in its descendants, after countless generations, and this explains the extraordinarily complicated affinities of existing groups. This idea seems to me to throw a flood of light on the lines, sometimes used to represent affinities, which radiate in all directions, often to very distant sub-groups,--a difficulty which has haunted me for half a century. A strong case could be made out in favour of believing in such reversion after immense intervals of time. I wish the idea had been put into my head in old days, for I shall never again write on difficult subjects, as I have seen too many cases of old men becoming feeble in their minds, without being in the least conscious of it. If I have interpreted your ideas at all correctly, I hope that you will re-urge, on any fitting occasion, your view. I have mentioned it to a few persons capable of judging, and it seemed quite new to them. I beg you to forgive the proverbial garrulity of old age. C.D. [The following letter refers to Sir J.D. Hooker's Geographical address at the York Meeting (1881) of the British Association:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 6, 1881. My dear Hooker, For Heaven's sake never speak of boring me, as it would be the greatest pleasure to aid you in the slightest degree and your letter has interested me exceedingly. I will go through your points seriatim, but I have never attended much to the history of any subject, and my memory has become atrociously bad. It will therefore be a mere chance whether any of my remarks are of any use. Your idea, to show what travellers have done, seems to me a brilliant and just one, especially considering your audience. 1. I know nothing about Tournefort's works. 2. I believe that you are fully right in calling Humboldt the greatest scientific traveller who ever lived, I have lately read two or three volumes again. His Geology is funny stuff; but that merely means that he was not in advance of his age. I should say he was wonderful, more for his near approach to omniscience than for originality. Whether or not his position as a scientific man is as eminent as we think, you might truly call him the parent of a grand progeny of scientific travellers, who, taken together, have done much for science. 3. It seems to me quite just to give Lyell (and secondarily E. Forbes) a very prominent place. 4. Dana was, I believe, the first man who maintained the permanence of continents and the great oceans... When I read the 'Challenger's' conclusion that sediment from the land is not deposited at greater distances than 200 or 300 miles from the land, I was much strengthened in my old belief. Wallace seems to me to have argued the case excellently. Nevertheless, I would speak, if I were in your place, rather cautiously; for T. Mellard Reade has argued lately with some force against the view; but I cannot call to mind his arguments. If forced to express a judgment, I should abide by the view of approximate permanence since Cambrian days. 5. The extreme importance of the Arctic fossil-plants, is self-evident. Take the opportunity of groaning over [our] ignorance of the Lignite Plants of Kerguelen Land, or any Antarctic land. It might do good. 6. I cannot avoid feeling sceptical about the travelling of plants from the North EXCEPT DURING THE TERTIARY PERIOD. It may of course have been so and probably was so from one of the two poles at the earliest period, during Pre-Cambrian ages; but such speculations seem to me hardly scientific seeing how little we know of the old Floras. I will now jot down without any order a few miscellaneous remarks. I think you ought to allude to Alph. De Candolle's great book, for though it (like almost everything else) is washed out of my mind, yet I remember most distinctly thinking it a very valuable work. Anyhow, you might allude to his excellent account of the history of all cultivated plants. How shall you manage to allude to your New Zealand and Tierra del Fuego work? if you do not allude to them you will be scandalously unjust. The many Angiosperm plants in the Cretacean beds of the United States (and as far as I can judge the age of these beds has been fairly well made out) seems to me a fact of very great importance, so is their relation to the existing flora of the United States under an Evolutionary point of view. Have not some Australian extinct forms been lately found in Australia? or have I dreamed it? Again, the recent discovery of plants rather low down in our Silurian beds is very important. Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the APPARENTLY very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants. I have sometimes speculated whether there did not exist somewhere during long ages an extremely isolated continent, perhaps near the South Pole. Hence I was greatly interested by a view which Saporta propounded to me, a few years ago, at great length in MS. and which I fancy he has since published, as I urged him to do--viz., that as soon as flower-frequenting insects were developed, during the latter part of the secondary period, an enormous impulse was given to the development of the higher plants by cross-fertilization being thus suddenly formed. A few years ago I was much struck with Axel Blytt's Essay showing from observation, on the peat beds in Scandinavia, that there had apparently been long periods with more rain and other with less rain (perhaps connected with Croll's recurrent astronomical periods), and that these periods had largely determined the present distribution of the plants of Norway and Sweden. This seemed to me, a very important essay. I have just read over my remarks and I fear that they will not be of the slightest use to you. I cannot but think that you have got through the hardest, or at least the most difficult, part of your work in having made so good and striking a sketch of what you intend to say; but I can quite understand how you must groan over the great necessary labour. I most heartily sympathise with you on the successes of B. and R.: as years advance what happens to oneself becomes of very little consequence, in comparison with the careers of our children. Keep your spirits up, for I am convinced that you will make an excellent address. Ever yours, affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. [In September he wrote:-- "I have this minute finished reading your splendid but too short address. I cannot doubt that it will have been fully appreciated by the Geographers of York; if not, they are asses and fools."] CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Sunday evening [1881]. My dear L., Your address (Presidential Address at the York meeting of the British Association.) has made me think over what have been the great steps in Geology during the last fifty years, and there can be no harm in telling you my impression. But it is very odd that I cannot remember what you have said on Geology. I suppose that the classification of the Silurian and Cambrian formations must be considered the greatest or most important step; for I well remember when all these older rocks were called grau-wacke, and nobody dreamed of classing them; and now we have three azoic formations pretty well made out beneath the Cambrian! But the most striking step has been the discovery of the Glacial period: you are too young to remember the prodigious effect this produced about the year 1840 (?) on all our minds. Elie de Beaumont never believed in it to the day of his death! the study of the glacial deposits led to the study of the superficial drift, which was formerly NEVER STUDIED and called Diluvium, as I well remember. The study under the microscope of rock-sections is another not inconsiderable step. So again the making out of cleavage and the foliation of the metamorphic rocks. But I will not run on, having now eased my mind. Pray do not waste even one minute in acknowledging my horrid scrawls. Ever yours, CH. DARWIN. [The following extracts referring to the late Francis Maitland Balfour (Professor of Animal Morphology at Cambridge. He was born in 1851, and was killed, with his guide, on the Aiguille Blanche, near Courmayeur, in July, 1882.), show my father's estimate of his work and intellectual qualities, but they give merely an indication of his strong appreciation of Balfour's most lovable personal character:-- From a letter to Fritz Muller, January 5, 1882:-- "Your appreciation of Balfour's book ['Comparative Embryology'] has pleased me excessively, for though I could not properly judge of it, yet it seemed to me one of the most remarkable books which have been published for some considerable time. He is quite a young man, and if he keeps his health, will do splendid work... He has a fair fortune of his own, so that he can give up his whole time to Biology. He is very modest, and very pleasant, and often visits here and we like him very much." From a letter to Dr. Dohrn, February 13, 1882:-- "I have got one very bad piece of news to tell you, that F. Balfour is very ill at Cambridge with typhoid fever... I hope that he is not in a very dangerous state; but the fever is severe. Good Heavens, what a loss he would be to Science, and to his many loving friends!"] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 12, 1882. My dear Huxley, Very many thanks for 'Science and Culture,' and I am sure that I shall read most of the essays with much interest. With respect to Automatism ("On the hypothesis that animals are automata and its history," an Address given at the Belfast meeting of the British Association, 1874, and published in the 'Fortnightly Review,' 1874, and in 'Science and Culture.'), I wish that you could review yourself in the old, and of course forgotten, trenchant style, and then you would here answer yourself with equal incisiveness; and thus, by Jove, you might go on ad infinitum, to the joy and instruction of the world. Ever yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [The following letter refers to Dr. Ogle's translation of Aristotle, 'On the Parts of Animals' (1882):] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. Down, February 22, 1882. My dear Dr. Ogle, You must let me thank you for the pleasure which the introduction to the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarely read anything which has interested me more, though I have not read as yet more than a quarter of the book proper. From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of Aristotle's merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful man he was. Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. How very curious, also, his ignorance on some points, as on muscles as the means of movement. I am glad that you have explained in so probable a manner some of the grossest mistakes attributed to him. I never realized, before reading your book, to what an enormous summation of labour we owe even our common knowledge. I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand Defender of the Faith he had found in you. Believe me, my dear Dr. Ogle, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [In February, he received a letter and a specimen from a Mr. W.D. Crick, which illustrated a curious mode of dispersal of bivalve shells, namely, by closure of their valves so as to hold on to the leg of a water-beetle. This class of fact had a special charm for him, and he wrote to 'Nature,' describing the case. ('Nature,' April 6, 1882.) In April he received a letter from Dr. W. Van Dyck, Lecturer in Zoology at the Protestant College of Beyrout. The letter showed that the street dogs of Beyrout had been rapidly mongrelised by introduced European dogs, and the facts have an interesting bearing on my father's theory of Sexual Selection.] CHARLES DARWIN TO W.T. VAN DYCK. Down, April 3, 1882. Dear Sir, After much deliberation, I have thought it best to send your very interesting paper to the Zoological Society, in hopes that it will be published in their Journal. This journal goes to every scientific institution in the world, and the contents are abstracted in all year-books on Zoology. Therefore I have preferred it to 'Nature,' though the latter has a wider circulation, but is ephemeral. I have prefaced your essay by a few general remarks, to which I hope that you will not object. Of course I do not know that the Zoological Society, which is much addicted to mere systematic work, will publish your essay. If it does, I will send you copies of your essay, but these will not be ready for some months. If not published by the Zoological Society, I will endeavour to get 'Nature' to publish it. I am very anxious that it should be published and preserved. Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The paper was read at a meeting of the Zoological Society on April 18th--the day before my father's death. The preliminary remarks with which Dr. Van Dyck's paper is prefaced are thus the latest of my father's writings.] We must now return to an early period of his life, and give a connected account of his botanical work, which has hitherto been omitted. CHAPTER 2.X. -- FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. [In the letters already given we have had occasion to notice the general bearing of a number of botanical problems on the wider question of Evolution. The detailed work in botany which my father accomplished by the guidance of the light cast on the study of natural history by his own work on Evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to Mr. Murray, September 24th, 1861, speaking of his book on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' he says: "It will perhaps serve to illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the belief of the modification of species." This remark gives a suggestion as to the value and interest of his botanical work, and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language without danger of exaggeration. In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says: "I think this little volume will do good to the 'Origin,' as it will show that I have worked hard at details." It is true that his botanical work added a mass of corroborative detail to the case for Evolution, but the chief support to his doctrines given by these researches was of another kind. They supplied an argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the consequent impossibility of their having been developed by means of natural selection. His observations on Orchids enabled him to say: "I can show the meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges, horns, who will now venture to say that this or that structure is useless?" A kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (May 14th, 1862:)-- "When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker, show distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous to attribute them to the effects of climate, etc., but when a single point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may thus have arisen. I have found the study of Orchids eminently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the flower are co-adapted for fertilization by insects, and therefore the results of natural selection--even the most trifling details of structure." One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The evolutionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs with the zeal of the older Teleology, but with far wider and more coherent purpose. He has the invigorating knowledge that he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy of the present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And even where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, by a knowledge of its structure, unravel the history of the past vicissitudes in the life of the species. In this way a vigour and unity is given to the study of the forms of organised beings, which before it lacked. This point has already been discussed in Mr. Huxley's chapter on the 'Reception of the "Origin of Species",' and need not be here considered. It does, however, concern us to recognize that this "great service to natural science," as Dr. Gray describes it, was effected almost as much by his special botanical work as by the 'Origin of Species.' For a statement of the scope and influence of my father's botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer's article in 'Charles Darwin,' one of the "Nature Series". Mr. Dyer's wide knowledge, his friendship with my father, and especially his power of sympathising with the work of others, combine to give this essay a permanent value. The following passage (page 43) gives a true picture:-- "Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical work, Mr. Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants, doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying organic phenomena in their least complicated forms; and this point of view, which, if one may use the expression without disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however startling, which seemed to explain them... In any one else such an attitude would have produced much work that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin--if one may venture on language which will strike no one who had conversed with him as over-strained--seemed by gentle persuasion to have penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles smaller men. In other words, his long experience had given him a kind of instinctive insight into the method of attack of any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised experiment." To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution worked by my father's researches in the study of the fertilisation of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be remembered that it was only during the early years of the present century that the idea of sex, as applied to plants, became at all firmly established. Sachs, in his 'History of Botany' (1875), has given some striking illustrations of the remarkable slowness with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that when we consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius (1694), and by Kolreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that doubts should afterwards have been raised as to the sexuality of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms rested for the most part on careless experiments, but in many cases on a priori arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal. A distinct conception of sex as applied to plants, had not long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany by attending Henslow's lectures at Cambridge. When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight of misconception remained, weighing down any rational view of the subject. Camerarius (Sachs, 'Geschichte,' page 419.) believed (naturally enough in his day) that hermaphrodite flowers are necessarily self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority of his successors did not attain to. The following extracts from a note-book show that this point occurred to my father as early as 1837:-- "Do not plants which have male and female organs together [i.e. in the same flower] yet receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell give some argument about varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen from other plants? Because this may be applied to show all plants do receive intermixture." Sprengel (Christian Conrad Sprengel, 1750-1816.), indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another FLOWER, he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the intercrossing of distinct PLANTS lies the key to the whole question. Hermann Muller has well remarked that this "omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel's work... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, along with his defective ideas, his rich store of patient and acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate interpretations." It remained for my father to convince the world that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown was the connecting link between them, for it was at his recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel's now celebrated 'Secret of Nature Displayed.' ('Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Baue und in der Befruchtung der Blumen.' Berlin, 1793.) The book impressed him as being "full of truth," although "with some little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more beautiful seed than in putting such a book into such hands. A passage in the 'Autobiography' (volume i.) shows how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant." The original connection between the study of flowers and the problem of evolution is curious, and could hardly have been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. As soon as the idea arose that the offspring of cross-fertilisation is, in the struggle for life, likely to conquer the seedlings of self-fertilised parentage, a far more vigorous belief in the potency of natural selection in moulding the structure of flowers is attained. A central idea is gained towards which experiment and observation may be directed. Dr. Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea ('Nature,' June 4, 1874):--"The aphorism, 'Nature abhors a vacuum,' is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism, Nature abhors close fertilisation,' and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of Natural Selection... and to have applied these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample title for one man's fame." The flowers of the Papilionaceae attracted his attention early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation. ("Gardeners' Chronicle", 1857, page 725. It appears that this paper was a piece of "over-time" work. He wrote to a friend, "that confounded leguminous paper was done in the afternoon, and the consequence was I had to go to Moor Park for a week.") The following extract from an undated letter to Dr. Asa Gray seems to have been written before the publication of this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857:-- "... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very true; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed; but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct relation to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really pretty to watch the action of a Humble-bee on the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in Lathyrus grandiflorus) the honey is so placed that the bee invariably alights on that ONE side of the flower towards which the spiral pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side all dusted with pollen. (If you will look at a bed of scarlet kidney beans you will find that the wing-petals on the LEFT side alone are all scratched by the tarsi of the bees. [Note in the original letter by C. Darwin.]) In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out about the Leguminosae, which will bring the case within OUR theory; though I have failed to do so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable and animal kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites usually takes place sub-jove, though thus exposed to GREAT injury from damp and rain. In animals which cannot be [fertilised] by insects or wind, there is NO CASE of LAND-animals being hermaphrodite without the concourse of two individuals." A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (September 5th, 1857) gives the substance of the paper in the "Gardeners' Chronicle":-- "Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with the pollen shed; but I was led to believe that the pollen could HARDLY get on the stigma by wind or otherwise, except by bees visiting [the flower] and moving the wing petals: hence I included a small bunch of flowers in two bottles in every way treated the same: the flowers in one I daily just momentarily moved, as if by a bee; these set three fine pods, the other NOT ONE. Of course this little experiment must be tried again, and this year in England it is too late, as the flowers seem now seldom to set. If bees are necessary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must almost cross them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs constantly touch the stigma. "I have, also, lately been re-observing daily Lobelia fulgens--this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed); I mention this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent the stigma ever getting its own pollen; which seems only explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses." The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858. ("Gardeners' Chronicle", 1858, page 828. In 1861 another paper on Fertilisation appeared in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", page 552, in which he explained the action of insects on Vinca major. He was attracted to the periwinkle by the fact that it is not visited by insects and never set seeds.) The chief object of these publications seems to have been to obtain information as to the possibility of growing varieties of leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping them true. It is curious that the Papilionaceae should not only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention by their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should also have constituted one of his sorest puzzles. The common pea and the sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because, although they are as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the rest of the order, yet their varieties keep true. The fact is that neither of these plants being indigenous, they are not perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He could not, at this stage of his observations, know that the co-ordination between a flower and the particular insect which fertilises it may be as delicate as that between a lock and its key, so that this explanation was not likely to occur to him. (He was of course alive to variety in the habits of insects. He published a short note in the "Entomologists Weekly Intelligencer", 1860, asking whether the Tineina and other small moths suck flowers.) Besides observing the Leguminosae, he had already begun, as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of 1860 he worked at Leschenaultia (He published a short paper on the manner of fertilisation of this flower, in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1871, page 1166.), which at first puzzled him, but was ultimately made out. A passage in a letter chiefly relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in the spring of 1860 that he began widely to apply his knowledge to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is somewhat surprising, when we remember that he had read Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14):-- "I should look at this curious contrivance as specially related to visits of insects; as I begin to think is almost universally the case." Even in July 1862 he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray:-- "There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these cases to make one very cautious when one doubts about the use of all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all irregular flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects are the Lords of the floral (to quote the witty "Athenaeum") world." He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by the fact that several kinds are common near Down. The letters of 1860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of his attention; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer and all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered himself idle for wasting time on Orchids, which ought to have been given to 'Variation under Domestication.' Thus he wrote:-- "There is to me incomparably more interest in observing than in writing; but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on these subjects, and not sticking to varieties of the confounded cocks, hens and ducks. I hear that Lyell is savage at me. I shall never resist Linum next summer." It was in the summer of 1860 that he made out one of the most striking and familiar facts in the book, namely, the manner in which the pollen masses in Orchis are adapted for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker July 12:-- "I have been examining Orchis pyramidalis, and it almost equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case; the sticky glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ, which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then another movement takes place in the pollen masses, by which they are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the two LATERAL stigmatic surfaces. I never saw anything so beautiful." In June of the same year he wrote:-- "You speak of adaptation being rarely VISIBLE, though present in plants. I have just recently been looking at the common Orchis, and I declare I think its adaptations in every part of the flower quite as beautiful and plain, or even more beautiful than in the Woodpecker. I have written and sent a notice for the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (June 9, 1860. This seems to have attracted some attention, especially among entomologists, as it was reprinted in the "Entomologists Weekly Intelligencer", 1860.), on a curious difficulty in the Bee Orchis, and should much like to hear what you think of the case. In this article I have incidentally touched on adaptation to visits of insects; but the contrivance to keep the sticky glands fresh and sticky beats almost everything in nature. I never remember having seen it described, but it must have been, and, as I ought not in my book to give the observation as my own, I should be very glad to know where this beautiful contrivance is described." He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, 1860:-- "Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the "Gardeners' Chronicle". The Ophrys apifera, offers, as you will see, a curious contradiction in structure." Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was already, in 1860, busy with the homologies of the parts, a subject of which he made good use in the Orchid book. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July):-- "It is a real good joke my discussing homologies of Orchids with you, after examining only three or four genera; and this very fact makes me feel positive I am right! I do not quite understand some of your terms; but sometime I must get you to explain the homologies; for I am intensely interested on the subject, just as at a game of chess." This work was valuable from a systematic point of view. In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham:-- "It was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchideae, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the LEAST use to you about the nature of the parts." The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave him is shown in such extracts as the following from a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (July 27, 1861):-- "You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me. They came safe, but box rather smashed; cylindrical old cocoa- or snuff-canister much safer. I enclose postage. As an account of the movement, I shall allude to what I suppose is Oncidium, to make CERTAIN,--is the enclosed flower with crumpled petals this genus? Also I most specially want to know what the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I have only seen pollen of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have you not unintentionally sent me what I wanted most (after Catasetum or Mormodes), viz. one of the Epidendreae?! I PARTICULARLY want (and will presently tell you why) another spike of this little Orchid, with older flowers, some even almost withered." His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to Dr. Gray (1863). referring to Cruger's letters from Trinidad, he wrote:--"Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to their backs!" The following extracts of letters to Sir J.D. Hooker illustrate further the interest which his work excited in him:-- "Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful structures! "I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more, for though I enjoy looking at them MUCH, and it has been very useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is idleness. For my object each species requires studying for days. I wish you had time to take up the group. I would give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be one of the stigmas (It is a modification of the upper stigma.), there seems a great tendency for two lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio pages! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most differentiated. In Cypripedium which seems least modified, and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In ALL OTHERS, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four; and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in Orchis; into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious that a flower should exist, which could AT MOST fertilise only two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is; this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the contrivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness, is carried from flower to flower" (1861). "I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have taken about Vanilla; you really must not take an atom more; for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all morning at them; for heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by any more" (August 30, 1861). He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids as a paper in the Linnean Society's Journal, but it soon became evident that a separate volume would be a more suitable form of publication. In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker, September 24, 1861, he writes:-- "I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose; and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days ago my Orchis paper, which turns out 140 folio pages!! and thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to myself, I will offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and publish it in a pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps Murray would publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and offered to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for all illustrations. It is a risk, and heaven knows whether it will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray, and [have] told him that it would interest those alone who cared much for natural history. I hope I do not exaggerate the curiosity of the many special contrivances." He wrote the two following letters to Mr. Murray about the publication of the book:] Down, September 21 [1861]. My dear Sir, Will you have the kindness to give me your opinion, which I shall implicitly follow. I have just finished a very long paper intended for Linnean Society (the title is enclosed), and yesterday for the first time it occurred to me that POSSIBLY it might be worth publishing separately which would save me trouble and delay. The facts are new, and have been collected during twenty years and strike me as curious. Like a Bridgewater treatise, the chief object is to show the perfection of the many contrivances in Orchids. The subject of propagation is interesting to most people, and is treated in my paper so that any woman could read it. Parts are dry and purely scientific; but I think my paper would interest a good many of such persons who care for Natural History, but no others. ... It would be a very little book, and I believe you think very little books objectionable. I have myself GREAT doubts on the subject. I am very apt to think that my geese are swans; but the subject seems to me curious and interesting. I beg you not to be guided in the least in order to oblige me, but as far as you can judge, please give me your opinion. If I were to publish separately, I would agree to any terms, such as half risk and half profit, or what you liked; but I would not publish on my sole risk, for to be frank, I have been told that no publisher whatever, under such circumstances, cares for the success of a book. CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, September 24 [1861]. My dear Sir, I am very much obliged for your note and very liberal offer. I have had some qualms and fears. All that I can feel sure of is that the MS. contains many new and curious facts, and I am sure the Essay would have interested me, and will interest those who feel lively interest in the wonders of nature; but how far the public will care for such minute details, I cannot at all tell. It is a bold experiment; and at worst, cannot entail much loss; as a certain amount of sale will, I think, be pretty certain. A large sale is out of the question. As far as I can judge, generally the points which interest me I find interest others; but I make the experiment with fear and trembling,--not for my own sake, but for yours... [On September 28th he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat me on the back. I have the greatest doubt whether I am not going to do, in publishing my paper, a most ridiculous thing. It would annoy me much, but only for Murray's sake, if the publication were a dead failure." There was still much work to be done, and in October he was still receiving Orchids from Kew, and wrote to Hooker:-- "It is impossible to thank you enough. I was almost mad at the wealth of Orchids." And again-- "Mr. Veitch most generously has sent me two splendid buds of Mormodes, which will be capital for dissection, but I fear will never be irritable; so for the sake of charity and love of heaven do, I beseech you, observe what movement takes place in Cychnoches, and what part must be touched. Mr. V. has also sent me one splendid flower of Catasetum, the most wonderful Orchid I have seen." On October 13th he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker:-- "It seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I have had the hardest day's work at Catasetum and buds of Mormodes, and believe I understand at last the mechanism of movements and the functions. Catasetum is a beautiful case of slight modification of structure leading to new functions. I never was more interested in any subject in my life than in this of Orchids. I owe very much to you." Again to the same friend, November 1, 1861:-- "If you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly ready, I shall be most grateful; had I not better send for it? The case is truly marvellous; the (so-called) sensation, or stimulus from a light touch is certainly transmitted through the antennae for more than one inch INSTANTANEOUSLY... A cursed insect or something let my last flower off last night." Professor de Candolle has remarked ('Darwin considere, etc.,' 'Archives des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles,' 3eme periode. Tome vii. 481, 1882 (May).) of my father, "Ce n'est pas lui qui aurait demande de construire des palais pour y loger des laboratoires." This was singularly true of his orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say that he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' that he built himself a greenhouse. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 24th, 1862):-- "And now I am going to tell you a MOST important piece of news!! I have almost resolved to build a small hot-house; my neighbour's really firs-rate gardener has suggested it, and offered to make me plans, and see that it is well done, and he is really a clever fellow, who wins lots of prizes, and is very observant. He believes that we should succeed with a little patience; it will be a grand amusement for me to experiment with plants." Again he wrote (February 15th, 1863):-- "I write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I long to stock it, just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me pretty soon what plants you can give me; and then I shall know what to order? And do advise me how I had better get such plants as you can SPARE. Would it do to send my tax-cart early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty, lining the cart with mats, and arriving here before night? I have no idea whether this degree of exposure (and of course the cart would be cold) could injure stov-plants; they would be about five hours (with bait) on the journey home." A week later he wrote:-- "you cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give me (far more than your dead Wedgwood ware can give you); and I go and gloat over them, but we privately confessed to each other, that if they were not our own, perhaps we should not see such transcendent beauty in each leaf." And in March, when he was extremely unwell he wrote:-- "A few words about the Stove-plants; they do so amuse me. I have crawled to see them two or three times. Will you correct and answer, and return enclosed. I have hunted in all my books and cannot find these names (His difficulty with regard to the names of plants is illustrated, with regard to a Lupine on which he was at work, in an extract from a letter (July 21, 1866) to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I sent to the nursery garden, whence I bought the seed, and could only hear that it was 'the common blue Lupine,' the man saying 'he was no scholard, and did not know Latin, and that parties who make experiments ought to find out the names.'"), and I like much to know the family." The book was published May 15th, 1862. Of its reception he writes to Murray, June 13th and 18th:-- "The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some one sent me (perhaps you) the 'Parthenon,' with a good review. The "Athenaeum" (May 24, 1862.) treats me with very kind pity and contempt; but the reviewer knew nothing of his subject." "There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the 'London Review,' (June 14, 1862.) But I have not been a fool, as I thought I was, to publish (Doubts on this point still, however, occurred to him about this time. He wrote to Prof. Oliver (June 8): "I am glad that you have read my Orchis-book and seem to approve of it; for I never published anything which I so much doubted whether it was worth publishing, and indeed I still doubt. The subject interested me beyond what, I suppose, it is worth."); for Asa Gray, about the most competent judge in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as does the 'London Review.' The "Athenaeum" will hinder the sale greatly." The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was the author of the notice in the 'London Review,' as my father learned from Sir J.D. Hooker, who added, 'I thought it very well done indeed. I have read a good deal of the Orchid-book, and echo all he says." To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862):-- "My dear Old Friend, You speak of my warming the cockles of your heart, but you will never know how often you have warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my scientific work (though I care for that more than for any one's): it is something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter you wrote to me from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure, and how it cheered me when I was utterly weary of life. Well, my Orchis-book is a success (but I do not know whether it sells.)" In another letter to the same friend, he wrote:-- "You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to Bentham and Oliver approving of my book; for I had got a sort of nervousness, and doubted whether I had not made an egregious fool of myself, and concocted pleasant little stinging remarks for reviews, such as 'Mr. Darwin's head seems to have been turned by a certain degree of success, and he thinks that the most trifling observations are worth publication.'" Mr. Bentham's approval was given in his Presidential Address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1862, and was all the more valuable because it came from one who was by no means supposed to be favourable to evolutionary doctrines.] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 10 [1862]. My dear Gray, Your generous sympathy makes you overestimate what you have read of my Orchid-book. But your letter of May 18th and 26th has given me an almost foolish amount of satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew, beyond its real value; but I had lately got to think that I had made myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular form. Now I shall confidently defy the world. I have heard that Bentham and Oliver approve of it; but I have heard the opinion of no one else whose opinion is worth a farthing... No doubt my volume contains much error: how curiously difficult it is to be accurate, though I try my utmost. Your notes have interested me beyond measure. I can now afford to d-- my critics with ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial thanks for this benefit. It is surprising to me that you should have strength of mind to care for science, amidst the awful events daily occurring in your country. I daily look at the "Times" with almost as much interest as an American could do. When will peace come? it is dreadful to think of the desolation of large parts of your magnificent country; and all the speechless misery suffered by many. I hope and think it not unlikely that we English are wrong in concluding that it will take a long time for prosperity to return to you. It is an awful subject to reflect on... [Dr. Asa Gray reviewed the book in 'Silliman's Journal' ('Silliman's Journal,' volume xxiv. page 138. Here is given an account of the fertilisation of Platanthera Hookeri. P. hyperborea is discussed in Dr. Gray's 'Enumeration' in the same volume, page 259; also, with other species, in a second notice of the Orchid-book at page 420.), where he speaks, in strong terms, of the fascination which it must have for even slightly instructed readers. He made, too, some original observations on an American orchid, and these first-fruits of the subject, sent in MS. or proof sheet to my father, were welcomed by him in a letter (July 23rd):-- "Last night, after writing the above, I read the great bundle of notes. Little did I think what I had to read. What admirable observations! You have distanced me on my own hobby-horse! I have not had for weeks such a glow of pleasure as your observations gave me." The next letter refers to the publication of the review:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 28 [1862]. My dear Gray, I hardly know what to thank for first. Your stamps gave infinite satisfaction. I took him (One of his boys who was ill.) first one lot, and then an hour afterwards another lot. He actually raised himself on one elbow to look at them. It was the first animation he showed. He said only: "You must thank Professor Gray awfully." In the evening after a long silence, there came out the oracular sentence: "He is awfully kind." And indeed you are, overworked as you are, to take so much trouble for our poor dear little man.--And now I must begin the "awfullys" on my own account: what a capital notice you have published on the orchids! It could not have been better; but I fear that you overrate it. I am very sure that I had not the least idea that you or any one would approve of it so much. I return your last note for the chance of your publishing any notice on the subject; but after all perhaps you may not think it worth while; yet in my judgment SEVERAL of your facts, especially Platanthera hyperborea, are MUCH too good to be merged in a review. But I have always noticed that you are prodigal in originality in your reviews... [Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", writing in a successful imitation of the style of Lindley, the Editor. My father wrote to Sir Joseph (November 12, 1862):-- "So you did write the review in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Once or twice I doubted whether it was Lindley; but when I came to a little slap at R. Brown, I doubted no longer. You arch-rogue! I do not wonder you have deceived others also. Perhaps I am a conceited dog; but if so, you have much to answer for; I never received so much praise, and coming from you I value it much more than from any other." With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to Dr. Gray, "I am fairly astonished at the success of my book with botanists." Among naturalists who were not botanists, Lyell was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I have no means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, as I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' which he considered "next to the 'Origin,' as the most valuable of all Darwin's works." Among the general public the author did not at first hear of many disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in September 1862: "Hardly any one not a botanist, except yourself, as far as I know, has cared for it." A favourable notice appeared in the "Saturday Review", October 18th, 1862; the reviewer points out that the book would escape the angry polemics aroused by the 'Origin.' (Dr. Gray pointed out that if the Orchid-book (with a few trifling omissions) had appeared before the 'Origin,' the author would have been canonised rather than anathematised by the natural theologians.) This is illustrated by a review in the "Literary Churchman", in which only one fault found, namely, that Mr. Darwin's expression of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too indirect a way of saying, "O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!" A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the 'Edinburgh Review' (October 1862). The writer points out that Mr. Darwin constantly uses phrases, such as "beautiful contrivance," "the labellum is... IN ORDER TO attract," "the nectar is PURPOSELY lodged." The Reviewer concludes his discussion thus: "We know, too that these purposes and ideas are not our own, but the ideas and purposes of Another." The 'Edinburgh' reviewer's treatment of this subject was criticised in the "Saturday Review", November 15th, 1862: With reference to this article my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (December 29th, 1862):-- "Here is an odd chance; my nephew Henry Parker, an Oxford Classic, and Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening; and I asked him whether he knew who had written the little article in the "Saturday", smashing the [Edinburgh reviewer], which we liked; and after a little hesitation he owned he had. I never knew that he wrote in the "Saturday"; and was it not an odd chance?" The 'Edinburgh' article was written by the Duke of Argyll, and has since been made use of in his 'Reign of Law,' 1867. Mr. Wallace replied ('Quarterly Journal of Science,' October 1867. Republished in 'Natural Selection,' 1871.) to the Duke's criticisms, making some specially good remarks on those which refer to orchids. He shows how, by a "beautiful self-acting adjustment," the nectary of the orchid Angraecum (from 10 to 14 inches in length), and the proboscis of a moth sufficiently long to reach the nectar, might be developed by natural selection. He goes on to point out that on any other theory we must suppose that the flower was created with an enormously long nectary, and that then by a special act, an insect was created fitted to visit the flower, which would otherwise remain sterile. With regard to this point my father wrote (October 12 or 13, 1867):-- "I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the tables on the Duke, when you make him create the Angraecum and Moth by special creation." If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of flowers, we do not find that this new branch of study showed any great activity immediately after the publication of the Orchid-book. There are a few papers by Asa Gray, in 1862 and 1863, by Hildebrand in 1864, and by Moggridge in 1865, but the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino, Hildebrand, and the Mullers, did not begin to appear until about 1867. The period during which the new views were being assimilated, and before they became thoroughly fruitful, was, however, surprisingly short. The later activity in this department may be roughly gauged by the fact that the valuable 'Bibliography,' given by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson in his translation of Muller's 'Befruchtung' (1883), contains references to 814 papers. Besides the book on Orchids, my father wrote two or three papers on the subject, which will be found mentioned in the Appendix. The earliest of these, on the three sexual forms of Catasetum, was published in 1862; it is an anticipation of part of the Orchid-book, and was merely published in the Linnean Society's Journal, in acknowledgment of the use made of a specimen in the Society's possession. The possibility of apparently distinct species being merely sexual forms of a single species, suggested a characteristic experiment, which is alluded to in the following letter to one of his earliest disciples in the study of the fertilisation of flowers:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. (The late Mr. Moggridge, author of 'Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders,' 'Flora of Mentone,' etc.) Down, October 13 [1865]. My dear Sir, I am especially obliged to you for your beautiful plates and letter-press; for no single point in natural history interests and perplexes me so much as the self-fertilisation (He once remarked to Dr. Norman Moore that one of the things that made him wish to live a few thousand years, was his desire to see the extinction of the Bee-orchis,--an end to which he believed its self-fertilising habit was leading.) of the Bee-orchis. You have already thrown some light on the subject, and your present observations promise to throw more. I formed two conjectures: first, that some insect during certain seasons might cross the plants, but I have almost given up this; nevertheless, pray have a look at the flowers next season. Secondly, I conjectured that the Spider and Bee-orchis might be a crossing and self-fertile form of the same species. Accordingly I wrote some years ago to an acquaintance, asking him to mark some Spider-orchids, and observe whether they retained the same character; but he evidently thought the request as foolish as if I had asked him to mark one of his cows with a ribbon, to see if it would turn next spring into a horse. Now will you be so kind as to tie a string round the stem of a half-a-dozen Spider-orchids, and when you leave Mentone dig them up, and I would try and cultivate them and see if they kept constant; but I should require to know in what sort of soil and situations they grow. It would be indispensable to mark the plant so that there could be no mistake about the individual. It is also just possible that the same plant would throw up, at different seasons different flower-scapes, and the marked plants would serve as evidence. With many thanks, my dear sir, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I send by this post my paper on climbing plants, parts of which you might like to read. [Sir Thomas Farrer and Dr. W. Ogle were also guided and encouraged by my father in their observations. The following refers to a paper by Sir Thomas Farrer, in the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' 1868, on the fertilisation of the Scarlet Runner:] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. FARRER. Down, September 15, 1868. My dear Mr. Farrer, I grieve to say that the MAIN features of your case are known. I am the sinner and described them some ten years ago. But I overlooked many details, as the appendage to the single stamen, and several other points. I send my notes, but I must beg for their return, as I have NO OTHER COPY. I quite agree, the facts are most striking, especially as you put them. Are you sure that the Hive-bee is the cutter? it is against my experience. If sure, make the point more prominent, or if not sure, erase it. I do not think the subject is quite new enough for the Linnean Society; but I dare say the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' or "Gardeners' Chronicle" would gladly publish your observations, and it is a great pity they should be lost. If you like I would send your paper to either quarter with a note. In this case you must give a title, and your name, and perhaps it would be well to premise your remarks with a line of reference to my paper stating that you had observed independently and more fully. I have read my own paper over after an interval of several years, and am amused at the caution with which I put the case that the final end was for crossing distinct individuals, of which I was then as fully convinced as now, but I knew that the doctrine would shock all botanists. Now the opinion is becoming familiar. To see penetration of pollen-tubes is not difficult, but in most cases requires some practice with dissecting under a one-tenth of an inch focal distance single lens; and just at first this will seem to you extremely difficult. What a capital observer you are--a first-rate Naturalist has been sacrificed, or partly sacrificed to Public life. Believe me, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--If you come across any large Salvia, look at it--the contrivance is admirable. It went to my heart to tell a man who came here a few weeks ago with splendid drawings and MS. on Salvia, that the work had been all done in Germany. (Dr. W. Ogle, the observer of the fertilisation of Salvia here alluded to, published his results in the 'Pop. Science Review,' 1869. He refers both gracefully and gratefully to his relationship with my father in the introduction to his translation of Kerner's 'Flowers and their Unbidden Guests.') [The following extract is from a letter, November 26th, 1868, to Sir Thomas Farrer, written as I learn from him, "in answer to a request for some advice as to the best modes of observation." "In my opinion the best plan is to go on working and making copious notes, without much thought of publication, and then if the results turn out striking publish them. It is my impression, but I do not feel sure that I am right, that the best and most novel plan would be, instead of describing the means of fertilisation in particular plants, to investigate the part which certain structures play with all plants or throughout certain orders; for instance, the brush of hairs on the style, or the diadelphous condition of the stamens, in the Leguminosae, or the hairs within the corolla, etc. etc. Looking to your note, I think that this is perhaps the plan which you suggest. "It is well to remember that Naturalists value observations far more than reasoning; therefore your conclusions should be as often as possible fortified by noticing how insects actually do the work." In 1869, Sir Thomas Farrer corresponded with my father on the fertilisation of Passiflora and of Tacsonia. He has given me his impressions of the correspondence:-- "I had suggested that the elaborate series of chevaux-de-frise, by which the nectary of the common Passiflora is guarded, were specially calculated to protect the flower from the stiff-beaked humming birds which would not fertilise it, and to facilitate the access of the little proboscis of the humble bee, which would do so; whilst, on the other hand, the long pendent tube and flexible valve-like corona which retains the nectar of Tacsonia would shut out the bee, which would not, and admit the humming bird which would, fertilise that flower. The suggestion is very possibly worthless, and could only be verified or refuted by examination of flowers in the countries where they grow naturally... What interested me was to see that on this as on almost any other point of detailed observation, Mr. Darwin could always say, 'Yes; but at one time I made some observations myself on this particular point; and I think you will find, etc. etc.' That he should after years of interval remember that he had noticed the peculiar structure to which I was referring in the Passiflora princeps struck me at the time as very remarkable." With regard to the spread of a belief in the adaptation of flowers for cross-fertilisation, my father wrote to Mr. Bentham April 22, 1868: "Most of the criticisms which I sometimes meet with in French works against the frequency of crossing, I am certain are the result of mere ignorance. I have never hitherto found the rule to fail that when an author describes the structure of a flower as specially adapted for self-fertilisation, it is really adapted for crossing. The Fumariaceae offer a good instance of this, and Treviranus threw this order in my teeth; but in Corydalis, Hildebrand shows how utterly false the idea of self-fertilisation is. This author's paper on Salvia is really worth reading, and I have observed some species, and know that he is accurate." The next letter refers to Professor Hildebrand's paper on Corydalis, published in the 'Proc. Internat. Hort. Congress,' London, 1866, and in Pringsheim's 'Jahrbucher,' volume v. The memoir on Salvia alluded to is contained in the previous volume of the same Journal:] CHARLES DARWIN TO F. HILDEBRAND. (Professor of Botany at Freiburg.) Down, May 16 [1866]. My dear Sir, The state of my health prevents my attending the Hort. Congress; but I forwarded yesterday your paper to the secretary, and if they are not overwhelmed with papers, yours will be gladly received. I have made many observations on the Fumariaceae, and convinced myself that they were adapted for insect agency; but I never observed anything nearly so curious as your most interesting facts. I hope you will repeat your experiments on the Corydalis on a larger scale, and especially on several distinct plants; for your plant might have been individually peculiar, like certain individual plants of Lobelia, etc., described by Gartner, and of Passiflora and Orchids described by Mr. Scott... Since writing to you before, I have read your admirable memoir on Salvia, and it has interested me almost as much as when I first investigated the structure of Orchids. Your paper illustrates several points in my 'Origin of Species,' especially the transition of organs. Knowing only two or three species in the genus, I had often marvelled how one cell of the anther could have been transformed into the movable plate or spoon; and how well you show the gradations; but I am surprised that you did not more strongly insist on this point. I shall be still more surprised if you do not ultimately come to the same belief with me, as shown by so many beautiful contrivances, that all plants require, from some unknown cause, to be occasionally fertilized by pollen from a distinct individual. With sincere respect, believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN. [The following letter refers to the late Hermann Muller's 'Befruchtung der Blumen,' by far the most valuable of the mass of literature originating in the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' An English translation, by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson was published in 1883. My father's "Prefatory Notice" to this work is dated February 6, 1882, and is therefore almost the last of his writings:] CHARLES DARWIN TO H. MULLER. Down, May 5, 1873. My dear Sir, Owing to all sorts of interruptions and to my reading German so slowly, I have read only to page 88 of your book; but I must have the pleasure of telling you how very valuable a work it appears to me. Independently of the many original observations, which of course form the most important part, the work will be of the highest use as a means of reference to all that has been done on the subject. I am fairly astonished at the number of species of insects, the visits of which to different flowers you have recorded. You must have worked in the most indefatigable manner. About half a year ago the editor of 'Nature' suggested that it would be a grand undertaking if a number of naturalists were to do what you have already done on so large a scale with respect to the visits of insects. I have been particularly glad to read your historical sketch, for I had never before seen all the references put together. I have sometimes feared that I was in error when I said that C.K. Sprengel did not fully perceive that cross-fertilisation was the final end of the structure of flowers; but now this fear is relieved, and it is a great satisfaction to me to believe that I have aided in making his excellent book more generally known. Nothing has surprised me more than to see in your historical sketch how much I myself have done on the subject, as it never before occurred to me to think of all my papers as a whole. But I do not doubt that your generous appreciation of the labours of others has led you to over-estimate what I have done. With very sincere thanks and respect, believe me, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--I have mentioned your book to almost every one who, as far as I know, cares for the subject in England; and I have ordered a copy to be send to our Royal Society. [The next letter, to Dr. Behrens, refers to the same subject as the last:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. BEHRENS. Down, August 29 [1878]. Dear Sir, I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your 'Geschichte der Bestaubungs-Theorie' (Progr. der K. Gewerbschule zu Elberfeld, 1877, 1878.), and which has interested me much. It has put some things in a new light, and has told me other things which I did not know. I heartily agree with you in your high appreciation of poor old C. Sprengel's work; and one regrets bitterly that he did not live to see his labours thus valued. It rejoices me also to notice how highly you appreciate H. Muller, who has always seemed to me an admirable observer and reasoner. I am at present endeavouring to persuade an English publisher to bring out a translation of his 'Befruchtung.' Lastly, permit me to thank you for your very generous remarks on my works. By placing what I have been able to do on this subject in systematic order, you have made me think more highly of my own work than I ever did before! Nevertheless, I fear that you have done me more than justice. I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN. [The letter which follows was called forth by Dr. Gray's article in 'Nature,' to which reference has already been made, and which appeared June 4, 1874:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 3 [1874]. My dear Gray, I was rejoiced to see your hand-writing again in your note of the 4th, of which more anon. I was astonished to see announced about a week ago that you were going to write in 'Nature' an article on me, and this morning I received an advance copy. It is the grandest thing ever written about me, especially as coming from a man like yourself. It has deeply pleased me, particularly some of your side remarks. It is a wonderful thing to me to live to see my name coupled in any fashion with that of Robert Brown. But you are a bold man, for I am sure that you will be sneered at by not a few botanists. I have never been so honoured before, and I hope it will do me good and make me try to be as careful as possible; and good heavens, how difficult accuracy is! I feel a very proud man, but I hope this won't last... [Fritz Muller has observed that the flowers of Hedychium are so arranged that the pollen is removed by the wings of hovering butterflies. My father's prediction of this observation is given in the following letter:] CHARLES DARWIN TO H. MULLER. Down, August 7, 1876. ... I was much interested by your brother's article on Hedychium; about two years ago I was so convinced that the flowers were fertilized by the tips of the wings of large moths, that I wrote to India to ask a man to observe the flowers and catch the moths at work, and he sent me 20 to 30 Sphin-moths, but so badly packed that they all arrived in fragments; and I could make out nothing... Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [The following extract from a letter (February 25, 1864), to Dr. Gray refers to another prediction fulfilled:-- "I have of course seen no one, and except good dear Hooker, I hear from no one. He, like a good and true friend, though so overworked, often writes to me. "I have had one letter which has interested me greatly, with a paper, which will appear in the Linnean Journal, by Dr. Cruger of Trinidad, which shows that I am all right about Catasetum, even to the spot where the pollinia adhere to the bees, which visit the flower, as I said, to gnaw the labellum. Cruger's account of Coryanthes and the use of the bucket-like labellum full of water beats everything: I SUSPECT that the bees being well wetted flattens their hairs, and allows the viscid disc to adhere."] CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, December 24, 1877. My dear Sir, I thank you sincerely for your long and most interesting letter, which I should have answered sooner had it not been delayed in London. I had not heard before that I was to be proposed as a Corresponding Member of the Institute. Living so retired a life as I do, such honours affect me very little, and I can say with entire truth that your kind expression of sympathy has given and will give me much more pleasure than the election itself, should I be elected. Your idea that dicotyledonous plants were not developed in force until sucking insects had been evolved seems to me a splendid one. I am surprised that the idea never occurred to me, but this is always the case when one first hears a new and simple explanation of some mysterious phenomenon... I formerly showed that we might fairly assume that the beauty of flowers, their sweet odour and copious nectar, may be attributed to the existence of flower-haunting insects, but your idea, which I hope you will publish, goes much further and is much more important. With respect to the great development of mammifers in the later Geological periods following from the development of dicotyledons, I think it ought to be proved that such animals as deer, cows, horses, etc. could not flourish if fed exclusively on the gramineae and other anemophilous monocotyledons; and I do not suppose that any evidence on this head exists. Your suggestion of studying the manner of fertilisation of the surviving members of the most ancient forms of the dicotyledons is a very good one, and I hope that you will keep it in mind yourself, for I have turned my attention to other subjects. Delpino I think says that Magnolia is fertilised by insects which gnaw the petals, and I should not be surprised if the same fact holds good with Nymphaea. Whenever I have looked at the flowers of these latter plants I have felt inclined to admit the view that petals are modified stamens, and not modified leaves; though Poinsettia seems to show that true leaves might be converted into coloured petals. I grieve to say that I have never been properly grounded in Botany and have studied only special points--therefore I cannot pretend to express any opinion on your remarks on the origin of the flowers of the Coniferae, Gnetaceae, etc.; but I have been delighted with what you say on the conversion of a monoecious species into a hermaphrodite one by the condensations of the verticils on a branch bearing female flowers near the summit, and male flowers below. I expect Hooker to come here before long, and I will then show him your drawing, and if he makes any important remarks I will communicate with you. He is very busy at present in clearing off arrears after his American Expedition, so that I do not like to trouble him, even with the briefest note. I am at present working with my son at some Physiological subjects, and we are arriving at very curious results, but they are not as yet sufficiently certain to be worth communicating to you... [In 1877 a second edition of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' was published, the first edition having been for some time out of print. The new edition was remodelled and almost re-written, and a large amount of new matter added, much of which the author owed to his friend Fritz Muller. With regard to this edition he wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I do not suppose I shall ever again touch the book. After much doubt I have resolved to act in this way with all my books for the future; that is to correct them once and never touch them again, so as to use the small quantity of work left in me for new matter." He may have felt a diminution of his powers of reviewing large bodies of facts, such as would be needed in the preparation of new editions, but his powers of observation were certainly not diminished. He wrote to Mr. Dyer on July 14, 1878:] My dear Dyer, Thalia dealbata was sent me from Kew: it has flowered and after looking casually at the flowers, they have driven me almost mad, and I have worked at them for a week: it is as grand a case as that of Catasetum. Pistil vigorously motile (so that whole flower shakes when pistil suddenly coils up); when excited by a touch the two filaments [are] produced laterally and transversely across the flower (just over the nectar) from one of the petals or modified stamens. It is splendid to watch the phenomenon under a weak power when a bristle is inserted into a YOUNG flower which no insect has visited. As far as I know Stylidium is the sole case of sensitive pistil and here it is the pistil + stamens. In Thalia (Hildebrand has described an explosive arrangement in some of the Maranteae--the tribe to which Thalia belongs.) cross-fertilisation is ensured by the wonderful movement, if bees visit several flowers. I have now relieved my mind and will tell the purport of this note--viz. if any other species of Thalia besides T. dealbata should flower with you, for the love of heaven and all the saints, send me a few in TIN BOX WITH DAMP MOSS. Your insane friend, CH. DARWIN. [In 1878 Dr. Ogle's translation of Kerner's interesting book, 'Flowers and their Unbidden Guests,' was published. My father, who felt much interest in the translation (as appears in the following letter), contributed some prefatory words of approval:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. Down, December 16 [1878]. ... I have now read Kerner's book, which is better even than I anticipated. The translation seems to me as clear as daylight, and written in forcible and good familiar English. I am rather afraid that it is too good for the English public, which seems to like very washy food, unless it be administered by some one whose name is well-known, and then I suspect a good deal of the unintelligible is very pleasing to them. I hope to heaven that I may be wrong. Anyhow, you and Mrs. Ogle have done a right good service for Botanical Science. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--You have done me much honour in your prefatory remarks. [One of the latest references to his Orchid-work occurs in a letter to Mr. Bentham, February 16, 1880. It shows the amount of pleasure which this subject gave to my father, and (what is characteristic of him) that his reminiscence of the work was one of delight in the observations which preceded its publication. Not to the applause which followed it:-- "They are wonderful creatures, these Orchids, and I sometimes think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember making out some little point in their method of fertilisation."] CHAPTER 2.XI. -- THE 'EFFECTS OF CROSS- AND SELF-FERTILISATION IN THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM.' 1876. [This book, as pointed out in the 'Autobiography,' is a complement to the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' because it shows how important are the results of cross-fertilisation which are ensured by the mechanisms described in that book. By proving that the offspring of cross-fertilisation are more vigorous than the offspring of self-fertilisation, he showed that one circumstance which influences the fate of young plants in the struggle for life is the degree to which their parents are fitted for cross-fertilisation. He thus convinced himself that the intensity of the struggle (which he had elsewhere shown to exist among young plants) is a measure of the strength of a selective agency perpetually sifting out every modification in the structure of flowers which can effect its capabilities for cros-fertilisation. The book is also valuable in another respect, because it throws light on the difficult problems of the origin of sexuality. The increased vigour resulting from cross-fertilisation is allied in the closest manner to the advantage gained by change of conditions. So strongly is this the case, that in some instances cross-fertilisation gives no advantage to the offspring, unless the parents have lived under slightly different conditions. So that the really important thing is not that two individuals of different BLOOD shall unite, but two individuals which have been subjected to different conditions. We are thus led to believe that sexuality is a means for infusing vigour into the offspring by the coalescence of differentiated elements, an advantage which could not follow if reproductions were entirely asexual. It is remarkable that this book, the result of eleven years of experimental work, owed its origin to a chance observation. My father had raised two beds of Linaria vulgaris--one set being the offspring of cross- and the other of self-fertilisation. These plants were grown for the sake of some observations on inheritance, and not with any view to cross-breeding, and he was astonished to observe that the offspring of self-fertilisation were clearly less vigorous than the others. It seemed incredible to him that this result could be due to a single act of self-fertilisation, and it was only in the following year when precisely the same result occurred in the case of a similar experiment on inheritance in Carnations, that his attention was "thoroughly aroused" and that he determined to make a series of experiments specially directed to the question. The following letters give some account of the work in question.] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. September 10, [1866?]. ... I have just begun a large course of experiments on the germination of the seed, and on the growth of the young plants when raised from a pistil fertilised by pollen from the same flower, and from pollen from a distinct plant of the same, or of some other variety. I have not made sufficient experiments to judge certainly, but in some cases the difference in the growth of the young plants is highly remarkable. I have taken every kind of precaution in getting seed from the same plant, in germinating the seed on my own chimney-piece, in planting the seedlings in the same flower-pot, and under this similar treatment I have seen the young seedlings from the crossed seed exactly twice as tall as the seedlings from the sel-fertilised seed; both seeds having germinated on the same day. If I can establish this fact (but perhaps it will all go to the dogs), in some fifty cases, with plants of different orders, I think it will be very important, for then we shall positively know why the structure of every flower permits, or favours, or necessitates an occasional cross with a distinct individual. But all this is rather cooking my hare before I have caught it. But somehow it is a great pleasure to me to tell you what I am about. Believe me, my dear Gray, Ever yours most truly, and with cordial thanks, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. April 22, 1868. ... I am experimenting on a very large scale on the difference in power of growth between plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds; and it is no exaggeration to say that the difference in growth and vigour is sometimes truly wonderful. Lyell, Huxley and Hooker have seen some of my plants, and been astonished; and I should much like to show them to you. I always supposed until lately that no evil effects would be visible until after several generations of self-fertilisation; but now I see that one generation sometimes suffices; and the existence of dimorphic plants and all the wonderful contrivances of orchids are quite intelligible to me. With cordial thanks for your letter, which has pleased me greatly, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [An extract from a letter to Dr. Gray (March 11, 1873) mentions the progress of the work:-- "I worked last summer hard at Drosera, but could not finish till I got fresh plants, and consequently took up the effects of crossing and sel-fertilising plants, and am got so interested that Drosera must go to the dogs till I finish with this, and get it published; but then I will resume my beloved Drosera, and I heartily apologise for having sent the precious little things even for a moment to the dogs." The following letters give the author's impression of his own book.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, September 16, 1876. My dear Sir, I have just received proofs in sheet of five sheets, so you will have to decide soon how many copies will have to be struck off. I do not know what to advise. The greater part of the book is extremely dry, and the whole on a special subject. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the book is of value, and I am convinced that for MANY years copies will be occasionally sold. Judging from the sale of my former books, and from supposing that some persons will purchase it to complete the set of my works, I would suggest 1500. But you must be guided by your larger experience. I will only repeat that I am convinced the book is of some permanent value... CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, September 27, 1876. My dear Sir, I sent by this morning's post the four first perfect sheets of my new book, the title of which you will see on the first page, and which will be published early in November. I am sorry to say that it is only shorter by a few pages than my 'Insectivorous Plants.' The whole is now in type, though I have corrected finally only half the volume. You will, therefore, rapidly receive the remainder. The book is very dull. Chapters II. to VI., inclusive, are simply a record of experiments. Nevertheless, I believe (though a man can never judge his own books) that the book is valuable. You will have to decide whether it is worth translating. I hope so. It has cost me very great labour, and the results seem to me remarkable and well established. If you translate it, you could easily get aid for Chapters II. to VI., as there is here endless, but I have thought necessary repetition. I shall be anxious to hear what you decide... I most sincerely hope that your health has been fairly good this summer. My dear Sir, yours very truly, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, October 28, 1876. My dear Gray, I send by this post all the clean sheets as yet printed, and I hope to send the remainder within a fortnight. Please observe that the first six chapters are not readable, and the six last very dull. Still I believe that the results are valuable. If you review the book, I shall be very curious to see what you think of it, for I care more for your judgment than for that of almost any one else. I know also that you will speak the truth, whether you approve or disapprove. Very few will take the trouble to read the book, and I do not expect you to read the whole, but I hope you will read the latter chapters. ... I am so sick of correcting the press and licking my horrid bad style into intelligible English. [The 'Effects of Cross and Self-fertilisation' was published on November 10, 1876, and 1500 copies were sold before the end of the year. The following letter refers to a review in 'Nature' (February 15, 1877.):] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. Down, February 16, 1877. Dear Dyer, I must tell you how greatly I am pleased and honoured by your article in 'Nature,' which I have just read. You are an adept in saying what will please an author, not that I suppose you wrote with this express intention. I should be very well contented to deserve a fraction of your praise. I have also been much interested, and this is better than mere pleasure, by your argument about the separation of the sexes. I dare say that I am wrong, and will hereafter consider what you say more carefully: but at present I cannot drive out of my head that the sexes must have originated from two individuals, slightly different, which conjugated. But I am aware that some cases of conjugation are opposed to any such views. With hearty thanks, Yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.XII. -- 'DIFFERENT FORMS OF FLOWERS ON PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES.' 1877. [The volume bearing the above title was published in 1877, and was dedicated by the author to Professor Asa Gray, "as a small tribute of respect and affection." It consists of certain earlier papers re-edited, with the addition of a quantity of new matter. The subjects treated in the book are:-- 1. Heterostyled Plants. 2. Polygamous, Dioecious, and Gynodioecious Plants. 3. Cleistogamic Flowers. The nature of heterostyled plants may be illustrated in the primrose, one of the best known examples of the class. If a number of primroses be gathered, it will be found that some plants yield nothing but "pin-eyed" flowers, in which the style (or organ for the transmission of the pollen to the ovule) is long, while the others yield only "thrum-eyed" flowers with short styles. Thus primroses are divided into two sets or castes differing structurally from each other. My father showed that they also differ sexually, and that in fact the bond between the two castes more nearly resembles that between separate sexes than any other known relationship. Thus for example a long-styled primrose, though it can be fertilised by its own pollen, is not FULLY fertile unless it is impregnated by the pollen of a short-styled flower. Heterostyled plants are comparable to hermaphrodite animals, such as snails, which require the concourse of two individuals, although each possesses both the sexual elements. The difference is that in the case of the primrose it is PERFECT FERTILITY, and not simply FERTILITY, that depends on the mutual action of the two sets of individuals. The work on heterostyled plants has a special bearing, to which the author attached much importance, on the problem of origin of species. (See 'Autobiography,' volume i.) He found that a wonderfully close parallelism exists between hybridisation and certain forms of fertilisation among heterostyled plants. So that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the "illegitimately" reared seedlings are hybrids, although both their parents belong to identically the same species. In a letter to Professor Huxley, my father writes as if his researches on heterostyled plants tended to make him believe that sterility is a selected or acquired quality. But in his later publications, e.g. in the sixth edition of the 'Origin,' he adheres to the belief that sterility is an incidental rather than a selected quality. The result of his work on heterostyled plants is of importance as showing that sterility is no test of specific distinctness, and that it depends on differentiation of the sexual elements which is independent of any racial difference. I imagine that it was his instinctive love of making out a difficulty which to a great extent kept him at work so patiently on the heterostyled plants. But it was the fact that general conclusions of the above character could be drawn from his results which made him think his results worthy of publication. (See 'Forms of Flowers,' page 243.) The papers which on this subject preceded and contributed to 'Forms of Flowers' were the following:-- "On the two Forms or Dimorphic Condition in the Species of Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations." Linn. Soc. Journal, 1862.) "On the Existence of Two Forms, and on their Reciprocal Sexual Relations, in several Species of the Genus Linum." Linn. Soc. Journal, 1863. "On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria," Ibid. 1864. "On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants." Ibid. 1869. "On the Specific Differences between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. Officinalis, Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.) and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the Common Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on Naturally Produced Hybrids in the Genus Verbascum." Ibid. 1869. The following letter shows that he began the work on heterostyled plants with an erroneous view as to the meaning of the facts.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 7 [1860]. ... I have this morning been looking at my experimental cowslips, and I find some plants have all flowers with long stamens and short pistils, which I will call "male plants," others with short stamens and long pistils, which I will call "female plants." This I have somewhere seen noticed, I think by Henslow; but I find (after looking at my two sets of plants) that the stigmas of the male and female are of slightly different shape, and certainly different degree of roughness, and what has astonished me, the pollen of the so-called female plant, though very abundant, is more transparent, and each granule is exactly only 2/3 of the size of the pollen of the so-called male plant. Has this been observed? I cannot help suspecting [that] the cowslip is in fact dioecious, but it may turn out all a blunder, but anyhow I will mark with sticks the so-called male and female plants and watch their seeding. It would be a fine case of gradation between an hermaphrodite and unisexual condition. Likewise a sort of case of balancement of long and short pistils and stamens. Likewise perhaps throws light on oxlips... I have now examined primroses and find exactly the same difference in the size of the pollen, correlated with the same difference in the length of the style and roughness of the stigmas. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. June 8 [1860]. ... I have been making some little trifling observations which have interested and perplexed me much. I find with primroses and cowslips, that about an equal number of plants are thus characterised. SO-CALLED (by me) MALE plant. Pistil much shorter than stamens; stigma rather smooth,--POLLEN GRAINS LARGE, throat of corolla short. SO-CALLED FEMALE plant. Pistil much longer than stamens, stigma rougher, POLLEN-GRAINS SMALLER,--throat of corolla long. I have marked a lot of plants, and expected to find the so-called male plant barren; but judging from the feel of the capsules, this is not the case, and I am very much surprised at the difference in the size of the pollen... If it should prove that the so-called male plants produce less seed than the so-called females, what a beautiful case of gradation from hermaphrodite to unisexual condition it will be! If they produce about equal number of seed, how perplexing it will be. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 17 [1860?]. ... I have just been ordering a photograph of myself for a friend; and have ordered one for you, and for heaven's sake oblige me, and burn that now hanging up in your room.--It makes me look atrociously wicked. ... In the spring I must get you to look for long pistils and short pistils in the rarer species of Primula and in some allied Genera. It holds with P. Sinensis. You remember all the fuss I made on this subject last spring; well, the other day at last I had time to weigh the seeds, and by Jove the plants of primroses and cowslip with short pistils and large grained pollen (Thus the plants which he imagined to be tending towards a male condition were more productive than the supposed females.) are rather more fertile than those with long pistils, and small-grained pollen. I find that they require the action of insects to set them, and I never will believe that these differences are without some meaning. Some of my experiments lead me to suspect that the large-grained pollen suits the long pistils and the small-grained pollen suits the short pistils; but I am determined to see if I cannot make out the mystery next spring. How does your book on plants brew in your mind? Have you begun it?... Remember me most kindly to Oliver. He must be astonished at not having a string of questions, I fear he will get out of practice! [The Primula-work was finished in the autumn of 1861, and on November 8th he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "I have sent my paper on dimorphism in Primula to the Linn. Soc. I shall go up and read it whenever it comes on; I hope you may be able to attend, for I do not suppose many will care a penny for the subject." With regard to the reading of the paper (on November 21st), he wrote to the same friend:-- "I by no means thought that I produced a "tremendous effect" in the Linn. Soc., but by Jove the Linn. Soc. produced a tremendous effect on me, for I could not get out of bed till late next evening, so that I just crawled home. I fear I must give up trying to read any paper or speak; it is a horrid bore, I can do nothing like other people." To Dr. Gray he wrote, (December 1861):-- "You may rely on it, I will send you a copy of my Primula paper as soon as I can get one; but I believe it will not be printed till April 1st, and therefore after my Orchid Book. I care more for your and Hooker's opinion than for that of all the rest of the world, and for Lyell's on geological points. Bentham and Hooker thought well of my paper when read; but no one can judge of evidence by merely hearing a paper." The work on Primula was the means of bringing my father in contact with the late Mr. John Scott, then working as a gardener in the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh,--an employment which he seems to have chosen in order to gratify his passion for natural history. He wrote one or two excellent botanical papers, and ultimately obtained a post in India. (While in India he made some admirable observations on expression for my father.) He died in 1880. A few phrases may be quoted from letters to Sir J.D. Hooker, showing my father's estimate of Scott:-- "If you know, do please tell me who is John Scott of the Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh; I have been corresponding largely with him; he is no common man." "If he had leisure he would make a wonderful observer; to my judgment I have come across no one like him." "He has interested me strangely, and I have formed a very high opinion of his intellect. I hope he will accept pecuniary assistance from me; but he has hitherto refused." (He ultimately succeeded in being allowed to pay for Mr. Scott's passage to India.) "I know nothing of him excepting from his letters; these show remarkable talent, astonishing perseverance, much modesty, and what I admire, determined difference from me on many points." So highly did he estimate Scott's abilities that he formed a plan (which however never went beyond an early stage of discussion) of employing him to work out certain problems connected with intercrossing. The following letter refers to my father's investigations on Lythrum (He was led to this, his first case of trimorphism by Lecoq's 'Geographie Botanique,' and this must have consoled him for the trick this work played him in turning out to be so much larger than he expected. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "Here is a good joke: I saw an extract from Lecoq, 'Geograph. Bot.,' and ordered it and hoped that it was a good sized pamphlet, and nine thick volumes have arrived!"), a plant which reveals even a more wonderful condition of sexual complexity than that of Primula. For in Lythrum there are not merely two, but three castes, differing structurally and physiologically from each other:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 9 [1862]. My dear Gray, It is late at night, and I am going to write briefly, and of course to beg a favour. The Mitchella very good, but pollen apparently equal-sized. I have just examined Hottonia, grand difference in pollen. Echium vulgare, a humbug, merely a case like Thymus. But I am almost stark staring mad over Lythrum (On another occasion he wrote (to Dr. Gray) with regard to Lythrum: "I must hold hard, otherwise I shall spend my life over dimorphism."); if I can prove what I fully believe, it is a grand case of TRIMORPHISM, with three different pollens and three stigmas; I have castrated and fertilised above ninety flowers, trying all the eighteen distinct crosses which are possible within the limits of this one species! I cannot explain, but I feel sure you would think it a grand case. I have been writing to Botanists to see if I can possibly get L. hyssopifolia, and it has just flashed on me that you might have Lythrum in North America, and I have looked to your Manual. For the love of heaven have a look at some of your species, and if you can get me seed, do; I want much to try species with few stamens, if they are dimorphic; Nesaea verticillata I should expect to be trimorphic. Seed! Seed! Seed! I should rather like seed of Mitchella. But oh, Lythrum! Your utterly mad friend, C. DARWIN. P.S.--There is reason in my madness, for I can see that to those who already believe in change of species, these facts will modify to a certain extent the whole view of Hybridity. (A letter to Dr. Gray (July, 1862) bears on this point: "A few days ago I made an observation which has surprised me more than it ought to do--it will have to be repeated several times, but I have scarcely a doubt of its accuracy. I stated in my Primula paper that the long-styled form of Linum grandiflorum was utterly sterile with its own pollen; I have lately been putting the pollen of the two forms on the stigma of the SAME flower; and it strikes me as truly wonderful, that the stigma distinguishes the pollen; and is penetrated by the tubes of the one and not by those of the other; nor are the tubes exserted. Or (which is the same thing) the stigma of the one form acts on and is acted on by pollen, which produces not the least effect on the stigma of the other form. Taking sexual power as the criterion of difference, the two forms of this one species may be said to be generically distinct.") [On the same subject he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker in August 1862:-- "Is Oliver at Kew? When I am established at Bournemouth I am completely mad to examine any fresh flowers of any Lythraceous plant, and I would write and ask him if any are in bloom." Again he wrote to the same friend in October:-- "If you ask Oliver, I think he will tell you I have got a real odd case in Lythrum, it interests me extremely, and seems to me the strangest case of propagation recorded amongst plants or animals, viz. a necessary triple alliance between three hermaphrodites. I feel sure I can now prove the truth of the case from a multitude of crosses made this summer." In an article, 'Dimorphism in the Genitalia of Plants' ('Silliman's Journal,' 1862, volume xxxiv. page 419), Dr. Gray pointed out that the structural difference between the two forms of Primula had already been defined in the 'Flora of North America,' as DIOECIO-DIMORPHISM. The use of this term called forth the following remarks from my father. The letter also alludes to a review of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' in the same volume of 'Silliman's Journal.'] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 26 [1862]. My dear Gray, The very day after my last letter, yours of November 10th, and the review in 'Silliman,' which I feared might have been lost, reached me. We were all very much interested by the political part of your letter; and in some odd way one never feels that information and opinions painted in a newspaper come from a living source; they seem dead, whereas all that you write is full of life. The reviews interested me profoundly; you rashly ask for my opinion, and you must consequently endure a long letter. First for Dimorphism; I do not AT PRESENT like the term "Dioecio-dimorphism;" for I think it gives quite a false notion, that the phenomena are connected with a separation of the sexes. Certainly in Primula there is unequal fertility in the two forms, and I suspect this is the case with Linum; and, therefore I felt bound in the Primula paper to state that it might be a step towards a dioecious condition; though I believe there are no dioecious forms in Primulaceae or Linaceae. But the three forms in Lythrum convince me that the phenomenon is in no way necessarily connected with any tendency to separation of sexes. The case seems to me in result or function to be almost identical with what old C.K. Sprengel called "dichogamy," and which is so frequent in truly hermaphrodite groups; namely, the pollen and stigma of each flower being mature at different periods. If I am right, it is very advisable not to use the term "dioecious," as this at once brings notions of separation of sexes. ... I was much perplexed by Oliver's remarks in the 'Natural History Review' on the Primula case, on the lower plants having sexes more often separated than in the higher plants,--so exactly the reverse of what takes place in animals. Hooker in his review of the 'Orchids' repeats this remark. There seems to be much truth in what you say ("Forms which are low in the scale as respects morphological completeness may be high in the scale of rank founded on specialisation of structure and function."--Dr. Gray, in 'Silliman's Journal.'), and it did not occur to me, about no improbability of specialisation in CERTAIN lines in lowly organised beings. I could hardly doubt that the hermaphrodite state is the aboriginal one. But how is it in the conjugation of Confervae--is not one of the two individuals here in fact male, and the other female? I have been much puzzled by this contrast in sexual arrangements between plants and animals. Can there be anything in the following consideration: By ROUGHEST calculation about one-third of the British GENERA of aquatic plants belong to the Linnean classes of Mono and Dioecia; whilst of terrestrial plants (the aquatic genera being subtracted) only one-thirteenth of the genera belong to these two classes. Is there any truth in this fact generally? Can aquatic plants, being confined to a small area or small community of individuals, require more free crossing, and therefore have separate sexes? But to return to our point, does not Alph. de Candolle say that aquatic plants taken as a whole are lowly organised, compared with terrestrial; and may not Oliver's remark on the separation of the sexes in lowly organised plants stand in some relation to their being frequently aquatic? Or is this all rubbish? ... What a magnificent compliment you end your review with! You and Hooker seem determined to turn my head with conceit and vanity (if not already turned) and make me an unbearable wretch. With most cordial thanks, my good and kind friend, Farewell, C. DARWIN. [The following passage from a letter (July 28, 1863), to Prof. Hildebrand, contains a reference to the reception of the dimorphic work in France:-- "I am extremely much pleased to hear that you have been looking at the manner of fertilisation of your native Orchids, and still more pleased to hear that you have been experimenting on Linum. I much hope that you may publish the result of these experiments; because I was told that the most eminent French botanists of Paris said that my paper on Primula was the work of imagination, and that the case was so improbable they did not believe in my results."] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. April 19 [1864]. ... I received a little time ago a paper with a good account of your Herbarium and Library, and a long time previously your excellent review of Scott's 'Primulaceae,' and I forwarded it to him in India, as it would much please him. I was very glad to see in it a new case of Dimorphism (I forget just now the name of the plant); I shall be grateful to hear of any other cases, as I still feel an interest in the subject. I should be very glad to get some seed of your dimorphic Plantagos; for I cannot banish the suspicion that they must belong to a very different class like that of the common Thyme. (In this prediction he was right. See 'Forms of Flowers,' page 307.) How could the wind, which is the agent of fertilisation, with Plantago, fertilise "reciprocally dimorphic" flowers like Primula? Theory says this cannot be, and in such cases of one's own theories I follow Agassiz and declare, "that nature never lies." I should even be very glad to examine the two dried forms of Plantago. Indeed, any dried dimorphic plants would be gratefully received... Did my Lythrum paper interest you? I crawl on at the rate of two hours per diem, with 'Variation under Domestication.' CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 26 [1864]. ... You do not know how pleased I am that you have read my Lythrum paper; I thought you would not have time, and I have for long years looked at you as my Public, and care more for your opinion than that of all the rest of the world. I have done nothing which has interested me so much as Lythrum, since making out the complemental males of Cirripedes. I fear that I have dragged in too much miscellaneous matter into the paper. ... I get letters occasionally, which show me that Natural Selection is making GREAT progress in Germany, and some amongst the young in France. I have just received a pamphlet from Germany, with the complimentary title of "Darwinische Arten-Enstehung-Humbug"! Farewell, my best of old friends, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. September 10, [1867?]. ... The only point which I have made out this summer, which could possibly interest you, is that the common Oxlip found everywhere, more or less commonly in England, is certainly a hybrid between the primrose and cowslip; whilst the P. elatior (Jacq.), found only in the Eastern Counties, is a perfectly distinct and good species; hardly distinguishable from the common oxlip, except by the length of the seed-capsule relatively to the calyx. This seems to me rather a horrid fact for all systematic botanists... CHARLES DARWIN TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, November 16, 1868. My dear Sir, I wrote my last note in such a hurry from London, that I quite forgot what I chiefly wished to say, namely to thank you for your excellent notices in the 'Bot. Zeitung' of my paper on the offspring of dimorphic plants. The subject is so obscure that I did not expect that any one would have noticed my paper, and I am accordingly very much pleased that you should have brought the subject before the many excellent naturalists of Germany. Of all the German authors (but they are not many) whose works I have read, you write by far the clearest style, but whether this is a compliment to a German writer I do not know. [The two following letters refer to the small bud-like "Cleistogamic" flowers found in the violet and many other plants. They do not open and are necessarily self-fertilised:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 30 [1862]. ... What will become of my book on Variation? I am involved in a multiplicity of experiments. I have been amusing myself by looking at the small flowers of Viola. If Oliver (Shortly afterwards he wrote: "Oliver, the omniscient, has sent me a paper in the 'Bot. Zeitung,' with most accurate description of all that I saw in Viola.") has had time to study them, he will have seen the curious case (as it seems to me) which I have just made clearly out, viz. that in these flowers, the FEW pollen grains are never shed, or never leave the anther-cells, but emit long pollen tubes, which penetrate the stigma. To-day I got the anther with the included pollen grain (now empty) at one end, and a bundle of tubes penetrating the stigmatic tissue at the other end; I got the whole under a microscope without breaking the tubes; I wonder whether the stigma pours some fluid into the anther so as to excite the included grains. It is a rather odd case of correlation, that in the double sweet violet the small flowers are double; i.e., have a multitude of minute scales representing the petals. What queer little flowers they are. Have you had time to read poor dear Henslow's life? it has interested me for the man's sake, and, what I did not think possible, has even exalted his character in my estimation... [The following is an extract from the letter given in part above, and refers to Dr. Gray's article on the sexual differences of plants:] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. NOVEMBER 26 [1862]. ... You will think that I am in the most unpleasant, contradictory, fractious humour, when I tell you that I do not like your term of "precocious fertilisation" for your second class of dimorphism [i.e. for cleistogamic fertilisation]. If I can trust my memory, the state of the corolla, of the stigma, and the pollen-grains is different from the state of the parts in the bud; that they are in a condition of special modification. But upon my life I am ashamed of myself to differ so much from my betters on this head. The TEMPORARY theory (This view is now generally accepted.) which I have formed on this class of dimorphism, just to guide experiment, is that the PERFECT flowers can only be perfectly fertilised by insects, and are in this case abundantly crossed; but that the flowers are not always, especially in early spring, visited enough by insects, and therefore the little imperfect self-fertilising flowers are developed to ensure a sufficiency of seed for present generations. Viola canina is sterile, when not visited by insects, but when so visited forms plenty of seed. I infer from the structure of three or four forms of Balsamineae, that these require insects; at least there is almost as plain adaptation to insects as in the Orchids. I have Oxalis acetosella ready in pots for experiment next spring; and I fear this will upset my little theory... Campanula carpathica, as I found this summer, is absolutely sterile if insects are excluded. Specularia speculum is fairly fertile when enclosed; and this seemed to me to be partially effected by the frequent closing of the flower; the inward angular folds of the corolla corresponding with the clefts of the open stigma, and in this action pushing pollen from the outside of the stigma on to its surface. Now can you tell me, does S. perfoliata close its flower like S. speculum, with angular inward folds? if so, I am smashed without some fearful "wriggling." Are the IMPERFECT flowers of your Specularia the early or the later ones? very early or very late? It is rather pretty to see the importance of the closing of flowers of S. speculum. ['Forms of Flowers' was published in July; in June, 1877, he wrote to Professor Carus with regard to the translation:-- "My new book is not a long one, viz. 350 pages, chiefly of the larger type, with fifteen simple woodcuts. All the proofs are corrected except the Index, so that it will soon be published. "... I do not suppose that I shall publish any more books, though perhaps a few more papers. I cannot endure being idle, but heaven knows whether I am capable of any more good work." The review alluded to in the next letter is at page 445 of the volume of 'Nature' for 1878:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. Down, April 5, 1878. My dear Dyer, I have just read in 'Nature' the review of 'Forms of Flowers,' and I am sure that it is by you. I wish with all my heart that it deserved one quarter of the praises which you give it. Some of your remarks have interested me greatly... Hearty thanks for your generous and most kind sympathy, which does a man real good, when he is as dog-tired as I am at this minute with working all day, so good-bye. C. DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.XIII. -- CLIMBING AND INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. [My father mentions in his 'Autobiography' (volume i.) that he was led to take up the subject of climbing plants by reading Dr. Gray's paper, "Note on the Coiling of the Tendrils of Plants." ('Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences,' 1858.) This essay seems to have been read in 1862, but I am only able to guess at the date of the letter in which he asks for a reference to it, so that the precise date of his beginning this work cannot be determined. In June 1863 he was certainly at work, and wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker for information as to previous publications on the subject, being then in ignorance of Palm's and H. v. Mohl's works on climbing plants, both of which were published in 1827.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [June] 25 [1863]. My dear Hooker, I have been observing pretty carefully a little fact which has surprised me; and I want to know from you and Oliver whether it seems new or odd to you, so just tell me whenever you write; it is a very trifling fact, so do not answer on purpose. I have got a plant of Echinocystis lobata to observe the irritability of the tendrils described by Asa Gray, and which of course, is plain enough. Having the plant in my study, I have been surprised to find that the uppermost part of each branch (i.e. the stem between the two uppermost leaves excluding the growing tip) is CONSTANTLY and slowly twisting round making a circle in from one-half to two hours; it will sometimes go round two or three times, and then at the same rate untwists and twists in opposite directions. It generally rests half an hour before it retrogrades. The stem does not become permanently twisted. The stem beneath the twisting portion does not move in the least, though not tied. The movement goes on all day and all early night. It has no relation to light for the plant stands in my window and twists from the light just as quickly as towards it. This may be a common phenomenon for what I know, but it confounded me quite, when I began to observe the irritability of the tendrils. I do not say it is the final cause, but the result is pretty, for the plant every one and a half or two hours sweeps a circle (according to the length of the bending shoot and the length of the tendril) of from one foot to twenty inches in diameter, and immediately that the tendril touches any object its sensitiveness causes it immediately to seize it; a clever gardener, my neighbour, who saw the plant on my table last night, said: "I believe, Sir, the tendrils can see, for wherever I put a plant it finds out any stick near enough." I believe the above is the explanation, viz. that it sweeps slowly round and round. The tendrils have some sense, for they do not grasp each other when young. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 14 [1863]. My dear Hooker, I am getting very much amused by my tendrils, it is just the sort of niggling work which suits me, and takes up no time and rather rests me whilst writing. So will you just think whether you know any plant, which you could give or lend me, or I could buy, with tendrils, remarkable in any way for development, for odd or peculiar structure, or even for an odd place in natural arrangement. I have seen or can see Cucurbitaceae, Passion-flower, Virginian-creeper, Cissus discolor, Common-pea and Everlasting-pea. It is really curious the diversification of irritability (I do not mean the spontaneous movement, about which I wrote before and correctly, as further observation shows): for instance, I find a slight pinch between the thumb and finger at the end of the tendril of the Cucurbitaceae causes prompt movement, but a pinch excites no movement in Cissus. The cause is that one side alone (the concave) is irritable in the former; whereas both sides are irritable in Cissus, so if you excite at the same time both OPPOSITE sides there is no movement, but by touching with a pencil the two branches of the tendril, in any part whatever, you cause movement towards that point; so that I can mould, by a mere touch, the two branches into any shape I like... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 4 [1863]. My present hobby-horse I owe to you, viz. the tendrils: their irritability is beautiful, as beautiful in all its modifications as anything in Orchids. About the SPONTANEOUS movement (independent of touch) of the tendrils and upper internodes, I am rather taken aback by your saying, "is it not wel-known?" I can find nothing in any book which I have... The spontaneous movement of the tendrils is independent of the movement of the upper internodes, but both work harmoniously together in sweeping a circle for the tendrils to grasp a stick. So with all climbing plants (without tendrils) as yet examined, the upper internodes go on night and day sweeping a circle in one fixed direction. It is surprising to watch the Apocyneae with shoots 18 inches long (beyond the supporting stick), steadily searching for something to climb up. When the shoot meets a stick, the motion at that point is arrested, but in the upper part is continued; so that the climbing of all plants yet examined is the simple result of the spontaneous circulatory movement of the upper internodes. Pray tell me whether anything has been published on this subject? I hate publishing what is old; but I shall hardly regret my work if it is old, as it has much amused me... CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. May 28, 1864. ... An Irish nobleman on his death-bed declared that he could conscientiously say that he had never throughout life denied himself any pleasure; and I can conscientiously say that I have never scrupled to trouble you; so here goes.--Have you travelled South, and can you tell me whether the trees, which Bignonia capreolata climbs, are covered with moss or filamentous lichen or Tillandsia? (He subsequently learned from Dr. Gray that Polypodium incanum abounds on the trees in the districts where this species of Bignonia grows. See 'Climbing Plants,' page 103.) I ask because its tendrils abhor a simple stick, do not much relish rough bark, but delight in wool or moss. They adhere in a curious manner by making little disks, like the Ampelopsis... By the way, I will enclose some specimens, and if you think it worth while, you can put them under the simple microscope. It is remarkable how specially adapted some tendrils are; those of Eccremocarpus scaber do not like a stick, will have nothing to say to wool; but give them a bundle of culms of grass, or a bundle of bristles and they seize them well. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 10 [1864]. ... I have now read two German books, and all I believe that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to find that I have a good deal of new matter. It is strange, but I really think no one has explained simple twining plants. These books have stirred me up, and made me wish for plants specified in them. I shall be very glad of those you mention. I have written to Veitch for young Nepenthes and Vanilla (which I believe will turn out a grand case, though a root creeper), if I cannot buy young Vanilla I will ask you. I have ordered a leaf-climbing fern, Lygodium. All this work about climbers would hurt my conscience, did I think I could do harder work. (He was much out of health at this time.) [He continued his observations on climbing plants during the prolonged illness from which he suffered in the autumn of 1863, and in the following spring. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker, apparently in March 1864:-- "For several days I have been decidedly better, and what I lay much stress on (whatever doctors say), my brain feels far stronger, and I have lost many dreadful sensations. The hot-house is such an amusement to me, and my amusement I owe to you, as my delight is to look at the many odd leaves and plants from Kew... The only approach to work which I can do is to look at tendrils and climbers, this does not distress my weakened brain. Ask Oliver to look over the enclosed queries (and do you look) and amuse a broken-down brother naturalist by answering any which he can. If you ever lounge through your houses, remember me and climbing plants." On October 29, 1864, he wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I have not been able to resist doing a little more at your godchild, my climbing paper, or rather in size little book, which by Jove I will have copied out, else I shall never stop. This has been new sort of work for me, and I have been pleased to find what a capital guide for observations a full conviction of the change of species is." On January 19, 1865, he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "It is working hours, but I am trying to take a day's holiday, for I finished and despatched yesterday my climbing paper. For the last ten days I have done nothing but correct refractory sentences, and I loathe the whole subject." A letter to Dr. Gray, April 9, 1865, has a word or two on the subject:-- "I have begun correcting proofs of my paper on 'Climbing Plants.' I suppose I shall be able to send you a copy in four or five weeks. I think it contains a good deal new and some curious points, but it is so fearfully long, that no one will ever read it. If, however, you do not SKIM through it, you will be an unnatural parent, for it is your child." Dr. Gray not only read it but approved of it, to my father's great satisfaction, as the following extracts show:-- "I was much pleased to get your letter of July 24th. Now that I can do nothing, I maunder over old subjects, and your approbation of my climbing paper gives me VERY great satisfaction. I made my observations when I could do nothing else and much enjoyed it, but always doubted whether they were worth publishing. I demur to its not being necessary to explain in detail about the spires in CAUGHT tendrils running in opposite directions; for the fact for a long time confounded me, and I have found it difficult enough to explain the cause to two or three persons." (August 15, 1865.) "I received yesterday your article (In the September number of 'Silliman's Journal,' concluded in the January number, 1866.) on climbers, and it has pleased me in an extraordinary and even silly manner. You pay me a superb compliment, and as I have just said to my wife, I think my friends must perceive that I like praise, they give me such hearty doses. I always admire your skill in reviews or abstracts, and you have done this article excellently and given the whole essence of my paper... I have had a letter from a good Zoologist in S. Brazil, F. Muller, who has been stirred up to observe climbers and gives me some curious cases of BRANCH-climbers, in which branches are converted into tendrils, and then continue to grow and throw out leaves and new branches, and then lose their tendril character." (October 1865.) The paper on Climbing Plants was republished in 1875, as a separate book. The author had been unable to give his customary amount of care to the style of the original essay, owing to the fact that it was written during a period of continued ill-health, and it was now found to require a great deal of alteration. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (March 3, 1875): "It is lucky for authors in general that they do not require such dreadful work in merely licking what they write into shape." And to Mr. Murray in September he wrote: "The corrections are heavy in 'Climbing Plants,' and yet I deliberately went over the MS. and old sheets three times." The book was published in September 1875, an edition of 1500 copies was struck off; the edition sold fairly well, and 500 additional copies were printed in June of the following year.] INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. [In the summer of 1860 he was staying at the house of his sister-in-law, Miss Wedgwood, in Ashdown Forest, whence he wrote (July 29, 1860), to Sir Joseph Hooker;-- "Latterly I have done nothing here; but at first I amused myself with a few observations on the insect-catching power of Drosera; and I must consult you some time whether my 'twaddle' is worth communicating to the Linnean Society." In August he wrote to the same friend:-- "I will gratefully send my notes on Drosera when copied by my copier: the subject amused me when I had nothing to do." He has described in the 'Autobiography' (volume i.), the general nature of these early experiments. He noticed insects sticking to the leaves, and finding that flies, etc., placed on the adhesive glands were held fast and embraced, he suspected that the leaves were adapted to supply nitrogenous food to the plant. He therefore tried the effect on the leaves of various nitrogenous fluids--with results which, as far as they went, verified his surmise. In September, 1860, he wrote to Dr. Gray:-- "I have been infinitely amused by working at Drosera: the movements are really curious; and the manner in which the leaves detect certain nitrogenous compounds is marvellous. You will laugh; but it is, at present, my full belief (after endless experiments) that they detect (and move in consequence of) the 1/2880 part of a single grain of nitrate of ammonia; but the muriate and sulphate of ammonia bother their chemical skill, and they cannot make anything of the nitrogen in these salts! I began this work on Drosera in relation to GRADATION as throwing light on Dionaea." Later in the autumn he was again obliged to leave home for Eastbourne, where he continued his work on Drosera. The work was so new to him that he found himself in difficulties in the preparation of solutions, and became puzzled over fluid and solid ounces, etc. etc. To a friend, the late Mr. E. Cresy, who came to his help in the matter of weights and measures, he wrote giving an account of the experiments. The extract (November 2, 1860) which follows illustrates the almost superstitious precautions he often applied to his researches:-- "Generally I have scrutinised every gland and hair on the leaf before experimenting; but it occurred to me that I might in some way affect the leaf; though this is almost impossible, as I scrutinised with equal care those that I put into distilled water (the same water being used for dissolving the carbonate of ammonia). I then cut off four leaves (not touching them with my fingers), and put them in plain water, and four other leaves into the weak solution, and after leaving them for an hour and a half, I examined every hair on all eight leaves; no change on the four in water; every gland and hair affected in those in ammonia. "I had measured the quantity of weak solution, and I counted the glands which had absorbed the ammonia, and were plainly affected; the result convinced me that each gland could not have absorbed more than 1/64000 or 1/65000 of a grain. I have tried numbers of other experiments all pointing to the same result. Some experiments lead me to believe that very sensitive leaves are acted on by much smaller doses. Reflect how little ammonia a plant can get growing on poor soil--yet it is nourished. The really surprising part seems to me that the effect should be visible, and not under very high power; for after trying a high power, I thought it would be safer not to consider any effect which was not plainly visible under a two-thirds object glass and middle eye-piece. The effect which the carbonate of ammonia produces is the segregation of the homogeneous fluid in the cells into a cloud of granules and colourless fluid; and subsequently the granules coalesce into larger masses, and for hours have the oddest movements--coalescing, dividing, coalescing ad infinitum. I do not know whether you will care for these ill-written details; but, as you asked, I am sure I am bound to comply, after all the very kind and great trouble which you have taken." On his return home he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 21, 1860):-- "I have been working like a madman at Drosera. Here is a fact for you which is certain as you stand where you are, though you won't believe it, that a bit of hair 1/78000 of one grain in weight placed on gland, will cause ONE of the gland-bearing hairs of Drosera to curve inwards, and will alter the condition of the contents of every cell in the foot-stalk of the gland." And a few days later to Lyell:-- "I will and must finish my Drosera MS., which will take me a week, for, at the present moment, I care more about Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened and astounded at my results. I declare it is a certain fact, that one organ is so sensitive to touch, that a weight seventy-eight times less than that, viz., 1/1000 of a grain, which will move the best chemical balance, suffices to cause a conspicuous movement. Is it not curious that a plant should be far more sensitive to the touch than any nerve in the human body? Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true. When I am on my hobby-horse, I never can resist telling my friends how well my hobby goes, so you must forgive the rider." The work was continued, as a holiday task, at Bournemouth, where he stayed during the autumn of 1862. The discussion in the following letter on "nervous matter" in Drosera is of interest in relation to recent researches on the continuity of protoplasm from cell to cell:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth. September 26 [1862]. My dear Hooker, Do not read this till you have leisure. If that blessed moment ever comes, I should be very glad to have your opinion on the subject of this letter. I am led to the opinion that Drosera must have diffused matter in organic connection, closely analogous to the nervous matter of animals. When the glands of one of the papillae or tentacles, in its natural position is supplied with nitrogenised fluid and certain other stimulants, or when loaded with an extremely slight weight, or when struck several times with a needle, the pedicel bends near its base in under one minute. These varied stimulants are conveyed down the pedicel by some means; it cannot be vibration, for drops of fluid put on quite quietly cause the movement; it cannot be absorption of the fluid from cell to cell, for I can see the rate of absorption, which though quick, is far slower, and in Dionaea the transmission is instantaneous; analogy from animals would point to transmission through nervous matter. Reflecting on the rapid power of absorption in the glands, the extreme sensibility of the whole organ, and the conspicuous movement caused by varied stimulants, I have tried a number of substances which are not caustic or corrosive,... but most of which are known to have a remarkable action on the nervous matter of animals. You will see the results in the enclosed paper. As the nervous matter of different animals are differently acted on by the same poisons, one would not expect the same action on plants and animals; only if plants have diffused nervous matter, some degree of analogous action. And this is partially the case. Considering these experiments, together with the previously made remarks on the functions of the parts, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that Drosera possesses matter at least in some degree analogous in constitution and function to nervous matter. Now do tell me what you think, as far as you can judge from my abstract; of course many more experiments would have to be tried; but in former years I tried on the whole leaf, instead of on separate glands, a number of innocuous (This line of investigation made him wish for information on the action of poisons on plants; as in many other cases he applied to Professor Oliver, and in reference to the result wrote to Hooker: "Pray thank Oliver heartily for his heap of references on poisons.") substances, such as sugar, gum, starch, etc., and they produced no effect. Your opinion will aid me in deciding some future year in going on with this subject. I should not have thought it worth attempting, but I had nothing on earth to do. My dear Hooker, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--We return home on Monday 28th. Thank Heaven! [A long break now ensued in his work on insectivorous plants, and it was not till 1872 that the subject seriously occupied him again. A passage in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, written in 1863 or 1864, shows, however, that the question was not altogether absent from his mind in the interim:-- "Depend on it you are unjust on the merits of my beloved Drosera; it is a wonderful plant, or rather a most sagacious animal. I will stick up for Drosera to the day of my death. Heaven knows whether I shall ever publish my pile of experiments on it." He notes in his diary that the last proof of the 'Expression of the Emotions' was finished on August 22, 1872, and that he began to work on Drosera on the following day.] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [Sevenoaks], October 22 [1872]. ... I have worked pretty hard for four or five weeks on Drosera, and then broke down; so that we took a house near Sevenoaks for three weeks (where I now am) to get complete rest. I have very little power of working now, and must put off the rest of the work on Drosera till next spring, as my plants are dying. It is an endless subject, and I must cut it short, and for this reason shall not do much on Dionaea. The point which has interested me most is tracing the NERVES! which follow the vascular bundles. By a prick with a sharp lancet at a certain point, I can paralyse one-half the leaf, so that a stimulus to the other half causes no movement. It is just like dividing the spinal marrow of a frog:--no stimulus can be sent from the brain or anterior part of the spine to the hind legs; but if these latter are stimulated, they move by reflex action. I find my old results about the astonishing sensitiveness of the nervous system (!?)of Drosera to various stimulants fully confirmed and extended... [His work on digestion in Drosera and other points in the physiology of the plant soon led him into regions where his knowledge was defective, and here the advice and assistance which he received from Dr. Burdon Sanderson was of much value:] CHARLES DARWIN TO J. BURDON SANDERSON. Down, July 25, 1873. My dear Dr. Sanderson, I should like to tell you a little about my recent work with Drosera, to show that I have profited by your suggestions, and to ask a question or two. 1. It is really beautiful how quickly and well Drosera and Dionaea dissolve little cubes of albumen and gelatine. I kept the same sized cubes on wet moss for comparison. When you were here I forgot that I had tried gelatine, but albumen is far better for watching its dissolution and absorption. Frankland has told me how to test in a rough way for pepsin; and in the autumn he will discover what acid the digestive juice contains. 2. A decoction of cabbage-leaves and green peas causes as much inflection as an infusion of raw meat; a decoction of grass is less powerful. Though I hear that the chemists try to precipitate all albumen from the extract of belladonna, I think they must fail, as the extract causes inflection, whereas a new lot of atropine, as well as the valerianate [of atropine], produce no effect. 3. I have been trying a good many experiments with heated water... Should you not call the following case one of heat rigor? Two leaves were heated to 130 deg, and had every tentacle closely inflected; one was taken out and placed in cold water, and it re-expanded; the other was heated to 145 deg, and had not the least power of re-expansion. Is not this latter case heat rigor? If you can inform me, I should very much like to hear at what temperature cold-blooded and invertebrate animals are killed. 4. I must tell you my final result, of which I am sure, [as to] the sensitiveness of Drosera. I made a solution of one part of phosphate of ammonia by weight to 218,750 of water; of this solution I gave so much that a leaf got 1/8000 of a grain of the phosphate. I then counted the glands, and each could have got only 1/1552000 of a grain; this being absorbed by the glands, sufficed to cause the tentacles bearing these glands to bend through an angle of 180 deg. Such sensitiveness requires hot weather, and carefully selected young yet mature leaves. It strikes me as a wonderful fact. I must add that I took every precaution, by trying numerous leaves at the same time in the solution and in the same water which was used for making the solution. 5. If you can persuade your friend to try the effects of carbonate of ammonia on the aggregation of the white blood corpuscles, I should very much like to hear the result. I hope this letter will not have wearied you. Believe me, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. Down, 24 [December 1873?]. My dear Mr. Dyer, I fear that you will think me a great bore, but I cannot resist telling you that I have just found out that the leaves of Pinguicula possess a beautifully adapted power of movement. Last night I put on a row of little flies near one edge of two YOUNGISH leaves; and after 14 hours these edges are beautifully folded over so as to clasp the flies, thus bringing the glands into contact with the upper surfaces of the flies, and they are now secreting copiously above and below the flies and no doubt absorbing. The acid secretion has run down the channelled edge and has collected in the spoon-shaped extremity, where no doubt the glands are absorbing the delicious soup. The leaf on one side looks just like the helix of a human ear, if you were to stuff flies within the fold. Yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 3 [1874]. ... I am now hard at work getting my book on Drosera & Co. ready for the printers, but it will take some time, for I am always finding out new points to observe. I think you will be interested by my observations on the digestive process in Drosera; the secretion contains an acid of the acetic series, and some ferment closely analogous to, but not identical with, pepsin; for I have been making a long series of comparative trials. No human being will believe what I shall publish about the smallness of the doses of phosphate of ammonia which act. ... I began reading the Madagascar squib (A description of a carnivorous plant supposed to subsist on human beings.) quite gravely, and when I found it stated that Felis and Bos inhabited Madagascar, I thought it was a false story, and did not perceive it was a hoax till I came to the woman... CHARLES DARWIN TO F.C. DONDERS. (Professor Donders, the well-known physiologist of Utrecht.) Down, July 7, 1874. My dear Professor Donders, My son George writes to me that he has seen you, and that you have been very kind to him, for which I return to you my cordial thanks. He tells me on your authority, of a fact which interests me in the highest degree, and which I much wish to be allowed to quote. It relates to the action of one millionth of a grain of atropine on the eye. Now will you be so kind, whenever you can find a little leisure, to tell me whether you yourself have observed this fact, or believe it on good authority. I also wish to know what proportion by weight the atropine bore to the water solution, and how much of the solution was applied to the eye. The reason why I am so anxious on this head is that it gives some support to certain facts repeatedly observed by me with respect to the action of phosphate of ammonia on Drosera. The 1/4000000 of a grain absorbed by a gland clearly makes the tentacle which bears this gland become inflected; and I am fully convinced that 1/20000000 of a grain of the crystallised salt (i.e. containing about one-third of its weight of water of crystallisation) does the same. Now I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement. It will be of great value to me to be able to give any analogous facts in support. The case of Drosera is all the more interesting as the absorption of the salt or any other stimulant applied to the gland causes it to transmit a motor influence to the base of the tentacle which bears the gland. Pray forgive me for troubling you, and do not trouble yourself to answer this until your health is fully re-established. Pray believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [During the summer of 1874 he was at work on the genus Utricularia, and he wrote (July 16th) to Sir J.D. Hooker giving some account of the progress of his work:-- "I am rather glad you have not been able to send Utricularia, for the common species has driven F. and me almost mad. The structure is MOST complex. The bladders catch a multitude of Entomostraca, and larvae of insects. The mechanism for capture is excellent. But there is much that we cannot understand. From what I have seen to-day, I strongly suspect that it is necrophagous, i.e. that it cannot digest, but absorbs decaying matter." He was indebted to Lady Dorothy Nevill for specimens of the curious Utricularia montana, which is not aquatic like the European species, but grows among the moss and debris on the branches of trees. To this species the following letter refers:] CHARLES DARWIN TO LADY DOROTHY NEVILL. Down September 18 [1874]. Dear Lady Dorothy Nevill, I am so much obliged to you. I was so convinced that the bladders were with the leaves that I never thought of removing the moss, and this was very stupid of me. The great solid bladder-like swellings almost on the surface are wonderful objects, but are not the true bladders. These I found on the roots near the surface, and down to a depth of two inches in the sand. They are as transparent as glass, from 1/20 to 1/100 of an inch in size, and hollow. They have all the important points of structure of the bladders of the floating English species, and I felt confident I should find captured prey. And so I have to my delight in two bladders, with clear proof that they had absorbed food from the decaying mass. For Utricularia is a carrion-feeder, and not strictly carnivorous like Drosera. The great solid bladder-like bodies, I believe, are reservoirs of water like a camel's stomach. As soon as I have made a few more observations, I mean to be so cruel as to give your plant no water, and observe whether the great bladders shrink and contain air instead of water; I shall then also wash all earth from all roots, and see whether there are true bladders for capturing subterranean insects down to the very bottom of the pot. Now shall you think me very greedy, if I say that supposing the species is not very precious, and you have several, will you give me one more plant, and if so, please to send it to "Orpington Station, S.E.R., to be forwarded by foot messenger." I have hardly ever enjoyed a day more in my life than I have this day's work; and this I owe to your Ladyship's great kindness. The seeds are very curious monsters; I fancy of some plant allied to Medicago, but I will show them to Dr. Hooker. Your ladyship's very gratefully, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 30, 1874. My dear H., Your magnificent present of Aldrovanda has arrived quite safe. I have enjoyed greatly a good look at the shut leaves, one of which I cut open. It is an aquatic Dionaea, which has acquired some structures identical with those of Utricularia! If the leaves open and I can transfer them open under the microscope, I will try some experiments, for mortal man cannot resist the temptation. If I cannot transfer, I will do nothing, for otherwise it would require hundreds of leaves. You are a good man to give me such pleasure. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. [The manuscript of 'Insectivorous Plants' was finished in March 1875. He seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the writing of this book, thus he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker in February:-- "You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide; I thought it was decently written, but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be ready to go to printers for two months, and will then make a confoundedly big book. Murray will say that it is no use publishing in the middle of summer, so I do not know what will be the upshot; but I begin to think that every one who publishes a book is a fool." The book was published on July 2nd, 1875, and 2700 copies were sold out of the edition of 3000.] CHAPTER 2.XIV. -- THE 'POWER OF MOVEMENT IN PLANTS.' 1880. [The few sentences in the autobiographical chapter give with sufficient clearness the connection between the 'Power of Movement,' and one of the author's earlier books, that on 'Climbing Plants.' The central idea of the book is that the movements of plants in relation to light, gravitation, etc., are modifications of a spontaneous tendency to revolve or circumnutate, which is widely inherent in the growing parts of plants. This conception has not been generally adopted, and has not taken a place among the canons of orthodox physiology. The book has been treated by Professor Sachs with a few words of professorial contempt; and by Professor Wiesner it has been honoured by careful and generously expressed criticism. Mr. Thiselton Dyer ('Charles Darwin' ('Nature' Series), page 41.) has well said: "Whether this masterly conception of the unity of what has hitherto seemed a chaos of unrelated phenomena will be sustained, time alone will show. But no one can doubt the importance of what Mr. Darwin has done, in showing that for the future the phenomena of plant movement can and indeed must be studied from a single point of view." The work was begun in the summer of 1877, after the publication of 'Different Forms of Flowers,' and by the autumn his enthusiasm for the subject was thoroughly established, and he wrote to Mr. Dyer: "I am all on fire at the work." At this time he was studying the movements of cotyledons, in which the sleep of plants is to be observed in its simplest form; in the following spring he was trying to discover what useful purpose these sleep-movements could serve, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (March 25th, 1878):-- "I think we have PROVED that the sleep of plants is to lessen the injury to the leaves from radiation. This has interested me much, and has cost us great labour, as it has been a problem since the time of Linnaeus. But we have killed or badly injured a multitude of plants: N.B.--Oxalis carnosa was most valuable, but last night was killed." His letters of this period do not give any connected account of the progress of the work. The two following are given as being characteristic of the author:] CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. Down, June 2, 1878. My dear Dyer, I remember saying that I should die a disgraced man if I did not observe a seedling Cactus and Cycas, and you have saved me from this horrible fate, as they move splendidly and normally. But I have two questions to ask: the Cycas observed was a huge seed in a broad and very shallow pot with cocoa-nut fibre as I suppose. It was named only Cycas. Was it Cycas pectinata? I suppose that I cannot be wrong in believing that what first appears above ground is a true leaf, for I can see no stem or axis. Lastly, you may remember that I said that we could not raise Opuntia nigricans; now I must confess to a piece of stupidity; one did come up, but my gardener and self stared at it, and concluded that it could not be a seedling Opuntia, but now that I have seen one of O. basilaris, I am sure it was; I observed it only casually, and saw movements, which makes me wish to observe carefully another. If you have any fruit, will Mr. Lynch (Mr. R.I. Lynch, now Curator of the Botanic Garden at Cambridge was at this time in the Royal Gardens, Kew.) be so kind as to send one more? I am working away like a slave at radicles [roots] and at movements of true leaves, for I have pretty well done with cotyledons... That was an EXCELLENT letter about the Gardens (This refers to an attempt to induce the Government to open the Royal Gardens at Kew in the morning.): I had hoped that the agitation was over. Politicians are a poor truckling lot, for [they] must see the wretched effects of keeping the gardens open all day long. Your ever troublesome friend, CH. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. 4 Bryanston St., Portman Square, November 21 [1878]. My dear Dyer, I must thank you for all the wonderful trouble which you have taken about the seeds of Impatiens, and on scores of other occasions. It in truth makes me feel ashamed of myself, and I cannot help thinking: "Oh Lord, when he sees our book he will cry out, is this all for which I have helped so much!" In seriousness, I hope that we have made out some points, but I fear that we have done very little for the labour which we have expended on our work. We are here for a week for a little rest, which I needed. If I remember right, November 30th, is the anniversary at the Royal, and I fear Sir Joseph must be almost at the last gasp. I shall be glad when he is no longer President. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. [In the spring of the following year, 1879. When he was engaged in putting his results together, he wrote somewhat despondingly to Mr. Dyer: "I am overwhelmed with my notes, and almost too old to undertake the job which I have in hand--i.e. movements of all kinds. Yet it is worse to be idle." Later on in the year, when the work was approaching completion, he wrote to Prof. Carus (July 17, 1879), with respect to a translation:-- "Together with my son Francis, I am preparing a rather large volume on the general movements of Plants, and I think that we have made out a good many new points and views. "I fear that our views will meet a good deal of opposition in Germany; but we have been working very hard for some years at the subject. "I shall be MUCH pleased if you think the book worth translating, and proof-sheets shall be sent you, whenever they are ready." In the autumn he was hard at work on the manuscript, and wrote to Dr. Gray (October 24, 1879):-- "I have written a rather big book--more is the pity--on the movements of plants, and I am now just beginning to go over the MS. for the second time, which is a horrid bore." Only the concluding part of the next letter refers to the 'Power of Movements':] CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. May 28, 1880. My dear Sir, I am particularly obliged to you for having so kindly send me your 'Phytographie' (A book on the methods of botanical research, more especially of systematic work.); for if I had merely seen it advertised, I should not have supposed that it could have concerned me. As it is, I have read with very great interest about a quarter, but will not delay longer thanking you. All that you say seems to me very clear and convincing, and as in all your writings I find a large number of philosophical remarks new to me, and no doubt shall find many more. They have recalled many a puzzle through which I passed when monographing the Cirripedia; and your book in those days would have been quite invaluable to me. It has pleased me to find that I have always followed your plan of making notes on separate pieces of paper; I keep several scores of large portfolios, arranged on very thin shelves about two inches apart, fastened to the walls of my study, and each shelf has its proper name or title; and I can thus put at once every memorandum into its proper place. Your book will, I am sure, be very useful to many young students, and I shall beg my son Francis (who intends to devote himself to the physiology of plants) to read it carefully. As for myself I am taking a fortnight's rest, after sending a pile of MS. to the printers, and it was a piece of good fortune that your book arrived as I was getting into my carriage, for I wanted something to read whilst away from home. My MS. relates to the movements of plants, and I think that I have succeeded in showing that all the more important great classes of movements are due to the modification of a kind of movement common to all parts of all plants from their earliest youth. Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and with my highest respect and best thanks, Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. P.S.--It always pleases me to exalt plants in the organic scale, and if you will take the trouble to read my last chapter when my book (which will be sadly too big) is published and sent to you, I hope and think that you also will admire some of the beautiful adaptations by which seedling plants are enabled to perform their proper functions. [The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500 copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray's sale. With regard to it he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 23):-- "Your note has pleased me much--for I did not expect that you would have had time to read ANY of it. Read the last chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without the evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after exposure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains) cut off is, I think, worth your reading (bottom of page 525); it astounded me. The next most remarkable fact, as it appeared to me (page 148), is the discrimination of the tip of the radicle between a slightly harder and softer object affixed on opposite sides of tip. But I will bother you no more about my book. The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is marvellous." To another friend, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, he wrote (November 28, 1880):-- "Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think too highly of our work, not but what this is very pleasant... Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out the use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of Natural History. Indeed you are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us." The book was widely reviewed, and excited much interest among the general public. The following letter refers to a leading article in the "Times", November 20, 1880:] CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. (Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father's early friend, the late Mr. Owen, of Woodhouse.) Down, November 22, 1880. My dear Sarah, You see how audaciously I begin; but I have always loved and shall ever love this name. Your letter has done more than please me, for its kindness has touched my heart. I often think of old days and of the delight of my visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of gratitude I owe to your father. It was very good of you to write. I had quite forgotten my old ambition about the Shrewsbury newspaper (Mrs. Haliburton had reminded him of his saying as a boy that if Eddowes' newspaper ever alluded to him as "our deserving fellow-townsman," his ambition would be amply gratified.); but I remember the pride which I felt when I saw in a book about beetles the impressive words "captured by C. Darwin." Captured sounded so grand compared with caught. This seemed to me glory enough for any man! I do not know in the least what made the "Times" glorify me (The following is the opening sentence of the leading article:--"Of all our living men of science none have laboured longer and to more splendid purpose than Mr. Darwin."), for it has sometimes pitched into me ferociously. I should very much like to see you again, but you would find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and lunch with us. (My father had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Haliburton at his brother's house in Queen Anne Street.) Believe me, my dear Sarah, Yours gratefully and affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN. [The following letter was called forth by the publication of a volume devoted to the criticism of the 'Power of Movement in Plants' by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius Wiesner, Professor of Botany in the University of Vienna:] CHARLES DARWIN TO JULIUS WIESNER. Down, October 25th, 1881. My dear Sir, I have now finished your book ('Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen.' Vienna, 1881.), and have understood the whole except a very few passages. In the first place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which you have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a man may differ from another in the most decided manner, and yet express his difference with the most perfect courtesy. Not a few English and German naturalists might learn a useful lesson from your example; for the coarse language often used by scientific men towards each other does no good, and only degrades science. I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture; but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with the cotyledons of Phalaris, can I give up the belief of the transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper to the lower part. At page 60 you have misunderstood my meaning, when you say that I believe that the effects from light are transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic. I never considered whether or not the short part beneath the ground was heliotropic; but I believe that with young seedlings the part which bends NEAR, but ABOVE the ground is heliotropic, and I believe so from this part bending only moderately when the light is oblique, and bending rectangularly when the light is horizontal. Nevertheless the bending of this lower part, as I conclude from my experiments with opaque caps, is influenced by the action of light on the upper part. My opinion, however, on the above and many other points, signifies very little, for I have no doubt that your book will convince most botanists that I am wrong in all the points on which we differ. Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, etc., act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I am quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I could not understand the passage at page 78, until I consulted my son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that your objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp illuminating both sides of the object, and not being reduced, with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light; but he doubts whether this NECESSARY correction will account for the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the plants in the successive pots. With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing movement; whereas no movement was caused if the card remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum. The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the tip having been injured; but externally there was no sign of injury: and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme part became curved TOWARDS the injured side. I can no more believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that the human tongue [is so] when it feels any such object. About the most important subject in my book, namely circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered at the difference in our conclusions; but I could not fully understand some parts which my son Francis will be able to translate to me when he returns home. The greater part of your book is beautifully clear. Finally, I wish that I had enough strength and spirit to commence a fresh set of experiments, and publish the results, with a full recantation of my errors when convinced of them; but I am too old for such an undertaking, nor do I suppose that I shall be able to do much, or any more, original work. I imagine that I see one possible source of error in your beautiful experiment of a plant rotating and exposed to a lateral light. With high respect and with sincere thanks for the kind manner in which you have treated me and my mistakes, I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. CHAPTER 2.XV. -- MISCELLANEOUS BOTANICAL LETTERS. 1873-1882. [The present chapter contains a series of miscellaneous letters on botanical subjects. Some of them show my father's varied interests in botanical science, and others give account of researches which never reached completion.] BLOOM ON LEAVES AND FRUIT. [His researches into the meaning of the "bloom," or waxy coating found on many leaves, was one of those inquiries which remained unfinished at the time of his death. He amassed a quantity of notes on the subject, part of which I hope to publish at no distant date. (A small instalment on the relation between bloom and the distribution of the stomata on leaves has appeared in the 'Journal of the Linnean Society,' 1886. Tschirsch ("Linnaea", 1881) has published results identical with some which my father and myself obtained, viz. that bloom diminishes transpiration. The same fact was previously published by Garreau in 1850.) One of his earliest letters on this subject was addressed in August, 1873, to Sir Joseph Hooker:-- "I want a little information from you, and if you do not yourself know, please to enquire of some of the wise men of Kew. "Why are the leaves and fruit of so many plants protected by a thin layer of waxy matter (like the common cabbage), or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed in water they appear as if encased in thin glass? It is really a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the under surface and not on the upper. "How can water injure the leaves if indeed this is at all the case?" On this latter point he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer:-- "I am now become mad about drops of water injuring leaves. Please ask Mr. Paine (Sir Thomas Farrer's gardener.) whether he believes, FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses; if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hot-house orchids I was cautioned not to wet their leaves; but I never then thought on the subject. "I enjoyed my visit greatly with you, and I am very sure that all England could not afford a kinder and pleasanter host." Some years later he took up the subject again, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (May 25, 1877):-- "I have been looking over my old notes about the "bloom" on plants, and I think that the subject is well worth pursuing, though I am very doubtful of any success. Are you inclined to aid me on the mere chance of success, for without your aid I could do hardly anything?"] CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 4 [1877]. ... I am now trying to make out the use or function of "bloom," or the waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of plants, but am VERY doubtful whether I shall succeed. Can you give me any light? Are such plants commoner in warm than in colder climates? I ask because I often walk out in heavy rain, and the leaves of very few wild dicotyledons can be here seen with drops of water rolling off them like quick-silver. Whereas in my flower garden, greenhouse, and hot-houses there are several. Again, are bloo-protected plants common on your DRY western plains? Hooker THINKS that they are common at the Cape of Good Hope. It is a puzzle to me if they are common under very dry climates, and I find bloom very common on the Acacias and Eucalypti of Australia. Some of the Eucalypti which do not appear to be covered with bloom have the epidermis protected by a layer of some substance which is dissolved in boiling alcohol. Are there any bloo-protected leaves or fruit in the Arctic regions? If you can illuminate me, as you so often have done, pray do so; but otherwise do not bother yourself by answering. Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN. CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER. Down, September 5 [1877]. My dear Dyer, One word to thank you. I declare had it not been for your kindness, we should have broken down. As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with SOME sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt-water, and, I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves. This latter is as yet the most doubtful and the most interesting point in relation to the movements of plants... CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, July 4 [1881]. My dear Sir, Your kindness is unbounded, and I cannot tell you how much your last letter (May 31) has interested me. I have piles of notes about the effect of water resting on leaves, and their movements (as I supposed) to shake off the drops. But I have not looked over these notes for a long time, and had come to think that perhaps my notion was mere fancy, but I had intended to begin experimenting as soon as I returned home; and now with your INVALUABLE letter about the position of the leaves of various plants during rain (I have one analogous case with Acacia from South Africa), I shall be stimulated to work in earnest. VARIABILITY. [The following letter refers to a subject on which my father felt the strongest interest:--the experimental investigation of the causes of variability. The experiments alluded to were to some extent planned out, and some preliminary work was begun in the direction indicated below, but the research was ultimately abandoned.] CHARLES DARWIN TO J.H. GILBERT. (Dr. Gilbert, F.R.S., joint author with Sir John Bennett Lawes of a long series of valuable researches in Scientific Agriculture.) Down, February 16, 1876. My dear Sir, When I met you at the Linnean Society, you were so kind as to say that you would aid me with advice, and this will be of the utmost value to me and my son. I will first state my object, and hope that you will excuse a long letter. It is admitted by all naturalists that no problem is so perplexing as what causes almost every cultivated plant to vary, and no experiments as yet tried have thrown any light on the subject. Now for the last ten years I have been experimenting in crossing and self-fertilising plants; and one indirect result has surprised me much; namely, that by taking pains to cultivate plants in pots under glass during several successive generations, under nearly similar conditions, and by self-fertilising them in each generation, the colour of the flowers often changes, and, what is very remarkable, they became in some of the most variable species, such as Mimulus, Carnation, etc., quite constant, like those of a wild species. This fact and several others have led me to the suspicion that the cause of variation must be in different substances absorbed from the soil by these plants when their powers of absorption are not interfered with by other plants with which they grow mingled in a state of nature. Therefore my son and I wish to grow plants in pots in soil entirely, or as nearly entirely as is possible, destitute of all matter which plants absorb, and then to give during several successive generations to several plants of the same species as different solutions as may be compatible with their life and health. And now, can you advise me how to make soil approximately free of all the substances which plants naturally absorb? I suppose white silver sand, sold for cleaning harness, etc., is nearly pure silica, but what am I to do for alumina? Without some alumina I imagine that it would be impossible to keep the soil damp and fit for the growth of plants. I presume that clay washed over and over again in water would still yield mineral matter to the carbonic acid secreted by the roots. I should want a good deal of soil, for it would be useless to experimentise unless we could fill from twenty to thirty moderately sized flower-pots every year. Can you suggest any plan? for unless you can it would, I fear, be useless for us to commence an attempt to discover whether variability depends at all on matter absorbed from the soil. After obtaining the requisite kind of soil, my notion is to water one set of plants with nitrate of potassium, another set with nitrate of sodium, and another with nitrate of lime, giving all as much phosphate of ammonia as they seemed to support, for I wish the plants to grow as luxuriantly as possible. The plants watered with nitrate of Na and of Ca would require, I suppose, some K; but perhaps they would get what is absolutely necessary from such soil as I should be forced to employ, and from the rain-water collected in tanks. I could use hard water from a deep well in the chalk, but then all the plants would get lime. If the plants to which I give Nitrate of Na and of Ca would not grow I might give them a little alum. I am well aware how very ignorant I am, and how crude my notions are; and if you could suggest any other solutions by which plants would be likely to be affected it would be a very great kindness. I suppose that there are no organic fluids which plants would absorb, and which I could procure? I must trust to your kindness to excuse me for troubling you at such length, and, I remain, dear Sir, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [The next letter to Professor Semper (Professor of Zoology at Wurzburg.) bears on the same subject:] FROM CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, July 19, 1881. My dear Professor Semper, I have been much pleased to receive your letter, but I did not expect you to answer my former one... I cannot remember what I wrote to you, but I am sure that it must have expressed the interest which I felt in reading your book. (Published in the 'International Scientific Series,' in 1881, under the title, 'The Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life.') I thought that you attributed too much weight to the DIRECT action of the environment; but whether I said so I know not, for without being asked I should have thought it presumptuous to have criticised your book, nor should I now say so had I not during the last few days been struck with Professor Hoffmann's review of his own work in the 'Botanische Zeitung,' on the variability of plants; and it is really surprising how little effect he produced by cultivating certain plants under unnatural conditions, as the presence of salt, lime, zinc, etc., etc., during SEVERAL generations. Plants, moreover, were selected which were the most likely to vary under such conditions, judging from the existence of closely-allied forms adapted for these conditions. No doubt I originally attributed too little weight to the direct action of conditions, but Hoffmann's paper has staggered me. Perhaps hundreds of generations of exposure are necessary. It is a most perplexing subject. I wish I was not so old, and had more strength, for I see lines of research to follow. Hoffmann even doubts whether plants vary more under cultivation than in their native home and under their natural conditions. If so, the astonishing variations of almost all cultivated plants must be due to selection and breeding from the varying individuals. This idea crossed my mind many years ago, but I was afraid to publish it, as I thought that people would say, "how he does exaggerate the importance of selection." I still MUST believe that changed conditions give the impulse to variability, but that they act IN MOST CASES in a very indirect manner. But, as I said, it is a most perplexing problem. Pray forgive me for writing at such length; I had no intention of doing so when I sat down to write. I am extremely sorry to hear, for your own sake and for that of Science, that you are so hard worked, and that so much of your time is consumed in official labour. Pray believe me, dear Professor Semper, Yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. GALLS. [Shortly before his death, my father began to experimentise on the possibility of producing galls artificially. A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 3, 1880) shows the interest which he felt in the question:-- "I was delighted with Paget's Essay ('Disease in Plants,' by Sir James Paget.--See "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1880.); I hear that he has occasionally attended to this subject from his youth... I am very glad he has called attention to galls: this has always seemed to me a profoundly interesting subject; and if I had been younger would take it up." His interest in this subject was connected with his ever-present wish to learn something of the causes of variation. He imagined to himself wonderful galls caused to appear on the ovaries of plants, and by these means he thought it possible that the seed might be influenced, and thus new varieties arise. He made a considerable number of experiments by injecting various reagents into the tissues of leaves, and with some slight indications of success.] AGGREGATION. [The following letter gives an idea of the subject of the last of his published papers. ('Journal of the Linnean Society.' volume xix, 1882, pages 239 and 262.) The appearances which he observed in leaves and roots attracted him, on account of their relation to the phenomena of aggregation which had so deeply interested him when he was at work on Drosera:] CHARLES DARWIN TO S.H. VINES. (Reader in Botany in the University of Cambridge.) Down, November 1, 1881. My dear Mr. Vines, As I know how busy you are, it is a great shame to trouble you. But you are so rich in chemical knowledge about plants, and I am so poor, that I appeal to your charity as a pauper. My question is--Do you know of any solid substance in the cells of plants which glycerine and water dissolves? But you will understand my perplexity better if I give you the facts: I mentioned to you that if a plant of Euphorbia peplus is gently dug up and the roots placed for a short time in a weak solution (1 to 10,000 of water, suffices in 24 hours) of carbonate of ammonia the (generally) alternate longitudinal rows of cells in every rootlet, from the root-cap up to the very top of the root (but not as far as I have yet seen in the green stem) become filled with translucent, brownish grains of matter. These rounded grains often cohere and even become confluent. Pure phosphate and nitrate of ammonia produce (though more slowly) the same effect, as does pure carbonate of soda. Now, if slices of root under a cover-glass are irrigated with glycerine and water, every one of the innumerable grains in the cells disappear after some hours. What am I to think of this.?... Forgive me for bothering you to such an extent; but I must mention that if the roots are dipped in boiling water there is no deposition of matter, and carbonate of ammonia afterwards produces no effect. I should state that I now find that the granular matter is formed in the cells immediately beneath the thin epidermis, and a few other cells near the vascular tissue. If the granules consisted of living protoplasm (but I can see no traces of movement in them), then I should infer that the glycerine killed them and aggregation ceased with the diffusion of invisibly minute particles, for I have seen an analogous phenomenon in Drosera. If you can aid me, pray do so, and anyhow forgive me. Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. MR. TORBITT'S EXPERIMENTS ON THE POTATO-DISEASE. [Mr. James Torbitt, of Belfast, has been engaged for the last twelve years in the difficult undertaking, in which he has been to a large extent successful, of raising fungus-proof varieties of the potato. My father felt great interest in Mr. Torbitt's work, and corresponded with him from 1876 onwards. The following letter, giving a clear account of Mr. Torbitt's method and of my father's opinion of the probability of its success, was written with the idea that Government aid for the work might possibly be obtainable:] CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. FARRER. Down, March 2, 1878. My dear Farrer, Mr. Torbitt's plan of overcoming the potato-disease seems to me by far the best which has ever been suggested. It consists, as you know from his printed letter, of rearing a vast number of seedlings from cross-fertilised parents, exposing them to infection, ruthlessly destroying all that suffer, saving those which resist best, and repeating the process in successive seminal generations. My belief in the probability of good results from this process rests on the fact of all characters whatever occasionally varying. It is known, for instance, that certain species and varieties of the vine resist phylloxera better than others. Andrew Knight found in one variety or species of the apple which was not in the least attacked by coccus, and another variety has been observed in South Australia. Certain varieties of the peach resist mildew, and several other such cases could be given. Therefore there is no great improbability in a new variety of potato arising which would resist the fungus completely, or at least much better than any existing variety. With respect to the cross-fertilisation of two distinct seedling plants, it has been ascertained that the offspring thus raised inherit much more vigorous constitutions and generally are more prolific than seedlings from self-fertilised parents. It is also probable that cross-fertilisation would be especially valuable in the case of the potato, as there is reason to believe that the flowers are seldom crossed by our native insects; and some varieties are absolutely sterile unless fertilised with pollen from a distinct variety. There is some evidence that the good effects from a cross are transmitted for several generations; it would not, therefore be necessary to cross-fertilise the seedlings in each generation, though this would be desirable, as it is almost certain that a greater number of seeds would thus be obtained. It should be remembered that a cross between plants raised from the tubers of the same plant, though growing on distinct roots, does no more good than a cross between flowers on the same individual. Considering the whole subject, it appears to me that it would be a national misfortune if the cros-fertilised seeds in Mr. Torbitt's possession produced by parents which have already shown some power of resisting the disease, are not utilised by the Government, or some public body, and the process of selection continued during several more generations. Should the Agricultural Society undertake the work, Mr. Torbitt's knowledge gained by experience would be especially valuable; and an outline of the plan is given in his printed letter. It would be necessary that all the tubers produced by each plant should be collected separately, and carefully examined in each succeeding generation. It would be advisable that some kind of potato eminently liable to the disease should be planted in considerable numbers near the seedlings so as to infect them. Altogether the trial would be one requiring much care and extreme patience, as I know from experience with analogous work, and it may be feared that it would be difficult to find any one who would pursue the experiment with sufficient energy. It seems, therefore, to me highly desirable that Mr. Torbitt should be aided with some small grant so as to continue the work himself. Judging from his reports, his efforts have already been crowned in so short a time with more success than could have been anticipated; and I think you will agree with me, that any one who raises a fungus-proof potato will be a public benefactor of no common kind. My dear Farrer, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. [After further consultation with Sir Thomas Farrer and with Mr. Caird, my father became convinced that it was hopeless to attempt to obtain Government aid. He wrote to Mr. Torbitt to this effect, adding, "it would be less trouble to get up a subscription from a few rich leading agriculturists than from Government. This plan I think you cannot object to, as you have asked nothing, and will have nothing whatever to do with the subscription. In fact, the affair is, in my opinion, a compliment to you." The idea here broached was carried out, and Mr. Torbitt was enabled to continue his work by the aid of a sum to which Sir T. Farrer, Mr. Caird, my father, and a few friends, subscribed. My father's sympathy and encouragement were highly valued by Mr. Torbitt, who tells me that without them he should long ago have given up his attempt. A few extracts will illustrate my father's fellow feeling with Mr. Torbitt's energy and perseverance:-- "I admire your indomitable spirit. If any one ever deserved success, you do so, and I keep to my original opinion that you have a very good chance of raising a fungus-proof variety of the potato. "A pioneer in a new undertaking is sure to meet with many disappointments, so I hope that you will keep up your courage, though we have done so very little for you." Mr. Torbitt tells me that he still (1887) succeeds in raising varieties possessing well-marked powers of resisting disease; but this immunity is not permanent, and, after some years, the varieties become liable to the attacks of the fungus.] THE KEW INDEX OF PLANT-NAMES, OR 'NOMENCLATOR DARWINIANUS.' [Some account of my father's connection with the Index of Plant-names now (1887) in course of preparation at Kew will be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson's paper in the 'Journal of Botany,' 1887, page 151. Mr. Jackson quotes the following statement by Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed Sir Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote a considerable sum of money annually for some years in aid or furtherance of some work or works of practical utility to biological science, and to make provisions in his will in the event of these not being completed during his lifetime. "Amongst other objects connected with botanical science, Mr. Darwin regarded with especial interest the importance of a complete index to the names and authors of the genera and species of plants known to botanists, together with their native countries. Steudel's 'Nomenclator' is the only existing work of this nature, and although now nearly half a century old, Mr. Darwin had found it of great aid in his own researches. It has been indispensable to every botanical institution, whether as a list of all known flowering plants, as an indication of their authors, or as a digest of botanical geography." Since 1840, when the 'Nomenclator' was published, the number of described plants may be said to have doubled, so that the 'Nomenclator' is now seriously below the requirements of botanical work. To remedy this want, the 'Nomenclator' has been from time to time posted up in an interleaved copy in the Herbarium at Kew, by the help of "funds supplied by private liberality." (Kew Gardens Report, 1881, page 62.) My father, like other botanists, had as Sir Joseph Hooker points out, experienced the value of Steudel's work. He obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to the accepted nomenclature, so that he might convey to other workers precise indications as to the plants which he had studied. It was also frequently a matter of importance to him to know the native country of his experimental plants. Thus it was natural that he should recognize the desirability of completing and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew. The wish to help in this object was heightened by the admiration he felt for the results for which the world has to thank the Royal Gardens at Kew, and by his gratitude for the invaluable aid which for so many years he received from its Director and his staff. He expressly stated that it was his wish "to aid in some way the scientific work carried on at the Royal Gardens" (Kew Gardens Report, 1881, page 62.)--which induced him to offer to supply funds for the completion of the Kew 'Nomenclator.' The following passage, for which I am indebted to Professor Judd, is of much interest, as illustrating the motives that actuated my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes:-- "On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that his income having recently greatly increased, while his wants remained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he could spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He dwelt in the most touching manner on the fact that he owed so much happiness and fame to the natural-history sciences, which had been the solace of what might have been a painful existence;--and he begged me, if I knew of any research which could be aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds, to let him know, as it would be a delight to him to feel that he was helping in promoting the progress of science. He informed me at the same time that he was making the same suggestion to Sir Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with respect to Botany and Zoology respectively. I was much impressed by the earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with which he spoke of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire to promote its interests." Sir Joseph Hooker was asked by my father "to take into consideration, with the aid of the botanical staff at Kew and the late Mr. Bentham, the extent and scope of the proposed work, and to suggest the best means of having it executed. In doing this, Sir Joseph had further the advantage of the great knowledge and experience of Professor Asa Gray, of Cambridge, U.S.A., and of Mr. John Ball, F.R.S." ('Journal of Botany,' loc. cit.) The plan of the proposed work having been carefully considered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elaboration in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the Linnean Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical literature qualifies him for the task. My father's original idea of producing a modern edition of Steudel's 'Nomenclator' has been practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is rather to construct a list of genera and species (with references) founded on Bentham and Hooker's 'Genera Plantarum.' The colossal nature of the work in progress at Kew may be estimated by the fact that the manuscript of the 'Index' is at the present time (1887) believed to weigh more than a ton. Under Sir Joseph Hooker's supervision the work goes steadily forward, being carried out with admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson, who devotes himself unsparingly to the enterprise, in which, too, he has the advantage of the active interest in the work felt by Professor Oliver and Mr. Thiselton Dyer. The Kew 'Index,' which will, in all probability, be ready to go to press in four or five years, will be a fitting memorial of my father: and his share in its completion illustrates a part of his character--his ready sympathy with work outside his own lines of investigation--and his respect for minute and patient labour in all branches of science.] CHAPTER 2.XVI. -- CONCLUSION. Some idea of the general course of my father's health may have been gathered from the letters given in the preceding pages. The subject of health appears more prominently than is often necessary in a Biography, because it was, unfortunately, so real an element in determining the outward form of his life. During the last ten years of his life the condition of his health was a cause of satisfaction and hope to his family. His condition showed signs of amendment in several particulars. He suffered less distress and discomfort, and was able to work more steadily. Something has been already said of Dr. Bence Jones's treatment, from which my father certainly derived benefit. In later years he became a patient of Sir Andrew Clark, under whose care he improved greatly in general health. It was not only for his generously rendered service that my father felt a debt of gratitude towards Sir Andrew Clark. He owed to his cheering personal influence an ofte-repeated encouragement, which laterally added something real to his happiness, and he found sincere pleasure in Sir Andrew's friendship and kindness towards himself and his children. Scattered through the past pages are one or two references to pain or uneasiness felt in the region of the heart. How far these indicate that the heart was affected early in life, I cannot pretend to say; in any case it is certain that he had no serious or permanent trouble of this nature until shortly before his death. In spite of the general improvement in his health, which has been above alluded to, there was a certain loss of physical vigour occasionally apparent during the last few years of his life. This is illustrated by a sentence in a letter to his old friend Sir James Sulivan, written on January 10, 1879: "My scientific work tires me more than it used to do, but I have nothing else to do, and whether one is worn out a year or two sooner or later signifies but little." A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and wrote: "I am rather despondent about myself... I have not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy, and I have no little jobs which I can do." In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace, "We have just returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater; the scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything tires me, even seeing scenery... What I shall do with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have everything to make me happy and contented, but life has become very wearisome to me." He was, however, able to do a good deal of work, and that of a trying sort (On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves.), during the autumn of 1881, but towards the end of the year he was clearly in need of rest; and during the winter was in a lower condition than was usual with him. On December 13 he went for a week to his daughter's house in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he went to call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the door-step with an attack apparently of the same kind as those which afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the incident, which I give in Mr. Romanes' words, is interesting too from a different point of view, as giving one more illustration of my father's scrupulous consideration for others:-- "I happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr. Darwin was ill, asked him to come in, he said he would prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to wait at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would rather not give so much trouble. For the same reason he refused to allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly he watched him walking with difficulty towards the direction in which cabs were to be met with, and saw that, when he had got about three hundred yards from the house, he staggered and caught hold of the park-railings as if to prevent himself from falling. The butler therefore hastened to his assistance, but after a few seconds saw him turn round with the evident purpose of retracing his steps to my house. However, after he had returned part of the way he seems to have felt better, for he again changed his mind, and proceeded to find a cab." During the last week of February and in the beginning of March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irregularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance from the house; he got home with difficulty, and this was the last time that he was able to reach his favourite 'Sand-walk.' Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark, whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and Mr. Alfrey, of St. Mary Cray. He suffered from distressing sensations of exhaustion and faintness, and seemed to recognise with deep depression the fact that his working days were over. He gradually recovered from this condition, and became more cheerful and hopeful, as is shown in the following letter to Mr. Huxley, who was anxious that my father should have closer medical supervision than the existing arrangements allowed: Down, March 27, 1882. My dear Huxley, Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks, and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much better. Dr. Clark's kindness is unbounded to me, but he is too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more automata (The allusion is to Mr. Huxley's address 'On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History,' given at the Belfast meeting of the British Association in 1874, and republished in 'Science and Culture.') in the world like you. Ever yours, CH. DARWIN." The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of explanation. Sir Andrew Clark himself was ever ready to devote himself to my father, who, however, could not endure the thought of sending for him, knowing how severely his great practice taxed his strength. No especial change occurred during the beginning of April, but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experiment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach of death, and said, "I am not the least afraid to die." All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end came. He died at about four o'clock on Wednesday, April 19th, 1882, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. I close the record of my father's life with a few words of retrospect added to the manuscript of his 'Autobiography' in 1879:-- "As for myself, I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following, and devoting my life to Science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures." APPENDIX I. THE FUNERAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. On the Friday succeeding my father's death, the following letter, signed by twenty members of Parliament, was addressed to Dr. Bradley, Dean of Westminster:-- HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 21, 1882. Very Rev. Sir, We hope you will not think we are taking a liberty if we venture to suggest that it would be acceptable to a very large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions that our illustrious countryman, Mr. Darwin, should be buried in Westminster Abbey. We remain, your obedient servants, JOHN LUBBOCK, NEVIL STOREY MASKELYNE, A.J. MUNDELLA, G.O. TREVELYAN, LYON PLAYFAIR, CHARLES W. DILKE, DAVID WEDDERBURN, ARTHUR RUSSEL, HORACE DAVEY, BENJAMIN ARMITAGE, RICHARD B. MARTIN, FRANCIS W. BUXTON, E.L. STANLEY, HENRY BROADHURST, JOHN BARRAN, F.J. CHEETHAM, H.S. HOLLAND, H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, CHARLES BRUCE, RICHARD FORT. The Dean was abroad at the time, and telegraphed his cordial acquiescence. The family had desired that my father should be buried at Down: with regard to their wishes, Sir John Lubbock wrote:-- HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25, 1882. My dear Darwin, I quite sympathise with your feeling, and personally I should greatly have preferred that your father should have rested in Down amongst us all. It is, I am sure, quite understood that the initiative was not taken by you. Still, from a national point of view, it is clearly right that he should be buried in the Abbey. I esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to accompany my dear master to the grave. Believe me, yours most sincerely, JOHN LUBBOCK. W.E. DARWIN, ESQ. The family gave up their first-formed plans, and the funeral took place in Westminster Abbey on April 26th. The pall-bearers were:-- SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, MR. HUXLEY, MR. JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL (American Minister), MR. A.R. WALLACE, THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, CANON FARRAR, SIR J.D. HOOKER, MR. WM. SPOTTISWOODE (President of the Royal Society), THE EARL OF DERBY, THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. The funeral was attended by the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and by those of the Universities, and learned Societies, as well as by large numbers of personal friends and distinguished men. The grave is in the North aisle of the Nave close to the angle of the choir-screen, and a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton. The stone bears the inscription-- CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN. Born 12 February, 1809. Died 19 April, 1882. APPENDIX II. I.--LIST OF WORKS BY CHARLES DARWIN. Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty's Ships 'Adventure' and 'Beagle' between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the Southern shores of South America, and the 'Beagle's' circumnavigation of the globe. Volume iii. Journal and Remarks, 1832-1836. By Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1839. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle' round the world, under the command of Captain Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition, corrected, with additions. 8vo. London, 1845. (Colonial and Home Library.) A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches, etc., 8vo. London, 1860. [Contains a postscript dated February 1, 1860.] Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin. Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London, 1840. --Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London, 1839. --Part III. Birds, by John Gould. An "Advertisement" (2 pages) states that in consequence of Mr. Gould's having left England for Australia, many descriptions were supplied by Mr. G.R. Gray of the British Museum. 4to. London, 1841. --Part IV. Fish, by Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 4to. London, 1842. --Part V. Reptiles, by Thomas Bell. 4to. London, 1843. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' 8vo. London, 1842. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. 2nd edition. 8vo. London, 1874. Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Being the Second Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' 8vo. London, 1844. Geological Observations on South America. Being the Third Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' 8vo. London, 1846. Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and parts of South America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' 2nd edition. 8vo. London, 1876. A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. 4to. London, 1851. (Palaeontographical Society.) A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. 8vo. London, 1851. (Ray Society.) --The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. 8vo. London, 1854. (Ray Society.) A Monograph of the Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain. 4to. London, 1854. (Palaeontographical Society.) On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 8vo. London, 1859. (Dated October 1st, 1859, published November 24, 1859.) --Fifth thousand. 8vo. London, 1860. --Third edition, with additions and corrections. (Seventh thousand.) 8vo. London, 1861. (Dated March, 1861.) --Fourth edition with additions and corrections. (Eighth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1866. (Dated June, 1866.) --Fifth edition, with additions and corrections. (Tenth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1869. (Dated May, 1869.) --Sixth edition, with additions and corrections to 1872. (Twenty-fourth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1882. (Dated January, 1872.) On the various contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised by Insects. 8vo. London, 1862. --Second edition. 8vo. London, 1877. [In the second edition the word "On" is omitted from the title.] The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants. Second edition. 8vo. London, 1875. [First appeared in the ninth volume of the 'Journal of the Linnean Society.'] The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1868. --Second edition, revised. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1875. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1871. --Second edition. 8vo. London, 1874. (In 1 volume.) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 8vo. London, 1872. Insectivorous Plants. 8vo. London, 1875. The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. 8vo. London, 1876. --Second edition. 8vo. London, 1878. The different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species. 8vo. London, 1877. --Second edition. 8vo. London, 1880. The Power of Movement in Plants. By Charles Darwin, assisted by Francis Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits. 8vo. London, 1881. II.--LIST OF BOOKS CONTAINING CONTRIBUTIONS BY CHARLES DARWIN. A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general. Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. 8vo. London, 1849. (Section VI. Geology. By Charles Darwin.) Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow. By the Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 8vo. London, 1862. [In Chapter III., Recollections by Charles Darwin.] A letter (1876) on the 'Drift' near Southampton published in Prof. J. Geikie's 'Prehistoric Europe.' Flowers and their unbidden guests. By A. Kerner. With a Prefatory Letter by Charles Darwin. The translation revised and edited by W. Ogle. 8vo. London, 1878. Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1879. Studies in the Theory of Descent. By August Weismann. Translated and edited by Raphael Meldola. With a Prefatory Notice by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880--. The Fertilisation of Flowers. By Hermann Muller. Translated and edited by D'Arcy W. Thompson. With a Preface by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1883. Mental Evolution in Animals. By G.J. Romanes. With a posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin, 1883. [Also published in the Journal of the Linnean Society.] Some Notes on a curious habit of male humble bees were sent to Prof. Hermann Muller, of Lippstadt, who had permission from Mr. Darwin to make what use he pleased of them. After Muller's death the Notes were given by his son to Dr. E. Krause, who published them under the title, "Ueber die Wege der Hummel-Mannchen" in his book, 'Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von Charles Darwin.' (1886). III.--LIST OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, INCLUDING A SELECTION OF LETTERS AND SHORT COMMUNICATIONS TO SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. Letters to Professor Henslow, read by him at the meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, held November 16, 1835. 31 pages. 8vo. Privately printed for distribution among the members of the Society. Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in the years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835; with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza. [Read November 18, 1835.] Geology Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 210-212. [This Paper is incorrectly described in Geology Society Proc. ii., page 210 as follows:--"Geological notes, etc., by F. Darwin, Esq., of St. John's College, Cambridge: communicated by Prof. Sedgwick." It is Indexed under C. Darwin.] Notes upon the Rhea Americana. Zoology Society Proc., Part v. 1837. pages 35-36. Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the survey of H.M.S. "Beagle," commanded by Captain Fitz-Roy. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii.1838, pages 446-449. A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 542-544. On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 552-554. On the Formation of Mould. [Read November 1, 1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 574-576; Geological Society Transactions v. 1840, pages 505-510. On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the formation of mountain-chains and the effects of continental elevations. [Read March 7, 1838.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 654-660; Geological Society Transactions v. 1840, pages 601-632. [In the Society's Transactions the wording of the title is slightly different.] Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt Lakes of Patagonia and La Plata. Geological Society Journal ii. (Part ii.), 1838, pages 127-128. Note on a Rock seen on an Iceberg in 16 deg South Latitude. Geographical Society Journal ix. 1839, pages 528-529. Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin. Phil. Trans. 1839, pages 39-82. On a remarkable Bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the Coast of Brazil. Phil. Mag. xix. 1841, pages 257-260. On the Distribution of the Erratic Boulders and on the Contemporaneous Unstratified Deposits of South America. [1841.] Geological Society Proc. iii. 1842, pages 425-430; Geological Society Transactions vi. 1842, pages 415-432. Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by Floating Ice. London Philosophical Magazine volume xxi. page 180. 1842. Remarks on the preceding paper, in a Letter from Charles Darwin, Esq., to Mr. Maclaren. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal xxxiv. 1843, pages 47- 50. [The "preceding" paper is: "On Coral Islands and Reefs as described by Mr. Darwin. By Charles Maclaren, Esq., F.R.S.E."] Observations on the Structure and Propagation of the genus Sagitta. Annals and Magazine of Natural History xiii. 1844, pages 1-6. Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariae, and of some remarkable Marine Species, with an Account of their Habits. Annals and Magazine of Natural History xiv. 1844, pages 241-251. An account of the Fine Dust which often falls on Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. Geological Society Journal ii. 1846, pages 26-30. On the Geology of the Falkland Islands. Geological Society Journal ii. 1846, pages 267-274. A review of Waterhouse's 'Natural History of the Mammalia.' [Not signed.] Annals and Magazine of Natural History 1847. Volume xix. page 53. On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher level. Geological Society Journal iv. 1848, pages 315-323. On British fossil Lepadidae. Geological Society Journal vi. 1850, pages 439-440. [The G.S.J. says "This paper was withdrawn by the author with the permission of the Council."] Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers. Edinburgh Royal Society Proc. ii. 1851, pages 17-18. On the power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed Grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface. Philosophical Magazine x. 1855, pages 96-98. Vitality of Seeds. "Gardeners' Chronicle", November 17, 1855, page 758. On the action of Sea-water on the Germination of Seeds. [1856.] Linnean Society Journal i. 1857 ("Botany"), pages 130-140. On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers. "Gardeners' Chronicle", page 725, 1857. On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. By Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., and F.G.S., and Alfred Wallace, Esq. [Read July 1st, 1858.] Journal of the Linnean Society 1859, volume iii. ("Zoology"), page 45. Special titles of Charles Darwin's contributions to the foregoing:-- i. Extract from an unpublished work on Species by Charles Darwin Esq., consisting of a portion of a chapter entitled, "On the Variation of Organic Beings in a State of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species." ii. Abstract of a Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston U.S., dated September 5, 1857. On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers, and on the Crossing of Kidney Beans. "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1858, page 828 and Annals of Natural History 3rd series ii. 1858, pages 459-465. Do the Tineina or other small Moths suck Flowers, and if so what Flowers? "Entomological Weekly Intelligencer" volume viii. 1860, page 103. Note on the achenia of Pumilio Argyrolepis. "Gardeners' Chronicle", January 5, 1861, page 4. Fertilisation of Vincas. "Gardeners' Chronicle", pages 552, 831, 832. 1861. On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations. Linnean Society Journal vi. 1862 ("Botany"), pages 77-96. On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Catasetum tridentatum, an Orchid in the possession of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society Journal vi. 1862 ("Botany"), pages 151-157. Yellow Rain. "Gardeners' Chronicle", July 18, 1863, page 675. On the thickness of the Pampean formation near Buenos Ayres. Geological Society Journal xix. 1863, pages 68-71. On the so-called "Auditory-sac" of Cirripedes. Natural History Review, 1863, pages 115-116. A review of Mr. Bates' paper on 'Mimetic Butterflies.' Natural History Review, 1863, page 221-. [Not signed.] On the existence of two forms, and on their reciprocal sexual relation, in several species of the genus Linum. Linnean Society Journal vii. 1864 ("Botany"), pages 69-83. On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria. [1864.] Linnean Society Journal viii. 1865 ("Botany"), pages 169-196. On the Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants. [1865.] Linnean Society Journal ix. 1867 ("Botany"), pages 1-118. Note on the Common Broom (Cytisus scoparius). [1866.] Linnean Society Journal ix. 1867 ("Botany"), page 358. Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th series, iv. 1869, pages 141-159. On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants. [1868.] Linnean Society Journal x. 1869 ("Botany"), pages 393-437. On the Specific Difference between Primula veris, British Fl. (var. officinalis, of Linn.), P. vulgaris, British Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the common Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on naturally produced Hybrids in the genus Verbascum. [1868.] Linnean Society Journal x. 1869 ("Botany"), pages 437-454. Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker (Colaptes campestris). Zoological Society Proceedings November 1, 1870, pages 705-706. Fertilisation of Leschenaultia. "Gardeners' Chronicle", page 1166, 1871. The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. 'Nature,' November 18, 1869, volume i. page 85. Pangenesis. 'Nature,' April 27, 1871, volume iii. page 502. A new view of Darwinism. 'Nature,' July 6, 1871, volume iv. page 180. Bree on Darwinism. 'Nature,' August 8, 1872, volume vi. page 279. Inherited Instinct. 'Nature,' February 13, 1873, volume vii. page 281. Perception in the Lower Animals. 'Nature,' March 13, 1873, volume vii. page 360. Origin of certain instincts. 'Nature,' April 3, 1873, volume vii. page 417. Habits of Ants. 'Nature,' July 24, 1873, volume viii. page 244. On the Males and Complemental Males of Certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Structures. 'Nature,' September 25, 1873, volume viii. page 431. Recent researches on Termites and Honey-bees. 'Nature,' February 19, 1874, volume ix. page 308. Fertilisation of the Fumariaceae. 'Nature,' April 16, 1874, volume ix. page 460. Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds. 'Nature,' April 23, 1874, volume ix. page 482; May 14, 1874, volume x. page 24. Cherry Blossoms. 'Nature,' May 11, 1876, volume xiv. page 28. Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys. 'Nature,' November 2, 1876, volume xv. page 18. Reprinted as a supplement to the 'Descent of Man,' 18.. Fritz Muller on Flowers and Insects. 'Nature,' November 29, 1877, volume xvii. page 78. The Scarcity of Holly Berries and Bees. "Gardeners' Chronicle", January 20, 1877, page 83. Note on Fertilization of Plants. "Gardeners' Chronicle", volume vii. page 246, 1877. A biographical sketch of an infant. 'Mind,' No.7, July, 1877. Transplantation of Shells. 'Nature,' May 30, 1878, volume xviii. page 120. Fritz Muller on a Frog having Eggs on its back--on the abortion of the hairs on the legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc. 'Nature,' March 20, 1879, volume xix. page 462. Rats and Water-Casks. 'Nature,' March 27, 1879, volume xix. page 481. Fertility of Hybrids from the common and Chinese Goose. 'Nature,' January 1, 1880, volume xxi. page 207. The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies. 'Nature,' January 8, 1880, volume xxi. page 237. The Omori Shell Mounds. 'Nature,' April 15, 1880, volume xxi. page 561. Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection. 'Nature,' November 11, 1880, volume xxiii. page 32. Black Sheep. 'Nature,' December 30, 1880, volume xxiii. page 193. Movements of Plants. 'Nature,' March 3, 1881, volume xxiii. page 409. The Movements of Leaves. 'Nature,' April 28, 1881, volume xxiii. page 603. Inheritance. 'Nature,' July 21, 1881, volume xxiv. page 257. Leaves injured at Night by Free Radiation. 'Nature,' September 15, 1881, volume xxiv. page 459. The Parasitic Habits of Molothrus. 'Nature,' November 17, 1881, volume xxv. page 51. On the Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves. 'Nature,' April 6, 1882, volume xxv. page 529. The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of certain Plants. [Read March 16, 1882.] Linnean Society Journal ("Botany"), volume xix. 1882, pages 239-261. The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-bodies. [Read March 6, 1882.] Linnean Society Journal ("Botany"), volume xix. 1882, pages 262- 284. On the modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by means of Sexual Selection. By W. Van Dyck. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. [Read April 18, 1882.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society 1882, pages 367-370. APPENDIX III. PORTRAITS. 1838: Water-colour by G. Richmond in the possession of The Family. 1851: Lithograph by Ipswich British Association Series. 1853: Chalk Drawing by Samuel Lawrence in the possession of The Family. 1853?: Chalk Drawing (Probably a sketch made at one of the sittings for the last mentioned.) by Samuel Lawrence in the possession of Prof. Hughes, Cambridge. 1869: Bust, marble, by T. Woolner, R.A. in the possession of The Family. 1875: Oil Painting (A replica by the artist is in the possession of Christ's College, Cambridge.) by W. Ouless, R.A., etched by P. Rajon, in the possession of The Family. 1879: Oil Painting by W.B. Richmond in the possession of The University of Cambridge. 1881: Oil Painting (A replica by the artist is in the possession of W.E. Darwin, Esq., Southampton.) by the Hon. John Collier, in the possession of The Linnaean Society, etched by Leopold Flameng. CHIEF PORTRAITS AND MEMORIALS NOT TAKEN FROM LIFE. Statue by Joseph Boehm, R.A., in the possession of Museum, South Kensington. Bust by Chr. Lehr, Junr. Plaque by T. Woolner, R.A., and Josiah Wedgwood and Sons in the possession of Christ's College, in Charles Darwin's Room. Deep Medallion by J. Boehm, R.A. to be placed in Westminster Abbey. CHIEF ENGRAVINGS FROM PHOTOGRAPHS. 1854?: By Messrs. Maull and Fox, engraved on wood for 'Harper's Magazine' (October 1884). 1870?: By O.J. Rejlander, engraved on steel by C.H. Jeens for 'Nature' (June 4, 1874). 1874?: By Captain Darwin, R.E., engraved on wood for the 'Century Magazine' (January 1883). Frontispiece, volume i. (The dates of these photographs must, from various causes, remain uncertain. Owing to a loss of books by fire, Messrs. Maull and Fox can give only an approximate date. Mr. Rejlander died some years ago, and his business was broken up. My brother, captain Darwin, has no record of the date at which his photograph was taken.) 1881: By Messrs. Elliott and Fry, engraved on wood by G. Kruells, for the present work. APPENDIX IV. HONOURS, DEGREES, SOCIETIES, ETC. (The list has been compiled from the diplomas and letters in my father's possession, and is no doubt incomplete, as he seems to have lost or mislaid some of the papers received from foreign Societies. Where the name of a foreign Society (excluding those in the United States) is given in English, it is a translation of the Latin (or in one case Russian) of the original Diploma.) ORDER.--Prussian Order, 'Pour le Merite.' 1867. OFFICE.--County Magistrate. 1857. DEGREES. Cambridge: B.A. 1831 [1832]. See volume i. M.A. 1837. Hon. LL.D. 1877. Breslau: Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1862. Bonn: Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1868. Leyden: Hon. M.D. 1875. SOCIETIES.--London: Zoological. Corresponding Member. 1831. (He afterwards became a Fellow of the Society.) Entomological. 1833, Original Member. Geological. 1836. Wollaston Medal, 1859. Royal Geographical. 1838. Royal. 1839. Royal Medal, 1853. Copley Medal, 1864. Linnean. 1854. Ethnological. 1861. Medico-Chirurgical. Hon. Member. 1868. Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physicians, 1879. SOCIETIES.--PROVINCIAL, COLONIAL, AND INDIAN. Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1865. Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, 1826. Hon. Member, 1861. Royal Irish Academy. Hon. Member, 1866. Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. Hon. Member, 1868. Watford Natural History Society. Hon. Member, 1877. Asiatic Society of Bengal. Hon. Member, 1871. Royal Society of New South Wales. Hon. Member, 1879. Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand. Hon. Member, 1863. New Zealand Institute. Hon. Member, 1872. FOREIGN SOCIETIES.--AMERICA. Sociedad Cientifica Argentina. Hon. Member, 1877. Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Argentine Republic. Hon. Member, 1878. Sociedad Zoologica Arjentina. Hon. Member, 1874. Boston Society of Natural History. Hon. Member, 1873. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston). Foreign Hon. Member, 1874. California Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1872. California State Geological Society. Corresponding Member, 1877. Franklin Literary Society, Indiana. Hon. Member, 1878. Sociedad de Naturalistas Neo-Granadinos. Hon. Member, 1860. New York Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1879. Gabinete Portuguez de Leitura em Pernambuco. Corresponding Member, 1879. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Correspondent, 1860. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Member, 1869. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna. Foreign Corresponding Member, 1871; Hon. Foreign Member, 1875. Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien. Hon. Member, 1872. K. k. Zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft in Wien. Member, 1867. Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Pest, 1872. BELGIUM. Societe Royale des Sciences Medicales et Naturelles de Bruxelles. Hon. Member, 1878. Societie Royale de Botanique de Belgique. 'Membre Associe,' 1881. Academie Royale des Sciences, etc., de Belgique. 'Associe de la Classe des Sciences.' 1870. DENMARK. Royal Society of Copenhagen. Fellow, 1879. FRANCE. Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris. Foreign Member, 1871. Societe Entomologique de France. Hon. Member, 1874. Societe Geologique de France (Life Member), 1837. Institut de France. 'Correspondant' Section of Botany, 1878. GERMANY. Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin). Corresponding Member, 1863; Fellow, 1878. Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, etc. Corresponding Member, 1877. Schlesische Gesellschaft fur Vaterlandische Cultur (Breslau). Hon. Member 1878. Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolina Academia Naturae Curiosorum (Dresden). 1857. (The diploma contains the words "accipe... ex antiqua nostra consuetudine cognomen Forster." It was formerly the custom in the "Caesarea Leopoldin-Carolina Academia", that each new member should receive as a 'cognomen,' a name celebrated in that branch of science to which he belonged. Thus a physician might be christened Boerhave, or an astronomer, Kepler. My father seems to have been named after the traveller John Reinhold Forster.) Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Frankfurt am Main. Corresponding Member, 1873. Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Halle. Member 1879. Siebenburgische Verein fur Naturwissenschaften (Hermannstadt). Hon. Member, 1877. Medicinisch-naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft zu Jena. Hon. Member, 1878. Royal Bavarian Academy of Literature and Science (Munich). Foreign Member, 1878. HOLLAND. Koninklijke Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch-Indie (Batavia). Corresponding Member, 1880. Societe Hollandaise des Sciences a Harlem. Foreign Member, 1877. Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen te Middelburg. Foreign Member, 1877. ITALY. Societa Geografica Italiana (Florence). 1870. Societa Italiana di Antropologia e di Etnologia (Florence). Hon. Member, 1872. Societa dei Naturalisti in Modena. Hon. Member, 1875. Academia de' Lincei di Roma. Foreign Member, 1875. La Scuola Italica, Academia Pitagorica, Reale ed Imp. Societa (Rome). "Presidente Onoraria degli Anziani Pitagorici," 1880. Royal Academy of Turin. 1873. "Bressa" Prize, 1879. PORTUGAL. Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa (Lisbon). Corresponding Member, 1877. RUSSIA. Society of Naturalists of the Imperial Kazan University. Hon. Member, 1875. Societas Caesarea Naturae Curiosorum (Moscow). Hon. Member, 1870. Imperial Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg). Corresponding Member, 1867. SPAIN. Institucion Libre de Ensenanza (Madrid). Hon. Professor, 1877. SWEDEN. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Stockholm). Foreign Member, 1865. Royal Society of Sciences (Upsala). Fellow, 1860. SWITZERLAND. Societe des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchatel. Corresponding Member, 1863. INDEX. ABBOT, F.E., letter to. ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES (Philadelphia) elects Darwin a member. AGASSIZ, Alexander, letter to. AGASSIZ, Louis, Darwin's estimate of. Letters to. His attitude toward the 'Origin of Species.' Reviews the 'Origin of Species.' AGGREGATION, studied by Darwin. 'ALMANACK, THE NATURALISTS' POCKET,' mentioned. ANDES, Darwin crosses the. 'ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY,' mentioned. ANTICIPATION of Darwin's views. ANTS, observations on. APPLETON, D., & CO., publish 'Origin of Species' in America. ARGYLL, Duke of, criticises the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin's comments on his criticisms. Darwin on his 'Reign of Law.' Reviews the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' ARISTOTLE, Darwin's estimate of. ARRANGEMENT of leaves on the stems of plants. 'ATHENAEUM,' Darwin on its review of the 'Origin of Species.' Reports British Association discussion. Darwin's letters to, in his own defence. Criticises Darwin. AUSTRALIA, development of animals in. AUSTRALIAN flora. AUSTRIAN expedition. AUTOBIOGRAPHY, extracts from. AVELING, Dr., on Darwin's religious views. Note. BAIN, Alexander, letter to. BALFOUR, Francis M., Darwin's estimate of. BALY medal presented to Darwin. BAER, K.E. von, agrees with Darwin. BASTIAN, H.C., Darwin on his 'Beginnings of Life.' BATES, H.W., Darwin on his insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Letters to. Darwin on his mimetic variations of butterflies. BATS. "BEAGLE", voyage of. Darwin offered an appointment to the. Her equipments. Object of her voyage. Her crew. BEETLES, collecting. BEHRENS, W., letter to. BELL, T., describes Darwin's reptiles. BELL-STONE of Shrewsbury mentioned. BELT, Thomas, Darwin on his 'Naturalist in Nicaragua.' BEMMELEN, A. van, letter to. BENTHAM, George, his silence on natural selection. Letter to Francis Darwin on his adoption of Darwin's views. His view of natural selection. Letters to. BERKELEY, Rev. M.J., reviews the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' BERLIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES elects Darwin corresponding member. BET made by Darwin. BLOMEFIELD (JENYNS), Rev. Leonard, Darwin becomes acquainted with. Letters to. Darwin on his 'Observations in Natural History.' BLOOM on leaves and fruit, Darwin's work on. BLYTH, Edward, mentioned. BOOLE, Mrs., her letter on natural selection and religion. Letter to. BOOTT, Francis, mentioned. BOTANY, Darwin's work on, and its relation to natural selection. BOWEN, Francis, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' BRACE, C.L., and wife, Darwin on their philanthropic work. BRAZIL, Emperor of, wishes to meet Darwin. BREE, C.R., his work 'Species not Transmutable.' Accuses Wallace of blundering, and is answered by Darwin. BREEDING, sources of information on. BRESSA prize presented to Darwin. BRITISH ASSOCIATION discusses the 'Origin of Species.' Oxford meeting of, allegorized. Belfast meeting. BRONN, H.G., edits the 'Origin of Species' in German. Letters to. Criticisms on the 'Origin of Species.' BROWN, Robert, mentioned. BRUNTON, T. Lauder, letter to. BUCKLE, his system of collecting facts. Darwin on his 'History of Civilisation.' BUCKLEY, Miss A.B., letters to. BUFFON, Darwin on. BUNBURY, Sir C., mentioned. BUTLER, Samuel, charges Darwin of falsehood. BUTLER, Dr., his school at Shrewsbury. BUTTON, Jemmy, a visit to. CAIRNS, J.E., his lecture on 'The Slave Power.' CAM BRIDGE, University of, makes Darwin LL.D. Obtains memorial portrait of him. CAMERON, Mrs., makes a photograph of Darwin. CANARY ISLANDS, projected trip to. CANDOLLE, Alphonse de, letters to. His view of the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin on his 'Histoire des Sciences et des Savants.' CARLYLE, Thomas, on Erasmus A. Darwin. His interesting talk. CARPENTER, W.B., letters to. Reviews the 'Origin of Species.' His work on 'Foraminifera.' CARUS, J. Victor, letters to. CATON, John D., letter to. CHAMBERS, R., Darwin on his geological views. CHANCE, not implied in evolution. CHIMNEY-SWEEPS, Darwin's efforts for. CIRRIPEDIA, monograph of the. Nomenclature of. Work on. The so-called auditory sac of. CIVIL WAR in the United States. Darwin on. CLARK, William, mentioned. CLARK, Sir Andrew, is Darwin's physician. CLIMATE and migration. 'CLIMBING PLANTS,' written and published. Work on. Republished in book-form. COAL, discussion on submarine. COHN, Prof., describes a visit to Darwin. COLENSO, Bishop, his 'Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.' COLLECTING, Darwin on. Butterflies. COLLIER, John, paints Darwin's portrait. COLOURS OF INSECTS. CONTINENTAL EXTENSION, Darwin's reasons against. CONTINENTS, permanence of. COPE, E.D., Darwin on his theory of acceleration. COPLEY MEDAL presented to Darwin. 'CORAL REEFS,' at work upon. Opinions on. Criticised by Semper. Darwin's answer to Semper. Darwin on Murray's criticisms of. Second edition. CRAWFORD, John, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' CREATIVE POWER. 'CREED OF SCIENCE,' read by Darwin. CRESY, E., letter to. CRICK, W.D., communicates to Darwin a mode of dispersal of bivalve shells. CUTTING EDGES OF BOOKS, Darwin on. DANA, Prof., sends Darwin 'Geology of U.S. Expedition.' DARESTE, Camille, letter to. DARWIN FAMILY. DARWIN, Annie, Darwin's account of. Death of. DARWIN, Miss C., letter to. DARWIN, Catherine, letters to. DARWIN, Charles, studies medicine at Edinburgh. Young man of great promise. DARWIN, Charles Robert (1809-1882). Table of relationship. Ancestors. Personal characteristics as traced from his forefathers. Love and respect for his father's memory. His affection for his brother Erasmus. Autobiography. Mother dies. Taste for natural history. School-boy experiences. Humane disposition toward animals. Goes to Dr. Butler's school at Shrewsbury. Taste for long, solitary walks. Inability to master a language. Leaves school with strong and diversified tastes. Fondness for poetry in early life. A wish to travel first roused by reading 'Wonders of the World.' Fondness for shooting. Collects minerals and becomes interested in insects and birds. Studies chemistry. Goes to Edinburgh University. And attends medical lectures. Collects and dissects marine animals. Attends meetings of the Plinian Royal Medical and Wernerian societies. Attends lectures on geology and zoology. Meets Sir J. Mackintosh. Spends three years at Cambridge studying for the ministry. Phrenological characteristics. Reads Paley with delight. Attends Henslow's lectures on botany. His taste for pictures and music. His interest in entomology. Friendship of Prof. Henslow and its influence upon his career. Meets Dr. Whewell. Reads Humboldt's 'Personal Narrative' and Herschel's 'Introduction to the Study of Natural History.' Begins the study of geology. Field-work in North Wales. Voyage of the "Beagle". Receives a proposal to sail in the "Beagle". Starts for Cambridge and thence to London. 'Voyage of the "Beagle" the most important event in my life.' Sails in the "Beagle". His letters read before the Philosophical Society of Cambridge. Returns to England. Begins his 'Journal of Travels.' Takes lodgings in London. Begins preparing MS. for his 'Geological Observations.' Arranges for publication of 'Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle". Opens first note-book of 'Origin of Species.' Meets Lyell and Robert Brown. Marries. Works on his 'Coral Reefs.' Reads papers before Geological Society. Acts as secretary of the Geological Society. Residence at Down. His absorption in science. His publications. 'Geological Observations' published. Success of the 'Journal of Researches.' Begins work on 'Cirripedia.' visits to water-cure establishments. Work on the 'Origin of Species.' Reads 'Malthus on Population.' Begins notes on 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.' Becomes interested in cross-fertilisation of flowers. Publishes papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. Publishes 'Descent of Man.' First child born. Publishes translation and sketch of 'Life of Erasmus Darwin.' Methods of work. Mental qualities. Fond of novel reading. A good observer. Habits and personal appearance. Ill health. Fondness for dogs. Correspondence. Business habits. Scientific reading. Wide interest in science. Journals of daily events. Holidays. Relation to his family and friends. His account of his little daughter Annie. How he brought up his children. Manner towards servants. As a host. Modesty. Not quick at argument. Intercourse with strangers. Use of simple methods and few instruments. Perseverance. Theorizing power. Books used only as tools. Use of note-books and portfolios. Courteous tone toward his reader. Illustration of his books. Consideration for other authors. His wife's tender care. Cambridge life. His character. Intention of going into the church. Appointment to the "Beagle". The voyage. Life at sea. Views on slavery. Excursion across the Andes. Meets Sir J. Herschel. Reaches home. Life at London and Cambridge. Residence at Cambridge. Works on his 'Journal of Researches.' Appointed secretary of Geological Society. Visits Glen Roy. Admiration for Lyell's 'Elements.' Increasing ill-health. At work on 'Coral Reefs.' His religious views. Life at Down, 1842-1854. Reasons for leaving London. Early impressions of Down. Theory of coral islands. Time spent on geological books. Purchases farm in Lincolnshire. Dines with Lord Mahon. Daughter Annie dies. His children. Growth of views on 'Origin of Species.' Plan for publishing 'Sketch of 1844,' in case of his sudden death. Pigeon fancying enterprise. Collecting plants. General acceptance of his work. Publishes 'Origin of Species.' Elected correspondent of the Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia). His views on the civil war in the United States. At Bournemouth. His view of Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man.' Receives the Copley medal. Elected to Royal Society of Edinburgh. His conscientiousness in argument. His intercourse with horticulturists and stock-raisers. Elected to the Royal Society of Holland. Made a knight of the Prussian order Pour le Merite. Sits for a bust. Declines a nomination for the degree of D.C.L. because of ill-health. His connection with the South American Missionary Society. His answers to Galton's questions on nature and nurture. Sits for portrait to W. Ouless. Elected to Physiological Society. Replies to Miss Cobbe on vivisection in the "Times". Publishes the 'Life of Erasmus Darwin.' Sits for memorial portraits. Receives various honours. Makes a present to the Naples Zoological Station. His answers to Galton's questions on the faculty of visualising. Offers aid to Fritz Muller. Replies to Sir W. Thomson on abyssal fauna. His botanical work. Builds a greenhouse. Publishes work on the fertilisation of orchids. Studies the bloom on leaves and fruit. Studies the causes of variability. Studies the production of galls. Studies aggregation. Encourages Torbitt's work on the potato disease. Aids the preparation of the Kew 'Index of Plant-names.' Death. Burial in Westminster Abbey. List of works. DARWIN & Wallace's joint paper on variation. DARWIN, Edward, author of 'Gamekeeper's Manual.' DARWIN, Mrs. Emma (Wedgwood), letter to. DARWIN, Erasmus (born 1731), poet and philosopher. Character of. Life published in English. DARWIN, Erasmus (born 1759). DARWIN, Erasmus Alvey (1804-1881), educated as a physician. Character of. Carlyle's sketch of his character. Miss Wedgwood's letter on his character. Letter from. His death. DARWIN, Robert, of Elston Hall. Charles Darwin's estimate of. DARWIN, Robert Waring, (born 1724), publishes 'Principia Botanica.' DARWIN, Robert Waring, (born 1767), studies medicine at Leyden. Settles in Shrewsbury. Marries Susannah Wedgwood. His son Charles's description of him. His six children. Letters to. DARWIN, Susan, letters to. DARWIN, William, of Marton, first known ancestor of Charles. DARWIN, William, son of Richard, appointed yeoman of the Royal Armoury. DARWIN, William (1655). DARWYN, Richard, of Marton, mentioned. DAVIDSON, Thomas, letter to, asking him to investigate brachiopods. Letter to. On British brachiopoda. DE CANDOLLE, A., see Candolle, A. De. DESCENT, doctrine of. DESCENT OF ANIMALS. 'DESCENT OF MAN,' published. Work on. Reviews of. Reception in Germany. Wallace's views on. Second edition. Connected with socialism. DESIGN IN NATURE, doctrine of. DIAGRAMS OF DESCENT OF MAMMALS. 'DIFFERENT FORMS OF FLOWERS,' published. Reviewed in 'Nature.' DIGESTION OF PLANTS, Darwin's work on. DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMALS. DIVERGENCE OF CHARACTER, principle of. DOGS, multiple origin of. DOHRN, Anton, letter to. DONDERS, F.C., letters to. DOWN, description of. DRIFT near Southampton, stones standing on end in. DU BOIS-REYMOND agrees with Darwin. DYCK, W.T. van, letter to. DYER, W. Thiselton, on Darwin's botanical work. Letters to. EAR, human, infolded point of. Earthquakes, paper read on. EATON, J., extract from his book on 'Pigeons.' 'EDINBURGH REVIEW,' Darwin's criticisms on. EDUCATION, Darwin on. 'EFFECTS OF CROSS And SELF-FERTILISATION,' published. Work on. ELECTRICAL ORGANS in fish. ERRATIC BOULDERS of South America, paper on, read. EVOLUTION, doctrine of, objections to, answered. Not a doctrine of chance. And teleology. Neither anti-theistic nor theistic. Mental. EXPRESSION, facial, origin of. 'EXPRESSION OF The EMOTIONS,' published. Work on. Reviews of. EYRE, Gov., Darwin's views on the prosecution of. FABRE, J.H., letter to. FALCONER, Hugh, letters to. Mentioned. Letter to Darwin. Views on the origin of elephants. Reclamation from Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man.' FARRER, F.W., letter to. FARRER, Sir Thomas H., aids Darwin's researches on earthworms. Letters to. FAWCETT, Henry, defends Darwin's reasoning. 'FERTILISATION OF ORCHIDS,' published. FISKE, John, letter to. FISHER, Mrs., letters to. FITTON, W.H., mentioned. FITZ-ROY, R.,captain of the "Beagle". His character. Meets Darwin. Letters to. His intention of resigning. FLINT instruments. FLOURENS, P.,on the 'Origin of Species.' FLOWERS, fertilisation of. FORBES, David, praises Darwin's work on Chile. FORBES, Edward, his theory of change of level. FORDYCE, J.,letter to. FOREL, Aug., letter to. 'FORMATION OF VEGETABLE MOULD,' paper read on. Published. Work on. Its reception. FOX, William Darwin, Darwin's friendship with. Letters to. FRANCE, Institute of, elects Darwin corresponding member. FRAUDS, scientific. FREE-WILL, doctrine of. FREKE, Dr., his 'Origin of Species by Means of Organic Affinity.' FEUGIANS, Darwin's impressions of. GALAPAGOS animals and plants. GALLS, production of, studied by Darwin. GALTON, Francis, mentioned. His questions on nature and nurture, and Darwin's answers. His questions on the faculty of visualising, and Darwin's answers. 'GARDENERS' CHRONICLE,' Darwin answers Mr. Westwood in. GAUDRY, A., letter to. GEIKIE, Archibald, his opinion of Darwin's geological works. GEIKIE, James, letter to. GENERA, varying of large. GENERATION, spontaneous. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 'GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS,' MS. begun. 'GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON VOLCANIC ISLANDS' published. Opinions on. Second edition. 'GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON SOUTH AMERICA,' opinions on. GEOLOGICAL RECORD, imperfection of. Succession in. GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Darwin wishes to become a member. Papers contributed to. GEOLOGICAL SPECIMENS secured during voyage. Disposed of. GEOLOGICAL, importance of. Of St. Jago. Article on, in 'Admiralty Manual.' Darwin on the progress of. GERMANY, progress of natural selection in. GERMINATION, experiments in. GILBERT, J.H., letter to. GLACIAL period, its effect on species. Phenomena at Cwm Idwal. GLACIERS, paper on ancient, in Wales. GLEN ROY, Darwin visits. 'Observations' on, published. Work criticised by D. Milne. GOURMET CLUB and its members. GOVERNMENT AID in publication of 'Zoology of Voyage of "Beagle".' GRAHAM, W., letter to. GRAY, Asa, his papers on natural selection and natural theology. Letters to. Letter to Hooker on the 'Origin of Species.' On the 'Origin of Species.' Reviews the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' Reviews the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.' GRAY, J.E., mentioned. GUNTHER, A., letters to. GURNEY, E., letter to. HAAST, Sir Julius von, letter to. HAECKEL, E., his views on the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin's friendship with. His work for natural selection in Germany. Letters to. HALIBURTON, Mrs., letters to. HARVEY, W.H., criticises the 'Origin of Species.' HAUGHTON, Rev. S., criticises Darwin and Wallace's joint paper. HENSLOW, J.S., his friendship with Darwin. His character. Letter from. Letters to. Presides at the Oxford discussion on the 'Origin of Species.' His views on natural selection. His death. HERBERT, John Maurice, Darwin's friendship with. Letters to. HERSCHEL, Sir J., Darwin's opinion of. Meets Darwin. HETEROGENY, Darwin on. HIGGINSON, T.W., letter to. HILDEBRAND, F., letters to. HIPPOCRATES anticipates Darwin on pangenesis. HOLMGREN, Frithiof, letter to. HOLLAND, Royal Society of, elects Darwin a member. HOLLAND, Sir Henry, his view of the 'Origin of Species.' HOMOEOPATHY, Darwin's estimate of. HONOURS conferred on Darwin, list of. HOOKER, Sir Joseph D., Darwin's friendship for. Letters to. Letter from. His reminiscences of Darwin. On the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin on his 'Australian Flora.' Answers Harvey. Memorial on his treatment by the First Commissioner of Works. Reviews the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' HOOKER, Sir William, mentioned. HOPKINS, William, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' HUDSON, Darwin's reply to. HUMBOLDT, Darwin's estimate of. HUTTON, F.W., reviews the 'Origin of Species.' HUXLEY, Thomas Henry, mentioned. His opinion of Darwin's work on 'Cirripedes.' On the 'Vestiges of Creation.' On the 'Philosophie Zoologique.' On the 'Principles of Geology.' On the reception of the 'Origin of Species.' Letters to. On the 'Origin of Species.' Reviews the 'Origin of Species' in 'Westminster Review.' Defends Darwin before the British Association. Contradicts R. Owen. Letter from. Lectures to workingmen on natural selection. Asked by Darwin to write a text-book on zoology. Replies to the 'Quarterly' reviewer on the 'Descent of Man.' HYATT, Alpheus, letter to, on his theory of acceleration. HYBRID GEESE, fertility of. HYBRIDISM. IMMORTALITY, Darwin's views upon. 'INFANT, BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AN.' INFERIORITY inherited by the forms which are beaten. INNES, Rev. J. Brodie, on Darwin's interest in village affairs. On the 'Origin of Species' and the Bible. On Darwin's conscientiousness. Letter to. 'INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS,' published. Work on. INSECTS, instinct of. As carriers of pollen. INSTINCT, Darwin on. ISLANDS, animals of. ISOLATION, effect of, on the origin of species. JARDINE, Sir W., mentioned. JEFFREYS, Gwyn, mentioned. JENKINS, Fleeming, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin on his criticisms. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD), Rev. Leonard, mentioned. Letters to. Letter from. His 'Observations in Natural History.' JONES, Dr. Bence, is Darwin's physician. 'JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES,' work on. Lyell's opinion of. The German translation and its reception. Second edition published. Dedication of. Condemned in manuscript. JUDD, Prof., his paper on 'Volcanoes of the Hebrides.' On Darwin's desire to promote the progress of science. JUKES, Joseph B., mentioned. KEW, 'Index of Plant Names.' KINGSLEY, Rev C., letter from, on the 'Origin of Species.' KOCH'S RESEARCHES on splenic fever. Darwin on. KOLLIKER, Prof., is reviewed by Huxley. KRAUSE, Ernst, criticises Bronn's German edition of the 'Origin of Species.' His essay on Erasmus Darwin published. KROHN, Aug., finds mistakes in the 'Origin of Species.' LAMARCK's discussion of the species question, its insufficiency. Darwin on. LANE, Dr., his recollections of Darwin. LANGEL reviews the 'Origin of Species.' LANKESTER, E. Ray, letter to. LANSDOWNE, Marquis of, anecdote of. LEE, Samuel, mentioned. LESQUEREUX, Leo, accepts the doctrine of natural selection. LEWES, G.H., reviews the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.' LINDLEY, John, mentioned. LINNEAN SOCIETY obtains memorial portrait of Darwin. LITCHFIELD, Mrs., on Darwin's style. Letter to. LIZARDS. LONSDALE, William, mentioned. LOWELL, J.A., reviews the 'Origin of Species.' LUBBOCK, Sir John, letters to. On the burial of Darwin. LYELL, Sir Charles, estimate of his character as a geologist. Letters to. Letters from. Opinion of 'Coral Reefs.' His views of the 'Origin of Species.' On the origin of species by natural causes. Admission of the doctrine of natural selection. Darwin on his 'Antiquity of Man.' Falconer's reclamation from his 'Antiquity of Man.' Darwin on his 'Elements of Geology.' His death. Darwin's opinion of. MACAULAY and his memory. MCDONNELL, R., his study of electrical organs in fish. MACKINTOSH, D., his work on erratic blocks. MACLEAY, W.S., mentioned. MADEIRA AND BERMUDA birds not peculiar. MALAY ARCHIPELAGO,' Wallace's 'Zoological Geography of. MAMMALS, descent of, from a single type. MAN, all races of, descended from one type. Antiquity of. Origin of. Relationship to apes. MARRIAGES, consanguineous. MARSH, O.C., letter to. MASTERS, Maxwell, letter to. MATTHEW, Patrick, anticipates the doctrine of natural selection. MAW, George, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' MEDAL of Royal Society awarded to Darwin. MEGATHERIUM sent down from heaven. MESMERISM, Darwin's estimate of. MILNE, D., criticises Glen Roy paper. MIMETIC MODIFICATIONS in plants. MIVART, St. G., Darwin on his 'Genesis of Species.' His 'Genesis of Species' reviewed by Chauncey Wright. Criticised by Huxley. His 'Lessons from Nature' reviewed in the 'Academy.' MODIFICATION. MODIFICATIONS, absence of. MOGGRIDGE, J.T., letter to. MOJSISOVIC, E. von, Darwin on 'Dolomit Riffe.' MONADS, persistence of. MONSTERS. MONSTROSITIES are sterile. MORSE, E.S., letter to. MOSELEY, H.N., letters to. MULLER, Fritz, letters to. His 'Fur Darwin' translated. Receives offer of aid from Darwin. MULLER, Hermann, letters to. MULLER, Max, his 'Lectures on the Science of Language.' MURRAY, Andrew, quoted on the 'Origin of Species.' MURRAY, John, letters to. MUSIC OF INSECTS. MUTABILITY OF SPECIES. NAGELI, C., his 'Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art.' Letter to. NAPLES Zoological Station receives a present from Darwin. NATURAL HISTORY, Darwin's passion for. NATURAL SELECTION, see Selection, natural. NAUDIN, Darwin on. NEUMAYR, Melchior, letter to. NEVILL, Lady Dorothy, letter to. NEWTON, A., letter to. Reviews the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.' NEW ZEALAND, animals of. Plants of. NOBILITY, natural selection among. NOMENCLATURE of species, discussion on. NORMAN, E., Darwin's secretary. NOVARA expedition. 'OBSERVATIONS ON PARALLEL ROADS OF GLEN ROY,' published. Extract from. OGLE, William, letter to. 'ORCHIDS, FERTILISATION OF,' work on. Published. Reviews of. Second edition published. 'ORCHIS BANK' described. ORGANS, rudimentary. 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES,' first note-book of, opened. Growth of the. Published. Its success. Second edition. Darwin's change of views upon. Description of sketch of 1844. Huxley's view of sketch of 1844. Prof. Newton's view of same. The writing of. Abstract book. Unorthodoxy of. Faults of style. Lyell on. Huxley on. Bishop Wilberforce on. Huxley's summary of reviews of. Answer to Lyell on. H.C. Watson on. Jos. D. Hooker on. French translation proposed. First German edition. Reviewed in the "Times". First American edition. Asa Gray on. Kingsley on. And the Bible. Rev. J. Brodie Innes on. Reviewed in the 'Edinburgh Review.' Reviewed in the 'North American Review.' Reviewed in the 'Revue des deux Mondes.' Reviewed in the "New York Times". Reviewed in the "Christian Examiner". Discussed by the British Association. Reviewed in 'Quarterly Review.' Reviewed in the 'London Review.' Reviewed in the 'American Journal of Science and Arts. Bronn's criticisms of. Reviewed in the 'Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.' Answers to criticisms on. Third edition. 'Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the.' Dutch edition. First French edition. Reviewed in the 'Geologist.' Reviewed in the 'Dublin Hospital Gazette.' Reviewed in the 'Zoologist.' De Candolle's view of. Haeckel's view of. Gen. Sabine on. Flourens on. Second French edition. Criticised by the Duke of Argyll. Fourth edition. Third German edition. Russian editions of. Fifth edition. Reviewed in the 'North British Review.' Reviewed in the 'Athenaeum.' Third and fourth French editions. Sixth edition. Criticised by Pusey. 'Coming of age of.' OSTRICH, Darwin discovers a new species of. OULESS, W., paints Darwin's portrait. OWEN, Sir R., criticises Darwin's theory. Contradicted by Huxley. His views on variation by descent. PALEY's argument of design in nature no longer good. His 'Natural Theology' mentioned. PAMPAEAN FORMATION, Darwin on. PANGENESIS, hypothesis of. Opinions on. Anticipated by Hippocrates. PARKER, Henry, defends the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' PARSONS, Theophilus, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' PEACOCK, George, letter on appointment of naturalist to "Beagle". Letter from, appointing Darwin to "Beagle". PENGELLY, William, mentioned. PERTHES, Boucher de, Darwin on. PETRELS as agents of distribution. PHILLIPS, John, mentioned. PHILOSOPHICAL CLUB, its nature. 'PHILOSOPHIE ZOOLOGIQUE,' Huxley on. PHOTOGRAPHS, albums of, presented to Darwin by German and Dutch scientists. PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY elects Darwin an honorary member. PICTET, Francois Jules, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' PIGEONS, Darwin's interest in. PLANTS, fossil. sexuality of. A recent discovery. PLATYSMA, contraction of, from shuddering. PORTRAITS OF DARWIN, list of. POTATO DISEASE, Torbitt's experiments on. POUR LE MERITE, Darwin admitted to order. POUTER PIGEON, variation in. 'POWER OF MOVEMENT IN PLANTS,' published. Work on. PRESTWICH, J., letter to. PREYER, W., letter to. PRIMOGENITURE, law of, Darwin on. 'PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY,' Huxley on. PRIORITY, nomenclature of species by. PROGRESSION, necessary. PROTECTION, modification for. PUSEY's criticisms of the 'Origin of Species.' 'QUARTERLY REVIEW,' recognises merits of 'Journal of Researches.' QUATREFAGES, J.L.A. de, letters to. RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF DARWIN, difficulties not created by science. REMINISCENCES OF DARWIN by Hooker. REVELATION, Darwin's disbelief in. REVERSION, Darwin on. REYMOND, Du Bois-, letter to. RICHMOND, W.B., paints Darwin's portrait. RIDLEY, C., letter to. RIVERS, T., letter to. ROBERTSON, G. Croom, letter to. ROBERTSON, John, reviews the 'Origin of Species.' RODWELL, Rev. J.M., letter to. ROLLESTON, George, his 'Canons.' ROMAN CATHOLIC church on evolution. ROMANES, G.J., on Darwin's conscientiousness. Letters to. ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS presents the Baly medal to Darwin. ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH elects Darwin honorary member. ROYER, Mlle. Clemence, translates the 'Origin of Species.' Publishes third French edition. RUDIMENTARY organs. SABINE, Gen., on the 'Origin of Species.' SALTER, J.W., his diagram of spirifers. 'Sand-walk' described. SANDERSON, J. Burdon, letter to. SAPORTA, Marquis de, letter to. SCHAAFFHAUSEN, H., claims to anticipate Darwin. SCOTT, John, Darwin's estimate of. SEDGWICK, Rev. Adam, mentioned. On the 'Origin of Species.' His review of the 'Origin of Species.' Criticises the 'Origin of Species.' On the imperfection of the geological record. SEEDS, vitality of. SELECTION, NATURAL, doctrine of, clearly conceived by Darwin about 1839. Opposed to doctrine of design. Effect of, on the scientific mind. And religion. Small effects of, in changing species. Among the nobility. Huxley's lectures to workingmen on. Progress of. Darwin anticipated on. Use of the term. Effect on sterility. Progress among the clergy. Progress of, in Germany. Progress of, in France. SELECTION, SEXUAL, instance of, in the dogs of Beyrout. SEMPER, K., letters to. SHELBURNE, Lord, anecdote of. SLAVERY, Darwin's opinion of. In the United States. SMITH, Sydney, inexplicably amusing. SOCIALISM and the descent of man. SOCIETIES, learned, Darwin's membership in. SOUTH AMERICAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY, Darwin's connection with. SPECIES, mutability of. Origin of, effect of isolation on. Specific centres. SPENCER, Herbert, letters to. Prof. Huxley's friendship with. Darwin on. Originates the term 'survival of the fittest.' His impression of 'Pangenesis.' SPIRITISM, Darwin on. SPONTANEITY, Bain's theory of. SPRENGEL, C.C., his work on the fertilisation of flowers. STANHOPE, Lord, his parties of historians. STEBBING, Rev. T.R.R., letter to. STENDEL'S 'Nomenclator.' STERILITY, effect of natural selection on. Of moths. STOKES, Admiral, Lord, extract from letter of. STONES standing on end in the Southampton drift. STRICKLAND, Hugh, letters to. Letter from. STRIPED HORSES. STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. STYLE of Darwin. SUBLIMITY, where felt most by Darwin. SULIVAN, B.J., letter to. SULIVAN, Admiral Sir James, extract from letter of. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, use of the term. TEGETMEIER, W.B., extract from letter to. TELEOLOGY, evolution and. Darwin's revival of. TENERIFFE, projected trip to. THIEL, H., letter to. THOMSON, Thomas, mentioned. THOMSON, Sir Wyville, on abyssal fauna. THORLEY, Miss, botanical work with. THWAITES, G.J.K., mentioned. TIERRA DEL FUEGO MISSION, Darwin's connection with. "TIMES", its review of the 'Origin of Species.' Darwin on. TORBITT, James, his work on the potato disease. TURIN, Royal Academy of, presents Darwin the Bressa prize. TYLOR, E.B., letter to. TYNDALL, John, praises the 'Origin of Species.' USBORNE, A.B., extract from a letter of. VAN DYCK, W.T., letter to. VARIATIONS IN SPECIES, Wallace's essay on. Darwin and Wallace's joint paper on. Sudden. Governed by design. Cause of. Mimetic, of butterflies. Governed by design. Mimetic, of plants. In colours of insects. Transmission of. Analogical. Darwin studies the causes of. 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS UNDER DOMESTICATION,' work on. Publication of. Reviewed in the "Nation". Russian edition. Second edition. Reviewed in the "Pall Mall Gazette". Reviewed in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Reviewed in the "Athenaeum". Reviewed in the 'Zoological Record.' American edition. VARIETIES, production of. And species, collecting facts about. 'VESTIGES OF CREATION' read by Darwin. Huxley on. VINES, S.H., letter to. VIRCHOW connects the descent of man with socialism. VISUALISING, questions and answers on the faculty of. VIVISECTION. WAGNER, Moritz, criticised by A. Weismann. Letters to. WAGNER, R., mentioned. WALLACE, A.R., sends essay to Darwin. Letters to. Essay on variation. His 'Zoological Geography.' Reviews the 'Descent of Man.' Reviews Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature.' Pension granted to. Defends the 'Fertilisation of Orchids.' WATKINS, Archdeacon, reminiscence of Darwin. Letter to. WATSON, H.C., mentioned. On the 'Origin of Species.' WEDGWOOD, Josiah, his character. Mentioned. Letter from. WEDGWOOD, Miss Julia, on Erasmus Darwin, in "Spectator". Letter to. WEISMANN, August, letters to. WELLS, Dr., anticipates Darwin on natural selection. WESTMINSTER ABBEY, Darwin buried in. WHEWELL, Dr., mentioned. On the succession of species. WHITLEY, C., letter to. WIESNER, Julius, letter to. WILBERFORCE, Bishop, criticises the 'Origin of Species.' WILLIAM IV, coronation of. WOODPECKER, Pampas, Darwin on. WOOLNER, T., makes a bust of Darwin. Discovers infolded point of the human ear. WOLLASTON MEDAL. WOLLASTON's 'Insecta Maderensia.' His 'Variation of Species' referred to. WORKS BY DARWIN, list of. WRIGHT, Chauncey, letter from. Letters to. On his visit to Darwin at Down. YARRELL, William, mentioned. ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Darwin visits. Reads a paper at. 'ZOOLOGY OF THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. "BEAGLE",' arrangement for publication. 
2739	----	MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN By Charles Darwin A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE IN TWO VOLUMES Transcriber's Notes: All biographical footnotes appear at the end of Volume II. All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear in the text, in brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number. VOLUME I. DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN "You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement" CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862 PREFACE The "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" was published in 1887. Since that date, through the kindness of various correspondents, additional letters have been received; among them may be mentioned those written by Mr. Darwin to Mr. Belt, Lady Derby, Hugh Falconer, Mr. Francis Galton, Huxley, Lyell, Mr. John Morley, Max Muller, Owen, Lord Playfair, John Scott, Thwaites, Sir William Turner, John Jenner Weir. But the material for our work consisted in chief part of a mass of letters which, for want of space or for other reasons, were not printed in the "Life and Letters." We would draw particular attention to the correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. To him Mr. Darwin wrote with complete freedom, and this has given something of a personal charm to the most technical of his letters. There is also much correspondence, hardly inferior in biographical interest, with Sir Charles Lyell, Fritz Muller, Mr. Huxley, and Mr. Wallace. From this unused material we have been able to compile an almost complete record of Mr. Darwin's work in a series of letters now published for the first time. We have, however, in a few instances, repeated paragraphs, or in one or two cases whole letters, from the "Life and Letters," where such repetition seemed necessary for the sake of clearness or continuity. Our two volumes contain practically all the matter that it now seems desirable to publish. But at some future time others may find interesting data in what remains unprinted; this is certainly true of a short series of letters dealing with the Cirripedes, which are omitted solely for want of space. (Preface/1. Those addressed to the late Albany Hancock have already appeared in the "Transactions of the Tyneside Nat. Field Club," VIII., page 250.) We are fortunate in being permitted, by Sir Joseph Hooker and by Mr. Wallace, to publish certain letters from them to Mr. Darwin. We have also been able to give a few letters from Sir Charles Lyell, Hugh Falconer, Edward Forbes, Dr. Asa Gray, Professor Hyatt, Fritz Muller, Mr. Francis Galton, and Sir T. Lauder Brunton. To the two last named, also to Mrs. Lyell (the biographer of Sir Charles), Mrs. Asa Gray and Mrs. Hyatt, we desire to express our grateful acknowledgments. The present volumes have been prepared, so as to give as full an idea as possible of the course of Mr. Darwin's work. The volumes therefore necessarily contain many letters of a highly technical character, but none, we hope, which are not essentially interesting. With a view to saving space, we have confined ourselves to elucidating the letters by full annotations, and have for the same reason--though with some regret--omitted in most cases the beginnings and endings of the letters. For the main facts of Mr. Darwin's life, we refer our readers to the abstract of his private Diary, given in the present volume. Mr. Darwin generally wrote his letters when he was tired or hurried, and this often led to the omission of words. We have usually inserted the articles, and this without any indication of their absence in the originals. Where there seemed any possibility of producing an alteration of meaning (and in many cases where there is no such possibility) we have placed the introduced words in square brackets. We may say once for all that throughout the book square brackets indicate words not found in the originals. (Preface/2. Except in a few places where brackets are used to indicate passages previously published. In all such cases the meaning of the symbol is explained.) Dots indicate omissions, but many omissions are made without being so indicated. The selection and arrangement of the letters have not been easy. Our plan has been to classify the letters according to subject--into such as deal with Evolution, Geographical Distribution, Botany, etc., and in each group to place the letters chronologically. But in several of the chapters we have adopted sectional headings, which we believe will be a help to the reader. The great difficulty lay in deciding in which of the chief groups a given letter should be placed. If the MS. had been cut up into paragraphs, there would have been no such difficulty; but we feel strongly that a letter should as far as possible be treated as a whole. We have in fact allowed this principle to interfere with an accurate classification, so that the reader will find, for instance, in the chapters on Evolution, questions considered which might equally well have come under Geographical Distribution or Geology, or questions in the chapter on Man which might have been placed under the heading Evolution. In the same way, to avoid mutilation, we have allowed references to one branch of science to remain in letters mainly concerned with another subject. For these irregularities we must ask the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that some pains have been devoted to arrangement. Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally omitted the date in familiar correspondence, and it is often only by treating a letter as a detective studies a crime that we can make sure of its date. Fortunately, however, Sir Joseph Hooker and others of Darwin's correspondents were accustomed to add the date on which the letters were received. This sometimes leads to an inaccuracy which needs a word of explanation. Thus a letter which Mr. Darwin dated "Wednesday" might be headed by us "Wednesday [January 3rd, 1867]," the latter half being the date on which the letter was received; if it had been dated by the writer it would have been "Wednesday, January 2nd, 1867." In thanking those friends--especially Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Wallace--who have looked through some of our proof-sheets, we wish to make it clear that they are not in the smallest degree responsible for our errors or omissions; the weight of our shortcomings rests on us alone. We desire to express our gratitude to those who have so readily supplied us with information, especially to Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Judd, Professor Newton, Dr. Sharp, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Wallace. And we have pleasure in mentioning Mr. H.W. Rutherford, of the University Library, to whose conscientious work as a copyist we are much indebted. Finally, it is a pleasure to express our obligation to those who have helped us in the matter of illustrations. The portraits of Dr. Asa Gray, Mr. Huxley, Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Romanes, are from their respective Biographies, and for permission to make use of them we have to thank Mrs. Gray, Mr. L. Huxley, Mrs. Lyell, and Mrs. Romanes, as well as the publishers of the books in question. For the reproduction of the early portrait of Mr. Darwin we are indebted to Miss Wedgwood; for the interesting portraits of Hugh Falconer and Edward Forbes we have to thank Mr. Irvine Smith, who obtained for us the negatives; these being of paper, and nearly sixty years old, rendered their reproduction a work of some difficulty. We also thank Messrs. Elliott & Fry for very kindly placing at our disposal a negative of the fine portrait, which forms the frontispiece to Volume II. For the opportunity of making facsimiles of diagrams in certain of the letters, we are once more indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker, who has most generously given the original letters to Mr. Darwin's family. Cambridge, October, 1902. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CONTENTS OF VOLUME I. Outline of Charles Darwin's Life, etc. CHAPTER 1.I.--An Autobiographical Fragment, and Early Letters, 1809-1842. CHAPTER 1.II.--Evolution, 1844-1858. CHAPTER 1.III.--Evolution, 1859-1863. CHAPTER 1.IV.--Evolution, 1864-1869. CHAPTER 1.V.--Evolution, 1870-1882. CHAPTER 1.VI.--Geographical Distribution, 1843-1867. ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I. CHARLES AND CATHERINE DARWIN, 1816. From a coloured chalk drawing by Sharples, in possession of Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place. MRS. DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Barraud. EDWARD FORBES, 1844 (?). From a photograph by Hill & Adamson. THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, 1857. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Huxley's "Life," Volume I.) PROFESSOR HENSLOW. From a photograph. HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson. JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, 1870 (?). From a photograph by Wallich. ASA GRAY, 1867. From a photograph. ("Letters of Asa Gray," Volume I.) VOLUME II CHAPTER 2.VII.--Geographical Distribution, 1867-1882. CHAPTER 2.VIII.--Man, 1860-1882. 2.VIII.I. Descent of Man, 1860-1882. 2.VIII.II. Sexual Selection, 1866-1872. 2.VIII.III. Expression, 1868-1874. CHAPTER 2.IX.--Geology, 1840-1882. 2.IX.I. Vulcanicity and Earth-movements, 1840-1881. 2.IX.II. Ice-action, 1841-1882. 2.IX.III. The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, 1841-1880. 2.IX.IV. Coral Reefs, Fossil and Recent, 1841-1881. 2.IX.V. Cleavage and Foliation, 1846-1856. 2.IX.VI. Age of the World, 1868-1877. 2.IX.VII. Geological Action of Earth-worms, 1880-1882. 2.IX.VIII. Miscellaneous, 1846-1878. CHAPTER 2.X.--Botany, 1843-1871. 2.X.I. Miscellaneous, 1843-1862. 2.X.II. Melastomaceae, 1862-1881. 2.X.III. Correspondence with John Scott, 1862-1871. CHAPTER 2.XI.--Botany, 1863-1881. 2.XI.I. Miscellaneous, 1863-1866. 2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881. 2.XI.III. Miscellaneous, 1868-1881. CHAPTER 2.XII.--Vivisection and Miscellaneous Subjects, 1867-1882. 2.XII.I. Vivisection, 1875-1882. 2.XII.II. Miscellaneous Subjects, 1867-1882. ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II. CHARLES DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry. ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. GEORGE J. ROMANES, 1891. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry. (Romanes' "Life.") CHARLES LYELL. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Lyell's "Life," Volume II.) CHARLES DARWIN, 1854 (?). From a photograph by Maull & Fox. FRITZ MULLER. From a photograph. FACSIMILES OF SKETCHES IN THE LETTERS. FIGURE 1. Hypothetical Section Illustrating Continental Elevation. FIGURE 2. Diagram of Junction between Dike and Lava. FIGURE 3. Outline of an Elliptic Crater. FIGURE 4. Hypothetical Section showing the Relation of Dikes to Volcanic Vents. FIGURE 5. Map illustrating the Linear Arrangement of Volcanic Islands in relation to Continental Coast-lines. FIGURE 6. Sketch showing the Form and Distribution of Quartz in a Foliated Rock. FIGURE 7. Sketch showing the Arrangement of Felspar and Quartz in a Metamorphic Series. FIGURE 8. Floral Diagram of an Orchid. FIGURE 9. Dissected Flower of Habenaria Chlorantha. FIGURE 10. Diagram of a Cruciferous Flower. FIGURE 11. Longitudinal Section of a Cruciferous Flower. FIGURE 12. Transverse Section of the Ovary of a Crucifer. FIGURE 13. (Contents/1. Not a facsimile.) Leaf of Trifolium resupinatum. (Drawn by Miss Pertz.) MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN. VOLUME I. OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE. BASED ON HIS DIARY, DATED AUGUST 1838. References to the Journals in which Mr. Darwin's papers were published will be found in his "Life and Letters" III., Appendix II. We are greatly indebted to Mr. C.F. Cox, of New York, for calling our attention to mistakes in the Appendix, and we take this opportunity of correcting them. Appendix II., List ii.--Mr. Romanes spoke on Mr. Darwin's essay on Instinct at a meeting of the Linnean Society, December 6th, 1883, and some account of it is given in "Nature" of the same date. But it was not published by the Linnean Society. Appendix II., List iii.--"Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt lakes of Patagonia and La Plata" (1838). This is the heading of an extract from Darwin's volume on South America reprinted in the "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society," Volume II., Part ii., "Miscellanea," pages 127-8, 1846. The paper on "Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks, etc." was published in 1845, not in 1851. A paper "On the Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency," in the "Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer" viii., and "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 9th, 1860, should be inserted in the bibliography. 1809. February 12th: Born at Shrewsbury. 1817. Death of his mother. 1818. Went to Shrewsbury School. 1825. Left Shrewsbury School. 1826. October: Went to Edinburgh University. Read two papers before the Plinian Society of Edinburgh "at the close of 1826 or early in 1827." 1827. Entered at Christ's College, Cambridge. 1828. Began residence at Cambridge. 1831. January: Passed his examination for B.A., and kept the two following terms. August: Geological tour with Sedgwick. September 11th: Went to Plymouth to see the "Beagle." October 2nd: "Took leave of my home." December 27th: "Sailed from England on our circumnavigation." 1832. January 16th: "First landed on a tropical shore" (Santiago). 1833. December 6th: "Sailed for last time from Rio Plata." 1834. June 10th: "Sailed for last time from Tierra del Fuego." 1835. September 5th: "Sailed from west shores of South America." November 16th: Letters to Professor Henslow, read at a meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. November 18th: Paper read before the Geological Society on Notes made during a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in years 1832-35. 1836. May 31st: Anchored at the Cape of Good Hope. October 2nd: Anchored at Falmouth. October 4th: Reached Shrewsbury after an absence of five years and two days. December 13th: Went to live at Cambridge. 1837. January 4th: Paper on Recent Elevation in Chili read. March 13th: Settled at 36, Great Marlborough Street. March 14th: Paper on "Rhea" read. May: Read papers on Coral Formation, and on the Pampas, to the Geological Society. July: Opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. March 13th to November: Occupied with his Journal. October and November: Preparing the scheme for the Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle." Working at Geology of South America. November 1st: Read the paper on Earthworms before the Geological Society. 1838. Worked at the Geology of South America and Zoology of Voyage. "Some little species theory." March 7th: Read paper on the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the Formation of Mountain Chains, to the Geological Society. May: Health began to break down. June 23rd: Started for Glen Roy. The paper on Glen Roy was written in August and September. October 5th: Began Coral paper. November 11th: Engaged to be married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood. December 31st: "Entered 12 Upper Gower Street." 1839. January 29th: Married at Maer. February and March: Some work on Corals and on Species Theory. March (part) and April: Working at Coral paper. Papers on a Rock seen on an Iceberg, and on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Published "Journal and Remarks," being volume iii. of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,' etc." For the rest of the year, Corals and Zoology of the Voyage. Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" Part II. (Mammalia). 1840. Worked at Corals and the Zoology of the Voyage. Contributed Geological introduction to Part I. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fossil Mammalia by Owen). 1841. Publication of Part III. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Birds). Read paper on Boulders and Glacial Deposits of South America, to Geological Society. Published paper on a remarkable bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the coast of Brazil. Publication of Part IV. of "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fish). 1842. May 6th: Last proof of the Coral book corrected. June: Examined Glacier action in Wales. "Wrote pencil sketch of my Species Theory." July: Wrote paper on Glaciers of Caernarvonshire. October: Began his book on Volcanic Islands. 1843. Working at "Volcanic Islands" and "some Species work." 1844. February 13th: Finished "Volcanic Islands." July to September: Wrote an enlarged version of Species Theory. Papers on Sagitta, and on Planaria. July 27th: Began his book on the Geology of South America. 1845. Paper on the Analogy of the Structure of Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers. "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." April 25th to August 25th: Working at second edition of "Naturalist's Voyage." 1846. October 1st: Finished last proof of "Geological Observations on South America." Papers on Atlantic Dust, and on Geology of Falkland Islands, communicated to the Geological Society. Paper on Arthrobalanus. 1847. Working at Cirripedes. Review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammalia." 1848. March 20th: Finished Scientific Instructions in Geology for the Admiralty Manual. Working at Cirripedes. Paper on Erratic Boulders. 1849. Health especially bad. Working at Cirripedes. March-June: Water-cure at Malvern. 1850. Working at Cirripedes. Published Monographs of Recent and Fossil Lepadidae. 1852. Working at Cirripedes. 1853. November 30th: "Royal Medal given to me." 1854. Published Monographs on Recent and on Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae. September 9th: Finished packing up all my Cirripedes. "Began sorting notes for Species Theory." 1855. March-April: Experiments on the effect of salt water on seeds. Papers on Icebergs and on Vitality of Seeds. 1856. May 14th: "Began, by Lyell's advice, writing Species Sketch" (described in "Life and Letters" as the "Unfinished Book"). December 16th: Finished Chapter III. Paper read to Linnean Society, On Sea-water and the Germination of Seeds. 1857. September 29th: Finished Chapters VII. and VIII. September 30th to December 29th: Working on Hybridism. Paper on the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers. 1858. March 9th: "Finished Instinct chapter." June 18th: Received Mr. Wallace's sketch of his evolutionary theory. July 1st: Joint paper of Darwin and Wallace read at the Linnean Society. July 20th to July 27th: "Began Abstract of Species book," i.e., the "Origin of Species," at Sandown, I.W. Paper on Bees and Fertilisation of Flowers. 1859. May 25th: Began proof-sheets of the "Origin of Species." November 24th: Publication of the "Origin": 1250 copies printed. October 2nd to December 9th: At the water-cure establishment, Ilkley, Yorkshire. 1860. January 7th: Publication of Edition II. of "Origin" (3000 copies). January 9th: "Looking over MS. on Variation." Paper on the Fertilisation of British Orchids. July and again in September: Made observations on Drosera. Paper on Moths and Flowers. Publication of "A Naturalist's Voyage." 1861. Up to July at work on "Variation under Domestication." April 30th: Publication of Edition III. of "Origin" (2000 copies). July to the end of year: At work on Orchids. November: Primula paper read at Linnean Society. Papers on Pumilio and on Fertilisation of Vinca. 1862. May 15th: Orchid book published. Working at Variation. Paper on Catasetum (Linnean Society). Contribution to Chapter III. of Jenyns' Memoir of Henslow. 1863. Working at "Variation under Domestication." Papers on Yellow Rain, the Pampas, and on Cirripedes. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies. Severe illness to the end of year. 1864. Illness continued until April. Paper on Linum published by the Linnean Society. May 25th: Paper on Lythrum finished. September 13th: Paper on Climbing Plants finished. Work on "Variation under Domestication." November 30th: Copley medal awarded to him. 1865. January 1st: Continued at work on Variation until April 22nd. The work was interrupted by illness until late in the autumn. February: Read paper on Climbing Plants. December 25th: Began again on Variation. 1866. Continued work at "Variation under Domestication." March 1st to May 10th: At work on Edition IV. of the "Origin." Published June (1250 copies). Read paper on Cytisus scoparius to the Linnean Society. December 22nd: Began the last chapter of "Variation under Domestication." 1867. November 15th: Finished revises of "Variation under Domestication." December: Began papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on Primula. 1868. January 30th: Publication of "Variation under Domestication." February 4th: Began work on Man. February 10th: New edition of "Variation under Domestication." Read papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on Verbascum. 1869. February 10th: "Finished fifth edition of 'Origin'; has taken me forty-six days." Edition V. published in May. Working at the "Descent of Man." Papers on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and on the Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. 1870. Working at the "Descent of Man." Paper on the Pampas Woodpecker. 1871. January 17th: Began the "Expression of the Emotions." February 24th: "Descent of Man" published (2500 copies). April 27th: Finished the rough copy of "Expression." June 18th: Began Edition VI. of "Origin." Paper on the Fertilisation of Leschenaultia. 1872. January 10th: Finished proofs of Edition VI. of the "Origin," and "again rewriting 'Expression.'" August 22nd: Finished last proofs of "Expression." August 23rd: Began working at Drosera. November: "Expression" published (7000 copies, and 2000 more printed at the end of the year.) November 8th: "At Murray's sale 5267 copies sold to London booksellers." 1873. January: Correcting the Climbing Plants paper for publication as a book. February 3rd: At work on "Cross-fertilisation." February to September: Contributions to "Nature." June 14th: "Began Drosera again." November 20th: Began "Descent of Man," Edition II. 1874. "Descent of Man," Edition II, in one volume, published (Preface dated September). "Coral Reefs," Edition II., published. April 1st: Began "Insectivorous Plants." February to May: Contributed notes to "Nature." 1875. July 2nd: "Insectivorous Plants" published (3000 copies); 2700 copies sold immediately. July 6th: "Correcting 2nd edition of 'Variation under Domestication.'" It was published in the autumn. September 1st (approximately): Began on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation." November: Vivisection Commission. 1876. May 5th: "Finished MS., first time over, of 'Cross and Self-Fertilisation.'" May to June: Correction of "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II. Wrote his Autobiographical Sketch. May and November: Contributions to "Nature." August 19th: First proofs of "Cross and Self-Fertilisation." November 10th: "Cross and Self-Fertilisation" published (1500 copies). 1877. "All the early part of summer at work on 'Different Forms of Flowers.'" July: Publication of "Different Forms of Flowers" (1250 copies). During the rest of the year at work on the bloom on leaves, movements of plants, "and a little on worms." November: LL.D. at Cambridge. Second edition of "Fertilisation of Orchids" published. Contributions to "Nature," "Gardeners' Chronicle," and "Mind." 1878. The whole year at work on movements of plants, and on the bloom on leaves. May: Contribution to "Nature." Second edition of "Different Forms of Flowers." Wrote prefatory letter to Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests." 1879. The whole year at work on movements of plants, except for "about six weeks" in the spring and early summer given to the "Life of Erasmus Darwin," which was published in the autumn. Contributions to "Nature." 1880. "All spring finishing MS. of 'Power of Movement in Plants' and proof sheets." "Began in autumn on Worms." Prefatory notice written for Meldola's translation of Weismann's book. November 6th: 1500 copies of "Power of Movement" sold at Murray's sale. Contributions to "Nature." 1881. During all the early part of the year at work on the "Worm book." Several contributions to "Nature." October 10th: The book on "Earthworms" published: 2000 copies sold at once. November: At work on the action of carbonate of ammonia on plants. 1882. No entries in the Diary. February: At work correcting the sixth thousand of the "Earthworms." March 6th and March 16th: Papers on the action of Carbonate of Ammonia on roots, etc., read at the Linnean Society. April 6th: Note to "Nature" on Dispersal of Bivalves. April 18th: Van Dyck's paper on Syrian Dogs, with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin, read before the Zoological Society. April 19th: Charles Darwin died at Down. ... CHARLES DARWIN CHAPTER 1.I.--AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS. 1809-1842. (Chapter I./1. In the process of removing the remainder of Mr. Darwin's books and papers from Down, the following autobiographical notes, written in 1838, came to light. They seem to us worth publishing--both as giving some new facts, and also as illustrating the interest which he clearly felt in his own development. Many words are omitted in the manuscript, and some names incorrectly spelled; the corrections which have been made are not always indicated.) My earliest recollection, the date of which I can approximately tell, and which must have been before I was four years old, was when sitting on Caroline's (Caroline Darwin) knee in the drawing room, whilst she was cutting an orange for me, a cow ran by the window which made me jump, so that I received a bad cut, of which I bear the scar to this day. Of this scene I recollect the place where I sat and the cause of the fright, but not the cut itself, and I think my memory is real, and not as often happens in similar cases, [derived] from hearing the thing often repeated, [when] one obtains so vivid an image, that it cannot be separated from memory: because I clearly remember which way the cow ran, which would not probably have been told me. My memory here is an obscure picture, in which from not recollecting any pain I am scarcely conscious of its reference to myself. 1813. When I was four years and a half old I went to the sea, and stayed there some weeks. I remember many things, but with the exception of the maidservants (and these are not individualised) I recollect none of my family who were there. I remember either myself or Catherine being naughty, and being shut up in a room and trying to break the windows. I have an obscure picture of a house before my eyes, and of a neighbouring small shop, where the owner gave me one fig, but which to my great joy turned out to be two: this fig was given me that the man might kiss the maidservant. I remember a common walk to a kind of well, on the road to which was a cottage shaded with damascene (Chapter I./2. Damson is derived from Damascene; the fruit was formerly known as a "Damask Prune.") trees, inhabited by an old man, called a hermit, with white hair, who used to give us damascenes. I know not whether the damascenes, or the reverence and indistinct fear for this old man produced the greatest effect on my memory. I remember when going there crossing in the carriage a broad ford, and fear and astonishment of white foaming water has made a vivid impression. I think memory of events commences abruptly; that is, I remember these earliest things quite as clearly as others very much later in life, which were equally impressed on me. Some very early recollections are connected with fear at Parkfield and with poor Betty Harvey. I remember with horror her story of people being pushed into the canal by the towing rope, by going the wrong side of the horse. I had the greatest horror of this story--keen instinct against death. Some other recollections are those of vanity--namely, thinking that people were admiring me, in one instance for perseverance and another for boldness in climbing a low tree, and what is odder, a consciousness, as if instinctive, that I was vain, and contempt of myself. My supposed admirer was old Peter Haile the bricklayer, and the tree the mountain ash on the lawn. All my recollections seem to be connected most closely with myself; now Catherine (Catherine Darwin) seems to recollect scenes where others were the chief actors. When my mother died I was 8 1/2 years old, and [Catherine] one year less, yet she remembers all particulars and events of each day whilst I scarcely recollect anything (and so with very many other cases) except being sent for, the memory of going into her room, my father meeting me--crying afterwards. I recollect my mother's gown and scarcely anything of her appearance, except one or two walks with her. I have no distinct remembrance of any conversation, and those only of a very trivial nature. I remember her saying "if she did ask me to do something," which I said she had, "it was solely for my good." Catherine remembers my mother crying, when she heard of my grandmother's death. Also when at Parkfield how Aunt Sarah and Aunt Kitty used to receive her. Susan, like me, only remembers affairs personal. It is sufficiently odd this [difference] in subjects remembered. Catherine says she does not remember the impression made upon her by external things, as scenery, but for things which she reads she has an excellent memory, i.e., for ideas. Now her sympathy being ideal, it is part of her character, and shows how easily her kind of memory was stamped, a vivid thought is repeated, a vivid impression forgotten. I remember obscurely the illumination after the battle of Waterloo, and the Militia exercising about that period, in the field opposite our house. 1817. At 8 1/2 years old I went to Mr. Case's School. (Chapter I/3. A day-school at Shrewsbury kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 27 et seq.)) I remember how very much I was afraid of meeting the dogs in Barker Street, and how at school I could not get up my courage to fight. I was very timid by nature. I remember I took great delight at school in fishing for newts in the quarry pool. I had thus young formed a strong taste for collecting, chiefly seals, franks, etc., but also pebbles and minerals--one which was given me by some boy decided this taste. I believe shortly after this, or before, I had smattered in botany, and certainly when at Mr. Case's School I was very fond of gardening, and invented some great falsehoods about being able to colour crocuses as I liked. (Chapter I./4. The story is given in the "Life and Letters," I., page 28, the details being slightly different.) At this time I felt very strong friendship for some boys. It was soon after I began collecting stones, i.e., when 9 or 10, that I distinctly recollect the desire I had of being able to know something about every pebble in front of the hall door--it was my earliest and only geological aspiration at that time. I was in those days a very great story-teller--for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise. I stole fruit and hid it for these same motives, and injured trees by barking them for similar ends. I scarcely ever went out walking without saying I had seen a pheasant or some strange bird (natural history taste); these lies, when not detected, I presume, excited my attention, as I recollect them vividly, not connected with shame, though some I do, but as something which by having produced a great effect on my mind, gave pleasure like a tragedy. I recollect when I was at Mr. Case's inventing a whole fabric to show how fond I was of speaking the TRUTH! My invention is still so vivid in my mind, that I could almost fancy it was true, did not memory of former shame tell me it was false. I have no particularly happy or unhappy recollections of this time or earlier periods of my life. I remember well a walk I took with a boy named Ford across some fields to a farmhouse on the Church Stretton road. I do not remember any mental pursuits excepting those of collecting stones, etc., gardening, and about this time often going with my father in his carriage, telling him of my lessons, and seeing game and other wild birds, which was a great delight to me. I was born a naturalist. When I was 9 1/2 years old (July 1818) I went with Erasmus to see Liverpool: it has left no impressions on my mind, except most trifling ones--fear of the coach upsetting, a good dinner, and an extremely vague memory of ships. In Midsummer of this year I went to Dr. Butler's School. (Chapter I./5. Darwin entered Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury in the summer of 1818, and remained there till 1825 ("Life and Letters," I., page 30).) I well recollect the first going there, which oddly enough I cannot of going to Mr. Case's, the first school of all. I remember the year 1818 well, not from having first gone to a public school, but from writing those figures in my school book, accompanied with obscure thoughts, now fulfilled, whether I should recollect in future life that year. In September (1818) I was ill with the scarlet fever. I well remember the wretched feeling of being delirious. 1819, July (10 1/2 years old). Went to the sea at Plas Edwards and stayed there three weeks, which now appears to me like three months. (Chapter I./6. Plas Edwards, at Towyn, on the Welsh coast.) I remember a certain shady green road (where I saw a snake) and a waterfall, with a degree of pleasure, which must be connected with the pleasure from scenery, though not directly recognised as such. The sandy plain before the house has left a strong impression, which is obscurely connected with an indistinct remembrance of curious insects, probably a Cimex mottled with red, and Zygaena, the burnet-moth. I was at that time very passionate (when I swore like a trooper) and quarrelsome. The former passion has I think nearly wholly but slowly died away. When journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer (I think I should know his face to this day) at tea time, asking the maid-servant for toasted bread and butter. I was convulsed with laughter and thought it the quaintest and wittiest speech that ever passed from the mouth of man. Such is wit at 10 1/2 years old. The memory now flashes across me of the pleasure I had in the evening on a blowy day walking along the beach by myself and seeing the gulls and cormorants wending their way home in a wild and irregular course. Such poetic pleasures, felt so keenly in after years, I should not have expected so early in life. 1820, July. Went a riding tour (on old Dobbin) with Erasmus to Pistyll Rhiadr (Chapter I./7. Pistyll Rhiadr proceeds from Llyn Pen Rhiadr down the Llyfnant to the Dovey.); of this I recollect little, an indistinct picture of the fall, but I well remember my astonishment on hearing that fishes could jump up it. (Chapter I./8. The autobiographical fragment here comes to an end. The next letters give some account of Darwin as an Edinburgh student. He has described ("Life and Letters," I., pages 35-45) his failure to be interested in the official teaching of the University, his horror at the operating theatre, and his gradually increasing dislike of medical study, which finally determined his leaving Edinburgh, and entering Cambridge with a view to taking Orders.) LETTER 1. TO R.W. DARWIN. Sunday Morning [Edinburgh, October, 1825]. My dear Father As I suppose Erasmus (Erasmus Darwin) has given all the particulars of the journey, I will say no more about it, except that altogether it has cost me 7 pounds. We got into our lodgings yesterday evening, which are very comfortable and near the College. Our Landlady, by name Mrs. Mackay, is a nice clean old body--exceedingly civil and attentive. She lives in "11, Lothian Street, Edinburgh" (1/1. In a letter printed in the "Edinburgh Evening Despatch" of May 22nd, 1888, the writer suggested that a tablet should be placed on the house, 11, Lothian Street. This suggestion was carried out in 1888 by Mr. Ralph Richardson (Clerk of the Commissary Court, Edinburgh), who obtained permission from the proprietors to affix a tablet to the house, setting forth that Charles Darwin resided there as an Edinburgh University student. We are indebted to Mr. W.K. Dickson for obtaining for us this information, and to Mr. Ralph Richardson for kindly supplying us with particulars. See Mr. Richardson's Inaugural Address, "Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc." 1894-95; also "Memorable Edinburgh Houses," by Wilmot Harrison, 1898.), and only four flights of steps from the ground-floor, which is very moderate to some other lodgings that we were nearly taking. The terms are 1 pound 6 shillings for two very nice and LIGHT bedrooms and a sitting-room; by the way, light bedrooms are very scarce articles in Edinburgh, since most of them are little holes in which there is neither air nor light. We called on Dr. Hanley the first morning, whom I think we never should have found, had it not been for a good-natured Dr. of Divinity who took us into his library and showed us a map, and gave us directions how to find him. Indeed, all the Scotchmen are so civil and attentive, that it is enough to make an Englishman ashamed of himself. I should think Dr. Butler or any other fat English Divine would take two utter strangers into his library and show them the way! When at last we found the Doctor, and having made all the proper speeches on both sides, we all three set out and walked all about the town, which we admire excessively; indeed Bridge Street is the most extraordinary thing I ever saw, and when we first looked over the sides, we could hardly believe our eyes, when instead of a fine river, we saw a stream of people. We spend all our mornings in promenading about the town, which we know pretty well, and in the evenings we go to the play to hear Miss Stephens (Probably Catherine Stephens), which is quite delightful; she is very popular here, being encored to such a degree, that she can hardly get on with the play. On Monday we are going to Der F (I do not know how to spell the rest of the word). (1/2. "Der F" is doubtless "Der Freischutz," which appeared in 1820, and of which a selection was given in London, under Weber's direction, in 1825. The last of Weber's compositions, "From Chindara's warbling fount," was written for Miss Stephens, who sang it to his accompaniment "the last time his fingers touched the key-board." (See "Dict. of Music," "Stephens" and "Weber.")) Before we got into our lodgings, we were staying at the Star Hotel in Princes St., where to my surprise I met with an old schoolfellow, whom I like very much; he is just come back from a walking tour in Switzerland and is now going to study for his [degree?] The introductory lectures begin next Wednesday, and we were matriculated for them on Saturday; we pay 10s., and write our names in a book, and the ceremony is finished; but the Library is not free to us till we get a ticket from a Professor. We just have been to Church and heard a sermon of only 20 minutes. I expected, from Sir Walter Scott's account, a soul-cutting discourse of 2 hours and a half. I remain your affectionate son, C. DARWIN. LETTER 2. TO CAROLINE DARWIN. January 6th, 1826. Edinburgh. Many thanks for your very entertaining letter, which was a great relief after hearing a long stupid lecture from Duncan on Materia Medica, but as you know nothing either of the Lectures or Lecturers, I will give you a short account of them. Dr. Duncan is so very learned that his wisdom has left no room for his sense, and he lectures, as I have already said, on the Materia Medica, which cannot be translated into any word expressive enough of its stupidity. These few last mornings, however, he has shown signs of improvement, and I hope he will "go on as well as can be expected." His lectures begin at eight in the morning. Dr. Hope begins at ten o'clock, and I like both him and his lectures VERY much (after which Erasmus goes to "Mr. Sizars on Anatomy," who is a charming Lecturer). At 12 the Hospital, after which I attend Monro on Anatomy. I dislike him and his lectures so much, that I cannot speak with decency about them. Thrice a week we have what is called Clinical lectures, which means lectures on the sick people in the Hospital--these I like very much. I said this account should be short, but I am afraid it has been too long, like the lectures themselves. I will be a good boy and tell something about Johnson again (not but what I am very much surprised that Papa should so forget himself as call me, a Collegian in the University of Edinburgh, a boy). He has changed his lodgings for the third time; he has got very cheap ones, but I am afraid it will not answer, for they must make up by cheating. I hope you like Erasmus' official news, he means to begin every letter so. You mentioned in your letter that Emma was staying with you: if she is not gone, ask her to tell Jos that I have not succeeded in getting any titanium, but that I will try again...I want to know how old I shall be next birthday--I believe 17, and if so, I shall be forced to go abroad for one year, since it is necessary that I shall have completed my 21st year before I take my degree. Now you have no business to be frowning and puzzling over this letter, for I did not promise to write a good hand to you. LETTER 3. TO J.S. HENSLOW. (3/1. Extracts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were read before the Cambridge Philosophical Society on November 16th, 1835. Some of the letters were subsequently printed, in an 8vo pamphlet of 31 pages, dated December 1st, 1835, for private distribution among the members of the Society. A German translation by W. Preyer appeared in the "Deutsche Rundschau," June 1891.) [15th August, 1832. Monte Video.] We are now beating up the Rio Plata, and I take the opportunity of beginning a letter to you. I did not send off the specimens from Rio Janeiro, as I grudged the time it would take to pack them up. They are now ready to be sent off and most probably go by this packet. If so they go to Falmouth (where Fitz-Roy has made arrangements) and so will not trouble your brother's agent in London. When I left England I was not fully aware how essential a kindness you offered me when you undertook to receive my boxes. I do not know what I should do without such head-quarters. And now for an apologetical prose about my collection: I am afraid you will say it is very small, but I have not been idle, and you must recollect what a very small show hundreds of species make. The box contains a good many geological specimens; I am well aware that the greater number are too small. But I maintain that no person has a right to accuse me, till he has tried carrying rocks under a tropical sun. I have endeavoured to get specimens of every variety of rock, and have written notes upon all. If you think it worth your while to examine any of them I shall be very glad of some mineralogical information, especially on any numbers between 1 and 254 which include Santiago rocks. By my catalogue I shall know which you may refer to. As for my plants, "pudet pigetque mihi." All I can say is that when objects are present which I can observe and particularise about, I cannot summon resolution to collect when I know nothing. It is positively distressing to walk in the glorious forest amidst such treasures and feel they are all thrown away upon one. My collection from the Abrolhos is interesting, as I suspect it nearly contains the whole flowering vegetation--and indeed from extreme sterility the same may almost be said of Santiago. I have sent home four bottles with animals in spirits, I have three more, but would not send them till I had a fourth. I shall be anxious to hear how they fare. I made an enormous collection of Arachnidae at Rio, also a good many small beetles in pill boxes, but it is not the best time of year for the latter. Amongst the lower animals nothing has so much interested me as finding two species of elegantly coloured true Planaria inhabiting the dewy forest! The false relation they bear to snails is the most extraordinary thing of the kind I have ever seen. In the same genus (or more truly family) some of the marine species possess an organisation so marvellous that I can scarcely credit my eyesight. Every one has heard of the discoloured streaks of water in the equatorial regions. One I examined was owing to the presence of such minute Oscillariae that in each square inch of surface there must have been at least one hundred thousand present. After this I had better be silent, for you will think me a Baron Munchausen amongst naturalists. Most assuredly I might collect a far greater number of specimens of Invertebrate animals if I took less time over each; but I have come to the conclusion that two animals with their original colour and shape noted down will be more valuable to naturalists than six with only dates and place. I hope you will send me your criticisms about my collection; and it will be my endeavour that nothing you say shall be lost on me. I would send home my writings with my specimens, only I find I have so repeatedly occasion to refer back that it would be a serious loss to me. I cannot conclude about my collection without adding that I implicitly trust in your keeping an exact account against all the expense of boxes, etc., etc. At this present minute we are at anchor in the mouth of the river, and such a strange scene as it is. Everything is in flames--the sky with lightning, the water with luminous particles, and even the very masts are pointed with a blue flame. I expect great interest in scouring over the plains of Monte Video, yet I look back with regret to the Tropics, that magic lure to all naturalists. The delight of sitting on a decaying trunk amidst the quiet gloom of the forest is unspeakable and never to be forgotten. How often have I then wished for you. When I see a banana I well recollect admiring them with you in Cambridge--little did I then think how soon I should eat their fruit. August 15th. In a few days the box will go by the "Emulous" packet (Capt. Cooke) to Falmouth and will be forwarded to you. This letter goes the same way, so that if in course of due time you do not receive the box, will you be kind enough to write to Falmouth? We have been here (Monte Video) for some time; but owing to bad weather and continual fighting on shore, we have scarcely ever been able to walk in the country. I have collected during the last month nothing, but to-day I have been out and returned like Noah's Ark with animals of all sorts. I have to-day to my astonishment found two Planariae living under dry stones: ask L. Jenyns if he has ever heard of this fact. I also found a most curious snail, and spiders, beetles, snakes, scorpions ad libitum, and to conclude shot a Cavia weighing a cwt.--On Friday we sail for the Rio Negro, and then will commence our real wild work. I look forward with dread to the wet stormy regions of the south, but after so much pleasure I must put up with some sea-sickness and misery. LETTER 4. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Monte Video, 24th November 1832. We arrived here on the 24th of October, after our first cruise on the coast of Patagonia. North of the Rio Negro we fell in with some little schooners employed in sealing: to save the loss of time in surveying the intricate mass of banks, Capt. Fitz-Roy has hired two of them and has put officers on them. It took us nearly a month fitting them out; as soon as this was finished we came back here, and are now preparing for a long cruise to the south. I expect to find the wild mountainous country of Terra del Fuego very interesting, and after the coast of Patagonia I shall thoroughly enjoy it.--I had hoped for the credit of Dame Nature, no such country as this last existed; in sad reality we coasted along 240 miles of sand hillocks; I never knew before, what a horrid ugly object a sand hillock is. The famed country of the Rio Plata in my opinion is not much better: an enormous brackish river, bounded by an interminable green plain is enough to make any naturalist groan. So Hurrah for Cape Horn and the Land of Storms. Now that I have had my growl out, which is a privilege sailors take on all occasions, I will turn the tables and give an account of my doing in Nat. History. I must have one more growl: by ill luck the French Government has sent one of its collectors to the Rio Negro, where he has been working for the last six months, and is now gone round the Horn. So that I am very selfishly afraid he will get the cream of all the good things before me. As I have nobody to talk to about my luck and ill luck in collecting, I am determined to vent it all upon you. I have been very lucky with fossil bones; I have fragments of at least 6 distinct animals: as many of them are teeth, I trust, shattered and rolled as they have been, they will be recognised. I have paid all the attention I am capable of to their geological site; but of course it is too long a story for here. 1st, I have the tarsi and metatarsi very perfect of a Cavia; 2nd, the upper jaw and head of some very large animal with four square hollow molars and the head greatly protruded in front. I at first thought it belonged either to the Megalonyx or Megatherium (4/1). The animal may probably have been Grypotherium Darwini, Ow. The osseous plates mentioned below must have belonged to one of the Glyptodontidae, and not to Megatherium. We are indebted to Mr. Kerr for calling our attention to a passage in Buckland's "Bridgewater Treatise" (Volume II., page 20, note), where bony armour is ascribed to Megatherium.); in confirmation of this in the same formation I found a large surface of the osseous polygonal plates, which "late observations" (what are they?) show belong to the Megatherium. Immediately I saw this I thought they must belong to an enormous armadillo, living species of which genus are so abundant here. 3rd, The lower jaw of some large animal which, from the molar teeth, I should think belonged to the Edentata; 4th, some large molar teeth which in some respects would seem to belong to an enormous rodent; 5th, also some smaller teeth belonging to the same order. If it interests you sufficiently to unpack them, I shall be very curious to hear something about them. Care must be taken in this case not to confuse the tallies. They are mingled with marine shells which appear to me identical with what now exist. But since they were deposited in their beds several geological changes have taken place in the country. So much for the dead, and now for the living: there is a poor specimen of a bird which to my unornithological eyes appears to be a happy mixture of a lark, pigeon and snipe (No. 710). Mr. MacLeay himself never imagined such an inosculating creature: I suppose it will turn out to be some well-known bird, although it has quite baffled me. I have taken some interesting Amphibia; a new Trigonocephalus beautifully connecting in its habits Crotalus and the Viperidae, and plenty of new (as far as my knowledge goes) saurians. As for one little toad, I hope it may be new, that it may be christened "diabolicus." Milton must allude to this very individual when he talks of "squat like a toad" (4/2. "...him [Satan] there they [Ithuriel and Zephon] found, Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve" ("Paradise Lost," Book IV., line 800). "Formerly Milton's "Paradise Lost" had been my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' when I could take only a single volume, I always chose Milton" ("Autobiography," page 69).); its colours are by Werner (4/3. Werner's "Nomenclature of Colours," Edinburgh, 1821.) ink black, vermilion red and buff orange. It has been a splendid cruise for me in Nat. History. Amongst the Pelagic Crustacea, some new and curious genera. In the Zoophytes some interesting animals. As for one Flustra, if I had not the specimen to back me up nobody would believe in its most anomalous structure. But as for novelty all this is nothing to a family of pelagic animals which at first sight appear like Medusae but are really highly organised. I have examined them repeatedly, and certainly from their structure it would be impossible to place them in any existing order. Perhaps Salpa is the nearest animal, although the transparency of the body is nearly the only character they have in common. I think the dried plants nearly contain all which were then (Bahia Blanca) flowering. All the specimens will be packed in casks. I think there will be three (before sending this letter I will specify dates, etc., etc.). I am afraid you will groan or rather the floor of the lecture room will when the casks arrive. Without you I should be utterly undone. The small cask contains fish: will you open it to see how the spirit has stood the evaporation of the Tropics. On board the ship everything goes on as well as possible; the only drawback is the fearful length of time between this and the day of our return. I do not see any limits to it. One year is nearly completed and the second will be so, before we even leave the east coast of S. America. And then our voyage may be said really to have commenced. I know not how I shall be able to endure it. The frequency with which I think of all the happy hours I have spent at Shrewsbury and Cambridge is rather ominous--I trust everything to time and fate and will feel my way as I go on. November 24th.--We have been at Buenos Ayres for a week; it is a fine large city, but such a country, everything is mud, you can go nowhere, you can do nothing for mud. In the city I obtained much information about the banks of the Uruguay--I hear of limestone with shells, and beds of shells in every direction. I hope when we winter in the Plata to have a most interesting geological excursion into that country: I purchased fragments (Nos. 837-8) of some enormous bones, which I was assured belonged to the former giants!! I also procured some seeds--I do not know whether they are worth your accepting; if you think so I will get some more. They are in the box. I have sent to you by the "Duke of York" packet, commanded by Lieut. Snell, to Falmouth two large casks containing fossil bones, a small cask with fish and a box containing skins, spirit bottle, etc., and pill-boxes with beetles. Would you be kind enough to open these latter as they are apt to become mouldy. With the exception of the bones the rest of my collection looks very scanty. Recollect how great a proportion of time is spent at sea. I am always anxious to hear in what state the things come and any criticisms about quantity or kind of specimens. In the smaller cask is part of a large head, the anterior portions of which are in the other large one. The packet has arrived and I am in a great bustle. You will not hear from me for some months. LETTER 5. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Valparaiso, July 24th 1834. A box has just arrived in which were two of your most kind and affectionate letters. You do not know how happy they have made me. One is dated December 15th, 1833, the other January 15th of the same year! By what fatality it did not arrive sooner I cannot conjecture; I regret it much, for it contains the information I most wanted, about manner of packing, etc., etc.: roots with specimens of plants, etc., etc. This I suppose was written after the reception of my first cargo of specimens. Not having heard from you until March of this year I really began to think that my collections were so poor, that you were puzzled what to say; the case is now quite on the opposite tack; for you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow it shall not be spared. It is rather late, but I will allude to some remarks in the January letter; you advise me to send home duplicates of my notes; I have been aware of the advantage of doing so; but then at sea to this day, I am invariably sick, excepting on the finest days, at which times with pelagic animals around me, I could never bring myself to the task--on shore the most prudent person could hardly expect such a sacrifice of time. My notes are becoming bulky. I have about 600 small quarto pages full; about half of this is Geology--the other imperfect descriptions of animals; with the latter I make it a rule only to describe those parts or facts, which cannot be seen in specimens in spirits. I keep my private Journal distinct from the above. (N.B. this letter is a most untidy one, but my mind is untidy with joy; it is your fault, so you must take the consequences.) With respect to the land Planariae, unquestionably they are not molluscous animals. I read your letters last night, this morning I took a little walk; by a curious coincidence, I found a new white species of Planaria, and a new to me Vaginulus (third species which I have found in S. America) of Cuvier. Amongst the marine mollusques I have seen a good many genera, and at Rio found one quite new one. With respect to the December letter, I am very glad to hear the four casks arrived safe; since which time you have received another cargo, with the bird skins about which you did not understand me. Have any of the B. Ayrean seeds produced plants? From the Falklands I acknowledged a box and letter from you; with the letter were a few seeds from Patagonia. At present I have specimens enough to make a heavy cargo, but shall wait as much longer as possible, because opportunities are not now so good as before. I have just got scent of some fossil bones of a MAMMOTH; what they may be I do not know, but if gold or galloping will get them they shall be mine. You tell me you like hearing how I am going on and what doing, and you well may imagine how much I enjoy speaking to any one upon subjects which I am always thinking about, but never have any one to talk to [about]. After leaving the Falklands we proceeded to the Rio S. Cruz, following up the river till within twenty miles of the Cordilleras. Unfortunately want of provisions compelled us to return. This expedition was most important to me as it was a transverse section of the great Patagonian formation. I conjecture (an accurate examination of fossils may possibly determine the point) that the main bed is somewhere about the Miocene period (using Mr. Lyell's expression); I judge from what I have seen of the present shells of Patagonia. This bed contains an ENORMOUS field of lava. This is of some interest, as being a rude approximation to the age of the volcanic part of the great range of the Andes. Long before this it existed as a slate and porphyritic line of hills. I have collected a tolerable quantity of information respecting the period and forms of elevations of these plains. I think these will be interesting to Mr. Lyell; I had deferred reading his third volume till my return: you may guess how much pleasure it gave me; some of his woodcuts came so exactly into play that I have only to refer to them instead of redrawing similar ones. I had my barometer with me, I only wish I had used it more in these plains. The valley of S. Cruz appears to me a very curious one; at first it quite baffled me. I believe I can show good reasons for supposing it to have been once a northern straits like to that of Magellan. When I return to England you will have some hard work in winnowing my Geology; what little I know I have learnt in such a curious fashion that I often feel very doubtful about the number of grains [of value?]. Whatever number they may turn out, I have enjoyed extreme pleasure in collecting them. In T. del Fuego I collected and examined some corallines; I have observed one fact which quite startled me: it is that in the genus Sertularia (taken in its most restricted form as [used] by Lamoureux) and in two species which, excluding comparative expressions, I should find much difficulty in describing as different, the polypi quite and essentially differed in all their most important and evident parts of structure. I have already seen enough to be convinced that the present families of corallines as arranged by Lamarck, Cuvier, etc., are highly artificial. It appears that they are in the same state [in] which shells were when Linnaeus left them for Cuvier to rearrange. I do so wish I was a better hand at dissecting, I find I can do very little in the minute parts of structure; I am forced to take a very rough examination as a type for different classes of structure. It is most extraordinary I can nowhere see in my books one single description of the polypus of any one coralline excepting Alcyonium Lobularia of Savigny. I found a curious little stony Cellaria (5/1. Cellaria, a genus of Bryozoa, placed in the section Flustrina of the Suborder Chilostomata.) (a new genus) each cell provided with long toothed bristle, these are capable of various and rapid motions. This motion is often simultaneous, and can be produced by irritation. This fact, as far as I can see, is quite isolated in the history of zoophytes (excepting the Flustra with an organ like a vulture's head); it points out a much more intimate relation between the polypi than Lamarck is willing to allow. I forgot whether I mentioned having seen something of the manner of propagation in that most ambiguous family, the corallines; I feel pretty well convinced if they are not plants they are not zoophytes. The "gemmule" of a Halimeda contained several articulations united, ready to burst their envelope, and become attached to some basis. I believe in zoophytes universally the gemmule produces a single polypus, which afterwards or at the same time grows with its cell or single articulation. The "Beagle" left the Sts. of Magellan in the middle of winter; she found her road out by a wild unfrequented channel; well might Sir J. Narborough call the west coast South Desolation, "because it is so desolate a land to behold." We were driven into Chiloe by some very bad weather. An Englishman gave me three specimens of that very fine Lucanoidal insect which is described in the "Camb. Phil. Trans." (5/2. "Description of Chiasognathus Grantii, a new Lucanideous Insect, etc." by J.F. Stephens ("Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc." Volume IV., page 209, 1833.)), two males and one female. I find Chiloe is composed of lava and recent deposits. The lavas are curious from abounding in, or rather being in parts composed of pitchstone. If we go to Chiloe in the summer, I shall reap an entomological harvest. I suppose the Botany both there and in Chili is well-known. I forgot to state that in the four cargoes of specimens there have been sent three square boxes, each containing four glass bottles. I mention this in case they should be stowed beneath geological specimens and thus escape your notice, perhaps some spirit may be wanted in them. If a box arrives from B. Ayres with a Megatherium head the other unnumbered specimens, be kind enough to tell me, as I have strong fears for its safety. We arrived here the day before yesterday; the views of the distant mountains are most sublime and the climate delightful; after our long cruise in the damp gloomy climates of the south, to breathe a clear dry air and feel honest warm sunshine, and eat good fresh roast beef must be the summum bonum of human life. I do not like the look of the rocks half so much as the beef, there is too much of those rather insipid ingredients, mica, quartz and feldspar. Our plans are at present undecided; there is a good deal of work to the south of Valparaiso and to the north an indefinite quantity. I look forward to every part with interest. I have sent you in this letter a sad dose of egotism, but recollect I look up to you as my father in Natural History, and a son may talk about himself to his father. In your paternal capacity as proproctor what a great deal of trouble you appear to have had. How turbulent Cambridge is become. Before this time it will have regained its tranquillity. I have a most schoolboy-like wish to be there, enjoying my holidays. It is a most comfortable reflection to me, that a ship being made of wood and iron, cannot last for ever, and therefore this voyage must have an end. October 28th. This letter has been lying in my portfolio ever since July; I did not send it away because I did not think it worth the postage; it shall now go with a box of specimens. Shortly after arriving here I set out on a geological excursion, and had a very pleasant ramble about the base of the Andes. The whole country appears composed of breccias (and I imagine slates) which universally have been modified and oftentimes completely altered by the action of fire. The varieties of porphyry thus produced are endless, but nowhere have I yet met with rocks which have flowed in a stream; dykes of greenstone are very numerous. Modern volcanic action is entirely shut up in the very central parts (which cannot now be reached on account of the snow) of the Cordilleras. In the south of the R. Maypu I examined the Tertiary plains, already partially described by M. Gay. (5/3. "Rapport fait a l'Academie Royale des Sciences, sur les Travaux Geologiques de M. Gay," by Alex. Brongniart ("Ann. Sci. Nat." Volume XXVIII., page 394, 1833.) The fossil shells appear to me to be far more different from the recent ones than in the great Patagonian formation; it will be curious if an Eocene and Miocene (recent there is abundance of) could be proved to exist in S. America as well as in Europe. I have been much interested by finding abundance of recent shells at an elevation of 1,300 feet; the country in many places is scattered over with shells but these are all littoral ones. So that I suppose the 1,300 feet elevation must be owing to a succession of small elevations such as in 1822. With these certain proofs of the recent residence of the ocean over all the lower parts of Chili, the outline of every view and the form of each valley possesses a high interest. Has the action of running water or the sea formed this deep ravine? was a question which often arose in my mind and generally was answered by finding a bed of recent shells at the bottom. I have not sufficient arguments, but I do not believe that more than a small fraction of the height of the Andes has been formed within the Tertiary period. The conclusion of my excursion was very unfortunate, I became unwell and could hardly reach this place. I have been in bed for the last month, but am now rapidly getting well. I had hoped during this time to have made a good collection of insects but it has been impossible: I regret the less because Chiloe fairly swarms with collectors; there are more naturalists in the country, than carpenters or shoemakers or any other honest trade. In my letter from the Falkland Islands I said I had fears about a box with a Megatherium. I have since heard from B. Ayres that it went to Liverpool by the brig "Basingwaithe." If you have not received it, it is I think worth taking some trouble about. In October two casks and a jar were sent by H.M.S. "Samarang" via Portsmouth. I have no doubt you have received them. With this letter I send a good many bird skins; in the same box with them, there is a paper parcel containing pill boxes with insects. The other pill boxes require no particular care. You will see in two of these boxes some dried Planariae (terrestrial), the only method I have found of preserving them (they are exceedingly brittle). By examining the white species I understand some little of the internal structure. There are two small parcels of seeds. There are some plants which I hope may interest you, or at least those from Patagonia where I collected every one in flower. There is a bottle clumsily but I think securely corked containing water and gas from the hot baths of Cauquenes seated at foot of Andes and long celebrated for medicinal properties. I took pains in filling and securing both water and gas. If you can find any one who likes to analyze them, I should think it would be worth the trouble. I have not time at present to copy my few observations about the locality, etc., etc., [of] these springs. Will you tell me how the Arachnidae which I have sent home, for instance those from Rio, appear to be preserved. I have doubts whether it is worth while collecting them. We sail the day after to-morrow: our plans are at last limited and definite; I am delighted to say we have bid an eternal adieu to T. del Fuego. The "Beagle" will not proceed further south than C. Tres Montes; from which point we survey to the north. The Chonos Archipelago is delightfully unknown: fine deep inlets running into the Cordilleras--where we can steer by the light of a volcano. I do not know which part of the voyage now offers the most attractions. This is a shamefully untidy letter, but you must forgive me. LETTER 6. TO J.S. HENSLOW. April 18th, 1835. Valparaiso. I have just returned from Mendoza, having crossed the Cordilleras by two passes. This trip has added much to my knowledge of the geology of the country. Some of the facts, of the truth of which I in my own mind feel fully convinced, will appear to you quite absurd and incredible. I will give a very short sketch of the structure of these huge mountains. In the Portillo pass (the more southern one) travellers have described the Cordilleras to consist of a double chain of nearly equal altitude separated by a considerable interval. This is the case; and the same structure extends to the northward to Uspallata; the little elevation of the eastern line (here not more than 6,000-7,000 feet.) has caused it almost to be overlooked. To begin with the western and principal chain, we have, where the sections are best seen, an enormous mass of a porphyritic conglomerate resting on granite. This latter rock seems to form the nucleus of the whole mass, and is seen in the deep lateral valleys, injected amongst, upheaving, overturning in the most extraordinary manner, the overlying strata. The stratification in all the mountains is beautifully distinct and from a variety in the colour can be seen at great distances. I cannot imagine any part of the world presenting a more extraordinary scene of the breaking up of the crust of the globe than the very central parts of the Andes. The upheaval has taken place by a great number of (nearly) N. and S. lines; which in most cases have formed as many anticlinal and synclinal ravines; the strata in the highest pinnacles are almost universally inclined at an angle from 70 deg to 80 deg. I cannot tell you how I enjoyed some of these views--it is worth coming from England, once to feel such intense delight; at an elevation from 10 to 12,000 feet there is a transparency in the air, and a confusion of distances and a sort of stillness which gives the sensation of being in another world, and when to this is joined the picture so plainly drawn of the great epochs of violence, it causes in the mind a most strange assemblage of ideas. The formation I call Porphyritic Conglomerates is the most important and most developed one in Chili: from a great number of sections I find it a true coarse conglomerate or breccia, which by every step in a slow gradation passes into a fine claystone-porphyry; the pebbles and cement becoming porphyritic till at last all is blended in one compact rock. The porphyries are excessively abundant in this chain. I feel sure at least 4/5ths of them have been thus produced from sedimentary beds in situ. There are porphyries which have been injected from below amongst strata, and others ejected, which have flowed in streams; it is remarkable, and I could show specimens of this rock produced in these three methods, which cannot be distinguished. It is a great mistake considering the Cordilleras here as composed of rocks which have flowed in streams. In this range I nowhere saw a fragment, which I believe to have thus originated, although the road passes at no great distance from the active volcanoes. The porphyries, conglomerate, sandstone and quartzose sandstone and limestones alternate and pass into each other many times, overlying (where not broken through by the granite) clay-slate. In the upper parts, the sandstone begins to alternate with gypsum, till at last we have this substance of a stupendous thickness. I really think the formation is in some places (it varies much) nearly 2,000 feet thick, it occurs often with a green (epidote?) siliceous sandstone and snow-white marble; it resembles that found in the Alps in containing large concretions of a crystalline marble of a blackish grey colour. The upper beds which form some of the higher pinnacles consist of layers of snow-white gypsum and red compact sandstone, from the thickness of paper to a few feet, alternating in an endless round. The rock has a most curiously painted appearance. At the pass of the Peuquenes in this formation, where however a black rock like clay-slate, without many laminae, occurring with a pale limestone, has replaced the red sandstone, I found abundant impressions of shells. The elevation must be between 12 and 13,000 feet. A shell which I believe is the Gryphaea is the most abundant--an Ostrea, Turratella, Ammonites, small bivalves, Terebratulae (?). Perhaps some good conchologist (6/1. Some of these genera are mentioned by Darwin ("Geol. Obs." page 181) as having been named for him by M. D'Orbigny.) will be able to give a guess, to what grand division of the formations of Europe these organic remains bear most resemblance. They are exceedingly imperfect and few. It was late in the season and the situation particularly dangerous for snow-storms. I did not dare to delay, otherwise a grand harvest might have been reaped. So much for the western line; in the Portillo pass, proceeding eastward, we meet an immense mass of conglomerate, dipping to the west 45 deg, which rest on micaceous sandstone, etc., etc., upheaved and converted into quartz-rock penetrated by dykes from the very grand mass of protogine (large crystals of quartz, red feldspar, and occasional little chlorite). Now this conglomerate which reposes on and dips from the protogene 45 deg consists of the peculiar rocks of the first described chain, pebbles of the black rock with shells, green sandstone, etc., etc. It is hence manifest that the upheaval (and deposition at least of part) of the grand eastern chain is entirely posterior to the western. To the north in the Uspallata pass, we have also a fact of the same class. Bear this in mind: it will help to make you believe what follows. I have said the Uspallata range is geologically, although only 6,000-7,000 feet, a continuation of the grand eastern chain. It has its nucleus of granite, consists of grand beds of various crystalline rocks, which I can feel no doubt are subaqueous lavas alternating with sandstone, conglomerates and white aluminous beds (like decomposed feldspar) with many other curious varieties of sedimentary deposits. These lavas and sandstones alterate very many times, and are quite conformable one to the other. During two days of careful examination I said to myself at least fifty times, how exactly like (only rather harder) these beds are to those of the upper Tertiary strata of Patagonia, Chiloe and Concepcion, without the possible identity ever having occurred to me. At last there was no resisting the conclusion. I could not expect shells, for they never occur in this formation; but lignite or carbonaceous shale ought to be found. I had previously been exceedingly puzzled by meeting in the sandstone, thin layers (few inches to feet thick) of a brecciated pitchstone. I strongly suspect the underlying granite has altered such beds into this pitchstone. The silicified wood (particularly characteristic) was yet absent. The conviction that I was on the Tertiary strata was so strong by this time in my mind, that on the third day in the midst of lavas and [? masses] of granite I began my apparently forlorn hunt. How do you think I succeeded? In an escarpement of compact greenish sandstone, I found a small wood of petrified trees in a vertical position, or rather the strata were inclined about 20-30 deg to one point and the trees 70 deg to the opposite one. That is, they were before the tilt truly vertical. The sandstone consists of many layers, and is marked by the concentric lines of the bark (I have specimens); 11 are perfectly silicified and resemble the dicotyledonous wood which I have found at Chiloe and Concepcion (6/2. "Geol. Obs." page 202. Specimens of the silicified wood were examined by Robert Brown, and determined by him as coniferous, "partaking of the characters of the Araucarian tribe, with some curious points of affinity with the yew."); the others (30-40) I only know to be trees from the analogy of form and position; they consist of snow-white columns (like Lot's wife) of coarsely crystalline carb. of lime. The largest shaft is 7 feet. They are all close together, within 100 yards, and about the same level: nowhere else could I find any. It cannot be doubted that the layers of fine sandstone have quietly been deposited between a clump of trees which were fixed by their roots. The sandstone rests on lava, is covered by a great bed apparently about 1,000 feet thick of black augitic lava, and over this there are at least 5 grand alternations of such rocks and aqueous sedimentary deposits, amounting in thickness to several thousand feet. I am quite afraid of the only conclusion which I can draw from this fact, namely that there must have been a depression in the surface of the land to that amount. But neglecting this consideration, it was a most satisfactory support of my presumption of the Tertiary (I mean by Tertiary, that the shells of the period were closely allied, or some identical, to those which now live, as in the lower beds of Patagonia) age of this eastern chain. A great part of the proof must remain upon my ipse dixit of a mineralogical resemblance with those beds whose age is known, and the character of which resemblance is to be subject to infinite variation, passing from one variety to another by a concretionary structure. I hardly expect you to believe me, when it is a consequence of this view that granite, which forms peaks of a height probably of 14,000 feet, has been fluid in the Tertiary period; that strata of that period are altered by its heat, and are traversed by dykes from the mass. That these strata have also probably undergone an immense depression, that they are now inclined at high angles and form regular or complicated anticlinal lines. To complete the climax and seal your disbelief, these same sedimentary strata and lavas are traversed by VERY NUMEROUS, true metallic veins of iron, copper, arsenic, silver and gold, and these can be traced to the underlying granite. A gold mine has been worked close to the clump of silicified trees. If when you see my specimens, sections and account, you should think that there is pretty strong presumptive evidence of the above facts, it appears very important; for the structure, and size of this chain will bear comparison with any in the world, and that this all should have been produced in so very recent a period is indeed wonderful. In my own mind I am quite convinced of the reality of this. I can anyhow most conscientiously say that no previously formed conjecture warped my judgment. As I have described so did I actually observe the facts. But I will have some mercy and end this most lengthy account of my geological trip. On some of the large patches of perpetual snow, I found the famous red snow of the Arctic countries; I send with this letter my observations and a piece of paper on which I tried to dry some specimens. If the fact is new and you think it worth while, either yourself examine them or send them to whoever has described the specimens from the north and publish a notice in any of the periodicals. I also send a small bottle with two lizards, one of them is viviparous as you will see by the accompanying notice. A M. Gay--a French naturalist--has already published in one of the newspapers of this country a similar statement and probably has forwarded to Paris some account; as the fact appears singular would it not be worth while to hand over the specimens to some good lizardologist and comparative anatomist to publish an account of their internal structure? Do what you think fit. This letter will go with a cargo of specimens from Coquimbo. I shall write to let you know when they are sent off. In the box there are two bags of seeds, one [from the] valleys of the Cordilleras 5,000-10,000 feet high, the soil and climate exceedingly dry, soil very light and stony, extremes in temperature; the other chiefly from the dry sandy Traversia of Mendoza 3,000 feet more or less. If some of the bushes should grow but not be healthy, try a slight sprinkling of salt and saltpetre. The plain is saliferous. All the flowers in the Cordilleras appear to be autumnal flowerers--they were all in blow and seed, many of them very pretty. I gathered them as I rode along on the hill sides. If they will but choose to come up, I have no doubt many would be great rarities. In the Mendoza bag there are the seeds or berries of what appears to be a small potato plant with a whitish flower. They grow many leagues from where any habitation could ever have existed owing to absence of water. Amongst the Chonos dried plants, you will see a fine specimen of the wild potato, growing under a most opposite climate, and unquestionably a true wild potato. It must be a distinct species from that of the Lower Cordilleras one. Perhaps as with the banana, distinct species are now not to be distinguished in their varieties produced by cultivation. I cannot copy out the few remarks about the Chonos potato. With the specimens there is a bundle of old papers and notebooks. Will you take care of them; in case I should lose my notes, these might be useful. I do not send home any insects because they must be troublesome to you, and now so little more of the voyage remains unfinished I can well take charge of them. In two or three days I set out for Coquimbo by land; the "Beagle" calls for me in the beginning of June. So that I have six weeks more to enjoy geologising over these curious mountains of Chili. There is at present a bloody revolution in Peru. The Commodore has gone there, and in the hurry has carried our letters with him; perhaps amongst them there will be one from you. I wish I had the old Commodore here, I would shake some consideration for others into his old body. From Coquimbo you will again hear from me. LETTER 7. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Lima, July 12th, 1835. This is the last letter which I shall ever write to you from the shores of America, and for this reason I send it. In a few days time the "Beagle" will sail for the Galapagos Islands. I look forward with joy and interest to this, both as being somewhat nearer to England and for the sake of having a good look at an active volcano. Although we have seen lava in abundance, I have never yet beheld the crater. I sent by H.M.S. "Conway" two large boxes of specimens. The "Conway" sailed the latter end of June. With them were letters for you, since that time I have travelled by land from Valparaiso to Copiapo and seen something more of the Cordilleras. Some of my geological views have been, subsequently to the last letter, altered. I believe the upper mass of strata is not so very modern as I supposed. This last journey has explained to me much of the ancient history of the Cordilleras. I feel sure they formerly consisted of a chain of volcanoes from which enormous streams of lava were poured forth at the bottom of the sea. These alternate with sedimentary beds to a vast thickness; at a subsequent period these volcanoes must have formed islands, from which have been produced strata of several thousand feet thick of coarse conglomerate. (7/1. See "Geological Observations on South America" (London, 1846), Chapter VII.: "Central Chile; Structure of the Cordillera.") These islands were covered with fine trees; in the conglomerate, I found one 15 feet in circumference perfectly silicified to the very centre. The alternations of compact crystalline rocks (I cannot doubt subaqueous lavas), and sedimentary beds, now upheaved fractured and indurated, form the main range of the Andes. The formation was produced at the time when ammonites, gryphites, oysters, Pecten, Mytilus, etc., etc., lived. In the central parts of Chili the structure of the lower beds is rendered very obscure by the metamorphic action which has rendered even the coarsest conglomerates porphyritic. The Cordilleras of the Andes so worthy of admiration from the grandeur of their dimensions, rise in dignity when it is considered that since the period of ammonites, they have formed a marked feature in the geography of the globe. The geology of these mountains pleased me in one respect; when reading Lyell, it had always struck me that if the crust of the world goes on changing in a circle, there ought to be somewhere found formations which, having the age of the great European Secondary beds, should possess the structure of Tertiary rocks or those formed amidst islands and in limited basins. Now the alternations of lava and coarse sediment which form the upper parts of the Andes, correspond exactly to what would accumulate under such circumstances. In consequence of this, I can only very roughly separate into three divisions the varying strata (perhaps 8,000 feet thick) which compose these mountains. I am afraid you will tell me to learn my ABC to know quartz from feldspar before I indulge in such speculations. I lately got hold of a report on M. Dessalines D'Orbigny's labours in S. America (7/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique Meridionale, etc." (A. Dessalines D'Orbigny).); I experienced rather a debasing degree of vexation to find he has described the Geology of the Pampas, and that I have had some hard riding for nothing, it was however gratifying that my conclusions are the same, as far as I can collect, with his results. It is also capital that the whole of Bolivia will be described. I hope to be able to connect his geology of that country with mine of Chili. After leaving Copiapo, we touched at Iquique. I visited but do not quite understand the position of the nitrate of soda beds. Here in Peru, from the state of anarchy, I can make no expedition. I hear from home, that my brother is going to send me a box with books, and a letter from you. It is very unfortunate that I cannot receive this before we reach Sydney, even if it ever gets safely so far. I shall not have another opportunity for many months of again writing to you. Will you have the charity to send me one more letter (as soon as this reaches you) directed to the C. of Good Hope. Your letters besides affording me the greatest delight always give me a fresh stimulus for exertion. Excuse this geological prosy letter, and farewell till you hear from me at Sydney, and see me in the autumn of 1836. LETTER 8. TO JOSIAH WEDGWOOD. [Shrewsbury, October 5th, 1836.] My dear Uncle The "Beagle" arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached home late last night. My head is quite confused with so much delight, but I cannot allow my sisters to tell you first how happy I am to see all my dear friends again. I am obliged to return in three or four days to London, where the "Beagle" will be paid off, and then I shall pay Shrewsbury a longer visit. I am most anxious once again to see Maer, and all its inhabitants, so that in the course of two or three weeks, I hope in person to thank you, as being my first Lord of the Admiralty. (8/1.) Readers of the "Life and Letters" will remember that it was to Josiah Wedgwood that Darwin owed the great opportunity of his life ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 59), and it was fitting that he should report himself to his "first Lord of the Admiralty." The present letter clears up a small obscurity to which Mr. Poulton has called attention ("Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," "Century" Series, 1896, page 25). Writing to Fitz-Roy from Shrewsbury on October 6th, Darwin says, "I arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time." This refers to his arrival at his father's house, after having slept at the inn. The date of his arrival in Shrewsbury was, therefore, October 4th, as given in the "Life and Letters," I., page 272.) The entries in his Diary are:--October 2, 1831. Took leave of my home. October 4, 1836. Reached Shrewsbury after absence of 5 years and 2 days.) I am so very happy I hardly know what I am writing. Believe me your most affectionate nephew, CHAS. DARWIN. LETTER 9. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury, Monday [November 12th, 1838]. My dear Lyell I suppose you will be in Hart St. (9/1. Sir Charles Lyell lived at 16, Hart Street, Bloomsbury.) to-morrow [or] the 14th. I write because I cannot avoid wishing to be the first person to tell Mrs. Lyell and yourself, that I have the very good, and shortly since [i.e. until lately] very unexpected fortune of going to be married! The lady is my cousin Miss Emma Wedgwood, the sister of Hensleigh Wedgwood, and of the elder brother who married my sister, so we are connected by manifold ties, besides on my part, by the most sincere love and hearty gratitude to her for accepting such a one as myself. I determined when last at Maer to try my chance, but I hardly expected such good fortune would turn up for me. I shall be in town in the middle or latter end of the ensuing week. (9/2. Mr. Darwin was married on January 29th, 1839 (see "Life and Letters," I., page 299). The present letter was written the day after he had become engaged.) I fear you will say I might very well have left my story untold till we met. But I deeply feel your kindness and friendship towards me, which in truth I may say, has been one chief source of happiness to me, ever since my return to England: so you must excuse me. I am well sure that Mrs. Lyell, who has sympathy for every one near her, will give me her hearty congratulations. Believe me my dear Lyell Yours most truly obliged CHAS. DARWIN. (PLATE: MRS. DARWIN. Walker and Cockerell, ph. sc.) LETTER 10. TO EMMA WEDGWOOD. Sunday Night. Athenaeum. [January 20th, 1839.] ...I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed my Maer visit,--I felt in anticipation my future tranquil life: how I do hope you may be as happy as I know I shall be: but it frightens me, as often as I think of what a family you have been one of. I was thinking this morning how it came, that I, who am fond of talking and am scarcely ever out of spirits, should so entirely rest my notions of happiness on quietness, and a good deal of solitude: but I believe the explanation is very simple and I mention it because it will give you hopes, that I shall gradually grow less of a brute, it is that during the five years of my voyage (and indeed I may add these two last) which from the active manner in which they have been passed, may be said to be the commencement of my real life, the whole of my pleasure was derived from what passed in my mind, while admiring views by myself, travelling across the wild deserts or glorious forests or pacing the deck of the poor little "Beagle" at night. Excuse this much egotism,--I give it you because I think you will humanize me, and soon teach me there is greater happiness than building theories and accumulating facts in silence and solitude. My own dearest Emma, I earnestly pray, you may never regret the great, and I will add very good, deed, you are to perform on the Tuesday: my own dear future wife, God bless you...The Lyells called on me to-day after church; as Lyell was so full of geology he was obliged to disgorge,--and I dine there on Tuesday for an especial confidence. I was quite ashamed of myself to-day, for we talked for half an hour, unsophisticated geology, with poor Mrs. Lyell sitting by, a monument of patience. I want practice in ill-treatment the female sex,--I did not observe Lyell had any compunction; I hope to harden my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find it difficult to effect this. Since my return I have taken several looks, as you will readily believe, into the drawing-room; I suppose my taste [for] harmonious colours is already deteriorated, for I declare the room begins to look less ugly. I take so much pleasure in the house (10/1. No. 12, Upper Gower Street, is now No. 110, Gower Street, and forms part of a block inhabited by Messrs. Shoolbred's employes. We are indebted, for this information, to Mr. Wheatley, of the Society of Arts.), I declare I am just like a great overgrown child with a new toy; but then, not like a real child, I long to have a co-partner and possessor. (10/2. The following passage is taken from the MS. copy of the "Autobiography;" it was not published in the "Life and Letters" which appeared in Mrs. Darwin's lifetime:--) You all know your mother, and what a good mother she has ever been to all of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can declare that in my whole life I have never heard her utter one word I would rather have been unsaid. She has never failed in kindest sympathy towards me, and has borne with the utmost patience my frequent complaints of ill-health and discomfort. I do not believe she has ever missed an opportunity of doing a kind action to any one near her. I marvel at my good fortune that she, so infinitely my superior in every single moral quality, consented to be my wife. She has been my wise adviser and cheerful comforter throughout life, which without her would have been during a very long period a miserable one from ill-health. She has earned the love of every soul near her. LETTER 11. C. LYELL TO C. DARWIN. [July?, 1841?]. (11/1. Lyell started on his first visit to the United States in July, 1841, and was absent thirteen months. Darwin returned to London July 23rd, 1841, after a prolonged absence; he may, therefore, have missed seeing Lyell. Assuming the date 1841 to be correct, it would seem that the plan of living in the country was formed a year before it was actually carried out.) I have no doubt that your father did rightly in persuading you to stay [at Shrewsbury], but we were much disappointed in not seeing you before our start for a year's absence. I cannot tell you how often since your long illness I have missed the friendly intercourse which we had so frequently before, and on which I built more than ever after your marriage. It will not happen easily that twice in one's life, even in the large world of London, a congenial soul so occupied with precisely the same pursuits and with an independence enabling him to pursue them will fall so nearly in my way, and to have had it snatched from me with the prospect of your residence somewhat far off is a privation I feel as a very great one. I hope you will not, like Herschell, get far off from a railway. LETTER 12. TO CATHERINE DARWIN. (12/1. The following letter was written to his sister Catherine about two months before Charles Darwin settled at Down:--) Sunday [July 1842]. You must have been surprised at not having heard sooner about the house. Emma and I only returned yesterday afternoon from sleeping there. I will give you in detail, as my father would like, MY opinion on it--Emma's slightly differs. Position:--about 1/4 of a mile from the small village of Down in Kent--16 miles from St. Paul's--8 1/2 miles from station (with many trains) which station is only 10 from London. This is bad, as the drive from [i.e. on account of] the hills is long. I calculate we are two hours going from London Bridge. Village about forty houses with old walnut trees in the middle where stands an old flint church and the lanes meet. Inhabitants very respectable--infant school--grown up people great musicians--all touch their hats as in Wales and sit at their open doors in the evening; no high road leads through the village. The little pot-house where we slept is a grocer's shop, and the landlord is the carpenter--so you may guess the style of the village. There are butcher and baker and post-office. A carrier goes weekly to London and calls anywhere for anything in London and takes anything anywhere. On the road [from London] to the village, on a fine day the scenery is absolutely beautiful: from close to our house the view is very distant and rather beautiful, but the house being situated on a rather high tableland has somewhat of a desolate air. There is a most beautiful old farm-house, with great thatched barns and old stumps of oak trees, like that of Skelton, one field off. The charm of the place to me is that almost every field is intersected (as alas is ours) by one or more foot-paths. I never saw so many walks in any other county. The country is extraordinarily rural and quiet with narrow lanes and high hedges and hardly any ruts. It is really surprising to think London is only 16 miles off. The house stands very badly, close to a tiny lane and near another man's field. Our field is 15 acres and flat, looking into flat-bottomed valleys on both sides, but no view from the drawing-room, which faces due south, except on our flat field and bits of rather ugly distant horizon. Close in front there are some old (very productive) cherry trees, walnut trees, yew, Spanish chestnut, pear, old larch, Scotch fir and silver fir and old mulberry trees, [which] make rather a pretty group. They give the ground an old look, but from not flourishing much they also give it rather a desolate look. There are quinces and medlars and plums with plenty of fruit, and Morello cherries; but few apples. The purple magnolia flowers against the house. There is a really fine beech in view in our hedge. The kitchen garden is a detestable slip and the soil looks wretched from the quantity of chalk flints, but I really believe it is productive. The hedges grow well all round our field, and it is a noted piece of hayland. This year the crop was bad, but was bought, as it stood, for 2 pounds per acre--that is 30 pounds--the purchaser getting it in. Last year it was sold for 45 pounds--no manure was put on in the interval. Does not this sound well? Ask my father. Does the mulberry and magnolia show it is not very cold in winter, which I fear is the case? Tell Susan it is 9 miles from Knole Park and 6 from Westerham, at which places I hear the scenery is beautiful. There are many very odd views round our house--deepish flat-bottomed valley and nice farm-house, but big, white, ugly, fallow fields;--much wheat grown here. House ugly, looks neither old nor new--walls two feet thick--windows rather small--lower story rather low. Capital study 18 x 18. Dining-room 21 x 18. Drawing-room can easily be added to: is 21 x 15. Three stories, plenty of bedrooms. We could hold the Hensleighs and you and Susan and Erasmus all together. House in good repair. Mr. Cresy a few years ago laid out for the owner 1,500 pounds and made a new roof. Water-pipes over house--two bath-rooms--pretty good offices and good stable-yard, etc., and a cottage. I believe the price is about 2,200 pounds, and I have no doubt I shall get it for one year on lease first to try, so that I shall do nothing to the house at first (last owner kept three cows, one horse, and one donkey, and sold some hay annually from one field). I have no doubt if we complete the purchase I shall at least save 1,000 pounds over Westcroft, or any other house we have seen. Emma was at first a good deal disappointed, and at the country round the house; the day was gloomy and cold with N.E. wind. She likes the actual field and house better than I; the house is just situated as she likes for retirement, not too near or too far from other houses, but she thinks the country looks desolate. I think all chalk countries do, but I am used to Cambridgeshire, which is ten times worse. Emma is rapidly coming round. She was dreadfully bad with toothache and headache in the evening and Friday, but in coming back yesterday she was so delighted with the scenery for the first few miles from Down, that it has worked a great change in her. We go there again the first fine day Emma is able, and we then finally settle what to do. (12/2. The following fragmentary "Account of Down" was found among Mr. Darwin's papers after the publication of the "Life and Letters." It gives the impression that he intended to write a natural history diary after the manner of Gilbert White, but there is no evidence that this was actually the case.) 1843. May 15th.--The first peculiarity which strikes a stranger unaccustomed to a hilly chalk country is the valleys, with their steep rounded bottoms--not furrowed with the smallest rivulet. On the road to Down from Keston a mound has been thrown across a considerable valley, but even against this mound there is no appearance of even a small pool of water having collected after the heaviest rains. The water all percolates straight downwards. Ascertain average depth of wells, inclination of strata, and springs. Does the water from this country crop out in springs in Holmsdale or in the valley of the Thames? Examine the fine springs in Holmsdale. The valleys on this platform sloping northward, but exceedingly even, generally run north and south; their sides near the summits generally become suddenly more abrupt, and are fringed with narrow strips, or, as they are here called, "shaws" of wood, sometimes merely by hedgerows run wild. The sudden steepness may generally be perceived, as just before ascending to Cudham Wood, and at Green Hill, where one of the lanes crosses these valleys. These valleys are in all probability ancient sea-bays, and I have sometimes speculated whether this sudden steepening of the sides does not mark the edges of vertical cliffs formed when these valleys were filled with sea-water, as would naturally happen in strata such as the chalk. In most countries the roads and footpaths ascend along the bottoms of valleys, but here this is scarcely ever the case. All the villages and most of the ancient houses are on the platforms or narrow strips of flat land between the parallel valleys. Is this owing to the summits having existed from the most ancient times as open downs and the valleys having been filled up with brushwood? I have no evidence of this, but it is certain that most of the farmhouses on the flat land are very ancient. There is one peculiarity which would help to determine the footpaths to run along the summits instead of the bottom of the valleys, in that these latter in the middle are generally covered, even far more thickly than the general surface, with broken flints. This bed of flints, which gradually thins away on each side, can be seen from a long distance in a newly ploughed or fallow field as a whitish band. Every stone which ever rolls after heavy rain or from the kick of an animal, ever so little, all tend to the bottom of the valleys; but whether this is sufficient to account for their number I have sometimes doubted, and have been inclined to apply to the case Lyell's theory of solution by rain-water, etc., etc. The flat summit-land is covered with a bed of stiff red clay, from a few feet in thickness to as much, I believe, as twenty feet: this [bed], though lying immediately on the chalk, and abounding with great, irregularly shaped, unrolled flints, often with the colour and appearance of huge bones, which were originally embedded in the chalk, contains not a particle of carbonate of lime. This bed of red clay lies on a very irregular surface, and often descends into deep round wells, the origin of which has been explained by Lyell. In these cavities are patches of sand like sea-sand, and like the sand which alternates with the great beds of small pebbles derived from the wear-and-tear of chalk-flints, which form Keston, Hayes and Addington Commons. Near Down a rounded chalk-flint is a rarity, though some few do occur; and I have not yet seen a stone of distant origin, which makes a difference--at least to geological eyes--in the very aspect of the country, compared with all the northern counties. The chalk-flints decay externally, which, according to Berzelius ("Edin. New Phil. Journal," late number), is owing to the flints containing a small proportion of alkali; but, besides this external decay, the whole body is affected by exposure of a few years, so that they will not break with clean faces for building. This bed of red clay, which renders the country very slippery in the winter months from October to April, does not cover the sides of the valleys; these, when ploughed, show the white chalk, which tint shades away lower in the valley, as insensibly as a colour laid on by a painter's brush. Nearly all the land is ploughed, and is often left fallow, which gives the country a naked red look, or not unfrequently white, from a covering of chalk laid on by the farmers. Nobody seems at all aware on what principle fresh chalk laid on land abounding with lime does it any good. This, however, is said to have been the practice of the country ever since the period of the Romans, and at present the many white pits on the hill sides, which so frequently afford a picturesque contrast with the overhanging yew trees, are all quarried for this purpose. The number of different kinds of bushes in the hedgerows, entwined by traveller's joy and the bryonies, is conspicuous compared with the hedges of the northern counties. March 25th [1844?].--The first period of vegetation, and the banks are clothed with pale-blue violets to an extent I have never seen equalled, and with primroses. A few days later some of the copses were beautifully enlivened by Ranunculus auricomus, wood anemones, and a white Stellaria. Again, subsequently, large areas were brilliantly blue with bluebells. The flowers are here very beautiful, and the number of flowers; [and] the darkness of the blue of the common little Polygala almost equals it to an alpine gentian. There are large tracts of woodland, [cut down] about once every ten years; some of these enclosures seem to be very ancient. On the south side of Cudham Wood a beech hedge has grown to Brobdignagian size, with several of the huge branches crossing each other and firmly grafted together. Larks abound here, and their songs sound most agreeably on all sides; nightingales are common. Judging from an odd cooing note, something like the purring of a cat, doves are very common in the woods. June 25th.--The sainfoin fields are now of the most beautiful pink, and from the number of hive-bees frequenting them the humming noise is quite extraordinary. This humming is rather deeper than the humming overhead, which has been continuous and loud during all these last hot days over almost every field. The labourers here say it is made by "air-bees," and one man, seeing a wild bee in a flower different from the hive kind, remarked: "That, no doubt, is an air-bee." This noise is considered as a sign of settled fair weather. CHAPTER 1.II.--EVOLUTION, 1844-1858. (Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Huxley's obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2. "Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana)," page 253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest of the great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley. We would venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible introduction to these pages. There is, however, one small point in which we differ from Mr. Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin's evolutionary views, Mr. Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and Letters," I., page 82. Some account of the origin of his evolutionary views is given in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a passage in which the writer describes the deep impression made on his mind by certain groups of facts observed in South America. Mr. Huxley goes on: "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations of the existing with the extinct species, and of the species of the different geographical areas with one another, were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when he "opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.') which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind, becomes intelligible." This seems to us inconsistent with Darwin's own statement that it was especially the character of the "species on Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed him. (Chapter II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the zoological specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these he had himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal," page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was necessary to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the different islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of the "new light which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come sooner seems to us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so great a revolution in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley's supposition as to the effect of the determination of species, etc., has much weight. Mr. Huxley quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years [after 1837] had elapsed" (see Letter 278). This passage, which it must be remembered was written in 1877, is all but irreconcilable with the direct evidence of the 1837 note-book. A series of passages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and these it is impossible to read without feeling that he was convinced of immutability. He had not yet attained to a clear idea of Natural Selection, and therefore his views may not have had, even to himself, the irresistible convincing power they afterwards gained; but that he was, in the ordinary sense of the word, convinced of the truth of the doctrine of evolution we cannot doubt. He thought it "almost useless" to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was discovered. And it is natural that in later life he should have felt that conviction was wanting till that cause was made out. (Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told, etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of the present chapter the point is not very material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first sketch of his theory, and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the date of the first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working hypothesis of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given in the "Origin of Species." To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the time--namely, from 1846 to 1854--he was largely occupied by his work on the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This research would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and even to those who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to quote a story of Lord Avebury's) one of Mr. Darwin's children is said to have asked, in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his barnacles?" as though not merely his father, but all other men, must be occupied on that group. Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed, was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his intimacy with Mr. Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899, June 22nd, page 187, where some reminiscences are published, which formed part of Sir Joseph's speech at the unveiling of Darwin's statue in the Oxford Museum.) The close intercourse that sprang up between them was largely carried on by correspondence, and Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Joseph have supplied most valuable biographical material. But it should not be forgotten that, quite apart from this, science owes much to this memorable friendship, since without Hooker's aid Darwin's great work would hardly have been carried out on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph did far more than supply knowledge and guidance in technical matters: Darwin owed to him a sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship which cheered and refreshed him to the end of his life. A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as well as more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into friendship. "Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had known you for fifty years. Adios." And in illustration of the permanence of the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written forty-two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter has cheered me, and the world does not look a quarter so black this morning as it did when I wrote before. Your friendly words are worth their weight in gold.") LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday [January 11th, 1844]. My dear Sir I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much all your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended views"--which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations so easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a strong tendency to generalise as an entire evil. What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap in his preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the 'Adventure' and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839): "Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving a botanical collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that purpose. He placed this collection in the British Museum, and was led to expect that a first-rate botanist would have examined and described it; but he has been disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown's dilatoriness over King's collection occurs in the "Life and Letters," I., page 274, note.), and made him very indignant, but it seems a much harder one would not have been wasted. My cryptogamic collection was sent to Berkeley; it was not large. I do not believe he has yet published an account, but he wrote to me some year ago that he had described [the specimens] and mislaid all his descriptions. Would it not be well for you to put yourself in communication with him, as otherwise something will perhaps be twice laboured over? My best (though poor) collection of the cryptogams was from the Chonos Islands. Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand, where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds--such hooks as, if observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch into wool of animals. Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands like St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in coral islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly this is the case with marine shells in extreme Arctic seas. Do you suppose the fewness of species in proportion to number of large groups in coral islets is owing to the chance of seeds from all orders getting drifted to such new spots, as I have supposed. Did you collect sea-shells in Kerguelen-land? I should like to know their character. Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for I know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.) Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the questions here dealt with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page 34.) LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. [November] 1844. ...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L. varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought), per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one another, nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would hardly have expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant. I trust you will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish it, for you can surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some analogous facts, though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being more variable in one district than in another, and I think the same holds with some land-shells. By a strange chance I had noted to ask you in this letter an analogous question, with respect to genera, in lieu of individual species,--that is, whether you know of any case of a genus with most of its species being variable (say Rubus) in one continent, having another set of species in another continent non-variable, or not in so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) incidentally mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope were very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not so; but then the species here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if true, is not a good one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to be common in distant parts of the world. In shells, I hope hereafter to get much light on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I should be very much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to me. MONDAY:--Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as interesting as long. Several things are quite new to me in it--viz., for one, your belief that there are more extra-tropical than intra-tropical species. I see that my argument from the Arctic regions is false, and I should not have tried to argue against you, had I not fancied that you thought that equability of climate was the direct cause of the creation of a greater or lesser number of species. I see you call our climate equable; I should have thought it was the contrary. Anyhow, the term is vague, and in England will depend upon whether a person compares it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342) I see I state that in South Chiloe, at a height of about 1,000 feet, the forests had a Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the sea-level in the middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I should like much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries of a plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species being greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river (14/3. The Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross them.") in N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the flora was, on the same soil and under same climate, widely different! I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters," II., page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and divided. I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it does follow. (14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on the mutability of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this subject, I do not know any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James Cowles "Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof. Poulton has given in his paper, "A remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page 278.), an interesting study of Prichard's work. He shows that Prichard was in advance of his day in his views on the non-transmission of acquired characters. Prof. Poulton also tries to show that Prichard was an evolutionist. He allows that Prichard wrote with hesitation, and that in the later editions of his book his views became weaker. But, even with these qualifications, we think that Poulton has unintentionally exaggerated the degree to which Prichard believed in evolution. One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit., page 16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume II., page 570:-- "Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the limits of particular species are further adaptations of structure to the circumstances under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties branch out from the common form of a species, just as the forms of species deviate from the common type of a genus. Why should the one class of phenomena be without end or utility, a mere effect of contingency or chance, more than the other?" If this passage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree with Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I. of the same edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of immutability:-- "The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is very simple and obvious. It includes only one circumstance--namely, an original distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race of animals, or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which have always been constant and undeviating, constitutes a species." On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a genus may have descended from a common form, he says:-- "There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture, it must be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact only." This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether we should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it first grew into existence, some slight modification in the productive causes stamped it originally with all these specific diversities? Or is it most probable that the modification was subsequent to its origin, and that the genus at its first creation was one and uniform, and afterwards became diversified by the influence of external agents?" He concludes that "the former of these suppositions is the conclusion to which we are led by all that can be ascertained respecting the limits of species, and the extent of variation under the influence of causes at present existing and operating." In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their logical conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin should have spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability. We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the fact that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists of reprints of the third edition and three additional volumes of various dates. Volumes I. and II. are described in the title-page as the fourth edition; Volumes III. and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has no edition marked in the title.) In neither of these is the evolutionary point of view so strong as in the second edition. We have gone through all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to find the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836, page 242) (14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague reference to Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed in pencil in inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to quote it: "In other parts of Africa the xanthous variety [of man] often appears, but does not multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like seeds which perish in an uncongenial soil.") "The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of nature, is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever species, even when they are offspring of the same parents. Another circumstance equally remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost every tribe, whether of animals or of plants, to transmit to their offspring and to perpetuate in their race all individual peculiarities which may thus have taken their rise. These two general facts in the economy of organised beings lay a foundation for the existence of diversified races, originating from the same primitive stock and within the limits of identical species." On the following page (page 243) a passage (not marked by Mr. Darwin) emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of variation and inheritance:-- "Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under ordinary circumstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without breaking in upon the characteristic type of the species. This is transmitted from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep, sheep." The passage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition which forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr. Darwin. He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March, 1857. I have not looked through all these [i.e. marked passages], but I have gone through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume II. of the third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came to overlook the passage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement of his species theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin of Species" writers are named as precursors whose claims are less strong than Prichard's, and it is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an account of him if he had thought of him as an evolutionist. The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his knowledge of Prichard's books, justified in classing him among those who did not believe in the mutability of species: "The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature peculiarly adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single stock: probably a single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called into being in some particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse themselves to as great a distance from the original centre of their existence as the locomotive powers bestowed on them, or their capability of bearing changes of climate and other physical agencies, may have enabled them to wander." (14/9. Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.) The second passage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of exclamation marks: "The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is very definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions--namely, separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organisation. A race of animals or of plants marked by any peculiar character which has always been constant and undeviating constitutes a species; and two races are considered as specifically different, if they are distinguished from each other by some characteristic which one cannot be supposed to have acquired, or the other to have lost through any known operation of physical causes; for we are hence led to conclude that the tribes thus distinguished have not descended from the same original stock." (14/10. Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This passage is almost identical with that quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90. The latter part, from "and two races...," occurs in the second edition, though not quoted above.) As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume of the 1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages where marked passages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How like my book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard's discussion on the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not refer to the evolutionary views to be found in the book.) LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844]. Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed of the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that you have extended my remark on the range of species of shells into the range of genera or groups. Analogy from shells would only go so far, that if two or three species...were found to range from America to India, they would be found to extend through an unusual thickness of strata--say from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Or you may reverse it and say those species which range throughout the whole Cretaceous, will have wide ranges: viz., from America through Europe to India (this is one actual case with shells in the Cretaceous period). LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1845]. I ought to have written sooner to say that I am very willing to subscribe 1 pound 1 shilling to the African man (though it be murder on a small scale), and will send you a Post-office-order payable to Kew, if you will be so good as to take charge of it. Thanks for your information about the Antarctic Zoology; I got my numbers when in Town on Thursday: would it be asking your publisher to take too much trouble to send your Botany ["Flora Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844] to the Athenaeum Club? he might send two or three numbers together. I am really ashamed to think of your having given me such a valuable work; all I can say is that I appreciate your present in two ways--as your gift, and for its great use to my species-work. I am very glad to hear that you mean to attack this subject some day. I wonder whether we shall ever be public combatants; anyhow, I congratulate myself in a most unfair advantage of you, viz., in having extracted more facts and views from you than from any one other person. I daresay your explanation of polymorphism on volcanic islands may be the right one; the reason I am curious about it is, the fact of the birds on the Galapagos being in several instances very fine-run species--that is, in comparing them, not so much one with another, as with their analogues from the continent. I have somehow felt, like you, that an alpine form of a plant is not a true variety; and yet I cannot admit that the simple fact of the cause being assignable ought to prevent its being called a variety; every variation must have some cause, so that the difference would rest on our knowledge in being able or not to assign the cause. Do you consider that a true variety should be produced by causes acting through the parent? But even taking this definition, are you sure that alpine forms are not inherited from one, two, or three generations? Now, would not this be a curious and valuable experiment (16/1. For an account of work of this character, see papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue Generale," Volume II., 1890; "Ann. Sc. Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale," Volume VII.), viz., to get seeds of some alpine plant, a little more hairy, etc., etc., than its lowland fellow, and raise seedlings at Kew: if this has not been done, could you not get it done? Have you anybody in Scotland from whom you could get the seeds? I have been interested by your remarks on Senecia and Gnaphalium: would it not be worth while (I should be very curious to hear the result) to make a short list of the generally considered variable or polymorphous genera, as Rosa, Salix, Rubus, etc., etc., and reflect whether such genera are generally mundane, and more especially whether they have distinct or identical (or closely allied) species in their different and distant habitats. Don't forget me, if you ever stumble on cases of the same species being MORE or LESS variable in different countries. With respect to the word "sterile" as used for male or polleniferous flowers, it has always offended my ears dreadfully; on the same principle that it would to hear a potent stallion, ram or bull called sterile, because they did not bear, as well as beget, young. With respect to your geological-map suggestion, I wish with all my heart I could follow it; but just reflect on the number of measurements requisite; why, at present it could not be done even in England, even with the assumption of the land having simply risen any exact number of feet. But subsidence in most cases has hopelessly complexed the problem: see what Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of a paper "On the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., page 41, 1846).) says of the dance up and down, many times, which Gibraltar has had all within the recent period. Such maps as Lyell (16/3. "Principles of Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) has published of sea and land at the beginning of the Tertiary period must be excessively inaccurate: it assumes that every part on which Tertiary beds have not been deposited, must have then been dry land,--a most doubtful assumption. I have been amused by Chambers v. Hooker on the K. Cabbage. I see in the "Explanations" (the spirit of which, though not the facts, ought to shame Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" considers all land-animals and plants to have passed from marine forms; so Chambers is quite in accordance. Did you hear Forbes, when here, giving the rather curious evidence (from a similarity in error) that Chambers must be the author of the "Vestiges": your case strikes me as some confirmation. I have written an unreasonably long and dull letter, so farewell. (16/4. "Explanations: A Sequel to the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published in 1845, after the appearance of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges," by way of reply to the criticisms on the original book. The "K. cabbage" referred to at the beginning of the paragraph is Pringlea antiscorbutica," the "Kerguelen Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in his "Flora Antarctica." What Chambers wrote on this subject we have not discovered. The mention of Sedgwick is a reference to his severe review of the "Vestiges" in the "Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1. Darwin described it as savouring "of the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life and Letters," I., page 344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges" (1844), in which Robert Chambers was first authentically announced as the author, contains (page xxix) an extract from a letter written by Chambers in 1860, in which the following passage occurs, "The April number of the 'Edinburgh Review"' (1860) makes all but a direct amende for the abuse it poured upon my work a number of years ago." This is the well-known review by Owen, to which references occur in the "Life and Letters," II., page 300. The amende to the "Vestiges" is not so full as the author felt it to be; but it was clearly in place in a paper intended to belittle the "Origin"; it also gave the reviewer (page 511) an opportunity for a hit at Sedgwick and his 1845 review.) LETTER 17. TO L. BLOMEFIELD [JENYNS]. Down. February 14th [1845]. I have taken my leisure in thanking you for your last letter and discussion, to me very interesting, on the increase of species. Since your letter, I have met with a very similar view in Richardson, who states that the young are driven away by the old into unfavourable districts, and there mostly perish. When one meets with such unexpected statistical returns on the increase and decrease and proportion of deaths and births amongst mankind, and in this well-known country of ours, one ought not to be in the least surprised at one's ignorance, when, where, and how the endless increase of our robins and sparrows is checked. Thanks for your hints about terms of "mutation," etc.; I had some suspicions that it was not quite correct, and yet I do not see my way to arrive at any better terms. It will be years before I publish, so that I shall have plenty of time to think of better words. Development would perhaps do, only it is applied to the changes of an individual during its growth. I am, however, very glad of your remark, and will ponder over it. We are all well, wife and children three, and as flourishing as this horrid, house-confining, tempestuous weather permits. LETTER 18. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1845]. I hope you are getting on well with your lectures, and that you have enjoyed some pleasant walks during the late delightful weather. I write to tell you (as perhaps you might have had fears on the subject) that your books have arrived safely. I am exceedingly obliged to you for them, and will take great care of them; they will take me some time to read carefully. I send to-day the corrected MS. of the first number of my "Journal" (18/1. In 1842 he had written to his sister: "Talking of money, I reaped the other day all the profit which I shall ever get from my "Journal" ["Journal of Researches, etc."] which consisted in paying Mr. Colburn 21 pounds 10 shillings for the copies which I presented to different people; 1,337 copies have been sold. This is a comfortable arrangement, is it not?" He was proved wrong in his gloomy prophecy, as the second edition was published by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library, so that if you chance to know of any gross mistake in the first 214 pages (if you have my "Journal"), I should be obliged to you to tell me. Do not answer this for form's sake; for you must be very busy. We have just had the Lyells here, and you ought to have a wife to stop your working too much, as Mrs. Lyell peremptorily stops Lyell. LETTER 19. TO J.D. HOOKER. (19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to fix the date as 1845, while the reference to Forbes' paper indicates 1846.) Down [1845-1846]. I am particularly obliged for your facts about solitary islands having several species of peculiar genera; it knocks on the head some analogies of mine; the point stupidly never occurred to me to ask about. I am amused at your anathemas against variation and co.; whatever you may be pleased to say, you will never be content with simple species, "as they are." I defy you to steel your mind to technicalities, like so many of our brother naturalists. I am much pleased that I thought of sending you Forbes' article. (19/2. E. Forbes' celebrated paper "Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In Lyell's "Principles," 7th Edition, 1847, page 676, he makes a temperate claim of priority, as he had already done in a private letter of October 14th, 1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II., page 106) both as regards the Sicilian flora and the barrier effect of mountain-chains. See Letter 20 for a note on Forbes.) I confess I cannot make out the evidence of his time-notions in distribution, and I cannot help suspecting that they are rather vague. Lyell preceded Forbes in one class of speculation of this kind: for instance, in his explaining the identity of the Sicily Flora with that of South Italy, by its having been wholly upraised within the recent period; and, so I believe, with mountain-chains separating floras. I do not remember Humboldt's fact about the heath regions. Very curious the case of the broom; I can tell you something analogous on a small scale. My father, when he built his house, sowed many broom-seeds on a wild bank, which did not come up, owing, as it was thought, to much earth having been thrown over them. About thirty-five years afterwards, in cutting a terrace, all this earth was thrown up, and now the bank is one mass of broom. I see we were in some degree talking to cross-purposes; when I said I did [not] much believe in hybridising to any extent, I did not mean at all to exclude crossing. It has long been a hobby of mine to see in how many flowers such crossing is probable; it was, I believe, Knight's view, originally, that every plant must be occasionally crossed. (19/3. See an article on "The Knight-Darwin law" by Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th, 1898, page 630.) I find, however, plenty of difficulty in showing even a vague probability of this; especially in the Leguminosae, though their [structure?] is inimitably adapted to favour crossing, I have never yet met with but one instance of a NATURAL MONGREL (nor mule?) in this family. I shall be particularly curious to hear some account of the appearance and origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. And now for the main object of my letter: it is to ask whether you would just run your eye over the proof of my Galapagos chapter (19/4. In the second edition of the "Naturalist's Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to see that I have made no blunders, or spelt any of the scientific names wrongly. As I daresay you will so far oblige me, will you let me know a few days before, when you leave Edinburgh and how long you stay at Kinnordy, so that my letter might catch you. I am not surprised at my collection from James Island differing from others, as the damp upland district (where I slept two nights) is six miles from the coast, and no naturalist except myself probably ever ascended to it. Cuming had never even heard of it. Cuming tells me that he was on Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands, and that he cannot remember from my description the Scalesia, but thinks he could if he saw a specimen. I have no idea of the origin of the distribution of the Galapagos shells, about which you ask. I presume (after Forbes' excellent remarks on the facilities by which embryo-shells are transported) that the Pacific shells have been borne thither by currents; but the currents all run the other way. (PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.) LETTER 20. EDWARD FORBES TO C. DARWIN. (20/1. Edward Forbes was at work on his celebrated paper in the "Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We have not seen the letter of Darwin's to which this is a reply, nor, indeed, any of his letters to Forbes. The date of the letter is fixed by Forbes's lecture given at the Royal Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's privately printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.)) Wednesday. 3, Southwark Street, Hyde Park. [1846]. Dear Darwin To answer your very welcome letter, so far from being a waste of time, is a gain, for it obliges me to make myself clear and understood on matters which I have evidently put forward imperfectly and with obscurity. I have devoted the whole of this week to working and writing out the flora question, for I now feel strong enough to give my promised evening lecture on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and, moreover, wish to get it in printable form for the Reports of our Survey. Therefore at no time can I receive or answer objections with more benefit than now. From the hurry and pressure which unfortunately attend all my movements and doings I rarely have time to spare, in preparing for publication, to do more than give brief and unsatisfactory abstracts, which I fear are often extremely obscure. Now for your objections--which have sprung out of my own obscurities. I do not argue in a circle about the Irish case, but treat the botanical evidence of connection and the geological as distinct. The former only I urged at Cambridge; the latter I have not yet publicly maintained. My Cambridge argument (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants," by E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this: That no known currents, whether of water or air, or ordinary means of transport (20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes' letter): "Forbes' arguments, from several Spanish plants in Ireland not being transported, not sound, because sea-currents and air ditto and migration of birds in SAME LINES. I have thought not-transportation the greatest difficulty. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree requires to be regularly propagated in its own country, for we cannot think the great number of seeds superfluous, and therefore how small is the chance of here and there a solitary seedling being preserved in a well-stocked country."), would account for the little group of Asturian plants--few as to species, but playing a conspicuous part in the vegetation--giving a peculiar botanical character to the south of Ireland; that, as I had produced evidence of the other floras of our islands, i.e. the Germanic, the Cretaceous, and the Devonian (these terms used topographically, not geologically) having been acquired by migration over continuous land (the glacial or alpine flora I except for the present--as ice-carriage might have played a great part in its introduction)--I considered it most probable, and maintained, that the introduction of that Irish flora was also effected by the same means. I held also that the character of this flora was more southern and more ancient than that of any of the others, and that its fragmentary and limited state was probably due to the plants composing it having (from their comparative hardiness--heaths, saxifrages, etc.) survived the destroying influence of the glacial epoch. My geological argument now is as follows: half the Mediterranean islands, or more, are partly--in some cases (as Malta) wholly--composed of the upheaved bed of the Miocene sea; so is a great part of the south of France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; so is the west of Portugal; and we find the corresponding beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus, etc.) in the Azores. So general an upheaval seems to me to indicate the former existence of a great post-Miocene land [in] the region of what is usually called the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene islands, etc., bear a flora of true type.) If this land existed, it did not extend to America, for the fossils of the Miocene of America are representative and not identical. Where, then, was the edge or coast-line of it, Atlantic-wards? Look at the form and constancy of the great fucus-bank, and consider that it is a Sargassum bank, and that the Sargassum there is in an abnormal condition, and that the species of this genus of fuci are essentially ground-growers, and then see the probability of this bank having originated on a line of ancient coast. Now, having thus argued independently, first on my flora and second on the geological evidences of land in the quarter required, I put the two together to bear up my Irish case. I cannot admit the Sargassum case to be parallel with that of Confervae or Oscillatoria. I think I have evidence from the fossils of the boulder formations in Ireland that if such Miocene land existed it must have been broken up or partially broken up at the epoch of the glacial or boulder period. All objections thankfully received. Ever most sincerely, EDWARD FORBES. LETTER 21. TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down. [1846]. I am much obliged for your note and kind intended present of your volume. (21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in Natural History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I feel sure I shall like it, for all discussions and observations on what the world would call trifling points in Natural History always appear to me very interesting. In such foreign periodicals as I have seen, there are no such papers as White, or Waterton, or some few other naturalists in Loudon's and Charlesworth's Journal, would have written; and a great loss it has always appeared to me. I should have much liked to have met you in London, but I cannot leave home, as my wife is recovering from a rather sharp fever attack, and I am myself slaving to finish my S. American Geology (21/2. "Geological Observations in South America" (London), 1846.), of which, thanks to all Plutonic powers, two-thirds are through the press, and then I shall feel a comparatively free man. Have you any thoughts of Southampton? (21/3. The British Association met at Southampton in 1846.) I have some vague idea of going there, and should much enjoy meeting you. LETTER 22. TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [end of February 1846]. I came here on account of my father's health, which has been sadly failing of late, but to my great joy he has got surprisingly better...I had not heard of your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was appointed Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and am very glad of it, more especially as it will make you travel and give you change of work and relaxation. Will you some time have to examine the Chalk and its junction with London Clay and Greensand? If so our house would be a good central place, and my horse would be at your disposal. Could you not spin a long week out of this examination? it would in truth delight us, and you could bring your papers (like Lyell) and work at odd times. Forbes has been writing to me about his subsidence doctrines; I wish I had heard his full details, but I have expressed to him in my ignorance my objections, which rest merely on its too great hypothetical basis; I shall be curious, when I meet him, to hear what he says. He is also speculating on the gulf-weed. I confess I cannot appreciate his reasoning about his Miocene continent, but I daresay it is from want of knowledge. You allude to the Sicily flora not being peculiar, and this being caused by its recent elevation (well established) in the main part: you will find Lyell has put forward this very clearly and well. The Apennines (which I was somewhere lately reading about) seems a very curious case. I think Forbes ought to allude a little to Lyell's (22/2. See Letter 19.) work on nearly the same subject as his speculations; not that I mean that Forbes wishes to take the smallest credit from him or any man alive; no man, as far as I see, likes so much to give credit to others, or more soars above the petty craving for self-celebrity. If you come to any more conclusions about polymorphism, I should be very glad to hear the result: it is delightful to have many points fermenting in one's brain, and your letters and conclusions always give one plenty of this same fermentation. I wish I could even make any return for all your facts, views, and suggestions. LETTER 23. TO J.D. HOOKER. (23/1. The following extract gives the germ of what developed into an interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin wrote, "I suspect also that some cases of compensation which have been advanced and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more general principle: namely, that natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organism." He speaks of the general belief of botanists in compensation, but does not quote any instances.) [September 1846]. Have you ever thought of G. St. Hilaire's "loi de balancement" (23/2. According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition, II., page 335) the law of balancement was propounded by Goethe and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) nearly at the same time, but he gives no reference to the works of these authors. It appears, however, from his son Isidore's "Vie, Travaux etc., d'Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," Paris 1847, page 214, that the law was given in his "Philosophie Anatomique," of which the first part was published in 1818. Darwin (ibid.) gives some instances of the law holding good in plants.), as applied to plants? I am well aware that some zoologists quite reject it, but it certainly appears to me that it often holds good with animals. You are no doubt aware of the kind of facts I refer to, such as great development of canines in the carnivora apparently causing a diminution--a compensation or balancement--in the small size of premolars, etc. I have incidentally noticed some analogous remarks on plants, but have never seen it discussed by botanists. Can you think of cases in any one species in genus, or genus in family, with certain parts extra developed, and some adjoining parts reduced? In varieties of the same species double flowers and large fruits seem something of this--want of pollen and of seeds balancing with the increased number of petals and development of fruit. I hope we shall see you here this autumn. (24/1. In this year (1847) Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammalia," of which the first volume had appeared. It was published in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XIX., page 53. The following sentence is the only one which shows even a trace of evolution: "whether we view classification as a mere contrivance to convey much information in a single word, or as something more than a memoria technica, and as connected with the laws of creation, we cannot doubt that where such important differences in the generative and cerebral systems, as distinguish the Marsupiata from the Placentata, run through two series of animals, they ought to be arranged under heads of equal value." A characteristic remark occurs in reference to Geographical Distribution, "that noble subject of which we as yet but dimly see the full bearing." The following letter seems to be of sufficient interest to be published in spite of the obscurities caused by the want of date. It seems to have been written after 1847, in which year a dispute involving Dr. King and several "arctic gentlemen" was carried on in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin speaks of "Natural History Instructions for the present expedition." This may possibly refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), for it is clear, from the prefatory memorandum of the Lords of the Admiralty, that they believed the manual would be of use in the forthcoming expeditions in search of Sir John Franklin.) LETTER 24. TO E. CRESY. (24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we believe, an architect: his friendship with Mr. Darwin dates from the settlement at Down.) Down [after 1847]. Although I have never particularly attended to the points in dispute between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, yet I have carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum," and took from them much the same impression as you convey in your letter, for which I thank you. I believe that old sinner, Sir J. Barrow (24/3. Sir John Barrow, (1764-1848): Secretary to the Admiralty. has been at the bottom of all the money wasted over the naval expeditions. So strongly have I felt on this subject, that, when I was appointed on a committee for Nat. Hist. instructions for the present expedition, had I been able to attend I had resolved to express my opinion on the little advantage, comparatively to the expense, gained by them. There have been, I believe, from the beginning eighteen expeditions; this strikes me as monstrous, considering how little is known, for instance, on the interior of Australia. The country has paid dear for Sir John's hobbyhorse. I have very little doubt that Dr. King is quite right in the advantage of land expeditions as far as geography is concerned; and that is now the chief object. (24/4. This sentence would imply that Darwin thought it hopeless to rescue Sir J. Franklin's expedition. If so, the letter must be, at least, as late as 1850. If the eighteen expeditions mentioned above are "search expeditions," it would also bring the date of the letter to 1850.) LETTER 25. TO RICHARD OWEN. Down [March 26th, 1848]. My dear Owen I do not know whether your MS. instructions are sent in; but even if they are not sent in, I daresay what I am going to write will be absolutely superfluous (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience given in the above letter were embodied by Prof. Owen in the section "On the Use of the Microscope on Board Ship," forming part of the article "Zoology" in the "Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy" (London, 1849).), but I have derived such infinitely great advantage from my new simple microscope, in comparison with the one which I used on board the "Beagle," and which was recommended to me by R. Brown ("Life and Letters," I., page 145.), that I cannot forego the mere chance of advantage of urging this on you. The leading point of difference consists simply in having the stage for saucers very large and fixed. Mine will hold a saucer three inches in inside diameter. I have never seen such a microscope as mine, though Chevalier's (from whose plan many points of mine are taken), of Paris, approaches it pretty closely. I fully appreciate the utter ABSURDITY of my giving you advice about means of dissecting; but I have appreciated myself the enormous disadvantage of having worked with a bad instrument, though thought a few years since the best. Please to observe that without you call especial attention to this point, those ignorant of Natural History will be sure to get one of the fiddling instruments sold in shops. If you thought fit, I would point out the differences, which, from my experience, make a useful microscope for the kind of dissection of the invertebrates which a person would be likely to attempt on board a vessel. But pray again believe that I feel the absurdity of this letter, and I write merely from the chance of yourself, possessing great skill and having worked with good instruments, [not being] possibly fully aware what an astonishing difference the kind of microscope makes for those who have not been trained in skill for dissection under water. When next I come to town (I was prevented last time by illness) I must call on you, and report, for my own satisfaction, a really (I think) curious point I have made out in my beloved barnacles. You cannot tell how much I enjoyed my talk with you here. Ever, my dear Owen, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. P.S.--If I do not hear, I shall understand that my letter is superfluous. Smith and Beck were so pleased with the simple microscope they made for me, that they have made another as a model. If you are consulted by any young naturalists, do recommend them to look at this. I really feel quite a personal gratitude to this form of microscope, and quite a hatred to my old one. LETTER 26. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down [April 1st, 1848.] Thank you for your note and giving me a chance of seeing you in town; but it was out of my power to take advantage of it, for I had previously arranged to go up to London on Monday. I should have much enjoyed seeing you. Thanks also for your address (26/1. An introductory lecture delivered in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving instructions to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of science, and more especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev. J.S. Henslow," by Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much. The anecdote about Whewell and the tides I had utterly forgotten; I believe it is near enough to the truth. I rather demur to one sentence of yours--viz., "However delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet, if it should be wholly unapplied, it is of no more use than building castles in the air." Would not your hearers infer from this that the practical use of each scientific discovery ought to be immediate and obvious to make it worthy of admiration? What a beautiful instance chloroform is of a discovery made from purely scientific researches, afterwards coming almost by chance into practical use! For myself I would, however, take higher ground, for I believe there exists, and I feel within me, an instinct for truth, or knowledge or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue, and that our having such an instinct is reason enough for scientific researches without any practical results ever ensuing from them. You will wonder what makes me run on so, but I have been working very hard for the last eighteen months on the anatomy, etc., of the Cirripedia (on which I shall publish a monograph), and some of my friends laugh at me, and I fear the study of the Cirripedia will ever remain "wholly unapplied," and yet I feel that such study is better than castle-building. LETTER 27. TO J.D. HOOKER, at Dr. Falconer's, Botanic Garden, Calcutta. Down, May 10th, 1848. I was indeed delighted to see your handwriting; but I felt almost sorry when I beheld how long a letter you had written. I know that you are indomitable in work, but remember how precious your time is, and do not waste it on your friends, however much pleasure you may give them. Such a letter would have cost me half-a-day's work. How capitally you seem going on! I do envy you the sight of all the glorious vegetation. I am much pleased and surprised that you have been able to observe so much in the animal world. No doubt you keep a journal, and an excellent one it will be, I am sure, when published. All these animal facts will tell capitally in it. I can quite comprehend the difficulty you mention about not knowing what is known zoologically in India; but facts observed, as you will observe them, are none the worse for reiterating. Did you see Mr. Blyth in Calcutta? He would be a capital man to tell you what is known about Indian Zoology, at least in the Vertebrata. He is a very clever, odd, wild fellow, who will never do what he could do, from not sticking to any one subject. By the way, if you should see him at any time, try not to forget to remember me very kindly to him; I liked all I saw of him. Your letter was the very one to charm me, with all its facts for my Species-book, and truly obliged I am for so kind a remembrance of me. Do not forget to make enquiries about the origin, even if only traditionally known, of any varieties of domestic quadrupeds, birds, silkworms, etc. Are there domestic bees? if so hives ought to be brought home. Of all the facts you mention, that of the wild [illegible], when breeding with the domestic, producing offspring somewhat sterile, is the most surprising: surely they must be different species. Most zoologists would absolutely disbelieve such a statement, and consider the result as a proof that they were distinct species. I do not go so far as that, but the case seems highly improbable. Blyth has studied the Indian Ruminantia. I have been much struck about what you say of lowland plants ascending mountains, but the alpine not descending. How I do hope you will get up some mountains in Borneo; how curious the result will be! By the way, I never heard from you what affinity the Maldive flora has, which is cruel, as you tempted me by making me guess. I sometimes groan over your Indian journey, when I think over all your locked up riches. When shall I see a memoir on Insular floras, and on the Pacific? What a grand subject Alpine floras of the world (27/1. Mr. William Botting Hemsley, F.R.S., of the Royal Gardens, Kew, is now engaged on a monograph of the high-level Alpine plants of the world.) would be, as far as known; and then you have never given a coup d'oeil on the similarity and dissimilarity of Arctic and Antarctic floras. Well, thank heavens, when you do come back you will be nolens volens a fixture. I am particularly glad you have been at the Coal; I have often since you went gone on maundering on the subject, and I shall never rest easy in Down churchyard without the problem be solved by some one before I die. Talking of dying makes me tell you that my confounded stomach is much the same; indeed, of late has been rather worse, but for the last year, I think, I have been able to do more work. I have done nothing besides the barnacles, except, indeed, a little theoretical paper on erratic boulders (27/2. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a Lower to a Higher Level" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., pages 315-23. 1848). In this paper Darwin favours the view that the transport of boulders was effected by coast-ice. An earlier paper entitled "Notes on the Effects produced by the ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by floating Ice" ("Phil. Mag." 1842, page 352) is spoken of by Sir Archibald Geikie as standing "almost at the top of the long list of English contributions to the history of the Ice Age" ("Charles Darwin," "Nature" Series, page 23).), and Scientific Geological Instructions for the Admiralty Volume (27/3. "A manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General." Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. Section VI.--Geology--by Charles Darwin. London, 1849. See "Life and Letters," pages 328-9.), which cost me some trouble. This work, which is edited by Sir J. Herschel, is a very good job, inasmuch as the captains of men-of-war will now see that the Admiralty cares for science, and so will favour naturalists on board. As for a man who is not scientific by nature, I do not believe instructions will do him any good; and if he be scientific and good for anything the instructions will be superfluous. I do not know who does the Botany; Owen does the Zoology, and I have sent him an account of my new simple microscope, which I consider perfect, even better than yours by Chevalier. N.B. I have got a 1/8 inch object-glass, and it is grand. I have been getting on well with my beloved Cirripedia, and get more skilful in dissection. I have worked out the nervous system pretty well in several genera, and made out their ears and nostrils (27/4. For the olfactory sacs see Darwin's "Monograph of the Cirripedia," 1851, page 52.), which were quite unknown. I have lately got a bisexual cirripede, the male being microscopically small and parasitic within the sack of the female. I tell you this to boast of my species theory, for the nearest closely allied genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I had observed some minute parasites adhering to it, and these parasites I now can show are supplemental males, the male organs in the hermaphrodite being unusually small, though perfect and containing zoosperms: so we have almost a polygamous animal, simple females alone being wanting. I never should have made this out, had not my species theory convinced me, that an hermaphrodite species must pass into a bisexual species by insensibly small stages; and here we have it, for the male organs in the hermaphrodite are beginning to fail, and independent males ready formed. But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you will perhaps wish my barnacles and species theory al Diavolo together. But I don't care what you say, my species theory is all gospel. We have had only one party here: viz., of the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both missed you and Falconer very much...I know more of your history than you will suppose, for Miss Henslow most good-naturedly sent me a packet of your letters, and she wrote me so nice a little note that it made me quite proud. I have not heard of anything in the scientific line which would interest you. Sir H. De la Beche (27/5. The Presidential Address delivered by De la Beche before the Geological Society in 1848 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., "Proceedings," page xxi, 1848).) gave a very long and rather dull address; the most interesting part was from Sir J. Ross. Mr. Beete Jukes figured in it very prominently: it really is a very nice quality in Sir Henry, the manner in which he pushes forward his subordinates. Jukes has since read what was considered a very valuable paper. The man, not content with moustaches, now sports an entire beard, and I am sure thinks himself like Jupiter tonans. There was a short time since a not very creditable discussion at a meeting of the Royal Society, where Owen fell foul of Mantell with fury and contempt about belemnites. What wretched doings come from the order of fame; the love of truth alone would never make one man attack another bitterly. My paper is full, so I must wish you with all my heart farewell. Heaven grant that your health may keep good. LETTER 28. TO J.S. HENSLOW. The Lodge, Malvern, May 6th, 1849. Your kind note has been forwarded to me here. You will be surprised to hear that we all--children, servants, and all--have been here for nearly two months. All last autumn and winter my health grew worse and worse: incessant sickness, tremulous hands, and swimming head. I thought I was going the way of all flesh. Having heard of much success in some cases from the cold-water cure, I determined to give up all attempts to do anything and come here and put myself under Dr. Gully. It has answered to a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable strength gained. Dr. G., moreover (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently), tells me he has little doubt but that he can cure me in the course of time--time, however, it will take. I have experienced enough to feel sure that the cold-water cure is a great and powerful agent and upsetter of all constitutional habits. Talking of habits, the cruel wretch has made me leave off snuff--that chief solace of life. We thank you most sincerely for your prompt and early invitation to Hitcham for the British Association for 1850 (28/1. The invitation was probably not for 1850, but for 1851, when the Association met at Ipswich.): if I am made well and strong, most gladly will I accept it; but as I have been hitherto, a drive every day of half a dozen miles would be more than I could stand with attending any of the sections. I intend going to Birmingham (28/2. The Association met at Birmingham in 1849.) if able; indeed, I am bound to attempt it, for I am honoured beyond all measure in being one of the Vice-Presidents. I am uncommonly glad you will be there; I fear, however, we shall not have any such charming trips as Nuneham and Dropmore. (28/3. In a letter to Hooker (October 12th, 1849) Darwin speaks of "that heavenly day at Dropmore." ("Life and Letters," I., page 379.)) We shall stay here till at least June 1st, perhaps till July 1st; and I shall have to go on with the aqueous treatment at home for several more months. One most singular effect of the treatment is that it induces in most people, and eminently in my case, the most complete stagnation of mind. I have ceased to think even of barnacles! I heard some time since from Hooker...How capitally he seems to have succeeded in all his enterprises! You must be very busy now. I happened to be thinking the other day over the Gamlingay trip to the Lilies of the Valley (28/4. The Lily of the Valley (Convallaria majalis) is recorded from Gamlingay by Professor Babington in his "Flora of Cambridgeshire," page 234. (London, 1860.)): ah, those were delightful days when one had no such organ as a stomach, only a mouth and the masticating appurtenances. I am very much surprised at what you say, that men are beginning to work in earnest [at] Botany. What a loss it will be for Natural History that you have ceased to reside all the year in Cambridge! LETTER 29. TO J.F. ROYLE. Down, September 1st [184-?]. I return you with very many thanks your valuable work. I am sure I have not lost any slip or disarranged the loose numbers. I have been interested by looking through the volumes, though I have not found quite so much as I had thought possible about the varieties of the Indian domestic animals and plants, and the attempts at introduction have been too recent for the effects (if any) of climate to have been developed. I have, however, been astonished and delighted at the evidence of the energetic attempts to do good by such numbers of people, and most of them evidently not personally interested in the result. Long may our rule flourish in India. I declare all the labour shown in these transactions is enough by itself to make one proud of one's countrymen... LETTER 30. TO HUGH STRICKLAND. (30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland, beginning at page 365, where a biographical note by Professor Newton is also given. Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841 he brought the subject of Natural History Nomenclature before the British Association, and prepared the code of rules for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his name--the principles of which are very generally accepted." Mr. Darwin's reasons against appending the describer's name to that of the species are given in "Life and Letters," page 366. The present letter is of interest as giving additional details in regard to Darwin's difficulties.) Down, February 10th [1849]. I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not think of) I cannot do it, my pen won't write it--it is impossible. I have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong dates in Agassiz and to my having to run several genera into one; for I have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so without I found others approved, and in some public way; nor indeed is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which fortunately I have in many cases in the British Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, in never putting mihi or Darwin after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving no authors' names at all, as the systematic part will serve for those who want to know the history of the species as far as I can imperfectly work it out. I have had a note from W. Thompson (30/2. Mr. Thompson is described in the preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian of Ireland.") this morning, and he tells me Ogleby has some scheme identical almost with mine. I feel pretty sure there is a growing general aversion to the appendage of author's name, except in cases where necessary. Now at this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name and no reference--such are hopelessly inconvenient; but I declare I would rather (as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work than to the original author, for I have cases of this which hardly help me at all, for I know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign papers. On the other hand, one can get hold of most systematic works and so follow up the scent, and a species does not long lie buried exclusively in a paper. I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much. I have a case, but [it is one] about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as assent. Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma; [Oken] in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus. (30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a multitude of subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers. I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British Association Report" for this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to receive another species--though the cases are somewhat different. I should have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into two genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two would have been retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two species... P.S.--Will you by silence give consent to the following? Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes first. Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division. Now, if I were to use Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera.) I should get rid of the difficulty of the second edition of Hill and of the difficulty of Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description is equally applicable to Anatifera and Balanus, though the latter stands first. Must the mere precedence rigorously outweigh the apparent opinion of many old naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Balanus, I cannot. Every one will understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, so that convenience would be wonderfully thus suited. If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your consent. LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. (31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning, has interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your old thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred to, which at our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.) Kew, March 1st, 1854. Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.) has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to write to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a misgiving that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however kindly I knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been present to me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic voyage, out of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me since; nor would it, I think, had I never known more of you than by report and as the author of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of the gratification I felt in getting the book out, I know no greater than your kind, hearty acceptation of the dedication; and, had the reviewers gibbeted me, the dedication would alone have given me real pain. I have no wish to assume a stoical indifference to public opinion, for I am well alive to it, and the critics might have irritated me sorely, but they could never have caused me the regret that the association of your name with a bad book of mine would have. You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the meridian of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I nourished and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new country, and write such a respectable account of its natural features as should give me a niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe I inhabit, and hand my name down as a useful contributor of original matter. A combination of most rare advantages has enabled me to gain as much of my object as contents me, for I never wished to be greatest amongst you, nor did rivalry ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object has ever been present to me in this pursuit. My ambition is fully gratified by the satisfactory completion of my task, and I am now happy to go on jog-trot at Botany till the end of my days--downhill, in one sense, all the way. I shall never have such another object to work for, nor shall I feel the want of it...As it is, the craving of thirty years is satisfied, and I now look back on life in a way I never could previously. There never was a past hitherto to me. The phantom was always in view; mayhap it is only a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it is big enough for me... (PLATE: T.H. HUXLEY, 1857. Maull & Polyblank photo., Walker & Cockerell ph. sc.) (32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the interesting biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the relationship between this pair of friends to which any words of ours can add but little. Darwin realised to the full the essential strength of Mr. Huxley's nature; he knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate sense of honour of his friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his guidance in practical matters, as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's dialectical and literary skill he was an enthusiastic admirer, and he never forgot what his theories owed to the fighting powers of his "general agent." (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's estimate of Darwin is very interesting: he valued him most highly for what was so strikingly characteristic of himself--the love of truth. He spoke of finding in him "something bigger than ordinary humanity--an unequalled simplicity and directness of purpose--a sublime unselfishness." (32/4. Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death, and goes on: "Of all the people whom I have met with in my life, he and Darwin are the two in whom I have found," etc.) The same point of view comes out in Huxley's estimate of Darwin's mental power. (32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a clear, rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of truth." This, as an analysis of Darwin's mental equipment, seems to us incomplete, though we do not pretend to mend it. We do not think it is possible to dissect and label the complex qualities which go to make up that which we all recognise as genius. But, if we may venture to criticise, we would say that Mr. Huxley's words do not seem to cover that supreme power of seeing and thinking what the rest of the world had overlooked, which was one of Darwin's most striking characteristics. As throwing light on the quality of their friendship, we give below a letter which has already appeared in the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley gives an account of the breakdown in health which convinced Huxley's friends that rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr. L. Huxley aptly remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does more honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's "Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000 pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for him.")) LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873. My dear Huxley I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to inform you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the sum of 2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this to enable you to get such complete rest as you may require for the re-establishment of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act for the public interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest desires. Let me assure you that we are all your warm personal friends, and that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst us. If you could have heard what was said, or could have read what was, as I believe, our inmost thoughts, you would know that we all feel towards you, as we should to an honoured and much loved brother. I am sure that you will return this feeling, and will therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of aiding you in some degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day of our lives. Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at nearly the same time and quite independently of one another. My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN. LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series addressed to Mr. Huxley.) Down, April 23rd [1854]. My dear Sir I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and know not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are of the smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought my notes would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few points as perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The bottle shall go to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier. I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper of Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc." ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have read it all with much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make any remarks on a subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can see its high importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3. Huxley defines his use of the word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I mean is the conception of a form embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed respecting the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, at once, imaginary and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of each great class, I cannot doubt, is one of the very highest ends of Natural History; and certainly most interesting to the worker-out. Several of your remarks have interested me: I am, however, surprised at what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4. The passage referred to is at page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles," 1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and therefore capable [of] and generally undergoing further development. Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with any analogous facts? I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms everything of any importance stated in that volume--more especially I have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube, passes into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see "Life and Letters," III., page 2.) Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the smallest belief in it. LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, [1854]. My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send another book then to Mr. Baily. And now I want to ask you a favour--namely, to answer me two questions. As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about any of them. My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,--it is whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist members. I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters," II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man" referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's "Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other good, spreads the taste for Natural Science. But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so unphilosophical. How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read it! I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in its truth. LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1854]. With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or "the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren. LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd [1854]. I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely discussing such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me some advantages in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read any discussion on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum." Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed some such question. Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known, which they are not.) But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have alluded to, viz., that of fish--but my ideas are not clear enough, and I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble the larval or embryological stages of the existing. I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity" (36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick--it is like "magnetism" turning a table. If I can think of any one likely to take your "Illustrations" (36/3. "Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart." Folio, 1855.), I will send the advertisement. If you want to make up some definite number so as to go to press, I will put my name down with PLEASURE (and I hope and believe that you will trust me in saying so), though I should not in the course of nature subscribe to any horticultural work:--act for me. LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May] 29th, 1854. I am really truly sorry to hear about your [health]. I entreat you to write down your own case,--symptoms, and habits of life,--and then consider your case as that of a stranger; and I put it to you, whether common sense would not order you to take more regular exercise and work your brain less. (N.B. Take a cold bath and walk before breakfast.) I am certain in the long run you would not lose time. Till you have a thoroughly bad stomach, you will not know the really great evil of it, morally, physically, and every way. Do reflect and act resolutely. Remember your troubled heart-action formerly plainly told how your constitution was tried. But I will say no more--excepting that a man is mad to risk health, on which everything, including his children's inherited health, depends. Do not hate me for this lecture. Really I am not surprised at your having some headache after Thursday evening, for it must have been no small exertion making an abstract of all that was said after dinner. Your being so engaged was a bore, for there were several things that I should have liked to have talked over with you. It was certainly a first-rate dinner, and I enjoyed it extremely, far more than I expected. Very far from disagreeing with me, my London visits have just lately taken to suit my stomach admirably; I begin to think that dissipation, high-living, with lots of claret, is what I want, and what I had during the last visit. We are going to act on this same principle, and in a very profligate manner have just taken a pair of season-tickets to see the Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen Victoria opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) How I wish there was any chance of your being there! The last grand thing we were at together answered, I am sure, very well, and that was the Duke's funeral. Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes was appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the "Scotsman" (lent me by Horner)? it is really ADMIRABLY done, though without anything, perhaps, very original, which could hardly be expected: it has given me even a higher opinion than I before had, of the variety and polish of his intellect. It is, indeed, an irreparable loss to London natural history society. I wish, however, he would not praise so much that old brown dry stick Jameson. Altogether, to my taste, it is much the best introductory lecture I have ever read. I hear his anniversary address is very good. Adios, my dear Hooker; do be wise and good, and be careful of your stomach, within which, as I know full well, lie intellect, conscience, temper, and the affections. LETTER 38. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd [1854]. You are a pretty fellow to talk of funking the returning thanks at the dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph in 1854.) I heard that it was decidedly the best speech of the evening, given "with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and that you showed great self-possession: was the latter the proverbially desperate courage of a coward? But you are a pretty fellow to be so desperately afraid and then to make the crack speech. Many such an ordeal may you have to go through! I do not know whether Sir William [Hooker] would be contented with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the Royal Society 1848-54.) speech on giving you the medal; but I am very much pleased with it, and really the roll of what you have done was, I think, splendid. What a great pity he half spoiled it by not having taken the trouble just to read it over first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August Wilhelm Hofmann, the other medallist of 1854.) came off in this respect even worse. It is really almost arrogant insolence against every one not an astronomer. The next morning I was at a very pleasant breakfast party at Sir R. Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association in 1847. Apparently Darwin was present at the afternoon meeting, but not at the dinner.) I have received, with very many thanks, the aberrant genera; but I have not had time to consider them, nor your remarks on Australian botanical geography. LETTER 39. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the adjudication of the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last during which he served on the Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.) Down, March 31st, 1855. I have thought and enquired much about Westwood, and I really think he amply deserves the gold medal. But should you think of some one with higher claim I am quite ready to give up. Indeed, I suppose without I get some one to second it, I cannot propose him. Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed, and return it to me? Should I send it to Bell? That is, without you demur or convince me. I had thought of Hancock, a higher class of labourer; but, as far as I can weigh, he has not, as yet, done so much as Westwood. I may state that I read the whole "Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the Council, and ever thought on the subject of medals. I fear my remarks are rather lengthy, but to do him justice I could not well shorten them. Pray tell me frankly whether the enclosed is the right sort of thing, for though I was once on the Council of the Royal, I never attended any meetings, owing to bad health. With respect to the Copley medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was given to Lyell in 1858.), I have a strong feeling that Lyell has a high claim, but as he has had the Royal Medal I presume that it would be thought objectionable to propose him; and as I intend (you not objecting and converting me) to propose W. for the Royal, it would, of course, appear intolerably presumptuous to propose for the Copley also. LETTER 40. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 10th, 1855. Shall you attend the Council of the Royal Society on Thursday next? I have not been very well of late, and I doubt whether I can attend; and if I could do anything (pray conceal the scandalous fact), I want to go to the Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a party. So I want to know whether you will speak for me most strongly for Barrande. You know better than I do his admirable labours on the development of trilobites, and his most important work on his Lower or Primordial Zone. I enclose an old note of Lyell's to show what he thinks. With respect to Dana, whom I also proposed, you know well his merits. I can speak most highly of his classificatory work on crustacea and his Geographical Distribution. His Volcanic Geology is admirable, and he has done much good work on coral reefs. If you attend, do not answer this; but if you cannot be at the Council, please inform me, and I suppose I must, if I can, attend. Thank you for your abstract of your lecture at the Royal Institution, which interested me much, and rather grieved me, for I had hoped things had been in a slight degree otherwise. (40/1. "On certain Zoological Arguments commonly adduced in favour of the hypothesis of the Progressive Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20, 1855: "Proceedings R.I." (1855). Published also in "Huxley's Scientific Memoirs." The lecturer dwelt chiefly on the argument of Agassiz, which he summarises as follows: "Homocercal fishes have in their embryonic state heterocercal tails; therefore heterocercality is, so far, a mark of an embryonic state as compared with homocercality, and the earlier heterocercal fish are embryonic as compared with the later homocercal." He shows that facts do not support this view, and concludes generally "that there is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in the development of the life of the individual at present and those which have appeared at different epochs in the past.") I heard some time ago that before long I might congratulate you on becoming a married man. (40/2. Mr. Huxley was married July 21st, 1855.) From my own experience of some fifteen years, I am very sure that there is nothing in this wide world which more deserves congratulation, and most sincerely and heartily do I congratulate you, and wish you many years of as much happiness as this world can afford. LETTER 41. TO J.D. HOOKER. (41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on aberrant genera. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which, on my theory, have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we have some evidence of aberrant forms having suffered severely from extinction, for they are generally represented by extremely few species; and such species as do occur are generally very distinct from each other, which again implies extinction.") Down, November 15th [1855?]. In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), the 6,717 species are on an average 10.17 to a genus. Waterhouse (who knows the group well, and who has published on fewness of species in aberrant genera) has given me a list of 62 aberrant genera, and these have on an average 7.6 species; and if one single genus be removed (and which I cannot yet believe ought to be considered aberrant), then the 61 aberrant genera would have only 4.91 species on an average. I tested these results in another way. I found in Schoenherr 9 families, including only 11 genera, and these genera (9 of which were in Waterhouse's list) I found included only 3.36 species on an average. This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," in which I found (excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera include each 10.46 species (how near by chance to the Curculionidae), and I find 21 orders including single genera, and these 21 genera have on average 7.95 species; but if Lindley is right that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species) ought to be amongst the Malpighiads, then the average would be only 4.6 per genus. But here comes, as it appears to me, an odd thing (I hope I shall not quite weary you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera, and these 58 genera have on an average 15.07 species: this great number being owing to the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220 species), Begoniaceae, Balsaminaceae, Grossulariaceae, without which the remaining 48 genera have on an average only 5.91 species. This case of the orders with only 2 genera, the genera notwithstanding having 15.07 species each, seems to me very perplexing and upsets, almost, the conclusion deducible from the orders with single genera. I have gone higher, and tested the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders; and in these cases I find both the genera few in each alliance, and the species, less than the average of the whole kingdom, in each genus. All this has amused me, but I daresay you will have a good sneer at me, and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, you agree with me that sometimes one gets despondent--for instance, when theory and facts will not harmonise; but what appears to me even worse, and makes me despair, is, when I see from the same great class of facts, men like Barrande deduce conclusions, such as his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly refers to Barrande's Bohemian work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to Fleming ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me on the spot his remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian fossils, 3,400 feet deep, in the midst of the Lower Silurian group. This has made a great noise, but I think I can explain away the supposed anomaly by, etc." (See Letter 40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de Beaumont's lines of Elevation, or such men as Forbes with his Polarity (41/4. Edward Forbes "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time" ("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII., 1854, page 332). The author points out that "the maximum development of generic types during the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier epochs; that during the Neozoic period towards its later periods." Thus the two periods of activity are conceived to be at the two opposite poles of a sphere which in some way represents for him the system of Nature.); I have not a doubt that before many months are over I shall be longing for the most dishonest species as being more honest than the honestest theories. One remark more. If you feel any interest, or can get any one else to feel any interest on the aberrant genera question, I should think the most interesting way would be to take aberrant genera in any great natural family, and test the average number of species to the genera in that family. How I wish we lived near each other! I should so like a talk with you on geographical distribution, taken in its greatest features. I have been trying from land productions to take a very general view of the world, and I should so like to see how far it agrees with plants. LETTER 42. TO MRS. LYELL. (42/1. Mrs. Lyell is a daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and widow of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, a brother of Sir Charles.) Down, January 26th [1856]. I shall be very glad to be of any sort of use to you in regard to the beetles. But first let me thank you for your kind note and offer of specimens to my children. My boys are all butterfly hunters; and all young and ardent lepidopterists despise, from the bottom of their souls, coleopterists. The simplest plan for your end and for the good of entomology, I should think, would be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British Museum on condition that a perfect set was made out for you. If the collection was at all valuable, I should think he would be very glad to have this done. Whether any third set would be worth making out would depend on the value of the collection. I do not suppose that you expect the insects to be named, for that would be a most serious labour. If you do not approve of this scheme, I should think it very likely that Mr. Waterhouse would think it worth his while to set a series for you, retaining duplicates for himself; but I say this only on a venture. You might trust Mr. Waterhouse implicitly, which I fear, as [illegible] goes, is more than can be said for all entomologists. I presume, if you thought of either scheme, Sir Charles Lyell could easily see the gentlemen and arrange it; but, if not, I could do so when next I come to town, which, however, will not be for three or four weeks. With respect to giving your children a taste for Natural History, I will venture one remark--viz., that giving them specimens in my opinion would tend to destroy such taste. Youngsters must be themselves collectors to acquire a taste; and if I had a collection of English lepidoptera, I would be systematically most miserly, and not give my boys half a dozen butterflies in the year. Your eldest has the brow of an observer, if there be the least truth in phrenology. We are all better, but we have been of late a poor household. LETTER 43. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1855]. I should have less scruple in troubling you if I had any confidence what my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, at other times I really feel as much ashamed of myself as the author of the "Vestiges" ought to be of himself. I know well that your kindness and friendship would make you do a great deal for me, but that is no reason that I should be unreasonable. I cannot and ought not to forget that all your time is employed in work certain to be valuable. It is superfluous in me to say that I enjoy exceedingly writing to you, and that your answers are of the greatest possible service to me. I return with many thanks the proof on Aquilegia (43/1. This seems to refer to the discussion on the genus Aquilegia in Hooker and Thomson's "Flora Indica," 1855, Volume I., Systematic Part, page 44. The authors' conclusion is that "all the European and many of the Siberian forms generally recognised belong to one very variable species." With regard to cirripedes, Mr. Darwin spoke of "certain just perceptible differences which blend together and constitute varieties and not species" ("Life and Letters," I., page 379).): it has interested me much. It is exactly like my barnacles; but for my particular purpose, most unfortunately, both Kolreuter and Gartner have worked chiefly on A. vulgaris and canadensis and atro-purpurea, and these are just the species that you seem not to have studied. N.B. Why do you not let me buy the Indian Flora? You are too magnificent. Now for a short ride on my chief (at present) hobbyhorse, viz. aberrant genera. What you say under your remarks on Lepidodendron seems just the case that I want, to give some sort of evidence of what we both believe in, viz. how groups came to be anomalous or aberrant; and I think some sort of proof is required, for I do not believe very many naturalists would at all admit our view. Thank you for the caution on large anomalous genera first catching attention. I do not quite agree with your "grave objection to the whole process," which is "that if you multiply the anomalous species by 100, and divide the normal by the same, you will then reverse the names..." For, to take an example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna would not be less aberrant if each had a dozen (I do not say 100, because we have no such cases in the animal kingdom) species instead of one. What would really make these two genera less anomalous would be the creation of many genera and sub-families round and radiating from them on all sides. Thus if Australia were destroyed, Didelphys in S. America would be wonderfully anomalous (this is your case with Proteaceae), whereas now there are so many genera and little sub-families of Marsupiata that the group cannot be called aberrant or anomalous. Sagitta (and the earwig) is one of the most anomalous animals in the world, and not a bit the less because there are a dozen species. Now, my point (which, I think is a slightly new point of view) is, if it is extinction which has made the genus anomalous, as a general rule the same causes of extinction would allow the existence of only a few species in such genera. Whenever we meet (which will be on the 23rd [at the] Club) I shall much like to hear whether this strikes you as sound. I feel all the time on the borders of a circle of truism. Of course I could not think of such a request, but you might possibly:--if Bentham does not think the whole subject rubbish, ask him some time to pick out the dozen most anomalous genera in the Leguminosae, or any great order of which there is a monograph by which I could calculate the ordinary percentage of species to genera. I am the more anxious, as the more I enquire, the fewer are the cases in which it can be done. It cannot be done in birds, or, I fear, in mammifers. I doubt much whether in any other class of insects [other than Curculionidae]. I saw your nice notice of poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and I see in the "Athenaeum" a notice of meeting on last Saturday of his friends. Of course I shall wish to subscribe as soon as possible to any memorial... I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing parts. I have made [skeletons] of wild and tame duck (oh the smell of well-boiled, high duck!), and I find the tame duck ought, according to scale of wild prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight; but it has only 317, or 43 grains too little, or 1/7 of [its] own two wings too little in weight. This seems rather interesting to me. (43/2. On the conclusions drawn from these researches, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The Effects of Use and Disuse" (Nature Series), 1890, page 55. With regard to his pigeons, Darwin wrote, in November 1855: "I love them to that extent that I cannot bear to kill and skeletonise them.") P.S.--I do not know whether you will think this worth reading over. I have worked it out since writing my letter, and tabulate the whole. 21 orders with 1 genus, having 7.95 species (or 4.6?). 29 orders with 2 genera, having 15.05 species on an average. 23 orders each with 3 genera, and these genera include on an average 8.2 species. 20 orders each with 4 genera, and these genera include on an average 12.2 species. 27 orders each with above 50 genera (altogether 4716 genera), and these genera on an average have 9.97 species. From this I conclude, whether there be many or few genera in an order, the number of species in a genus is not much affected; but perhaps when [there is] only one genus in an order it will be affected, and this will depend whether the [genus] Erythroxylon be made a family of. LETTER 44. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th [1856]. I have been particularly glad to get your splendid eloge of Lindley. His name had been lately passing through my head, and I had hoped that Miers would have proposed him for the Royal medal. I most entirely agree that the Copley (44/1. The late Professor Lindley never attained the honour of the Copley medal. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1857.) is more appropriate, and I daresay he would not have valued the Royal. From skimming through many botanical books, and from often consulting the "Vegetable Kingdom," I had (ignorant as I am) formed the highest opinion of his claims as a botanist. If Sharpey will stick up strong for him, we should have some chance; but the natural sciences are but feebly represented in the Council. Sir P. Egerton, I daresay, would be strong for him. You know Bell is out. Now, my only doubt is, and I hope that you will consider this, that the natural sciences being weak on the Council, and (I fancy) the most powerful man in the Council, Col. S[abine], being strong against Lindley, whether we should have any chance of succeeding. It would be so easy to name some eminent man whose name would be well-known to all the physicists. Would Lindley hear of and dislike being proposed for the Copley and not succeeding? Would it not be better on this view to propose him for the Royal? Do think of this. Moreover, if Lindley is not proposed for the Royal, I fear both Royal medals would go [to] physicists; for I, for one, should not like to propose another zoologist, though Hancock would be a very good man, and I fancy there would be a feeling against medals to two botanists. But for whatever Lindley is proposed, I will do my best. We will talk this over here. LETTER 45. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 9th [1856]. ...With respect to Huxley, I was on the point of speaking to Crawford and Strezlecki (who will be on Committee of the Athenaeum) when I bethought me of how Owen would look and what he would say. Cannot you fancy him, with slow and gentle voice, asking "Will Mr. Crawford tell me what Mr. Huxley has done, deserving this honour; I only know that he differs from, and disputes the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and Agassiz as of no weight at all." And when I began to tell Mr. Crawford what to say, I was puzzled, and could refer him only to some excellent papers in the "Phil. Trans." for which the medal had been awarded. But I doubt, with an opposing faction, whether this would be considered enough, for I believe real scientific merit is not thought enough, without the person is generally well known. Now I want to hear what you deliberately think on this head: it would be bad to get him proposed and then rejected; and Owen is very powerful. LETTER 46. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1856]. I have got the Lectures, and have read them. (46/1. The reference is presumably to the Royal Institution Lectures given in 1854-56. Those which we have seen--namely, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs," Volume I.--"On the Common Plan of Animal Form," page 281; "On certain Zoological Arguments, etc." page 300; "On Natural History as Knowledge, Discipline, and Power," page 305, do not seem to us to contain anything likely to offend; but Falconer's attack in the "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist." June 1856, on the last-named lecture, shows strong feeling. A reply by Mr. Huxley appeared in the July number of the same Journal. The most heretical discussion from a modern standpoint is at page 311, where he asks how it is conceivable that the bright colours of butterflies and shells or the elegant forms of Foraminifera can possibly be of service to their possessors; and it is this which especially struck Darwin, judging by the pencil notes on his copy of the Lecture.) Though I believe, as far as my knowledge goes, that Huxley is right, yet I think his tone very much too vehement, and I have ventured to say so in a note to Huxley. I had not thought of these lectures in relation to the Athenaeum (46/2. Mr. Huxley was in 1858 elected to the Athenaeum Club under Rule 2, which provides for the annual election of "a certain number of persons of distinguished eminence in science, literature, or the arts, or for public services."), but I am inclined quite to agree with you, and that we had better pause before anything is said...(N.B. I found Falconer very indignant at the manner in which Huxley treated Cuvier in his Royal Institution lectures; and I have gently told Huxley so.) I think we had better do nothing: to try in earnest to get a great naturalist into the Athenaeum and fail, is far worse than doing nothing. How strange, funny, and disgraceful that nearly all (Faraday and Sir J. Herschel at least exceptions) our great men are in quarrels in couplets; it never struck me before... LETTER 47. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN. (47/1. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 72, is given a letter (June 16th, 1856) to Lyell, in which Darwin exhales his indignation over the "extensionists" who created continents ad libitum to suit the convenience of their theories. On page 74 a fuller statement of his views is given in a letter dated June 25th. We have not seen Lyell's reply to this, but his reply to Darwin's letter of June 16th is extant, and is here printed for the first time.) 53, Harley Street, London, June 17th, 1856. I wonder you did not also mention D. Sharpe's paper (47/2. "On the Last Elevation of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XII., 1856, page 102.), just published, by which the Alps were submerged as far as 9,000 feet of their present elevation above the sea in the Glacial period and then since uplifted again. Without admitting this, you would probably convey the alpine boulders to the Jura by marine currents, and if so, make the Alps and Jura islands in the glacial sea. And would not the Glacial theory, as now very generally understood, immerse as much of Europe as I did in my original map of Europe, when I simply expressed all the area which at some time or other had been under water since the commencement of the Eocene period? I almost suspect the glacial submergence would exceed it. But would not this be a measure of the movement in every other area, northern (arctic), antarctic, or tropical, during an equal period--oceanic or continental? For the conversion of sea into land would always equal the turning of much land into sea. But all this would be done in a fraction of the Pliocene period; the Glacial shells are barely 1 per cent. extinct species. Multiply this by the older Pliocene and Miocene epochs. You also forget an author who, by means of atolls, contrived to submerge archipelagoes (or continents?), the mountains of which must originally have differed from each other in height 8,000 (or 10,000?) feet, so that they all just rose to the surface at one level, or their sites are marked by buoys of coral. I could never feel sure whether he meant this tremendous catastrophe, all brought about by what Sedgwick called "Lyell's niggling operations," to have been effected during the era of existing species of corals. Perhaps you can tell me, for I am really curious to know...(47/3. The author referred to is of course Darwin.) Now, although there is nothing in my works to warrant the building up of continents in the Atlantic and Pacific even since the Eocene period, yet, as some of the rocks in the central Alps are in part Eocene, I begin to think that all continents and oceans may be chiefly, if not all, post-Eocene, and Dana's "Atlantic Ocean" of the Lower Silurian is childish (see the Anniversary Address, 1856). (47/4. Probably Dana's Anniversary Address to the "American Association for the Advancement of Science," published in the "Proceedings" 1856.) But how far you are at liberty to call up continents from "the vasty deep" as often as you want to convey a Helix from the United States to Europe in Miocene or Pliocene periods is a question; for the ocean is getting deeper of late, and Haughton says the mean depth is eleven miles! by his late paper on tides. (47/5. "On the Depth of the Sea deducible from Tidal Observations" ("Proc. Irish Acad." Volume VI., page 354, 1853-54).) I shall be surprised if this turns out true by soundings. I thought your mind was expanding so much in regard to time that you would have been going ahead in regard to the possibility of mountain-chains being created in a fraction of the period required to convert a swan into a goose, or vice versa. Nine feet did the Rimutaka chain of New Zealand gain in height in January, 1855, and a great earthquake has occurred in New Zealand every seven years for half a century nearly. The "Washingtonia" (Californian conifer) (47/6. Washingtonia, or Wellingtonia, better known as Sequoia. Asa Gray, writing in 1872, states his belief that "no Sequoia now alive can sensibly antedate the Christian era" ("Scientific Papers," II., page 144).) lately exhibited was four thousand years old, so that one individual might see a chain of hills rise, and rise with it, much [more] a species--and those islands which J. Hooker describes as covered with New Zealand plants three hundred (?) miles to the N.E. (?) of New Zealand may have been separated from the mainland two or three or four generations of Washingtonia ago. If the identity of the land-shells of all the hundreds of British Isles be owing to their having been united since the Glacial period, and the discordance, almost total, of the shells of Porto Santo and Madeira be owing to their having been separated [during] all the newer and possibly older Pliocene periods, then it gives us a conception of time which will aid you much in your conversion of species, if immensity of time will do all you require; for the Glacial period is thus shown, as we might have anticipated, to be contemptible in duration or in distance from us, as compared to the older Pliocene, let alone the Miocene, when our contemporary species were, though in a minority, already beginning to flourish. The littoral shells, according to MacAndrew, imply that Madeira and the Canaries were once joined to the mainland of Europe or Africa, but that those isles were disjoined so long ago that most of the species came in since. In short, the marine shells tell the same story as the land shells. Why do the plants of Porto Santo and Madeira agree so nearly? And why do the shells which are the same as European or African species remain quite unaltered, like the Crag species, which returned unchanged to the British seas after being expelled from them by glacial cold, when two millions (?) of years had elapsed, and after such migration to milder seas? Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter. LETTER 48. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th [1856]. I write this morning in great tribulation about Tristan d'Acunha. (48/1. See "Flora Antarctica," page 216. Though Tristan d'Acunha is "only 1,000 miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island is far more intimately allied to that of Fuegia than Africa.") The more I reflect on your Antarctic flora the more I am astounded. You give all the facts so clearly and fully, that it is impossible to help speculating on the subject; but it drives me to despair, for I cannot gulp down your continent; and not being able to do so gives, in my eyes, the multiple creationists an awful triumph. It is a wondrous case, and how strange that A. De Candolle should have ignored it; which he certainly has, as it seems to me. I wrote Lyell a long geological letter (48/2. "Life and Letters," II., page 74.) about continents, and I have had a very long and interesting answer; but I cannot in the least gather his opinion about all your continental extensionists; and I have written again beseeching a verdict. (48/3. In the tenth edition of the "Principles," 1872, Lyell added a chapter (Chapter XLI., page 406) on insular floras and faunas in relation to the origin of species; he here (page 410) gives his reasons against Forbes as an extensionist.) I asked him to send to you my letter, for as it was well copied it would not be troublesome to read; but whether worth reading I really do not know; I have given in it the reasons which make me strongly opposed to continental extensions. I was very glad to get your note some days ago: I wish you would think it worth while, as you intend to have the Laburnum case translated, to write to "Wien" (that unknown place) (48/4. There is a tradition that Darwin once asked Hooker where "this place Wien is, where they publish so many books."), and find out how the Laburnum has been behaving: it really ought to be known. The Entada is a beast. (48/5. The large seeds of Entada scandens are occasionally floated across the Atlantic and cast on the shores of Europe.); I have never differed from you about the growth of a plant in a new island being a FAR harder trial than transportal, though certainly that seems hard enough. Indeed I suspect I go even further than you in this respect; but it is too long a story. Thank you for the Aristolochia and Viscum cases: what species were they? I ask, because oddly these two very genera I have seen advanced as instances (I forget at present by whom, but by good men) in which the agency of insects was absolutely necessary for impregnation. In our British dioecious Viscum I suppose it must be necessary. Was there anything to show that the stigma was ready for pollen in these two cases? for it seems that there are many cases in which pollen is shed long before the stigma is ready. As in our Viscum, insects carry, sufficiently regularly for impregnation, pollen from flower to flower, I should think that there must be occasional crosses even in an hermaphrodite Viscum. I have never heard of bees and butterflies, only moths, producing fertile eggs without copulation. With respect to the Ray Society, I profited so enormously by its publishing my Cirrepedia, that I cannot quite agree with you on confining it to translations; I know not how else I could possibly have published. I have just sent in my name for 20 pounds to the Linnaean Society, but I must confess I have done it with heavy groans, whereas I daresay you gave your 20 pounds like a light-hearted gentleman... P.S. Wollaston speaks strongly about the intermediate grade between two varieties in insects and mollusca being often rarer than the two varieties themselves. This is obviously very important for me, and not easy to explain. I believe I have had cases from you. But, if you believe in this, I wish you would give me a sentence to quote from you on this head. There must, I think, be a good deal of truth in it; otherwise there could hardly be nearly distinct varieties under any species, for we should have instead a blending series, as in brambles and willows. LETTER 49. TO J.D. HOOKER. July 13th, 1856. What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature! With respect to crossing, from one sentence in your letter I think you misunderstand me. I am very far from believing in hybrids: only in crossing of the same species or of close varieties. These two or three last days I have been observing wheat, and have convinced myself that L. Deslongchamps is in error about impregnation taking place in closed flowers; i.e., of course, I can judge only from external appearances. By the way, R. Brown once told me that the use of the brush on stigma of grasses was unknown. Do you know its use?... You say most truly about multiple creations and my notions. If any one case could be proved, I should be smashed; but as I am writing my book, I try to take as much pains as possible to give the strongest cases opposed to me, and often such conjectures as occur to me. I have been working your books as the richest (and vilest) mine against me; and what hard work I have had to get up your New Zealand Flora! As I have to quote you so often, I should like to refer to Muller's case of the Australian Alps. Where is it published? Is it a book? A correct reference would be enough for me, though it is wrong even to quote without looking oneself. I should like to see very much Forbes's sheets, which you refer to; but I must confess (I hardly know why) I have got rather to mistrust poor dear Forbes. There is wonderful ill logic in his famous and admirable memoir on distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up so as to give the heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true one--viz. that a compiler is a great man, and an original man a commonplace man. Any fool can generalise and speculate; but oh, my heavens, to get up at second hand a New Zealand Flora, that is work... And now I am going to beg almost as great a favour as a man can beg of another: and I ask some five or six weeks before I want the favour done, that it may appear less horrid. It is to read, but well copied out, my pages (about forty!!) on Alpine floras and faunas, Arctic and Antarctic floras and faunas, and the supposed cold mundane period. It would be really an enormous advantage to me, as I am sure otherwise to make botanical blunders. I would specify the few points on which I most want your advice. But it is quite likely that you may object on the ground that you might be publishing before me (I hope to publish in a year at furthest), so that it would hamper and bother you; and secondly you may object to the loss of time, for I daresay it would take an hour and a half to read. It certainly would be of immense advantage to me; but of course you must not think of doing it if it would interfere with your own work. I do not consider this request in futuro as breaking my promise to give no more trouble for some time. From Lyell's letters, he is coming round at a railway pace on the mutability of species, and authorises me to put some sentences on this head in my preface. I shall meet Lyell on Wednesday at Lord Stanhope's, and will ask him to forward my letter to you; though, as my arguments have not struck him, they cannot have force, and my head must be crotchety on the subject; but the crotchets keep firmly there. I have given your opinion on continuous land, I see, too strongly. LETTER 50. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, July 18th [1856]. Very many thanks for your kindness in writing to me at such length, and I am glad to say for your sake that I do not see that I shall have to beg any further favours. What a range and what a variability in the Cyrena! (50/1. A genus of Lamellibranchs ranging from the Lias to the present day.) Your list of the ranges of the land and fresh-water shells certainly is most striking and curious, and especially as the antiquity of four of them is so clearly shown. I have got Harvey's seaside book, and liked it; I was not particularly struck with it, but I will re-read the first and last chapters. I am growing as bad as the worst about species, and hardly have a vestige of belief in the permanence of species left in me; and this confession will make you think very lightly of me, but I cannot help it. Such has become my honest conviction, though the difficulties and arguments against such heresy are certainly most weighty. LETTER 51. TO C. LYELL. November 10th [1856]. I know you like all cases of negative geological evidence being upset. I fancied that I was a most unwilling believer in negative evidence; but yet such negative evidence did seem to me so strong that in my "Fossil Lepadidae" I have stated, giving reasons, that I did not believe there could have existed any sessile cirripedes during the Secondary ages. Now, the other day Bosquet of Maestricht sends me a perfect drawing of a perfect Chthamalus (a recent genus) from the Chalk! (51/1. Chthamalus, a genus of Cirripedia. ("A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia," by Charles Darwin, page 447. London, 1854.) A fossil species of this genus of Upper Cretaceous age was named by Bosquet Chthamalus Darwini. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 284; also Zittel, "Traite de Paleontologie," Traduit par Dr. C. Barrois, Volume II., page 540, figure 748. Paris, 1887.) Indeed, it is stretching a point to make it specifically distinct from our living British species. It is a genus not hitherto found in any Tertiary bed. LETTER 52. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, July 9th, 1857. I am extremely much obliged to you for having so fully entered on my point. I knew I was on unsafe ground, but it proves far unsafer than I had thought. I had thought that Brulle (52/1. This no doubt refers to A. Brulle's paper in the "Comptes rendus" 1844, of which a translation is given in the "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1844, page 484. In speaking of the development of the Articulata, the author says "that the appendages are manifested at an earlier period of the existence of an Articulate animal the more complex its degree of organisation, and vice versa that they make their appearance the later, the fewer the number of transformations which it has to undergo.") had a wider basis for his generalisation, for I made the extract several years ago, and I presume (I state it as some excuse for myself) that I doubted it, for, differently from my general habit, I have not extracted his grounds. It was meeting with Barneoud's paper which made me think there might be truth in the doctrine. (52/2. Apparently Barneoud "On the Organogeny of Irregular Corollas," from the "Comptes rendus," 1847, as given in "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1847, page 440. The paper chiefly deals with the fact that in their earliest condition irregular flowers are regular. The view attributed to Barneoud does not seem so definitely given in this paper as in a previous one ("Ann. Sc. Nat." Bot., Tom. VI., page 268.) Your instance of heart and brain of fish seems to me very good. It was a very stupid blunder on my part not thinking of the posterior part of the time of development. I shall, of course, not allude to this subject, which I rather grieve about, as I wished it to be true; but, alas! a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections--a mere heart of stone. There is only one point in your letter which at present I cannot quite follow you in: supposing that Barneoud's (I do not say Brulle's) remarks were true and universal--i.e., that the petals which have to undergo the greatest amount of development and modification begin to change the soonest from the simple and common embryonic form of the petal--if this were a true law, then I cannot but think that it would throw light on Milne Edwards' proposition that the wider apart the classes of animals are, the sooner do they diverge from the common embryonic plan--which common embryonic [plan] may be compared with the similar petals in the early bud, the several petals in one flower being compared to the distinct but similar embryos of the different classes. I much wish that you would so far keep this in mind, that whenever we meet I might hear how far you differ or concur in this. I have always looked at Barneoud's and Brulle's proposition as only in some degree analogous. P.S. I see in my abstract of Milne Edwards' paper, he speaks of "the most perfect and important organs" as being first developed, and I should have thought that this was usually synonymous with the most developed or modified. LETTER 53. TO J.D. HOOKER. (53/1. The following letter is chiefly of interest as showing the amount and kind of work required for Darwin's conclusions on "large genera varying," which occupy no more than two or three pages in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 55). Some correspondence on the subject is given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 102-5.) Down, August 22nd [1857]. Your handwriting always rejoices the cockles of my heart; though you have no reason to be "overwhelmed with shame," as I did not expect to hear. I write now chiefly to know whether you can tell me how to write to Hermann Schlagenheit (is this spelt right?) (53/2. Schlagintweit.), for I believe he is returned to England, and he has poultry skins for me from W. Elliot of Madras. I am very glad to hear that you have been tabulating some Floras about varieties. Will you just tell me roughly the result? Do you not find it takes much time? I am employing a laboriously careful schoolmaster, who does the tabulating and dividing into two great cohorts, more carefully than I can. This being so, I should be very glad some time to have Koch, Webb's Canaries, and Ledebour, and Grisebach, but I do not know even where Rumelia is. I shall work the British flora with three separate Floras; and I intend dividing the varieties into two classes, as Asa Gray and Henslow give the materials, and, further, A. Gray and H.C. Watson have marked for me the forms, which they consider real species, but yet are very close to others; and it will be curious to compare results. If it will all hold good it is very important for me; for it explains, as I think, all classification, i.e. the quasi-branching and sub-branching of forms, as if from one root, big genera increasing and splitting up, etc., as you will perceive. But then comes in, also, what I call a principle of divergence, which I think I can explain, but which is too long, and perhaps you would not care to hear. As you have been on this subject, you might like to hear what very little is complete (for my schoolmaster has had three weeks' holidays)--only three cases as yet, I see. BABINGTON--British Flora. 593 species in genera of 5 and 593 (odd chance equal) in upwards have in a thousand genera of 3 and downwards have species presenting vars. in a thousand presenting vars. 134/1000.* 37/1000. (*53/3. This sentence may be interpreted as follows: The number of species which present varieties are 134 per thousand in genera of 5 species and upwards. The result is obtained from tabulation of 593 species.) HOOKER--New Zealand. Genera with 4 species and With 3 species and downwards upwards, 150/1000. 114/1000. GODRON--Central France. With 5 species and upwards With 3 species and downwards 160/1000. 105/1000. I do not enter into details on omitting introduced plants and very varying genera, as Rubus, Salix, Rosa, etc., which would make the result more in favour. I enjoyed seeing Henslow extremely, though I was a good way from well at the time. Farewell, my dear Hooker: do not forget your visit here some time. LETTER 54. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th [1857]. On Tuesday I will send off from London, whither I go on that day, Ledebour's three remaining volumes, Grisebach and Cybele, i.e., all that I have, and most truly am I obliged to you for them. I find the rule, as yet, of the species varying most in the large genera universal, except in Miquel's very brief and therefore imperfect list of the Holland flora, which makes me very anxious to tabulate a fuller flora of Holland. I shall remain in London till Friday morning, and if quite convenient to send me two volumes of D.C. Prodromus, I could take them home and tabulate them. I should think a volume with a large best known natural family, and a volume with several small broken families would be best, always supposing that the varieties are conspicuously marked in both. Have you the volume published by Lowe on Madeira? If so and if any varieties are marked I should much like to see it, to see if I can make out anything about habitats of vars. in so small an area--a point on which I have become very curious. I fear there is no chance of your possessing Forbes and Hancock "British Shells," a grand work, which I much wish to tabulate. Very many thanks for seed of Adlumia cirrhosa, which I will carefully observe. My notice in the G. Ch. on Kidney Beans (54.1 "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers" ("Gardeners' Chronicle," 1857, page 725).) has brought me a curious letter from an intelligent gardener, with a most remarkable lot of beans, crossed in a marvellous manner IN THE FIRST GENERATION, like the peas sent to you by Berkeley and like those experimentalised on by Gartner and by Wiegmann. It is a very odd case; I shall sow these seeds and see what comes up. How very odd that pollen of one form should affect the outer coats and size of the bean produced by pure species!... LETTER 55. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1857?]. You know how I work subjects: namely, if I stumble on any general remark, and if I find it confirmed in any other very distinct class, then I try to find out whether it is true,--if it has any bearing on my work. The following, perhaps, may be important to me. Dr. Wight remarks that Cucurbitaceae (55/1. Wight, "Remarks on the Fruit of the Natural Order Cucurbitaceae" ("Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." VIII., page 261). R. Wight, F.R.S. (1796-1872) was Superintendent of the Madras Botanic Garden.) is a very isolated family, and has very diverging affinities. I find, strongly put and illustrated, the very same remark in the genera of hymenoptera. Now, it is not to me at first apparent why a very distinct and isolated group should be apt to have more divergent affinities than a less isolated group. I am aware that most genera have more affinities than in two ways, which latter, perhaps, is the commonest case. I see how infinitely vague all this is; but I should very much like to know what you and Mr. Bentham (if he will read this), who have attended so much to the principles of classification, think of this. Perhaps the best way would be to think of half a dozen most isolated groups of plants, and then consider whether the affinities point in an unusual number of directions. Very likely you may think the whole question too vague to be worth consideration. LETTER 56. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th [1857]. I now want to ask your opinion, and for facts on a point; and as I shall often want to do this during the next year or two, so let me say, once for all, that you must not take trouble out of mere good nature (of which towards me you have a most abundant stock), but you must consider, in regard to the trouble any question may take, whether you think it worth while--as all loss of time so far lessens your original work--to give me facts to be quoted on your authority in my work. Do not think I shall be disappointed if you cannot spare time; for already I have profited enormously from your judgment and knowledge. I earnestly beg you to act as I suggest, and not take trouble solely out of good-nature. My point is as follows: Harvey gives the case of Fucus varying remarkably, and yet in same way under most different conditions. D. Don makes same remark in regard to Juncus bufonius in England and India. Polygala vulgaris has white, red, and blue flowers in Faroe, England, and I think Herbert says in Zante. Now such cases seem to me very striking, as showing how little relation some variations have to climatal conditions. Do you think there are many such cases? Does Oxalis corniculata present exactly the same varieties under very different climates? How is it with any other British plants in New Zealand, or at the foot of the Himalaya? Will you think over this and let me hear the result? One other question: do you remember whether the introduced Sonchus in New Zealand was less, equally, or more common than the aboriginal stock of the same species, where both occurred together? I forget whether there is any other case parallel with this curious one of the Sonchus... I have been making good, though slow, progress with my book, for facts have been falling nicely into groups, enlightening each other. LETTER 57. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey [1857?]. Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am profiting by a few weeks' rest and hydropathy. Your letter has interested and amused me much. I am extremely glad you have taken up the Aphis (57/1. Professor Huxley's paper on the organic reproduction of Aphis is in the "Trans. Linn. Soc." XXII. (1858), page 193. Prof. Owen had treated the subject in his introductory Hunterian lecture "On Parthenogenesis" (1849). His theory cannot be fully given here. Briefly, he holds that parthenogenesis is due to the inheritance of a "remnant of spermatic virtue": when the "spermatic force" or "virtue" is exhausted fresh impregnation occurs. Huxley severely criticises both Owen's facts and his theory.) question, but, for Heaven's sake, do not come the mild Hindoo (whatever he may be) to Owen; your father confessor trembles for you. I fancy Owen thinks much of this doctrine of his; I never from the first believed it, and I cannot but think that the same power is concerned in producing aphides without fertilisation, and producing, for instance, nails on the amputated stump of a man's fingers, or the new tail of a lizard. By the way, I saw somewhere during the last week or so a statement of a man rearing from the same set of eggs winged and wingless aphides, which seemed new to me. Does not some Yankee say that the American viviparous aphides are winged? I am particularly glad that you are ruminating on the act of fertilisation: it has long seemed to me the most wonderful and curious of physiological problems. I have often and often speculated for amusement on the subject, but quite fruitlessly. Do you not think that the conjugation of the Diatomaceae will ultimately throw light on the subject? But the other day I came to the conclusion that some day we shall have cases of young being produced from spermatozoa or pollen without an ovule. Approaching the subject from the side which attracts me most, viz., inheritance, I have lately been inclined to speculate, very crudely and indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation will turn out to be a sort of mixture, and not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents and ancestors. I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms. But all this, of course, is infinitely crude. I hope to be in London in the course of this month, and there are two or three points which, for my own sake, I want to discuss briefly with you. LETTER 58. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 26th [1857]. Thanks for your very pleasant note. It amuses me to see what a bug-bear I have made myself to you; when having written some very pungent and good sentence it must be very disagreeable to have my face rise up like an ugly ghost. (58/1. This probably refers to Darwin's wish to moderate a certain pugnacity in Huxley.) I have always suspected Agassiz of superficiality and wretched reasoning powers; but I think such men do immense good in their way. See how he stirred up all Europe about glaciers. By the way, Lyell has been at the glaciers, or rather their effects, and seems to have done good work in testing and judging what others have done... In regard to classification and all the endless disputes about the "Natural System," which no two authors define in the same way, I believe it ought, in accordance to my heterodox notions, to be simply genealogical. But as we have no written pedigrees you will, perhaps, say this will not help much; but I think it ultimately will, whenever heterodoxy becomes orthodoxy, for it will clear away an immense amount of rubbish about the value of characters, and will make the difference between analogy and homology clear. The time will come, I believe, though I shall not live to see it, when we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature. LETTER 59. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th [1857]. In my opinion your Catalogue (59/1. It appears from a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 25th, 1857) that the reference is to the proofs of Huxley's "Explanatory Preface to the Catalogue of the Palaeontological Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology," by T.H. Huxley and R. Etheridge, 1865. Mr. Huxley appends a note at page xlix: "It should be noted that these pages were written before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's book on 'The Origin of Species'--a work which has effected a revolution in biological speculation.") is simply the very best resume, by far, on the whole science of Natural History, which I have ever seen. I really have no criticisms: I agree with every word. Your metaphors and explanations strike me as admirable. In many parts it is curious how what you have written agrees with what I have been writing, only with the melancholy difference for me that you put everything in twice as striking a manner as I do. I append, more for the sake of showing that I have attended to the whole than for any other object, a few most trivial criticisms. I was amused to meet with some of the arguments, which you advanced in talk with me, on classification; and it pleases me, [that] my long proses were so far not thrown away, as they led you to bring out here some good sentences. But on classification (59/2. This probably refers to Mr. Huxley's discussion on "Natural Classification," a subject hardly susceptible of fruitful treatment except from an evolutionary standpoint.) I am not quite sure that I yet wholly go with you, though I agree with every word you have here said. The whole, I repeat, in my opinion is admirable and excellent. LETTER 60. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 28th [1858]. Hearty thanks for De Candolle received. I have put the big genera in hand. Also many thanks for your valuable remarks on the affinities of the species in great genera, which will be of much use to me in my chapter on classification. Your opinion is what I had expected from what little I knew, but I much wanted it confirmed, and many of your remarks were more or less new to me and all of value. You give a poor picture of the philosophy of Botany. From my ignorance, I suppose, I can hardly persuade myself that things are quite as bad as you make them,--you might have been writing remarks on Ornithology! I shall meditate much on your remarks, which will also come in very useful when I write and consider my tables of big and small genera. I grieve for myself to say that Watson agrees with your view, but with much doubt. I gave him no guide what your opinion was. I have written to A. Gray and to X., who--i.e. the latter--on this point may be looked at as S. Smith's Foolometer. I am now working several of the large local Floras, with leaving out altogether all the smallest genera. When I have done this, and seen what the sections of the largest genera say, and seen what the results are of range and commonness of varying species, I must come to some definite conclusion whether or not entirely to give up the ghost. I shall then show how my theory points, how the facts stand, then state the nature of your grievous assault and yield entirely or defend the case as far as I can honestly. Again I thank you for your invaluable assistance. I have not felt the blow [Hooker's criticisms] so much of late, as I have been beyond measure interested on the constructive instinct of the hive-bee. Adios, you terrible worrier of poor theorists! LETTER 61. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1858?] Many thanks for Ledebour and still more for your letter, with its admirable resume of all your objections. It is really most kind of you to take so very much trouble about what seems to you, and probably is, mere vagaries. I will earnestly try and be cautious. I will write out my tables and conclusion, and (when well copied out) I hope you will be so kind as to read it. I will then put it by and after some months look at it with fresh eyes. I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's. I labour under a great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little systematic work I have done, small genera were more interesting and therefore more attracted my attention. One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view--namely, that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are "much more frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera. I hardly like to ask, but this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the bearing; and I certainly should be very glad to know. I believe I am the slowest (perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently fully admit the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my tables. I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out. From my own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers, without counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer recorded varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually making the list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,--a good many varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera, always threw me off the balance... P.S.--I have just thought that your remark about the much variation of monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest genera, there was much variability. If this be so, then do not answer; and I will so understand it. LETTER 62. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd [1858]. Will you think of some of the largest genera with which you are well acquainted, and then suppose 4/5 of the species utterly destroyed and unknown in the sections (as it were) as much as possible in the centre of such great genera. Then would the remaining 1/5 of the species, forming a few sections, be, according to the general practice of average good Botanists, ranked as distinct genera? Of course they would in that case be closely related genera. The question, in fact, is, are all the species in a gigantic genus kept together in that genus, because they are really so very closely similar as to be inseparable? or is it because no chasms or boundaries can be drawn separating the many species? The question might have been put for Orders. LETTER 63. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th [1858]. I should be very much obliged for your opinion on the enclosed. You may remember in the three first volumes tabulated, all orders went right except Labiatae. By the way, if by any extraordinary chance you have not thrown away the scrap of paper with former results, I wish you would return it, for I have lost my copy, and I shall have all the division to do again; but DO NOT hunt for it, for in any case I should have gone over the calculation again. Now I have done the three other volumes. You will see that all species in the six volumes together go right, and likewise all orders in the three last volumes, except Verbenaceae. Is not Verbenaceae very closely allied to Labiatae? If so, one would think that it was not mere chance, this coincidence. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae together are between 1/5 and 1/6 of all the species (15,645), which I have now tabulated. Now, bearing in mind the many local Floras which I have tabulated (belting the whole northern hemisphere), and considering that they (and authors of D.C. Prodromus) would probably take different degrees of care in recording varieties, and the genera would be divided on different principles by different men, etc., I am much surprised at the uniformity of the result, and I am satisfied that there must be truth in the rule that the small genera vary less than the large. What do you think? Hypothetically I can conjecture how the Labiatae might fail--namely, if some small divisions of the Order were now coming into importance in the world and varying much and making species. This makes me want to know whether you could divide the Labiatae into a few great natural divisions, and then I would tabulate them separately as sub-orders. I see Lindley makes so many divisions that there would not be enough in each for an average. I send the table of the Labiatae for the chance of your being able to do this for me. You might draw oblique lines including and separating both large and small genera. I have also divided all the species into two equal masses, and my rule holds good for all the species in a mass in the six volumes; but it fails in several (four) large Orders--viz. Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, Acanthaceae, and Proteaceae. But, then, when the species are divided into two almost exactly equal divisions, the divisions with large genera are so very few: for instance, in Solanaceae, Solanum balances all others. In Labiatae seven gigantic genera balance all others (viz. 113), and in Proteaceae five genera balance all others. Now, according to my hypothetical notions, I am far from supposing that all genera go on increasing forever, and therefore I am not surprised at this result, when the division is so made that only a very few genera are on one side. But, according to my notions, the sections or sub-genera of the gigantic genera ought to obey my rule (i.e., supposing a gigantic genus had come to its maximum, whatever increase was still going on ought to be going on in the larger sub-genera). Do you think that the sections of the gigantic genera in D.C. Prodromus are generally NATURAL: i.e. not founded on mere artificial characters? If you think that they are generally made as natural as they can be, then I should like very much to tabulate the sub-genera, considering them for the time as good genera. In this case, and if you do not think me unreasonable to ask it, I should be very glad of the loan of Volumes X., XI., XII., and XIV., which include Acanthaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae,--that is, the orders which, when divided quite equally, do not accord with my rule, and in which a very few genera balance all the others. I have written you a tremendous long prose. LETTER 64. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 8th [1858]. I am confined to the sofa with boils, so you must let me write in pencil. You would laugh if you could know how much your note pleased me. I had the firmest conviction that you would say all my MS. was bosh, and thank God, you are one of the few men who dare speak the truth. Though I should not have much cared about throwing away what you have seen, yet I have been forced to confess to myself that all was much alike, and if you condemned that you would condemn all my life's work, and that I confess made me a little low; but I could have borne it, for I have the conviction that I have honestly done my best. The discussion comes in at the end of the long chapter on variation in a state of nature, so that I have discussed, as far as I am able, what to call varieties. I will try to leave out all allusion to genera coming in and out in this part, till when I discuss the "Principle of Divergence," which, with "Natural Selection," is the keystone of my book; and I have very great confidence it is sound. I would have this discussion copied out, if I could really think it would not bore you to read,--for, believe me, I value to the full every word of criticism from you, and the advantage which I have derived from you cannot be told... I am glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so easily... You will think it paltry, but as I was asked to pay for printing the Diploma [from a Society of which he had been made an honorary member], I did not like to refuse, so I send 1 pound. But I think it a shabby proceeding. If a gentleman did me some service, though unasked to do it, and then demanded payment, I should pay him, and think him a shabby dog; and on this principle I send my 1 pound. (65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry instituted in 1858 by the Trustees of the British Museum as to the disposal of the Natural History Collections. The inquiry was one of the first steps towards the establishment of the Cromwell Road Museum, which was effected in 1875.) LETTER 65. TO R.I. MURCHISON. Down, June 19th [1858]. I have just received your note. Unfortunately I cannot attend at the British Museum on Monday. I do not suppose my opinion on the subject of your note can be of any value, as I have not much considered the subject, or had the advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my impression is, that there is much weight in what you say about not breaking up the natural history collection of the British Museum. I think a national collection ought to be in London. I can, however, see that some weighty arguments might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library; but these are private property, and I am not aware that there is any certainty of their always remaining at Kew. Had this been the case, I should have thought that the botanical collection might have been removed there without endangering the other branches of the collections. But I think it would be the greatest evil which could possibly happen to natural science in this country if the other collections were ever to be removed from the British Museum and Library. LETTER 66. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (66/1. The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by Huxley, Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, Carpenter, and Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as published in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861, recommended, speaking generally, the consolidation of the National Botanical collections at Kew. In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury "to consider the present arrangements under which botanical work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees of the British Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at Kew, respectively; and to report what changes (if any) in those arrangements are necessary or desirable in order to avoid duplication of work and collections at the two institutions." The Committee published their report in March, 1901, recommending an arrangement similar to that proposed in 1858.) Down, October 23rd [1858]. The names which you give as supporting your memorial make me quite distrust my own judgment; but, as I must say yea or nay, I am forced to say that I doubt the wisdom of the movement, and am not willing at present to sign. My reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The governing classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of art and of archaeology have much greater weight with Government than we have. If we make a move to separate from the British Museum, I cannot but fear that we may go to the dogs. I think we owe our position in large part to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the British Museum, attracted by the heterogeneous mixture of objects. If we lost this support, as I think we should--for a mere collection of animals does not seem very attractive to the masses (judging from the Museum of the Zoological Society, formerly in Leicester Square)--then I do not think we should get nearly so much aid from Government. Therefore I should be inclined to stick to the mummies and Assyrian gods as long as we could. If we knew that Government was going to turn us out, then, and not till then, I should be inclined to make an energetic move. If we were to separate, I do not believe that we should have funds granted for the many books required for occasional reference: each man must speak from his own experience. I have so repeatedly required to see old Transactions and old Travels, etc., that I should regret extremely, when at work at the British Museum, to be separated from the entire library. The facilities for working at certain great classes--as birds, large fossils, etc.--are no doubt as bad as possible, or rather impossible, on the open days; but I have found the working rooms of the Assistants very convenient for all other classes on all days. In regard to the botanical collections, I am too ignorant to express any opinion. The point seems to be how far botanists would object to travel to Kew; but there are evidently many great advantages in the transportation. If I had my own way, I would make the British Museum collection only a typical one for display, which would be quite as amusing and far more instructive to the populace (and I think to naturalists) than the present enormous display of birds and mammals. I would save expense of stuffing, and would keep all skins, except a few "typicals," in drawers. Thus much room would be saved, and a little more space could be given to real workers, who could work all day. Rooms fitted up with thousands of drawers would cost very little. With this I should be contented. Until I had pretty sure information that we were going to be turned out, I would not stir in the matter. With such opponents as you name, I daresay I am quite wrong; but this is my best, though doubtful, present judgment... It seems to me dangerous even to hint at a new Scientific Museum--a popular Museum, and to subsidise the Zoological Gardens; it would, I think, frighten any Government. LETTER 67. TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey [October] 29th [1858]. As you say that you have good private information that Government does intend to remove the collection from the British Museum, the case to me individually is wholly changed; and as the memorial now stands, with such expression at its head, I have no objection whatever to sign. I must express a very strong opinion that it would be an immense evil to remove to Kensington, not on account of the men of science so much as for the masses in the whole eastern and central part of London. I further think it would be a great evil to separate a typical collection (which I can by no means look at as only popular) from the collection in full. Might not some expression be added, even stronger than those now used, on the display (which is a sort of vanity in the curators) of such a vast number of birds and mammals, with such a loss of room. I am low at the conviction that Government will never give money enough for a really good library. I do not want to be crotchety, but I should hate signing without some expression about the site being easily accessible to the populace of the whole of London. I repeat, as things now stand, I shall be proud to sign. LETTER 68. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 3rd [1858]. I most entirely subscribe to all you say in your note. I have had some correspondence with Hooker on the subject. As it seems certain that a movement in the British Museum is generally anticipated, my main objection is quite removed; and, as I have told Hooker, I have no objection whatever to sign a memorial of the nature of the one he sent me or that now returned. Both seem to me very good. I cannot help being fearful whether Government will ever grant money enough for books. I can see many advantages in not being under the unmotherly wing of art and archaeology, and my only fear was that we were not strong enough to live without some protection, so profound, I think, is the contempt for and ignorance of Natural Science amongst the gentry of England. Hooker tells me that I should be converted into favour of Kensington Gore if I heard all that could be said in its favour; but I cannot yet help thinking so western a locality a great misfortune. Has Lyell been consulted? His would be a powerful name, and such names go for much with our ignorant Governors. You seem to have taken much trouble in the business, and I honour you for it. LETTER 69. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 9th [1858]. I am quite delighted to hear about the Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The Copley Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I have grown hot with indignation many times thinking of the way the proposal was met last year, according to your account of it. I am also very glad to hear of Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it will show the provincials are not neglected. Altogether the medals are capital. I shall be proud and bound to help in any way about the eloge, which is rather a heavy tax on proposers of medals, as I found about Richardson and Westwood; but Lyell's case will be twenty times as difficult. I will begin this very evening dotting down a few remarks on Lyell; though, no doubt, most will be superfluous, and several would require deliberate consideration. Anyhow, such notes may be a preliminary aid to you; I will send them in a few days' time, and will do anything else you may wish... P.S.--I have had a letter from Henslow this morning. He comes here on [Thursday] 25th, and I shall be delighted to see him; but it stops my coming to the Club, as I had arranged to do, and now I suppose I shall not be in London till December 16th, if odds and ends do not compel me to come sooner. Of course I have not said a word to Henslow of my change of plans. I had looked forward with pleasure to a chat with you and others. P.S. 2.--I worked all yesterday evening in thinking, and have written the paper sent by this post this morning. Not one sentence would do, but it is the sort of rough sketch which I should have drawn out if I had had to do it. God knows whether it will at all aid you. It is miserably written, with horridly bad metaphors, probably horrid bad grammar. It is my deliberate impression, such as I should have written to any friend who had asked me what I thought of Lyell's merits. I will do anything else which you may wish, or that I can. LETTER 70. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 30th [1858]. I have had this copied to save you trouble, as it was vilely written, and is now vilely expressed. Your letter has interested me greatly; but how inextricable are the subjects which we are discussing! I do not think I said that I thought the productions of Asia were HIGHER (70/1. On the use of the terms "higher" and "lower" see Letters 35 and 36.) than those of Australia. I intend carefully to avoid this expression (70/2. In a paper of pencilled notes pinned into Darwin's copy of the "Vestiges" occur the words: "Never use the word (sic) higher and lower."), for I do not think that any one has a definite idea what is meant by higher, except in classes which can loosely be compared with man. On our theory of Natural Selection, if the organisms of any area belonging to the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into competition with those now existing in the same area (or probably in any part of the world) they (i.e. the old ones) would be beaten hollow and be exterminated; if the theory be true, this must be so. In the same manner, I believe, a greater number of the productions of Asia, the largest territory in the world, would beat those of Australia, than conversely. So it seems to be between Europe and North America, for I can hardly believe in the difference of the stream of commerce causing so great a difference in the proportions of immigrants. But this sort of highness (I wish I could invent some expression, and must try to do so) is different from highness in the common acceptation of the word. It might be connected with degradation of organisation: thus the blind degraded worm-like snake (Typhlops) might supplant the true earthworm. Here then would be degradation in the class, but certainly increase in the scale of organisation in the general inhabitants of the country. On the other hand, it would be quite as easy to believe that true earthworms might beat out the Typhlops. I do not see how this "competitive highness" can be tested in any way by us. And this is a comfort to me when mentally comparing the Silurian and Recent organisms. Not that I doubt a long course of "competitive highness" will ultimately make the organisation higher in every sense of the word; but it seems most difficult to test it. Look at the Erigeron canadensis on the one hand and Anacharis (70/3. Anacharis (Elodea canadensis) and Erigeron canadensis are both successful immigrants from America.) on the other; these plants must have some advantage over European productions, to spread as they have. Yet who could discover it? Monkeys can co-exist with sloths and opossums, orders at the bottom of the scale; and the opossums might well be beaten by placental insectivores, coming from a country where there were no monkeys, etc. I should be sorry to give up the view that an old and very large continuous territory would generally produce organisms higher in the competitive sense than a smaller territory. I may, of course, be quite wrong about the plants of Australia (and your facts are, of course, quite new to me on their highness), but when I read the accounts of the immense spreading of European plants in Australia, and think of the wool and corn brought thence to Europe, and not one plant naturalised, I can hardly avoid the suspicion that Europe beats Australia in its productions. If many (i.e. more than one or two) Australian plants are TRULY naturalised in India (N.B. Naturalisation on Indian mountains hardly quite fair, as mountains are small islands in the land) I must strike my colours. I should be glad to hear whether what I have written very obscurely on this point produces ANY effect on you; for I want to clear my mind, as perhaps I should put a sentence or two in my abstract on this subject. (70/4. Abstract was Darwin's name for the "Origin" during parts of 1858 and 1859.) I have always been willing to strike my colours on former immense tracts of land in oceans, if any case required it in an eminent degree. Perhaps yours may be a case, but at present I greatly prefer land in the Antarctic regions, where now there is only ice and snow, but which before the Glacial period might well have been clothed by vegetation. You have thus to invent far less land, and that more central; and aid is got by floating ice for transporting seed. I hope I shall not weary you by scribbling my notions at this length. After writing last to you I began to think that the Malay Land might have existed through part of the Glacial epoch. Why I at first doubted was from the difference of existing mammals in different islands; but many are very close, and some identical in the islands, and I am constantly deceiving myself from thinking of the little change which the shells and plants, whilst all co-existing in their own northern hemisphere, have undergone since the Glacial epoch; but I am convinced that this is most false reasoning, for the relations of organism to new organisms, when thrown together, are by far the most important. When you speak of plants having undergone more change since old geological periods than animals, are you not rather comparing plants with higher animals? Think how little some, indeed many, mollusca have changed. Remember Silurian Nautilus, Lingula and other Brachiopods, and Nucula, and amongst Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc. What you say about lowness of brackish-water plants interests me. I remember that they are apt to be social (i.e. many individuals in comparison to specific forms), and I should be tempted to look at this as a case of a very small area, and consequently of very few individuals in comparison with those on the land or in pure fresh-water; and hence less development (odious word!) than on land or fresh-water. But here comes in your two-edged sword! I should like much to see any paper on plants of brackish water or on the edge of the sea; but I suppose such has never been published. Thanks about Nelumbium, for I think this was the very plant which from the size of seed astonished me, and which A. De Candolle adduced as a marvellous case of almost impossible transport. I now find to my surprise that herons do feed sometimes on [illegible] fruit; and grebes on seeds of Compositae. Many thanks for offer of help about a grant for the Abstract; but I should hope it would sell enough to pay expenses. I am reading your letter and scribbling as I go on. Your oak and chestnut case seems very curious; is it not the more so as beeches have gone to, or come from the south? But I vehemently protest against you or any one making such cases especial marvels, without you are prepared to say why each species in any flora is twice or thrice, etc., rarer than each other species which grows in the same soil. The more I think, the more evident is it to me how utterly ignorant we are of the thousand contingencies on which range, frequency, and extinction of each species depend. I have sometimes thought, from Edentata (70/5. No doubt a slip of the pen for Monotremata.) and Marsupialia, that Australia retains a remnant of the former and ancient state of the fauna of the world, and I suppose that you are coming to some such conclusion for plants; but is not the relation between the Cape and Australia too special for such views? I infer from your writings that the relation is too special between Fuegia and Australia to allow us to look at the resemblances in certain plants as the relics of mundane resemblances. On the other hand, [have] not the Sandwich Islands in the Northern Hemisphere some odd relations to Australia? When we are dead and gone what a noble subject will be Geographical Distribution! You may say what you like, but you will never convince me that I do not owe you ten times as much as you can owe me. Farewell, my dear Hooker. I am sorry to hear that you are both unwell with influenza. Do not bother yourself in answering anything in this, except your general impression on the battle between N. and S. CHAPTER 1.III.--EVOLUTION, 1859-1863. LETTER 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859. I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November 30th. The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes to publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which must be read by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the introduction (71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and 2.) I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairly noticed your paper in the "Linn. Journal." (71/2. "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell and J.D. Hooker. "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859. (Read July 1st, 1858.)) You must remember that I am now publishing only an abstract, and I give no references. I shall, of course, allude to your paper on distribution (71/3. "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species" (A.R. Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVI., page 184, 1855. The law alluded to is thus stated by Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species" (loc. cit., page 186).); and I have added that I know from correspondence that your explanation of your law is the same as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the conclusion that selection was the principle of change from the study of domesticated productions; and then, reading Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical distribution and geological relations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject: especially the case of the Galapagos Islands. I hope to go to press in the early part of next month. It will be a small volume of about five hundred pages or so. I will of course send you a copy. I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best British botanist and perhaps the best in the world, is a full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expect daily to see proof-sheets. (71/4. "The Flora of Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania." London 1859.) Huxley is changed, and believes in mutation of species: whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall live to see all the younger men converts. My neighbour and an excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see that you are doing great work in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's sake take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in the cause of Natural Science as you are. P.S. You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about publishing all our papers. I had actually written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the post when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honestly to both of us; and I did so. (71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin of Species," referred to in the first paragraph of the above letter.) "My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three years more to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the Natural History of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work--the latter having read my sketch of 1844--honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts." LETTER 72. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 3rd, 1859. With respect to reversion, I have been raking up vague recollections of vague facts; and the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of reversion than it was when you were here. In my abstract (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I give only a paragraph on the general case of reversion, though I enter in detail on some cases of reversion of a special character. I have not as yet put all my facts on this subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as single characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in several reverting. As I do not believe any well-founded experiments or facts are known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities. I think you confound two rather distinct considerations; a variation arises from any cause, and reversion is not opposed to this, but solely to its inheritance. Not but what I believe what we must call perhaps a dozen distinct laws are all struggling against each other in every variation which ever arises. To give my impression, if I were forced to bet whether or not, after a hundred generations of growth in a poor sandy soil, a cauliflower and red cabbage would or would not revert to the same form, I must say I would rather stake my money that they would. But in such a case the conditions of life are changed (and here comes the question of direct influence of condition), and there is to be no selection, the comparatively sudden effect of man's selection are left to the free play of reversion. In short, I dare not come to any conclusion without comparing all facts which I have collected, and I do not think there are many. Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be fairly popular and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure it would make me the more ridiculous. LETTER 73. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, June 5th [1859]. I thank you much for your letter. Had I seen the interest of my remark I would have made many more measurements, though I did make several. I stated the facts merely to give the general reader an idea of the thickness of the walls. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter 173.) Especially if I had seen that the fact had any general bearing, I should have stated that as far as I could measure, the walls are by no means perfectly of the same thickness. Also I should have stated that the chief difference is when the thickness of walls of the upper part of the hexagon and of the pyramidal basal plates are contrasted. Will you oblige me by looking with a strong lens at the bit of comb, brushing off with a knife the upper thickened edges, and then compare, by eye alone, the thickness of the walls there with the thickness of the basal plates, as seen in any cross section. I should very much like to hear whether, even in this way, the difference is not perceptible. It is generally thus perceptible by comparing the thickness of the walls of the hexagon (if not taken very close to the angle) near to the basal plates, where the comparison by eye is of course easier. Your letter actually turned me sick with panic; from not seeing any great importance [in the] fact, till I looked at my notes, I did not remember that I made several measurements. I have now repeated the same measurements, roughly with the same general results, but the difference, I think, is hardly double. I should not have mentioned the thickness of the basal plates at all, had I not thought it would give an unfair notion of the thickness of the walls to state the lesser measurements alone. LETTER 74. TO W.H. MILLER. [1859] I had no thought that you would measure the thickness of the walls of the cells; but if you will, and allow me to give your measurements, it will be an immense advantage. As it is no trouble, I send more specimens. If you measure, please observe that I measured the thickness of the walls of the hexagonal prisms not very near the base; but from your very interesting remarks the lower part of the walls ought to be measured. Thank you for the suggestion about how bees judge of angles and distances. I will keep it in mind. It is a complete perplexity to me, and yet certainly insects can rudely somehow judge of distance. There are special difficulties on account of the gradation in size between the worker-scells and the larger drone-cells. I am trying to test the case practically by getting combs of different species, and of our own bee from different climates. I have lately had some from the W. Indies of our common bee, but the cells SEEM certainly to be larger; but they have not yet been carefully measured. I will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I return to experiments on living bees; but that will not be soon. As you have been considering my little discussion in relation to Lord Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure of Bees' Cells," read before the National Institute of France in May, 1858.), and as I have been more vituperated for this part than for almost any other, I should like just to tell you how I think the case stands. The discussion viewed by itself is worth little more than the paper on which it is printed, except in so far as it contains three or four certainly new facts. But to those who are inclined to believe the general truth of the conclusion that species and their instincts are slowly modified by what I call Natural Selection, I think my discussion nearly removes a very great difficulty. I believe in its truth chiefly from the existence of the Melipona, which makes a comb so intermediate in structure between that of the humble and hive-bee, and especially from the new and curious fact of the bees making smooth cups or saucers when they excavated in a thick piece of wax, which saucers stood so close that hexagons were built on their intersecting edges. And, lastly, because when they excavated on a thin slip of wax, the excavation on both sides of similar smooth basins was stopped, and flat planes left between the nearly opposed basins. If my view were wholly false these cases would, I think, never have occurred. Sedgwick and Co. may abuse me to their hearts' content, but I shall as yet continue to think that mine is a rational explanation (as far as it goes) of their method of work. LETTER 75. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, December 1st [1859]. Some months ago you were so kind as to say you would measure the thickness of the walls of the basal and side plates of the cell of the bee. Could you find time to do so soon? Why I want it soon, is that I have lately heard from Murray that he sold at his sale far more copies than he has of the "Origin of Species," and that I must immediately prepare a new edition, which I am now correcting. By the way, I hear from Murray that all the attacks heaped on my book do not seem to have at all injured the sale, which will make poor dear old Sedgwick groan. If the basal plates and walls do differ considerably in thickness, as they certainly did in the one or two cells which I measured without particular care (as I never thought the point of any importance), will you tell me the bearing of the fact as simply as you can, for the chance of one so stupid as I am in geometry being able to understand? Would the greater thickness of the basal plates and of the rim of the hexagons be a good adaptation to carry the vertical weight of the cells filled with honey and supporting clusters of living bees? Will you endeavour to screw out time and grant me this favour? P.S. If the result of your measurement of the thickness of the walls turns out at all what I have asserted, would it not be worth while to write a little bit of a paper on the subject of your former note; and "pluck" the bees if they deserve this degradation? Many mathematicians seem to have thought the subject worthy of attention. When the cells are full of honey and hang vertically they have to support a great weight. Can the thicker basal plates be a contrivance to give strength to the whole comb, with less consumption of wax, than if all the sides of the hexagons were thickened? This crude notion formerly crossed my mind; but of course it is beyond me even to conjecture how the case would be. A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing on the geometry of bee-cells in the United States in consequence of my book; but I can hardly understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the Architecture of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.) LETTER 76. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately doubtful, otherwise it would prove that at an early date he was acquainted with Erasmus Darwin's views on evolution, a fact which has not always been recognised. We can hardly doubt that it was written in 1859, for at this time Mr. Huxley was collecting facts about breeding for his lecture given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, on "Species and Races and their Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 281.) Down [June?] 9 [1859?]. If on the 11th you have half an hour to spare, you might like to see a very good show of pigeons, and the enclosed card will admit you. The history of error is quite unimportant, but it is curious to observe how exactly and accurately my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I., page 504, 1794) gives Lamarck's theory. I will quote one sentence. Speaking of birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required." Lamarck published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was translated into many languages. LETTER 77. TO C. LYELL. Down, 28 [June 1859]. It is not worth while troubling you, but my conscience is uneasy at having forgotten to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure of Lavas which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks on the Mode of Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation'" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).), which seems to me a magnificent contribution to volcanic geology, and I should think you might now rest on your oars in this department. As soon as ever I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of Species," London, 1859.) ready, in some six weeks' or two months' time, it shall be sent you; and if you approve of it, even to a moderate extent, it will be the highest satisfaction which I shall ever receive for an amount of labour which no one will ever appreciate. LETTER 78. TO J.D. HOOKER. (78/1. The reference in the following letter is to the proofs of Hooker's "Australian Flora.") Down, 28 [July 1859]. The returned sheet is chiefly that which I received in MS. Parts seem to me (though perhaps it may be forgetfulness) much improved, and I retain my former impression that the whole discussion on the Australian flora is admirably good and original. I know you will understand and not object to my thus expressing my opinion (for one must form one) so presumptuously. I have no criticisms, except perhaps I should like you somewhere to say, when you refer to me, that you refer only to the notice in the "Linnean Journal;" not that, on my deliberate word of honour, I expect that you will think more favourably of the whole than of the suggestion in the "Journal." I am far more than satisfied at what you say of my work; yet it would be as well to avoid the appearance of your remarks being a criticism on my fuller work. I am very sorry to hear you are so hard-worked. I also get on very slowly, and have hardly as yet finished half my volume...I returned on last Tuesday from a week's hydropathy. Take warning by me, and do not work too hard. For God's sake, think of this. It is dreadfully uphill work with me getting my confounded volume finished. I wish you well through all your labours. Adios. LETTER 79. TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 29th [1859]. This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you for your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term "natural selection" as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the word denudation--for an agent, expressing the result of several combined actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference, what I mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the following: "The tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe struggle for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation are exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, which is of the slightest use or favourable to the life of the individual which has thus varied; together with the tendency to its inheritance." Any variation, which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be preserved by this process of "natural selection." But I will not weary you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer without large expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so much better than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I should here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend to improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it... You speak of species not having any material base to rest on, but is this any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a variety, and be designated by a Greek letter? When I was at systematic work, I know I longed to have no other difficulty (great enough) than deciding whether the form was distinct enough to deserve a name, and not to be haunted with undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a true species. What a jump it is from a well-marked variety, produced by natural cause, to a species produced by the separate act of the hand of God! But I am running on foolishly. By the way, I met the other day Phillips, the palaeontologist, and he asked me, "How do you define a species?" I answered, "I cannot." Whereupon he said, "at last I have found out the only true definition,--any form which has ever had a specific name!"... LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31st [1859]. That you may not misunderstand how far I go with Pallas and his many disciples I should like to add that, though I believe that our domestic dogs have descended from several wild forms, and though I must think that the sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed before being domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very little way with Pallas & Co. in their belief in the importance of the crossing and blending of the aboriginal stocks. (80/1. "With our domesticated animals, the various races when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in many cases they are descended from two or more wild species. From this fact we must conclude either that the aboriginal parent-species at first produced perfectly fertile hybrids, or that the hybrids subsequently reared under domestication became quite fertile. This latter alternative, which was first propounded by Pallas, seems by far the most probable, and can, indeed, hardly be doubted" ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 240).) You will see this briefly put in the first chapter. Generally, with respect to crossing, the effects may be diametrically opposite. If you cross two very distinct races, you may make (not that I believe such has often been made) a third and new intermediate race; but if you cross two exceedingly close races, or two slightly different individuals of the same race, then in fact you annul and obliterate the difference. In this latter way I believe crossing is all-important, and now for twenty years I have been working at flowers and insects under this point of view. I do not like Hooker's terms, centripetal and centrifugal (80/2. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.): they remind me of Forbes' bad term of Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time."--"R. Institution Proc." I., 1851-54.) I daresay selection by man would generally work quicker than Natural Selection; but the important distinction between them is, that man can scarcely select except external and visible characters, and secondly, he selects for his own good; whereas under nature, characters of all kinds are selected exclusively for each creature's own good, and are well exercised; but you will find all this in Chapter IV. Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have descended from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great amount of difference is mainly due to the same causes which have made the breeds of pigeons so different from each other, though these breeds of pigeons have all descended from one wild stock; so that the Pallasian doctrine I look at as but of quite secondary importance. In my bigger book I have explained my meaning fully; whether I have in the Abstract I cannot remember. LETTER 81. TO C. LYELL. [December 5th, 1859.] I forget whether you take in the "Times;" for the chance of your not doing so, I send the enclosed rich letter. (81/1. See the "Times," December 1st and December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," dealing with "Works of Art in the Drift.") It is, I am sure, by Fitz-Roy...It is a pity he did not add his theory of the extinction of Mastodon, etc., from the door of the Ark being made too small. (81/2. A postscript to this letter, here omitted, is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 240.) LETTER 82. FRANCIS GALTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 42, Rutland Gate, London, S.W., December 9th, 1859. Pray let me add a word of congratulation on the completion of your wonderful volume, to those which I am sure you will have received from every side. I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that one rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into an entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects itself with other things in a thousand ways. I hear you are engaged on a second edition. There is a trivial error in page 68, about rhinoceroses (82/1. Down (loc. cit.) says that neither the elephant nor the rhinoceros is destroyed by beasts of prey. Mr. Galton wrote that the wild dogs hunt the young rhinoceros and "exhaust them to death; they pursue them all day long, tearing at their ears, the only part their teeth can fasten on." The reference to the rhinoceros is omitted in later editions of the "Origin."), which I thought I might as well point out, and have taken advantage of the same opportunity to scrawl down half a dozen other notes, which may, or may not, be worthless to you. (83/1. The three next letters refer to Huxley's lecture on Evolution, given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, of which the peroration is given in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, together with some letters on the subject.) LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25th [1859]. I rejoice beyond measure at the lecture. I shall be at home in a fortnight, when I could send you splendid folio coloured drawings of pigeons. Would this be in time? If not, I think I could write to my servants and have them sent to you. If I do NOT hear I shall understand that about fifteen or sixteen days will be in time. I have had a kind yet slashing letter against me from poor dear old Sedgwick, "who has laughed till his sides ached at my book." Phillips is cautious, but decidedly, I fear, hostile. Hurrah for the Lecture--it is grand! LETTER 84. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 13th [1859]. I have got fine large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.) of the Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I have only drawings in books of Fantails, Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have a grand display of extremes of diversity. Will they pay at the Royal Institution for copying on a large size drawings of these birds? I could lend skulls of a Carrier and a Tumbler (to show the great difference) for the same purpose, but it would not probably be worth while. I have been looking at my MS. What you want I believe is about hybridism and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in a pretty good state--about 150 folio pages with notes and references on the back. My first chapter on breeding is in too bad and imperfect a state to send; but my discussion on pigeons (in about 100 folio pages) is in a pretty good state. I am perfectly convinced that you would never have patience to read such volumes of MS. I speak now in the palace of truth, and pray do you: if you think you would read them I will send them willingly up by my servant, or bring them myself next week. But I have no copy, and I never could possibly replace them; and without you really thought that you would use them, I had rather not risk them. But I repeat I will willingly bring them, if you think you would have the vast patience to use them. Please let me hear on this subject, and whether I shall send the book with small drawings of three other breeds or skulls. I have heard a rumour that Busk is on our side in regard to species. Is this so? It would be very good. LETTER 85. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th [1859]. I thank you for your very pleasant and amusing note and invitation to dinner, which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. I shall come up (stomach willing) on Thursday for Phil. Club dinner, and return on Saturday, and I am engaged to my brother for Friday. But I should very much like to call at the Museum on Friday or Saturday morning and see you. Would you let me have one line either here or at 57, Queen Anne Street, to say at what hour you generally come to the Museum, and whether you will be probably there on Friday or Saturday? Even if you are at the Club, it will be a mere chance if we sit near each other. I will bring up the articles on Thursday afternoon, and leave them under charge of the porter at the Museum. They will consist of large drawings of a Pouter, a Carrier, and rather smaller drawings of some sub-varieties (which breed nearly true) of short-faced Tumblers. Also a small drawing of Scanderoon, a kind of Runt, and a very remarkable breed. Also a book with very moderately good drawings of Fantail and Barb, but I very much doubt whether worth the trouble of enlarging. Also a box (for Heaven's sake, take care!) with a skull of Carrier and short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, middle size of Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The form of ramus of jaw differs curiously in these jaws. Also MS. of hybridism and pigeons, which will just weary you to death. I will call myself for or send a servant for the MS. and bones whenever you have done with them; but do not hurry. You have hit on the exact plan, which, on the advice of Lyell, Murray, etc., I mean to follow--viz., bring out separate volumes in detail--and I shall begin with domestic productions; but I am determined to try and [work] very slowly, so that, if possible, I may keep in a somewhat better state of health. I had not thought of illustrations; that is capital advice. Farewell, my good and admirable agent for the promulgation of damnable heresies! LETTER 86. TO L. HORNER. Down, December 23rd [1859]. I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your extremely kind letter. I am very much pleased that you approve of my book, and that you are going to pay me the extraordinary compliment of reading it twice. I fear that it is tough reading, but it is beyond my powers to make the subject clearer. Lyell would have done it admirably. You must enjoy being a gentlemen at your ease, and I hear that you have returned with ardour to work at the Geological Society. We hope in the course of the winter to persuade Mrs. Horner and yourself and daughters to pay us a visit. Ilkley did me extraordinary good during the latter part of my stay and during my first week at home; but I have gone back latterly to my bad ways, and fear I shall never be decently well and strong. P.S.--When any of your party write to Mildenhall I should be much obliged if you would say to Bunbury that I hope he will not forget, whenever he reads my book, his promise to let me know what he thinks about it; for his knowledge is so great and accurate that every one must value his opinions highly. I shall be quite contented if his belief in the immutability of species is at all staggered. LETTER 87. TO C. LYELL. (87/1. In the "Origin of Species" a section of Chapter X. is devoted to "The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote as follows: "Mr. Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent." After citing other instances illustrating the same agreement between fossil and recent types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so much impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this 'law of the succession of types,' on 'this wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World.") Down, [December] 27th [1859]. Owen wrote to me to ask for the reference to Clift. As my own notes for the late chapters are all in chaos, I bethought me who was the most trustworthy man of all others to look for references, and I answered myself, "Of course Lyell." In the ["Principles of Geology"], edition of 1833, Volume III., chapter xi., page 144, you will find the reference to Clift in the "Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX., page 394. (87/2. The correct reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland is "Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You will also find that you were greatly struck with the fact itself (87/3. This refers to the discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian cave-breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones, which was much larger than the rest, as that of a hippopotamus.), which I had quite forgotten. I copied the passage, and sent it to Owen. Why I gave in some detail references to my own work is that Owen (not the first occasion with respect to myself and others) quietly ignores my having ever generalised on the subject, and makes a great fuss on more than one occasion at having discovered the law of succession. In fact, this law, with the Galapagos distribution, first turned my mind on the origin of species. My own references are [to the "Naturalist's Voyage"]: Large 8vo, Murray, Edition 1839 Edition 1845 Page 210 Page 173 On succession. Page 153 Pages 131-32 On splitting up of old geographical provinces. Long before Owen published I had in MS. worked out the succession of types in the Old World (as I remember telling Sedgwick, who of course disbelieved it). Since receiving your last letter on Hooker, I have read his introduction as far as page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where the Australian flora begins, and this latter part I liked most in the proofs. It is a magnificent essay. I doubt slightly about some assertions, or rather should have liked more facts--as, for instance, in regard to species varying most on the confines of their range. Naturally I doubt a little his remarks about divergence (87/5. "Variation is effected by graduated changes; and the tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation, when further varying, is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." On the margin Darwin wrote: "Without selection doubtful" (loc. cit., page viii).), and about domestic races being produced under nature without selection. It would take much to persuade me that a Pouter Pigeon, or a Carrier, etc., could have been produced by the mere laws of variation without long continued selection, though each little enlargement of crop and beak are due to variation. I demur greatly to his comparison of the products of sinking and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to anticipate that a study of the vegetation of the islands with reference to the peculiarities of the generic types on the one hand, and of the geological conditions (whether as rising or sinking) on the other, may, in the present state of our knowledge, advance other subjects of distribution and variation considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the Indian Ocean he compares exclusively many rising volcanic and sinking coral islands. The latter have a most peculiar soil, and are excessively small in area, and are tenanted by very few species; moreover, such low coral islands have probably been often, during their subsidence, utterly submerged, and restocked by plants from other islands. In the Pacific Ocean the floras of all the best cases are unknown. The comparison ought to have been exclusively between rising and fringed volcanic islands, and sinking and encircled volcanic islands. I have read Naudin (87/7. Naudin, "Revue Horticole," 1852?.), and Hooker agrees that he does not even touch on my views. LETTER 88. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. [1859 or 1860.] I have had another talk with Bentham, who is greatly agitated by your book: evidently the stern, keen intellect is aroused, and he finds that it is too late to halt between two opinions. How it will go we shall see. I am intensely interested in what we shall come to, and never broach the subject to him. I finished the geological evidence chapters yesterday; they are very fine and very striking, but I cannot see they are such forcible objections as you still hold them to be. I would say that you still in your secret soul underrate the imperfection of the Geological Record, though no language can be stronger or arguments fairer and sounder against it. Of course I am influenced by Botany, and the conviction that we have not in a fossilised condition a fraction of the plants that have existed, and that not a fraction of those we have are recognisable specifically. I never saw so clearly put the fact that it is not intermediates between existing species we want, but between these and the unknown tertium quid. You certainly make a hobby of Natural Selection, and probably ride it too hard; that is a necessity of your case. If the improvement of the creation-by-variation doctrine is conceivable, it will be by unburthening your theory of Natural Selection, which at first sight seems overstrained--i.e., to account for too much. I think, too, that some of your difficulties which you override by Natural Selection may give way before other explanations. But, oh Lord! how little we do know and have known to be so advanced in knowledge by one theory. If we thought ourselves knowing dogs before you revealed Natural Selection, what d--d ignorant ones we must surely be now we do know that law. I hear you may be at the Club on Thursday. I hope so. Huxley will not be there, so do not come on that ground. LETTER 89. TO T.H. HUXLEY. January 1st [1860]. I write one line merely to thank you for your pleasant note, and to say that I will keep your secret. I will shake my head as mysteriously as Lord Burleigh. Several persons have asked me who wrote that "most remarkable article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th, 1859, page 8. The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of the "Times." See "Life and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's interesting account of his share in the matter.) As a cat may look at a king, so I have said that I strongly suspected you. X was so sharp that the first sentence revealed the authorship. The Z's (God save the mark) thought it was Owen's! You may rely on it that it has made a deep impression, and I am heartily glad that the subject and I owe you this further obligation. But for God's sake, take care of your health; remember that the brain takes years to rest, whilst the muscles take only hours. There is poor Dana, to whom I used to preach by letter, writes to me that my prophecies are come true: he is in Florence quite done up, can read nothing and write nothing, and cannot talk for half an hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley, after speaking of the rudimental teeth of the whale, of rudimental jaws in insects which never bite, and rudimental eyes in blind animals, goes on: "And we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says ("On the Nature of Limbs," pages 39, 40), 'I think it will be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of the problem.'"--"The Times," December 26th, 1859.) about Owen, though my wife saw its bearing first. Farewell you best and worst of men! That sentence about the bird and the fish dinners charmed us. Lyell wrote to me--style like yours. Have you seen the slashing article of December 26th in the "Daily News," against my stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?" LETTER 90. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. [Undated] How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards has read the copy which I sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to expect to change his opinion. LETTER 91. TO C. LYELL. (91/1. The date of this letter is doubtful; but as it evidently refers to the 2nd edition of the "Origin," which appeared on January 7th, 1860, we believe that December 9th, 1859, is right. The letter of Sedgwick's is doubtless that given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it is there dated December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence it was probably written on November 24th) [December?] 9th [1859]. I send Sedgwick's letter; it is terribly muddled, and really the first page seems almost childish. I am sadly over-worked, so will not write to you. I have worked in a number of your invaluable corrections--indeed, all as far as time permits. I infer from a letter from Huxley that Ramsay (91/2. See a letter to Huxley, November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) is a convert, and I am extremely glad to get pure geologists, as they will be very few. Many thanks for your very pleasant note. What pleasure you have given me. I believe I should have been miserable had it not been for you and a few others, for I hear threatening of attacks which I daresay will be severe enough. But I am sure that I can now bear them. LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached great, in our opinion too great, importance.) Down, January 11th [1860?]. I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by a mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages 267 to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the section on "The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring" occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there said, that it seems to me quite hopeless to attempt to explain why varieties are not sterile, until we know the precise cause of sterility in species. Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend. Reflect on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen than their own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall be given in my larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight changes of conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not affecting a closely allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on the intimate relation between conditions of life and impaired fertility in pure species! The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject, is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform conditions of life in our domestic varieties has played an important part in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want of uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the only cause of the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we attach to this obscure sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are closely adapted to definite conditions of life, so that the sexual constitution of species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties are not strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions, and thus have less specialised sexual constitutions.) This elimination, though admitted by many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I think is very probably true, as may be inferred from the case of dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the differences in the reproductive constitution, on which the sterility of any two species when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural Selection; for it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in reproductive constitution must stand in correlation with some other differences; but how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on the case of the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect whatever besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet it is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties. The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word "rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you say, it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate. I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points, [that] more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to me. No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on there being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have answered this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer to Lyell and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would send papers to you. Andrew Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5. See "Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to Murray's address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There is some confusion about the date of the paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two different papers.); but it can, I think, be fairly answered. LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [February] 2nd [1860]. I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had better close with this proposal--what do you think? If you have written, I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you hear from Kolliker? My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the "general agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any more trouble. Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket for Baily, the poulterer. Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says he has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory! LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th [1860]. I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very bold; and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley so; but I demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks, especially to his making it appear that sterility was a clear and manifest distinction of species, and to his not having even alluded to the more important parts of the subject. He said that he had much more written out, but time failed. After conversation with others and more reflection, I must confess that as an exposition of the doctrine the lecture seems to me an entire failure. I thank God I did not think so when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and magnificently of me, that I could hardly have endured to say what I now think. He gave no just idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the doctrine of Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley has never alluded to my explanation of classification, morphology, embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a vera causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in the "Westminster." It was really provoking how he wasted time over the idea of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2. "Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860). In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good, but I read it very hastily. LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, [February] 18th [1860]. I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie." (95/1. See Letter 93.) The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I never tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the labour. He sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that till it can be shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms of life arise. This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws of attraction of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets, because he could not show what the attraction of gravity is. The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B. understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with me. P.S. Sunday afternoon.--I have kept back this to thank you for your letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy at the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was convinced, by Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly convinced...that the review in the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses" ("Life and Letters," II., page 284).) I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey (a first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the theory of Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me rather strange; he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters are generally sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes [to this], that I have been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract. In fuller MS. I have discussed the parallel case of a normal fish like a monstrous gold-fish. I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities which resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of Malpighiaceae, is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an illustration of Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give the genus, but the genus gives the characters. During several years' cultivation in France Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which differed in many of the most important points of structure from the proper type of the order; but it was recognised by M. Richard that the genus should be retained among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds Darwin, "well illustrates the spirit of our classification."), with flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"), led me also to speculate on the same subject; but I could find only one doubtfully analogous case of species having flowers like the degraded or monstrous flowers. Harvey does not see that if only a few (as he supposes) of the seedlings inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be necessary to select and preserve them. You had better return the "Gardeners' Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself is very curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain, for there would be no end to answers. With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have often thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional and retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always put it to myself--What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an intestinal worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed? If no advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what all these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and they may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places in the economy of nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind snake with the appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms; but this blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and drive out worms. I think I must in a future edition discuss a few more such points, and will introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about the infinite number of species and the general rise in organisation. But there is a directly opposite objection to yours which is very difficult to answer--viz. how at the first start of life, when there were only the simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any speculation on the subject. With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition VI.), page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting fresh-water and isolated parts of the world, in which there has been less competition and less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing to the fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas; and where there are few individuals variation at most must be slower. There are several allusions to this notion in the "Origin," as under Amblyopsis, the blind cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and under Heer (95/9. "Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants resembling the fossil and extinct plants of Europe. LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th [1860?]. I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and animals; for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting that you should have arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural Selection" had been efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our grouse. I shall probably use your authority on the similar habits of our grouse and the Norwegian species. I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect produced by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of the grouse in your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what crossing will do in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever seen it stated in any sporting work that game has become wilder in this country? I wish I could get any sort of proof of the fact, for your explanation seems to me equally ingenious and probable. I have myself witnessed in South America a nearly parallel [case] with that which you mention in regard to the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man nor the sound of shot of a rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on horseback; every one in that country always riding. As you are so great a sportsman, perhaps you will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as my neighbours here think it too absurd to notice--namely, whether the feet of birds are dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to their feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds like herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this relates to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties. My health is very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope that I may some time have the pleasure of meeting you. Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter. LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st [1860]. I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume is a mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which I have rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has satisfied Lyell, who made the same objection with you) why many forms do not progress or advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I have also a MS. discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for instance Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of generations, should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites (1811-82) published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation in the Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages 9-11, 343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848, page 161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute most of such structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere repetition of parts is to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any structure is of use (and I can show what curiously minute particulars are often of highest use), I can see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to the perfection of the coadaptations which could be effected by Natural Selection. I rather doubt whether you see how far, as it seems to me, the argument for homology and embryology may be carried. I do not look at this as mere analogy. I would as soon believe that fossil shells were mere mockeries of real shells as that the same bones in the foot of a dog and wing of a bat, or the similar embryo of mammal and bird, had not a direct signification, and that the signification can be unity of descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat how much pleased I am that you go some little way with me. I find a number of naturalists do the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I must think arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing at once one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do so; it must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard to the "Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe my book must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will perhaps think it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling me about the Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae) grows vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its appearance after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W. Pearson, "The Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume XXXIV., page 317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred to the spreading of the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the cardoon in La Plata and of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 51).), and I should at any time be most grateful for any information which you think would be of use to me. I hope that you will publish a list of all naturalised plants in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully distinguishing those confined to cultivated soils alone. I feel sure that this most important subject has been greatly undervalued. LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species" generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in the April number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer is silent on the subject, and prints, without comment, the following passage in an undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was the author of the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's theory? On the whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you must have had a hand in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have not read it with any care" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96). April 9th [1860]. I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2. "Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based only on the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record, it is averred, is so imperfect!"--"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page 530.) he says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of ignorance, whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit the imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty. The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and rising naturalists with plastic minds,* [On the Nature of the Limbs, page 482] are adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after "naturalists" is omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to have been incorrectly assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the quotation.--Ibid., page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young and rising naturalists with plastic minds," attributed to "nature of limbs," is a false quotation, as I do not use the words "plastic minds." At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins, "But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author considers such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled, for I only ask whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms flashing, etc., and he changes it into that I state that they do believe. At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life, and have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations, are set down by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of preconceived opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins by expressing surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special creations,...have been produced by variation, but they refuse to extend the same view to other and very slightly different forms...They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases. The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.") it is very false to say that I imply by "blindness of preconceived opinion" the simple belief of creation. And so on in other cases. But I beg pardon for troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in your unselfish endeavours to spread what you believe to be truth, you should have incurred so brutal an attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, referring to Huxley's Royal Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860, "On Species and Races and their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with amazement at the audacity of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual amusement, who, availing himself of the technical ignorance of the majority of his auditors, sought to blind them as to the frail foundations of 'natural selection' by such illustrations as the subjoined": And then follows a critique of the lecturer's comparison of the supposed descent of the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various kinds of domestic pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think any more of this false and malignant attack. LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th [1860]. I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I am sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have been much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would in the least care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet peas, you can send the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it up. There seems to be so much parallelism in the kind of variation from my experiment, which was certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has observed, that I cannot help suspecting that his peas were crossed by bees, which I have seen well dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea; but then I wish this, and how hard it is to prevent one's wish biassing one's judgment! I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see that it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of course of not the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that no definition can be drawn between monstrosities and slight variations (such as my theory requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction. Some facts lead me to think that monstrosities supervene generally at an early age; and after attending to the subject I have great doubts whether species in a state of nature ever become modified by such sudden jumps as would result from the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You cannot do me a greater service than by pointing out errors. I sincerely hope that your work on monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology," London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) will soon appear, for I am sure it will be highly instructive. Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you. 1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also Letter 33.) not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see that I have stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants, though it ought, if true, to hold good with them. 2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about Peloria affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to the truth of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had been much struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal flowers alone in each raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The Pelargonium case in the "Origin" seems to point in the same direction. (99/3. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 145.) 3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent them to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were cotyledons or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze seedlings are not cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's "Seedlings," I., page 410.) 4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious as I found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a very few days killed some kinds. If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful, for I can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge. With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult to define which is which? Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this head. LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th [1860]. Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I wrote to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge Independent Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due time he says he will send me whatever information he can procure. Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.) He misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his conduct towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay (Australian Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on geographical distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because my book has been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a naturalist like myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation with him I really suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as far as I do. I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about the "Sacerdotal revilers,"--so the revilers are tearing each other to pieces. I suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil. Soc." was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's theory is not inductive--is not based on a series of acknowledged facts, leading to a general conclusion evolved, logically out of the facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as true elements of proof, are the varieties produced by domestication and the artifices of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious multiplication of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's theory may help to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good service to modern science. But he has not undermined any grand truth in the constancy of natural laws, and the continuity of true species.") Judging from his notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860; see "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it will certainly be unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in the above notice, he talks much about my departing from the spirit of inductive philosophy. I wish, if you ever talk on the subject to him, you would ask him whether it was not allowable (and a great step) to invent the undulatory theory of light, i.e. hypothetical undulations, in a hypothetical substance, the ether. And if this be so, why may I not invent the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which from the analogy of domestic productions, and from what we know of the struggle for existence and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some very slight degree, in itself probable) and try whether this hypothesis of Natural Selection does not explain (as I think it does) a large number of facts in geographical distribution--geological succession, classification, morphology, embryology, etc. I should really much like to know why such an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether may be invented, and why I may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as Natural Selection. Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on at such length. I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II., page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think, have been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very different from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific investigation. LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th [1860]. I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must thank you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you could, against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts me for long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been influenced by bad feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived. Nor have I published my conclusions without long deliberation, and they were arrived at after far more study than the public will ever know of, or believe in. I am certain to have erred in many points, but I do not believe so much as Sedgwick and Co. think. Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the above-mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you could get me a copy, I should like to have one. Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion, and for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest days at Cambridge. LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd [1860]. Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first about the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty of simple forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in my book, and I had the discussion all ready. I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about the imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely, and am surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more. I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany). When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see Binney on Coal marine marshes. I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I., page 356.) LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER. (103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression upon the overwhelming importance of selection.) Down [1860]. Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which I will keep a little longer and then return. I will write to him and try to make clear from analogy of domestic productions the part which I believe selection has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other domestic animals, and I am sure that any one is right in saying that selection is the efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation is the base of all. Why I do not believe so much as you do in physical agencies is that I see in almost every organism (though far more clearly in animals than in plants) adaptation, and this except in rare instances, must, I should think, be due to selection. Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker, May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for heaven's sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to the nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so placed that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a point which early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed him.) My blessed little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try artificial fertilisation on it. I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly) that he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me. LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1860]. I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with some letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by making a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review," April, 1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you will get any hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than halfpence." A review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most unfair thing which has appeared,--one mass of misrepresentation. It is evidently by Haughton, the geologist, chemist and mathematician. It shows immeasurable conceit and contempt of all who are not mathematicians. He discusses bees' cells, and puts a series which I have never alluded to, and wholly ignores the intermediate comb of Melipona, which alone led me to my notions. The article is a curiosity of unfairness and arrogance; but, as he sneers at Malthus, I am content, for it is clear he cannot reason. He is a friend of Harvey, with whom I have had some correspondence. Your article has clearly, as he admits, influenced him. He admits to a certain extent Natural Selection, yet I am sure does not understand me. It is strange that very few do, and I am become quite convinced that I must be an extremely bad explainer. To recur for a moment to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is very unfair to Huxley. You say that you think the article must be by a pupil of Owen; but no one fact tells so strongly against Owen, considering his former position at the College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared one pupil or follower. In the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine" (104/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there is an article or review on Lamarck and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like Haughton, despises the reasoning power of all naturalists. Personally he is extremely kind towards me; but he evidently in the following number means to blow me into atoms. He does not in the least appreciate the difference in my views and Lamarck's, as explaining adaptation, the principle of divergence, the increase of dominant groups, and the almost necessary extinction of the less dominant and smaller groups, etc. LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th [1860]. One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation' or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See Letter 131.) of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared. No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species than in the course of the planets. It is only owing to Paley and Co., I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with living bodies. But we shall never agree, so do not trouble yourself to answer. I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not being better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of common-sense. I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The period differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I expected. I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account of a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2. "Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a request that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation in the bee-and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and as you cared about my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I will not. LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down [June?] 20th [1860]. I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was hardly a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke of your kindness. Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire, and thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also to your putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with Natural Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but surely it is not getting beyond our depth to first causes. It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In a letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about gestation of dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the master of hounds, and I see his [record?] is worth nothing. It may, of course, be correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different statements about the wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") should vary so much, while that of man does not. It may be from multiple origin. The eggs from the Musk and the common duck take an intermediate period in hatching; but I should rather look at it as one of the ten thousand cases which we cannot explain--namely, when one part or function varies in one species and not in another. Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862. [read June 21st, 1860.] In this paper Hooker draws attention to the exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity of its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of Arctic Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult to account for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses" (see "Origin," Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern migration due to the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent return of the northern types during the succeeding warmer period. Many of the Greenland species, being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it were, be driven into the sea--that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit., pages 253-4).); but there must have been at all times an Arctic region. I found the speculation got too complex, as it seemed to me, to be worth following out. I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it. I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now you have upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be effected by Natural Selection." LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th [1860]. Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say about "Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review of the "Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished in his "Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182, and II., page 324, where some quotations from the review are given. For Hopkins' review in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and Letters," II., 314.) I have had some really admirable letters from Hopkins. I do not suppose he has ever troubled his head about geographical distribution, classification, morphologies, etc., and it is only those who have that will feel any relief in having some sort of rational explanation of such facts. Is it not grand the way in which the Bishop asserts that all such facts are explained by ideas in God's mind? The "Quarterly" is uncommonly clever; and I chuckled much at the way my grandfather and self are quizzed. I could here and there see Owen's hand. By the way, how comes it that you were not attacked? Does Owen begin to find it more prudent to leave you alone? I would give five shillings to know what tremendous blunder the Bishop made; for I see that a page has been cancelled and a new page gummed in. I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion. From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles Darwin," 1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr. Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of enormous importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more plainly that my unaided book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa Gray is fighting admirably in the United States. He is thorough master of the subject, which cannot be said by any means of such men as even Hopkins. I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review" is given in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August 2nd Mr. Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about it, telling me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work. In reply, however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly, and that the 'Review' was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really a REVIEW and not journal for original communications in Natural History. Of the latter there is now superabundance. With respect to a good review, there can be no doubt of its value and utility; nevertheless, if not too late, I hope you will consider deliberately before you decide. Remember what a deal of work you have on your shoulders, and though you can do much, yet there is a limit to even the hardest worker's power of working. I should deeply regret to see you sacrificing much time which could be given to original research. I fear, to one who can review as well as you do, there would be the same temptation to waste time, as there notoriously is for those who can speak well. A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time to the editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from being confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation? But I must return to the chief idea which strikes me--viz., that it would lessen the amount of original and perennial work which you could do. Reflect how few men there are in England who can do original work in the several lines in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I remember, on analogous grounds many years ago resolved he would write no more reviews. I am an old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble. God knows in one sense I am about the last man in England who ought to throw cold water on any review in which you would be concerned, as I have so immensely profited by your labours in this line. With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and ends of time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular current of work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I know I shall never work them up. So I will not promise to help; though not to help, if I could, would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You have no idea during how short a time daily I am able to work. If I had any regular duties, like you and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing in science. I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot understand. For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research in the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that I wish to underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews. LETTER 108. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, Thursday [July, 1860]. I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent it to my wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much interested me. But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves? By Jove, you seem to have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any belief of the bishop's, would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be inexpressibly shocked? I am very, very sorry to hear that you are not well; but am not surprised after all your self-imposed labour. I hope you will soon have an outing, and that will do you real good. I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and shall tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last "Fraser?"--well put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I have told him; nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and leaves out all other considerations. I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan. God bless you!--get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop. LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th [1860]. I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not visit England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily have liked to have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an improved, but not very good, account of your health. I should at some time be grateful for a line to tell me how you are. We have had a miserable summer, owing to a terribly long and severe illness of my eldest girl, who improves slightly but is still in a precarious condition. I have been able to do nothing in science of late. My kind friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me of the warm discussions on the "Origin of Species" in the United States. Whenever you are strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against me, but I know equally well that your opposition will be liberal and philosophical. And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents in this country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1. "Silliman's Journal," July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given by Mr. Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope to find it at home when I return in a few days, for I have been for several weeks away from home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent me an extremely kind message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open to a reply by me. I cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have resolved to avoid answering anything, as it consumes much time, often temper, and I have said my say in the "Origin." No one person understands my views and has defended them so well as A. Gray, though he does not by any means go all the way with me. There was much discussion on the subject at the British Association at Oxford, and I had many defenders, and my side seems (for I was not there) almost to have got the best of the battle. Your correspondent and my neighbour, J. Lubbock, goes on working at such spare time as he has. This is an egotistical note, but I have not seen a naturalist for months. Most sincerely and deeply do I hope that this note may find you almost recovered. LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY. (110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a long one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already published a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently he had not before this time completed the reading of the "Origin.") [August, 1860.] I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for your great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not wish to attempt answering any part, except to you privately. Anything said by myself in defence would have no weight; it is best to be defended by others, or not at all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if I may be permitted to say so, very acute and original, and I feel it a great compliment your giving up so much time to my book. But, on the whole, I am disappointed; not from your not concurring with me, for I never expected that, and, indeed, in your remarks on Chapters XII. and XIII., you go much further with me (though a little way) than I ever anticipated, and am much pleased at the result. But on the whole I am disappointed, because it seems to me that you do not understand what I mean by Natural Selection, as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey speaks of the perpetuation or selection of the useful, pre-supposing "a vigilant and intelligent agent," which is very much like saying that an intelligent agent is needed to see that the small stones pass through the meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain behind.) of your letter and by several of your remarks. As my book has failed to explain my meaning, it would be hopeless to attempt it in a letter. You speak in the early part of your letter, and at page 9, as if I had said that Natural Selection was the sole agency of modification, whereas I have over and over again, ad nauseam, directly said, and by order of precedence implied (what seems to me obvious) that selection can do nothing without previous variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469, etc.), "nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur." I consider Natural Selection as of such high importance, because it accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction, and thus adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term "selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more reason why it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I had to rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read any part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and selected, and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject would be clearer. As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I should long before this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had I not found by published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that Lyell, Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many others, perfectly comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at page 11 is that my explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural Selection, are mere empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As the above-named clear-headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a certain length with me, and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I should venture to suggest a little further reflection on your part. I do not mean by this to imply that the opinion of these men is worth much as showing that I am right, but merely as some evidence that I have clearer ideas than you think, otherwise these same men must be even more muddle-headed than I am; for they have no temptation to deceive themselves. In the forthcoming September (110/3. "American Journal of Science and Arts," September 1860, "Design versus Necessity," reprinted in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.) number of the "American Journal of Science" there is an interesting and short theological article (by Asa Gray), which gives incidentally with admirable clearness the theory of Natural Selection, and therefore might be worth your reading. I think that the theological part would interest you. You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily conjectural, and may be all false; but they were the best I could give. The bear case (110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See Letter 120.) has been well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by some into my saying that a bear could be converted into a whale. As it offended persons, I struck it out in the second edition; but I still maintain that there is no especial difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,--no more difficulty than man has found in increasing the crop of the pigeon, by continued selection, until it is literally as big as the whole rest of the body. If this had not been known, how absurd it would have appeared to say that the crop of a bird might be increased till it became like a balloon! With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced, and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a bird is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially a bird. You will see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous discussion. At page 450 of the second edition I have pointed out the essential distinction between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you prefer the more complex view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its wings, and that the present ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to say in opposition. With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the main facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I do not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders having been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents. The case seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether generally herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on islands than on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 392, the author points out that in the presence of competing trees an herbaceous plant would have little chance of becoming arborescent; but on an island, with only other herbaceous plants as competitors, it might gain an advantage by overtopping its fellows, and become tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you say (page 392) of insular trees belonging to orders which elsewhere include only herbaceous species seems to me to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. You cite no particular trees, and I may therefore be wrong in guessing that the orders you allude to are Scrophularineae and Compositae; and the insular trees the Antarctic Veronicas and the arborescent Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But in South Africa Halleria (Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as an apple tree; and there are several South African arborescent Compositae (Senecio and Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent Composites are not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and growing taller and taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent of them all (Eurybia argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus forests. And so of the South African Halleria, which is a tree among trees. What the conditions of the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich Islands may be I am unable to say...I cannot remember any other instances, nor can I accept your explanation in any other of the cases I have cited.") In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as separate creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference is only in degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a distinct reason how far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms, which resemble each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly descended from the same species. You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask--were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed, or full grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of life. In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was chiefly due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483, "Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort of feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual cell, increasing by simple division. Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably. It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does the astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the distance of the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great, Lingula, etc., remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to the present day, is like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with wild Rock-pigeons, whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely modified, and are still being modified, by means of artificial selection. You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the second edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the first germ of life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our speculations on the kind of change which its offspring underwent. I dissent quite from what you say of the myriads of years it would take to people the world with such imagined protozoon. In how very short a time Ehrenberg calculated that a single infusorium might make a cube of rock! A single cube on geometrical progression would make the solid globe in (I suppose) under a century. From what little I know, I cannot help thinking that you underrate the effects of the physical conditions of life on these low organisms. But I fully admit that I can give no sort of answer to your objections; yet I must add that it would be marvellous if any man ever could, assuming for the moment that my theory is true. You beg the question, I think, in saying that Protococcus would be doomed to eternal similarity. Nor can you know that the first germ resembled a Protococcus or any other now living form. Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become fitted by selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will generally become degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make this part of the subject clearer. I left out this and many other subjects, which I now see ought to have been introduced. I have inserted a discussion on this subject in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the third Edition a discussion on this point is added in Chapter IV.) In no case will any organic being tend to retrograde, unless such retrogradation be an advantage to its varying offspring; and it is difficult to see how going back to the structure of the unknown supposed original protozoon could ever be an advantage. Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion on "dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey writes: "Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is unquestionable that the truly dominant races are not those of high, but those of low organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease, etc. In the third edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is introduced defining the author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now see that I have not been cautious enough in confining my definition and meaning. I cannot say that you have altered my views. If Botrytis [Phytophthora] had exterminated the wild potato, a low form would have conquered a high; but I cannot remember that I have ever said (I am sure I never thought) that a low form would never conquer a high. I have expressly alluded to parasites half exterminating game-animals, and to the struggle for life being sometimes between forms as different as possible: for instance, between grasshoppers and herbivorous quadrupeds. Under the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of considering that any one group, under all conditions and throughout the world, would be predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under the conditions of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their perfected senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I have spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the multiplication of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has been relative generally to other members of the same group, or at least to beings exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition. But I daresay that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space has rendered it impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your valuable remarks, though I do not agree with them. About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them--they would aid me in some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found no evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to make a marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses. I do not see how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of change in a chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae during their development throws any light on the subject. I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading my bad handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and kindness in sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were a little nearer in accord; but we must remain content to be as wide asunder as the poles, but without, thank God, any malice or other ill-feeling. LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August, and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form Chapter III. in his "Darwiniana" (1876). See "Life and Letters," II., page 338. The article referred to in the present letter is that in the August number.) Down, September 10th [1860]. I send by this post a review by Asa Gray, so good that I should like you to see it; I must beg for its return. I want to ask, also, your opinion about getting it reprinted in England. I thought of sending it to the Editor of the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." in which two hostile reviews have appeared (although I suppose the "Annals" have a very poor circulation), and asking them in the spirit of fair play to print this, with Asa Gray's name, which I will take the responsibility of adding. Also, as it is long, I would offer to pay expenses. It is very good, in addition, as bringing in Pictet so largely. (111/2. Pictet (1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review opposed to the "Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) Tell me briefly what you think. What an astonishing expedition this is of Hooker's to Syria! God knows whether it is wise. How are you and all yours? I hope you are not working too hard. For Heaven's sake, think that you may become such a beast as I am. How goes on the "Nat. Hist. Review?" Talking of reviews, I damned with a good grace the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of the Alps" ("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280).) on Tyndall with a mean, scurvy allusion to you. It is disgraceful about Tyndall,--in fact, doubting his veracity. I am very tired, and hate nearly the whole world. So good-night, and take care of your digestion, which means brain. LETTER 112. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, 26th [September 1860]. It has just occurred to me that I took no notice of your questions on extinction in St. Helena. I am nearly sure that Hooker has information on the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II. (Edition X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating the extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I cannot remember where I have seen it. One may confidently assume that many insects were exterminated. By the way, I heard lately from Wollaston, who told me that he had just received eminently Madeira and Canary Island insect forms from the Cape of Good Hope, to which trifling distance, if he is logical, he will have to extend his Atlantis! I have just received your letter, and am very much pleased that you approve. But I am utterly disgusted and ashamed about the dingo. I cannot think how I could have misunderstood the paper so grossly. I hope I have not blundered likewise in its co-existence with extinct species: what horrid blundering! I am grieved to hear that you think I must work in the notes in the text; but you are so much better a judge that I will obey. I am sorry that you had the trouble of returning the Dog MS., which I suppose I shall receive to-morrow. I mean to give good woodcuts of all the chief races of pigeons. (112/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.) Except the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground ("Var. of Animals," Volume I., page 183).) (which is partly, indeed almost entirely, a wood pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon with which our domestic pigeon would cross--that is, if several exceedingly close geographical races of C. livia, which hardly any ornithologist looks at as true species, be all grouped under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia, the Rock-pigeon. "We may conclude with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great amount of difference, are descended from the Columba livia, including under this name certain wild races" (op. cit., Volume I., page 223).) I am writing higgledy-piggledy, as I re-read your letter. I thought that my letter had been much wilder than yours. I quite feel the comfort of writing when one may "alter one's speculations the day after." It is beyond my knowledge to weigh ranks of birds and monotremes; in the respiratory and circulatory system and muscular energy I believe birds are ahead of all mammals. I knew that you must have known about New Guinea; but in writing to you I never make myself civil! After treating some half-dozen or dozen domestic animals in the same manner as I treat dogs, I intended to have a chapter of conclusions. But Heaven knows when I shall finish: I get on very slowly. You would be surprised how long it took me to pick out what seemed useful about dogs out of multitudes of details. I see the force of your remark about more isolated races of man in old times, and therefore more in number. It seems to me difficult to weigh probabilities. Perhaps so, if you refer to very slight differences in the races: to make great differences much time would be required, and then, even at the earliest period I should have expected one race to have spread, conquered, and exterminated the others. With respect to Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837 Dr. Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley collected a large number of fossil remains from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis," 1845-49.), I think the case could be answered better than I have done in the "Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 334. "It is no real objection to the truth of the statement that the fauna of each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the preceding and succeeding faunas, that certain genera offer exceptions to the rule. For instance, mastodons and elephants, when arranged by Dr. Falconer in two series, first according to their mutual affinities and then according to their periods of existence, do not accord in arrangement. The species extreme in character are not the oldest, or the most recent; nor are those which are intermediate in character intermediate in age. But supposing for an instant, in this and other such cases, that the record of the first appearance and disappearance of the species was perfect, we have no reason to believe that forms successively produced necessarily endure for corresponding lengths of time. A very ancient form might occasionally last much longer than a form elsewhere subsequently produced, especially in the case of terrestrial productions inhabiting separated districts" (pages 334-5). The same words occur in the later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these new discoveries show how imperfect the discovered series is, which Falconer thought years ago was nearly perfect. I will send to-day or to-morrow two articles by Asa Gray. The longer one (now not finally corrected) will come out in the October "Atlantic Monthly," and they can be got at Trubner's. Hearty thanks for all your kindness. Do not hurry over Asa Gray. He strikes me as one of the best reasoners and writers I ever read. He knows my book as well as I do myself. LETTER 113. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 3rd [1860]. Your last letter has interested me much in many ways. I enclose a letter of Wyman's which touches on brains. Wyman is mistaken in supposing that I did not know that the Cave-rat was an American form; I made special enquiries. He does not know that the eye of the Tucotuco was carefully dissected. With respect to reviews by A. Gray. I thought of sending the Dialogue to the "Saturday Review" in a week's time or so, as they have lately discussed Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's Treatise on the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer. Journ. Sci." Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62. The article begins with the following question: "First Reader--Is Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it tend to atheism or pantheism?" The discussion is closed by the Second Reader, who thus sums up his views: "Wherefore we may insist that, for all that yet appears, the argument for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as good now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before the theory was promulgated; and that the sceptical juryman, who was about to join the other eleven in an unanimous verdict in favour of design, finds no good excuse for keeping the Court longer waiting.") I have sent the second, or August, "Atlantic" article to the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. History." (113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., pages 373-86, 1860. (From the "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1860.)) The copy which you have I want to send to Pictet, as I told A. Gray I would, thinking from what he said he would like this to be done. I doubt whether it would be possible to get the October number reprinted in this country; so that I am in no hurry at all for this. I had a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds on the imperfection of the Geological Record, less clear and forcible than I expected. I answered him at length and very civilly, though I could hardly make out what he was driving at. He spoke about you in a way which it did me good to read. I am extremely glad that you like A. Gray's reviews. How generous and unselfish he has been in all his labour! Are you not struck by his metaphors and similes? I have told him he is a poet and not a lawyer. I should altogether doubt on turtles being converted into land tortoises on any one island. Remember how closely similar tortoises are on all continents, as well as islands; they must have all descended from one ancient progenitor, including the gigantic tortoise of the Himalaya. I think you must be cautious in not running the convenient doctrine that only one species out of very many ever varies. Reflect on such cases as the fauna and flora of Europe, North America, and Japan, which are so similar, and yet which have a great majority of their species either specifically distinct, or forming well-marked races. We must in such cases incline to the belief that a multitude of species were once identically the same in all the three countries when under a warmer climate and more in connection; and have varied in all the three countries. I am inclined to believe that almost every species (as we see with nearly all our domestic productions) varies sufficiently for Natural Selection to pick out and accumulate new specific differences, under new organic and inorganic conditions of life, whenever a place is open in the polity of nature. But looking to a long lapse of time and to the whole world, or to large parts of the world, I believe only one or a few species of each large genus ultimately becomes victorious, and leaves modified descendants. To give an imaginary instance: the jay has become modified in the three countries into (I believe) three or four species; but the jay genus is not, apparently, so dominant a group as the crows; and in the long run probably all the jays will be exterminated and be replaced perhaps by some modified crows. I merely give this illustration to show what seems to me probable. But oh! what work there is before we shall understand the genealogy of organic beings! With respect to the Apteryx, I know not enough of anatomy; but ask Dr. F. whether the clavicle, etc., do not give attachment to some of the muscles of respiration. If my views are at all correct, the wing of the Apteryx (113/3. "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) cannot be (page 452 of the "Origin") a nascent organ, as these wings are useless. I dare not trust to memory, but I know I found the whole sternum always reduced in size in all the fancy and confined pigeons relatively to the same bones in the wild Rock-pigeon: the keel was generally still further reduced relatively to the reduced length of the sternum; but in some breeds it was in a most anomalous manner more prominent. I have got a lot of facts on the reduction of the organs of flight in the pigeon, which took me weeks to work out, and which Huxley thought curious. I am utterly ashamed, and groan over my handwriting. It was "Natural Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author ought to suffer. It rejoices me that you do not object to the term. Hooker made the same remark that it ought to have been "Variation and Natural Selection." Yet with domestic productions, when selection is spoken of, variation is always implied. But I entirely agree with your and Hooker's remark. Have you begun regularly to write your book on the antiquity of man? (113/4. Published in 1863.) I do NOT agree with your remark that I make Natural Selection do too much work. You will perhaps reply that every man rides his hobby-horse to death; and that I am in the galloping state. LETTER 114. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday 5th [October, 1860]. I have two notes to thank you for, and I return Wollaston. It has always seemed to me rather strange that Forbes, Wollaston and Co. should argue, from the presence of allied, and not identical species in islands, for the former continuity of land. They argue, I suppose, from the species being allied in different regions of the same continent, though specifically distinct. But I think one might on the creative doctrine argue with equal force in a directly reverse manner, and say that, as species are so often markedly distinct, yet allied, on islands, all our continents existed as islands first, and their inhabitants were first created on these islands, and since became mingled together, so as not to be so distinct as they now generally are on islands. LETTER 115. TO H.G. BRONN. Down, October 5th [1860]. I ought to apologise for troubling you, but I have at last carefully read your excellent criticisms on my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical remarks to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and Letters," II., page 279.) I agree with much of them, and wholly with your final sentence. The objections and difficulties which may be urged against my view are indeed heavy enough almost to break my back, but it is not yet broken! You put very well and very fairly that I can in no one instance explain the course of modification in any particular instance. I could make some sort of answer to your case of the two rats; and might I not turn round and ask him who believes in the separate creation of each species, why one rat has a longer tail or shorter ears than another? I presume that most people would say that these characters were of some use, or stood in some connection with other parts; and if so, Natural Selection would act on them. But as you put the case, it tells well against me. You argue most justly against my question, whether the many species were created as eggs (115/2. See Letter 110.) or as mature, etc. I certainly had no right to ask that question. I fully agree that there might have been as well a hundred thousand creations as eight or ten, or only one. But then, on the view of eight or ten creations (i.e. as many as there are distinct types of structure) we can on my view understand the homological and embryological resemblance of all the organisms of each type, and on this ground almost alone I disbelieve in the innumerable acts of creation. There are only two points on which I think you have misunderstood me. I refer only to one Glacial period as affecting the distribution of organic beings; I did not wish even to allude to the doubtful evidence of glacial action in the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Secondly, I do not believe that the process of development has always been carried on at the same rate in all different parts of the world. Australia is opposed to such belief. The nearly contemporaneous equal development in past periods I attribute to the slow migration of the higher and more dominant forms over the whole world, and not to independent acts of development in different parts. Lastly, permit me to add that I cannot see the force of your objection, that nothing is effected until the origin of life is explained: surely it is worth while to attempt to follow out the action of electricity, though we know not what electricity is. If you should at any time do me the favour of writing to me, I should be very much obliged if you would inform me whether you have yourself examined Brehm's subspecies of birds; for I have looked through some of his writings, but have never met an ornithologist who believed in his [illegible]. Are these subspecies really characteristic of certain different regions of Germany? Should you write, I should much like to know how the German edition sells. LETTER 116. TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 26th [1860]. Many thanks for your note and for all the trouble about the seeds, which will be most useful to me next spring. On my return home I will send the shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish who collected seeds for Darwin.) I concluded that Dr. Bree had blundered about the Celts. I care not for his dull, unvarying abuse of me, and singular misrepresentation. But at page 244 he in fact doubts my deliberate word, and that is the act of a man who has not the soul of a gentleman in him. Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine" (116/2. "Species not Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the "Origin," Edition II., page 481, the words in which a celebrated author and divine confesses that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree goes on: "I think we ought to have had the name of this divine given with this remarkable statement. I confess that I have not yet fully made up my mind that any divine could have ever penned lines so fatal to the truths he is called upon to teach.") whose striking sentence I give in the second edition with his permission. I did not choose to ask him to let me use his name, and as he did not volunteer, I had of course no choice. (116/3. We are indebted to Mr. G.W. Prothero for calling our attention to the following striking passage from the works of a divine of this period:--"Just a similar scepticism has been evinced by nearly all the first physiologists of the day, who have joined in rejecting the development theories of Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under the high sanction of the name of Owen that 'creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production...while a work has now appeared by a naturalist of the most acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's masterly volume on the 'Origin of Species,' by the law of 'natural selection,' which now substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first naturalists--the origination of new species by natural causes: a work which must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature."--Prof. Baden Powell's "Study of the Evidences of Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th edition, 1861 (pages 138, 139).) Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is far beyond my scope--something like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" on my grandfather, which was quoted in the "Quarterly Review." LETTER 117. TO D.T. ANSTED. (117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's presidential address to the Entomological Society, 1897, and to him we are indebted for a copy.) 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 27th [1860]. As I am away from home on account of my daughter's health, I do not know your address, and fly this at random, and it is of very little consequence if it never reaches you. I have just been reading the greater part of your "Geological Gossip," and have found part very interesting; but I want to express my admiration at the clear and correct manner in which you have given a sketch of Natural Selection. You will think this very slight praise; but I declare that the majority of readers seem utterly incapable of comprehending my long argument. Some of the reviewers, who have servilely stuck to my illustrations and almost to my words, have been correct, but extraordinarily few others have succeeded. I can see plainly, by your new illustrations and manner and order of putting the case, that you thoroughly comprehend the subject. I assure you this is most gratifying to me, and it is the sole way in which the public can be indoctrinated. I am often in despair in making the generality of NATURALISTS even comprehend me. Intelligent men who are not naturalists and have not a bigoted idea of the term species, show more clearness of mind. I think that you have done the subject a real service, and I sincerely thank you. No doubt there will be much error found in my book, but I have great confidence that the main view will be, in time, found correct; for I find, without exception, that those naturalists who went at first one inch with me now go a foot or yard with me. This note obviously requires no answer. LETTER 118. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 22nd [1860]. I thank you sincerely for writing to me and for your very interesting letter. Your name has for very long been familiar to me, and I have heard of your zealous exertions in the cause of Natural History. But I did not know that you had worked with high philosophical questions before your mind. I have an old belief that a good observer really means a good theorist (118/1. For an opposite opinion, see Letter 13.), and I fully expect to find your observations most valuable. I am very sorry to hear that your health is shattered; but I trust under a healthy climate it may be restored. I can sympathise with you fully on this score, for I have had bad health for many years, and fear I shall ever remain a confirmed invalid. I am delighted to hear that you, with all your large practical knowledge of Natural History, anticipated me in many respects and concur with me. As you say, I have been thoroughly well attacked and reviled (especially by entomologists--Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray have all reviewed and sneered at me to their hearts' content), but I care nothing about their attacks; several really good judges go a long way with me, and I observe that all those who go some little way tend to go somewhat further. What a fine philosophical mind your friend Mr. Wallace has, and he has acted, in relation to me, like a true man with a noble spirit. I see by your letter that you have grappled with several of the most difficult problems, as it seems to me, in Natural History--such as the distinctions between the different kinds of varieties, representative species, etc. Perhaps I shall find some facts in your paper on intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, on which subject I have found remarkably little information. I cannot tell you how glad I am to hear that you have attended to the curious point of equatorial refrigeration. I quite agree that it must have been small; yet the more I go into that question the more convinced I feel that there was during the Glacial period some migration from north to south. The sketch in the "Origin" gives a very meagre account of my fuller MS. essay on this subject. I shall be particularly obliged for a copy of your paper when published (118/2. Probably a paper by Bates entitled "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335, 1858-61).); and if any suggestions occur to me (not that you require any) or questions, I will write and ask. I have at once to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third Edition, March, 1861.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy; but it will be only very slightly altered. Cases of neuter ants, divided into castes, with intermediate gradations (which I imagine are rare) interest me much. See "Origin" on the driver-ant, page 241 (please look at the passage.) LETTER 119. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (119/1. This refers to the first number of the new series of the "Natural History Review," 1861, a periodical which Huxley was largely instrumental in founding, and of which he was an editor (see Letter 107). The first series was published in Dublin, and ran to seven volumes between 1854 and 1860. The new series came to an end in 1865.) Down, January, 3rd [1861]. I have just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and must congratulate you, as chiefly concerned, on its excellence. The whole seems to me admirable,--so admirable that it is impossible that other numbers should be so good, but it would be foolish to expect it. I am rather a croaker, and I do rather fear that the merit of the articles will be above the run of common readers and subscribers. I have been much interested by your brain article. (119/2. The "Brain article" of Huxley bore the title "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals," and appeared in No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Mr. Huxley's vindication of the unqualified contradiction given by him at the Oxford meeting of the British Association to Professor Owen's assertions as to the difference between the brains of man and the higher apes. The sentence omitted by Owen in his lecture before the University of Cambridge was a footnote on the close structural resemblance between Homo and Pithecus, which occurs in his paper on the characters of the class Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," Volume II., 1857, page 20. According to Huxley the lecture, or "Essay on the Classification of the Mammalia," was, with this omission, a reprint of the Linnean paper. In "Man's Place in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley remarks: "Surely it is a little singular that the 'anatomist,' who finds it 'difficult' to 'determine the difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should yet range them, on anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes.") What a complete and awful smasher (and done like a "buttered angel") it is for Owen! What a humbug he is to have left out the sentence in the lecture before the orthodox Cambridge dons! I like Lubbock's paper very much: how well he writes. (119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of Leydig on the Daphniidae. M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the Electric Organ of the Torpedo," afterwards used in the "Origin" (see Edition VI., page 150).) M'Donnell, of course, pleases me greatly. But I am very curious to know who wrote the Protozoa article: I shall hear, if it be not a secret, from Lubbock. It strikes me as very good, and, by Jove, how Owen is shown up--"this great and sound reasoner"! By the way, this reminds me of a passage which I have just observed in Owen's address at Leeds, which a clever reviewer might turn into good fun. He defines (page xc) and further on amplifies his definition that creation means "a process he knows not what." And in a previous sentence he says facts shake his confidence that the Apteryx in New Zealand and Red Grouse in England are "distinct creations." So that he has no confidence that these birds were produced by "processes he knows not what!" To what miserable inconsistencies and rubbish this truckling to opposite opinions leads the great generaliser! (119/4. In the "Historical Sketch," which forms part of the later editions of the "Origin," Mr. Darwin made use of Owen's Leeds Address in the manner sketched above. See "Origin," Edition VI., page xvii.) Farewell: I heartily rejoice in the clear merit of this number. I hope Mrs. Huxley goes on well. Etty keeps much the same, but has not got up to the same pitch as when you were here. Farewell. LETTER 120. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, February 25th [1861]. I am extremely much obliged for your very kind present of your beautiful work, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I have no doubt that I shall find much interesting from so careful and acute an observer as yourself. (120/1. "Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the Northern Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes: "The polar bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the bears inhabiting Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it surely requires no very great stretch of the imagination to suppose that this variety was originally created, not as we see him now, but by individuals of Ursus arctos in Siberia, who, finding their means of subsistence running short, and pressed by hunger, ventured on the ice and caught some seals. These individuals would find that they could make a subsistence in this way, and would take up their residence on the shore and gradually take to a life on the ice...Then it stands to reason that those individuals who might happen to be palest in colour would have the best chance of succeeding in surprising seals...The process of Natural Selection would do the rest, and Ursus arctos would in the course of a few thousands, or a few millions of years, be transformed into the variety at present known as Ursus maritimus." The author adds the following footnote (op. cit., page 275): "It will be obvious to any one that I follow Mr. Darwin in these remarks; and, although the substance of this chapter was written in Spitzbergen, before "The Origin of Species" was published, I do not claim any originality for my views; and I also cheerfully acknowledge that, but for the publication of that work in connection with the name of so distinguished a naturalist, I never would have ventured to give to the world my own humble opinions on the subject.") P.S. I have just been cutting the leaves of your book, and have been very much pleased and surprised at your note about what you wrote in Spitzbergen. As you thought it out independently, it is no wonder that you so clearly understand Natural Selection, which so few of my reviewers do or pretend not to do. I never expected to see any one so heroically bold as to defend my bear illustration. (120/2. "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water."--"Origin," Edition VI., page 141. See Letter 110.) But a man who has done all that you have done must be bold! It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this bear. I am much pleased with your remarks, and thank you cordially for coming to the rescue. LETTER 121. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. (121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier, taken as a whole, give a striking picture of the amount of assistance which Darwin received from him during many years. Some citations from these letters given in "Life and Letters," II., pages 52, 53, show how freely and generously Mr. Tegetmeier gave his help, and how much his co-operation was valued. The following letter is given as an example of the questions on which Darwin sought Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.) Down, March 22 [1861]. I ought to have answered your last note sooner; but I have been very busy. How wonderfully successful you have been in breeding Pouters! You have a good right to be proud of your accuracy of eye and judgment. I am in the thick of poultry, having just commenced, and shall be truly grateful for the skulls, if you can send them by any conveyance to the Nag's Head next Thursday. You ask about vermilion wax: positively it was not in the state of comb, but in solid bits and cakes, which were thrown with other rubbish not far from my hives. You can make any use of the fact you like. Combs could be concentrically and variously coloured and dates recorded by giving for a few days wax darkly coloured with vermilion and indigo, and I daresay other substances. You ask about my crossed fowls, and this leads me to make a proposition to you, which I hope cannot be offensive to you. I trust you know me too well to think that I would propose anything objectionable to the best of my judgment. The case is this: for my object of treating poultry I must give a sketch of several breeds, with remarks on various points. I do not feel strong on the subject. Now, when my MS. is fairly copied in an excellent handwriting, would you read it over, which would take you at most an hour or two, and make comments in pencil on it; and accept, like a barrister, a fee, we will say, of a couple of guineas. This would be a great assistance to me, specially if you would allow me to put a note, stating that you, a distinguished judge and fancier, had read it over. I would state that you doubted or concurred, as each case might be, of course striking out what you were sure was incorrect. There would be little new in my MS. to you; but if by chance you used any of my facts or conclusions before I published, I should wish you to state that they were on my authority; otherwise I shall be accused of stealing from you. There will be little new, except that perhaps I have consulted some out-of-the-way books, and have corresponded with some good authorities. Tell me frankly what you think of this; but unless you will oblige me by accepting remuneration, I cannot and will not give you such trouble. I have little doubt that several points will arise which will require investigation, as I care for many points disregarded by fanciers; and according to any time thus spent, you will, I trust, allow me to make remuneration. I hope that you will grant me this favour. There is one assistance which I will now venture to beg of you--viz., to get me, if you can, another specimen of an old white Angora rabbit. I want it dead for the skeleton; and not knocked on the head. Secondly, I see in the "Cottage Gardener" (March 19th, page 375) there are impure half-lops with one ear quite upright and shorter than the other lopped ear. I much want a dead one. Baker cannot get one. Baily is looking out; but I want two specimens. Can you assist me, if you meet any rabbit-fancier? I have had rabbits with one ear more lopped than the other; but I want one with one ear quite upright and shorter, and the other quite long and lopped. LETTER 122. TO H.W. BATES. Down, March 26th [1861]. I have read your papers with extreme interest, and I have carefully read every word of them. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860). "Entomological Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) They seem to me to be far richer in facts of variation, and especially on the distribution of varieties and subspecies, than anything which I have read. Hereafter I shall re-read them, and hope in my future work to profit by them and make use of them. The amount of variation has much surprised me. The analogous variation of distinct species in the same regions strikes me as particularly curious. The greater variability of the female sex is new to me. Your Guiana case seems in some degree analogous, as far as plants are concerned, with the modern plains of La Plata, which seem to have been colonised from the north, but the species have been hardly modified. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page 349) gives reason to believe that the Guiana region should be considered "a perfectly independent province," and that it has formed a centre "whence radiated the species which now people the low lands on its borders.") Would you kindly answer me two or three questions if in your power? When species A becomes modified in another region into a well-marked form C, but is connected with it by one (or more) gradational forms B inhabiting an intermediate region; does this form B generally exist in equal numbers with A and C, OR INHABIT AN EQUALLY LARGE AREA? The probability is that you cannot answer this question, though one of your cases seems to bear on it... You will, I think, be glad to hear that I now often hear of naturalists accepting my views more or less fully; but some are curiously cautious in running the risk of any small odium in expressing their belief. LETTER 123. TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 4th [1861]. I have been unwell, so have delayed thanking you for your admirable letter. I hope you will not think me presumptuous in saying how much I have been struck with your varied knowledge, and with the decisive manner in which you bring it to bear on each point,--a rare and most high quality, as far as my experience goes. I earnestly hope you will find time to publish largely: before the Linnean Society you might bring boldly out your views on species. Have you ever thought of publishing your travels, and working in them the less abstruse parts of your Natural History? I believe it would sell, and be a very valuable contribution to Natural History. You must also have seen a good deal of the natives. I know well it would be quite unreasonable to ask for any further information from you; but I will just mention that I am now, and shall be for a long time, writing on domestic varieties of all animals. Any facts would be useful, especially any showing that savages take any care in breeding their animals, or in rejecting the bad and preserving the good; or any fancies which they may have that one coloured or marked dog, etc., is better than another. I have already collected much on this head, but am greedy for facts. You will at once see their bearing on variation under domestication. Hardly anything in your letter has pleased me more than about sexual selection. In my larger MS. (and indeed in the "Origin" with respect to the tuft of hairs on the breast of the cock-turkey) I have guarded myself against going too far; but I did not at all know that male and female butterflies haunted rather different sites. If I had to cut up myself in a review I would have [worried?] and quizzed sexual selection; therefore, though I am fully convinced that it is largely true, you may imagine how pleased I am at what you say on your belief. This part of your letter to me is a quintessence of richness. The fact about butterflies attracted by coloured sepals is another good fact, worth its weight in gold. It would have delighted the heart of old Christian C. Sprengel--now many years in his grave. I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to "mimetic" analogies--a most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have for a long time wished to know whether what Dr. Collingwood asserts is true--that the most striking cases generally occur between insects inhabiting the same country. LETTER 124. TO F.W. HUTTON. Down, April 20th [1861]. I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of your paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April 23rd?, 1861) Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362). The review appeared in "The Geologist" (afterwards known as "The Geological Magazine") for 1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on "Difficulties of Darwinism" is published in the same volume of "The Geologist," page 286.), and at the same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject a real service by the highly original, striking, and condensed manner with which you have put the case. I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained. But it is generally of no use; I cannot make persons see this. I generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory of the undulation of light,--neither the undulation nor the very existence of ether being proved, yet admitted because the view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased to see how carefully you have read my book, and, what is far more important, reflected on so many points with an independent spirit. As I am deeply interested in the subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal point of view) I could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good service which you have done. I need hardly say that this note requires no answer. LETTER 125. TO J.D. HOOKER. (125/1. Parts of this letter are published in "Life and Letters," II., page 362.) Down, [April] 23rd, [1861]. I have been much interested by Bentham's paper in the "Natural History Review," but it would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as it did me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133, which is founded on, or extracted from, a paper read before the Linn. Soc., November 15th, 1858. It had been originally set down to be read on July 1st, 1858, but gave way to the papers of Darwin and Wallace. Mr. Bentham has described ("Life and Letters," II., page 294) how he reluctantly cancelled the parts urging "original fixity" of specific type, and the remainder seems not to have been published except in the above-quoted paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review.") I liked the whole--all the facts on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up their noses and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject in the "Origin." I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially with us or dead against us, he would write excellent matter. He made no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged--so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow. I dined with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner...dining-out is such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not self-evident as his "canons." (125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206. The paper is "On the Brain of the Orang Utang," and forms part of the bitter controversy of this period to which reference occurs in letters to Huxley and elsewhere in these volumes. Rolleston's work is quoted by Huxley ("Man's Place in Nature," page 117) as part of the crushing refutation of Owen's position. Mr. Huxley's letter referred to above is no doubt that in the "Athenaeum," April 13th, 1861, page 498; it is certainly severe, but to those who know Mr. Huxley's "Succinct History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's Place in Nature," page 113), it will not seem too severe.) I had a dim perception of the truth of your profound remark--that he wrote in fear and trembling "of God, man, and monkeys," but I would alter it into "God, man, Owen, and monkeys." Huxley's letter was truculent, and I see that every one thinks it too truculent; but in simple truth I am become quite demoniacal about Owen--worse than Huxley; and I told Huxley that I should put myself under his care to be rendered milder. But I mean to try and get more angelic in my feelings; yet I never shall forget his cordial shake of the hand, when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could against me. But I have always thought that you have more cause than I to be demoniacally inclined towards him. Bell told me that Owen says that the editor mutilated his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is the only instance, with which we are acquainted, of Owen's acknowledging the authorship of the "Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to think it was rendered more spiteful by the Editor; perhaps the opposite view is as probable. Oh, dear! this does not look like becoming more angelic in my temper! I had a splendid long talk with Lyell (you may guess how splendid, for he was many times on his knees, with elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr. Darwin often spoke of Sir Charles Lyell's tendency to take curious attitudes when excited.) on his work in France: he seems to have done capital work in making out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the case gets more and more complicated. All, however, tends to greater and greater antiquity of man. The shingle beds seem to be estuary deposits. I called on R. Chambers at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very pleasant half-hour's talk--he is really a capital fellow. He made one good remark and chuckled over it: that the laymen universally had treated the controversy on the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely professional subject, and had not joined in it but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow. Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend. P.S.--We are very much obliged for "London Review." We like reading much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum." You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies and trouble; but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum" and "Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are intolerably dull, but I have taken them in for so many years that I cannot give them up. The "Cottage Gardener," for my purpose, is now far better than the "Gardeners' Chronicle." LETTER 126. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, April 25 [1861]. I received this morning your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" [published in 1861], and most sincerely do I thank you for this your very kind present. I had heard of and been recommended to read your articles, but, not knowing that they were separately published, did not know how to get them. So your present is most acceptable, and I am very anxious to see your views on the whole subject of species and variation; and I am certain to derive much benefit from your work. In cutting the pages I observe that you have most kindly mentioned my work several times. My views spread slowly in England and America; and I am much surprised to find them most commonly accepted by geologists, next by botanists, and least by zoologists. I am much pleased that the younger and middle-aged geologists are coming round, for the arguments from Geology have always seemed strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except Lyell) has been even shaken in his views of the eternal immutability of species. But so many of the younger men are turning round with zeal that I look to the future with some confidence. I am now at work on "Variation under Domestication," but make slow progress--it is such tedious work comparing skeletons. With very sincere thanks for the kind sympathy which you have always shown me, and with much respect,... P.S.--I have lately read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper ("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch" prefixed to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix). Naudin insisted that species are formed in a manner analogous to the production of varieties by cultivators, i.e., by selection, "but he does not show how selection acts under nature." In the "Life and Letters," II., page 246, Darwin, speaking of Naudin's work, says: "Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory."), but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not show how selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer (126/2. The obscure writer is Patrick Matthew (see the "Historical Sketch" in the "Origin.") on forest trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly and clearly anticipated my views--though he put the case so briefly that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book. LETTER 127. TO L. HINDMARSH. (127/1. The following letter was in reply to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, to whom Mr. Darwin had written asking for information on the average number of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The object of the request was to obtain information which might throw light on the rate of increase of the cattle relatively to those on the pampas of South America. Mr. Hindmarsh had contributed a paper "On the Wild Cattle of Chillingham Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page 274, 1839.) Down, May 12th [1861]. I thank you sincerely for your prompt and great kindness, and return the letter, which I have been very glad to see and have had copied. The increase is more rapid than I anticipated, but it seems rather conjectural; I had hoped that in so interesting a case some exact record had been kept. The number of births, or of calves reared till they followed their mothers, would perhaps have been the best datum. From Mr. Hardy's letter I infer that ten must be annually born to make up the deaths from various causes. In Paraguay, Azara states that in a herd of 4,000, from 1,000 to 1,300 are reared; but then, though they do not kill calves, but castrate the young bulls, no doubt the oxen would be killed earlier than the cows, so that the herd would contain probably more of the female sex than the herd at Chillingham. There is not apparently any record whether more young bulls are killed than cows. I am surprised that Lord Tankerville does not have an exact record kept of deaths and sexes and births: after a dozen years it would be an interesting statistical record to the naturalist and agriculturist. (PLATE: PROFESSOR HENSLOW.) LETTER 128. TO J.D. HOOKER. (128/1. The death of Professor Henslow (who was Sir J.D. Hooker's father-in-law) occurred on May 16th, 1861.) Down, May 24th [1861]. Thanks for your two notes. I am glad that the burial is over, and sincerely sympathise and can most fully understand your feelings at your loss. I grieve to think how little I saw of Henslow for many years. With respect to a biography of Henslow, I cannot help feeling rather doubtful, on the principle that a biography could not do him justice. His letters were generally written in a hurry, and I fear he did not keep any journal or diary. If there were any vivid materials to describe his life as parish priest, and manner of managing the poor, it would be very good. I am never very sanguine on literary projects. I cannot help fearing his Life might turn out flat. There can hardly be marked incidents to describe. I sincerely hope that I take a wrong and gloomy view, but I cannot help fearing--I would rather see no Life than one that would interest very few. It will be a pleasure and duty in me to consider what I can recollect; but at present I can think of scarcely anything. The equability and perfection of Henslow's whole character, I should think, would make it very difficult for any one to pourtray him. I have been thinking about Henslow all day a good deal, but the more I think the less I can think of to write down. It is quite a new style for me to set about, but I will continue to think what I could say to give any, however imperfect, notion of him in the old Cambridge days. Pray give my kindest remembrances to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev. Leonard Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) undertook the "Life" of Henslow, to which Darwin contributed a characteristic and delightful sketch. See Letter 17.), who is often associated with my recollection of those old happy days. LETTER 129. HENRY FAWCETT TO CHARLES DARWIN. (129/1. It was in reply to the following letter that Darwin wrote to Fawcett: "You could not possibly have told me anything which would have given me more satisfaction than what you say about Mr. Mill's opinion. Until your review appeared I began to think that perhaps I did not understand at all how to reason scientifically." ("Life of Henry Fawcett," by Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.) Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16th [1861]. I feel that I ought not to have so long delayed writing to thank you for your very kind letter to me about my article on your book in "Macmillan's Magazine." I was particularly anxious to point out that the method of investigation pursued was in every respect philosophically correct. I was spending an evening last week with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I am sure you will be pleased to hear from such an authority that he considers that your reasoning throughout is in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic. He also says the method of investigation you have followed is the only one proper to such a subject. It is easy for an antagonistic reviewer, when he finds it difficult to answer your arguments, to attempt to dispose of the whole matter by uttering some such commonplace as "This is not a Baconian induction." I expect shortly to be spending a few days in your neighbourhood, and if I should not be intruding upon you, I should esteem it a great favour if you will allow me to call on you, and have half an hour's conversation with you. As far as I am personally concerned, I am sure I ought to be grateful to you, for since my accident nothing has given me so much pleasure as the perusal of your book. Such studies are now a great resource to me. LETTER 130. TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Terrace, Torquay [August 2nd, 1861]. I declare that you read the reviews on the "Origin" more carefully than I do. I agree with all your remarks. The point of correlation struck me as well put, and on varieties growing together; but I have already begun to put things in train for information on this latter head, on which Bronn also enlarges. With respect to sexuality, I have often speculated on it, and have always concluded that we are too ignorant to speculate: no physiologist can conjecture why the two elements go to form a new being, and, more than that, why nature strives at uniting the two elements from two individuals. What I am now working at in my orchids is an admirable illustration of the law. I should certainly conclude that all sexuality had descended from one prototype. Do you not underrate the degree of lowness of organisation in which sexuality occurs--viz., in Hydra, and still lower in some of the one-celled free confervae which "conjugate," which good judges (Thwaites) believe is the simplest form of true sexual generation? (130/1. See Letter 97.) But the whole case is a mystery. There is another point on which I have occasionally wished to say a few words. I believe you think with Asa Gray that I have not allowed enough for the stream of variation having been guided by a higher power. I have had lately a good deal of correspondence on this head. Herschel, in his "Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12 Herschel writes of the revelations of Geology pointing to successive submersions and reconstructions of the continents and fresh races of animals and plants. He refers to a "great law of change" which has not operated either by a gradually progressing variation of species, nor by a sudden and total abolition of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of the "Physical Geography" was added in January, 1861: "This was written previous to the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species," a work which, whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method of composing books (pushed a outrance) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare and the "Principia." Equally in either case an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the steps of change--to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence, and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it does not, so far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and without it we are unable to conceive how far the law can have led to the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be no other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including all the links of the chain which have disappeared. BUT THE ONE LAW IS A NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE OTHER, AND OUGHT, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY, TO FORM A PART OF ITS ENUNCIATION. Granting this, and with some demur as to the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The sentence in italics is no doubt the one referred to in the letter to Lyell. See Letter 243.), has a sentence with respect to the "Origin," something to the effect that the higher law of Providential Arrangement should always be stated. But astronomers do not state that God directs the course of each comet and planet. The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science. But what makes me most object to Asa Gray's view is the study of the extreme variability of domestic animals. He who does not suppose that each variation in the pigeon was providentially caused, by accumulating which variations, man made a Fantail, cannot, I think, logically argue that the tail of the woodpecker was formed by variations providentially ordained. It seems to me that variations in the domestic and wild conditions are due to unknown causes, and are without purpose, and in so far accidental; and that they become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his pleasure, or by what we call Natural Selection in the struggle for life, and under changing conditions. I do not wish to say that God did not foresee everything which would ensue; but here comes very nearly the same sort of wretched imbroglio as between freewill and preordained necessity. I doubt whether I have made what I think clear; but certainly A. Gray's notion of the courses of variation having been led like a stream of water by gravity, seems to me to smash the whole affair. It reminds me of a Spaniard whom I told I was trying to make out how the Cordillera was formed; and he answered me that it was useless, for "God made them." It may be said that God foresaw how they would be made. I wonder whether Herschel would say that you ought always to give the higher providential law, and declare that God had ordered all certain changes of level, that certain mountains should arise. I must think that such views of Asa Gray and Herschel merely show that the subject in their minds is in Comte's theological stage of science... Of course I do not want any answer to my quasi-theological discussion, but only for you to think of my notions, if you understand them. I hope to Heaven your long and great labours on your new edition are drawing to a close. LETTER 131. TO C. LYELL. Torquay, [August 13th, 1861]. Very many thanks for the orchids, which have proved extremely useful to me in two ways I did not anticipate, but were too monstrous (yet of some use) for my special purpose. When you come to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask yourself honestly whether what you are thinking applies to the endless variations of domestic productions, which man accumulates for his mere fancy or use. No doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but I cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose, and if not so ordained under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained in a state of nature. Of course it may be said, when you kick a stone, or a leaf falls from a tree, that it was ordained, before the foundations of the world were laid, exactly where that stone or leaf should lie. In this sense the subject has no interest for me. Once again, many thanks for the orchids; you must let me repay you what you paid the collector. LETTER 132. TO C. LYELL. (132/1. The first paragraph probably refers to the proof-sheets of Lyell's "Antiquity of Man," but the passage referred to seems not to occur in the book.) Torquay, August 21st [1861]. ...I have really no criticism, except a trifling one in pencil near the end, which I have inserted on account of dominant and important species generally varying most. You speak of "their views" rather as if you were a thousand miles away from such wretches, but your concluding paragraph shows that you are one of the wretches. I am pleased that you approve of Hutton's review. (132/2. "Some Remarks on Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume IV., page 132 (1861). See Letter 124.) It seemed to me to take a more philosophical view of the manner of judging the question than any other review. The sentence you quote from it seems very true, but I do not agree with the theological conclusion. I think he quotes from Asa Gray, certainly not from me; but I have neither A. Gray nor "Origin" with me. Indeed, I have over and over again said in the "Origin" that Natural Selection does nothing without variability; I have given a whole chapter on laws, and used the strongest language how ignorant we are on these laws. But I agree that I have somehow (Hooker says it is owing to my title) not made the great and manifest importance of previous variability plain enough. Breeders constantly speak of Selection as the one great means of improvement; but of course they imply individual differences, and this I should have thought would have been obvious to all in Natural Selection; but it has not been so. I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent cause?" (132/3. It should be remembered that the shape of his nose nearly determined Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to H.M.S. "Beagle" ("Life and Letters," I., page 60).) By the selection of analogous and less differences fanciers make almost generic differences in their pigeons; and can you see any good reason why the Natural Selection of analogous individual differences should not make new species? If you say that God ordained that at some time and place a dozen slight variations should arise, and that one of them alone should be preserved in the struggle for life and the other eleven should perish in the first or few first generations, then the saying seems to me mere verbiage. It comes to merely saying that everything that is, is ordained. Let me add another sentence. Why should you or I speak of variation as having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity, having been displaced in its course by the action of some quite unknown laws. Would you have him say that its fall at some particular place and time was "ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan"? Would you not call this theological pedantry or display? I believe it is not pedantry in the case of species, simply because their formation has hitherto been viewed as beyond law; in fact, this branch of science is still with most people under its theological phase of development. The conclusion which I always come to after thinking of such questions is that they are beyond the human intellect; and the less one thinks on them the better. You may say, Then why trouble me? But I should very much like to know clearly what you think. LETTER 133. TO HENRY FAWCETT. (133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett (1885); we are indebted to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for permission to reprint it. See Letter 129.) September 18th [1861]. I wondered who had so kindly sent me the newspaper (133/2. The newspaper sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861, containing a report of Mr. Fawcett's address given before Section D of the British Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species," in which the speaker showed that the "method of investigation pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species is in strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A" of the letter (as published in Fawcett's Life) is the late Professor Williamson, who is reported to have said that "while he would not say that Mr. Darwin's book had caused him a loss of reputation, he was sure that it had not caused a gain." The reference to "B" is explained by the report of the late Dr. Lankester's speech in which he said, "The facts brought forward in support of the hypothesis had a very different value indeed from that of the hypothesis...A great naturalist, who was still a friend of Mr. Darwin, once said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is, that Darwin has dealt with origin. Why did he not put his facts before us, and let them rest?'" Another speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier, remarked: "I am going to speak closely to the question. If the hypothesis is put forward to contradict facts, and the averments are contrary to the Word of God, I say that it is not a logical argument." At this point the chairman, Professor Babington, wisely interfered, on the ground that the meeting was a scientific one.), which I was very glad to see; and now I have to thank you sincerely for allowing me to see your MS. It seems to me very good and sound; though I am certainly not an impartial judge. You will have done good service in calling the attention of scientific men to means and laws of philosophising. As far as I could judge by the papers, your opponents were unworthy of you. How miserably A. talked of my reputation, as if that had anything to do with it!...How profoundly ignorant B must be of the very soul of observation! About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service! I have returned only lately from a two months' visit to Torquay, which did my health at the time good; but I am one of those miserable creatures who are never comfortable for twenty-four hours; and it is clear to me that I ought to be exterminated. I have been rather idle of late, or, speaking more strictly, working at some miscellaneous papers, which, however, have some direct bearing on the subject of species; yet I feel guilty at having neglected my larger book. But, to me, observing is much better sport than writing. I fear that I shall have wearied you with this long note. Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful that you have taken up the cudgels in defence of the line of argument in the "Origin;" you will have benefited the subject. Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German naturalist came here the other day; and he tells me that there are many in Germany on our side, but that all seem fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to speak, and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid as young ladies should be, about their scientific reputation. There is much discussion on the subject on the Continent, even in quiet Holland; and I had a pamphlet from Moscow the other day by a man who sticks up famously for the imperfection of the "Geological Record," but complains that I have sadly understated the variability of the old fossilised animals! But I must not run on. LETTER 134. TO H.W. BATES. Down, September 25th [1861]. Now for a few words on science. Many thanks for facts on neuters. You cannot tell how I rejoice that you do not think what I have said on the subject absurd. Only two persons have even noticed it to me--viz., the bitter sneer of Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter, Sir C. Lyell, who could only screw up courage to say, "Well, you have manfully faced the difficulty." What a wonderful case of Volucella of which I had never heard. (134/2. Volucella is a fly--one of the Syrphidae--supposed to supply a case of mimicry; this was doubtless the point of interest with Bates. Dr. Sharp says ["Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899, page 500]: "It was formerly assumed that the Volucella larvae lived on the larvae of the bees, and that the parent flies were providentially endowed with a bee-like appearance that they might obtain entrance into the bees' nests without being detected." Dr. Sharp goes on to say that what little is known on the subject supports the belief that the "presence of the Volucella in the nests is advantageous to both fly and bee.") I had no idea such a case occurred in nature; I must get and see specimens in British Museum. I hope and suppose you will give a good deal of Natural History in your Travels; every one cares about ants--more notice has been taken about slave-ants in the "Origin" than of any other passage. I fully expect to delight in your Travels. Keep to simple style, as in your excellent letters,--but I beg pardon, I am again advising. What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will make quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a difficulty; and once, when corresponding with Dr. Collingwood, I thought of your explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had not knowledge to judge one way or the other. Dr C., I think, states that the mimetic forms inhabit the same country, but I did not know whether to believe him. What wonderful cases yours seem to be! Could you not give a few woodcuts in your Travels to illustrate this? I am tired with a hard day's work, so no more, except to give my sincere thanks and hearty wishes for the success of your Travels. LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th [1862]. Your letter discusses lots of interesting subjects, and I am very glad you have sent for your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's memoir of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What do you mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin dated March 17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker had discussed a supposed difference between animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual animal is certainly changed materially by external conditions, the latter (I think) never, except in such a coarse way as stunting or enlarging--e.g. no increase of cold on the spot, or change of individual plant from hot to cold, will induce said individual plant to get more woolly covering; but I suppose a series of cold seasons would bring about such a change in an individual quadruped, just as rowing will harden hands, etc.") I fancied a bud lived only a year, and you could hardly expect any change in that time; but if you call a tree or plant an individual, you have sporting buds. Perhaps you mean that the whole tree does not change. Tulips, in "breaking," change. Fruit seems certainly affected by the stock. I think I have (135/3. See note, Letter 16.) got cases of slight change in alpine plants transplanted. All these subjects have rather gone out of my head owing to orchids, but I shall soon have to enter on them in earnest when I come again to my volume on variation under domestication. ...In the lifetime of an animal you would, I think, find it very difficult to show effects of external condition on animals more than shade and light, good and bad soil, produce on a plant. You speak of "an inherent tendency to vary wholly independent of physical conditions"! This is a very simple way of putting the case (as Dr. Prosper Lucas also puts it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of "Traite philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans les etats de sante et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes, Paris, 1847-50.): but two great classes of facts make me think that all variability is due to change in the conditions of life: firstly, that there is more variability and more monstrosities (and these graduate into each other) under unnatural domestic conditions than under nature; and, secondly, that changed conditions affect in an especial manner the reproductive organs--those organs which are to produce a new being. But why one seedling out of thousands presents some new character transcends the wildest powers of conjecture. It was in this sense that I spoke of "climate," etc., possibly producing without selection a hooked seed, or any not great variation. (135/5. This statement probably occurs in a letter, and not in Darwin's published works.) I have for years and years been fighting with myself not to attribute too much to Natural Selection--to attribute something to direct action of conditions; and perhaps I have too much conquered my tendency to lay hardly any stress on conditions of life. I am not shaken about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph had written, March 17th, 1862: "Huxley is rather disposed to think you have overlooked saltus, but I am not sure that he is right--saltus quoad individuals is not saltus quoad species--as I pointed out in the Begonia case, though perhaps that was rather special pleading in the present state of science." For the Begonia case, see "Life and Letters," II., page 275, also letter 110, page 166.), I did not write without going pretty carefully into all the cases of normal structure in animals resembling monstrosities which appear per saltus. LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. 26th [March, 1862]. Thanks also for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates' letter now returned. They are both excellent; you have, I think, said all that can be said against direct effects of conditions, and capitally put. But I still stick to my own and Bates' side. Nevertheless I am pleased to attribute little to conditions, and I wish I had done what you suggest--started on the fundamental principle of variation being an innate principle, and afterwards made a few remarks showing that hereafter, perhaps, this principle would be explicable. Whenever my book on poultry, pigeons, ducks, and rabbits is published, with all the measurements and weighings of bones, I think you will see that "use and disuse" at least have some effect. I do not believe in perfect reversion. I rather demur to your doctrine of "centrifugal variation." (136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal variation" is given in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania" (Part III. of the Botany of the Antarctic Expedition), 1859, page viii. In paragraph 10 the author writes: "The tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation...is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." In Sir Joseph's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page lii) he wrote: "Darwin also believes in some reversion to type which is opposed to my view of variation." It may be noted in this connection that Mr. Galton has shown reason to believe in a centripetal tendency in variation (to use Hooker's phraseology) which is not identical with the reversion of cultivated plants to their ancestors, the case to which Hooker apparently refers. See "Natural Inheritance," by F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you do not agree with or do not remember my doctrine of the good of diversification (136/3. Darwin usually used the word "divergence" in this connection.); this seems to me amply to account for variation being centrifugal--if you forget it, look at this discussion (page 117 of 3rd edition), it was the best point which, according to my notions, I made out, and it has always pleased me. It is really curiously satisfactory to me to see so able a man as Bates (and yourself) believing more fully in Natural Selection than I think I even do myself. (136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as with me, the more you think the less occasion you will see for anything but time and natural selection to effect change; and that this view is the simplest and clearest in the present state of science is one advantage, at any rate. Indeed, I think that it is, in the present state of the inquiry, the legitimate position to take up; it is time enough to bother our heads with the secondary cause when there is some evidence of it or some demand for it--at present I do not see one or the other, and so feel inclined to renounce any other for the present.") By the way, I always boast to you, and so I think Owen will be wrong that my book will be forgotten in ten years, for a French edition is now going through the press and a second German edition wanted. Your long letter to Bates has set my head working, and makes me repent of the nine months spent on orchids; though I know not why I should not have amused myself on them as well as slaving on bones of ducks and pigeons, etc. The orchids have been splendid sport, though at present I am fearfully sick of them. I enclose a waste copy of woodcut of Mormodes ignea; I wish you had a plant at Kew, for I am sure its wonderful mechanism and structure would amuse you. Is it not curious the way the labellum sits on the top of the column?--here insects alight and are beautifully shot, when they touch a certain sensitive point, by the pollinia. How kindly you have helped me in my work! Farewell, my dear old fellow. LETTER 137. TO H.W. BATES. Down, May 4th [1862]. Hearty thanks for your most interesting letter and three very valuable extracts. I am very glad that you have been looking at the South Temperate insects. I wish that the materials in the British Museum had been richer; but I should think the case of the South American Carabi, supported by some other case, would be worth a paper. To us who theorise I am sure the case is very important. Do the South American Carabi differ more from the other species than do, for instance, the Siberian and European and North American and Himalayan (if the genus exists there)? If they do, I entirely agree with you that the difference would be too great to account for by the recent Glacial period. I agree, also, with you in utterly rejecting an independent origin for these Carabi. There is a difficulty, as far as I know, in our ignorance whether insects change quickly in time; you could judge of this by knowing how far closely allied coleoptera generally have much restricted ranges, for this almost implies rapid change. What a curious case is offered by land-shells, which become modified in every sub-district, and have yet retained the same general structure from very remote geological periods! When working at the Glacial period, I remember feeling much surprised how few birds, no mammals, and very few sea-mollusca seemed to have crossed, or deeply entered, the inter-tropical regions during the cold period. Insects, from all you say, seem to come under the same category. Plants seem to migrate more readily than animals. Do not underrate the length of Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that it was equivalent to the whole of the Pleistocene period in the warmer latitudes. I believe, with you, that we shall be driven to an older Glacial period. I am very sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be hopeless to contend against any one supported by Owen. Perhaps another chance might occur before very long. How would it be to speak to Owen as soon as your own mind is made up? From what I have heard, since talking to you, I fear the strongest personal interest with a Minister is requisite for a pension. Farewell, and may success attend the acerrimo pro-pugnatori. P.S. I deeply wish you could find some situation in which you could give your time to science; it would be a great thing for science and for yourself. LETTER 138. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, July 11th [1862]. I thank you cordially for so kindly and promptly answering my questions. I will quote some of your remarks. The case seems to me of some importance with reference to my heretical notions, for it shows how larvae might be modified. I shall not publish, I daresay, for a year, for much time is expended in experiments. If within this time you should acquire any fresh information on the similarity of the moths of distinct races, and would allow me to quote any facts on your authority, I should feel very grateful. I thank you for your great kindness with respect to the translation of the "Origin;" it is very liberal in you, as we differ to a considerable degree. I have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but as I live an independent life in the country, it does not in the least hurt me in any way, except indeed when the abuse comes from an old friend like Professor Owen, who abuses me and then advances the doctrine that all birds are probably descended from one parent. I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first French edition of the "Origin.') had known more of Natural History; she must be a clever but singular lady, but I never heard of her till she proposed to translate my book. LETTER 139. TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 23rd [1862]. I received several days ago two large packets, but have as yet read only your letter; for we have been in fearful distress, and I could attend to nothing. Our poor boy had the rare case of second rash and sore throat...; and, as if this was not enough, a most serious attack of erysipelas, with typhoid symptoms. I despaired of his life; but this evening he has eaten one mouthful, and I think has passed the crisis. He has lived on port wine every three-quarters of an hour, day and night. This evening, to our astonishment, he asked whether his stamps were safe, and I told him of one sent by you, and that he should see it to-morrow. He answered, "I should awfully like to see it now"; so with difficulty he opened his eyelids and glanced at it, and, with a sigh of satisfaction, said, "All right." Children are one's greatest happiness, but often and often a still greater misery. A man of science ought to have none--perhaps not a wife; for then there would be nothing in this wide world worth caring for, and a man might (whether he could is another question) work away like a Trojan. I hope in a few days to get my brains in order, and then I will pick out all your orchid letters, and return them in hopes of your making use of them... Of all the carpenters for knocking the right nail on the head, you are the very best; no one else has perceived that my chief interest in my orchid book has been that it was a "flank movement" on the enemy. I live in such solitude that I hear nothing, and have no idea to what you allude about Bentham and the orchids and species. But I must enquire. By the way, one of my chief enemies (the sole one who has annoyed me), namely Owen, I hear has been lecturing on birds; and admits that all have descended from one, and advances as his own idea that the oceanic wingless birds have lost their wings by gradual disuse. He never alludes to me, or only with bitter sneers, and coupled with Buffon and the "Vestiges." Well, it has been an amusement to me this first evening, scribbling as egotistically as usual about myself and my doings; so you must forgive me, as I know well your kind heart will do. I have managed to skim the newspaper, but had not heart to read all the bloody details. Good God! What will the end be? Perhaps we are too despondent here; but I must think you are too hopeful on your side of the water. I never believed the "canards" of the army of the Potomac having capitulated. My good dear wife and self are come to wish for peace at any price. Good night, my good friend. I will scribble on no more. One more word. I should like to hear what you think about what I say in the last chapter of the orchid book on the meaning and cause of the endless diversity of means for the same general purpose. It bears on design, that endless question. Good night, good night! LETTER 140. TO C. LYELL. 1, Carlton Terrace, Southampton, August 22nd [1862]. You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you (140/1. This refers to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): the latter hardly can, for I was assured that Owen, in his lectures this spring, advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse. (140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," II., pages 387, 388.) Also that magpies stole spoons, etc., from a remnant of some instinct like that of the bower-bird, which ornaments its playing passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all birds are descended from one. What an unblushing man he must be to lecture thus after abusing me so, and never to have openly retracted, or alluded to my book! LETTER 141. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, September 5th [1862]. Many thanks for your pleasant note in return for all my stupid trouble. I did not fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two Aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) [Read May 7th, 1863.] In this paper Lubbock describes a new species of Polynema--P. natans--which swims by means of its wings, and is capable of living under water for several hours; the other species, referred to a new genus Prestwichia, lives under water, holds its wings motionless and uses its legs as oars.) before your last note, nor had I any idea that the fact was new, though new to me. It is really very interesting. Of course you will publish an account of it. You will then say whether the insect can fly well through the air. (141/2. In describing the habits of Polynema, Lubbock writes, "I was unfortunately unable to ascertain whether they could fly" (loc. cit., page 137).) My wife asked, "How did he find that it stayed four hours under water without breathing?" I answered at once: "Mrs. Lubbock sat four hours watching." I wonder whether I am right. I long to be at home and at steady work, and I hope we may be in another month. I fear it is hopeless my coming to you, for I am squashier than ever, but hope two shower-baths a day will give me a little strength, so that you will, I hope, come to us. It is an age since I have seen you or any scientific friend. I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight, and from Hooker in Scotland. About Huxley I know nothing, but I hope his book progresses, for I shall be very curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place in Nature." London, 1863.) I do nothing here except occasionally look at a few flowers, and there are very few here, for the country is wonderfully barren. See what it is to be well trained. Horace said to me yesterday, "If every one would kill adders they would come to sting less." I answered: "Of course they would, for there would be fewer." He replied indignantly: "I did not mean that; but the timid adders which run away would be saved, and in time would never sting at all." Natural selection of cowards! LETTER 142. H. FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN. (142/1. This refers to the MS. of Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," published in the "Natural History Review," January, 1863, page 43. The section dealing with the bearing of his facts on Darwin's views is at page 77. He insists strongly (page 78) on the "persistence and uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth, and his most modern successor." Nevertheless, he adds that the "inferences I draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of Darwin's theory." These admissions were the more satisfactory since, as Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been included by him in the category of those who have vehemently maintained the persistence of specific characters.") 21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th [1862]. Do not be frightened at the enclosure. I wish to set myself right by you before I go to press. I am bringing out a heavy memoir on elephants--an omnium gatherum affair, with observations on the fossil and recent species. One section is devoted to the persistence in time of the specific characters of the mammoth. I trace him from before the Glacial period, through it and after it, unchangeable and unchanged as far as the organs of digestion (teeth) and locomotion are concerned. Now, the Glacial period was no joke: it would have made ducks and drakes of your dear pigeons and doves. With all my shortcomings, I have such a sincere and affectionate regard for you and such admiration of your work, that I should be pained to find that I had expressed my honest convictions in a way that would be open to any objection by you. The reasoning may be very stupid, but I believe that the observation is sound. Will you, therefore, look over the few pages which I have sent, and tell me whether you find any flaw, or whether you think I should change the form of expression? You have been so unhandsomely and uncandidly dealt with by a friend of yours and mine that I should be sorry to find myself in the position of an opponent to you, and more particularly with the chance of making a fool of myself. I met your brother yesterday, who tells me you are coming to town. I hope you will give me a hail. I long for a jaw with you, and have much to speak to you about. You will have seen the eclaircissement about the Eocene monkeys of England. By a touch of the conjuring wand they have been metamorphosed--a la Darwin--into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the Hyracotherian Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from the Eocene Sand of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X., 1862, page 240. In this note Owen stated that the teeth which he had named Macacus ("Ann. Mag." 1840, page 191) most probably belonged to Hyracotherium cuniculus. See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata," A.S. Woodward and C.D. Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356; also Zittel's "Handbuch der Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig, 1891-93, page 703.) Would you believe it? This even is a gross blunder. They are not pigs. LETTER 143. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, October 1st [1862]. On my return home yesterday I found your letter and MS., which I have read with extreme interest. Your note and every word in your paper are expressed with the same kind feeling which I have experienced from you ever since I have had the happiness of knowing you. I value scientific praise, but I value incomparably higher such kind feeling as yours. There is not a single word in your paper to which I could possibly object: I should be mad to do so; its only fault is perhaps its too great kindness. Your case seems the most striking one which I have met with of the persistence of specific characters. It is very much the more striking as it relates to the molar teeth, which differ so much in the species of the genus, and in which consequently I should have expected variation. As I read on I felt not a little dumbfounded, and thought to myself that whenever I came to this subject I should have to be savage against myself; and I wondered how savage you would be. I trembled a little. My only hope was that something could be made out of the bog N. American forms, which you rank as a geographical race; and possibly hereafter out of the Sicilian species. Guess, then, my satisfaction when I found that you yourself made a loophole (143/1. This perhaps refers to a passage ("N.H. Review," 1863, page 79) in which Falconer allows the existence of intermediate forms along certain possible lines of descent. Falconer's reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on page 78; the bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.), which I never, of course, could have guessed at; and imagine my still greater satisfaction at your expressing yourself as an unbeliever in the eternal immutability of species. Your final remarks on my work are too generous, but have given me not a little pleasure. As for criticisms, I have only small ones. When you speak of "moderate range of variation" I cannot but think that you ought to remind your readers (though I daresay previously done) what the amount is, including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You speak of these animals as having been exposed to a vast range of climatal changes from before to after the Glacial period. I should have thought, from analogy of sea-shells, that by migration (or local extinction when migration not possible) these animals might and would have kept under nearly the same climate. A rather more important consideration, as it seems to me, is that the whole proboscidean group may, I presume, be looked at as verging towards extinction: anyhow, the extinction has been complete as far as Europe and America are concerned. Numerous considerations and facts have led me in the "Origin" to conclude that it is the flourishing or dominant members of each order which generally give rise to new races, sub-species, and species; and under this point of view I am not at all surprised at the constancy of your species. This leads me to remark that the sentence at the bottom of page [80] is not applicable to my views (143/2. See Falconer at the bottom of page 80: it is the old difficulty--how can variability co-exist with persistence of type? In our copy of the letter the passage is given as occurring on page 60, a slip of the pen for page 80.), though quite applicable to those who attribute modification to the direct action of the conditions of life. An elephant might be more individually variable than any known quadruped (from the effects of the conditions of life or other innate unknown causes), but if these variations did not aid the animal in better resisting all hostile influences, and therefore making it increase in numbers, there would be no tendency to the preservation and accumulation of such variations--i.e. to the formation of a new race. As the proboscidean group seems to be from utterly unknown causes a failing group in many parts of the world, I should not have anticipated the formation of new races. You make important remarks versus Natural Selection, and you will perhaps be surprised that I do to a large extent agree with you. I could show you many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin," declaring that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous variability; and I have tried to put equally strongly that variability is governed by many laws, mostly quite unknown. My title deceives people, and I wish I had made it rather different. Your phyllotaxis (143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The law of Phyllotaxis...is nearly as constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with the material world.") will serve as example, for I quite agree that the spiral arrangement of a certain number of whorls of leaves (however that may have primordially arisen, and whether quite as invariable as you state), governs the limits of variability, and therefore governs what Natural Selection can do. Let me explain how it arose that I laid so much stress on Natural Selection, and I still think justly. I came to think from geographical distribution, etc., etc., that species probably change; but for years I was stopped dead by my utter incapability of seeing how every part of each creature (a woodpecker or swallow, for instance) had become adapted to its conditions of life. This seemed to me, and does still seem, the problem to solve; and I think Natural Selection solves it, as artificial selection solves the adaptation of domestic races for man's use. But I suspect that you mean something further,--that there is some unknown law of evolution by which species necessarily change; and if this be so, I cannot agree. This, however, is too large a question even for so unreasonably long a letter as this. Nevertheless, just to explain by mere valueless conjectures how I imagine the teeth of your elephants change, I should look at the change as indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from the development of tusks, or in the case of the primigenius even from correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases Natural Selection checking the variation. If, indeed, an elephant would succeed better by feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the teeth which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now, I can fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand. (143/4. Falconer, page 80: "He [Darwin] has laid the foundations of a great edifice: but he need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure is altered by his successors...") I had hoped to have called on you on Monday evening, but was quite knocked up. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was very curious about your views, and as I had to write to him this morning I could not help telling him a few words on your views. I suppose you are tired of the "Origin," and will never read it again; otherwise I should like you to have the third edition, and would gladly send it rather than you should look at the first or second edition. With cordial thanks for your generous kindness. LETTER 144. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Royal Gardens, Kew, November 7th, 1862. I am greatly relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay, for I had been conjuring up some egregious blunder (like the granitic plains of Patagonia).. Certes, after what you have told me of Dawson, he will not like the letter I wrote to him days ago, in which I told him that it was impossible to entertain a strong opinion against the Darwinian hypothesis without its giving rise to a mental twist when viewing matters in which that hypothesis was or might be involved. I told him I felt that this was so with me when I opposed you, and that all minds are subject to such obliquities!--the Lord help me, and this to an LL.D. and Principal of a College! I proceeded to discuss his Geology with the effrontery of a novice; and, thank God, I urged the very argument of your letter about evidence of subsidence--viz., not all submerged at once, and glacial action being subaerial and not oceanic. Your letter hence was a relief, for I felt I was hardly strong enough to have launched out as I did to a professed geologist. (144/1. [On the subject of the above letter, see one of earlier date by Sir J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) given in the present work (Letter 354) with Darwin's reply (Letter 355).]) LETTER 145. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 14th [1862]. I have read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the Mammalian Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."--"Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with extreme interest, and I thank you for sending it, though I should certainly have carefully read it, or anything with your name, in the Journal. It seems to me a masterpiece of close reasoning: although, of course, not a judge of such subjects, I cannot feel any doubt that it is conclusive. Will Owen answer you? I expect that from his arrogant view of his own position he will not answer. Your paper is dreadfully severe on him, but perfectly courteous, and polished as the finest dagger. How kind you are towards me: your first sentence (145/2. "One of the most accurate observers and original thinkers of our time has discoursed with emphatic eloquence on the Imperfection of the Geological Record.") has pleased me more than perhaps it ought to do, if I had any modesty in my composition. By the way, after reading the first whole paragraph, I re-read it, not for matter, but for style; and then it suddenly occurred to me that a certain man once said to me, when I urged him to publish some of his miscellaneous wealth of knowledge, "Oh, he could not write,--he hated it," etc. You false man, never say that to me again. Your incidental remark on the remarkable specialisation of Plagiaulax (145/3. "If Plagiaulax be regarded through the medium of the view advocated with such power by Darwin, through what a number of intermediate forms must not the genus have passed before it attained the specialised condition in which the fossils come before us!") (which has stuck in my gizzard ever since I read your first paper) as bearing on the number of preceding forms, is quite new to me, and, of course, is in accordance to my notions a most impressive argument. I was also glad to be reminded of teeth of camel and tarsal bones. (145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A reference to Cuvier's instance "of the secret relation between the upper canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the bones of the tarsus.") Descent from an intermediate form, Ahem! Well, all I can say is that I have not been for a long time more interested with a paper than with yours. It gives me a demoniacal chuckle to think of Owen's pleasant countenance when he reads it. I have not been in London since the end of September; when I do come I will beat up your quarters if I possibly can; but I do not know what has come over me. I am worse than ever in bearing any excitement. Even talking of an evening for less than two hours has twice recently brought on such violent vomiting and trembling that I dread coming up to London. I hear that you came out strong at Cambridge (145/5. Prof. Owen, in a communication to the British Association at Cambridge (1862) "On a tooth of Mastodon from the Tertiary marls, near Shanghai," brought forward the case of the Australian Mastodon as a proof of the remarkable geographical distribution of the Proboscidia. In a subsequent discussion he frankly abandoned it, in consequence of the doubts then urged regarding its authenticity. (See footnote, page 101, in Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant," "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863.)), and am heartily glad you attacked the Australian Mastodon. I never did or could believe in him. I wish you would read my little Primula paper in the "Linnean Journal," Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I have no copy which I can spare), as I think there is a good chance that you may have observed similar cases. This is my real hobby-horse at present. I have re-tested this summer the functional difference of the two forms in Primula, and find all strictly accurate. If you should know of any cases analogous, pray inform me. Farewell, my good and kind friend. LETTER 146. TO J.D. HOOKER. (146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where the value of Natural Selection is stated more strongly by Sir Joseph than by Darwin. It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, to which this is a reply, has not been found.) Down, November 20th [1862]. Your last letter has interested me to an extraordinary degree, and your truly parsonic advice, "some other wise and discreet person," etc., etc., amused us not a little. I will put a concrete case to show what I think A. Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000 pigeons were bred together in a cage for 10,000 years their number not being allowed to increase by chance killing, then from mutual intercrossing no varieties would arise; but, if each pigeon were a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, a multitude of varieties would arise. This, I believe, is the common effect of crossing, viz., the obliteration of incipient varieties. I do not deny that when two marked varieties have been produced, their crossing will produce a third or more intermediate varieties. Possibly, or probably, with domestic varieties, with a strong tendency to vary, the act of crossing tends to give rise to new characters; and thus a third or more races, not strictly intermediate, may be produced. But there is heavy evidence against new characters arising from crossing wild forms; only intermediate races are then produced. Now, do you agree thus far? if not, it is no use arguing; we must come to swearing, and I am convinced I can swear harder than you, therefore I am right. Q.E.D. If the number of 1,000 pigeons were prevented increasing not by chance killing, but by, say, all the shorter-beaked birds being killed, then the WHOLE body would come to have longer beaks. Do you agree? Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country, and another 1,000 in a cold country, and fed on different food, and confined in different-size aviary, and kept constant in number by chance killing, then I should expect as rather probable that after 10,000 years the two bodies would differ slightly in size, colour, and perhaps other trifling characters; this I should call the direct action of physical conditions. By this action I wish to imply that the innate vital forces are somehow led to act rather differently in the two cases, just as heat will allow or cause two elements to combine, which otherwise would not have combined. I should be especially obliged if you would tell me what you think on this head. But the part of your letter which fairly pitched me head over heels with astonishment, is that where you state that every single difference which we see might have occurred without any selection. I do and have always fully agreed; but you have got right round the subject, and viewed it from an entirely opposite and new side, and when you took me there I was astounded. When I say I agree, I must make the proviso, that under your view, as now, each form long remains adapted to certain fixed conditions, and that the conditions of life are in the long run changeable; and second, which is more important, that each individual form is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, so that each hair-breadth variation is not lost by intercrossing. Your manner of putting the case would be even more striking than it is if the mind could grapple with such numbers--it is grappling with eternity--think of each of a thousand seeds bringing forth its plant, and then each a thousand. A globe stretching to the furthest fixed star would very soon be covered. I cannot even grapple with the idea, even with races of dogs, cattle, pigeons, or fowls; and here all admit and see the accurate strictness of your illustration. Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly know how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger sentences. The title, as you once pointed out, might have been better. No one ever objects to agriculturalists using the strongest language about their selection, yet every breeder knows that he does not produce the modification which he selects. My enormous difficulty for years was to understand adaptation, and this made me, I cannot but think, rightly, insist so much on Natural Selection. God forgive me for writing at such length; but you cannot tell how much your letter has interested me, and how important it is for me with my present book in hand to try and get clear ideas. Do think a bit about what is meant by direct action of physical conditions. I do not mean whether they act; my facts will throw some light on this. I am collecting all cases of bud-variations, in contradistinction to seed-variations (do you like this term, for what some gardeners call "sports"?); these eliminate all effects of crossing. Pray remember how much I value your opinion as the clearest and most original I ever get. I see plainly that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's great paper on Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.) will be a case of Barnacles. I have another plant to beg, but I write on separate paper as more convenient for you to keep. I meant to have said before, as an excuse for asking for so much from Kew, that I have now lost TWO seasons, by accursed nurserymen not having right plants, and sending me the wrong instead of saying that they did not possess. LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 24th [November, 1862]. I have just received enclosed for you, and I have thought that you would like to read the latter half of A. Gray's letter to me, as it is political and nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes. You will see how the loss of the power of bullying is in fact the sore loss to the men of the North from disunion. I return with thanks Bates' letter, which I was glad to see. It was very good of you writing to him, for he is evidently a man who wants encouragement. I have now finished his paper (but have read nothing else in the volume); it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought forward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous observations. I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be. (147/1. This paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 390. It is not clear why a belief in "direct action" should diminish the glory of Natural Selection, since the changes so produced must, like any other variations, pass through the ordeal of the survival of the fittest. On the whole question of direct action see Mr. Adam Sedgwick's "Presidential Address to the Zoological Section of the British Association," 1899.) LETTER 148. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 25th [1862?]. I should think it was not necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1. Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.) I have never had one from Murray. I suppose you have a letter with terms; if not, I should think you had better ask for one to prevent misunderstandings. I think Sir C. Lyell told me he had not any formal agreements. I am heartily glad to hear that your book is progressing. Could you find me some place, even a footnote (though these are in nine cases out of ten objectionable), where you could state, as fully as your materials permit, all the facts about similar varieties pairing,--at a guess how many you caught, and how many now in your collection? I look at this fact as very important; if not in your book, put it somewhere else, or let me have cases. I entirely agree with you on the enormous advantage of thoroughly studying one group. I really have no criticism to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic butterflies was read before the Linnean Society, November 21st, 1861, and published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under the title of "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.") Style seems to me very good and clear; but I much regret that in the title or opening passage you did not blow a loud trumpet about what you were going to show. Perhaps the paper would have been better more divided into sections with headings. Perhaps you might have given somewhere rather more of a summary on the progress of segregation of varieties, and not referred your readers to the descriptive part, excepting such readers as wanted minute detail. But these are trifles: I consider your paper as a most admirable production in every way. Whenever I come to variation under natural conditions (my head for months has been exclusively occupied with domestic varieties), I shall have to study and re-study your paper, and no doubt shall then have to plague you with questions. I am heartily glad to hear that you are well. I have been compelled to write in a hurry; so excuse me. LETTER 149. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 7th [1862]. I was on the point of adding to an order to Williams & Norgate for your Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when they arrived, and much obliged I am. I have read them with interest, and they seem to me very good for this purpose and capitally written, as is everything which you write. I suppose every book nowadays requires some pushing, so that if you do not wish these lectures to be extensively circulated, I suppose they will not; otherwise I should think they would do good and spread a taste for the natural sciences. Anyhow, I have liked them; but I get more and more, I am sorry to say, to care for nothing but Natural History; and chiefly, as you once said, for the mere species question. I think I liked No. III. the best of all. I have often said and thought that the process of scientific discovery was identical with everyday thought, only with more care; but I never succeeded in putting the case to myself with one-tenth of the clearness with which you have done. I think your second geological section will puzzle your non-scientific readers; anyhow, it has puzzled me, and with the strong middle line, which must represent either a line of stratification or some great mineralogical change, I cannot conceive how your statement can hold good. I am very glad to hear of your "three-year-old" vigour [?]; but I fear, with all your multifarious work, that your book on Man will necessarily be delayed. You bad man; you say not a word about Mrs. Huxley, of whom my wife and self are always truly anxious to hear. P.S. I see in the "Cornhill Magazine" a notice of a work by Cohn, which apparently is important, on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2. "Ueber contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You ought to have it reviewed. I have ordered it, and must try and make out, if I can, some of the accursed german, for I am much interested in the subject, and experimented a little on it this summer, and came to the conclusion that plants must contain some substance most closely analogous to the supposed diffused nervous matter in the lower animals; or as, I presume, it would be more accurate to say with Cohn, that they have contractile tissue. Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top--wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck "said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish without wetting their feet." Their criticisms on Lectures IV. and VI. are on a separate piece of undated paper, and must belong to a letter of later date; only three lectures were published by December 7th, 1862.) Lecture IV., page 89--Atavism. You here and there use atavism = inheritance. Duchesne, who, I believe, invented the word, in his Strawberry book confined it, as every one has since done, to resemblance to grandfather or more remote ancestor, in contradistinction to resemblance to parents. LETTER 150. TO JOHN SCOTT. (150/1. The following is the first of a series of letters addressed to the late John Scott, of which the major part is given in our Botanical chapters. We have been tempted to give this correspondence fully not only because of its intrinsic scientific interest, but also because they are almost the only letters which show Darwin in personal relation with a younger man engaged in research under his supervision.) [1862?] To the best of my judgment, no subject is so important in relation to theoretical natural science, in several respects, and likewise in itself deserving investigation, as the effects of changed or unnatural conditions, or of changed structure on the reproductive system. Under this point of view the relation of well-marked but undoubted varieties in fertilising each other requires far more experiments than have been tried. See in the "Origin" the brief abstract of Gartner on Verbascum and Zea. Mr. W. Crocker, lately foreman at Kew and a very good observer, is going at my suggestion to work varieties of hollyhock. (150/2. Altheae species. These experiments seem not to have been carried out.) The climate would be too cold, I suppose, for varieties of tobacco. I began on cabbages, but immediately stopped from early shedding of their pollen causing too much trouble. Your knowledge would suggest some [plants]. On the same principle it would be well to test peloric flowers with their own pollen, and with pollen of regular flowers, and try pollen of peloric on regular flowers--seeds being counted in each case. I have now got one seedling from many crosses of a peloric Pelargonium by peloric pollen; I have two or three seedlings from a peloric flower by pollen of regular flower. I have ordered a peloric Antirrhinum (150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I much fear I shall never have time to try them. The Passiflora cases are truly wonderful, like the Crinum cases (see "Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition VI., page 238.) I have read in a German paper that some varieties of potatoes (name not given) cannot be fertilised by [their] own pollen, but can by pollen of other varieties: well worth trying. Again, fertility of any monster flower, which is pretty regularly produced; I have got the wonderful Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on which Sir J.D. Hooker wrote in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th, 1860. See "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) from Kew, but doubt whether I have heat to set its seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be got, it would be well to test with the modified cockscomb. There is a variation of columbine [Aquilegia] with simple petals without nectaries, etc., etc. I never could think what to try; but if one could get hold of a long-cultivated plant which crossed with a distinct species and yielded a very small number of seeds, then it would be highly good to test comparatively the wild parent-form and its varying offspring with this third species: for instance, if a polyanthus would cross with some species of Primula, then to try a wild cowslip with it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever been crossed. If we knew and could get the parent of the carnation (150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus, garden variety.), it would be very good for this end. Any member of the Lythraceae raised from seed ought to be well looked after for dimorphism. I have wonderful facts, the result of experiment, on Lythrum salicaria. LETTER 151. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, December 11th [1862]. I have read your paper with much interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th, 1862.) You ask for remarks on the matter, which is alone really important. Shall you think me impertinent (I am sure I do not mean to be so) if I hazard a remark on the style, which is of more importance than some think? In my opinion (whether or no worth much) your paper would have been much better if written more simply and less elaborated--more like your letters. It is a golden rule always to use, if possible, a short old Saxon word. Such a sentence as "so purely dependent is the incipient plant on the specific morphological tendency" does not sound to my ears like good mother-English--it wants translating. Here and there you might, I think, have condensed some sentences. I go on the plan of thinking every single word which can be omitted without actual loss of sense as a decided gain. Now perhaps you will think me a meddling intruder: anyhow, it is the advice of an old hackneyed writer who sincerely wishes you well. Your remark on the two sexes counteracting variability in product of the one is new to me. (151/2. Scott (op. cit., page 214): "The reproductive organs of phoenogams, as is well-known, are always products of two morphologically distinct organs, the stamens producing the pollen, the carpels producing the ovules...The embryo being in this case the modified resultant of two originally distinct organs, there will necessarily be a greater tendency to efface any individual peculiarities of these than would have been the case had the embryo been the product of a single organ." A different idea seems to have occurred to Mr. Darwin, for in an undated letter to Scott he wrote: "I hardly know what to say on your view of male and female organs and variability. I must think more over it. But I was amused by finding the other day in my portfolio devoted to bud-variation a slip of paper dated June, 1860, with some such words as these, 'May not permanence of grafted buds be due to the two sexual elements derived from different parts not having come into play?' I had utterly forgotten, when I read your paper that any analogous notion had ever passed through my mind--nor can I now remember, but the slip shows me that it had." It is interesting that Huxley also came to a conclusion differing from Scott's; and, curiously enough, Darwin confused the two views, for he wrote to Scott (December 19th): "By an odd chance, reading last night some short lectures just published by Prof. Huxley, I find your observation, independently arrived at by him, on the confluence of the two sexes causing variability." Professor Huxley's remarks are in his "Lectures to Working Men on our Knowledge, etc." No. 4, page 90: "And, indeed, I think that a certain amount of variation from the primitive stock is the necessary result of the method of sexual propagation itself; for inasmuch as the thing propagated proceeds from two organisms of different sexes and different makes and temperaments, and, as the offspring is to be either of one sex or the other, it is quite clear that it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it would be of no sex at all; it cannot be an exact intermediate form between that of each of its parents--it must deviate to one side or the other.") But I cannot avoid thinking that there is something unknown and deeper in seminal generation. Reflect on the long succession of embryological changes in every animal. Does a bud ever produce cotyledons or embryonic leaves? I have been much interested by your remark on inheritance at corresponding ages; I hope you will, as you say, continue to attend to this. Is it true that female Primula plants always produce females by parthenogenesis? (151/3. It seems probable that Darwin here means vegetative reproduction.) If you can answer this I should be glad; it bears on my Primula work. I thought on the subject, but gave up investigating what had been observed, because the female bee by parthenogenesis produces males alone. Your paper has told me much that in my ignorance was quite new to me. Thanks about P. scotica. If any important criticisms are made on the Primula to the Botanical Society, I should be glad to hear them. If you think fit, you may state that I repeated the crossing experiments on P. sinensis and cowslip with the same result this spring as last year--indeed, with rather more marked difference in fertility of the two crosses. In fact, had I then proved the Linum case, I would not have wasted time in repetition. I am determined I will at once publish on Linum... I was right to be cautious in supposing you in error about Siphocampylus (no flowers were enclosed). I hope that you will make out whether the pistil presents two definite lengths; I shall be astounded if it does. I do not fully understand your objections to Natural Selection; if I do, I presume they would apply with full force to, for instance, birds. Reflect on modification of Arab-Turk horse into our English racehorse. I have had the satisfaction to tell my publisher to send my "Journal" and "Origin" to your address. I suspect, with your fertile mind, you will find it far better to experiment on your own choice; but if, on reflection, you would like to try some which interest me, I should be truly delighted, and in this case would write in some detail. If you have the means to repeat Gartner's experiments on variations of Verbascum or on maize (see the "Origin"), such experiments would be pre-eminently important. I could never get variations of Verbascum. I could suggest an experiment on potatoes analogous with the case of Passiflora; even the case of Passiflora, often as it has been repeated, might be with advantage repeated. I have worked like a slave (having counted about nine thousand seeds) on Melastoma, on the meaning of the two sets of very different stamens, and as yet have been shamefully beaten, and I now cry for aid. I could suggest what I believe a very good scheme (at least, Dr. Hooker thought so) for systematic degeneration of culinary plants, and so find out their origin; but this would be laborious and the work of years. LETTER 152. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 12th [December, 1862]. My good old Friend-- How kind you have been to give me so much of your time! Your letter is of real use, and has been and shall be well considered. I am much pleased to find that we do not differ as much as I feared. I begin my book with saying that my chief object is to show the inordinate scale of variation; I have especially studied all sorts of variations of the individual. On crossing I cannot change; the more I think, the more reason I have to believe that my conclusion would be agreed to by all practised breeders. I also greatly doubt about variability and domestication being at all necessarily correlative, but I have touched on this in "Origin." Plants being identical under very different conditions has always seemed to me a very heavy argument against what I call direct action. I think perhaps I will take the case of 1,000 pigeons (152/1. See Letter 146.) to sum up my volume; I will not discuss other points, but, as I have said, I shall recur to your letter. But I must just say that if sterility be allowed to come into play, if long-beaked be in the least degree sterile with short-beaked, my whole case is altered. By the way, my notions on hybridity are becoming considerably altered by my dimorphic work. I am now strongly inclined to believe that sterility is at first a selected quality to keep incipient species distinct. If you have looked at Lythrum you will see how pollen can be modified merely to favour crossing; with equal readiness it could be modified to prevent crossing. It is this which makes me so much interested with dimorphism, etc. (152/2. This gives a narrow impression of Darwin's interest in dimorphism. The importance of his work was (briefly put) the proof that sterility has no necessary connection with specific difference, but depends on sexual differentiation independent of racial differences. See "Life and Letters," III., page 296. His point of view that sterility is a selected quality is again given in a letter to Huxley ("Life and Letters," II., page 384), but was not upheld in his later writings (see "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 245). The idea of sterility being a selected quality is interesting in connection with Romanes' theory of physiological selection. (See Letters 209-214.)) One word more. When you pitched me head over heels by your new way of looking at the back side of variation, I received assurance and strength by considering monsters--due to law: horribly strange as they are, the monsters were alive till at least when born. They differ at least as much from the parent as any one mammal from another. I have just finished a long, weary chapter on simple facts of variation of cultivated plants, and am now refreshing myself with a paper on Linum for the Linnean Society. LETTER 153. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. (153/1. The following letter also bears on the question of the artificial production of sterility.) Down, 27th [December, 1862]. The present plan is to try whether any existing breeds happen to have acquired accidentally any degree of sterility; but to this point hereafter. The enclosed MS. will show what I have done and know on the subject. Please at some future time carefully return the MS. to me. If I were going to try again, I would prefer Turbit with Carrier or Dragon. I will suggest an analogous experiment, which I have had for two years in my experimental book with "be sure and try," but which, as my health gets yearly weaker and weaker and my other work increases, I suppose I shall never try. Permit me to add that if 5 pounds would cover the expenses of the experiment, I should be delighted to give it, and you could publish the result if there be any result. I crossed the Spanish cock (your bird) and white Silk hen and got plenty of eggs and chickens; but two of them seemed to be quite sterile. I was then sadly overdone with work, but have ever since much reproached myself that I did not preserve and carefully test the procreative power of these hens. Now, if you are inclined to get a Spanish cock and a couple of white Silk hens, I shall be most grateful to hear whether the offspring breed well: they will prove, I think, not hardy; if they should prove sterile, which I can hardly believe, they will anyhow do for the pot. If you do try this, how would it do to put a Silk cock to your curious silky Cochin hen, so as to get a big silk breed; it would be curious if you could get silky fowl with bright colours. I believe a Silk hen crossed by any other breed never gives silky feathers. A cross from Silk cock and Cochin Silk hen ought to give silky feathers and probably bright colours. I have been led lately from experiments (not published) on dimorphism to reflect much on sterility from hybridism, and partially to change the opinion given in "Origin." I have now letters out enquiring on the following point, implied in the experiment, which seems to me well worth trying, but too laborious ever to be attempted. I would ask every pigeon and fowl fancier whether they have ever observed, in the same breed, a cock A paired to a hen B which did not produce young. Then I would get cock A and match it to a hen of its nearest blood; and hen B to its nearest blood. I would then match the offspring of A (viz., a, b, c, d, e) to the offspring of B (viz., f, g, h, i, j), and all those children which were fertile together should be destroyed until I found one--say a, which was not quite fertile with--say, i. Then a and i should be preserved and paired with their parents A and B, so as to try and get two families which would not unite together; but the members WITHIN each family being fertile together. This would probably be quite hopeless; but he who could effect this would, I believe, solve the problem of sterility from hybridism. If you should ever hear of individual fowls or pigeons which are sterile together, I should be very grateful to hear of the case. It is a parallel case to those recorded of a man not impotent long living with a woman who remained childless; the husband died, and the woman married again and had plenty of children. Apparently (by no means certainly) this first man and woman were dissimilar in their sexual organisation. I conceive it possible that their offspring (if both had married again and both had children) would be sexually dissimilar, like their parents, or sterile together. Pray forgive my dreadful writing; I have been very unwell all day, and have no strength to re-write this scrawl. I am working slowly on, and I suppose in three or four months shall be ready. I am sure I do not know whether any human being could understand or read this shameful scrawl. LETTER 154. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December, 28th [1862]. I return enclosed: if you write, thank Mr. Kingsley for thinking of letting me see the sound sense of an Eastern potentate. (154/1. Kingsley's letter to Huxley, dated December 20th, 1862, contains a story or parable of a heathen Khan in Tartary who was visited by a pair of proselytising Moollahs. The first Moollah said: "Oh! Khan, worship my God. He is so wise that he made all things." But Moollah No. 2 won the day by pointing out that his God is "so wise that he makes all things make themselves.") All that I said about the little book (154/2. The six "Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets and in book-form in 1863. Mr. Huxley considered that Mr. Darwin's argument required the production by man's selection of breeds which should be mutually infertile, and thus resemble distinct species physiologically as well as morphologically.) is strictly my opinion; it is in every way excellent, and cannot fail to do good the wider it is circulated. Whether it is worth your while to give up time to it is another question for you alone to decide; that it will do good for the subject is beyond all question. I do not think a dunce exists who could not understand it, and that is a bold saying after the extent to which I have been misunderstood. I did not understand what you required about sterility: assuredly the facts given do not go nearly so far. We differ so much that it is no use arguing. To get the degree of sterility you expect in recently formed varieties seems to me simply hopeless. It seems to me almost like those naturalists who declare they will never believe that one species turns into another till they see every stage in process. I have heard from Tegetmeier, and have given him the result of my crosses of the birds which he proposes to try, and have told him how alone I think the experiment could be tried with the faintest hope of success--namely, to get, if possible, a case of two birds which when paired were unproductive, yet neither impotent. For instance, I had this morning a letter with a case of a Hereford heifer, which seemed to be, after repeated trials, sterile with one particular and far from impotent bull, but not with another bull. But it is too long a story--it is to attempt to make two strains, both fertile, and yet sterile when one of one strain is crossed with one of the other strain. But the difficulty...would be beyond calculation. As far as I see, Tegetmeier's plan would simply test whether two existing breeds are now in any slight degree sterile; which has already been largely tested: not that I dispute the good of re-testing. LETTER 155. TO HUGH FALCONER. (155/1. The original letter is dated "December 10th," but this must, we think, be a slip of the pen for January 10th. It contains a reference to No. VI. of the "Lectures to Working Men" which, as Mr. Leonard Huxley is good enough to inform us, was not delivered until December 15th, and therefore could not have been seen by Mr. Darwin on December 10th. The change of date makes comprehensible the reference to Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," which appeared in the January number of the "Natural History Review." It is true that he had seen advanced sheets of Falconer's paper ("Life and Letters," II., page 389), but the reference here is to the complete paper. In the present volume we have thought it right to give some expression to the attitude of Darwin towards Owen. Professor Owen's biographer has clearly felt the difficulty of making a statement on Owen's attitude towards Darwinism, and has ("Life of Sir Richard Owen," Volume II., page 92) been driven to adopt the severe indictment contained in the "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page xviii. Darwin was by no means alone in his distrust of Owen; and to omit altogether a reference to the conduct which led up to the isolation of Owen among his former friends and colleagues would be to omit a part of the history of science of the day. And since we cannot omit to notice Darwin's point of view, it seems right to give the facts of a typical case illustrating the feeling with which he regarded Owen. This is all the more necessary since the recently published biography of Sir R. Owen gives no hint, as far as we are aware, of even a difference of opinion with other scientific men. The account which Falconer gives in the above-mentioned paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (January, 1863) would be amusing if the matter were less serious. In 1857 Falconer described ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XIII.) a new species of fossil elephant from America, to which he gave the name Elephas Columbi, a designation which was recognised and adopted by Continental writers. In 1858 (Brit. Assoc. Leeds) Owen made use of the name "Elephas texianus," Blake" for the species which Falconer had previously named E. Columbi, but without referring to Falconer's determination; he gave no authority, "thus by the established usage in zoology producing it as his own." In 1861 Owen in his Palaeontology, 2nd edition, 1861, describes the elephant as E. texianus, Blake. To Mr. Blake's name is appended an asterisk which refers to a footnote to Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America," 2nd edition. According to Falconer (page 46) no second edition of Bollaert had appeared at the time of writing (August, 1862), and in the first edition (1860) he was "unable to detect the occurrence of the name even, of E. texianus, anywhere throughout the volume"; though Bollaert mentions the fact that he had deposited, in the British Museum, the tooth of a fossil elephant from Texas. In November, 1861, Blake wrote a paper in the "Geologist" in which the new elephant no longer bears his own name as authority, but is described as "Elephas texianus, Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer." Finally, in another paper the name of Owen is dropped and the elephant is once more his own. As Falconer remarks, "the usage of science does not countenance such accommodating arrangements, when the result is to prejudice a prior right." It may be said, no doubt, that the question who first described a given species is a petty one; but this view has a double edge, and applies most strongly to those who neglect the just claims of their predecessors. Down, January 5th [1863]. I finished your Elephant paper last night, and you must let me express my admiration at it. (155/2. "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.), etc." "Nat. Hist. Rev." 1863, page 81. (Cf. Letter to Lyell. "Life and Letters," II., page 389; also "Origin," Edition VI., page 306.) See Letter 143.) All the points strike me as admirably worked out, and very many most interesting. I was particularly struck with your remarks on the character of the ancient Mammalian Fauna of N. America (155/3. Falconer, page 62. This passage is marked in Darwin's copy.); it agrees with all I fancied was the case, namely a temporary irruption of S. American forms into N. America, and conversely, I chuckled a little over the specimen of M. Andium "hesitating" between the two groups. (155/4. In speaking of the characters of Mastodon Andium, Falconer refers to a former paper by himself ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII. 1857, page 313), in which he called attention "to the exceptional character of certain specimens of M. Andium, as if hesitating between [the groups] Tetralophodon and Trilophodon" (ibid., page 100).) I have been assured by Mr. Wallace that abundant Mastodon remains have been found at Timor, and that is rather close to Australia. I rejoice that you have smashed that case. (155/5. In the paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (loc. cit.) Falconer writes: "It seems more probable that some unintentional error has got mixed up with the history of this remarkable fossil; and until further confirmatory evidence is adduced, of an unimpeachable character, faith cannot be reposed in the reality of the asserted Australian Mastodon" (page 101).) It is indeed a grand paper. I will say nothing more about your allusions to me, except that they have pleased me quite as much in print as in MS. You must have worked very hard; the labour must have been extreme, but I do hope that you will have health and strength to go on. You would laugh if you could see how indignant all Owen's mean conduct about E. Columbi made me. (155/6. See Letter 157.) I did not get to sleep till past 3 o'clock. How well you lash him, firmly and severely, with unruffled temper, as if you were performing a simple duty. The case is come to such a pass, that I think every man of science is bound to show his feelings by some overt act, and I shall watch for a fitting opportunity. P.S.--I have kept back for a day the enclosed owing to the arrival of your most interesting letter. I knew it was a mere chance whether you could inform me on the points required; but no one other person has so often responded to my miscellaneous queries. I believe I have now in my greenhouse L. trigynum (155/7. Linum trigynum.), which came up from seed purchased as L. flavum, from which it is wholly different in foliage. I have just sent in a paper on Dimorphism of Linum to the Linnean Society (155/8. "On the Existence of the Forms, and on their reciprocal Sexual Relation, in several species of the genus Linum.--"Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page 69, 1864.), and so I do not doubt your memory is right about L. trigynum: the functional difference in the two forms of Linum is really wonderful. I assure you I quite long to see you and a few others in London; it is not so much the eczema which has taken the epidermis a dozen times clean off; but I have been knocked up of late with extraordinary facility, and when I shall be able to come up I know not. I particularly wish to hear about the wondrous bird: the case has delighted me, because no group is so isolated as Birds. I much wish to hear when we meet which digits are developed; when examining birds two or three years ago, I distinctly remember writing to Lyell that some day a fossil bird would be found with the end of wing cloven, i.e. the bastard-wing and other part, both well developed. Thanks for Von Martius, returned by this post, which I was glad to see. Poor old Wagner (Probably Johann Andreas Wagner, author of "Zur Feststellung des Artbegriffes, mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die Ansichten von Nathusius, Darwin, Is. Geoffroy and Agassiz," "Munchen Sitzungsb." (1861), page 301, and of numerous papers on zoological and palaeozoological subjects.) always attacked me in a proper spirit, and sent me two or three little brochures, and I thanked him cordially. The Germans seem much stirred up on the subject. I received by the same post almost a little volume on the "Origin." I cannot work above a couple of hours daily, and this plays the deuce with me. P.S. 2nd.--I have worked like a slave and been baffled like a slave in trying to make out the meaning of two very different sets of stamens in some Melastomaceae. (155/9. Several letters on the Melastomaceae occur in our Botanical section.) I must tell you one fact. I counted 9,000 seeds, one by one, from my artificially fertilised pods. There is something very odd, but I am as yet beaten. Plants from two pollens grow at different rates! Now, what I want to know is, whether in individuals of the same species, growing together, you have ever noticed any difference in the position of the pistil or in the size and colour of the stamens? LETTER 156. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 18th [1862]. I have read Nos. IV, and V. (156/1. "On our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature," being six Lectures to Working Men delivered at the Museum of Practical Geology by Prof. Huxley, 1863. These lectures, which were given once a week from November 10th, 1862, onwards, were printed from the notes of Mr. J.A. Mays, a shorthand writer, who asked permission to publish them on his own account; Mr. Huxley stating in a prefatory "Notice" that he had no leisure to revise the lectures.) They are simply perfect. They ought to be largely advertised; but it is very good in me to say so, for I threw down No. IV. with this reflection, "What is the good of writing a thundering big book, when everything is in this green little book, so despicable for its size?" In the name of all that is good and bad, I may as well shut up shop altogether. You put capitally and most simply and clearly the relation of animals and plants to each other at page 122. Be careful about Fantails: their tail-feathers are fixed in a radiating position, but they can depress and elevate them. I remember in a pigeon-book seeing withering contempt expressed at some naturalist for not knowing this important point! Page 111 (156/2. The reference is to the original little green paper books in which the lectures first appeared; the paging in the bound volume dated 1863 is slightly different. The passage here is, "...If you couple a male and female hybrid...the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all." Darwin maintains elsewhere that Huxley, from not knowing the botanical evidence, made too much of this point. See "Life and Letters," II., page 384.) seems a little too strong--viz., ninety-nine out of a hundred, unless you except plants. Page 118: You say the answer to varieties when crossed being at all sterile is "absolutely a negative." (156/3. Huxley, page 112: "Can we find any approximation to this [sterility of hybrids] in the different races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative one.") Do you mean to say that Gartner lied, after experiments by the hundred (and he a hostile witness), when he showed that this was the case with Verbascum and with maize (and here you have selected races): does Kolreuter lie when he speaks about the varieties of tobacco? My God, is not the case difficult enough, without its being, as I must think, falsely made more difficult? I believe it is my own fault--my d--d candour: I ought to have made ten times more fuss about these most careful experiments. I did put it stronger in the third edition of the "Origin." If you have a new edition, do consider your second geological section: I do not dispute the truth of your statement; but I maintain that in almost every case the gravel would graduate into the mud; that there would not be a hard, straight line between the mass of gravel and mud; that the gravel, in crawling inland, would be separated from the underlying beds by oblique lines of stratification. A nice idea of the difficulty of Geology your section would give to a working man! Do show your section to Ramsay, and tell him what I say; and if he thinks it a fair section for a beginner I am shut up, and "will for ever hold my tongue." Good-night. LETTER 157. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [January] 10th [1863]. You will be weary of notes from me about the little book of yours. It is lucky for me that I expressed, before reading No. VI. (157/1. "Lectures to Working Men," No. VI., is a critical examination of the position of the "Origin of Species" in relation to the complete theory of the "causes of the phenomena of organic nature."), my opinion of its absolute excellence, and of its being well worth wide distribution and worth correction (not that I see where you could improve), if you thought it worth your valuable time. Had I read No. VI., even a rudiment of modesty would, or ought to, have stopped me saying so much. Though I have been well abused, yet I have had so much praise, that I have become a gourmand, both as to capacity and taste; and I really did not think that mortal man could have tickled my palate in the exquisite manner with which you have done the job. So I am an old ass, and nothing more need be said about this. I agree entirely with all your reservations about accepting the doctrine, and you might have gone further with further safety and truth. Of course I do not wholly agree about sterility. I hate beyond all things finding myself in disagreement with any capable judge, when the premises are the same; and yet this will occasionally happen. Thinking over my former letter to you, I fancied (but I now doubt) that I had partly found out the cause of our disagreement, and I attributed it to your naturally thinking most about animals, with which the sterility of the hybrids is much more conspicuous than the lessened fertility of the first cross. Indeed, this could hardly be ascertained with mammals, except by comparing the products of [their] whole life; and, as far as I know, this has only been ascertained in the case of the horse and ass, which do produce fewer offspring in [their] lifetime than in pure breeding. In plants the test of first cross seems as fair as test of sterility of hybrids. And this latter test applies, I will maintain to the death, to the crossing of varieties of Verbascum, and varieties, selected varieties, of Zea. (157/2. See Letter 156.) You will say Go to the Devil and hold your tongue. No, I will not hold my tongue; for I must add that after going, for my present book, all through domestic animals, I have come to the conclusion that there are almost certainly several cases of two or three or more species blended together and now perfectly fertile together. Hence I conclude that there must be something in domestication,--perhaps the less stable conditions, the very cause which induces so much variability,--which eliminates the natural sterility of species when crossed. If so, we can see how unlikely that sterility should arise between domestic races. Now I will hold my tongue. Page 143: ought not "Sanscrit" to be "Aryan"? What a capital number the last "Natural History Review" is! That is a grand paper by Falconer. I cannot say how indignant Owen's conduct about E. Columbi has made me. I believe I hate him more than you do, even perhaps more than good old Falconer does. But I have bubbled over to one or two correspondents on this head, and will say no more. I have sent Lubbock a little review of Bates' paper in "Linn. Transact." (157/3. The unsigned review of Mr. Bates' work on mimetic butterflies appeared in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (1863), page 219.) which L. seems to think will do for your "Review." Do inaugurate a great improvement, and have pages cut, like the Yankees do; I will heap blessings on your head. Do not waste your time in answering this. LETTER 158. TO JOHN LUBBOCK [LORD AVEBURY]. Down, January 23rd [1863]. I have no criticism, except one sentence not perfectly smooth. I think your introductory remarks very striking, interesting, and novel. (158/1. "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum, Part I. By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., pages 61-78, 1864 [Read January 15th, 1863].) They interested me the more, because the vaguest thoughts of the same kind had passed through my head; but I had no idea that they could be so well developed, nor did I know of exceptions. Sitaris and Meloe (158/2. Sitaris and Meloe, two genera of coleopterous insects, are referred to by Lubbock (op. cit., pages 63-64) as "perhaps...the most remarkable cases...among the Coleoptera" of curious and complicated metamorphoses.) seem very good. You have put the whole case of metamorphosis in a new light; I dare say what you remark about poverty of fresh-water is very true. (158/3. "We cannot but be struck by the poverty of the fresh-water fauna when compared with that of the ocean" (op. cit., page 64).) I think you might write a memoir on fresh-water productions. I suggest that the key-note is that land-productions are higher and have advantage in general over marine; and consequently land-productions have generally been modified into fresh-water productions, instead of marine productions being directly changed into fresh-water productions, as at first seems more probable, as the chance of immigration is always open from sea to rivers and ponds. My talk with you did me a deal of good, and I enjoyed it much. LETTER 159. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 13th [1863]. I send a very imperfect answer to [your] question, which I have written on foreign paper to save you copying, and you can send when you write to Thomson in Calcutta. Hereafter I shall be able to answer better your question about qualities induced in individuals being inherited; gout in man--loss of wool in sheep (which begins in the first generation and takes two or three to complete); probably obesity (for it is rare with poor); probably obesity and early maturity in short-horn cattle, etc., etc. LETTER 160. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 14th [1863]. I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Memoir. (160/1. Etude sur l'Espece a l'occasion d'une revision de la Famille des Cupuliferes. "Biblioth. Univ. (Arch. des Sc. Phys. et Nat.)," Novembre 1862.) I have read it with the liveliest interest, as is natural for me; but you have the art of making subjects, which might be dry, run easily. I have been fairly astonished at the amount of individual variability in the oaks. I never saw before the subject in any department of nature worked out so carefully. What labour it must have cost you! You spoke in one letter of advancing years; but I am very sure that no one would have suspected that you felt this. I have been interested with every part; though I am so unfortunate as to differ from most of my contemporaries in thinking that the vast continental extensions (160/2. See Letters 47, 48.) of Forbes, Heer, and others are not only advanced without sufficient evidence, but are opposed to much weighty evidence. You refer to my work in the kindest and most generous spirit. I am fully satisfied at the length in belief to which you go, and not at all surprised at the prudent reservations which you make. I remember well how many years it cost me to go round from old beliefs. It is encouraging to me to observe that everyone who has gone an inch with me, after a period goes a few more inches or even feet. But the great point, as it seems to me, is to give up the immutability of specific forms; as long as they are thought immutable, there can be no real progress in "Epiontology." (160/3. See De Candolle, loc. cit., page 67: he defines "Epiontologie" as the study of the distribution and succession of organised beings from their origin up to the present time. At present Epiontology is divided into geography and palaeontology, "mais cette division trop inegale et a limites bien vagues disparaitra probablement.") It matters very little to any one except myself, whether I am a little more or less wrong on this or that point; in fact, I am sure to be proved wrong in many points. But the subject will have, I am convinced, a grand future. Considering that birds are the most isolated group in the animal kingdom, what a splendid case is this Solenhofen bird-creature with its long tail and fingers to its wings! I have lately been daily and hourly using and quoting your "Geographical Botany" in my book on "Variation under Domestication." LETTER 161. TO HORACE DOBELL. Down, February 16th [1863]. Absence from home and consequent idleness are the causes that I have not sooner thanked you for your very kind present of your Lectures. (161/1. "On the Germs and Vestiges of Disease," (London) 1861.) Your reasoning seems quite satisfactory (though the subject is rather beyond my limit of thought and knowledge) on the V.M.F. not being "a given quantity." (161/2. "It has been too common to consider the force exhibited in the operations of life (the V.M.F.) as a given quantity, to which no accessions can be made, but which is apportioned to each living being in quantity sufficient for its necessities, according to some hidden law" (op. cit., page 41.) And I can see that the conditions of life must play a most important part in allowing this quantity to increase, as in the budding of a tree, etc. How far these conditions act on "the forms of organic life" (page 46) I do not see clearly. In fact, no part of my subject has so completely puzzled me as to determine what effect to attribute to (what I vaguely call) the direct action of the conditions of life. I shall before long come to this subject, and must endeavour to come to some conclusion when I have got the mass of collected facts in some sort of order in my mind. My present impression is that I have underrated this action in the "Origin." I have no doubt when I go through your volume I shall find other points of interest and value to me. I have already stumbled on one case (about which I want to consult Mr. Paget)--namely, on the re-growth of supernumerary digits. (161/3. See Letters 178, 270.) You refer to "White on Regeneration, etc., 1785." I have been to the libraries of the Royal and the Linnean Societies, and to the British Museum, where the librarians got out your volume and made a special hunt, and could discover no trace of such a book. Will you grant me the favour of giving me any clue, where I could see the book? Have you it? if so, and the case is given briefly, would you have the great kindness to copy it? I much want to know all particulars. One case has been given me, but with hardly minute enough details, of a supernumerary little finger which has already been twice cut off, and now the operation will soon have to be done for the third time. I am extremely much obliged for the genealogical table; the fact of the two cousins not, as far as yet appears, transmitting the peculiarity is extraordinary, and must be given by me. LETTER 162. TO C. LYELL. [February 17th, 1863.] The same post that brought the enclosed brought Dana's pamphlet on the same subject. (162/1. The pamphlet referred to was published in "Silliman's Journal," Volume XXV., 1863, pages 65 and 71, also in the "Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XI., pages 207-14, 1863: "On the Higher Subdivisions in the Classification of Mammals." In this paper Dana maintains the view that "Man's title to a position by himself, separate from the other mammals in classification, appears to be fixed on structural as well as physical grounds" (page 210). His description is as follows:-- I. ARCHONTIA (vel DIPODA) Man (alone). II. MEGASTHENA. III. MICROSTHENA. Quadrumana. Cheiroptera. Carnivora. Insectivora. Herbivora. Rodentia. Mutilata. Bruta (Edentata). IV. OOTICOIDEA. Marsupialia. Monotremata.) The whole seems to me utterly wild. If there had not been the foregone wish to separate men, I can never believe that Dana or any one would have relied on so small a distinction as grown man not using fore-limbs for locomotion, seeing that monkeys use their limbs in all other respects for the same purpose as man. To carry on analogous principles (for they are not identical, in crustacea the cephalic limbs are brought close to mouth) from crustacea to the classification of mammals seems to me madness. Who would dream of making a fundamental distinction in birds, from fore-limbs not being used at all in [some] birds, or used as fins in the penguin, and for flight in other birds? I get on slowly with your grand work, for I am overwhelmed with odds and ends and letters. LETTER 163. TO J.D. HOOKER. (163/1. The following extract refers to Owen's paper in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," June, 1857, in which the classification of the Mammalia by cerebral characters was proposed. In spite of the fact that men and apes are placed in distinct Sub-Classes, Owen speaks (in the foot-note of which Huxley made such telling effect) of the determination of the difference between Homo and Pithecus as the anatomist's difficulty. (See Letter 119.)) July 5th, 1857. What a capital number of the "Linnean Journal!" Owen's is a grand paper; but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a chimpanzee as an Ornithorhynchus from a horse; I wonder what a chimpanzee would say to this? (163/2. According to Owen the sub-class Archencephala contains only the genus Homo: the Gyrencephala contains both chimpanzee and horse, the Lyencephala contains Ornithorhynchus.) LETTER 164. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down [February?] 26th, 1863. I have just finished with very great interest "Man's Place." (164/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863 (preface dated January 1863).) I never fail to admire the clearness and condensed vigour of your style, as one calls it, but really of your thought. I have no criticisms; nor is it likely that I could have. But I think you could have added some interesting matter on the character or disposition of the young ourangs which have been kept in France and England. I should have thought you might have enlarged a little on the later embryological changes in man and on his rudimentary structure, tail as compared with tail of higher monkeys, intermaxillary bone, false ribs, and I daresay other points, such as muscles of ears, etc., etc. I was very much struck with admiration at the opening pages of Part II. (and oh! what a delicious sneer, as good as a dessert, at page 106) (164/2. Huxley, op. cit., page 106. After saying that "there is but one hypothesis regarding the origin of species of animals in general which has any scientific existence--that propounded by Mr. Darwin," and after a few words on Lamarck, he goes on: "And though I have heard of the announcement of a formula touching 'the ordained continuous becoming of organic forms,' it is obvious that it is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible, and that a qua-qua-versal proposition of this kind, which may be read backwards or forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same amount of significance, does not really exist, though it may seem to do so." The "formula" in question is Owen's.): but my admiration is unbounded at pages 109 to 112. I declare I never in my life read anything grander. Bacon himself could not have charged a few paragraphs with more condensed and cutting sense than you have done. It is truly grand. I regret extremely that you could not, or did not, end your book (not that I mean to say a word against the Geological History) with these pages. With a book, as with a fine day, one likes it to end with a glorious sunset. I congratulate you on its publication; but do not be disappointed if it does not sell largely: parts are highly scientific, and I have often remarked that the best books frequently do not get soon appreciated: certainly large sale is no proof of the highest merit. But I hope it may be widely distributed; and I am rejoiced to see in your note to Miss Rhadamanthus (164/3. This refers to Mr. Darwin's daughter (now Mrs. Litchfield), whom Mr. Huxley used to laugh at for the severity of her criticisms.) that a second thousand is called for of the little book. What a letter that is of Owen's in the "Athenaeum" (164/4. A letter by Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, replying to strictures on his treatment of the brain question, which had appeared in Lyell's "Antiquity of Man."); how cleverly he will utterly muddle and confound the public. Indeed he quite muddled me, till I read again your "concise statement" (164/5. This refers to a section (pages 113-18) in "Man's Place in Nature," headed "A succinct History of the Controversy respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." Huxley follows the question from Owen's attempt to classify the mammalia by cerebral characters, published by the "Linn. Soc." in 1857, up to his revival of the subject at the Cambridge meeting of the British Association in 1862. It is a tremendous indictment of Owen, and seems to us to conclude not unfittingly with a citation from Huxley's article in the "Medical Times," October 11th, 1862. Huxley here points out that special investigations have been made into the question at issue "during the last two years" by Allen Thomson, Rolleston, Marshall, Flower, Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik, and that "all these able and conscientious observers" have testified to the accuracy of his statements, "while not a single anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen." He sums up the case once more, and concludes: "The question has thus become one of personal veracity. For myself I will accept no other issue than this, grave as it is, to the present controversy.") (which is capitally clear), and then I saw that my suspicion was true that he has entirely changed his ground to size of Brain. How candid he shows himself to have taken the slipped Brain! (164/6. Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, admits that in the brain which he used in illustration of his statements "the cerebral hemispheres had glided forward and apart behind so as to expose a portion of the cerebellum.") I am intensely curious to see whether Lyell will answer. (164/7. Lyell's answer was in the "Athenaeum" March 7th, 1863.) Lyell has been, I fear, rather rash to enter on a subject on which he of course knows nothing by himself. By heavens, Owen will shake himself, when he sees what an antagonist he has made for himself in you. With hearty admiration, Farewell. I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive caution (164/8. In the "Antiquity of Man": see "Life and Letters," III., page 8.) in expressing any judgment on Species or [on the] origin of Man. LETTER 165. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, March 6th, 1863. I thank you for your criticisms on the "Origin," and which I have not time to discuss; but I cannot help doubting, from your expression of an "INNATE...selective principle," whether you fully comprehend what is meant by Natural Selection. Certainly when you speak of weaker (i.e. less well adapted) forms crossing with the stronger, you take a widely different view from what I do on the struggle for existence; for such weaker forms could not exist except by the rarest chance. With respect to utility, reflect that 99/100ths part of the structure of each being is due to inheritance of formerly useful structures. Pray read what I have said on "correlation." Orchids ought to show us how ignorant we are of what is useful. No doubt hundreds of cases could be advanced of which no explanation could be offered; but I must stop. Your letter has interested me much. I am very far from strong, and have great fear that I must stop all work for a couple of months for entire rest, and leave home. It will be ruin to all my work. LETTER 166. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 23rd [1863]. The more I think of Falconer's letter (166/1. Published in the "Athenaeum" April 4th, 1863, page 459. The writer asserts that Lyell did not make it clear that certain material made use of in the "Antiquity of Man" was supplied by the original work of Mr. Prestwich and himself. (See "Life and Letters," III., page 19.)) the more grieved I am; he and Prestwich (the latter at least must owe much to the "Principles") assume an absurdly unwarrantable position with respect to Lyell. It is too bad to treat an old hero in science thus. I can see from a note from Falconer (about a wonderful fossil Brazilian Mammal, well called Meso- or Typo-therium) that he expects no sympathy from me. He will end, I hope, by being sorry. Lyell lays himself open to a slap by saying that he would come to show his original observations, and then not distinctly doing so; he had better only have laid claim, on this one point of man, to verification and compilation. Altogether, I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will greatly sink scientific men. I have seen a sneer already in the "Times." LETTER 167. TO H.W. BATES. At Rev. C. Langton, Hartfield, Tunbridge Wells, April 30th [1863]. You will have received before this the note which I addressed to Leicester, after finishing Volume I., and you will have received copies of my little review (167/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863, page 219. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies.) of your paper...I have now finished Volume II., and my opinion remains the same--that you have written a truly admirable work (167/2. "The Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863.), with capital original remarks, first-rate descriptions, and the whole in a style which could not be improved. My family are now reading the book, and admire it extremely; and, as my wife remarks, it has so strong an air of truthfulness. I had a letter from a person the other day, unknown to you, full of praise of the book. I do hope it may get extensively heard of and circulated; but to a certain extent this, I think, always depends on chance. I suppose the clicking noise of surprise made by the Indian is that which the end of the tongue, applied to the palate of the mouth and suddenly withdrawn, makes? I have not written since receiving your note of April 20th, in which you confided in me and told me your prospects. I heartily wish they were better, and especially more certain; but with your abilities and powers of writing it will be strange if you cannot add what little you require for your income. I am glad that you have got a retired and semi-rural situation. What a grand ending you give to your book, contrasting civilisation and wild life! I quite regret that I have finished it: every evening it was a real treat to me to have my half-hour in the grand Amazonian forest, and picture to myself your vivid descriptions. There are heaps of facts of value to me in a natural history point of view. It was a great misfortune that you were prevented giving the discussion on species. But you will, I hope, be able to give your views and facts somewhere else. LETTER 168. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 15th [1863]. Your letter received this morning interested me more than even most of your letters, and that is saying a good deal. I must scribble a little on several points. About Lyell and species--you put the whole case, I do believe, when you say that he is "half-hearted and whole-headed." (168/1. Darwin's disappointment with the cautious point of view taken up by Lyell in the "Antiquity of Man" is illustrated in the "Life and Letters," III., pages 11, 13. See also Letter 164, page 239.) I wrote to A. Gray that, when I saw such men as Lyell and he refuse to judge, it put me in despair, and that I sometimes thought I should prefer that Lyell had judged against modification of species rather than profess inability to decide; and I left him to apply this to himself. I am heartily rejoiced to hear that you intend to try to bring L. and F. (168/2. Falconer claimed that Lyell had not "done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question." See "Life and Letters," III., page 14.) together again; but had you not better wait till they are a little cooled? You will do Science a real good service. Falconer never forgave Lyell for taking the Purbeck bones from him and handing them over to Owen. With respect to island floras, if I understand rightly, we differ almost solely how plants first got there. I suppose that at long intervals, from as far back as later Tertiary periods to the present time, plants occasionally arrived (in some cases, perhaps, aided by different currents from existing currents and by former islands), and that these old arrivals have survived little modified on the islands, but have become greatly modified or become extinct on the continent. If I understand, you believe that all islands were formerly united to continents, and then received all their plants and none since; and that on the islands they have undergone less extinction and modification than on the continent. The number of animal forms on islands, very closely allied to those on continents, with a few extremely distinct and anomalous, does not seem to me well to harmonise with your supposed view of all having formerly arrived or rather having been left together on the island. LETTER 169. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 31st [1863?]. I was very glad to receive your review (169/1. The review on De Candolle's work on the Oaks (A. Gray's "Scientific Papers," I., page 130).) of De Candolle a week ago. It seems to me excellent, and you speak out, I think, more plainly in favour of derivation of species than hitherto, though doubtfully about Natural Selection. Grant the first, I am easy about the second. Do you not consider such cases as all the orchids next thing to a demonstration against Heer's view of species arising suddenly by monstrosities?--it is impossible to imagine so many co-adaptations being formed all by a chance blow. Of course creationists would cut the enigma. LETTER 170. TO T.H. HUXLEY. June 27th [1863?] What are you doing now? I have never yet got hold of the "Edinburgh Review," in which I hear you are well abused. By the way, I heard lately from Asa Gray that Wyman was delighted at "Man's Place." (170/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," by T.H. Huxley, 1863.) I wonder who it is who pitches weakly, but virulently into you, in the "Anthropological Review." How quiet Owen seems! I do at last begin to believe that he will ultimately fall in public estimation. What nonsense he wrote in the "Athenaeum" (170/2. "Athenaeum," March 28th, 1863. See "Life and Letters," III., page 17.) on Heterogeny! I saw in his Aye-Aye (170/3. See Owen in the "Trans. Zool. Soc." Volume V. The sentence referred to seems to be the following (page 95): "We know of no changes in progress in the Island of Madagascar, necessitating a special quest of wood-boring larvae by small quadrupeds of the Lemurine or Sciurine types of organisation.') paper (I think) that he sneers at the manner in which he supposes that we should account for the structure of its limbs; and asks how we know that certain insects had increased in the Madagascar forests. Would it not be a good rebuff to ask him how he knows there were trees at all on the leafless plains of La Plata for his Mylodons to tear down? But I must stop, for if I once begin about [him] there will be no end. I was disappointed in the part about species in Lyell. (170/4. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." See "Life and Letters," III., page 11.) You and Hooker are the only two bold men. I have had a bad spring and summer, almost constantly very unwell; but I am crawling on in my book on "Variation under Domestication.") LETTER 171. TO C. LYELL. Down, August 14th [1863]. Have you seen Bentham's remarks on species in his address to the Linnean Society? (171/1. Presidential address before the Linnean Society by G. Bentham ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page xi., 1864).) they have pleased me more than anything I have read for some time. I have no news, for I have not seen a soul for months, and have had a bad spring and summer, but have managed to do a good deal of work. Emma is threatening me to take me to Malvern, and perhaps I shall be compelled, but it is a horrid waste of time; you must have enjoyed North Wales, I should think, it is to me a most glorious country... If you have not read Bates' book (171/2. Henry Walter Bates, "The Naturalist on the River Amazons," 2 volumes, London, 1863. In a letter to Bates, April 18th, 1863, Darwin writes, "It is the best work of natural history travels ever published in England" ("Life and Letters," II., page 381.), I think it would interest you. He is second only to Humboldt in describing a tropical forest. (171/3. Quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 381.). Talking of reading, I have never got the "Edinburgh" (171/4. The "Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man," by Sir Charles Lyell, and works by other authors reviewed in the "Edinburgh Review." Volume CXVIII., July 1863. The writer sums up his criticism as follows: "Glancing at the work of Sir Charles Lyell as a whole, it leaves the impression on our minds that we have been reading an ingenious academical thesis, rather than a work of demonstration by an original writer...There is no argument in it, and only a few facts which have not been stated elsewhere by Sir C. Lyell himself or by others" (loc. cit., page 294).), in which, I suppose, you are cut up. LETTER 172. TO H. FALCONER. December 26th [1863]. Thank you for telling me about the Pliocene mammal, which is very remarkable; but has not Owen stated that the Pliocene badger is identical with the recent? Such a case does indeed well show the stupendous duration of the same form. I have not heard of Suess' pamphlet (172/1. Probably Suess's paper "Ueber die Verschiedenheit und die Aufeinanderfolge der tertiaren Land-faunen in der Niederung von Wien." "Sitz.-Ber. Wien Akad." XLVII., page 306, 1863.), and should much like to learn the title, if it can be procured; but I am on different subjects just at present. I should rather like to see it rendered highly probable that the process of formation of a new species was short compared to its duration--that is, if the process was allowed to be slow and long; the idea is new to me. Heer's view that new species are suddenly formed like monsters, I feel a conviction from many reasons is false. CHAPTER 1.IV.--EVOLUTION, 1864-1869. LETTER 173. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 1st, 1864. I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: "I read lately with gusto Wallace's expose of the Dublin man on Bees' cells, etc." (173/1. "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's paper on the Bee's Cell and on the Origin of Species" ("Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XII., 1863, page 303). Prof. Haughton's paper was read before the Natural History Society of Dublin, November 21st, 1862, and reprinted in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XI., 1863, page 415. See Letters 73, 74, 75.) Now, though I cannot read at present, I much want to know where this is published, that I may procure a copy. Further on, Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's paper on Glaciers in the "Atlantic Magazine" and his recent book entitled "Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace upon these articles." So Asa Gray seems to think much of your powers of reviewing, and I mention this as it assuredly is laudari a laudato. I hope you are hard at work, and if you are inclined to tell me, I should much like to know what you are doing. It will be many months, I fear, before I shall do anything. LETTER 174. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, March 27th [1864?]. I had heard that your work was to be translated, and I heard it with pleasure; but I can take no share of credit, for I am not an active, only an honorary member of the Society. Since writing I have finished with extreme interest to the end your admirable work on metamorphosis. (174/1. Probably "Metamorphoses of Man and the Lower Animals." Translated by H. Lawson, 1864.) How well you are acquainted with the works of English naturalists, and how generously you bestow honour on them! Mr. Lubbock is my neighbour, and I have known him since he was a little boy; he is in every way a thoroughly good man; as is my friend Huxley. It gave me real pleasure to see you notice their works as you have done. LETTER 175. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 11th [1864]. I am very much obliged for your present of your "Comp. Anatomy." (175/1. "Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy," 1864.) When strong enough I am sure I shall read it with greatest interest. I could not resist the last chapter, of which I have read a part, and have been much interested about the "inspired idiot." (175/2. In reference to Oken (op. cit., page 282) Huxley says: "I must confess I never read his works without thinking of the epithet of 'inspired idiot' applied to our own Goldsmith.") If Owen wrote the article "Oken" (175/3. The article on Oken in the eighth edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is signed "R.O.": Huxley wrote to Darwin (April 18th, 1864), "There is not the smallest question that Owen wrote both the article 'Oken' and the 'Archetype' Book" (Huxley's "Life," I., page 250). Mr. Huxley's statements amount to this: (1) Prof. Owen accuses Goethe of having in 1820 appropriated Oken's theory of the skull, and of having given an apocryphal account of how the idea occurred to himself in 1790. (2) in the same article, page 502, Owen stated it to be questionable whether the discoverer of the true theory of the segmental constitution of the skull (i.e. himself) was excited to his labours, or "in any way influenced by the a priori guesses of Oken." On this Huxley writes, page 288: "But if he himself had not been in any way influenced by Oken, and if the 'Programm' [of Oken] is a mere mass of 'a priori guesses,' how comes it that only three years before Mr. Owen could write thus? 'Oken, ce genie profond et penetrant, fut le premier qui entrevit la verite, guide par l'heureuse idee de l'arrangement des os craniens en segments, comme ceux du rachis, appeles vertebres...'" Later on Owen wrote: "Cela servira pour exemple d'une examen scrupuleux des faits, d'une appreciation philosophique de leurs relations et analogies, etc." (From "Principes d'Osteologie comparee, ou Recherches sur l'Archetype," etc., pages 155, 1855). (3) Finally Huxley says, page 289, plainly: "The fact is that, so far from not having been 'in any way influenced' by Oken, Prof. Owen's own contributions to this question are the merest Okenism, remanie.") and the French work on the Archetype (points you do not put quite clearly), he never did a baser act...You are so good a Christian that you will hardly understand how I chuckle over this bit of baseness. I hope you keep well and hearty; I honour your wisdom at giving up at present Society for Science. But, on the other hand, I feel it in myself possible to get to care too much for Natural Science and too little for other things. I am getting better, I almost dare to hope permanently; for my sickness is decidedly less--for twenty-seven days consecutively I was sick many times daily, and lately I was five days free. I long to do a little work again. The magnificent (by far the most magnificent, and too magnificent) compliment which you paid me at the end of your "Origin of Species" (175/4. A title applied to the "Lectures to Working Men," that "green little book" referred to in Letter 156. Speaking of Mr. Darwin's work he says (page 156): "I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part, it still remains one of the greatest encyclopaedias of biological doctrine that any one man ever brought forth; and I believe that, if you take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations.') I have met with reprinted from you two or three times lately. LETTER 175A. TO ERASMUS DARWIN. Down, June 30th, 1864. (175A.1. The preceding letter contains a reference to the prolonged period of ill-health which Darwin suffered in 1863 and 1864, and in this connection the present letter is of interest. The Copley Medal was given to him in 1864.) I had not heard a word about the Copley Medal. Please give Falconer my cordial thanks for his interest about me. I enclose the list of everything published by me except a few unimportant papers. Ask Falconer not to mention that I sent the list, as some one might say I had been canvassing, which is an odious imputation. The origin of the Voyage in the "Beagle" was that Fitz-Roy generously offered to give up half his cabin to any one who would volunteer to go as naturalist. Beaufort wrote to Cambridge, and I volunteered. Fitz-Roy never persuaded me to give up the voyage on account of sickness, nor did I ever think of doing so, though I suffered considerably; but I do not believe it was the cause of my subsequent ill-health, which has lost me so many years, and therefore I should not think the sea-sickness was worth notice. It would save you trouble to forward this with my kindest remembrances to Falconer. (176/1. The following letter was the beginning of a correspondence with Mr. B.D. Walsh, whom C.V. Riley describes as "one of the ablest and most thorough entomologists of our time.") LETTER 176. B.D. WALSH TO CHARLES DARWIN. Rock Island, Illinois, U.S., April 29th, 1864. (176/2. The words in square brackets are restorations of parts torn off the original letter.) More than thirty years ago I was introduced to you at your rooms in Christ's College by A.W. Grisebach, and had the pleasure of seeing your noble collection of British Coleoptera. Some years afterwards I became a Fellow of Trinity, and finally gave up my Fellowship rather than go into Orders, and came to this country. For the last five or six years I have been paying considerable attention to the insect fauna of the U.S., some of the fruits of which you will see in the enclosed pamphlets. Allow me to take this opportunity of thanking you for the publication of your "Origin of Species," which I read three years ago by the advice of a botanical friend, though I had a strong prejudice against what I supposed then to be your views. The first perusal staggered me, the second convinced me, and the oftener I read it the more convinced I am of the general soundness of your theory. As you have called upon naturalists that believe in your views to give public testimony of their convictions, I have directed your attention on the outside of one or two of my pamphlets to the particular passages in which [I] have done so. You will please accept these papers from me in token of my respect and admiration. As you may see from the latest of these papers, I [have] recently made the remarkable discover that there [are the] so-called "three sexes" not only in social insects but [also in the] strictly solitary genus Cynips. When is your great work to make its appearance? [I should be] much pleased to receive a few lines from you. LETTER 177. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, October 21st [1864]. Ill-health has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your very kind letter and several memoirs. I have been very much pleased to see how boldly and clearly you speak out on the modification of species. I thank you for giving me the pages of reference; but they were superfluous, for I found so many original and profound remarks that I have carefully looked through all the papers. I hope that your discovery about the Cynips (177/1. "On Dimorphism in the hymenopterous genus Cynips," "Proc. Entom. Soc. Philadelphia," March, 1864. Mr. Walsh's view is that Cynips quercus aciculata is a dimorphous form of Cynips q. spongifica, and occurs only as a female. Cynips q. spongifica also produces spongifica females and males from other galls at a different time of year.) will hold good, for it is a remarkable one, and I for one have often marvelled what could be the meaning of the case. I will lend your paper to my neighbour Mr. Lubbock, who I know is much interested in the subject. Incidentally I shall profit by your remarks on galls. If you have time I think a rather hopeless experiment would be worth trying; anyhow, I should have tried it had my health permitted. It is to insert a minute grain of some organic substance, together with the poison from bees, sand-wasps, ichneumons, adders, and even alkaloid poisons into the tissues of fitting plants for the chance of monstrous growths being produced. (177/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 346, for an account of experiments attempted in this direction by Mr. Darwin in 1880. On the effects of injuring plant-tissues, see Massart, "La Cicatrisation, etc." in Tome LVII. of the "Memoires Couronnes" of the Brussels Academy.) My health has long been poor, and I have lately suffered from a long illness which has interrupted all work, but I am now recommencing a volume in connection with the "Origin." P.S.--If you write again I should very much like to hear what your life in your new country is. What can be the meaning or use of the great diversity of the external generative organs in your cases, in Bombus, and the phytophagous coleoptera? What can there be in the act of copulation necessitating such complex and diversified apparatus? LETTER 178. TO W.H. FLOWER. Down, July 11th, 1864. I am truly obliged for all the trouble which you have taken for me, and for your very interesting note. I had only vaguely heard it said that frogs had a rudiment of a sixth toe; had I known that such great men had looked to the point I should not have dreamed of looking myself. The rudiment sent to you was from a full-grown frog; so that if these bones are the two cuneiforms they must, I should think, be considered to be in a rudimentary condition. This afternoon my gardener brought in some tadpoles with the hind-legs alone developed, and I looked at the rudiment. At this age it certainly looks extremely like a digit, for the extremity is enlarged like that of the adjoining real toe, and the transverse articulation seems similar. I am sorry that the case is doubtful, for if these batrachians had six toes, I certainly think it would have thrown light on the truly extraordinary strength of inheritance in polydactylism in so many animals, and especially on the power of regeneration in amputated supernumerary digits. (178/1. In the first edition of "Variation under Domestication" the view here given is upheld, but in the second edition (Volume I., page 459) Darwin withdrew his belief that the development of supernumerary digits in man is "a case of reversion to a lowly-organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." See Letters 161, 270.) LETTER 179. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [October 22nd, 1864]. The Lyells have been here, and were extremely pleasant, but I saw them only occasionally for ten minutes, and when they went I had an awful day [of illness]; but I am now slowly getting up to my former standard. I shall soon be confined to a living grave, and a fearful evil it is. I suppose you have read Tyndall. (179/1. Probably Tyndall "On the Conformation of the Alps" ("Phil. Mag." 1864, page 255).) I have now come round again to Ramsay's view, (179/2. "Phil. Mag." 1864, page 293.) for the third or fourth time; but Lyell says when I read his discussion in the "Elements," I shall recant for the fifth time. (179/3. This refers to a discussion on the "Connection of the predominance of Lakes with Glacial Action" ("Elements," Edition VI., pages 168-74). Lyell adheres to the views expressed in the "Antiquity of Man" (1863) against Ramsay's theory of the origin of lake basins by ice action.) What a capital writer Tyndall is! In your last note you ask what the Bardfield oxlip is. It is P. elatior of Jacq., which certainly looks, when growing, to common eyes different from the common oxlip. I will fight you to the death that as primrose and cowslip are different in appearance (not to mention odour, habitat and range), and as I can now show that, when they cross, the intermediate offspring are sterile like ordinary hybrids, they must be called as good species as a man and a gorilla. I agree that if Scott's red cowslip grew wild or spread itself and did not vary [into] common cowslip (and we have absolutely no proof of primrose or cowslip varying into each other), and as it will not cross with the cowslip, it would be a perfectly good species. The power of remaining for a good long period constant I look at as the essence of a species, combined with an appreciable amount of difference; and no one can say there is not this amount of difference between primrose and oxlip. (PLATE: HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.) LETTER 180. HUGH FALCONER TO W. SHARPEY. (180/1. Falconer had proposed Darwin for the Copley Medal of the Royal Society (which was awarded to him in 1864), but being detained abroad, he gave his reasons for supporting Darwin for this honour in a letter to Sharpey, the Secretary of the Royal Society. A copy of the letter here printed seems to have been given to Erasmus Darwin, and by him shown to his brother Charles.) Montauban, October 25th, 1864. Busk and myself have made every effort to be back in London by the 27th inst., but we have been persecuted by mishaps--through the breakdown of trains, diligences, etc., so that we have been sadly put out in our reckoning--and have lost some of the main objects that brought us round by this part of France--none of which were idle or unimportant. Busk started yesterday for Paris from Bruniquel, to make sure of being present at the meeting of the Royal Council on Thursday. He will tell you that there were strong reasons for me remaining behind him. But as I seconded the proposal of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal, in default of my presence at the first meeting, I beg that you will express my great regrets to the President and Council at not being there, and that I am very reluctantly detained. I shall certainly be in London (D.V.) by the second meeting on the 3rd proximo. Meanwhile I solicit the favour of being heard, through you, respecting the grounds upon which I seconded Mr. Darwin's nomination for the Copley Medal. Referring to the classified list which I drew up of Mr. Darwin's scientific labours, ranging through the wide field of (1) Geology, (2) Physical Geography, (3) Zoology, (4) physiological Botany, (5) genetic Biology, and to the power with which he has investigated whatever subject he has taken up,--Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit,--I am of opinion that Mr. Darwin is not only one of the most eminent naturalists of his day, but that hereafter he will be regarded as one of the great naturalists of all countries and of all time. His early work on the structure and distribution of coral reefs constitutes an era in the investigation of the subject. As a monographic labour, it may be compared with Dr. Wells' "Essay upon Dew," as original, exhaustive, and complete--containing the closest observation with large and important generalisations. Among the zoologists his monographs upon the Balanidae and Lepadidae, Fossil and Recent, in the Palaeontographical and Ray Societies' publications, are held to be models of their kind. In physiological Botany, his recent researches upon the dimorphism of the genital organs in certain plants, embodied in his papers in the "Linnean Journal," on Primula, Linum, and Lythrum, are of the highest order of importance. They open a new mine of observation upon a field which had been barely struck upon before. The same remark applies to his researches on the structure and various adaptations of the orchideous flower to a definite object connected with impregnation of the plants through the agency of insects with foreign pollen. There has not yet been time for their due influence being felt in the advancement of the science. But in either subject they constitute an advance per saltum. I need not dwell upon the value of his geological researches, which won for him one of the earlier awards of the Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society, the best of judges on the point. And lastly, Mr. Darwin's great essay on the "Origin of Species" by Natural Selection. This solemn and mysterious subject had been either so lightly or so grotesquely treated before, that it was hardly regarded as being within the bounds of legitimate philosophical investigation. Mr. Darwin, after twenty years of the closest study and research, published his views, and it is sufficient to say that they instantly fixed the attention of mankind throughout the civilised world. That the efforts of a single mind should have arrived at success on a subject of such vast scope, and encompassed with such difficulties, was more than could have been reasonably expected, and I am far from thinking that Charles Darwin has made out all his case. But he has treated it with such power and in such a philosophical and truth-seeking spirit, and illustrated it with such an amount of original and collated observation as fairly to have brought the subject within the bounds of rational scientific research. I consider this great essay on genetic Biology to constitute a strong additional claim on behalf of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal. (180/2. The following letter (December 3rd, 1864), from Mr. Huxley to Sir J.D. Hooker, is reprinted, by the kind permission of Mr. L. Huxley, from his father's "Life," I., page 255. Sabine's address (from the "Reader") is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 28. In the "Proceedings of the Royal Society" the offending sentence is slightly modified. It is said, in Huxley's "Life" (loc. cit., note), that the sentence which follows it was introduced to mitigate the effect:-- "I wish you had been at the anniversary meeting and dinner, because the latter was very pleasant, and the former, to me, very disagreeable. My distrust of Sabine is, as you know, chronic; and I went determined to keep careful watch on his address, lest some crafty phrase injurious to Darwin should be introduced. My suspicions were justified, the only part of the address [relating] to Darwin written by Sabine himself containing the following passage: "'Speaking generally and collectively, we have expressly omitted it [Darwin's theory] from the grounds of our award.' "Of course this would be interpreted by everybody as meaning that after due discussion, the council had formally resolved not only to exclude Darwin's theory from the grounds of the award, but to give public notice through the president that they had done so, and, furthermore, that Darwin's friends had been base enough to accept an honour for him on the understanding that in receiving it he should be publicly insulted! "I felt that this would never do, and therefore, when the resolution for printing the address was moved, I made a speech, which I took care to keep perfectly cool and temperate, disavowing all intention of interfering with the liberty of the president to say what he pleased, but exercising my constitutional right of requiring the minutes of council making the award to be read, in order that the Society might be informed whether the conditions implied by Sabine had been imposed or not. "The resolution was read, and of course nothing of the kind appeared. Sabine didn't exactly like it, I believe. Both Busk and Falconer remonstrated against the passage to him, and I hope it will be withdrawn when the address is printed. If not, there will be an awful row, and I for one will show no mercy.") In forming an estimate of the value and extent of Mr. Darwin's researches, due regard ought to be had to the circumstances under which they have been carried out--a pressure of unremitting disease, which has latterly left him not more than one or two hours of the day which he could call his own. LETTER 181. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 4th [1864]. What a good kind friend you are! I know well that this medal must have cost you a deal of trouble. It is a very great honour to me, but I declare the knowledge that you and a few other friends have interested themselves on the subject is the real cream of the enjoyment to me; indeed, it is to me worth far more than many medals. So accept my true and cordial thanks. I hope that I may yet have strength to do a little more work in Natural Science, shaky and old though I be. I have chuckled and triumphed over your postscript about poor M. Brulle and his young pupils (181/1. The following is the postscript in a letter from Falconer to Darwin November 3rd [1864]: "I returned last night from Spain via France. On Monday I was at Dijon, where, while in the Museum, M. Brulle, Professor of Zoology, asked me what was my frank opinion of Charles Darwin's doctrine? He told me in despair that he could not get his pupils to listen to anything from him except a la Darwin! He, poor man, could not comprehend it, and was still unconvinced, but that all young Frenchmen would hear or believe nothing else.") About a week ago I had a nearly similar account from Germany, and at the same time I heard of some splendid converts in such men as Leuckart, Gegenbauer, etc. You may say what you like about yourself, but I look at a man who treats natural history in the same spirit with which you do, exactly as good, for what I believe to be the truth, as a convert. LETTER 182. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 8th [1864]. Your remark on the relation of the award of the medal and the present outburst of bigotry had not occurred to me. It seems very true, and makes me the more gratified to receive it. General Sabine (182/1. See "Life and Letters," III., page 28.) wrote to me and asked me to attend at the anniversary, but I told him it was really impossible. I have never been able to conjecture the cause; but I find that on my good days, when I can write for a couple of hours, that anything which stirs me up like talking for half or even a quarter of an hour, generally quite prostrates me, sometimes even for a long time afterwards. I believe attending the anniversary would possibly make me seriously ill. I should enjoy attending and shaking you and a few of my other friends by the hand, but it would be folly even if I did not break down at the time. I told Sabine that I did not know who had proposed and seconded me for the medal, but that I presumed it was you, or Hooker or Busk, and that I felt sure, if you attended, you would receive the medal for me; and that if none of you attended, that Lyell or Huxley would receive it for me. Will you receive it, and it could be left at my brother's? Again accept my cordial and enduring thanks for all your kindness and sympathy. LETTER 183. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, December 4th [1864]. I have been greatly interested by your account of your American life. What an extraordinary and self-contained life you have led! and what vigour of mind you must possess to follow science with so much ardour after all that you have undergone! I am very much obliged to you for your pamphlet on Geographical Distribution, on Agassiz, etc. (183/1. Mr. Walsh's paper "On certain Entomological Speculations of the New England School of Entomologists" was published in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of Philadelphia," September 1864, page 207.) I am delighted at the manner in which you have bearded this lion in his den. I agree most entirely with all that you have written. What I meant when I wrote to Agassiz to thank him for a bundle of his publications, was exactly what you suppose. (183/2. Namely, that Mr. Darwin, having been abused as an atheist, etc., by other writers, probably felt grateful to a writer who was willing to allow him "a spirit as reverential as his own." ("Methods of Study," Preface, page iv.) I confess, however, I did not fully perceive how he had misstated my views; but I only skimmed through his "Methods of Study," and thought it a very poor book. I am so much accustomed to be utterly misrepresented that it hardly excites my attention. But you really have hit the nail on the head capitally. All the younger good naturalists whom I know think of Agassiz as you do; but he did grand service about glaciers and fish. About the succession of forms, Pictet has given up his whole views, and no geologist now agrees with Agassiz. I am glad that you have attacked Dana's wild notions; [though] I have a great respect for Dana...If you have an opportunity, read in "Trans. Linn. Soc." Bates on "Mimetic Lepidoptera of Amazons." I was delighted with his paper. I have got a notice of your views about the female Cynips inserted in the "Natural History Review" (183/3. "Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 139. A notice by "J.L." (probably Lord Avebury) on Walsh's paper "On Dimorphism in the Hymenopterous Genus Cynips," in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of Philadelphia," March, 1864.): whether the notice will be favourable, I do not know, but anyhow it will call attention to your views... As you allude in your paper to the believers in change of species, you will be glad to hear that very many of the very best men are coming round in Germany. I have lately heard of Hackel, Gegenbauer, F. Muller, Leuckart, Claparede, Alex. Braun, Schleiden, etc. So it is, I hear, with the younger Frenchmen. LETTER 184. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 19th [1865]. It is working hours, but I am trying to take a day's holiday, for I finished and despatched yesterday my Climbing paper. For the last ten days I have done nothing but correct refractory sentences, and I loathe the whole subject like tartar emetic. By the way, I am convinced that you want a holiday, and I think so because you took the devil's name in vain so often in your last note. Can you come here for Sunday? You know how I should like it, and you will be quiet and dull enough here to get plenty of rest. I have been thinking with regret about what you said in one of your later notes, about having neglected to make notes on the gradation of character in your genera; but would it be too late? Surely if you looked over names in series the facts would come back, and you might surely write a fine paper "On the gradation of important characters in the genera of plants." As for unimportant characters, I have made their perfect gradation a very prominent point with respect to the means of climbing, in my paper. I begin to think that one of the commonest means of transition is the same individual plant having the same part in different states: thus Corydalis claviculata, if you look to one leaf, may be called a tendril-bearer; if you look to another leaf it may be called a leaf-climber. Now I am sure I remember some cases with plants in which important parts such as the position of the ovule differ: differences in the spire of leaves on lateral and terminal branches, etc. There was not much in last "Natural History Review" which interested me except colonial floras (184/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1865, page 46. A review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae." The point referred to is given at page 57: "More than half the Flowering Plants belong to eleven Orders in the case of the West Indies, and to ten in that of Ceylon, whilst with but one exception the Ceylon Orders are the same as the West Indian." The reviewer speculates on the meaning of the fact "in relation to the hypothesis of an intertropical cold epoch, such as Mr. Darwin demands for the migration of the Northern Flora to the Southern hemisphere.") and the report on the sexuality of cryptogams. I suppose the former was by Oliver; how extremely curious is the fact of similarity of Orders in the Tropics! I feel a conviction that it is somehow connected with Glacial destruction, but I cannot "wriggle" comfortably at all on the subject. I am nearly sure that Dana makes out that the greatest number of crustacean forms inhabit warmer temperate regions. I have had an enormous letter from Leo Lesquereux (after doubts, I did not think it worth sending you) on Coal Flora: he wrote some excellent articles in "Silliman" again [my] "Origin" views; but he says now after repeated reading of the book he is a convert! But how funny men's minds are! he says he is chiefly converted because my books make the Birth of Christ, Redemption by Grace, etc., plain to him! LETTER 185. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th [1865]. I quite agree how humiliating the slow progress of man is, but every one has his own pet horror, and this slow progress or even personal annihilation sinks in my mind into insignificance compared with the idea or rather I presume certainty of the sun some day cooling and we all freezing. To think of the progress of millions of years, with every continent swarming with good and enlightened men, all ending in this, and with probably no fresh start until this our planetary system has been again converted into red-hot gas. Sic transit gloria mundi, with a vengeance... LETTER 186. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, March 27th [1865]. I have been much interested by your letter. I received your former paper on Phytophagic variety (186/1. For "Phytophagic Varieties and Phytophagic Species" see "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. Philadelphia," November 1864, page 403, also December 1865. The part on gradation is summarised at pages 427, 428. Walsh shows that a complete gradation exists between species which are absolutely unaffected by change of food and cases where "difference of food is accompanied by marked and constant differences, either colorational, or structural, or both, in the larva, pupa and imago states."), most of which was new to me. I have since received your paper on willow-galls; this has been very opportune, as I wanted to learn a little about galls. There was much in this paper which has interested me extremely, on gradations, etc., and on your "unity of coloration." (186/2. "Unity of coloration": this expression does not seem to occur in the paper of November 1864, but is discussed at length in that of December 1865, page 209.) This latter subject is nearly new to me, though I collected many years ago some such cases with birds; but what struck me most was when a bird genus inhabits two continents, the two sections sometimes display a somewhat different type of colouring. I should like to hear whether this does not occur with widely ranging insect-genera? You may like to hear that Wichura (186/3. Max Wichura's "Die Bastarde befruchtung im Pflanzenreich, etc:" Breslau 1865. A translation appeared in the "Bibliotheque Universelle," xxiii., page 129: Geneva 1865.) has lately published a book which has quite convinced me that in Europe there is a multitude of spontaneous hybrid willows. Would it not be very interesting to know how the gall-makers behaved with respect to these hybrids? Do you think it likely that the ancestor of Cecidomyia acquired its poison like gnats (which suck men) for no especial purpose (at least not for gall-making)? Such notions make me wish that some one would try the experiments suggested in my former letter. Is it not probable that guest-flies were aboriginally gall-makers, and bear the same relation to them which Apathus probably does to Bombus? (186/4. Apathus (= Psithyrus) lives in the nests of Bombus. These insects are said to be so like humble bees that "they were not distinguished from them by the early entomologists:" Dr. Sharp in "Cambridge Nat. Hist. (Insects," Part II.), page 59.) With respect to dimorphism, you may like to hear that Dr. Hooker tells me that a dioecious parasitic plant allied to Rafflesia has its two sexes parasitic on two distinct species of the same genus of plants; so look out for some such case in the two forms of Cynips. I have posted to you copies of my papers on dimorphism. Leersia (186/5. Leersia oryzoides was for a long time thought to produce only cleistogamic and therefore autogamous flowers. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 69.) does behave in a state of nature in the provoking manner described by me. With respect to Wagner's curious discovery my opinion is worth nothing; no doubt it is a great anomaly, but it does not appear to me nearly so incredible as to you. Remember how allied forms in the Hydrozoa differ in their so-called alternate generations; I follow those naturalists who look at all such cases as forms of gemmation; and a multitude of organisms have this power or traces of this power at all ages from the germ to maturity. With respect to Agassiz's views, there were many, and there are still not a few, who believe that the same species is created on many spots. I wrote to Bates, and he will send you his mimetic paper; and I dare say others: he is a first-rate man. Your case of the wingless insects near the Rocky Mountains is extremely curious. I am sure I have heard of some such case in the Old World: I think on the Caucasus. Would not my argument about wingless insular insects perhaps apply to truly Alpine insects? for would it not be destruction to them to be blown from their proper home? I should like to write on many points at greater length to you, but I have no strength to spare. LETTER 187. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, September 22nd [1865]. I am much obliged for your extract (187/1. Mr. Wallace had sent Darwin a note about a tufted cock-blackbird, which transmitted the character to some of its offspring.); I never heard of such a case, though such a variation is perhaps the most likely of any to occur in a state of nature, and to be inherited, inasmuch as all domesticated birds present races with a tuft or with reversed feathers on their heads. I have sometimes thought that the progenitor of the whole class must have been a crested animal. Do you make any progress with your journal of travels? I am the more anxious that you should do so as I have lately read with much interest some papers by you on the ourang-outan, etc., in the "Annals," of which I have lately been reading the later volumes. I have always thought that journals of this nature do considerable good by advancing the taste for Natural History: I know in my own case that nothing ever stimulated my zeal so much as reading Humboldt's "Personal Narrative." I have not yet received the last part of the "Linnean Transactions," but your paper (187/2. Probably on the variability and distribution of the butterflies of the Malayan region: "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV., 1866.) at present will be rather beyond my strength, for though somewhat better, I can as yet do hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to. By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky? (187/3. Tylor, "Early History of Mankind;" Lecky's "Rationalism.") Both these books have interested me much. I suppose you have read Lubbock. (187/4. Lubbock, "Prehistoric Times," page 479: "...the theory of Natural Selection, which with characteristic unselfishness he ascribes unreservedly to Mr. Darwin.") In the last chapter there is a note about you in which I most cordially concur. I see you were at the British Association but I have heard nothing of it except what I have picked up in the "Reader." I have heard a rumour that the "Reader" is sold to the Anthropological Society. If you do not begrudge the trouble of another note (for my sole channel of news through Hooker is closed by his illness) I should much like to hear whether the "Reader" is thus sold. I should be very sorry for it, as the paper would thus become sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell me what you are doing yourself. The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz Muller published a few months ago a remarkable book (187/5. "Fur Darwin.") in its favour, and secondly that a second French edition is just coming out. LETTER 188. TO F. MULLER. Down, January 11th [1866]. I received your interesting letter of November 5th some little time ago, and despatched immediately a copy of my "Journal of Researches." I fear you will think me troublesome in my offer; but have you the second German edition of the "Origin?" which is a translation, with additions, of the third English edition, and is, I think, considerably improved compared with the first edition. I have some spare copies which are of no use to me, and it would be a pleasure to me to send you one, if it would be of any use to you. You would never require to re-read the book, but you might wish to refer to some passage. I am particularly obliged for your photograph, for one likes to have a picture in one's mind of any one about whom one is interested. I have received and read with interest your paper on the sponge with horny spicula. (188/1. "Ueber Darwinella aurea, einen Schwamm mit sternformigen Hornnadeln."--"Archiv. Mikrosk. Anat." I., page 57, 1866.) Owing to ill-health, and being busy when formerly well, I have for some years neglected periodical scientific literature, and have lately been reading up, and have thus read translations of several of your papers; amongst which I have been particularly glad to read and see the drawings of the metamorphoses of Peneus. (188/2. "On the Metamorphoses of the Prawns," by Dr. Fritz Muller.--"Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XIV., page 104 (with plate), 1864. Translated by W.S. Dallas from "Wiegmann's Archiv," 1863 (see also "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," passim, translated by W.S. Dallas: London, 1869).) This seems to me the most interesting discovery in embryology which has been made for years. I am much obliged to you for telling me a little of your plans for the future; what a strange, but to my taste interesting life you will lead when you retire to your estate on the Itajahy! You refer in your letter to the facts which Agassiz is collecting, against our views, on the Amazons. Though he has done so much for science, he seems to me so wild and paradoxical in all his views that I cannot regard his opinions as of any value. LETTER 189. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 22nd, 1866. I thank you for your paper on pigeons (189/1. "On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago" (The "Ibis," October, 1865). Mr. Wallace points out (page 366) that "the most striking superabundance of pigeons, as well as of parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayan sub-region in which...the forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals, such as monkeys and squirrels, are totally absent." He points out also that monkeys are "exceedingly destructive to eggs and young birds."), which interested me, as everything that you write does. Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But I have had a still higher satisfaction, for I finished your paper yesterday in the "Linnean Transactions." (189/2. "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV.: a paper on the geographical distribution and variability of the Malayan Papilionidae.) It is admirably done. I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in species could read it without being staggered. Such papers will make many more converts among naturalists than long-winded books such as I shall write if I have strength. I have been particularly struck with your remarks on dimorphism; but I cannot quite understand one point (page 22), (189/3. The passage referred to in this letter as needing further explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these cases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself, it may happen that individual variations will occasionally occur, having a distant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and which it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have a better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be multiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be rendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successive variation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and all variations departing from the favoured type having less chance of preservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two or more isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimate relationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. The reason why the females are more subject to this kind of modification than the males is, probably, that their slower flight, when laden with eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing their eggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to have some additional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring a resemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy a comparative immunity from persecution." Mr. Wallace has been good enough to give us the following note on the above passage: "The above quotation deals solely with the question of how certain females of the polymorphic species (Papilio Memnon, P. Pammon, and others) have been so modified as to mimic species of a quite distinct section of the genus; but it does not attempt to explain why or how the other very variable types of female arose, and this was Darwin's difficulty. As the letter I wrote in reply is lost, and as it is rather difficult to explain the matter clearly without reference to the coloured figures, I must go into some little detail, and give now what was probably the explanation I gave at the time. The male of Papilio Memnon is a large black butterfly with the nervures towards the margins of the wings bordered with bluish gray dots. It is a forest insect, and the very dark colour renders it conspicuous; but it is a strong flier, and thus survives. To the female, however, this conspicuous mass of colour would be dangerous, owing to her slower flight, and the necessity for continually resting while depositing her eggs on the leaves of the food-plant of the larva. She has accordingly acquired lighter and more varied tints. The marginal gray-dotted stripes of the male have become of a brownish ash and much wider on the fore wings, while the margin of the hind wings is yellowish, with a more defined spot near the anal angle. This is the form most nearly like the male, but it is comparatively rare, the more common being much lighter in colour, the bluish gray of the hind wings being often entirely replaced by a broad band of yellowish white. The anal angle is orange-yellow, and there is a bright red spot at the base of the fore wings. Between these two extremes there is every possible variation. Now, it is quite certain that this varying mixture of brown, black, white, yellow, and red is far less conspicuous amid the ever-changing hues of the forest with their glints of sunshine everywhere penetrating so as to form strong contrasts and patches of light and shade. Hence ALL the females--one at one time and one at another--get SOME protection, and that is sufficient to enable them to live long enough to lay their eggs, when their work is finished. Still, under bad conditions they only just managed to survive, and as the colouring of some of these varying females very much resembled that of the protected butterflies of the P. coon group (perhaps at a time when the tails of the latter were not fully developed) any rudiments of a prolongation of the wing into a tail added to the protective resemblance, and was therefore preserved. The woodcuts of some of these forms in my "Malay Archipelago" (i., page 200) will enable those who have this book at hand better to understand the foregoing explanation."), and should be grateful for an explanation, for I want fully to understand you. How can one female form be selected and the intermediate forms die out, without also the other extreme form also dying out from not having the advantages of the first selected form? for, as I understand, both female forms occur on the same island. I quite agree with your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties; but I doubt whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not producing intermediate offspring will suffice, for I know of a good many varieties which must be so called that will not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite like either parent. I have been particularly struck with your remarks on geographical distribution in Celebes. It is impossible that anything could be better put, and would give a cold shudder to the immutable naturalists. And now I am going to ask a question which you will not like. How does your journal get on? It will be a shame if you do not popularise your researches. LETTER 190. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, July 2nd, 1866. I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it, however clear and beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalist public. The two last cases of the misunderstanding are: (1) the article on "Darwin and his Teachings" in the last "Quarterly Journal of Science," which, though very well written and on the whole appreciative, yet concludes with a charge of something like blindness, in your not seeing that Natural Selection requires the constant watching of an intelligent "chooser," like man's selection to which you so often compare it; and (2) in Janet's recent work on the "Materialism of the Present Day," reviewed in last Saturday's "Reader," by an extract from which I see that he considers your weak point to be that you do not see that "thought and direction are essential to the action of Natural Selection." The same objection has been made a score of times by your chief opponents, and I have heard it as often stated myself in conversation. Now, I think this arises almost entirely from your choice of the term "Natural Selection" and so constantly comparing it in its effects to Man's Selection, and also your so frequently personifying nature as "selecting," as "preferring," as "seeking only the good of the species," etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently a stumbling-block. I wish, therefore, to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if not now too late), and also in any future editions of the "Origin," and I think it may be done without difficulty and very effectually by adopting Spencer's term (which he generally uses in preference to Natural Selection)--viz., "survival of the fittest." This term is the plain expression of the fact; Natural Selection is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. Combined with the enormous multiplying powers of all organisms, and the "struggle for existence" leading to the constant destruction of by far the largest proportion--facts which no one of your opponents, as far as I am aware, has denied or misunderstood--"the survival of the fittest" rather than of those who were less fit could not possibly be denied or misunderstood. Neither would it be possible to say that to ensure the "survival of the fittest" any intelligent chooser was necessary; whereas when you say Natural Selection acts so as to choose those that are fittest, it IS misunderstood, and apparently always will be. Referring to your book, I find such expressions as "Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends." This, it seems, will always be misunderstood; but if you had said "Man selects only for his own good; Nature, by the inevitable 'survival of the fittest,' only for that of the being she tends," it would have been less liable to be so. I find you use the term "Natural Selection" in two senses: (1) for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection of unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent to "survival of the fittest"; and (2) for the effect or change produced by this preservation, as when you say, "To sum up the circumstances favourable or unfavourable to Natural Selection," and again, "Isolation, also, is an important element in the process of Natural Selection." Here it is not merely "survival of the fittest," but change produced by survival of the fittest, that is meant. On looking over your fourth chapter, I find that these alterations of terms can be in most cases easily made, while in some cases the addition of "or survival of the fittest" after "Natural Selection" would be best; and in others, less likely to be misunderstood, the original term may stand alone. I could not venture to propose to any other person so great an alteration of terms, but you, I am sure, will give it an impartial consideration, and if you really think the change will produce a better understanding of your work, will not hesitate to adopt it. It is evidently also necessary not to personify "Nature" too much--though I am very apt to do it myself--since people will not understand that all such phrases are metaphors. Natural Selection is, when understood, so necessary and self-evident a principle, that it is a pity it should be in any way obscured; and it therefore seems to me that the free use of "survival of the fittest," which is a compact and accurate definition of it, would tend much to its being more widely accepted, and prevent it being so much misrepresented and misunderstood. There is another objection made by Janet which is also a very common one. It is that the chances are almost infinite against the particular kind of variation required being coincident with each change of external conditions, to enable an animal to become modified by Natural Selection in harmony with such changed conditions; especially when we consider that, to have produced the almost infinite modifications of organic beings, this coincidence must have taken place an almost infinite number of times. Now, it seems to me that you have yourself led to this objection being made, by so often stating the case too strongly against yourself. For example, at the commencement of Chapter IV. you ask if it is "improbable that useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitable variations do occur, Natural Selection can do nothing." Now, such expressions have given your opponents the advantage of assuming that favourable variations are rare accidents, or may even for long periods never occur at all, and thus Janet's argument would appear to many to have great force. I think it would be better to do away with all such qualifying expressions, and constantly maintain (what I certainly believe to be the fact) that variations of every kind are always occurring in every part of every species, and therefore that favourable variations are always ready when wanted. You have, I am sure, abundant materials to prove this; and it is, I believe, the grand fact that renders modification and adaptation to conditions almost always possible. I would put the burthen of proof on my opponents to show that any one organ, structure, or faculty does not vary, even during one generation, among all the individuals of a species; and also to show any mode or way in which any such organ, etc., does not vary. I would ask them to give any reason for supposing that any organ, etc., is ever absolutely identical at any one time in all the individuals of a species, and if not then it is always varying, and there are always materials which, from the simple fact that "the fittest survive," will tend to the modification of the race into harmony with changed conditions. I hope these remarks may be intelligible to you, and that you will be so kind as to let me know what you think of them. I have not heard for some time how you are getting on. I hope you are still improving in health, and that you will now be able to get on with your great work, for which so many thousands are looking with interest. LETTER 191. TO A.R. WALLACE. (191/1. From "Life and Letters," III., page 45.) Down, July 5th [1866]. I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of "the survival of the fittest." This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words Natural Selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in "the survival," etc., often in the new edition of the "Origin," which is now almost printed off, and of which I will of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on domestic animals, etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect MUCH too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the survival of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at this misstatement of my views. As for M. Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the double sense in which I have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that any one, excepting you, has ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about "favourable variations," but I am inclined to think that you put the opposite side too strongly: if every part of every being varied, I do not think we should see the same end or object gained by such wonderfully diversified means. I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are working hard at your "Malay Archipelago" book, for I will always put this wish in every note I write to you, as some good people always put in a text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to work some hours daily. LETTER 192. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 9th [1866]. One line to say that I have received your note and the proofs safely, and will read them with the greatest pleasure; but I am certain I shall not be able to send any criticism on the astronomical chapter (192/1. "Principles of Geology," by Sir Charles Lyell; Edition X., London, 1867. Chapter XIII. deals with "Vicissitudes in Climate how far influenced by Astronomical Causes."), as I am as ignorant as a pig on this head. I shall require some days to read what has been sent. I have just read Chapter IX. (192/2. Chapter IX., "Theory of the Progressive Development of Organic Life at Successive Geological Periods."), and like it extremely; it all seems to me very clear, cautious, and sagacious. You do not allude to one very striking point enough, or at all--viz., the classes having been formerly less differentiated than they now are; and this specialisation of classes must, we may conclude, fit them for different general habits of life as well as the specialisation of particular organs. Page 162 (192/3. On page 163 Lyell refers to the absence of Cetacea in Secondary rocks, and expresses the opinion that their absence "is a negative fact of great significance, which seems more than any other to render it highly improbable that we shall ever find air-breathers of the highest class in any of the Primary strata, or in any of the older members of the Secondary series.") I rather demur to your argument from Cetacea: as they are such greatly modified mammals, they ought to have come in rather later in the series. You will think me rather impudent, but the discussion at the end of Chapter IX. on man (192/4. Loc. cit., pages 167-73, "Introduction of Man, to what extent a Change of the System."), who thinks so much of his fine self, seems to me too long, or rather superfluous, and too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy. LETTER 193. TO V. CARUS. (193/1. The following letter refers to the 4th edition of the "Origin," 1866, which was translated by Professor Carus, and formed the 3rd German edition. Carus continued to translate Darwin's books, and a strong bond of friendship grew up between author and translator (see "Life and Letters," III., page 48). Nageli's pamphlet was first noticed in the 5th English edition.) Down, November 21st, 1866. ...With respect to a note on Nageli (193/2. "Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art," an Address given before the Royal Academy of Sciences at Munich, March 28th, 1865. See "Life and Letters," III., page 50, for Mr. Darwin's letter to the late Prof. Nageli.) I find on consideration it would be too long; for so good a pamphlet ought to be discussed at full length or not at all. He makes a mistake in supposing that I say that useful characters are always constant. His view about distinct species converging and acquiring the same identical structure is by implication answered in the discussion which I have given on the endless diversity of means for gaining the same end. The most important point, as it seems to me, in the pamphlet is that on the morphological characters of plants, and I find I could not answer this without going into much detail. The answer would be, as it seems to me, that important morphological characters, such as the position of the ovules and the relative position of the stamens to the ovarium (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.) are sometimes variable in the same species, as I incidentally mention when treating of the ray-florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae; and I do not see how Nageli could maintain that differences in such characters prove an inherent tendency towards perfection. I see that I have forgotten to say that you have my fullest consent to append any discussion which you may think fit to the new edition. As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the confines of science. LETTER 194. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 22nd [1866?]. I suppose that you have received Hackel's book (194/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.) some time ago, as I have done. Whenever you have had time to read through some of it, enough to judge by, I shall be very curious to hear your judgment. I have been able to read a page or two here and there, and have been interested and instructed by parts. But my vague impression is that too much space is given to methodical details, and I can find hardly any facts or detailed new views. The number of new words, to a man like myself, weak in his Greek, is something dreadful. He seems to have a passion for defining, I daresay very well, and for coining new words. From my very vague notions on the book, and from its immense size, I should fear a translation was out of the question. I see he often quotes both of us with praise. I am sure I should like the book much, if I could read it straight off instead of groaning and swearing at each sentence. I have not yet had time to read your Physiology (194/2. "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," 1866.) book, except one chapter; but I have just re-read your book on "Man's Place, etc.," and I think I admire it more this second time even than the first. I doubt whether you will ever have time, but if ever you have, do read the chapter on hybridism in the new edition of the "Origin" (194/3. Fourth Edition (1866).), for I am very anxious to make you think less seriously on that difficulty. I have improved the chapter a good deal, I think, and have come to more definite views. Asa Gray and Fritz Muller (the latter especially) think that the new facts on illegitimate offspring of dimorphic plants, throw much indirect light on the subject. Now that I have worked up domestic animals, I am convinced of the truth of the Pallasian (194/4. See Letter 80.) view of loss of sterility under domestication, and this seems to me to explain much. But I had no intention, when I began this note, of running on at such length on hybridism; but you have been Objector-General on this head. LETTER 195. TO T. RIVERS. (195/1. For another letter of Mr. Darwin's to him see "Life and Letters," III., page 57.) Down, December 23rd [1866?]. I do not know whether you will forgive a stranger addressing you. My name may possibly be known to you. I am now writing a book on the variation of animals and plants under domestication; and there is one little piece of information which it is more likely that you could give me than any man in the world, if you can spare half an hour from your professional labours, and are inclined to be so kind. I am collecting all accounts of what some call "sports," that is, of what I shall call "bud-variations," i.e. a moss-rose suddenly appearing on a Provence rose--a nectarine on a peach, etc. Now, what I want to know, and which is not likely to be recorded in print, is whether very slight differences, too slight to be worth propagating, thus appear suddenly by buds. As every one knows, in raising seedlings you may have every gradation from individuals identical with the parent, to slight varieties, to strongly marked varieties. Now, does this occur with buds or do only rather strongly marked varieties thus appear at rare intervals of time by buds? (195/2. Mr. Rivers could not give a decided answer, but he did not remember to have seen slight bud-variations. The question is discussed in "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 443.) I should be most grateful for information. I may add that if you have observed in your enormous experience any remarkable "bud-variations," and could spare time to inform me, and allow me to quote them on your authority, it would be the greatest favour. I feel sure that these "bud-variations" are most interesting to any one endeavouring to make out what little can be made out on the obscure subject of variation. LETTER 196. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 7th [1867?]. I thank you much for your letter and the parcel of shoots. The case of the yellow plum is a treasure, and is now safely recorded on your authority in its proper place, in contrast with A. Knight's case of the yellow magnum bonum sporting into red. (196/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I could see no difference in the shoots, except that those of the yellow were thicker, and I presume that this is merely accidental: as you do not mention it, I further presume that there are no further differences in leaves or flowers of the two plums. I am very glad to hear about the yellow ash, and that you yourself have seen the jessamine case. I must confess that I hardly fully believed in it; but now I do, and very surprising it is. In an old French book, published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there is an account, apparently authentic and attested by the writer as an eye-witness, of hyacinth bulbs of two colours being cut in two and grafted, and they sent up single stalks with differently coloured flowers on the two sides, and some flowers parti-coloured. I once thought of offering 5 pounds reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for such a plant; but perhaps it would seem too foolish. No instructions are given when to perform the operation; I have tried two or three times, and utterly failed. I find that I have a grand list of "bud-variations," and to-morrow shall work up such cases as I have about rose-sports, which seem very numerous, and which I see you state to occur comparatively frequently. When a person is very good-natured he gets much pestered--a discovery which I daresay you have made, or anyhow will soon make; for I do want very much to know whether you have sown seed of any moss-roses, and whether the seedlings were moss-roses. (196/2. Moss-roses can be raised from seed ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 405.) Has a common rose produced by SEED a moss-rose? If any light comes to you about very slight changes in the buds, pray have the kindness to illuminate me. I have cases of seven or eight varieties of the peach which have produced by "bud-variation" nectarines, and yet only one single case (in France) of a peach producing another closely similar peach (but later in ripening). How strange it is that a great change in the peach should occur not rarely and slighter changes apparently very rarely! How strange that no case seems recorded of new apples or pears or apricots by "bud-variation"! How ignorant we are! But with the many good observers now living our children's children will be less ignorant, and that is a comfort. LETTER 197. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 7th [1867]. Very many thanks for your letter, which has told me exactly what I wanted to know. I shall give up all thoughts of trying to get the book (197/1. Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 67, 68.) translated, for I am well convinced that it would be hopeless without too great an outlay. I much regret this, as I should think the work would be useful, and I am sure it would be to me, as I shall never be able to wade through more than here and there a page of the original. To all people I cannot but think that the number of new terms would be a great evil. I must write to him. I suppose you know his address, but in case you do not, it is "to care of Signor Nicolaus Krohn, Madeira." I have sent the MS. of my big book (197/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), and horridly, disgustingly big it will be, to the printers, but I do not suppose it will be published, owing to Murray's idea on seasons, till next November. I am thinking of a chapter on Man, as there has lately been so much said on Natural Selection in relation to man. I have not seen the Duke's (or Dukelet's? how can you speak so of a living real Duke?) book, but must get it from Mudie, as you say he attacks us. (197/3. "The Reign of Law" (1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life and Letters," III., page 65.) P.S.--Nature never made species mutually sterile by selection, nor will men. LETTER 197. TO E. HACKEL. Down, January 8th [1867]. I received some weeks ago your great work (198/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.); I have read several parts, but I am too poor a German scholar and the book is too large for me to read it all. I cannot tell you how much I regret this, for I am sure that nearly the whole would interest me greatly, and I have already found several parts very useful, such as the discussion on cells and on the different forms of reproduction. I feel sure, after considering the subject deliberately and after consulting with Huxley, that it would be hopeless to endeavour to get a publisher to print an English translation; the work is too profound and too long for our English countrymen. The number of new terms would also, I am sure, tell much against its sale; and, indeed, I wish for my own sake that you had printed a glossary of all the new terms which you use. I fully expect that your book will be highly successful in Germany, and the manner in which you often refer to me in your text, and your dedication and the title, I shall always look at as one of the greatest honours conferred on me during my life. (198/2. As regards the dedication and title this seems a strong expression. The title is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzuge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication of the second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet diese Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher Verehrung, der Verfasser.") I sincerely hope that you have had a prosperous expedition, and have met with many new and interesting animals. If you have spare time I should much like to hear what you have been doing and observing. As for myself, I have sent the MS. of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the printers. It turns out to be much too large; it will not be published, I suppose, until next November. I find that we have discussed several of the same subjects, and I think we agree on most points fairly well. I have lately heard several times from Fritz Muller, but he seems now chiefly to be working on plants. I often think of your visit to this house, which I enjoyed extremely, and it will ever be to me a real pleasure to remember our acquaintance. From what I heard in London I think you made many friends there. Shall you return through England? If so, and you can spare the time, we shall all be delighted to see you here again. LETTER 199. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 11th [1867?]. How rich and valuable a letter you have most kindly sent me! The case of Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a delicate smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves and striped flesh-coloured flowers; on branches thus characterised there appeared "the famous old rose called 'Baronne Prevost,'" with its stout thorny stem and uniform rich-coloured double flowers.), with its different shoots, foliage, spines, and flowers, will be grand to quote. I am extremely glad to hear about the seedling moss-roses. That case of a seedling like a Scotch rose, unless you are sure that no Scotch rose grew near (and it is unlikely that you can remember), must, one would think, have been a cross. I have little compunction for being so troublesome--not more than a grand Inquisitor has in torturing a heretic--for am I not doing a real good public service in screwing crumbs of knowledge out of your wealth of information? P.S. Since the above was written I have read your paper in the "Gardeners' Chronicle": it is admirable, and will, I know, be a treasure to me. I did not at all know how strictly the character of so many flowers is inherited. On my honour, when I began this note I had no thought of troubling you with a question; but you mention one point so interesting, and which I have had occasion to notice, that I must supplicate for a few more facts to quote on your authority. You say that you have one or two seedling peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.--"Gard. Chron." 1866, page 731.) approaching very nearly to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A. Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, did any almond grow near your mother peach? But especially I want to know whether you remember what shape the stone was, whether flattened like that of an almond; this, botanically, seems the most important distinction. I earnestly wish to quote this. Was the flesh at all sweet? Forgive if you can. Have you kept these seedling peaches? if you would give me next summer a fruit, I want to have it engraved. LETTER 200. TO I. ANDERSON-HENRY. May 22nd [1867]. You are so kind as to offer to lend me Maillet's (200/1. For De Maillet see Mr. Huxley's review on "The Origin of Species" in the "Westminster Review," 1860, reprinted in "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 314. De Maillet's evolutionary views were published after his death in 1748 under the name of Telliamed (De Maillet spelt backwards).) work, which I have often heard of, but never seen. I should like to have a look at it, and would return it to you in a short time. I am bound to read it, as my former friend and present bitter enemy Owen generally ranks me and Maillet as a pair of equal fools. LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th [1867]. You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the "Farmer." I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep it unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry passes a magnificent but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such extreme value in my eyes is Mr. Traill's (201/1. Mr. Traill's results are given at page 420 of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I. In the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," 1896, an interesting correspondence is published with Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan of the experiments suggested to Romanes was to raise seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the seminal offspring of plants hybridised by grafting should show the hybrid character, it would be striking evidence in favour of pangenesis. The experiment, however, did not succeed.) statement that he made a mottled mongrel by cutting eyes through and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2. For an account of similar experiments now in progress, see a "Note on some Grafting Experiments" by R. Biffen in the "Annals of Botany," Volume XVI., page 174, 1902.) I have written to him for full information, and then I will set to work on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to demonstration that propagation by buds and by the sexual elements are essentially the same process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner declares to be the case. LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th [1867?]. We come up on Saturday, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for a short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I know it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send me a line to "6, Queen Anne Street W.,"; but if I do not hear, I will (stomacho volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your whole morning as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your mind this question: what I called "pangenesis" means that each cell throws off an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these aggregated form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know whether I could not invent a better word. "Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word from kutos.)--i.e. cell-genesis--is more true and expressive, but long. "Atomogenesis" sounds rather better, I think, but an "atom" is an object which cannot be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like "pangenesis" best, though so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds wicked, like pantheism; but I am so familiar now with this word, that I cannot judge. I supplicate you to help me. LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th [1867]. I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October, 1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law.") a long time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday, and read it. You will think my praise not worth having, from being so indiscriminate; but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word. You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed. I am glad you had the courage to take up Angraecum (203/2. Angraecum sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12 inches in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller has described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)--a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII., 1873, page 121). The case of Angraecum was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr. Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and plant.) after the Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this case may be widely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better sphinx. With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them, strike me as very good. On this one point of beauty I can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in the bull-dog (203/3. "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 431: "Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?"), with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer examining a great river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would see special adaptation to the wants of man in broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains that would support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable only for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.') is new to me, and admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural classification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485 Mr. Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the "North British Review," 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limits to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Mr. Wallace remarks that "this argument fails to meet the real question," which is, not whether indefinite change is possible, "but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by selection.") on the reviewer assuming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck me more than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases: I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it. The part about flight seemed to me at first very good; but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the butterfly in "Science Gossip." By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," read before the British Association: see "Gard. Chron." 1867, page 1047.) I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me even more original than it did at first... I have finished Volume I. of my book ["Variation of Animals and Plants"], and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November. If you have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of service to you in future papers; and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble art of reasoning. LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd [no date]. I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not in the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have had it, for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of great value to me. I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of classification (204/1. Cuvier proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to any of the others" (Huxley's "Darwiniana," page 215).); but I think that most naturalists look for something further, and search for "the natural system,"--"for the plan on which the Creator has worked," etc., etc. It is this further element which I believe to be simply genealogical. But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself to look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of man descended from one race--grant that all the structure of each race of man were perfectly known--grant that a perfect table of the descent of each race was perfectly known--grant all this, and then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone? Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and their pedigrees would go together. I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical case. It might be asked why is development so all-potent in classification, as I fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter on. LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th [1867]. I send by this post the article in the Victorian Institute with respect to frogs' spawn. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to take a small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day on the spawn of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With respect to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they were attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but a land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire necessity from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland (205/1. Instances are recorded by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) of land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting for a short time on the surface of the water. The author describes observations made by himself about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129).); and land-birds, after resting for a time on the tranquil sea, have been seen to rise and continue their flight. I cannot give you the reference about Heligoland without much searching. This alighting on the sea may aid you in your unexpected difficulty of the too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs by the agency of birds. I much enjoyed my morning's talk with you. LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th [1868]. I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof. Hildebrand's paper is in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868: the substance is given in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 420.), for I believe it to be a most important observation. I trust that you will publish full details on this subject and on the direct action of pollen (206/2. See Prof. Hildebrand, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, and "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 430. A yellow-grained maize was fertilised with pollen from a brown-grained one; the result was that ears were produced bearing both yellow and dark-coloured grains.): I hope that you will be so kind as to send me a copy of your paper. If I had succeeded in making a graft-hybrid of the potato, I had intended to raise seedlings from the graft-hybrid and from the two parent-forms (excluding insects) and carefully compare the offspring. This, however, would be difficult on account of the sterility and variability of the potato. When in the course of a few months you receive my second volume (206/3. This sentence may be paraphrased--"When you receive my book and read the second volume."), you will see why I think these two subjects so important. They have led me to form a hypothesis on the various forms of reproduction, development, inheritance, etc., which hypothesis, I believe, will ultimately be accepted, though how it will be now received I am very doubtful. Once again I congratulate you on your success. LETTER 207. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 6th [1868]. Many thanks about names of plants, synonyms, and male flowers--all that I wanted. I have been glad to see Watson's letter, and am sorry he is a renegade about Natural Selection. It is, as you say, characteristic, with the final fling at you. His difficulty about the difference between the two genera of St. Helena Umbellifers is exactly the same as what Nageli has urged in an able pamphlet (207/1. "Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhist. Art." "Sitz. der K. Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. zu Munchen," 1865. Some of Nageli's points are discussed in the "Origin," Edition V., page 151.), and who in consequence maintains that there is some unknown innate tendency to progression in all organisms. I said in a letter to him that of course I could not in the least explain such cases; but that they did not seem to me of overwhelming force, as long as we are quite ignorant of the meaning of such structures, whether they are of any service to the plants, or inevitable consequences of modifications in other parts. I cannot understand what Watson means by the "counter-balance in nature" to divergent variation. There is the counterbalance of crossing, of which my present work daily leads me to see more and more the efficiency; but I suppose he means something very different. Further, I believe variation to be divergent solely because diversified forms can best subsist. But you will think me a bore. I enclose half a letter from F. Muller (which please return) for the chance of your liking to see it; though I have doubted much about sending it, as you are so overworked. I imagine the Solanum-like flower is curious. I heard yesterday to my joy that Dr. Hildebrand has been experimenting on the direct action of pollen on the mother-plant with success. He has also succeeded in making a true graft-hybrid between two varieties of potatoes, in which I failed. I look at this as splendid for pangenesis, as being strong evidence that bud-reproduction and seminal reproduction do not essentially differ. My book is horribly delayed, owing to the accursed index-maker. (207/2. Darwin thoroughly appreciated the good work put into the index of "The Variation of Animals and Plants.") I have almost forgotten it! LETTER 208. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 30th [1868]. Most sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. I never received a note from you in my life without pleasure; but whether this will be so after you have read pangenesis (208/1. In Volume II. of "Animals and Plants, 1868.), I am very doubtful. Oh Lord, what a blowing up I may receive! I write now partly to say that you must not think of looking at my book till the summer, when I hope you will read pangenesis, for I care for your opinion on such a subject more than for that of any other man in Europe. You are so terribly sharp-sighted and so confoundedly honest! But to the day of my death I will always maintain that you have been too sharp-sighted on hybridism; and the chapter on the subject in my book I should like you to read: not that, as I fear, it will produce any good effect, and be hanged to you. I rejoice that your children are all pretty well. Give Mrs. Huxley the enclosed (208/2. Queries on Expression.), and ask her to look out when one of her children is struggling and just going to burst out crying. A dear young lady near here plagued a very young child for my sake, till it cried, and saw the eyebrows for a second or two beautifully oblique, just before the torrent of tears began. The sympathy of all our friends about George's success (it is the young Herald) (208/3. His son George was Second Wrangler in 1868; as a boy he was an enthusiast in heraldry.) has been a wonderful pleasure to us. George has not slaved himself, which makes his success the more satisfactory. Farewell, my dear Huxley, and do not kill yourself with work. (209/1. The following group of letters deals with the problem of the causes of the sterility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin's final view is given in the "Origin," sixth edition (page 384, edition 1900). He acknowledges that it would be advantageous to two incipient species, if by physiological isolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from blending: but he continues, "After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been effected through Natural Selection." And finally he concludes (page 386):-- "But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle quite independent of Natural Selection. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen swells. It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases." Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, still adheres to his view: see his "Darwinism," 1889, page 174, and for a more recent statement see page 292, note 1, Letter 211, and page 299. The discussion of 1868 began with a letter from Mr. Wallace, written towards the end of February, giving his opinion on the "Variation of Animals and Plants;" the discussion on the sterility of hybrids is at page 185, Volume II., of the first edition.) LETTER 209. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. February 1868. The only parts I have yet met with where I somewhat differ from your views, are in the chapter on the causes of variability, in which I think several of your arguments are unsound: but this is too long a subject to go into now. Also, I do not see your objection to sterility between allied species having been aided by Natural Selection. It appears to me that, given a differentiation of a species into two forms, each of which was adapted to a special sphere of existence, every slight degree of sterility would be a positive advantage, not to the individuals who were sterile, but to each form. If you work it out, and suppose the two incipient species a...b to be divided into two groups, one of which contains those which are fertile when the two are crossed, the other being slightly sterile, you will find that the latter will certainly supplant the former in the struggle for existence; remembering that you have shown that in such a cross the offspring would be more vigorous than the pure breed, and therefore would certainly soon supplant them, and as these would not be so well adapted to any special sphere of existence as the pure species a and b, they would certainly in their turn give way to a and b. LETTER 210. TO A.R. WALLACE. February 27th [1868]. I shall be very glad to hear, at some future day, your criticisms on the "causes of variability." Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about sterility and Natural Selection. Two of my grown-up children who are acute reasoners have two or three times at intervals tried to prove me wrong; and when your letter came they had another try, but ended by coming back to my side. I do not quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish some time you would consider the case under the following point of view. If sterility is caused or accumulated through Natural Selection, then, as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness, Natural Selection must have the power of increasing it. Now take two species A and B, and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e., produce half the full number of offspring. Now try and make (by Natural Selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed it is certain, that the degree of the sterility of the individuals of A and B will vary; but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I do not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on paper with diagrams. (210/1. This letter appeared in "Life and Letters," III., page 80.) LETTER 211. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 1st, 1868. I beg to enclose what appears to me a demonstration on your own principles, that Natural Selection could produce sterility of hybrids. If it does not convince you, I shall be glad if you will point out where the fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases of a slight sterility overcoming perfect fertility, and of a perfect sterility overcoming a partial fertility,--the beginning and end of the process. You admit that variations in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will also admit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of sterility would be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient proof that the slightest variation in that direction would be useful also, and would go on accumulating. 1. Let there be a species which has varied into two forms, each adapted to existing conditions (211/1. "Existing conditions," means of course new conditions which have now come into existence. And the "two" being both better adapted than the parent form, means that they are better adapted each to a special environment in the same area--as one to damp, another to dry places; one to woods, another to open grounds, etc., etc., as Darwin had already explained. A.R.W. (1899).) better than the parent form, which they supplant. 2. If these two forms, which are supposed to co-exist in the same district, do not intercross, Natural Selection will accumulate favourable variations, till they become sufficiently well adapted to their conditions of life and form two allied species. 3. But if these two forms freely intercross with each other and produce hybrids which are also quite fertile inter se, then the formation of the two distinct races or species will be retarded or perhaps entirely prevented; for the offspring of the crossed unions will be more vigorous owing to the cross, although less adapted to their conditions of life than either of the pure breeds. (211/2. After "pure breeds," add "because less specialised." A.R.W. (1899).) 4. Now let a partial sterility of some individuals of these two forms arise when they intercross; and as this would probably be due to some special conditions of life, we may fairly suppose it to arise in some definite portion of the area occupied by the two forms. 5. The result is that in this area hybrids will not increase so rapidly as before; and as by the terms of the problem the two pure forms are better suited to the conditions of life than the hybrids, they will tend to supplant the latter altogether whenever the struggle for existence becomes severe. 6. We may fairly suppose, also, that as soon as any sterility appears under natural conditions, it will be accompanied by some disinclination to cross-unions; and this will further diminish the production of hybrids. 7. In the other part of the area, however, where hybridism occurs unchecked, hybrids of various degrees will soon far outnumber the parent or pure form. 8. The first result, then, of a partial sterility of crosses appearing in one part of the area occupied by the two forms, will be, that the GREAT MAJORITY of the individuals will there consist of the pure forms only, while in the rest of the area these will be in a minority,--which is the same as saying, that the new sterile or physiological variety of the two forms will be better suited to the conditions of existence than the remaining portion which has not varied physiologically. 9. But when the struggle for existence becomes severe, that variety which is best adapted to the conditions of existence always supplants that which is imperfectly adapted; therefore by Natural Selection the sterile varieties of the two forms will become established as the only ones. 10. Now let a fresh series of variations in the amount of sterility and in the disinclination to crossed unions occur,--also in certain parts of the area: exactly the same result must recur, and the progeny of this new physiological variety again in time occupy the whole area. 11. There is yet another consideration that supports this view. It seems probable that the variations in amount of sterility would to some extent concur with and perhaps depend upon the structural variations; so that just in proportion as the two forms diverged and became better adapted to the conditions of existence, their sterility would increase. If this were the case, then Natural Selection would act with double strength, and those varieties which were better adapted to survive both structurally and physiologically, would certainly do so. (211/3. The preceding eleven paragraphs are substantially but not verbally identical with the statement of the argument in Mr. Wallace's "Darwinism," 1889. Pages 179, 180, note 1.) 12. Let us now consider the more difficult case of two allied species A, B, in the same area, half the individuals of each (As, Bs) being absolutely sterile, the other half (Af, Bf) being partially fertile: will As, Bs ultimately exterminate Af, Bf? 13. To avoid complication, it must be granted, that between As and Bs no cross-unions take place, while between Af and Bf cross-unions are as frequent as direct unions, though much less fertile. We must also leave out of consideration crosses between As and Af, Bs and Bf, with their various approaches to sterility, as I believe they will not affect the final result, although they will greatly complicate the problem. 14. In the first generation there will result: 1st, The pure progeny of As and Bs; 2nd, The pure progeny of Af and of Bf; and 3rd, The hybrid progeny of Af, Bf. 15. Supposing that, in ordinary years, the increased constitutional vigour of the hybrids exactly counterbalances their imperfect adaptations to conditions, there will be in the second generation, besides these three classes, hybrids of the second degree between the first hybrids and Af and Bf respectively. In succeeding generations there will be hybrids of all degrees, varying between the first hybrids and the almost pure types of Af and Bf. 16. Now, if at first the number of individuals of As, Bs, Af and Bf were equal, and year after year the total number continues stationary, I think it can be proved that, while half will be the pure progeny of As and Bs, the other half will become more and more hybridised, until the whole will be hybrids of various degrees. 17. Now, this hybrid and somewhat intermediate race cannot be so well adapted to the conditions of life as the two pure species, which have been formed by the minute adaptation to conditions through Natural Selection; therefore, in a severe struggle for existence, the hybrids must succumb, especially as, by hypothesis, their fertility would not be so great as that of the two pure species. 18. If we were to take into consideration the unions of As with Af and Bs with Bf, the results would become very complicated, but it must still lead to there being a number of pure forms entirely derived from As and Bs, and of hybrid forms mainly derived from Af and Bf; and the result of the struggle of these two sets of individuals cannot be doubtful. 19. If these arguments are sound, it follows that sterility may be accumulated and increased, and finally made complete by Natural Selection, whether the sterile varieties originate together in a definite portion of the area occupied by the two species, or occur scattered over the whole area. (211/4. The first part of this discussion should be considered alone, as it is both more simple and more important. I now believe that the utility, and therefore the cause of sterility between species, is during the process of differentiation. When species are fully formed, the occasional occurrence of hybrids is of comparatively small importance, and can never be a danger to the existence of the species. A.R.W. (1899).) P.S.--In answer to the objection as to the unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses ("Variation, etc." Volume II., page 186) I reply that, as far as it went, the sterility of one cross would be advantageous even if the other cross was fertile: and just as characters now co-ordinated may have been separately accumulated by Natural Selection, so the reciprocal crosses may have become sterile one at a time. LETTER 212. TO A.R. WALLACE. 4, Chester Place, March 17th, 1868. (212/1. Mr. Darwin had already written a short note to Mr. Wallace expressing a general dissent from his view.) I do not feel that I shall grapple with the sterility argument till my return home; I have tried once or twice, and it has made my stomach feel as if it had been placed in a vice. Your paper has driven three of my children half mad--one sat up till 12 o'clock over it. My second son, the mathematician, thinks that you have omitted one almost inevitable deduction which apparently would modify the result. He has written out what he thinks, but I have not tried fully to understand him. I suppose that you do not care enough about the subject to like to see what he has written. LETTER 212A. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March, 24th [1868]. I return your son's notes with my notes on them. Without going into any details, is not this a strong general argument? 1. A species varies occasionally in two directions, but owing to their free intercrossing the varieties never increase. 2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the existence of the species; but the two varieties are adapted to the changing conditions, and if accumulated will form two new species adapted to the new conditions. 3. Free crossing, however, renders this impossible, and so the species is in danger of extinction. 4. If sterility would be induced, then the pure races would increase more rapidly, and replace the old species. 5. It is admitted that partial sterility between varieties does occasionally occur. It is admitted [that] the degree of this sterility varies; is it not probable that Natural Selection can accumulate these variations, and thus save the species? If Natural Selection can NOT do this, how do species ever arise, except when a variety is isolated? Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile is no difficulty; for either they diverged from a common ancestor in contact, and Natural Selection increased the sterility, or they were isolated, and have varied since: in which case they have been for ages influenced by distinct conditions which may well produce sterility. If the difficulty of grafting was as great as the difficulty of crossing, and as regular, I admit it would be a most serious objection. But it is not. I believe many distinct species can be grafted, while others less distinct cannot. The regularity with which natural species are sterile together, even when very much alike, I think is an argument in favour of the sterility having been generally produced by Natural Selection for the good of the species. The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses, seems none to me; for it is a step to more complete sterility, and as such would be increased by selection. LETTER 213. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th [1868]. I have been considering the terrible problem. Let me first say that no man could have more earnestly wished for the success of Natural Selection in regard to sterility than I did; and when I considered a general statement (as in your last note) I always felt sure it could be worked out, but always failed in detail. The cause being, as I believe, that Natural Selection cannot effect what is not good for the individual, including in this term a social community. It would take a volume to discuss all the points, and nothing is so humiliating to me as to agree with a man like you (or Hooker) on the premises and disagree about the result. I agree with my son's argument and not with the rejoinder. The cause of our difference, I think, is that I look at the number of offspring as an important element (all circumstances remaining the same) in keeping up the average number of individuals within any area. I do not believe that the amount of food by any means is the sole determining cause of number. Lessened fertility is equivalent to a new source of destruction. I believe if in one district a species produced from any cause fewer young, the deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. This applies to your Paragraph 5. (213/1. See Letter 211.) If the species produced fewer young from any cause in every district, it would become extinct unless its fertility were augmented through Natural Selection (see H. Spencer). I demur to probability and almost to possibility of Paragraph 1., as you start with two forms within the same area, which are not mutually sterile, and which yet have supplanted the parent-form. (Paragraph 6.) I know of no ghost of a fact supporting belief that disinclination to cross accompanies sterility. It cannot hold with plants, or the lower fixed aquatic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid this would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems to have been independently acquired, probably by Natural Selection; and I do not see why it would not have sufficed to have prevented incipient species from blending to have simply increased sexual disinclination to cross. (Paragraph 11.) I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility and structural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectly and by no means strictly. Look at vars. of pigeons, fowls, and cabbages. I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses; yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit probability of Natural Selection having done its work so queerly. I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility, but your assumptions in Paragraph 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot believe so universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote species was acquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with your rejoinder on grafting: I fully admit that it is not so closely restricted as crossing, but this does not seem to me to weaken the case as one of analogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable attribute of plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes of plants pretty closely allied. The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e. which, when crossed, yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot. My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder in regard to second head of continually augmented sterility. You speak in this rejoinder, and in Paragraph 5, of all the individuals becoming in some slight degree sterile in certain districts: if you were to admit that by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility would inevitably increase, there would be no need of Natural Selection. But I suspect that the sterility is not caused so much by any particular conditions as by long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speak according to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not injured, for hybrids propagate freely by buds; but their reproductive organs are somehow affected, so that they cannot accumulate the proper gemmules, in nearly the same manner as the reproductive organs of a pure species become affected when exposed to unnatural conditions. This is a very ill-expressed and ill-written letter. Do not answer it, unless the spirit urges you. Life is too short for so long a discussion. We shall, I greatly fear, never agree. LETTER 214. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, [April?] 8th, 1868. I am sorry you should have given yourself the trouble to answer my ideas on sterility. If you are not convinced, I have little doubt but that I am wrong; and, in fact, I was only half convinced by my own arguments, and I now think there is about an even chance that Natural Selection may or may not be able to accumulate sterility. If my first proposition is modified to the existence of a species and a variety in the same area, it will do just as well for my argument. Such certainly do exist. They are fertile together, and yet each maintains itself tolerably distinct. How can this be, if there is no disinclination to crossing? My belief certainly is that number of offspring is not so important an element in keeping up population of a species as supply of food and other favourable conditions; because the numbers of a species constantly vary greatly in different parts of its own area, whereas the average number of offspring is not a very variable element. However, I will say no more, but leave the problem as insoluble, only fearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of the enemies of Natural Selection. LETTER 215. TO J.D. HOOKER. (215/1. The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (dated April 3rd, 1868) refers to his Presidential Address for the approaching meeting of the British Association at Norwich. Some account of Sir Joseph's success is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 100, also in Huxley's "Life," Volume I., page 297, where Huxley writes to Darwin:-- "We had a capital meeting at Norwich, and dear old Hooker came out in great force, as he always does in emergencies. The only fault was the terrible 'Darwinismus' which spread over the section and crept out when you least expected it, even in Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist Temples.' You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant during your lifetime. "P.S.--I am going into opposition; I can't stand it.") Down, April 3rd [1868]. I have been thinking over your Presidential Address; I declare I made myself quite uncomfortable by fancying I had to do it, and feeling myself utterly dumbfounded. But I do not believe that you will find it so difficult. When you come to Down I shall be very curious to hear what your ideas are on the subject. Could you make anything out of a history of the great steps in the progress of Botany, as representing the whole of Natural History? Heaven protect you! I suppose there are men to whom such a job would not be so awful as it appears to me...If you had time, you ought to read an article by W. Bagehot in the April number of the "Fortnightly" (215/2. "Physic and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452, 1868.), applying Natural Selection to early or prehistoric politics, and, indeed, to late politics,--this you know is your view. LETTER 216. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 9, St. Mark's Crescent, N.W., August 16th [1868]. I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your papers on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is particularly interesting and the conclusion most important; but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever. If "natural selection" could not accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross of a trimorphic plant rather than another? The difficulty seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage of a cross with a distinct individual is gained just as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what means, then, did illegitimate unions ever become sterile? It would seem a far simpler way for each plant's pollen to have acquired a prepotency on another individual's stigma over that of the same individual, without the extraordinary complication of three differences of structure and eighteen different unions with varying degrees of sterility! However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents. I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable address (216/1. "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1867-8, page lvii.), in which he so well replies to the gross misstatements of the "Athenaeum;" and also says award in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate you on having made a valuable convert, whose opinions on the subject, coming so late and being evidently so well considered, will have much weight. I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will boldly promulgate "Darwinism" in his address. (216/2. Sir Joseph Hooker's Presidential Address at the British Association Meeting.) Shall we have the pleasure of seeing you there? I am engaged in negociations about my book. Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes. (216/3. We are permitted by Mr. Wallace to append the following note as to his more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and sterility:-- "When writing my "Darwinism," and coming again to the consideration of this problem of the effect of Natural Selection in accumulating variations in the amount of sterility between varieties or incipient species twenty years later, I became more convinced, than I was when discussing with Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of my argument. Recently a correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out to me a slight error in my calculation at page 183 (which does not, however, materially affect the result), disproving the 'physiological selection' of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can see no fallacy in my argument as to the power of Natural Selection to increase sterility between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has any one shown such fallacy to exist. "On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in the foregoing discussion--the effect of high fertility on population of a species, etc.--I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would be out of place to attempt to justify them here." A.R.W. (1899).) LETTER 217. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 4th [1867]. With respect to the points in your note, I may sometimes have expressed myself with ambiguity. At the end of Chapter XXIII., where I say that marked races are not often (you omit "often") produced by changed conditions (217/1. "Hence, although it must be admitted that new conditions of life do sometimes definitely affect organic beings, it may be doubted whether well-marked races have often been produced by the direct action of changed conditions without the aid of selection either by man or nature." ("Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 292, 1868.)), I intended to refer to the direct action of such conditions in causing variation, and not as leading to the preservation or destruction of certain forms. There is as wide a difference in these two respects as between voluntary selection by man and the causes which induce variability. I have somewhere in my book referred to the close connection between Natural Selection and the action of external conditions in the sense which you specify in your note. And in this sense all Natural Selection may be said to depend on changed conditions. In the "Origin" I think I have underrated (and from the cause which you mention) the effects of the direct action of external conditions in producing varieties; but I hope in Chapter XXIII. I have struck as fair a balance as our knowledge permits. It is wonderful to me that you have patience to read my slips, and I cannot but regret, as they are so imperfect; they must, I think, give you a wrong impression, and had I sternly refused, you would perhaps have thought better of my book. Every single slip is greatly altered, and I hope improved. With respect to the human ovule, I cannot find dimensions given, though I have often seen the statement. My impression is that it would be just or barely visible if placed on a clear piece of glass. Huxley could answer your question at once. I have not been well of late, and have made slow progress, but I think my book will be finished by the middle of November. LETTER 218. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. [End of February, 1868] I am in the second volume of your book, and I have been astonished at the immense number of interesting facts you have brought together. I read the chapter on pangenesis first, for I could not wait. I can hardly tell you how much I admire it. It is a positive comfort to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place,--and that I think hardly possible. You have now fairly beaten Spencer on his own ground, for he really offered no solution of the difficulties of the problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vast numbers of the physiological germs or atoms (which themselves must be compounded of numbers of Spencer's physiological units) is the only difficulty; but that is only on a par with the difficulties in all conceptions of matter, space, motion, force, etc. As I understood Spencer, his physiological units were identical throughout each species, but slightly different in each different species; but no attempt was made to show how the identical form of the parent or ancestors came to be built up of such units. LETTER 219. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 27th [1868]. You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about pangenesis. None of my friends will speak out, except to a certain extent Sir H. Holland, who found it very tough reading, but admits that some view "closely akin to it" will have to be admitted. Hooker, as far as I understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feelings--viz., that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my footnote refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived. (219/1. This letter is published in "Life and Letters," III., page 79.) LETTER 220. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March 1st, 1868. ...Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he has greatly admired pangenesis. I am very glad H. Spencer at once acknowledges that his view was something quite distinct from yours. Although, as you know, I am a great admirer of his, I feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of the matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though he was evidently struggling hard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can see, explains everything in growth and reproduction--though, of course, the mystery of life and consciousness remains as great as ever. Parts of the chapter on pangenesis I found hard reading, and have not quite mastered yet, and there are also throughout the discussions in Volume II. many bits of hard reading, on minute points which we, who have not worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing, as you have done, can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the general question. If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for some periodical, and, if so, shall do what I can to make "Pangenesis" appreciated... (220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, appeared a letter on pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, dealing with the difficulty that the "sexual elements produced upon the scion" have not been shown to be affected by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in an annotated copy of this letter, disputes the accuracy of the statement, but adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION YET RAISED." He seems not to have used Mr. Ranyard's remarks in the 2nd edition of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.) LETTER 221. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 21st [1868]. I know that you have been overworking yourself, and that makes you think that you are doing nothing in science. If this is the case (which I do not believe), your intellect has all run to letter-writing, for I never in all my life received a pleasanter one than your last. It greatly amused us all. How dreadfully severe you are on the Duke (221/1. The late Duke of Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been reading.): I really think too severe, but then I am no fair judge, for a Duke, in my eyes, is no common mortal, and not to be judged by common rules! I pity you from the bottom of my soul about the address (221/2. Sir Joseph was President of the British Association at Norwich in 1868: see "Life and Letters," III., page 100. The reference to "Insular Floras" is to Sir Joseph's lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association in 1866: see "Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it makes my flesh creep; but when I pitied you to Huxley, he would not join at all, and would only say that you did and delivered your Insular Flora lecture so admirably in every way that he would not bestow any pity on you. He felt certain that you would keep your head high up. Nevertheless, I wish to God it was all over for your sake. I think, from several long talks, that Huxley will give an excellent and original lecture on Geograph. Distrib. of birds. I have been working very hard--too hard of late--on Sexual Selection, which turns out a gigantic subject; and almost every day new subjects turn up requiring investigation and leading to endless letters and searches through books. I am bothered, also, with heaps of foolish letters on all sorts of subjects, but I am much interested in my subject, and sometimes see gleams of light. All my other letters have prevented me indulging myself in writing to you; but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr. Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of the "Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) yesterday in flower, and had to despatch it at once. I suppose some of your assistants will be able to make the genus out without great trouble. I have done little in experiment of late, but I find that mignonette is absolutely sterile with pollen from the same plant. Any one who saw stamen after stamen bending upwards and shedding pollen over the stigmas of the same flower would declare that the structure was an admirable contrivance for self-fertilisation. How utterly mysterious it is that there should be some difference in ovules and contents of pollen-grains (for the tubes penetrate own stigma) causing fertilisation when these are taken from any two distinct plants, and invariably leading to impotence when taken from the same plant! By Jove, even Pan. (221/4. Pangenesis.) won't explain this. It is a comfort to me to think that you will be surely haunted on your death-bed for not honouring the great god Pan. I am quite delighted at what you say about my book, and about Bentham; when writing it, I was much interested in some parts, but latterly I thought quite as poorly of it as even the "Athenaeum." It ought to be read abroad for the sake of the booksellers, for five editions have come or are coming out abroad! I am ashamed to say that I have read only the organic part of Lyell, and I admire all that I have read as much as you. It is a comfort to know that possibly when one is seventy years old one's brain may be good for work. It drives me mad, and I know it does you too, that one has no time for reading anything beyond what must be read: my room is encumbered with unread books. I agree about Wallace's wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my opinion. I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him) separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection; he is riding that hobby to death. I never read anything so miserable as Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of his Journal. (221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No. 3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr. Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page 73. The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for 1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a contrast with the old "Natural History Review." LETTER 222. TO J.D. HOOKER. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, July 28th [1868]. I am glad to hear that you are going (222/1. In his Presidential Address at Norwich.) to touch on the statement that the belief in Natural Selection is passing away. I do not suppose that even the "Athenaeum" would pretend that the belief in the common descent of species is passing away, and this is the more important point. This now almost universal belief in the evolution (somehow) of species, I think may be fairly attributed in large part to the "Origin." It would be well for you to look at the short Introduction of Owen's "Anat. of Invertebrates," and see how fully he admits the descent of species. Of the "Origin," four English editions, one or two American, two French, two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several (as I was told) Russian editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication" are the results of the "Origin;" and of these two English, one American, one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have appeared, or will soon appear. Ernst Hackel wrote to me a week or two ago, that new discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are continually still coming out in Germany, where the interest on the subject certainly does not diminish. I have seen some of these discussions, and they are good ones. I apprehend that the interest on the subject has not died out in North America, from observing in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's Book on Brazil how exceedingly anxious he is to destroy me. In regard to this country, every one can judge for himself, but you would not say interest was dying out if you were to look at the last number of the "Anthropological Review," in which I am incessantly sneered at. I think Lyell's "Principles" will produce a considerable effect. I hope I have given you the sort of information which you want. My head is rather unsteady, which makes my handwriting worse than usual. If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to me a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which seems to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man so extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a preoccupied mind. Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The article begins: "There is no more convincing proof of the truth of a comprehensive theory, than its power of absorbing and finding a place for new facts, and its capability of interpreting phenomena, which had been previously looked upon as unaccountable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace illustrates his statement that "a false theory will never stand this test," by Edward Forbes' "polarity" speculations (see page 84 of the present volume) and Macleay's "Circular" and "Quinarian System" published in his "Horae Entomologicae," 1821, and developed by Swainson in the natural history volumes of "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia." Mr. Wallace says that a "considerable number of well-known naturalists either spoke approvingly of it, or advocated similar principles, and for a good many years it was decidedly in the ascendant...yet it quite died out in a few short years, its very existence is now a matter of history, and so rapid was its fall that...Swainson, perhaps, lived to be the last man who believed in it. Such is the course of a false theory. That of a true one is very different, as may be well seen by the progress of opinion on the subject of Natural Selection." Here, (page 3) follows a passage on the overwhelming importance of Natural Selection, underlined with apparent approval in Mr. Darwin's copy of the review.), in the "Westminster Review," in an article on Protection has a good passage, contrasting the success of Natural Selection and its growth with the comprehension of new classes of facts (222/3. This rather obscure phrase may be rendered: "its power of growth by the absorption of new facts."), with false theories, such as the Quinarian Theory, and that of Polarity, by poor Forbes, both of which were promulgated with high advantages and the first temporarily accepted. LETTER 223. TO G.H. LEWES. (223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter inscribed by Mr. Darwin "Against organs having been formed by direct action of medium in distinct organisms. Chiefly luminous and electric organs and thorns." The draft is carelessly written, and all but illegible.) August 7th, 1868. If you mean that in distinct animals, parts or organs, such for instance as the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes, are wholly the result of the external and internal conditions to which the organs have been subjected, in so direct and inevitable a manner that they could be developed whether of use or not to their possessor, I cannot admit [your view]. I could almost as soon admit that the whole structure of, for instance, a woodpecker, had thus originated; and that there should be so close a relation between structure and external circumstances which cannot directly affect the structure seems to me to [be] inadmissible. Such organs as those above specified seem to me much too complex and generally too well co-ordinated with the whole organisation, for the admission that they result from conditions independently of Natural Selection. The impression which I have taken, studying nature, is strong, that in all cases, if we could collect all the forms which have ever lived, we should have a close gradation from some most simple beginning. If similar conditions sufficed, without the aid of Natural Selection, to give similar parts or organs, independently of blood relationship, I doubt much whether we should have that striking harmony between the affinities, embryological development, geographical distribution, and geological succession of all allied organisms. We should be much more puzzled than we now are how to class, in a natural method, many forms. It is puzzling enough to distinguish between resemblance due to descent and to adaptation; but (fortunately for naturalists), owing to the strong power of inheritance, and to excessively complex causes and laws of variability, when the same end or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have generally been modified, and modified in a different manner, so that the resemblances due to descent and adaptation can commonly be distinguished. I should just like to add, that we may understand each other, how I suppose the luminous organs of insects, for instance, to have been developed; but I depend on conjectures, for so few luminous insects exist that we have no means of judging, by the preservation to the present day of slightly modified forms, of the probable gradations through which the organs have passed. Moreover, we do not know of what use these organs are. We see that the tissues of many animals, [as] certain centipedes in England, are liable, under unknown conditions of food, temperature, etc., to become occasionally luminous; just like the [illegible]: such luminosity having been advantageous to certain insects, the tissues, I suppose, become specialised for this purpose in an intensified degree; in certain insects in one part, in other insects in other parts of the body. Hence I believe that if all extinct insect-forms could be collected, we should have gradations from the Elateridae, with their highly and constantly luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with their highly luminous abdomens, to some ancient insects occasionally luminous like the centipede. I do not know, but suppose that the microscopical structure of the luminous organs in the most different insects is nearly the same; and I should attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor, the similarity of the tissues, which under similar conditions, allowed them to vary in the same manner, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same general purpose, to arrive at the same result. Mutatis mutandis, I should apply the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but here I have to make, in my own mind, the violent assumption that some ancient fish was slightly electrical without having any special organs for the purpose. It has been stated on evidence, not trustworthy, that certain reptiles are electrical. It is, moreover, possible that the so-called electric organs, whilst in a condition not highly developed, may have subserved some distinct function: at least, I think, Matteucci could detect no pure electricity in certain fishes provided with the proper organs. In one of your letters you alluded to nails, claws, hoofs, etc. From their perfect coadaptation with the whole rest of the organisation, I cannot admit that they would have been formed by the direct action of the conditions of life. H. Spencer's view that they were first developed from indurated skin, the result of pressure on the extremities, seems to me probable. In regard to thorns and spines I suppose that stunted and [illegible] hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness and hardness is the result of fluctuating variability and "the survival of the fittest." The precise form, curvature and colour of the thorns I freely admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant, or of their conditions, internal and external. It would be an astounding fact if any varying plant suddenly produced, without the aid of reversion or selection, perfect thorns. That Natural Selection would tend to produce the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every one who has observed the distribution in South America and Africa (vide Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the bushes grow isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even in England it has been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing plants are palatable to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed. With respect to the Malayan climbing Palm, what I meant to express is that the admirable hooks were perhaps not first developed for climbing; but having been developed for protection were subsequently used, and perhaps further modified for climbing. LETTER 224. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th [1868]. About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868. In an article headed "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and referring to the British Association address, the writer objects to any supposed opposition between religion and science. "Religion," he says, "is your opinion upon one set of subjects, science your opinion upon another set of subjects." But he forgets that on one side we have opinions assumed to be revealed truths; and this is a condition which either results in the further opinion that those who bring forward irreconcilable facts are more or less wicked, or in a change of front on the religious side, by which theological opinion "shifts its ground to meet the requirements of every new fact that science establishes, and every old error that science exposes" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If theologians had been in the habit of recognising that, in the words of the "Pall Mall" writer, "Science is a general name for human knowledge in its most definite and general shape, whatever may be the object of that knowledge," probably Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks would never have been made.) I do not agree that the article was at all right; it struck me as monstrous (and answered on the spot by the "Morning Advertiser") that religion did not attack science. When, however, I say not at all right, I am not sure whether it would not be wisest for scientific men quite to ignore the whole subject of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has been lunching here, coming with the Nortons (son of Professor Norton and friend of Asa Gray), who have taken for four months Keston Rectory, was strongly of opinion it was a mistake. Several persons have spoken strongly to me as very much admiring your address. For chance of you caring to see yourself in a French dress, I send a journal; also with a weak article by Agassiz on Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent me his address (224/2. The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D at Norwich in 1868.), so I have had a fair excuse for writing to him. I differ from you: I could hardly bear to shake hands with the "Sugar of Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded her of sugar of lead." (Huxley to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's "Life," II., page 167.), which I never heard before: it is capital. I am so very glad you will come here with Asa Gray, as if I am bad he will not be dull. We shall ask the Nortons to come to dinner. On Saturday, Wallace (and probably Mrs. W.), J. Jenner Weir (a very good man), and Blyth, and I fear not Bates, are coming to stay the Sunday. The thought makes me rather nervous; but I shall enjoy it immensely if it does not kill me. How I wish it was possible for you to be here! LETTER 225. TO M.J. BERKELEY. Down, September 7th, 1868. I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your address (225/1. Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report," Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))...for I thus gain a fair excuse for troubling you with this note to thank you for your most kind and extremely honourable notice of my works. When I tell you that ever since I was an undergraduate at Cambridge I have felt towards you the most unfeigned respect, from all that I continually heard from poor dear Henslow and others of your great knowledge and original researches, you will believe me when I say that I have rarely in my life been more gratified than by reading your address; though I feel that you speak much too strongly of what I have done. Your notice of pangenesis (225/3. "It would be unpardonable to finish these somewhat desultory remarks without adverting to one of the most interesting subjects of the day,--the Darwinian doctrine of pangenesis...Like everything which comes from the pen of a writer whom I have no hesitation, so far as my judgment goes, in considering as by far the greatest observer of our age, whatever may be thought of his theories when carried out to their extreme results, the subject demands a careful and impartial consideration." (Berkeley, page 86.)) has particularly pleased me, for it has been generally neglected or disliked by my friends; yet I fully expect that it will some day be more successful. I believe I quite agree with you in the manner in which the cast-off atoms or so-called gemmules probably act (225/4. "Assuming the general truth of the theory that molecules endowed with certain attributes are cast off by the component cells of such infinitesimal minuteness as to be capable of circulating with the fluids, and in the end to be present in the unimpregnated embryo-cell and spermatozoid...it seems to me far more probable that they should be capable under favourable circumstances of exercising an influence analogous to that which is exercised by the contents of the pollen-tube or spermatozoid on the embryo-sac or ovum, than that these particles should be themselves developed into cells" (Berkeley, page 87).): I have never supposed that they were developed into free cells, but that they penetrated other nascent cells and modified their subsequent development. This process I have actually compared with ordinary fertilisation. The cells thus modified, I suppose cast off in their turn modified gemmules, which again combine with other nascent cells, and so on. But I must not trouble you any further. LETTER 226. TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, October 22nd, 1868. I am very much obliged for your kind letter, and I have waited for a week before answering it in hopes of receiving the "kleine Schrift" (226/1. The "kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie," Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der Wanderung und raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") to which you allude; but I fear it is lost, which I am much surprised at, as I have seldom failed to receive anything sent by the post. As I do not know the title, and cannot order a copy, I should be very much obliged if you can spare another. I am delighted that you, with whose name I am familiar, should approve of my work. I entirely agree with what you say about each species varying according to its own peculiar laws; but at the same time it must, I think, be admitted that the variations of most species have in the lapse of ages been extremely diversified, for I do not see how it can be otherwise explained that so many forms have acquired analogous structures for the same general object, independently of descent. I am very glad to hear that you have been arguing against Nageli's law of perfectibility, which seems to me superfluous. Others hold similar views, but none of them define what this "perfection" is which cannot be gradually attained through Natural Selection. I thought M. Wagner's first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a separately published pamphlet of 62 pages. In the preface the author states that it is a fuller version of a paper read before the Royal Academy of Science at Munich in March 1868. We are not able to say which of Wagner's writings is referred to as the second pamphlet; his second well-known essay, "Ueber den Einfluss der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is of later date, viz., 1870.) (for I have not yet had time to read the second) very good and interesting; but I think that he greatly overrates the necessity for emigration and isolation. I doubt whether he has reflected on what must occur when his forms colonise a new country, unless they vary during the very first generation; nor does he attach, I think, sufficient weight to the cases of what I have called unconscious selection by man: in these cases races are modified by the preservation of the best and the destruction of the worst, without any isolation. I sympathise with you most sincerely on the state of your eyesight: it is indeed the most fearful evil which can happen to any one who, like yourself, is earnestly attached to the pursuit of natural knowledge. LETTER 227. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 18th [1869]. Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book, I have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and cannot deny myself the pleasure of once again expressing to you my warm admiration. I might, but will not, repeat my thanks for the very honourable manner in which you often mention my name; but I can truly say that I look at the publication of your essay as one of the greatest honours ever conferred on me. Nothing can be more profound and striking than your observations on development and classification. I am very glad that you have added your justification in regard to the metamorphoses of insects; for your conclusion now seems in the highest degree probable. (227/2. See "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his reasons for the belief that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was not a character of the form from which insects have sprung: his argument largely depends on considerations drawn from the study of the neuroptera.) I have re-read many parts, especially that on cirripedes, with the liveliest interest. I had almost forgotten your discussion on the retrograde development of the Rhizocephala. What an admirable illustration it affords of my whole doctrine! A man must indeed be a bigot in favour of separate acts of creation if he is not staggered after reading your essay; but I fear that it is too deep for English readers, except for a select few. LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27th [1869]. I have lately (i.e., in new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss Nageli's Essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory importance. Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head. LETTER 229. TO J.D. HOOKER. Caerdeon, Barmouth, North Wales, July 24th [1869]. We shall be at home this day week, taking two days on the journey, and right glad I shall be. The whole has been a failure to me, but much enjoyment to the young...My wife has ailed a good deal nearly all the time; so that I loathe the place, with all its beauty. I was glad to hear what you thought of F. Muller, and I agree wholly with you. Your letter came at the nick of time, for I was writing on the very day to Muller, and I passed on your approbation of Chaps. X. and XI. Some time I should like to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute," so as to read Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of New Zealand." "N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You must read Huxley v. Comte (229/2. "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly Review," 1869, page 652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a reply to Mr. Congreve's article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in the April number of the "Fortnightly," page 407, which had been written in criticism of Huxley's article in the February number of the "Fortnightly," page 128, "On the Physical Basis of Life."); he never wrote anything so clever before, and has smashed everybody right and left in grand style. I had a vague wish to read Comte, and so had George, but he has entirely cured us of any such vain wish. There is another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50, 1869: "Geological Time," page 406. The papers reviewed are Sir William Thomson, "Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and Tait, "Natural Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." 1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869; "Macmillan's Mag." 1862; Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol. Soc. London," February, 1869; Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit. Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also the review on the "Origin" in the "North British Review," 1867, by Fleeming Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The author treats the last-named with contempt as the work of an anonymous journalist, apparently unconscious of his own similar position.) just come out in last "North British," by some great mathematician, which is admirably done; he has a severe fling at you (229/4. The author of the "North British" article appears to us, at page 408, to misunderstand or misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable on "underpinning." See "Life and Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir Joseph is attacked with quite unnecessary vehemence on another point at page 413.), but the article is directed against Huxley and for Thomson. This review shows me--not that I required being shown--how devilish a clever fellow Huxley is, for the reviewer cannot help admiring his abilities. There are some good specimens of mathematical arrogance in the review, and incidentally he shows how often astronomers have arrived at conclusions which are now seen to be mistaken; so that geologists might truly answer that we must be slow in admitting your conclusions. Nevertheless, all uniformitarians had better at once cry "peccavi,"--not but what I feel a conviction that the world will be found rather older than Thomson makes it, and far older than the reviewer makes it. I am glad I have faced and admitted the difficulty in the last edition of the "Origin," of which I suppose you received, according to order, a copy. LETTER 230. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 7th [1869]. There never was such a good man as you for telling me things which I like to hear. I am not at all surprised that Hallett has found some varieties of wheat could not be improved in certain desirable qualities as quickly as at first. All experience shows this with animals; but it would, I think, be rash to assume, judging from actual experience, that a little more improvement could not be got in the course of a century, and theoretically very improbable that after a few thousands [of years] rest there would not be a start in the same line of variation. What astonishes me as against experience, and what I cannot believe, is that varieties already improved or modified do not vary in other respects. I think he must have generalised from two or three spontaneously fixed varieties. Even in seedlings from the same capsule some vary much more than others; so it is with sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In a letter of August 13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote correcting Mr. Darwin's impression: "I did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that all variation stopped--far from it: he maintained the contrary, but if I understand him aright, he soon arrives at a point beyond which any further accumulation in the direction sought is so small and so slow that practically a fixity of type (not absolute fixity, however) is the result.") It is a grand fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This perhaps refers to the existence of Anoplotherium in the S. American Eocene formation: it is one of the points in which the fauna of S. America resembles Europe rather than N. America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I., page 148.)), and shows how even terrestrial quadrupeds had time formerly to spread to very distinct regions. At each epoch the world tends to get peopled pretty uniformly, which is a blessing for Geology. The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is well worth reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus were delighted with it. How the author does hit! It was a euphuism to speak of a fling at you: it was a kick. He is very unfair to Huxley, and accuses him of "quibbling," etc.; yet the author cannot help admiring him extremely. I know I felt very small when I finished the article. You will be amused to observe that geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was misled by two of the greatest mathematicians! And there are other such cases; so we could turn round and show your reviewer how cautious geologists ought to be in trusting mathematicians. There is another excellent original article, I feel sure by McClennan, on Primeval Man, well worth reading. I do not quite agree about Sabine: he is unlike every other soldier or sailor I ever heard of if he would not put his second leg into the tomb with more satisfaction as K.C.B. than as a simple man. I quite agree that the Government ought to have made him long ago, but what does the Government know or care for Science? So much for your splenditious letter. LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14th [1869?] I write one line to tell you that you are a real good man to propose coming here for a Sunday after Exeter. Do keep to this good intention...I am sure Exeter and your other visit will do you good. I often wonder how you stand all your multifarious work. I quite agree about the folly of the endless subscriptions for dead men; but Faraday is an exception, and if you will pay three guineas for me, it will save me some trouble; but it will be best to enclose a cheque, which, as you will see, must be endorsed. If you read the "North British Review," you will like to know that George has convinced me, from correspondence in style, and spirit, that the article is by Tait, the co-worker with Thomson. I was much surprised at the leaves of Drosophyllum being always rolled backwards at their tips, but did not know that it was a unique character. (PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photograph by Wallich.) LETTER 232. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 13th [1869]. I heard yesterday from a relation who had seen in a newspaper that you were C.B. I must write one line to say "Hurrah," though I wish it had been K.C.B., as it assuredly ought to have been; but I suppose they look at K.C.B. before C.B. as a dukedom before an earldom. We had a very successful week in London, and I was unusually well and saw a good many persons, which, when well, is a great pleasure to me. I had a jolly talk with Huxley, amongst others. And now I am at the same work as before, and shall be for another two months--namely, putting ugly sentences rather straighter; and I am sick of the work, and, as the subject is all on sexual selection, I am weary of everlasting males and females, cocks and hens. It is a shame to bother you, but I should like some time to hear about the C.B. affair. I have read one or two interesting brochures lately--viz., Stirling the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in "Journal of Royal Institute" on the survivals of old thought in modern civilisation. Farewell. I am as dull as a duck, both male and female. To Dr. Hooker, C.B., F.R.S. Dr. Hooker, K.C.B. (This looks better). P.S. I hear a good account of Bentham's last address (232/1. Presidential Address, chiefly on Geographical Distribution, delivered before the "Linn. Soc." May 24th, 1869.), which I am now going to read. I find that I have blundered about Bentham's address. Lyell was speaking about one that I read some months ago; but I read half of it again last night, and shall finish it. Some passages are either new or were not studied enough by me before. It strikes me as admirable, as it did on the first reading, though I differ in some few points. Such an address is worth its weight in gold, I should think, in making converts to our views. Lyell tells me that Bunbury has been wonderfully impressed with it, and he never before thought anything of our views on evolution. P.S. (2). I have just read, and like very much, your review of Schimper. (232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the first portion of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th, 1869, page 48.) LETTER 233. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 19th [1869]. Thank you much for telling me all about the C.B., for I much wished to hear. It pleases me extremely that the Government have done this much; and as the K.C.B.'s are limited in number (which I did not know), I excuse it. I will not mention what you have told me to any one, as it would be Murchisonian. But what a shame it is to use this expression, for I fully believe that Murchison would take any trouble to get any token of honour for any man of science. I like all scientific periodicals, including poor "Scientific Opinion," and I think higher than you do of "Nature." Lord, what a rhapsody that was of Goethe, but how well translated; it seemed to me, as I told Huxley, as if written by the maddest English scholar. It is poetry, and can I say anything more severe? The last number of the "Academy" was splendid, and I hope it will soon come out fortnightly. I wish "Nature" would search more carefully all foreign journals and transactions. I am now reading a German thick pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhangigheit der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Enstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43 Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze in Innsbruck (Innsbruck, 1869).) by Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you come across it, look at the map of the distribution of the eighteen quasi-species, and at the genealogical tree. If the latter, as the author says, was constructed solely from the affinities of the forms, then the distribution is wonderfully interesting; we may see the very steps of the formation of a species. If you study the genealogical tree and map, you will almost understand the book. The two old parent connecting links just keep alive in two or three areas; then we have four widely extended species, their descendants; and from them little groups of newer descendants inhabiting rather small areas... LETTER 234. TO CAMILLE DARESTE. Down, November 20th, 1869. Dear Sir, I am glad that you are a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris. As you are aware from my published works, I have always considered your investigations on the production of monstrosities as full of interest. No subject is at the present time more important, as far as my judgment goes, than the ascertaining by experiment how far structure can be modified by the direct action of changed conditions; and you have thrown much light on this subject. I observe that several naturalists in various parts of Europe have lately maintained that it is now of the highest interest for science to endeavour to lessen, as far as possible, our profound ignorance on the cause of each individual variation; and, as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire long ago remarked, monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter variations. With my best wishes for your success in obtaining the Professorship, and with sincere respect. I have the honour to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN. CHAPTER 1.V.--EVOLUTION, 1870-1882. LETTER 235. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, March 17th [1870]. It is my decided opinion that you ought to send an account to some scientific society, and I think to the Royal Society. (235/1. Mr. Jenner Weir's case is given in "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 435, and does not appear to have been published elsewhere. The facts are briefly that a horse, the offspring of a mare of Lord Mostyn's, which had previously borne a foal by a quagga, showed a number of quagga-like characters, such as stripes, low-growing mane, and elongated hoofs. The passage in "Animals and Plants," to which he directs Mr. Weir's attention in reference to Carpenter's objection, is in Edition I., Volume I., page 405: "It is a most improbable hypothesis that the mere blood of one individual should affect the reproductive organs of another individual in such a manner as to modify the subsequent offspring. The analogy from the direct action of foreign pollen on the ovarium and seed-coats of the mother plant strongly supports the belief that the male element acts directly on the reproductive organs of the female, wonderful as is this action, and not through the intervention of the crossed embryo." For references to Mr. Galton's experiments on transfusion of blood, see Letter 273.) I would communicate it if you so decide. You might give as a preliminary reason the publication in the "Transactions" of the celebrated Morton case and the pig case by Mr. Giles. You might also allude to the evident physiological importance of such facts as bearing on the theory of generation. Whether it would be prudent to allude to despised pangenesis I cannot say, but I fully believe pangenesis will have its successful day. Pray ascertain carefully the colour of the dam and sire. See about duns in my book ["Animals and Plants"], Volume I., page 55. The extension of the mane and form of hoofs are grand new facts. Is the hair of your horse at all curly? for [an] observed case [is] given by me (Volume II., page 325) from Azara of correlation of forms of hoof with curly hairs. See also in my book (Volume I., page 55; Volume II., page 41) how exceedingly rare stripes are on the faces of horses in England. Give the age of your horse. You are aware that Dr. Carpenter and others have tried to account for the effects of a first impregnation from the influence of the blood of the crossed embryo; but with physiologists who believe that the reproductive elements are actually formed by the reproductive glands, this view is inconsistent. Pray look at what I have said in "Domestic Animals" (Volume I., pages 402-5) against this doctrine. It seems to me more probable that the gemmules affect the ovaria alone. I remember formerly speculating, like you, on the assertion that wives grow like their husbands; but how impossible to eliminate effects of imitation and same habits of life, etc. Your letter has interested me profoundly. P.S.--Since publishing I have heard of additional cases--a very good one in regard to Westphalian pigs crossed by English boar, and all subsequent offspring affected, given in "Illust. Landwirth-Zeitung," 1868, page 143. I have shown that mules are often striped, though neither parent may be striped,--due to ancient reversion. Now, Fritz Muller writes to me from S. Brazil: "I have been assured, by persons who certainly never had heard of Lord Morton's mare, that mares which have borne hybrids to an ass are particularly liable to produce afterwards striped ass-colts." So a previous fertilisation apparently gives to the subsequent offspring a tendency to certain characters, as well as characters actually possessed by the first male. In the reprint (not called a second edition) of my "Domestic Animals" I give a good additional case of subsequent progeny of hairless dog being hairy from effects of first impregnation. P.S. 2nd. The suggestion, no doubt, is superfluous, but you ought, I think, to measure extension of mane beyond a line joining front or back of ears, and compare with horse. Also the measure (and give comparison with horse), length, breadth, and depth of hoofs. LETTER 236. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 12th [1870]. Your conclusion that all speculation about preordination is idle waste of time is the only wise one; but how difficult it is not to speculate! My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design or indeed of design of any kind, in the details. As for each variation that has ever occurred having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been specially ordained. Spontaneous generation seems almost as great a puzzle as preordination. I cannot persuade myself that such a multiplicity of organisms can have been produced, like crystals, in Bastian's (236/1. On September 2nd, 1872, Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace, in reference to the latter's review of "The Beginnings of Life," by H.C. Bastian (1872), in "Nature," 1872, pages 284-99: "At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every disintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form; and that these molecules are universally distributed, and that they do not lose their vital power until heated to such a temperature that they decompose like dead organic particles.") solutions of the same kind. I am astonished that, as yet, I have met with no allusion to Wyman's positive statement (236/2. "Observations and Experiments on Living Organisms in Heated Water," by Jeffries Wyman, Prof. of Anatomy, Harvard Coll. ("Amer. Journ. Sci." XLIV., 1867, page 152.) Solutions of organic matter in hermetically sealed flasks were immersed in boiling water for various periods. "No infusoria of any kind appeared if the boiling was prolonged beyond a period of five hours.") that if the solutions are boiled for five hours no organisms appear; yet, if my memory serves me, the solutions when opened to air immediately became stocked. Against all evidence, I cannot avoid suspecting that organic particles (my "gemmules" from the separate cells of the lower creatures!) will keep alive and afterwards multiply under proper conditions. What an interesting problem it is. LETTER 237. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. Down, July 15th [1870]. It is very long since I have heard from you, and I am much obliged for your letter. It is good news that you are going to bring out a new edition of your Poultry book (237/1. "The Poultry Book," 1872.), and you are quite at liberty to use all my materials. Thanks for the curious case of the wild duck variation: I have heard of other instances of a tendency to vary in one out of a large litter or family. I have too many things in hand at present to profit by your offer of the loan of the American Poultry book. Pray keep firm to your idea of working out the subject of analogous variations (237/2. "By this term I mean that similar characters occasionally make their appearance in the several varieties or races descended from the same species, and more rarely in the offspring of widely distinct species" ("Animals and Plants," II., Edition II., page 340).) with pigeons; I really think you might thus make a novel and valuable contribution to science. I can, however, quite understand how much your time must be occupied with the never-ending, always-beginning editorial cares. I keep much as usual, and crawl on with my work. LETTER 238. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 27th [1870]. Yours was a splendid letter, and I was very curious to hear something about the Liverpool meeting (238/1. Mr. Huxley was President of the British Association at Liverpool in 1870. His Presidential Address on "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" is reprinted in his collected Essays, VIII., page 229. Some account of the meeting is given in Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume I., pages 332, 336.), which I much wished to be successful for Huxley's sake. I am surprised that you think his address would not have been clear to the public; it seemed to me as clear as water. The general line of his argument might have been answered by the case of spontaneous combustion: tens of thousands of cases of things having been seen to be set on fire would be no true argument against any one who maintained that flames sometimes spontaneously burst forth. I am delighted at the apotheosis of Sir Roderick; I can fancy what neat and appropriate speeches he would make to each nobleman as he entered the gates of heaven. You ask what I think about Tyndall's lecture (238/2. Tyndall's lecture was "On the Scientific Uses of the Imagination."): it seemed to me grand and very interesting, though I could not from ignorance quite follow some parts, and I longed to tell him how immensely it would have been improved if all the first part had been made very much less egotistical. George independently arrived at the same conclusion, and liked all the latter part extremely. He thought the first part not only egotistical, but rather clap-trap. How well Tyndall puts the "as if" manner of philosophising, and shows that it is justifiable. Some of those confounded Frenchmen have lately been pitching into me for using this form of proof or argument. I have just read Rolleston's address in "Nature" (238/3. Presidential Address to the Biological Section, British Association, 1870. "Nature," September 22nd, 1870, page 423. Rolleston referred to the vitality of seeds in soil, a subject on which Darwin made occasional observations. See "Life and Letters," II., page 65.): his style is quite unparalleled! I see he quotes you about seed, so yesterday I went and observed more carefully the case given in the enclosed paper, which perhaps you might like to read and burn. How true and good what you say about Lyell. He is always the same; Dohrn was here yesterday, and was remarking that no one stood higher in the public estimation of Germany than Lyell. I am truly and profoundly glad that you are thinking of some general work on Geographical Distribution, or so forth; I hope to God that your incessant occupations may not interrupt this intention. As for my book, I shall not have done the accursed proofs till the end of November (238/4. The proofs of the "Descent of Man" were finished on January 15th, 1871.): good Lord, what a muddled head I have got on my wretched old shoulders. LETTER 239. TO H. SETTEGAST. Down, September 29th, 1870. I am very much obliged for your kind letter and present of your beautiful volume. (239/1. "Die Thierzucht," 1868.) Your work is not new to me, for I heard it so highly spoken of that I procured a copy of the first edition. It was a great gratification to me to find a man who had long studied with a philosophical spirit our domesticated animals, and who was highly competent to judge, agreeing to a large extent with my views. I regretted much that I had not known your work when I published my last volumes. I am surprised and pleased to hear that science is not quite forgotten under the present exciting state of affairs. Every one whom I know in England is an enthusiastic wisher for the full and complete success of Germany. P.S. I will give one of my two copies of your work to some public scientific library in London. LETTER 240. TO THE EDITOR OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE." Down, March 24th [1871]. Mr. Darwin presents his compliments to the Editor, and would be greatly obliged if he would address and post the enclosed letter to the author of the two admirable reviews of the "Descent of Man." (240/1. The notices of the "Descent of Man," published in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of March 20th and 21st, 1871, were by Mr. John Morley. We are indebted to the Editor of the "Pall Mall Gazette" for kindly allowing us to consult his file of the journal.) LETTER 241. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, March 24th, 1871. From the spirit of your review in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of my last book, which has given me great pleasure, I have thought that you would perhaps inform me on one point, withholding, if you please, your name. You say that my phraseology on beauty is "loose scientifically, and philosophically most misleading." (241/1. "Mr. Darwin's work is one of those rare and capital achievements of intellect which effect a grave modification throughout all the highest departments of the realm of opinion...There is throughout the description and examination of Sexual Selection a way of speaking of beauty, which seems to us to be highly unphilosophical, because it assumes a certain theory of beauty, which the most competent modern thinkers are too far from accepting, to allow its assumption to be quite judicious...Why should we only find the aesthetic quality in birds wonderful, when it happens to coincide with our own? In other words, why attribute to them conscious aesthetic qualities at all? There is no more positive reason for attributing aesthetic consciousness to the Argus pheasant than there is for attributing to bees geometric consciousness of the hexagonal prisms and rhombic plates of the hive which they so marvellously construct. Hence the phraseology which Mr. Darwin employs in this part of the subject, though not affecting the degree of probability which may belong to this theory, seems to us to be very loose scientifically, and philosophically most misleading."--"Pall Mall Gazette.") This is not at all improbable, as it is almost a lifetime since I attended to the philosophy of aesthetics, and did not then think that I should ever make use of my conclusions. Can you refer me to any one or two books (for my power of reading is not great) which would illumine me? or can you explain in one or two sentences how I err? Perhaps it would be best for me to explain what I mean by the sense of beauty in its lowest stage of development, and which can only apply to animals. When an intense colour, or two tints in harmony, or a recurrent and symmetrical figure please the eye, or a single sweet note pleases the ear, I call this a sense of beauty; and with this meaning I have spoken (though I now see in not a sufficiently guarded manner) of a taste for the beautiful being the same in mankind (for all savages admire bits of bright cloth, beads, plumes, etc.) and in the lower animals. If the blue and yellow plumage of a macaw (241/2. "What man deems the horrible contrasts of yellow and blue attract the macaw, while ball-and-socket-plumage attracts the Argus pheasant"--"Pall Mall Gazette," March 21st, 1871, page 1075.) pleases the eye of this bird, I should say that it had a sense of beauty, although its taste was bad according to our standard. Now, will you have the kindness to tell me how I can learn to see the error of my ways? Of course I recognise, as indeed I have remarked in my book, that the sense of beauty in the case of scenery, pictures, etc., is something infinitely complex, depending on varied associations and culture of the mind. From a very interesting review in the "Spectator," and from your and Wallace's review, I perceive that I have made a great oversight in not having said what little I could on the acquisition of the sense for the beautiful by man and the lower animals. It would indeed be an immense advantage to an author if he could read such criticisms as yours before publishing. At page 11 of your review you accidentally misquote my words placed by you within inverted commas, from my Volume II., page 354: I say that "man cannot endure any great change," and the omitted words "any great" make all the difference in the discussion. (241/3. "Mr. Darwin tells us, and gives us excellent reasons for thinking, that 'the men of each race prefer what they are accustomed to behold; they cannot endure change.' Yet is there not an inconsistency between this fact and the other that one race differs from another exactly because novelties presented themselves, and were eagerly seized and propagated?") Permit me to add a few other remarks. I believe your criticism is quite just about my deficient historic spirit, for I am aware of my ignorance in this line. (241/4. "In the historic spirit, however, Mr. Darwin must fairly be pronounced deficient. When, for instance, he speaks of the 'great sin of slavery' having been general among primitive nations, he forgets that, though to hold a slave would be a sinful degradation to a European to-day, the practice of turning prisoners of war into slaves, instead of butchering them, was not a sin at all, but marked a decided improvement in human manners.") On the other hand, if you should ever be led to read again Chapter III., and especially Chapter V., I think you will find that I am not amenable to all your strictures; though I felt that I was walking on a path unknown to me and full of pitfalls; but I had the advantage of previous discussions by able men. I tried to say most emphatically that a great philosopher, law-giver, etc., did far more for the progress of mankind by his writings or his example than by leaving a numerous offspring. I have endeavoured to show how the struggle for existence between tribe and tribe depends on an advance in the moral and intellectual qualities of the members, and not merely on their capacity of obtaining food. When I speak of the necessity of a struggle for existence in order that mankind should advance still higher in the scale, I do not refer to the MOST, but "to the MORE highly gifted men" being successful in the battle for life; I referred to my supposition of the men in any country being divided into two equal bodies--viz., the more and the less highly gifted, and to the former on an average succeeding best. But I have much cause to apologise for the length of this ill-expressed letter. My sole excuse is the extraordinary interest which I have felt in your review, and the pleasure which I have experienced in observing the points which have attracted your attention. I must say one word more. Having kept the subject of sexual selection in my mind for very many years, and having become more and more satisfied with it, I feel great confidence that as soon as the notion is rendered familiar to others, it will be accepted, at least to a much greater extent than at present. With sincere respect and thanks... LETTER 242. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, April 14th [1871]. As this note requires no answer, I do not scruple to write a few lines to say how faithful and full a resume you have given of my notions on the moral sense in the "Pall Mall," and to make a few extenuating or explanatory remarks. (242/1. "What is called the question of the moral sense is really two: how the moral faculty is acquired, and how it is regulated. Why do we obey conscience or feel pain in disobeying it? And why does conscience prescribe one kind of action and condemn another kind? To put it more technically, there is the question of the subjective existence of conscience, and there is the question of its objective prescriptions. First, why do I think it obligatory to do my duty? Second, why do I think it my duty to do this and not do that? Although, however, the second question ought to be treated independently, for reasons which we shall presently suggest, the historical answer to it, or the various grounds on which men have identified certain sorts of conduct with duty, rather than conduct of the opposite sorts, throws light on the other question of the conditions of growth of the idea of duty as a sovereign and imperial director. Mr. Darwin seems to us not to have perfectly recognised the logical separation between the two sides of the moral sense question. For example, he says (i. 97) that 'philosophers of the derivative school of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of morality lay in a form of Selfishness; but more recently in the Greatest Happiness principle.' But Mr. Mill, to whom Mr. Darwin refers, has expressly shown that the Greatest Happiness principle is a STANDARD, and not a FOUNDATION, and that its validity as a standard of right and wrong action is just as tenable by one who believes the moral sense to be innate, as by one who holds that it is acquired. He says distinctly that the social feelings of mankind form 'the natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality.' So far from holding the Greatest Happiness principle to be the foundation of morality, he would describe it as the forming principle of the superstructure of which the social feelings of mankind are the foundation. Between Mr. Darwin and utilitarians, as utilitarians, there is no such quarrel as he would appear to suppose. The narrowest utilitarian could say little more than Mr. Darwin says (ii. 393): 'As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is bestowed on actions and motives according as they tend to this end; and, as happiness is an essential part of the general good, the Greatest Happiness principle INDIRECTLY serves as a NEARLY safe standard of right and wrong.' It is perhaps not impertinent to suspect that the faltering adverbs which we have printed in italics indicate no more than the reluctance of a half-conscious convert to pure utilitarianism. In another place (i. 98) he admits that 'as all wish for happiness, the Greatest Happiness principle will have become a most important secondary guide and object, the social instincts, including sympathy, always serving as the primary impulse and guide.' This is just what Mr. Mill says, only instead of calling the principle a secondary guide, he would call it a standard, to distinguish it from the social impulse, in which, as much as Mr. Darwin, he recognises the base and foundation."--"Pall Mall Gazette," April 12th, 1871.) How the mistake which I have made in speaking of greatest happiness as the foundation of morals arose, is utterly unintelligible to me: any time during the last several years I should have laughed such an idea to scorn. Mr. Lecky never made a greater blunder, and your kindness has made you let me off too easily. (242/2. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man," I., page 97, Mr. Lecky is quoted as one of those who assumed that the "foundation of morality lay in a form of selfishness; but more recently in the 'greatest happiness' principle." Mr. Lecky's name is omitted in this connection in the second edition, page 120. In this edition Mr. Darwin makes it clearer that he attaches most importance to the social instinct as the "primary impulse and guide.") With respect to Mr. Mill, nothing would have pleased me more than to have relied on his great authority with respect to the social instincts, but the sentence which I quote at [Volume I.] page 71 ("if, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural") seems to me somewhat contradictory with the other words which I quote, so that I did not know what to think; more especially as he says so very little about the social instincts. When I speak of intellectual activity as the secondary basis of conscience, I meant in my own mind secondary in period of development; but no one could be expected to understand so great an ellipse. With reference to your last sentence, do you not think that man might have retrograded in his parental, marriage, and other instincts without having retrograded in his social instincts? and I do not think that there is any evidence that man ever existed as a non-social animal. I must add that I have been very glad to read your remarks on the supposed case of the hive-bee: it affords an amusing contrast with what Miss Cobbe has written in the "Theological Review." (242/3. Mr. Darwin says ("Descent of Man" Edition I., Volume I., page 73; Edition II., page 99), "that if men lived like bees our unmarried females would think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers." Miss Cobbe remarks on this "that the principles of social duty would be reversed" ("Theological Review," April 1872). Mr. Morley, on the other hand, says of Darwin's assertion, that it is "as reassuring as the most absolute of moralists could desire. For it is tantamount to saying that the foundations of morality, the distinctions of right and wrong, are deeply laid in the very conditions of social existence; that there is in face of these conditions a positive and definite difference between the moral and the immoral, the virtuous and the vicious, the right and the wrong, in the actions of individuals partaking of that social existence.") Undoubtedly the great principle of acting for the good of all the members of the same community, and therefore the good of the species, would still have held sovereign sway. LETTER 243. TO J.D. HOOKER. (243/1. Sir Joseph Hooker wrote (August 5th, 1871) to Darwin about Lord Kelvin's Presidential Address at the Edinburgh meeting of the British Association: "It seems to me to be very able indeed; and what a good notion it gives of the gigantic achievement of mathematicians and physicists!--it really made one giddy to read of them. I do not think Huxley will thank him for his reference to him as a positive unbeliever in spontaneous generation--these mathematicians do not seem to me to distinguish between un-belief and a-belief. I know no other name for the state of mind that is produced under the term scepticism. I had no idea before that pure Mathematics had achieved such wonders in practical science. The total absence of any allusion to Tyndall's labours, even when comets are his theme, seems strange to me.") Haredene, Albury, Guildford, August 6th [1871]. I have read with greatest interest Thomson's address; but you say so EXACTLY AND FULLY all that I think, that you have taken all the words from my mouth; even about Tyndall. It is a gain that so wonderful a man, though no naturalist, should become a convert to evolution; Huxley, it seems, remarked in his speech to this effect. I should like to know what he means about design,--I cannot in the least understand, for I presume he does not believe in special interpositions. (243/2. See "British Association Report," page cv. Lord Kelvin speaks very doubtfully of evolution. After quoting the concluding passage of the "Origin," he goes on, "I have omitted two sentences...describing briefly the hypothesis of 'the origin of species by Natural Selection,' because I have always felt that this hypothesis does not contain the true theory of evolution, IF EVOLUTION THERE HAS BEEN in biology" (the italics are not in the original). Lord Kelvin then describes as a "most valuable and instructive criticism," Sir John Herschel's remark that the doctrine of Natural Selection is "too like the Laputan method of making books, and that it did not sufficiently take into account a continually guiding and controlling intelligence." But it should be remembered that it was in this address of Lord Kelvin's that he suggested the possibility of "seed-bearing meteoric stones moving about through space" inoculating the earth with living organisms; and if he assumes that the whole population of the globe is to be traced back to these "moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world," it is obvious that he believes in a form of evolution, and one in which a controlling intelligence is not very obvious, at all events not in the initial and all-important stage.) Herschel's was a good sneer. It made me put in the simile about Raphael's Madonna, when describing in the "Descent of Man" the manner of formation of the wondrous ball-and-socket ornaments, and I will swear to the truth of this case. (243/3. See "Descent of Man," II., page 141. Darwin says that no one will attribute the shading of the "eyes" on the wings of the Argus pheasant to the "fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring-matter." He goes on to say that the development of the ball-and-socket effect by means of Natural Selection seems at first as incredible as that "one of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint." The remark of Herschel's, quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 241, that the "Origin" illustrates the "law of higgledy-piggledy," is probably a conversational variant of the Laputan comparison which gave rise to the passage in the "Descent of Man" (see Letter 130).) You know the oak-leaved variety of the common honeysuckle; I could not persuade a lady that this was not the result of the honeysuckle climbing up a young oak tree! Is this not like the Viola case? LETTER 244. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Haredene, Albury, Guildford, August 12th [1871]. I hope the proof-sheets having been sent here will not inconvenience you. I have read them with infinite satisfaction, and the whole discussion strikes me as admirable. I have no books here, and wish much I could see a plate of Campodea. (244/1. "On the Origin of Insects." By Sir John Lubbock, Bart. "Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoology)," Volume XI., 1873, pages 422-6. (Read November 2nd, 1871.) In the concluding paragraph the author writes, "If these views are correct the genus Campodea [a beetle] must be regarded as a form of remarkable interest, since it is the living representative of a primaeval type from which not only the Collembola and Thysanura, but the other great orders of insects, have all derived their origin." (See also "Brit. Assoc. Report," 1872, page 125--Address by Sir John Lubbock; and for a figure of Campodea see "Nature," Volume VII., 1873, page 447.) I never reflected much on the difficulty which you indicate, and on which you throw so much light. (244/2. The difficulty alluded to is explained by the first sentence of Lord Avebury's paper. "The Metamorphoses of this group (Insects) have always seemed to me one of the greatest difficulties of the Darwinian theory...I feel great difficulty in conceiving by what natural process an insect with a suctorial mouth, like that of a gnat or butterfly, could be developed from a powerfully mandibulate type like the orthoptera, or even from the neuroptera...A clue to the difficulty may, I think, be found in the distinction between the developmental and adaptive changes to which I called the attention of the Society in a previous memoir." The distinction between developmental and adaptive changes is mentioned, but not discussed, in the paper "On the Origin of Insects" (loc. cit., page 422); in a former paper, "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum ("Trans. Linn. Soc." XXV. page 477, 1866), this question is dealt with at length.) I have only a few trifling remarks to make. At page 44 I wish you had enlarged a little on what you have said of the distinction between developmental and adaptive changes; for I cannot quite remember the point, and others will perhaps be in the same predicament. I think I always saw that the larva and the adult might be separately modified to any extent. Bearing in mind what strange changes of function parts undergo, with the intermediate state of use (244/3. This slightly obscure phrase may be paraphrased, "the gradational stages being of service to the organism."), it seems to me that you speak rather too boldly on the impossibility of a mandibulate insect being converted into a sucking insect (244/4. "There are, however, peculiar difficulties in those cases in which, as among the lepidoptera, the same species is mandibulate as a larva and suctorial as an embryo" (Lubbock, "Origin of Insects," page 423).); not that I in the least doubt the value of your explanation. Cirripedes passing through what I have called a pupal state (244/5. "Hence, the larva in this, its last stage, cannot eat; it may be called a "locomotive Pupa;" its whole organisation is apparently adapted for the one great end of finding a proper site for its attachment and final metamorphosis." ("A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia." By Charles Darwin. London, Ray Soc., 1851.)) so far as their mouths are concerned, rather supports what you say at page 52. At page 40 your remarks on the Argus pheasant (244/6. There is no mention of the Argus pheasant in the published paper.) (though I have not the least objection to them) do not seem to me very appropriate as being related to the mental faculties. If you can spare me these proof-sheets when done with, I shall be obliged, as I shall be correcting a new edition of the "Origin" when I return home, though this subject is too large for me to enter on. I thank you sincerely for the great interest which your discussion has given me. LETTER 245. TO J.D. HOOKER. (245/1. The following letter refers to Mivart's "Genesis of Species.") Down, September 16th [1871]. I am preparing a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall introduce a new chapter on gradation, and on the uses of initial commencements of useful structures; for this, I observe, has produced the greatest effect on most persons. Every one of his [Mivart's] cases, as it seems to me, can be answered in a fairly satisfactory manner. He is very unfair, and never says what he must have known could be said on my side. He ignores the effect of use, and what I have said in all my later books and editions on the direct effects of the conditions of life and so-called spontaneous variation. I send you by this post a very clever, but ill-written review from N. America by a friend of Asa Gray, which I have republished. (245/2. Chauncey Wright in the "North American Review," Volume CXIII., reprinted by Darwin and published as a pamphlet (see "Life and Letters," III., page 145).) I am glad to hear about Huxley. You never read such strong letters Mivart wrote to me about respect towards me, begging that I would call on him, etc., etc.; yet in the "Q. Review" (245/3. See "Quarterly Review," July 1871; also "Life and Letters," III., page 147.) he shows the greatest scorn and animosity towards me, and with uncommon cleverness says all that is most disagreeable. He makes me the most arrogant, odious beast that ever lived. I cannot understand him; I suppose that accursed religious bigotry is at the root of it. Of course he is quite at liberty to scorn and hate me, but why take such trouble to express something more than friendship? It has mortified me a good deal. LETTER 246. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 4th [1871]. I am quite delighted that you think so highly of Huxley's article. (246/1. A review of Wallace's "Natural Selection," of Mivart's "Genesis of Species," and of the "Quarterly Review" article on the "Descent of Man" (July, 1871), published in the "Contemporary Review" (1871), and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," II., page 120.) I was afraid of saying all I thought about it, as nothing is so likely as to make anything appear flat. I thought of, and quite agreed with, your former saying that Huxley makes one feel quite infantile in intellect. He always thus acts on me. I exactly agree with what you say on the several points in the article, and I piled climax on climax of admiration in my letter to him. I am not so good a Christian as you think me, for I did enjoy my revenge on Mivart. He (i.e. Mivart) has just written to me as cool as a cucumber, hoping my health is better, etc. My head, by the way, plagues me terribly, and I have it light and rocking half the day. Farewell, dear old friend--my best of friends. LETTER 247. TO JOHN FISKE. (247/1. Mr. Fiske, who is perhaps best known in England as the author of "Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," had sent to Mr. Darwin some reports of the lectures given at Harvard University. The point referred to in the postscript in Mr. Darwin's letter is explained by the following extract from Mr. Fiske's work: "I have endeavoured to show that the transition from animality (or bestiality, stripping the word of its bad connotations) to humanity must have been mainly determined by the prolongation of infancy or immaturity which is consequent upon a high development of intelligence, and which must have necessitated the gradual grouping together of pithecoid men into more or less definite families." (See "Descent," I., page 13, on the prolonged infancy of the anthropoid apes.)) Down, November 9th, 1871. I am greatly obliged to you for having sent me, through my son, your lectures, and for the very honourable manner in which you allude to my works. The lectures seem to me to be written with much force, clearness, and originality. You show also a truly extraordinary amount of knowledge of all that has been published on the subject. The type in many parts is so small that, except to young eyes, it is very difficult to read. Therefore I wish that you would reflect on their separate publication, though so much has been published on the subject that the public may possibly have had enough. I hope that this may be your intention, for I do not think I have ever seen the general argument more forcibly put so as to convert unbelievers. It has surprised and pleased me to see that you and others have detected the falseness of much of Mr. Mivart's reasoning. I wish I had read your lectures a month or two ago, as I have been preparing a new edition of the "Origin," in which I answer some special points, and I believe I should have found your lectures useful; but my MS. is now in the printer's hands, and I have not strength or time to make any more additions. P.S.--By an odd coincidence, since the above was written I have received your very obliging letter of October 23rd. I did notice the point to which you refer, and will hereafter reflect more over it. I was indeed on the point of putting in a sentence to somewhat of the same effect in the new edition of the "Origin," in relation to the query--Why have not apes advanced in intellect as much as man? but I omitted it on account of the asserted prolonged infancy of the orang. I am also a little doubtful about the distinction between gregariousness and sociability. ...When you come to England I shall have much pleasure in making your acquaintance; but my health is habitually so weak that I have very small power of conversing with my friends as much as I wish. Let me again thank you for your letter. To believe that I have at all influenced the minds of able men is the greatest satisfaction I am capable of receiving. LETTER 248. TO E. HACKEL. Down, December 27th, 1871. I thank you for your very interesting letter, which it has given me much pleasure to receive. I never heard of anything so odd as the Prior in the Holy Catholic Church believing in our ape-like progenitors. I much hope that the Jesuits will not dislodge him. What a wonderfully active man you are! and I rejoice that you have been so successful in your work on sponges. (248/1. "Die Kalkschwamme: eine Monographie; 3 volumes: Berlin, 1872. H.J. Clark published a paper "On the Spongiae Ciliatae as Infusoria flagellata" in the "Mem. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc." Volume I., Part iii., 1866. See Hackel, op. cit., Volume I., page 24.) Your book with sixty plates will be magnificent. I shall be glad to learn what you think of Clark's view of sponges being flagellate infusorians; some observers in this country believe in him. I am glad you are going fully to consider inheritance, which is an all-important subject for us. I do not know whether you have ever read my chapter on pangenesis. My ideas have been almost universally despised, and I suppose that I was foolish to publish them; yet I must still think that there is some truth in them. Anyhow, they have aided me much in making me clearly understand the facts of inheritance. I have had bad health this last summer, and during two months was able to do nothing; but I have now almost finished a next edition of the "Origin," which Victor Carus is translating. (248/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 49.) There is not much new in it, except one chapter in which I have answered, I hope satisfactorily, Mr. Mivart's supposed difficulty on the incipient development of useful structures. I have also given my reasons for quite disbelieving in great and sudden modifications. I am preparing an essay on expression in man and the lower animals. It has little importance, but has interested me. I doubt whether my strength will last for much more serious work. I hope, however, to publish next summer the results of my long-continued experiments on the wonderful advantages derived from crossing. I shall continue to work as long as I can, but it does not much signify when I stop, as there are so many good men fully as capable, perhaps more capable, than myself of carrying on our work; and of these you rank as the first. With cordial good wishes for your success in all your work and for your happiness. LETTER 249. TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, April 15th [1872]. Very many thanks for your kind consideration. The correspondence was in the "Athenaeum." I got some mathematician to make the calculation, and he blundered and caused me much shame. I send scrap of proofs from last edition of the "Origin," with the calculation corrected. What grand work you did at Naples! I can clearly see that you will some day become our first star in Natural History. (249/1. Here follows the extract from the "Origin," sixth edition, page 51: "The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase. It will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred years old; if this be so, after a period of from 740 to 750 years, there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the first pair." In the fifth edition, page 75, the passage runs: "If this be so, at the end of the fifth century, there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair" (see "Athenaeum," June 5, July 3, 17, 24, 1869).) LETTER 250. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 10th [1872]. I received yesterday morning your present of that work to which I, for one, as well as so many others, owe a debt of gratitude never to be forgotten. I have read with the greatest interest all the special additions; and I wish with all my heart that I had the strength and time to read again every word of the whole book. (250/1. "Principles of Geology," Edition XII., 1875.) I do not agree with all your criticisms on Natural Selection, nor do I suppose that you would expect me to do so. We must be content to differ on several points. I differ must about your difficulty (page 496) (250/2. In Chapter XLIII. Lyell treats of "Man considered with reference to his Origin and Geographical Distribution." He criticizes the view that Natural Selection is capable of bringing about any amount of change provided a series of minute transitional steps can be pointed out. "But in reality," he writes, "it cannot be said that we obtain any insight into the nature of the forces by which a higher grade of organisation or instinct is evolved out of a lower one by becoming acquainted with a series of gradational forms or states, each having a very close affinity with the other."..."It is when there is a change from an inferior being to one of superior grade, from a humbler organism to one endowed with new and more exalted attributes, that we are made to feel that, to explain the difficulty, we must obtain some knowledge of those laws of variation of which Mr. Darwin grants that we are at present profoundly ignorant" (op. cit., pages 496-97).) on a higher grade of organisation being evolved out of lower ones. Is not a very clever man a grade above a very dull one? and would not the accumulation of a large number of slight differences of this kind lead to a great difference in the grade of organisation? And I suppose that you will admit that the difference in the brain of a clever and dull man is not much more wonderful than the difference in the length of the nose of any two men. Of course, there remains the impossibility of explaining at present why one man has a longer nose than another. But it is foolish of me to trouble you with these remarks, which have probably often passed through your mind. The end of this chapter (XLIII.) strikes me as admirably and grandly written. I wish you joy at having completed your gigantic undertaking, and remain, my dear Lyell, Your ever faithful and now very old pupil, CHARLES DARWIN. LETTER 251. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Sevenoaks, October 9th [1872]. I have just received your note, forwarded to me from my home. I thank you very truly for your intended present, and I am sure that your book will interest me greatly. I am delighted that you have taken up the very difficult and most interesting subject of the habits of insects, on which Englishmen have done so little. How incomparably more valuable are such researches than the mere description of a thousand species! I daresay you have thought of experimenting on the mental powers of the spiders by fixing their trap-doors open in different ways and at different angles, and observing what they will do. We have been here some days, and intend staying some weeks; for I was quite worn out with work, and cannot be idle at home. I sincerely hope that your health is not worse. LETTER 252. TO A. HYATT. (252/1. The correspondence with Professor Hyatt, of Boston, U.S., originated in the reference to his and Professor Cope's theories of acceleration and retardation, inserted in the sixth edition of the "Origin," page 149. Mr. Darwin, on receiving from Mr. Hyatt a copy of his "Fossil Cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Embryology," from the "Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool." Harvard, Volume III., 1872, wrote as follows (252/2. Part of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 154.):--) October 10th, 1872. I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me your valuable memoir on the embryology of the extinct cephalopods. The work must have been one of immense labour, and the results are extremely interesting. Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere regret at having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my "Origin of Species," in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views on acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that Professor Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly read with lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my library, on fossil cephalopods, with remarks on the subject. (252/3. The paper seems to be "On the Parallelism between the Different Stages of Life in the Individual and those in the Entire Group of the Molluscous Order Tetrabranchiata," from the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem." I., 1866-69, page 193. On the back of the paper is written, "I cannot avoid thinking this paper fanciful.") It seems also that I have quite misrepresented your joint view; this has vexed me much. I confess that I have never been able to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my part...As the case stands, the law of acceleration and retardation seems to me to be a simple [?] statement of facts; but the statement, if fully established, would no doubt be an important step in our knowledge. But I had better say nothing more on the subject, otherwise I shall perhaps blunder again. I assure you that I regret much that I have fallen into two such grave errors. LETTER 253. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN. (253/1. Mr. Hyatt replied in a long letter, of which only a small part is here given. Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, November 1872. The letter with which you have honoured me, bearing the date of October 10th, has just reached here after a voyage to America and back. I have long had it in mind to write you upon the subject of which you speak, but have been prevented by a very natural feeling of distrust in the worthiness and truth of the views which I had to present. There is certainly no occasion to apologise for not having quoted my paper. The law of acceleration and retardation of development was therein used to explain the appearance of other phenomena, and might, as it did in nearly all cases, easily escape notice. My relations with Prof. Cope are of the most friendly character; and although fortunate in publishing a few months ahead, I consider that this gives me no right to claim anything beyond such an amount of participation in the discovery, if it may be so called, as the thoroughness and worth of my work entitles me to... The collections which I have studied, it will be remembered, are fossils collected without special reference to the very minute subdivisions, such as the subdivisions of the Lower or Middle Lias as made by the German authors, especially Quenstedt and Oppel, but pretty well defined for the larger divisions in which the species are also well defined. The condition of the collections as regards names, etc., was chaotic, localities alone, with some few exceptions, accurate. To put this in order they were first arranged according to their adult characteristics. This proving unsatisfactory, I determined to test thoroughly the theory of evolution by following out the developmental history of each species and placing them within their formations, Middle or Upper Lias, Oolite or so, according to the extent to which they represented each other's characteristics. Thus an adult of simple structure being taken as the starting-point which we will call a, another species which was a in its young stage and became b in the adult was placed above it in the zoological series. By this process I presently found that a, then a b and a b c, c representing the adult stage, were very often found; but that practically after passing these two or three stages it did not often happen that a species was found which was a b c in the young and then became d in the adult. But on the other hand I very frequently found one which, while it was a in the young, skipped the stages b and c and became d while still quite young. Then sometimes, though more rarely, a species would be found belonging to the same series, which would be a in the young and with a very faint and fleeting resemblance to d at a later stage, pass immediately while still quite young to the more advanced characteristics represented by e, and hold these as its specific characteristics until old age destroyed them. This skipping is the highest exemplification, or rather manifestation, of acceleration in development. In alluding to the history of diseases and inheritance of characteristics, you in your "Origin of Species" allude to the ordinary manifestation of acceleration, when you speak of the tendency of diseases or characteristics to appear at younger periods in the life of the child than of its parents. This, according to my observations, is a law, or rather mode, of development, which is applicable to all characteristics, and in this way it is possible to explain why the young of later-occurring animals are like the adult stages of those which preceded them in time. If I am not mistaken you have intimated something of this sort also in your first edition, but I have not been able to find it lately. Of course this is a very normal condition of affairs when a series can be followed in this way, beginning with species a, then going through species a b to a b c, then a b d or a c d, and then a d e or simply a e, as it sometimes comes. Very often the acceleration takes place in two closely connected series, thus: a--ab--abd--ae---ad in which one series goes on very regularly, while another lateral offshoot of a becomes d in the adult. This is an actual case which can be plainly shown with the specimens in hand, and has been verified in the collections here. Retardation is entirely Prof. Cope's idea, but I think also easily traceable. It is the opponent of acceleration, so to speak, or the opposite or negative of that mode of development. Thus series may occur in which, either in size or characteristics, they return to former characteristics; but a better discussion of this point you will find in the little treatise which I send by the same mail as this letter, "On Reversions among the Ammonites." LETTER 254. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 4th, 1872. I thank you sincerely for your most interesting letter. You refer much too modestly to your own knowledge and judgment, as you are much better fitted to throw light on your own difficult problems than I am. It has quite annoyed me that I do not clearly understand yours and Prof. Cope's views (254/1. Prof. Cope's views may be gathered from his "Origin of the Fittest" 1887; in this book (page 41) is reprinted his "Origin of Genera" from the "Proc. Philadelph. Acad. Nat. Soc." 1868, which was published separately by the author in 1869, and which we believe to be his first publication on the subject. In the preface to the "Origin of the Fittest," page vi, he sums up the chief points in the "Origin of Genera" under seven heads, of which the following are the most important:--"First, that development of new characters has been accomplished by an ACCELERATION or RETARDATION in the growth of the parts changed...Second, that of EXACT PARALLELISM between the adult of one individual or set of individuals, and a transitional stage of one or more other individuals. This doctrine is distinct from that of an exact parallelism, which had already been stated by von Baer." The last point is less definitely stated by Hyatt in his letter of December 4th, 1872. "I am thus perpetually led to look upon a series very much as upon an individual, and think that I have found that in many instances these afford parallel changes." See also "Lamarck the Founder of Evolution, by A.S. Packard: New York, 1901.) and the fault lies in some slight degree, I think, with Prof. Cope, who does not write very clearly. I think I now understand the terms "acceleration" and "retardation"; but will you grudge the trouble of telling me, by the aid of the following illustration, whether I do understand rightly? When a fresh-water decapod crustacean is born with an almost mature structure, and therefore does not pass, like other decapods, through the Zoea stage, is this not a case of acceleration? Again, if an imaginary decapod retained, when adult, many Zoea characters, would this not be a case of retardation? If these illustrations are correct, I can perceive why I have been so dull in understanding your views. I looked for something else, being familiar with such cases, and classing them in my own mind as simply due to the obliteration of certain larval or embryonic stages. This obliteration I imagined resulted sometimes entirely from that law of inheritance to which you allude; but that it in many cases was aided by Natural Selection, as I inferred from such cases occurring so frequently in terrestrial and fresh-water members of groups, which retain their several embryonic stages in the sea, as long as fitting conditions are present. Another cause of my misunderstanding was the assumption that in your series a--ab--abd--ae,--------ad the differences between the successive species, expressed by the terminal letter, was due to acceleration: now, if I understand rightly, this is not the case; and such characters must have been independently acquired by some means. The two newest and most interesting points in your letter (and in, as far as I think, your former paper) seem to me to be about senile characteristics in one species appearing in succeeding species during maturity; and secondly about certain degraded characters appearing in the last species of a series. You ask for my opinion: I can only send the conjectured impressions which have occurred to me and which are not worth writing. (It ought to be known whether the senile character appears before or after the period of active reproduction.) I should be inclined to attribute the character in both your cases to the laws of growth and descent, secondarily to Natural Selection. It has been an error on my part, and a misfortune to me, that I did not largely discuss what I mean by laws of growth at an early period in some of my books. I have said something on this head in two new chapters in the last edition of the "Origin." I should be happy to send you a copy of this edition, if you do not possess it and care to have it. A man in extreme old age differs much from a young man, and I presume every one would account for this by failing powers of growth. On the other hand the skulls of some mammals go on altering during maturity into advancing years; as do the horns of the stag, the tail-feathers of some birds, the size of fishes etc.; and all such differences I should attribute simply to the laws of growth, as long as full vigour was retained. Endless other changes of structure in successive species may, I believe, be accounted for by various complex laws of growth. Now, any change of character thus induced with advancing years in the individual might easily be inherited at an earlier age than that at which it first supervened, and thus become characteristic of the mature species; or again, such changes would be apt to follow from variation, independently of inheritance, under proper conditions. Therefore I should expect that characters of this kind would often appear in later-formed species without the aid of Natural Selection, or with its aid if the characters were of any advantage. The longer I live, the more I become convinced how ignorant we are of the extent to which all sorts of structures are serviceable to each species. But that characters supervening during maturity in one species should appear so regularly, as you state to be the case, in succeeding species, seems to me very surprising and inexplicable. With respect to degradation in species towards the close of a series, I have nothing to say, except that before I arrived at the end of your letter, it occurred to me that the earlier and simpler ammonites must have been well adapted to their conditions, and that when the species were verging towards extinction (owing probably to the presence of some more successful competitors) they would naturally become re-adapted to simpler conditions. Before I had read your final remarks I thought also that unfavourable conditions might cause, through the law of growth, aided perhaps by reversion, degradation of character. No doubt many new laws remain to be discovered. Permit me to add that I have never been so foolish as to imagine that I have succeeded in doing more than to lay down some of the broad outlines of the origin of species. After long reflection I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists, as is now held by so many able naturalists, and perhaps by yourself. It is curious how seldom writers define what they mean by progressive development; but this is a point which I have briefly discussed in the "Origin." I earnestly hope that you may visit Hilgendorf's famous deposit. Have you seen Weismann's pamphlet "Einfluss der Isolirung," Leipzig, 1872? He makes splendid use of Hilgendorf's admirable observations. (254/2. Hilgendorf, "Monatsb. K. Akad." Berlin, 1866. For a semi-popular account of Hilgendorf's and Hyatt's work on this subject, see Romanes' "Darwin and after Darwin," I., page 201.) I have no strength to spare, being much out of health; otherwise I would have endeavoured to have made this letter better worth sending. I most sincerely wish you success in your valuable and difficult researches. I have received, and thank you, for your three pamphlets. As far as I can judge, your views seem very probable; but what a fearfully intricate subject is this of the succession of ammonites. (254/3. See various papers in the publications of the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist." and in the "Bulletin of the Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology.") LETTER 255. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, December 8th, 1872. The quickness and earnestness of your reply to my letter gives me the greatest encouragement, and I am much delighted at the unexpected interest which your questions and comments display. What you say about Prof. Cope's style has been often before said to me, and I have remarked in his writings an unsatisfactory treatment of our common theory. This, I think, perhaps is largely due to the complete absorption of his mind in the contemplation of his subject: this seems to lead him to be careless about the methods in which it may be best explained. He has, however, a more extended knowledge than I have, and has in many ways a more powerful grasp of the subject, and for that very reason, perhaps, is liable to run into extremes. You ask about the skipping of the Zoea stage in fresh-water decapods: is this an illustration of acceleration? It most assuredly is, if acceleration means anything at all. Again, another and more general illustration would be, if, among the marine decapods, a series could be formed in which the Zoea stage became less and less important in the development, and was relegated to younger and younger stages of the development, and finally disappeared in those to which you refer. This is the usual way in which the accelerated mode of development manifests itself; though near the lowest or earliest occurring species it is also to be looked for. Perhaps this to which you allude is an illustration somewhat similar to the one which I have spoken of in my series, a--ab--abc--ae--------ad, which like "a d" comes from the earliest of a series, though I should think from the entire skipping of the Zoea stage that it must be, like "a e," the result of a long line of ancestors. In fact, the essential point of our theory is, that characteristics are ever inherited by the young at earlier periods than they are assumed in due course of growth by the parents, and that this must eventually lead to the extinction or skipping of these characteristics altogether... Such considerations as these and the fact that near the heads of series or near the latest members of series, and not at the beginning, were usually found the accelerated types, which skipped lower characteristics and developed very suddenly to a higher and more complex standpoint in structure, led both Cope and [myself] into what may be a great error. I see that it has led you at least into the difficulty of which you very rightly complain, and which, I am sorry to see, has cost you some of your valuable time. We presumed that because characteristics were perpetually inherited at earlier stages, that this very concentration of the developed characteristics made room for the production of differences in the adult descendants of any given pair. Further, that in the room thus made other different characteristics must be produced, and that these would necessarily appear earlier in proportion as the species was more or less accelerated, and be greater or less in the same proportion. Finally, that in the most accelerated, such as "a c" or "a d," the difference would be so great as to constitute distinct genera. Cope and I have differed very much, while he acknowledged the action of the accumulated mode of development only when generic characteristics or greater differences were produced, I saw the same mode of development to be applicable in all cases and to all characteristics, even to diseases. So far the facts bore us out, but when we assumed that the adult differences were the result of the accelerated mode of development, we were perhaps upon rather insecure ground. It is evidently this assumption which has led you to misunderstand the theory. Cope founded his belief, that the adult characteristics were also the result of acceleration, if I rightly remember it, mainly upon the class of facts spoken of above in man where a sudden change into two organs may produce entirely new and unexpected differences in the whole organisation, and upon the changes which acceleration appeared to produce in the development of each succeeding species. Your difficulty in understanding the theory and the observations you have made show me at once what my own difficulties have been, but of these I will not speak at present, as my letter is spinning itself out to a fearful length. (255/1. After speaking of Cope's comparison of acceleration and retardation in evolution to the force of gravity in physical matters Mr. Hyatt goes on:--) Now it [acceleration] seems to me to explain less and less the origin of adult progressive characteristics or simply differences, and perhaps now I shall get on faster with my work. LETTER 256. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 14th [1872]. (256/1. In reply to the above letter (255) from Mr. Hyatt.) Notwithstanding the kind consideration shown in your last sentence, I must thank you for your interesting and clearly expressed letter. I have directed my publisher to send you a copy of the last edition of the "Origin," and you can, if you like, paste in the "From the Author" on next page. In relation to yours and Professor Cope's view on "acceleration" causing a development of new characters, it would, I think, be well if you were to compare the decapods which pass and do not pass through the Zoea stage, and the one group which does (according to Fritz Muller) pass through to the still earlier Nauplius stages, and see if they present any marked differences. You will, I believe, find that this is not the case. I wish it were, for I have often been perplexed at the omission of embryonic stages as well as the acquirement of peculiar stages appearing to produce no special result in the mature form. (256/2. The remainder of this letter is missing, and the whole of the last sentence is somewhat uncertainly deciphered. (Note by Mr. Hyatt.)) LETTER 257. TO A. HYATT. Down, February 13th, 1877. I thank you for your very kind, long, and interesting letter. The case is so wonderful and difficult that I dare not express any opinion on it. Of course, I regret that Hilgendorf has been proved to be so greatly in error (257/1. This refers to a controversy with Sandberger, who had attacked Hilgendorf in the "Verh. der phys.-med. Ges. zu Wurzburg," Bd. V., and in the "Jahrb. der Malakol. Ges." Bd. I., to which Hilgendorf replied in the "Zeitschr. d. Deutschen geolog. Ges." Jahrb. 1877. Hyatt's name occurs in Hilgendorf's pages, but we find no reference to any paper of this date; his well-known paper is in the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist." 1880. In a letter to Darwin (May 23rd, 1881) Hyatt regrets that he had no opportunity of a third visit to Steinheim, and goes on: "I should then have done greater justice to Hilgendorf, for whom I have such a high respect."), but it is some selfish comfort to me that I always felt so much misgiving that I never quoted his paper. (257/2. In the fifth edition of the "Origin" (page 362), however, Darwin speaks of the graduated forms of Planorbis multiformis, described by Hilgendorf from certain beds in Switzerland, by which we presume he meant the Steinheim beds in Wurtemberg.) The variability of these shells is quite astonishing, and seems to exceed that of Rubus or Hieracium amongst plants. The result which surprises me most is that the same form should be developed from various and different progenitors. This seems to show how potent are the conditions of life, irrespectively of the variations being in any way beneficial. The production of a species out of a chaos of varying forms reminds me of Nageli's conclusion, as deduced from the study of Hieracium, that this is the common mode in which species arise. But I still continue to doubt much on this head, and cling to the belief expressed in the first edition of the "Origin," that protean or polymorphic species are those which are now varying in such a manner that the variations are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. I am glad to hear of the Brunswick deposit, as I feel sure that the careful study of such cases is highly important. I hope that the Smithsonian Institution will publish your memoir. LETTER 258. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 18th [1873]. It was very good of you to give up so much of your time to write to me your last interesting letter. The evidence seems good about the tameness of the alpine butterflies, and the fact seems to me very surprising, for each butterfly can hardly have acquired its experience during its own short life. Will you be so good as to thank M. Humbert for his note, which I have been glad to read. I formerly received from a man, not a naturalist, staying at Cannes a similar account, but doubted about believing it. The case, however, does not answer my query--viz., whether butterflies are attracted by bright colours, independently of the supposed presence of nectar? I must own that I have great difficulty in believing that any temporary condition of the parents can affect the offspring. If it last long enough to affect the health or structure of the parents, I can quite believe the offspring would be modified. But how mysterious a subject is that of generation! Although my hypothesis of pangenesis has been reviled on all sides, yet I must still look at generation under this point of view; and it makes me very averse to believe in an emotion having any effect on the offspring. Allow me to add one word about blushing and shyness: I intended only to say the habit was primordially acquired by attention to the face, and not that each shy man now attended to his personal appearance. LETTER 259. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 28th, 1873. I write a line to wish you good-bye, as I hear you are off on Wednesday, and to thank you for the Dionoea, but I cannot make the little creature grow well. I have this day read Bentham's last address, and must express my admiration of it. (259/1. Presidential address to the Linnean Society, read May 24th, 1873.) Perhaps I ought not to do so, as he fairly crushes me with honour. I am delighted to see how exactly I agree with him on affinities, and especially on extinct forms as illustrated by his flat-topped tree. (259/2. See page 15 of separate copy: "We should then have the present races represented by the countless branchlets forming the flat-topped summit" of a genealogical tree, in which "all we can do is to map out the summit as it were from a bird's-eye view, and under each cluster, or cluster of clusters, to place as the common trunk an imaginary type of a genus, order, or class according to the depth to which we would go.") My recent work leads me to differ from him on one point--viz., on the separation of the sexes. (259/3. On the question of sexuality, see page 10 of Bentham's address. On the back of Mr. Darwin's copy he has written: "As long as lowest organisms free--sexes separated: as soon as they become attached, to prevent sterility sexes united--reseparated as means of fertilisation, adapted [?] for distant [?] organisms,--in the case of animals by their senses and voluntary movements,--with plants the aid of insects and wind, the latter always existed, and long retained." The two words marked [?] are doubtful. The introduction of freedom or attachedness, as a factor in the problem also occurs in "Cross and Self-fertilisation," page 462. I strongly suspect that sexes were primordially in distinct individuals; then became commonly united in the same individual, and then in a host of animals and some few plants became again separated. Do ask Bentham to send a copy of his address to "Dr. H. Muller, Lippstadt, Prussia," as I am sure it will please him GREATLY. ...When in France write me a line and tell me how you get on, and how Huxley is; but do not do so if you feel idle, and writing bothers you. LETTER 260. TO R. MELDOLA. (260/1. This letter, with others from Darwin to Meldola, is published in "Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," by E.B. Poulton, pages 199 et seq., London, 1896.) Southampton, August 13th, 1873. I am much obliged for your present, which no doubt I shall find at Down on my return home. I am sorry to say that I cannot answer your question; nor do I believe that you could find it anywhere even approximately answered. It is very difficult or impossible to define what is meant by a large variation. Such graduate into monstrosities or generally injurious variations. I do not myself believe that these are often or ever taken advantage of under nature. It is a common occurrence that abrupt and considerable variations are transmitted in an unaltered state, or not at all transmitted, to the offspring, or to some of them. So it is with tailless or hornless animals, and with sudden and great changes of colour in flowers. I wish I could have given you any answer. LETTER 261. TO E.S. MORSE. [Undated.] I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your kindness in sending me your essay on the Brachiopoda. (261/1. "The Brachiopoda, a Division of Annelida," "Amer. Assoc. Proc." Volume XIX., page 272, 1870, and "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., page 267, 1870.) I have just read it with the greatest interest, and you seem to me (though I am not a competent judge) to make out with remarkable clearness an extremely strong case. What a wonderful change it is to an old naturalist to have to look at these "shells" as "worms"; but, as you truly say, as far as external appearance is concerned, the case is not more wonderful than that of cirripedes. I have also been particularly interested by your remarks on the Geological Record, and on the lower and older forms in each great class not having been probably protected by calcareous valves or a shell. P.S.--Your woodcut of Lingula is most skilfully introduced to compel one to see its likeness to an annelid. LETTER 262. TO H. SPENCER. (262/1. Mr. Spencer's book "The Study of Sociology," 1873, was published in the "Contemporary Review" in instalments between May 1872 and October 1873.) October 31st [1873]. I am glad to receive to-day an advertisement of your book. I have been wonderfully interested by the articles in the "Contemporary." Those were splendid hits about the Prince of Wales and Gladstone. (262/2. See "The Study of Sociology," page 392. Mr. Gladstone, in protest against some words of Mr. Spencer, had said that the appearance of great men "in great crises of human history" were events so striking "that men would be liable to term them providential in a pre-scientific age." On this Mr. Spencer remarks that "in common with the ancient Greek Mr. Gladstone regards as irreligious any explanation of Nature which dispenses with immediate Divine superintendence." And as an instance of the partnership "between the ideas of natural causation and of providential interference," he instances a case where a prince "gained popularity by outliving certain abnormal changes in his blood," and where "on the occasion of his recovery providential aid and natural causation were unitedly recognised by a thanksgiving to God and a baronetcy to the doctor." The passage on Toryism is on page 395, where Mr. Spencer, with his accustomed tolerance, writes: "The desirable thing is that a growth of ideas and feelings tending to produce modification shall be joined with a continuance of ideas and feelings tending to preserve stability." And from this point of view he concludes it to be very desirable that "one in Mr. Gladstone's position should think as he does." The matter is further discussed in the notes to Chapter XVI., page 423.) I never before read a good defence of Toryism. In one place (but I cannot for the life of me recollect where or what it exactly was) I thought that you would have profited by my principle (i.e. if you do not reject it) given in my "Descent of Man," that new characters which appear late in life are those which are transmitted to the same sex alone. I have advanced some pretty strong evidence, and the principle is of great importance in relation to secondary sexual likenesses. (262/3. This refers to Mr. Spencer's discussion of the evolution of the mental traits characteristic of women. At page 377 he points out the importance of the limitation of heredity by sex in this relation. A striking generalisation on this question is given in the "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 285: that when the adult male differs from the adult female, he differs in the same way from the young of both sexes. Can this law be applied in the case in which the adult female possesses characters not possessed by the male: for instance, the high degree of intuitive power of reading the mental states of others and of concealing her own--characters which Mr. Spencer shows to be accounted for by the relations between the husband and wife in a state of savagery. If so, the man should resemble "the young of both sexes" in the absence of these special qualities. This seems to be the case with some masculine characteristics, and childishness of man is not without recognition among women: for instance, by Dolly Winthrop in "Silas Marner," who is content with bread for herself, but bakes cake for children and men, whose "stomichs are made so comical, they want a change--they do, I know, God help 'em.") I have applied it to man and woman, and possibly it was here that I thought that you would have profited by the doctrine. I fear that this note will be almost illegible, but I am very tired. LETTER 263. G.J. ROMANES TO CHARLES DARWIN. (263/1. This is, we believe, the first letter addressed by the late Mr. Romanes to Mr. Darwin. It was put away with another on the same subject, and inscribed "Romanes on Abortion, with my answer (very important)." Mr. Darwin's answer given below is printed from his rough draft, which is in places barely decipherable. On the subject of these letters consult Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," Volume II., page 99, 1895.) Dunskaith, Parkhill, Ross-shire, July 10th, 1874. Knowing that you do not dissuade the more attentive of your readers from communicating directly to yourself any ideas they may have upon subjects connected with your writings, I take the liberty of sending the enclosed copy of a letter, which I have recently addressed to Mr. Herbert Spencer. You will perceive that the subject dealt with is the same as that to which a letter of mine in last week's "Nature" [July 2nd, page 164] refers--viz., "Disuse as a Reducing Cause in Species." In submitting this more detailed exposition of my views to your consideration, I should like to state again what I stated in "Nature" some weeks ago, viz., that in propounding the cessation of selection as a reducing cause, I do not suppose that I am suggesting anything which has not occurred to you already. Not only is this principle embodied in the theory set forth in the article on Rudimentary Organs ("Nature," Volume IX.); but it is more than once hinted at in the "Origin," in the passages where rudimentary organs are said to be more variable than others, because no longer under the restraining influence of Natural Selection. And still more distinctly is this principle recognised in page 120. Thus, in sending you the enclosed letter, I do not imagine that I am bringing any novel suggestions under your notice. As I see that you have already applied the principle in question to the case of artificially-bred structures, I cannot but infer that you have pondered it in connection with naturally-bred structures. What objection, however, you can have seen to this principle in this latter connection, I am unable to divine; and so I think the best course for me to pursue is the one I adopt--viz., to send you my considerations in full. In the absence of express information, the most natural inference is that the reason you refuse to entertain the principle in question, is because you show the backward tendency of indiscriminate variability [to be] inadequate to contend with the conservative tendency of long inheritance. The converse of this is expressed in the words "That the struggle between Natural Selection on the one hand, and the tendency to reversion and variability on the other hand, will in the course of time cease; and that the most abnormally developed organs may be made constant, I see no reason to doubt" ("Origin," page 121). Certainly not, if, as I doubt not, the word "constant" is intended to bear a relative signification; but to say that constancy can ever become absolute--i.e., that any term of inheritance could secure to an organ a total immunity from the smallest amount of spontaneous variability--to say this would be unwarrantable. Suppose, for instance, that for some reason or other a further increase in the size of a bat's wing should now suddenly become highly beneficial to that animal: we can scarcely suppose that variations would not be forthcoming for Natural Selection to seize upon (unless the limit of possible size has now been reached, which is an altogether distinct matter). And if we suppose that minute variations on the side of increase are thus even now occasionally taking place, much more is it probable that similar variations on the side of decrease are now taking place--i.e., that if the conservative influence of Natural Selection were removed for a long period of time, more variations would ensue below the present size of bat's wings, than above it. To this it may be added, that when the influence of "speedy selection" is removed, it seems in itself highly probable that the structure would, for this reason, become more variable, for the only reason why it ever ceased to be variable (i.e., after attaining its maximum size), was because of the influence of selection constantly destroying those individuals in which a tendency to vary occurred. When, therefore, this force antagonistic to variability was removed, it seems highly probable that the latter principle would again begin to assert itself, and this in a cumulative manner. Those individuals in which a tendency to vary occurred being no longer cut off, they would have as good a chance of leaving progeny to inherit their fluctuating disposition as would their more inflexible companions. LETTER 264. TO G.J. ROMANES. July 16th, 1874. I am much obliged for your kind and long communication, which I have read with great interest, as well as your articles in "Nature." The subject seems to me as important and interesting as it is difficult. I am much out of health, and working very hard on a very different subject, so thus I cannot give your remarks the attention which they deserve. I will, however, keep your letter for some later time, when I may again take up the subject. Your letter makes it clearer to me than it ever was before, how a part or organ which has already begun from any cause to decrease, will go on decreasing through so-called spontaneous variability, with intercrossing; for under such circumstances it is very unlikely that there should be variation in the direction of increase beyond the average size, and no reason why there should not be variations of decrease. I think this expresses your view. I had intended this summer subjecting plants to [illegible] conditions, and observing the effects on variation; but the work would be very laborious, yet I am inclined to think it will be hereafter worth the labour. LETTER 265. TO T. MEEHAN. Down, October 9th, 1874. I am glad that you are attending to the colours of dioecious flowers; but it is well to remember that their colours may be as unimportant to them as those of a gall, or, indeed, as the colour of an amethyst or ruby is to these gems. Some thirty years ago I began to investigate the little purple flowers in the centre of the umbels of the carrot. I suppose my memory is wrong, but it tells me that these flowers are female, and I think that I once got a seed from one of them; but my memory may be quite wrong. I hope that you will continue your interesting researches. LETTER 266. TO G. JAGER. Down, February 3rd, 1875. I received this morning a copy of your work "Contra Wigand," either from yourself or from your publisher, and I am greatly obliged for it. (266/1. Jager's "In Sachen Darwins insbesondere contra Wigand" (Stuttgart, 1874) is directed against A. Wigand's "Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers" (Brunswick, 1874).) I had, however, before bought a copy, and have sent the new one to our best library, that of the Royal Society. As I am a very poor german scholar, I have as yet read only about forty pages; but these have interested me in the highest degree. Your remarks on fixed and variable species deserve the greatest attention; but I am not at present quite convinced that there are such independent of the conditions to which they are subjected. I think you have done great service to the principle of evolution, which we both support, by publishing this work. I am the more glad to read it as I had not time to read Wigand's great and tedious volume. LETTER 267. TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, March 13th, 1875. I write to-day so that there shall be no delay this time in thanking you for your interesting and long letter received this morning. I am sure that you will excuse brevity when I tell you that I am half-killing myself in trying to get a book ready for the press. (267/1. The MS. of "Insectivorous Plants" was got ready for press in March, 1875. Darwin seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the work.) I quite agree with what you say about advantages of various degrees of importance being co-selected (267/2. Mr. Chauncey Wright wrote (February 24th, 1875): "The inquiry as to which of several real uses is the one through which Natural Selection has acted...has for several years seemed to me a somewhat less important question than it seemed formerly, and still appears to most thinkers on the subject...The uses of the rattling of the rattlesnake as a protection by warning its enemies and as a sexual call are not rival uses; neither are the high-reaching and the far-seeing uses of the giraffe's neck 'rivals.'"), and aided by the effects of use, etc. The subject seems to me well worth further development. I do not think I have anywhere noticed the use of the eyebrows, but have long known that they protected the eyes from sweat. During the voyage of the "Beagle" one of the men ascended a lofty hill during a very hot day. He had small eyebrows, and his eyes became fearfully inflamed from the sweat running into them. The Portuguese inhabitants were familiar with this evil. I think you allude to the transverse furrows on the forehead as a protection against sweat; but remember that these incessantly appear on the foreheads of baboons. P.S.--I have been greatly pleased by the notices in the "Nation." LETTER 268. TO A. WEISMANN. Down, May 1st, 1875. I did not receive your essay for some days after your very kind letter, and I read german so slowly that I have only just finished it. (268/1. "Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" I. "Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus," 1875. The fact was previously known that two forms of the genus Vanessa which had been considered to be distinct species are only SEASONAL forms of the same species--one appearing in spring, the other in summer. This remarkable relationship forms the subject of the essay.) Your work has interested me greatly, and your conclusions seem well established. I have long felt much curiosity about season-dimorphism, but never could form any theory on the subject. Undoubtedly your view is very important, as bearing on the general question of variability. When I wrote the "Origin" I could not find any facts which proved the direct action of climate and other external conditions. I long ago thought that the time would soon come when the causes of variation would be fully discussed, and no one has done so much as you in this important subject. The recent evidence of the difference between birds of the same species in the N. and S. United States well shows the power of climate. The two sexes of some few birds are there differently modified by climate, and I have introduced this fact in the last edition of my "Descent of Man." (268/2. "Descent of Man," Edition II. (in one volume), page 423. Allen showed that many species of birds are more strongly coloured in the south of the United States, and that sometimes one sex is more affected than the other. It is this last point that bears on Weismann's remarks (loc. cit., pages 44, 45) on Pieris napi. The males of the alpine-boreal form bryoniae hardly differ from those of the German form (var. vernalis), while the females are strikingly different. Thus the character of secondary sexual differences is determined by climate.) I am, therefore, fully prepared to admit the justness of your criticism on sexual selection of lepidoptera; but considering the display of their beauty, I am not yet inclined to think that I am altogether in error. What you say about reversion (268/3. For instance, the fact that reversion to the primary winter-form may be produced by the disturbing effect of high temperature (page 7).) being excited by various causes, agrees with what I concluded with respect to the remarkable effects of crossing two breeds: namely, that anything which disturbs the constitution leads to reversion, or, as I put the case under my hypothesis of pangenesis, gives a good chance of latent gemmules developing. Your essay, in my opinion, is an admirable one, and I thank you for the interest which it has afforded me. P.S. I find that there are several points, which I have forgotten. Mr. Jenner Weir has not published anything more about caterpillars, but I have written to him, asking him whether he has tried any more experiments, and will keep back this letter till I receive his answer. Mr. Riley of the United States supports Mr. Weir, and you will find reference to him and other papers at page 426 of the new and much-corrected edition of my "Descent of Man." As I have a duplicate copy of Volume I. (I believe Volume II. is not yet published in german) I send it to you by this post. Mr. Belt, in his travels in Nicaragua, gives several striking cases of conspicuously coloured animals (but not caterpillars) which are distasteful to birds of prey: he is an excellent observer, and his book, "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," very interesting. I am very much obliged for your photograph, which I am particularly glad to possess, and I send mine in return. I see you allude to Hilgendorf's statements, which I was sorry to see disputed by some good German observer. Mr. Hyatt, an excellent palaeontologist of the United States, visited the place, and likewise assured me that Hilgendorf was quite mistaken. (268/4. See Letters 252-7.) I am grieved to hear that your eyesight still continues bad, but anyhow it has forced your excellent work in your last essay. May 4th. Here is what Mr. Weir says:-- "In reply to your inquiry of Saturday, I regret that I have little to add to my two communications to the 'Entomological Society Transactions.' "I repeated the experiments with gaudy caterpillars for years, and always with the same results: not on a single occasion did I find richly coloured, conspicuous larvae eaten by birds. It was more remarkable to observe that the birds paid not the slightest attention to gaudy caterpillars, not even when in motion,--the experiments so thoroughly satisfied my mind that I have now given up making them." LETTER 269. TO LAWSON TAIT. (269/1. The late Mr. Lawson Tait wrote to Mr. Darwin (June 2nd, 1875): "I am watching a lot of my mice from whom I removed the tails at birth, and I am coming to the conclusion that the essential use of the tail there is as a recording organ--that is, they record in their memories the corners they turn and the height of the holes they pass through by touching them with their tails." Mr. Darwin was interested in the idea because "some German sneered at Natural Selection and instanced the tails of mice.") June 11th, 1875. It has just occurred to me to look at the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 170), and it is certain that Bronn, in the appended chapter to his translation of my book into german, did advance ears and tail of various species of mice as a difficulty opposed to Natural Selection. I answered with respect to ears by alluding to Schobl's curious paper (I forget when published) (269/2. J. Schobl, "Das aussere Ohr der Mause als wichtiges Tastorgan." "Archiv. Mik. Anat." VII., 1871, page 260.) on the hairs of the ears being sensitive and provided with nerves. I presume he made fine sections: if you are accustomed to such histological work, would it not be worth while to examine hairs of tail of mice? At page 189 I quote Henslow (confirmed by Gunther) on Mus messorius (and other species?) using tail as prehensile organ. Dr. Kane in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition says that the Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox-tail tied to the neck, which they use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their teeth. (269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II., page 24, of E.K. Kane's "Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.) He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried in his tail. N.B. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by M'Clintock, not by Dr. Kane. (269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin bearing on Mr. Lawson Tait's idea of the respirator function of the fox's tail.) LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12th, 1875. I am correcting a second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract of potato graft-hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything about it? I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your experiments. I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the generative elements. The edition will be published in November, and then you will see all that I have collected, but I believe that you gave all the more important cases. The case of vine in "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I sent you, I think may only be a bud-variation not due to grafting. I have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of medusae. We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest, which I much required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine which seems splendid for graft hybridism. LETTER 271. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, November 7th, 1875. I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand. (271/1. "A Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875). In this paper Mr. Galton admits that the hypothesis of organic units "must lie at the foundation of the science of heredity," and proceeds to show in what respect his conception differs from the hypothesis of pangenesis. The copy of Mr. Galton's paper, which Darwin numbered in correspondence with the criticisms in his letter, is not available, and we are therefore only able to guess at some of the points referred to.) I cannot fully grasp, only here and there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ. I daresay this is chiefly due to muddy-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs," "fertile," and "sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself from association misleading to me) "stirp," "sept," "residue," etc., etc., quite confounded me. If I ask myself how you derive, and where you place the innumerable gemmules contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its whole life, I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that only a few will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a few passages with numbers, and here make a few remarks and express my opinion, as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to you. 1. If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every year I come to attribute more and more to such agency. (271/2. This seems to refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have been hastily read, and has been quite misunderstood. Mr. Galton has never expressed the view attributed to him.) 2. This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some of the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (271/3. Mr. Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There are not of a necessity two sexes, because swarms of creatures of the simplest organisations mainly multiply by some process of self-division.") 3. If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds, I cannot but think that bud-variations would be commoner than they are in a state of nature; nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit deficiencies which might be accounted for by the absence of the proper gemmules. I take a very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality. (271/4. Mr. Galton's idea is that in a bud or other asexually produced part, the germs (i.e. gemmules) may not be completely representative of the whole organism, and if reproduction is continued asexually "at each successive stage there is always a chance of some one or more of the various species of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr. Galton supposes, in sexual reproduction, where two parents contribute germs to the embryo the chance of deficiency of any of the necessary germs is greatly diminished. Darwin's "very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality" is no doubt that given in "Cross and Self Fertilisation"--i.e., that sexuality is equivalent to changed conditions, that the parents are not representative of different sexes, but of different conditions of life.) 4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins," by F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November, 1875, republished with additions in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr. Galton explains the striking dissimilarity of twins which is sometimes met with by supposing that the offspring in this case divide the available gemmules between them in such a way that each is the complement of the other. Thus, to put the case in an exaggerated way, similar twins would each have half the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc, whereas, in the case of dissimilar twins, one would have all the gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have N...Z.), and am curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are distinguished from twins from two ova. Nothing seems to me more curious than the similarity and dissimilarity of twins. 5. Awfully difficult to understand. 6. I have given almost the same notion. 7. I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new and additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt. 8. Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if you had received half the number of cases I have. (271/6. We are unable to determine to what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 refer.) I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have copied my scrawl. I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen. LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th [1875]. Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N. Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think of such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course! LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th [1875]. George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr. Galton's transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also to Mr. Galton's letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This is a curious mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by Darwin himself, and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may be supposed to be in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter is in "Nature," May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also sends forth its gemmules. You will no doubt have thought of the following objection to your views, and I should like to hear what your answer is. If two plants are crossed, it often, or rather generally, happens that every part of stem, leaf, even to the hairs, and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; and this hybrid will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we have nothing to do with the reproductive organs. There can hardly be a doubt from what we know that the same thing would occur with all those animals which are capable of budding, and some of these (as the compound Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly organised. LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876. (274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the asserted tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits in man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin's recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.) Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the "Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.), Dr. Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives the results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons in Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say how a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from an imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which Society took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals and Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin's doubts on the whole question. The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper, "Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page 435. On this subject see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I had given up atavism and extra digits, and telling me of new and good evidence of rudiments of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which I had myself seen, but given up owing to Gegenbaur's views); but, with re-growth failing me, I could not uphold my old notion. LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES. (275/1. Mr. Romanes' reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.) H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th [1876]. As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an "airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking Pan. and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed, and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that these vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird, and affect the sexual elements in such a manner that the wings of the offspring are developed in a like strengthened manner. I imagine he would say, in cases like those of Lord Morton's mare (275/3. A nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see "Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses, and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.), that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson," of the seminal fluid of the zebra set plasson vibrating in the mare; and that these vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was formed, and which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he explains reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views make nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume, would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The blue lines are Hackel's to call my attention. We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what they think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries to this young Society. LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd [1876]. It is very kind of you to send me the Japanese books, which are extremely curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he will be much obliged for the two papers which you have sent him. Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus (276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the viscid matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful thus to have explained the origin of the spider's web. LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN. (277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written by a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is unfortunately no longer to be found in Mr. Darwin's library.) [1876]. To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa. xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long! "From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction. The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all knowledge.) which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people" (Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii. 9). But with "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot of my inheritance" (Deut. xxxii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth it understand" (Psalm lxxxii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make the word "blind," which is what Isaiah uses in the passage alluded to.) "can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18). Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam" ("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth. And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense" (Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means "gone astray" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will hold thy name in the highest reverence, and "will at the same time glorify the God of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23). "The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and allow me to name my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi [i.e. the Levite]. Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M. [5]636 = A.D. 1876). LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877. When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."--From "Darwiniana," Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.) LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES. (279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.) My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th [1877]. I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me. It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin." With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay. (279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs, which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways. (279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased; but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not. I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature" (June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before whether he has really thrown much light on the subject. I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows, this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI., pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th) that it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression referred to. References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.) The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to me. LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877. I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to a unisexual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall be extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. "Monographiae Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De Candolle distinguishes:--Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers without a trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite flowers.) There is much justice in your criticisms (280/2. The passage criticised by De Candolle is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for this special purpose." De Candolle goes on to give an account of the "recherche linguistique," which, with characteristic fairness, he undertook to ascertain whether the word "purpose" differs in meaning from the corresponding French word "but.") on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been gradually modified for Natural Selection for a special purpose may, I think, use the above terms correctly, though no conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always spoken of a beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be interested by hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his paper on the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.), and I hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a new and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to make out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will tell us much. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, "Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the same subject by Francis Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn. Soc." XXII.)) If you have any decided opinion whether plants with conspicuously glaucous leaves are more frequent in hot than in temperate or cold, in dry than in damp countries, I should be grateful if you would add to your many kindnesses by informing me. Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son has been trying on a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat, and the results are most striking and far more favourable than I anticipated. LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES. (281/1. Published in the "Life and Letters" of Romanes, page 66.) Down, Saturday Night [1877]. I have just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the "Fortnightly Review," and was afterwards worked up into a book under the above title.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land. Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot--and in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. "And if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is quite new to me, and the argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4. At page 8 of the "Discourse" the speaker referred to the law "which Sir William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony--or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the desired effects," as constituting the "only logical barrier between Science and Superstition.")) on the law of parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21 (281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we must believe that the Deity acted "with no other apparent motive than to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.") is new to me. All strike me as very clear, and, considering small space, you have chosen your lines of reasoning excellently. The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion. Sunday Morning.--The above was written last night in the enthusiasm of the moment, and now--this dark, dismal Sunday morning--I fully agree with what I said. I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker--"It is dogged as does it" (281/6. "Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;--and yer reverence mustn't think as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if he'll only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking about it." (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in "The Last Chronicle of Barset," Volume II., 1867, page 188.))--and I have often and often thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it is yours--if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations. By the way, G. Jager has brought out in "Kosmos" a chemical sort of pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by Jager on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos," 1877.) I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments. I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure; but Down is an awkward place to reach. Would it be worth while to try if the "Fortnightly" would republish it [i.e. the lecture]? LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion by the Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the evening with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr. L. Huxley in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479). Mr. Huxley said, "But whether the that doctrine [of evolution] be true or whether it be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that from Aristotle's great summary of the biological knowledge of his time down to the present day, there is nothing comparable to the "Origin of Species," as a connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and vivified by a central idea." In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he described as a touch of the whip "tied round with ribbons," and this was perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University. Mr. Huxley said "Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance of being crushed beneath the accumulated marks of approbation of the whole civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy was finished, and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of academic appreciation.") Down, Monday night, November 19th [1877]. I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we met for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many generous things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said about me at the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with enthusiasm about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most generous friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate me. Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines. (282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the honorary degree.) "I am very much obliged for your kind congratulations about the LL.D. Why the Senate conferred it on me I know not in the least. I was astonished to hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other great Dons attended, and several such men have subscribed, as I am informed, for the picture for the University to commemorate the honour conferred on me." LETTER 283. TO W. BOWMAN. (283/1. We have not discovered to what prize the following letter to the late Sir W. Bowman (the well known surgeon) refers.) Down, February 22nd, 1878. I received your letter this morning, and it was quite impossible that you should receive an answer by 4 p.m. to-day. But this does not signify in the least, for your proposal seems to me a very good one, and I most entirely agree with you that it is far better to suggest some special question rather than to have a general discussion compiled from books. The rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty" would confine the subjects to be proposed. With respect to the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest two or three subjects about which, as it seems to me, information is much required; but these subjects would require a long course of experiment, and unfortunately there is hardly any one in this country who seems inclined to devote himself to experiments. LETTER 284. TO J. TORBITT. (284/1. Mr. Torbitt was engaged in trying to produce by methodical selection and cross-fertilisation a fungus-proof race of the potato. The plan is fully described in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348. The following letter is given in additional illustration of the keen interest Mr. Darwin took in the project.) Down, Monday, March 4th, 1878. I have nothing good to report. Mr. Caird called upon me yesterday; both he and Mr. Farrer (284/2. The late Lord Farrer.) have been most energetic and obliging. There is no use in thinking about the Agricultural Society. Mr. Caird has seen several persons on the subject, especially Mr. Carruthers, Botanist to the Society. He (Mr. Carruthers) thinks the attempt hopeless, but advances in a long memorandum sent to Mr. Caird, reasons which I am convinced are not sound. He specifies two points, however, which are well worthy of your consideration--namely, that a variety should be tested three years before its soundness can be trusted; and especially it should be grown under a damp climate. Mr. Carruthers' opinion on this head is valuable because he was employed by the Society in judging the varieties sent in for the prize offered a year or two ago. If I had strength to get up a memorial to Government, I believe that I could succeed; for Sir J. Hooker writes that he believes you are on the right path; but I do not know to whom else to apply whose judgment would have weight with Government, and I really have not strength to discuss the matter and convert persons. At Mr. Farrer's request, when we hoped the Agricultural Society might undertake it, I wrote to him a long letter giving him my opinion on the subject; and this letter Mr. Caird took with him yesterday, and will consider with Mr. Farrer whether any application can be made to Government. I am, however, far from sanguine. I shall see Mr. Farrer this evening, and will do what I can. When I receive back my letter I will send it to you for your perusal. After much reflection it seems to me that your best plan will be, if we fail to get Government aid, to go on during the present year, on a reduced scale, in raising new cross-fertilised varieties, and next year, if you are able, testing the power of endurance of only the most promising kind. If it were possible it would be very advisable for you to get some grown on the wet western side of Ireland. If you succeed in procuring a fungus-proof variety you may rely on it that its merits would soon become known locally and it would afterwards spread rapidly far and wide. Mr. Caird gave me a striking instance of such a case in Scotland. I return home to-morrow morning. I have the pleasure to enclose a cheque for 100 pounds. If you receive a Government grant, I ought to be repaid. P.S. If I were in your place I would not expend any labour or money in publishing what you have already done, or in sending seeds or tubers to any one. I would work quietly on till some sure results were obtained. And these would be so valuable that your work in this case would soon be known. I would also endeavour to pass as severe a judgment as possible on the state of the tubers and plants. LETTER 285. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, June 1st, 1878. I have at last found time to read [the] first chapter of your "Dolomit Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Wien, 1878.), and have been exceedingly interested by it. What a wonderful change in the future of geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the descent-theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to live to see such a step even proposed by any one. (285/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., pages 234, 235.) Nevertheless, I saw dimly that each bed in a formation could contain only the organisms proper to a certain depth, and to other there existing conditions, and that all the intermediate forms between one marine species and another could rarely be preserved in the same place and bed. Oppel, Neumayr, and yourself will confer a lasting and admirable service on the noble science of Geology, if you can spread your views so as to be generally known and accepted. With respect to the continental and oceanic periods common to the whole northern hemisphere, to which you refer, I have sometimes speculated that the present distribution of the land and sea over the world may have formerly been very different to what it now is; and that new genera and families may have been developed on the shores of isolated tracts in the south, and afterwards spread to the north. LETTER 286. TO J.W. JUDD. Down, June 27th, 1878. I am heartily glad to hear of your intended marriage. A good wife is the supreme blessing in this life, and I hope and believe from what you say that you will be as happy as I have been in this respect. May your future geological work be as valuable as that which you have already done; and more than this need not be wished for any man. The practical teaching of Geology seems an excellent idea. Many thanks for Neumayr, (286/1. Probably a paper on "Die Congerien und Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur Descendenz-Theorie," "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Heft 3), 1874-82.), but I have already received and read a copy of the same, or at least of a very similar essay, and admirably good it seemed to me. This essay, and one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.), which I have lately read, show what Palaeontology in the future will do for the classification and sequence of formations. It delighted me to see so inverted an order of proceeding--viz., the assuming the descent of species as certain, and then taking the changes of closely allied forms as the standard of geological time. My health is better than it was a few years ago, but I never pass a day without much discomfort and the sense of extreme fatigue. (286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting recollections of Mr. Darwin, written about 1883:-- "On this last occasion, when I congratulated him on his seeming better condition of health, he told me of the cause for anxiety which he had in the state of his heart. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that he had a kind of presentiment that his end was approaching. When I left him, he insisted on conducting me to the door, and there was that in his tone and manner which seemed to convey to me the sad intelligence that it was not merely a temporary farewell, though he himself was perfectly cheerful and happy. "It is impossible for me adequately to express the impression made upon my mind by my various conversations with Mr. Darwin. His extreme modesty led him to form the lowest estimate of his own labours, and a correspondingly extravagant idea of the value of the work done by others. His deference to the arguments and suggestions of men greatly his juniors, and his unaffected sympathy in their pursuits, was most marked and characteristic; indeed, he, the great master of science, used to speak, and I am sure felt, as though he were appealing to superior authority for information in all his conversations. It was only when a question was fully discussed with him that one became conscious of the fund of information he could bring to its elucidation, and the breadth of thought with which he had grasped it. Of his gentle, loving nature, of which I had so many proofs, I need not write; no one could be with him, even for a few minutes, without being deeply impressed by his grateful kindliness and goodness.") LETTER 287. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, August 15th, 1878. I thank you very sincerely for your kind and interesting letter. It would be false in me to pretend that I care very much about my election to the Institute, but the sympathy of some few of my friends has gratified me deeply. I am extremely glad to hear that you are going to publish a work on the more ancient fossil plants; and I thank you beforehand for the volume which you kindly say that you will send me. I earnestly hope that you will give, at least incidentally, the results at which you have arrived with respect to the more recent Tertiary plants; for the close gradation of such forms seems to me a fact of paramount importance for the principle of evolution. Your cases are like those on the gradation in the genus Equus, recently discovered by Marsh in North America. LETTER 288. TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. (288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891, Volume XLIII., page 415, together with a note from the late Duke of Argyll, in which he stated that the letter had been written to him by Mr. Darwin in reply to the question, "why it was that he did assume the unity of mankind as descended from a single pair." The Duke added that in the reply Mr. Darwin "does not repudiate this interpretation of his theory, but simply proceeds to explain and to defend the doctrine." On a former occasion the Duke of Argyll had "alluded as a fact to the circumstance that Charles Darwin assumed mankind to have arisen at one place, and therefore in a single pair." The letter from Darwin was published in answer to some scientific friends, who doubted the fact and asked for the reference on which the statement was based.) Down, September 23rd, 1878. The problem which you state so clearly is a very interesting one, on which I have often speculated. As far as I can judge, the improbability is extreme that the same well-characterised species should be produced in two distinct countries, or at two distinct times. It is certain that the same variation may arise in two distinct places, as with albinism or with the nectarine on peach-trees. But the evidence seems to me overwhelming that a well-marked species is the product, not of a single or of a few variations, but of a long series of modifications, each modification resulting chiefly from adaptation to infinitely complex conditions (including the inhabitants of the same country), with more or less inheritance of all the preceding modifications. Moreover, as variability depends more on the nature of the organism than on that of the environment, the variations will tend to differ at each successive stage of descent. Now it seems to me improbable in the highest degree that a species should ever have been exposed in two places to infinitely complex relations of exactly the same nature during a long series of modifications. An illustration will perhaps make what I have said clearer, though it applies only to the less important factors of inheritance and variability, and not to adaptation--viz., the improbability of two men being born in two countries identical in body and mind. If, however, it be assumed that a species at each successive stage of its modification was surrounded in two distinct countries or times, by exactly the same assemblage of plants and animals, and by the same physical conditions, then I can see no theoretical difficulty [in] such a species giving birth to the new form in the two countries. If you will look to the sixth edition of my "Origin," at page 100, you will find a somewhat analogous discussion, perhaps more intelligible than this letter. LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE." (289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535) criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.) Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th [1891]. In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed a very interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the inference that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I do not think myself that the letter bears this interpretation. But the point in its most general aspect is a very important one, and is often found to present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's writings. Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the existence of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore, I now do, with the addition of a few explanatory notes. LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869. (290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.) I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice, and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point. All that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful points, I was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further considering the point on which some two or three months ago I felt most inclined to differ--viz., on isolation--I find I differ very little. What I have to say is really not worth saying, but as I should be very sorry not to do whatever you asked, I will scribble down the slightly dissentient thoughts which have occurred to me. It would be an endless job to specify the points in which you have interested me; but I may just mention the relation of the extreme western flora of Europe (some such very vague thoughts have crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial period) with South Africa, and your remarks on the contrast of passive and active distribution. Page lxx.--I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet fully stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking of colonisation. Page lxxiv.--I have met with nothing which makes me in the least doubt that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively to their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place an individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and therefore specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic." He seems to mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph Hooker had quoted from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are more variable than those of small." [On large genera varying, see Letter 53.]) Hooker was convinced by my data, never as yet published in full, only abstracted in the "Origin." Page lxxviii.--I dispute whether a new race or species is necessarily, or even generally, descended from a single or pair of parents. The whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together--like our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through "unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of Argyll inverts the proposition.) When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to change a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid powers of multiplication have more than the most insignificant weight. These powers, I think, are related to greater or less destruction in early life. Page lxxix.--I still think you rather underrate the importance of isolation. I have come to think it very important from various grounds; the anomalous and quasi-extinct forms on islands, etc., etc., etc. With respect to areas with numerous "individually durable" forms, can it be said that they generally present a "broken" surface with "impassable barriers"? This, no doubt, is true in certain cases, as Teneriffe. But does this hold with South-West Australia or the Cape? I much doubt. I have been accustomed to look at the cause of so many forms as being partly an arid or dry climate (as De Candolle insists) which indirectly leads to diversified [?] conditions; and, secondly, to isolation from the rest of the world during a very long period, so that other more dominant forms have not entered, and there has been ample time for much specification and adaptation of character. Page lxxx.--I suppose you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae (290/4. It is doubtful whether Bentham did think so. In his 1870 address he says: "I cannot resist the opinion that all presumptive evidence is against European Proteaceae, and that all direct evidence in their favour has broken down upon cross-examination."), etc., etc., once extended over the world, leaving fragments in the south. You in several places speak of distribution of plants as if exclusively governed by soil and climate. I know that you do not mean this, but I regret whenever a chance is omitted of pointing out that the struggle with other plants (and hostile animals) is far more important. I told you that I had nothing worth saying, but I have given you my THOUGHTS. How detestable are the Roman numerals! why should not the President's addresses, which are often, and I am sure in this case, worth more than all the rest of the number, be paged with Christian figures? LETTER 291. TO R. MELDOLA. (291/1. "This letter was in reply to a suggestion that in his preface Mr. Darwin should point out by references to "The Origin of Species" and his other writings how far he had already traced out the path which Weismann went over. The suggestion was made because in a great many of the continental writings upon the theory of descent, many of the points which had been clearly foreshadowed, and in some cases even explicitly stated by Darwin, had been rediscovered and published as though original. In the notes to my edition of Weismann I have endeavoured to do Darwin full justice.--R.M." See Letter 310.) 4, Bryanston Street, November 26th, 1878. I am very sorry to say that I cannot agree to your suggestion. An author is never a fit judge of his own work, and I should dislike extremely pointing out when and how Weismann's conclusions and work agreed with my own. I feel sure that I ought not to do this, and it would be to me an intolerable task. Nor does it seem to me the proper office of the preface, which is to show what the book contains, and that the contents appear to me valuable. But I can see no objection for you, if you think fit, to write an introduction with remarks or criticisms of any kind. Of course, I would be glad to advise you on any point as far as lay in my power, but as a whole I could have nothing to do with it, on the grounds above specified, that an author cannot and ought not to attempt to judge his own works, or compare them with others. I am sorry to refuse to do anything which you wish. LETTER 292. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 18th, 1879. I have just finished your present of the Life of Hume (292/1. "Hume" in Mr. Morley's "English Men of Letters" series. Of the biographical part of this book Mr. Huxley wrote, in a letter to Mr. Skelton, January 1879 ("Life of T.H. Huxley," II., page 7): "It is the nearest approach to a work of fiction of which I have yet been guilty."), and must thank you for the great pleasure which it has given me. Your discussions are, as it seems to me, clear to a quite marvellous degree, and many of the little interspersed flashes of wit are delightful. I particularly enjoyed the pithy judgment in about five words on Comte. (292/2. Possibly the passage referred to is on page 52.) Notwithstanding the clearness of every sentence, the subjects are in part so difficult that I found them stiff reading. I fear, therefore, that it will be too stiff for the general public; but I heartily hope that this will prove to be a mistake, and in this case the intelligence of the public will be greatly exalted in my eyes. The writing of this book must have been awfully hard work, I should think. LETTER 293. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 4th [1879]. I thank you cordially for your letter. Your facts and discussion on the loss of the hairs on the legs of the caddis-flies seem to me the most important and interesting thing which I have read for a very long time. I hope that you will not disapprove, but I have sent your letter to "Nature" (293/1. Fritz Muller, "On a Frog having Eggs on its Back--On the Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc.": Muller's letter and one from Charles Darwin were published in "Nature," Volume XIX., page 462, 1879.), with a few prefatory remarks, pointing out to the general reader the importance of your view, and stating that I have been puzzled for many years on this very point. If, as I am inclined to believe, your view can be widely extended, it will be a capital gain to the doctrine of evolution. I see by your various papers that you are working away energetically, and, wherever you look, you seem to discover something quite new and extremely interesting. Your brother also continues to do fine work on the fertilisation of flowers and allied subjects. I have little or nothing to tell you about myself. I go slowly crawling on with my present subject--the various and complicated movements of plants. I have not been very well of late, and am tired to-day, so will write no more. With the most cordial sympathy in all your work, etc. LETTER 294. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 19th, 1879. Many thanks for the book. (294/1. Ernst Hackel's "Freedom in Science and Teaching," with a prefatory note by T.H. Huxley, 1879. Professor Hackel has recently published (without permission) a letter in which Mr. Darwin comments severely on Virchow. It is difficult to say which would have pained Mr. Darwin more--the affront to a colleague, or the breach of confidence in a friend.) I have read only the preface...It is capital, and I enjoyed the tremendous rap on the knuckles which you gave Virchow at the close. What a pleasure it must be to write as you can do! LETTER 295. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, October 21st, 1879. Although you are so kind as to tell me not to write, I must just thank you for the proofs of your paper, which has interested me greatly. (295/1. See "The Shell Mounds of Omori" in the "Memoirs of the Science Department of the Univ. of Tokio," Volume I., Part I., 1879. The ridges on Arca are mentioned at page 25. In "Nature," April 15th, 1880, Mr. Darwin published a letter by Mr. Morse relating to the review of the above paper, which appeared in "Nature," XXI., page 350. Mr. Darwin introduces Mr. Morse's letter with some prefatory remarks. The correspondence is republished in the "American Naturalist," September, 1880.) The increase in the number of ridges in the three species of Arca seems to be a very noteworthy fact, as does the increase of size in so many, yet not all, the species. What a constant state of fluctuation the whole organic world seems to be in! It is interesting to hear that everywhere the first change apparently is in the proportional numbers of the species. I was much struck with the fact in the upraised shells of Coquimbo, in Chili, as mentioned in my "Geological Observations on South America." Of all the wonders in the world, the progress of Japan, in which you have been aiding, seems to me about the most wonderful. LETTER 296. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 5th 1880. As this note requires no sort of answer, you must allow me to express my lively admiration of your paper in the "Nineteenth Century." (296/1. "Nineteenth Century," January 1880, page 93, "On the Origin of Species and Genera.") You certainly are a master in the difficult art of clear exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that the selection from a single varying individual or of a single varying organ will not suffice. You have worked in capitally Allen's admirable researches. (296/2. J.A. Allen, "On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida, etc." ("Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoolog. Harvard," Volume II.) As usual, you delight to honour me more than I deserve. When I have written about the extreme slowness of Natural Selection (296/3. Mr. Wallace makes a calculation based on Allen's results as to the very short period in which the formation of a race of birds differing 10 to 20 per cent. from the average in length of wing and strength of beak might conceivably be effected. He thinks that the slowness of the action of Natural Selection really depends on the slowness of the changes naturally occurring in the physical conditions, etc.) (in which I hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects of intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say excepting the last short sentence. (296/4. The passage in question is as follows: "I have also attempted to show that the causes which have produced the separate species of one genus, of one family, or perhaps of one order, from a common ancestor, are not necessarily the same as those which have produced the separate orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms from more remote common ancestors. That all have been alike produced by 'descent with modification' from a few primitive types, the whole body of evidence clearly indicates; but while individual variation with Natural Selection is proved to be adequate for the production of the former, we have no proof and hardly any evidence that it is adequate to initiate those important divergences of type which characterise the latter." In this passage stress should be laid (as Mr. Wallace points out to us) on the word PROOF. He by no means asserts that the causes which have produced the species of a genus are inadequate to produce greater differences. His object is rather to urge the difference between proof and probability.) LETTER 297. TO J.H. FABRE. (297/1. A letter to M. Fabre is given in "Life and Letters," III., page 220, in which the suggestion is made of rotating the insect before a "homing" experiment occurs.) Down, February 20th, 1880. I thank you for your kind letter, and am delighted that you will try the experiment of rotation. It is very curious that such a belief should be held about cats in your country (297/2. M. Fabre had written from Serignan, Vaucluse: "Parmi la population des paysans de mon village, l'habitude est de faire tourner dans un sac le chat que l'on se propose de porter ailleurs, et dont on veut empecher le retour. J'ignore si cette pratique obtient du succes."), I never heard of anything of the kind in England. I was led, as I believe, to think of the experiment from having read in Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia" (297/3. Admiral Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, "Le Nord de la Siberie, Voyage parmi les Peuplades de la Russie asiatique, etc." Paris, 1843.) of the wonderful power which the Samoyedes possess of keeping their direction in a fog whilst travelling in a tortuous line through broken ice. With respect to cats, I have seen an account that in Belgium there is a society which gives prizes to the cat which can soonest find its way home, and for this purpose they are carried to distant parts of the city. Here would be a capital opportunity for trying rotation. I am extremely glad to hear that your book will probably be translated into English. P.S.--I shall be much pleased to hear the result of your experiments. LETTER 298. TO J.H. FABRE. Down, January 21st, 1881. I am much obliged for your very interesting letter. Your results appear to me highly important, as they eliminate one means by which animals might perhaps recognise direction; and this, from what has been said about savages, and from our own consciousness, seemed the most probable means. If you think it worth while, you can of course mention my name in relation to this subject. Should you succeed in eliminating a sense of the magnetic currents of the earth, you would leave the field of investigation quite open. I suppose that even those who still believe that each species was separately created would admit that certain animals possess some sense by which they perceive direction, and which they use instinctively. On mentioning the subject to my son George, who is a mathematician and knows something about magnetism, he suggested making a very thin needle into a magnet; then breaking it into very short pieces, which would still be magnetic, and fastening one of these pieces with some cement on the thorax of the insect to be experimented on. He believes that such a little magnet, from its close proximity to the nervous system of the insect, would affect it more than would the terrestrial currents. I have received your essay on Halictus (298/1. "Sur les Moeurs et la Parthenogese des Halictes" ("Ann. Sc. Nat." IX., 1879-80).), which I am sure that I shall read with much interest. LETTER 299. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (299/1. On April 9th, 1880, Mr. Huxley lectured at the Royal Institution on "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The lecture was published in "Nature" and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," Volume II., page 227. Darwin's letter to Huxley on the subject is given in "Life and Letters," III., page 240; in Huxley's reply of May 10th ("Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," II., page 12) he writes: "I hope you do not imagine because I had nothing to say about 'Natural Selection' that I am at all weak of faith on that article...But the first thing seems to me to be to drive the fact of evolution into people's heads; when that is once safe, the rest will come easy.") Down, May 11th, 1880. I had no intention to make you write to me, or expectation of your doing so; but your note has been so far "cheerier" (299/2. "You are the cheeriest letter-writer I know": Huxley to Darwin. See Huxley's "Life," II., page 12.) to me than mine could have been to you, that I must and will write again. I saw your motive for not alluding to Natural Selection, and quite agreed in my mind in its wisdom. But at the same time it occurred to me that you might be giving it up, and that anyhow you could not safely allude to it without various "provisos" too long to give in a lecture. If I think continuously on some half-dozen structures of which we can at present see no use, I can persuade myself that Natural Selection is of quite subordinate importance. On the other hand, when I reflect on the innumerable structures, especially in plants, which twenty years ago would have been called simply "morphological" and useless, and which are now known to be highly important, I can persuade myself that every structure may have been developed through Natural Selection. It is really curious how many out of a list of structures which Bronn enumerated, as not possibly due to Natural Selection because of no functional importance, can now be shown to be highly important. Lobed leaves was, I believe, one case, and only two or three days ago Frank showed me how they act in a manner quite sufficiently important to account for the lobing of any large leaf. I am particularly delighted at what you say about domestic dogs, jackals, and wolves, because from mere indirect evidence I arrived in "Varieties of Domestic Animals" at exactly the same conclusion (299/3. Mr. Darwin's view was that domestic dogs descend from more than one wild species.) with respect to the domestic dogs of Europe and North America. See how important in another way this conclusion is; for no one can doubt that large and small dogs are perfectly fertile together, and produce fertile mongrels; and how well this supports the Pallasian doctrine (299/4. See Letter 80.) that domestication eliminates the sterility almost universal between forms slowly developed in a state of nature. I humbly beg your pardon for bothering you with so long a note; but it is your own fault. Plants are splendid for making one believe in Natural Selection, as will and consciousness are excluded. I have lately been experimenting on such a curious structure for bursting open the seed-coats: I declare one might as well say that a pair of scissors or nutcrackers had been developed through external conditions as the structure in question. (299/5. The peg or heel in Cucurbita: see "Power of Movement in Plants" page 102.) LETTER 300. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 5th, 1880. On reading over your excellent review (300/1. See "Nature," November 4th, 1880, page 1, a review of Volume I. of the publications of the "Challenger," to which Sir Wyville Thomson contributed a General Introduction.) with the sentence quoted from Sir Wyville Thomson, it seemed to me advisable, considering the nature of the publication, to notice "extreme variation" and another point. Now, will you read the enclosed, and if you approve, post it soon. If you disapprove, throw it in the fire, and thus add one more to the thousand kindnesses which you have done me. Do not write: I shall see result in next week's "Nature." Please observe that in the foul copy I had added a final sentence which I do not at first copy, as it seemed to me inferentially too contemptuous; but I have now pinned it to the back, and you can send it or not, as you think best,--that is, if you think any part worth sending. My request will not cost you much trouble--i.e. to read two pages, for I know that you can decide at once. I heartily enjoyed my talk with you on Sunday morning. P.S.--If my manuscript appears too flat, too contemptuous, too spiteful, or too anything, I earnestly beseech you to throw it into the fire. LETTER 301. CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE." (301/1. "Nature," November 11th, 1880, page 32.) Down, November 5th, 1880. Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection. I am sorry to find that Sir Wyville Thomson does not understand the principle of Natural Selection, as explained by Mr. Wallace and myself. If he had done so, he could not have written the following sentence in the Introduction to the Voyage of the "Challenger": "The character of the abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by Natural Selection." This is a standard of criticism not uncommonly reached by theologians and metaphysicians, when they write on scientific subjects, but is something new as coming from a naturalist. Professor Huxley demurs to it in the last number of "Nature"; but he does not touch on the expression of extreme variation, nor on that of evolution being guided only by Natural Selection. Can Sir Wyville Thomson name any one who has said that the evolution of species depends only on Natural Selection? As far as concerns myself, I believe that no one has brought forward so many observations on the effects of the use and disuse of parts, as I have done in my "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication"; and these observations were made for this special object. I have likewise there adduced a considerable body of facts, showing the direct action of external conditions on organisms; though no doubt since my books were published much has been learnt on this head. If Sir Wyville Thomson were to visit the yard of a breeder, and saw all his cattle or sheep almost absolutely true--that is, closely similar, he would exclaim: "Sir, I see here no extreme variation; nor can I find any support to the belief that you have followed the principle of selection in the breeding of your animals." From what I formerly saw of breeders, I have no doubt that the man thus rebuked would have smiled and said not a word. If he had afterwards told the story to other breeders, I greatly fear that they would have used emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists. (301/2. The following is the passage omitted by the advice of Huxley: see his "Life and Letters," II., page 14:-- "Perhaps it would have been wiser on my part to have remained quite silent, like the breeder; for, as Prof. Sedgwick remarked many years ago, in reference to the poor old Dean of York, who was never weary of inveighing against geologists, a man who talks about what he does not in the least understand, is invulnerable.") LETTER 302. TO G.J. ROMANES. (302/1. Part of this letter has been published in Mr. C. Barber's note on "Graft-Hybrids of the Sugar-Cane," in "The Sugar-Cane," November 1896.) Down, January 1st, 1881. I send the MS., but as far as I can judge by just skimming it, it will be of no use to you. It seems to bear on transitional forms. I feel sure that I have other and better cases, but I cannot remember where to look. I should have written to you in a few days on the following case. The Baron de Villa Franca wrote to me from Brazil about two years ago, describing new varieties of sugar-cane which he had raised by planting two old varieties in apposition. I believe (but my memory is very faulty) that I wrote that I could not believe in such a result, and attributed the new varieties to the soil, etc. I believe that I did not understand what he meant by apposition. Yesterday a packet of MS. arrived from the Brazilian Legation, with a letter in French from Dr. Glass, Director of the Botanic Gardens, describing fully how he first attempted grafting varieties of sugar-cane in various ways, and always failed, and then split stems of two varieties, bound them together and planted them, and then raised some new and very valuable varieties, which, like crossed plants, seem to grow with extra vigour, are constant, and apparently partake of the character of the two varieties. The Baron also sends me an attested copy from a number of Brazilian cultivators of the success of the plan of raising new varieties. I am not sure whether the Brazilian Legation wishes me to return the document, but if I do not hear in three or four days that they must be returned, they shall be sent to you, for they seem to me well deserving your consideration. Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely bound together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I should have succeeded like the old Dutchman. There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the documents, but I have marked with pencil where the important part begins. The attestations are in duplicate. Now, after reading them will you give me your opinion whether the main parts are worthy of publication in "Nature": I am inclined to think so, and it is good to encourage science in out-of-the-way parts of the world. Keep this note till you receive the documents or hear from me. I wonder whether two varieties of wheat could be similarly treated? No, I suppose not--from the want of lateral buds. I was extremely interested by your abstract on suicide. LETTER 303. TO K. SEMPER. Down, February 6th, 1881. Owing to all sorts of work, I have only just now finished reading your "Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper's "Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series), 1881.) Although a book of small size, it contains an astonishing amount of matter, and I have been particularly struck with the originality with which you treat so many subjects, and at your scrupulous accuracy. In far the greater number of points I quite follow you in your conclusions, but I differ on some, and I suppose that no two men in the world would fully agree on so many different subjects. I have been interested on so many points, I can hardly say on which most. Perhaps as much on Geographical Distribution as on any other, especially in relation to M. Wagner. (No! no! about parasites interested me even more.) How strange that Wagner should have thought that I meant by struggle for existence, struggle for food. It is curious that he should not have thought of the endless adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilisation of flowers. Again I was much interested about Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The reference is to Schmankewitsch's experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia salina in salt-water, gradually diluted with fresh-water until it became practically free from salt; the crustaceans gradually changed in the course of generations, until they acquired the characters of the genus Branchipus.) When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper I could not avoid thinking that some special explanation would hereafter be found for so curious a case. I speculated whether a species very liable to repeated and great changes of conditions, might not acquire a fluctuating condition ready to be adapted to either conditions. With respect to Arctic animals being white (page 116 of your book) it might perhaps be worth your looking at what I say from Pallas' and my own observations in the "Descent of Man" (later editions) Chapter VIII., page 229, and Chapter XVIII., page 542. I quite agree with what I gather to be your judgment, viz., that the direct action of the conditions of life on organisms, or the cause of their variability, is the most important of all subjects for the future. For some few years I have been thinking of commencing a set of experiments on plants, for they almost invariably vary when cultivated. I fancy that I see my way with the aid of continued self-fertilisation. But I am too old, and have not strength enough. Nevertheless the hope occasionally revives. Finally let me thank you for the very kind manner in which you often refer to my works, and for the even still kinder manner in which you disagree with me. With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from your book, etc. LETTER 304. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, February 13th, 1881. I received a week or two ago the work which you and Prof. Marion have been so kind as to send me. (304/1. Probably "L'Evolution du Regne vegetal," I. "Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it arrived I was much engaged, and this must be my excuse for not having sooner thanked you for it, and it will likewise account for my having as yet read only the preface. But I now look forward with great pleasure to reading the whole immediately. If I then have any remarks worth sending, which is not very probable, I will write again. I am greatly pleased to see how boldly you express your belief in evolution, in the preface. I have sometimes thought that some of your countrymen have been a little timid in publishing their belief on this head, and have thus failed in aiding a good cause. LETTER 305. TO R.G. WHITEMAN. Down, May 5th, 1881. In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the words "...insects in the water," I added the following sentence:-- "Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structures and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.) This sentence was omitted in the subsequent editions, owing to the advice of Prof. Owen, as it was liable to be misinterpreted; but I have always regretted that I followed this advice, for I still think the view quite reasonable. LETTER 306. TO A. HYATT. Down, May 8th, 1881. I am much obliged for your kind gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), which I shall be glad to read, as the case has always seemed to me a very curious one. It is all the kinder in you to send me this book, as I am aware that you think that I have done nothing to advance the good cause of the Descent-theory. (306/2. The above caused me to write a letter expressing a feeling of regret and humiliation, which I hope is still preserved, for certainly such a feeling, caused undoubtedly by my writings, which dealt too exclusively with disagreements upon special points, needed a strong denial. I have used the Darwinian theory in many cases, especially in explaining the preservation of differences; and have denied its application only in the preservation of fixed and hereditary characteristics, which have become essentially homologous similarities. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.)) (306/3. We have ventured to quote the passage from Prof. Hyatt's reply, dated May 23rd, 1881:-- "You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent. Perhaps this essay will lead you to a more correct view than you now have of my estimate, if I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your work in this direction. You will not take offence, however, if I tell you that your strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem and honour. I have striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no doubt have failed to convey this in my publications as it ought to be done." We find other equally strong and genuine expressions of respect in Prof. Hyatt's letters.) LETTER 307. TO LORD FARRER. (307/1. Mr. Graham's book, the "Creed of Science," is referred to in "Life and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the author is printed. With regard to chance, Darwin wrote: "You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.") Down, August 28th, 1881. I have been much interested by your letter, and am glad that you like Mr. Graham's book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer's letter of August 27th he refers to the old difficulty, in relation to design, of the existence of evil.) Everything which I read now soon goes out of my head, and I had forgotten that he implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks the more one feels the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. Though it does make one proud to see what science has achieved during the last half-century. This has been brought vividly before my mind by having just read most of the proofs of Lubbock's Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President of the British Association in 1881.), in which he will attempt to review the progress of all branches of science for the last fifty years. I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation to the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine that Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in the origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word chance, as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my "Variation under Domestication." On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much or any faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have been developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess; and what would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a good many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham. With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can apply to the infinite sufferings of animals--not only those of the body, but those of the mind--as when a mother loses her offspring or a male his female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for man? But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note in my dreadfully bad handwriting. The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in this family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever known any one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk with him on any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again. The clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I think, a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never complaining. I am so glad that he escaped very severe suffering during his last few days. I shall never see such a man again. Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer. LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES. (308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism" in "Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by the Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by Romanes (October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6), and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29) to which Darwin refers. The Duke's "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr. Darwin's disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of their master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths of conscientious observation, etc., etc.") Down, November 12th, 1881. I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last "Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke's last letter and flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say what I wished to say without taking up too much space; and what I had written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the gods I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better than I had done or could do. Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a man who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in the world you get through all your work astonishes me. Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some of your time. You ought not to swear at Roux's book, which has led you into this controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing--not that it will produce any effect on the Duke. LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR. (309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin: "After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give you the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the last two years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in the offspring, as has been observed by most writers on that subject, including yourself. The mule is more ass-like, and the hinny more horse-like, both in the respective lengths of the ears and the shape of the tail; but one point I have observed which I do not remember to have met with, and that is that the coat of the mule resembles that of its dam the mare, and that of the hinny its dam the ass, so that in this respect the prepotency of the sexes is reversed." The hermaphroditism in lepidoptera, referred to below, is said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus populi-ocellatus.) Down, December 29th, 1881. I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems to me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should be inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition of the two sexes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism does lead to reversion. I keep fairly well, but have not much strength, and feel very old. LETTER 310. TO R. MELDOLA. Down, February 2nd, 1882. I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without reading again Weismann's work and getting up the whole subject by reading my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not strength. I have now been working at other subjects for some years, and when a man grows as old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go back to old and half-forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am asked questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have had to give up much time to do a work, not at all concerning myself, but which I did not like to refuse. I must, however, somewhere draw the line, or my life will be a misery to me. I have read your preface, and it seems to me excellent. (310/1. "Studies in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's Preface. See Letter 291.) I am sorry in many ways, including the honour of England as a scientific country, that your translation has as yet sold badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher, though I shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but if you yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe a trifle, viz., ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you have undertaken on public grounds. LETTER 311. TO W. HORSFALL. Down, February 8th, 1882. In the succession of the older Formations the species and genera of trilobites do change, and then they all die out. To any one who believes that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e., formations contemporaneous with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt the sudden appearance of perfect trilobites and other organisms in the oldest known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for one, and many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or four piles of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and these are generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been charged with organic remains. With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algae, furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not been known that they developed into algae. LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER. Down, February 16th, 1882. I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with much pleasure. Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a line, but I was greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I wish that you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical figures give pleasure. But will not your brother artists scorn you for showing yourself so good an evolutionist? Perhaps they will say that allowance must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man as Huxley. This reminds me that I have just been reading the last volume of essays. By good luck I had not read that on Priestley (312/1. "Science and Culture, and other Essays": London, 1881. The fifth Essay is on Joseph Priestley (page 94).), and it strikes me as the most splendid essay which I ever read. That on automatism (312/2. Essay IX. (page 199) is entitled "On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its history.") is wonderfully interesting: more is the pity, say I, for if I were as well armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on this subject. But I am a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for he would run me through the body half a dozen times with his sharp and polished rapier before I knew where I was. I did not intend to have scribbled all this nonsense, but only to have thanked you for your present. Everybody whom I have seen and who has seen your picture of me is delighted with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at the Linnean Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs in the meeting-room of the Linnean Society.) CHAPTER 1.VI.--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867. LETTER 313. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Tuesday [December 12th, 1843]. I am very much obliged to you for your interesting letter. I have long been very anxious, even for as short a sketch as you have kindly sent me of the botanical geography of the southern hemisphere. I shall be most curious to see your results in detail. From my entire ignorance of Botany, I am sorry to say that I cannot answer any of the questions which you ask me. I think I mention in my "Journal" that I found my old friend the southern beech (I cannot say positively which species), on the mountain-top, in southern parts of Chiloe and at level of sea in lat. 45 deg, in Chonos Archipelago. Would not the southern end of Chiloe make a good division for you? I presume, from the collection of Brydges and Anderson, Chiloe is pretty well-known, and southward begins a terra incognita. I collected a few plants amongst the Chonos Islands. The beech being found here and peat being found here, and general appearance of landscape, connects the Chonos Islands and T. del Fuego. I saw the Alerce (313/1. "Alerse" is the local name of a South American timber, described in Capt. King's "Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'" page 281, and rather doubtfully identified with Thuja tetragona, Hook. ("Flora Antarctica," page 350.)) on mountains of Chiloe (on the mainland it grows to an enormous size, and I always believed Alerce and Araucaria imbricata to be identical), but I am ashamed to say I absolutely forget all about its appearance. I saw some Juniper-like bush in T. del Fuego, but can tell you no more about it, as I presume that you have seen Capt. King's collection in Mr. Brown's possession, provisionally for the British Museum. I fear you will be much disappointed in my few plants: an ignorant person cannot collect; and I, moreover, lost one, the first, and best set of the Alpine plants. On the other hand, I hope the Galapagos plants (313/2. See "Life and Letters," II., pages 20, 21, for Sir J.D. Hooker's notes on the beginning of his friendship with Mr. Darwin, and for the latter's letter on the Galapagos plants being placed in Hooker's hands.) (judging from Henslow's remarks) will turn out more interesting than you expect. Pray be careful to observe, if I ever mark the individual islands of the Galapagos Islands, for the reasons you will see in my "Journal." Menzies and Cumming were there, and there are some plants (I think Mr. Bentham told me) at the Horticultural Society and at the British Museum. I believe I collected no plants at Ascension, thinking it well-known. Is not the similarity of plants of Kerguelen Land and southern S. America very curious? Is there any instance in the northern hemisphere of plants being similar at such great distances? With thanks for your letter and for your having undertaken my small collection of plants, Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, C. DARWIN. Do remember my prayer, and write as well for botanical ignoramuses as for great botanists. There is a paper of Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."--"Linn. Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan d'Acunha, which from the want of general remarks and comparison, I found [torn out] to me a dead letter.--I presume you will include this island in your views of the southern hemisphere. P.S.--I have been looking at my poor miserable attempt at botanical-landscape-remarks, and I see that I state that the species of beech which is least common in T. del Fuego is common in the forest of Central Chiloe. But I will enclose for you this one page of my rough journal. LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844). I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you in observing whether the different islands have representative species filling the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected plants from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that I was able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and Charles Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in flower. Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species. (You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have interested me much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious to ascertain; it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though perhaps your statements will show that it has). It was merely this: suppose a genus with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main botanical regions, should you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges (i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for letters on large genera containing many varieties see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave his opinion: "On the whole I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact as one of great value, because the proportion of such species having a wide range is not large compared with other representative species of the same genus whose limits are confined." It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges ("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly wide-ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is found in every country except Australia, and the individual species generally range over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on the other hand, no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the world, and the individual species in their respective countries seldom range over wide spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus (the most mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not wide ranges, which is opposed to my query. I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e. Juncus or Juncaceae) are widely diffused over the world, and certainly many of their species have very wide ranges--in short, it seems that my question is whether there is any relation between the ranges of genera and of individual species, without any relation to the size of the genera. It is evident a genus might be widely diffused in two ways: 1st, by many different species, each with restricted ranges; and 2nd, by many or few species with wide ranges. Any light which you could throw on this I should be very much obliged for. Thank you most kindly, also, for your offer in a former letter to consider any other points; and at some future day I shall be most grateful for a little assistance, but I will not be unmerciful. Swainson has remarked (and Westwood contradicted) that typical genera have wide ranges: Waterhouse (without knowing these previous remarkers) made to me the same observation: I feel a laudable doubt and disinclination to believe any statement of Swainson; but now Waterhouse remarks it, I am curious on the point. There is, however, so much vague in the meaning of "typical forms," and no little ambiguity in the mere assertion of "wide ranges" (for zoologists seldom go into strict and disagreeable arithmetic, like you botanists so wisely do) that I feel very doubtful, though some considerations tempt me to believe in this remark. Here again, if you can throw any light, I shall be much obliged. After your kind remarks I will not apologise for boring you with my vague queries and remarks. LETTER 315. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 25th [1844]. Happy Christmas to you. (315/1. The following letter refers to notes by Sir J.D. Hooker which we have not seen. Though we are therefore unable to make clear many points referred to, the letter seems to us on the whole so interesting that it is printed with the omission of only one unimportant sentence. The subjects dealt with in the letter are those which were occupying Hooker's attention in relation to his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).) I must thank you once again for all your documents, which have interested me very greatly and surprised me. I found it very difficult to charge my head with all your tabulated results, but this I perfectly well know is in main part due to that head not being a botanical one, aided by the tables being in MS.; I think, however, to an ignoramus, they might be made clearer; but pray mind, that this is very different from saying that I think botanists ought to arrange their highest results for non-botanists to understand easily. I will tell you how, for my individual self, I should like to see the results worked out, and then you can judge, whether this be advisable for the botanical world. Looking at the globe, the Auckland and Campbell I., New Zealand, and Van Diemen's Land so evidently are geographically related, that I should wish, before any comparison was made with far more distant countries, to understand their floras, in relation to each other; and the southern ones to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I presume is to every one an almost involuntary standard of comparison. To understand the relation of the floras of these islands, I should like to see the group divided into a northern and southern half, and to know how many species exist in the latter-- 1. Belonging to genera confined to Australia, Van Diemen's Land and north New Zealand. 2. Belonging to genera found only on the mountains of Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and north New Zealand. 3. Belonging to genera of distribution in many parts of the world (i.e., which tell no particular story). 4. Belonging to genera found in the northern hemisphere and not in the tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics. I daresay all this (as far as present materials serve) could be extracted from your tables, as they stand; but to any one not familiar with the names of plants, this would be difficult. I felt particularly the want of not knowing which of the genera are found in the lowland tropics, in understanding the relation of the Antarctic with the Arctic floras. If the Fuegian flora was treated in the analogous way (and this would incidentally show how far the Cordillera are a high-road of genera), I should then be prepared far more easily and satisfactorily to understand the relations of Fuegia with the Auckland Islands, and consequently with the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Moreover, the marvellous facts of their intimate botanical relation (between Fuegia and the Auckland Islands, etc.) would stand out more prominently, after the Auckland Islands had been first treated of under the purely geographical relation of position. A triple division such as yours would lead me to suppose that the three places were somewhat equally distant, and not so greatly different in size: the relation of Van Diemen's Land seems so comparatively small, and that relation being in its alpine plants, makes me feel that it ought only to be treated of as a subdivision of the large group, including Auckland, Campbell, New Zealand... I think a list of the genera, common to Fuegia on the one hand and on the other to Campbell, etc., and to the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate, and southern tropical parts of South America and Australia, or New Zealand), would prominently bring out, at the same time, the relation between these Antarctic points one with another, and with the northern or Arctic regions. In Article III. is it meant to be expressed, or might it not be understood by this article, that the similarity of the distant points in the Antarctic regions was as close as between distant points in the Arctic regions? I gather this is not so. You speak of the southern points of America and Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and this closer proximity being correlative with a greater similarity of their plants: I find on the globe, that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only about one-fifth nearer than the whole distance between Port Jackson and Concepcion in Chile; and again, that Campbell Island and Fuegia are only one-fifth nearer than the east point of North New Zealand and Concepcion. Now do you think in such immense distances, both over open oceans, that one-fifth less distance, say 4,000 miles instead of 5,000, can explain or throw much light on a material difference in the degree of similarity in the floras of the two regions? I trust you will work out the New Zealand flora, as you have commenced at end of letter: is it not quite an original plan? and is it not very surprising that New Zealand, so much nearer to Australia than South America, should have an intermediate flora? I had fancied that nearly all the species there were peculiar to it. I cannot but think you make one gratuitous difficulty in ascertaining whether New Zealand ought to be classed by itself, or with Australia or South America--namely, when you seem (bottom of page 7 of your letter) to say that genera in common indicate only that the external circumstances for their life are suitable and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied, "Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed, though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such were my opinions.") Surely, cannot an overwhelming mass of facts be brought against such a proposition? Distant parts of Australia possess quite distinct species of marsupials, but surely this fact of their having the same marsupial genera is the strongest tie and plainest mark of an original (so-called) creative affinity over the whole of Australia; no one, now, will (or ought) to say that the different parts of Australia have something in their external conditions in common, causing them to be pre-eminently suitable to marsupials; and so on in a thousand instances. Though each species, and consequently genus, must be adapted to its country, surely adaptation is manifestly not the governing law in geographical distribution. Is this not so? and if I understand you rightly, you lessen your own means of comparison--attributing the presence of the same genera to similarity of conditions. You will groan over my very full compliance with your request to write all I could on your tables, and I have done it with a vengeance: I can hardly say how valuable I must think your results will be, when worked out, as far as the present knowledge and collections serve. Now for some miscellaneous remarks on your letter: thanks for the offer to let me see specimens of boulders from Cockburn Island; but I care only for boulders, as an indication of former climate: perhaps Ross will give some information... Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of Botany," 1843-44.) has surprised me much; do you not think it odd, the fewness of peculiar species, and their rarity on the alpine heights? I wish he had tabulated his results; could you not suggest to him to draw up a paper of such results, comparing these Islands with Madeira? surely does not Madeira abound with peculiar forms? A discussion on the relations of the floras, especially the alpine ones, of Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, would be, I should think, of general interest. How curious, the several doubtful species, which are referred to by Watson, at the end of his paper; just as happens with birds at the Galapagos...Any time that you can put me in the way of reading about alpine floras, I shall feel it as the greatest kindness. I grieve there is no better authority for Bourbon, than that stupid Bory: I presume his remark that plants, on isolated volcanic islands are polymorphous (i.e., I suppose, variable?) is quite gratuitous. Farewell, my dear Hooker. This letter is infamously unclear, and I fear can be of no use, except giving you the impression of a botanical ignoramus. LETTER 316. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 19th [1845]. ...I was very glad to hear Humboldt's views on migrations and double creations. It is very presumptuous, but I feel sure that though one cannot prove extensive migration, the leading considerations, proper to the subject, are omitted, and I will venture to say even by Humboldt. I should like some time to put the case, like a lawyer, for your consideration, in the point of view under which, I think, it ought to be viewed. The conclusion which I come to is, that we cannot pretend, with our present knowledge, to put any limit to the possible, and even probable, migration of plants. If you can show that many of the Fuegian plants, common to Europe, are found in intermediate points, it will be a grand argument in favour of the actuality of migration; but not finding them will not, in my eyes, much diminish the probability of their having thus migrated. My pen always runs away, in writing to you; and a most unsteady, vilely bad pace it goes. What would I not give to write simple English, without having to rewrite and rewrite every sentence. LETTER 317. TO J.D. HOOKER. Friday [June 29th, 1845]. I have been an ungrateful dog for not having answered your letter sooner, but I have been so hard at work correcting proofs (317/1. The second edition of the "Journal."), together with some unwellness, that I have not had one quarter of an hour to spare. I finally corrected the first third of the old volume, which will appear on July 1st. I hope and think I have somewhat improved it. Very many thanks for your remarks; some of them came too late to make me put some of my remarks more cautiously. I feel, however, still inclined to abide by my evaporation notion to account for the clouds of steam, which rise from the wooded valleys after rain. Again, I am so obstinate that I should require very good evidence to make me believe that there are two species of Polyborus (317/2. Polyborus Novae Zelandiae, a carrion hawk mentioned as very common in the Falklands.) in the Falkland Islands. Do the Gauchos there admit it? Much as I talked to them, they never alluded to such a fact. In the Zoology I have discussed the sexual and immature plumage, which differ much. I return the enclosed agreeable letter with many thanks. I am extremely glad of the plants collected at St. Paul's, and shall be particularly curious whenever they arrive to hear what they are. I dined the other day at Sir J. Lubbock's, and met R. Brown, and we had much laudatory talk about you. He spoke very nicely about your motives in now going to Edinburgh. He did not seem to know, and was much surprised at what I stated (I believe correctly) on the close relation between the Kerguelen and T. del Fuego floras. Forbes is doing apparently very good work about the introduction and distribution of plants. He has forestalled me in what I had hoped would have been an interesting discussion--viz., on the relation between the present alpine and Arctic floras, with connection to the last change of climate from Arctic to temperate, when the then Arctic lowland plants must have been driven up the mountains. (317/3. Forbes' Essay "On the Connection between the Distribution of the Existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles and the Geological Changes which have affected their Area," was published in 1846. See note, Letter 20.) I am much pleased to hear of the pleasant reception you received at Edinburgh. (317/4. Sir J.D. Hooker was a candidate for the Chair of Botany at Edinburgh. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 335, 342.) I hope your impressions will continue agreeable; my associations with auld Reekie are very friendly. Do you ever see Dr. Coldstream? If you do, would you give him my kind remembrances? You ask about amber. I believe all the species are extinct (i.e. without the amber has been doctored), and certainly the greater number are. (317/5. For an account of plants in amber see Goeppert and Berendt, "Der Bernstein und die in ihm befindlichen Pflanzenreste der Vorwelt," Berlin, 1845; Goeppert, "Coniferen des Bernstein," Danzig, 1883; Conwentz, "Monographie der Baltischen Bernsteinbaume," Danzig, 1890.) If you have any other corrections ready, will you send them soon, for I shall go to press with second Part in less than a week. I have been so busy that I have not yet begun d'Urville, and have read only first chapter of Canary Islands! I am most particularly obliged to you for having lent me the latter, for I know not where else I could have ever borrowed it. There is the "Kosmos" to read, and Lyell's "Travels in North America." It is awful to think of how much there is to read. What makes H. Watson a renegade? I had a talk with Captain Beaufort the other day, and he charged me to keep a book and enter anything which occurred to me, which deserved examination or collection in any part of the world, and he would sooner or later get it in the instructions to some ship. If anything occurs to you let me hear, for in the course of a month or two I must write out something. I mean to urge collections of all kinds on any isolated islands. I suspect that there are several in the northern half of the Pacific, which have never been visited by a collector. This is a dull, untidy letter. Farewell. As you care so much for insular floras, are you aware that I collected all in flower on the Abrolhos Islands? but they are very near the coast of Brazil. Nevertheless, I think they ought to be just looked at, under a geographical point of view. LETTER 318. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November [1845]. I have just got as far as Lycopodium in your Flora, and, in truth, cannot say enough how much I have been interested in all your scattered remarks. I am delighted to have in print many of the statements which you made in your letters to me, when we were discussing some of the geographical points. I can never cease marvelling at the similarity of the Antarctic floras: it is wonderful. I hope you will tabulate all your results, and put prominently what you allude to (and what is pre-eminently wanted by non-botanists like myself), which of the genera are, and which not, found in the lowland or in the highland Tropics, as far as known. Out of the very many new observations to me, nothing has surprised me more than the absence of Alpine floras in the S[outh] Islands. (318/1. See "Flora Antarctica," I., page 79, where the author says that "in the South...on ascending the mountains, few or no new forms occur." With regard to the Sandwich Islands, Sir Joseph wrote (page 75) that "though the volcanic islands of the Sandwich group attain a greater elevation than this [10,000 feet], there is no such development of new species at the upper level." More recent statements to the same effect occur in Grisebach, "Vegetation der Erde," Volume II., page 530. See also Wallace, "Island Life," page 307.) It strikes me as most inexplicable. Do you feel sure about the similar absence in the Sandwich group? Is it not opposed quite to the case of Teneriffe and Madeira, and Mediterranean Islands? I had fancied that T. del Fuego had possessed a large alpine flora! I should much like to know whether the climate of north New Zealand is much more insular than Tasmania. I should doubt it from general appearance of places, and yet I presume the flora of the former is far more scanty than of Tasmania. Do tell me what you think on this point. I have also been particularly interested by all your remarks on variation, affinities, etc.: in short, your book has been to me a most valuable one, and I must have purchased it had you not most kindly given it, and so rendered it even far more valuable to me. When you compare a species to another, you sometimes do not mention the station of the latter (it being, I presume, well-known), but to non-botanists such words of explanation would add greatly to the interest--not that non-botanists have any claim at all for such explanations in professedly botanical works. There is one expression which you botanists often use (though, I think, not you individually often), which puts me in a passion--viz., calling polleniferous flowers "sterile," as non-seed-bearing. (318/2. See Letter 16.) Are the plates from your own drawings? They strike me as excellent. So now you have had my presumptuous commendations on your great work. LETTER 319. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Friday [1845-6]. It is quite curious how our opinions agree about Forbes' views. (319/1. See Letter 20.) I was very glad to have your last letter, which was even more valuable to me than most of yours are, and that is saying, I assure you, a great deal. I had written to Forbes to object about the Azores (319/2. Edward Forbes supposed that the Azores, the Madeiras, and Canaries "are the last remaining fragments" of a continent which once connected them with Western Europe and Northern Spain. Lyell's "Principles," Edition XI., Volume II., page 410. See Forbes, op. cit.) on the same grounds as you had, and he made some answer, which partially satisfied me, but really I am so stupid I cannot remember it. He insisted strongly on the fewness of the species absolutely peculiar to the Azores--most of the non-European species being common to Madeira. I had thought that a good sprinkling were absolutely peculiar. Till I saw him last Wednesday I thought he had not a leg to stand on in his geology about his post-Miocene land; and his reasons, upon reflection, seem rather weak: the main one is that there are no deposits (more recent than the Miocene age) on the Miocene strata of Malta, etc., but I feel pretty sure that this cannot be trusted as evidence that Malta must have been above water during all the post-Miocene period. He had one other reason, to my mind still less trustworthy. I had also written to Forbes, before your letter, objecting to the Sargassum (319/3. Edward Forbes supposed that the Sargassum or Gulf-weed represents the littoral sea-weeds of a now submerged continent. "Mem. Geol. Survey Great Britain," Volume I., 1846, page 349. See Lyell's "Principles," II., page 396, Edition XI.), but apparently on wrong grounds, for I could see no reason, on the common view of absolute creations, why one Fucus should not have been created for the ocean, as well as several Confervae for the same end. It is really a pity that Forbes is quite so speculative: he will injure his reputation, anyhow, on the Continent; and thus will do less good. I find this is the opinion of Falconer, who was with us on Sunday, and was extremely agreeable. It is wonderful how much heterogeneous information he has about all sorts of things. I the more regret Forbes cannot more satisfactorily prove his views, as I heartily wish they were established, and to a limited extent I fully believe they are true; but his boldness is astounding. Do I understand your letter right, that West Africa (319/4. This is of course a misunderstanding.) and Java belong to the same botanical region--i.e., that they have many non-littoral species in common? If so, it is a sickening fact: think of the distance with the Indian Ocean interposed! Do some time answer me this. With respect to polymorphism, which you have been so very kind as to give me so much information on, I am quite convinced it must be given up in the sense you have discussed it in; but from such cases as the Galapagos birds and from hypothetical notions on variation, I should be very glad to know whether it must be given up in a slightly different point of view; that is, whether the peculiar insular species are generally well and strongly distinguishable from the species on the nearest continent (when there is a continent near); the Galapagos, Canary Islands, and Madeira ought to answer this. I should have hypothetically expected that a good many species would have been fine ones, like some of the Galapagos birds, and still more so on the different islands of such groups. I am going to ask you some questions, but I should really sometimes almost be glad if you did not answer me for a long time, or not at all, for in honest truth I am often ashamed at, and marvel at, your kindness in writing such long letters to me. So I beg you to mind, never to write to me when it bores you. Do you know "Elements de Teratologie (on monsters, I believe) Vegetale," par A. Moquin Tandon"? (319/5. Paris, 1841.) Is it a good book, and will it treat on hereditary malconformations or varieties? I have almost finished the tremendous task of 850 pages of A. St. Hilaire's Lectures (319/6. "Lecons de Botanique," 1841.), which you set me, and very glad I am that you told me to read it, for I have been much interested with parts. Certain expressions which run through the whole work put me in a passion: thus I take, at hazard, "la plante n'etait pas tout a fait ASSEZ AFFAIBLIE pour produire de veritables carpelles." Every organ or part concerned in reproduction--that highest end of all lower organisms--is, according to this man, produced by a lesser or greater degree of "affaiblissement"; and if that is not an AFFAIBLISSEMENT of language, I don't know what is. I have used an expression here, which leads me to ask another question: on what sort of grounds do botanists make one family of plants higher than another? I can see that the simplest cryptogamic are lowest, and I suppose, from their relations, the monocotyledonous come next; but how in the different families of the dicotyledons? The point seems to me equally obscure in many races of animals, and I know not how to tell whether a bee or cicindela is highest. (319/7. On use of terms "high" and "low" see Letters 36 and 70.) I see Aug. Hilaire uses a multiplicity of parts--several circles of stamens, etc.--as evidence of the highness of the Ranunculaceae; now Owen has truly, as I believe, used the same argument to show the lowness of some animals, and has established the proposition, that the fewer the number of any organ, as legs or wings or teeth, by which the same end is gained, the higher the animal. One other question. Hilaire says (page 572) that "chez une foule de plantes c'est dans le bouton," that impregnation takes place. He instances only Goodenia (319/8. For letters on this point, see Index s.v. Goodenia.), and Falconer cannot recollect any cases. Do you know any of this "foule" of plants? From reasons, little better than hypothetical, I greatly misdoubt the accuracy of this, presumptuous as it is; that plants shed their pollen in the bud is, of course, quite a different story. Can you illuminate me? Henslow will send the Galapagos scraps to you. I direct this to Kew, as I suppose, after your sister's marriage (on which I beg to send you my congratulations), you will return home. There are great fears that Falconer will have to go out to India--this will be a grievous loss to Palaeontology. LETTER 320. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 10th [1846]. I was much pleased to see and sign your certificate for the Geolog[ical Society]; we shall thus occasionally, I hope, meet. (320/1. Sir Joseph was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1846.) I have been an ungrateful dog not to have thanked you before this for the cake and books. The children and their betters pronounced the former excellent, and Annie wanted to know whether it was the gentleman "what played with us so." I wish we were at a more reasonable distance, that Emma and myself could have called on Lady Hooker with our congratulations on this occasion. It was very good of you to put in both numbers of the "Hort. Journal." I think Dean Herbert's article well worth reading. I have been so extravagant as to order M[oquin] Tandon (320/2. Probably "Elements de Teratologie Vegetale": Paris, 1841.), for though I have not found, as yet, anything particularly novel or striking, yet I found that I wished to score a good many passages so as to re-read them at some future time, and hence have ordered the book. Consequently I hope soon to send back your books. I have sent off the Ascension plants through Bunsen to Ehrenberg. There was much in your last long letter which interested me much; and I am particularly glad that you are going to attend to polymorphism in our last and incorrect sense in your works; I see that it must be most difficult to take any sort of constant limit for the amount of possible variation. How heartily I do wish that all your works were out and complete; so that I could quietly think over them. I fear the Pacific Islands must be far distant in futurity. I fear, indeed, that Forbes is going rather too quickly ahead; but we shall soon see all his grounds, as I hear he is now correcting the press on this subject; he has plenty of people who attack him; I see Falconer never loses a chance, and it is wonderful how well Forbes stands it. What a very striking fact is the botanical relation between Africa and Java; as you now state it, I am pleased rather than disgusted, for it accords capitally with the distribution of the mammifers (320/3. See Wallace, "Geogr. Distribution," Volume I., page 263, on the "special Oriental or even Malayan element" in the West African mammals and birds.): only that I judge from your letters that the Cape differs even more markedly than I had thought, from the rest of Africa, and much more than the mammifers do. I am surprised to find how well mammifers and plants seem to accord in their general distribution. With respect to my strong objection to Aug. St. Hilaire's language on AFFAIBLISSEMENT (320/4. This refers to his "Lecons de Botanique (Morphologie Vegetale)," 1841. Saint-Hilaire often explains morphological differences as due to differences in vigour. See Letter 319.), it is perhaps hardly rational, and yet he confesses that some of the most vigorous plants in nature have some of their organs struck with this weakness--he does not pretend, of course, that they were ever otherwise in former generations--or that a more vigorously growing plant produces organs less weakened, and thus fails in producing its typical structure. In a plant in a state of nature, does cutting off the sap tend to produce flower-buds? I know it does in trees in orchards. Owen has been doing some grand work in the morphology of the vertebrata: your arm and hand are parts of your head, or rather the processes (i.e. modified ribs) of the occipital vertebra! He gave me a grand lecture on a cod's head. By the way, would it not strike you as monstrous, if in speaking of the minute and lessening jaws, palpi, etc., of an insect or crustacean, any one were to say they were produced by the affaiblissement of the less important but larger organs of locomotion. I see from your letter (though I do not suppose it is worth referring to the subject) that I could not have expressed what I meant when I allowed you to infer that Owen's rule of single organs being of a higher order than multiple organs applied only to locomotive, etc.; it applies to every the most important organ. I do not doubt that he would say the placentata having single wombs, whilst the marsupiata have double ones, is an instance of this law. I believe, however, in most instances where one organ, as a nervous centre or heart, takes the places of several, it rises in complexity; but it strikes me as really odd, seeing in this instance eminent botanists and zoologists starting from reverse grounds. Pray kindly bear in mind about impregnation in bud: I have never (for some years having been on the look-out) heard of an instance: I have long wished to know how it was in Subularia, or some such name, which grows on the bottom of Scotch lakes, and likewise in a grassy plant, which lives in brackish water, I quite forget name, near Thames; elder botanists doubted whether it was a Phanerogam. When we meet I will tell you why I doubt this bud-impregnation. We are at present in a state of utmost confusion, as we have pulled all our offices down and are going to rebuild and alter them. I am personally in a state of utmost confusion also, for my cruel wife has persuaded me to leave off snuff for a month; and I am most lethargic, stupid, and melancholy in consequence. Farewell, my dear Hooker. Ever yours. LETTER 321. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 19th [1855]. Thank you for your list of R.S. candidates, which will be very useful to me. I have thought a good deal about my salting experiments (321/1. For an account of Darwin's experiments on the effect of salt water on the germination of seeds, see "Life and Letters," II., page 54. In April he wrote to the "Gardeners' Chronicle" asking for information, and his results were published in the same journal, May 26th and November 24th, 1855; also in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1857.), and really think they are worth pursuing to a certain extent; but I hardly see the use (at least, the use equivalent to the enormous labour) of trying the experiment on the immense scale suggested by you. I should think a few seeds of the leading orders, or a few seeds of each of the classes mentioned by you, with albumen of different kinds would suffice to show the possibility of considerable sea-transportal. To tell whether any particular insular flora had thus been transported would require that each species should be examined. Will you look through these printed lists, and if you can, mark with red cross such as you would suggest? In truth, I fear I impose far more on your great kindness, my dear Hooker, than I have any claim; but you offered this, for I never thought of asking you for more than a suggestion. I do not think I could manage more than forty or fifty kinds at a time, for the water, I find, must be renewed every other day, as it gets to smell horribly: and I do not think your plan good of little packets of cambric, as this entangles so much air. I shall keep the great receptacle with salt water with the forty or fifty little bottles, partly open, immersed in it, in the cellar for uniform temperature. I must plant out of doors, as I have no greenhouse. I told you I had inserted notice in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and to-day I have heard from Berkeley that he has already sent an assortment of seeds to Margate for some friend to put in salt water; so I suppose he thinks the experiment worth trying, as he has thus so very promptly taken it into his own hands. (321/2. Rev. M.J. Berkeley published on the subject in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," September 1st, 1855.) Reading this over, it sounds as if I were offended!!! which I need not say is not so. (321/3. Added afterwards between the lines.) I may just mention that the seeds mentioned in my former note have all germinated after fourteen days' immersion, except the cabbages all dead, and the radishes have had their germination delayed and several I think dead; cress still all most vigorous. French spinach, oats, barley, canary-seed, borage, beet have germinated after seven days' immersion. It is quite surprising that the radishes should have grown, for the salt water was putrid to an extent which I could not have thought credible had I not smelt it myself, as was the water with the cabbage-seed. LETTER 322. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 10th [1855]. If being thoroughly interested with your letters makes me worthy of them, I am very worthy. I have raised some seedling Sensitive Plants, but if you can READILY spare me a moderately sized plant, I shall be glad of it. You encourage me so, that I will slowly go on salting seeds. I have not, I see, explained myself, to let you suppose that I objected to such cases as the former union of England and the Continent; I look at this case as proved by animals, etc., etc.; and, indeed, it would be an astounding fact if the land had kept so steady as that they had not been united, with Snowdon elevated 1,300 feet in recent times, etc., etc. It is only against the former union with the oceanic volcanic islands that I am vehement. (322/1. See "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 72, 74, 80, 109.) What a perplexing case New Zealand does seem: is not the absence of Leguminosae, etc., etc., FULLY as much opposed to continental connexion as to any other theory? What a curious fact you state about distribution and lowness going together. The presence of a frog in New Zealand seems to me a strongish fact for continental connexion, for I assume that sea water would kill spawn, but I shall try. The spawn, I find, will live about ten days out of water, but I do not think it could possibly stick to a bird. What you say about no one realising creation strikes me as very true; but I think and hope that there is nearly as much difference between trying to find out whether species of a genus have had a common ancestor and concerning oneself with the first origin of life, as between making out the laws of chemical attraction and the first origin of matter. I thought that Gray's letter had come open to you, and that you had read it: you will see what I asked--viz., for habitats of the alpine plants, but I presume there will be nothing new to you. Please return both. How pleasantly Gray takes my request, and I think I shall have done a good turn if I make him write a paper on geographical distribution of plants of United States. I have written him a very long letter, telling him some of the points about which I should feel curious. But on my life it is sublimely ridiculous, my making suggestions to such a man. I cannot help thinking that what you say about low plants being widely distributed and standing injurious conditions better than higher ones (but is not this most difficult to show?) is equally favourable to sea-transport, to continental connexions, and all other means. Pray do not suppose that I fancy that if I could show that nearly all seeds could stand an almost indefinite period of immersion in sea-water, that I have done more than one EXTREMELY SMALL step in solving the problem of distribution, for I can quite appreciate the importance of the fact you point out; and then the directions of currents in past and present times have to be considered!! I shall be very curious to hear Berkeley's results in the salting line. With respect to geological changes, I ought to be one of the last men to undervalue them after my map of coral islands, and after what I have seen of elevation on coast of America. Farewell. I hope my letters do not bother you. Again, and for the last time, I say that I should be extremely vexed if ever you write to me against the grain or when tired. LETTER 323. TO J.S HENSLOW. Down, July 2nd [1855]. Very many thanks for all you have done, and so very kindly promise to do for me. Will you make a present to each of the little girls (if not too big and grandiose) of six pence (for which I send stamps), who are going to collect seeds for me: viz., Lychnis, white, red, and flesh-colour (if such occur). ...Will you be so kind as to look at them before sent, just to see positively that they are correct, for remember how ignorant botanically I am. Do you see the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and did you notice some little experiments of mine on salting seeds? Celery and onion seed have come up after eighty-five days' immersion in the salt water, which seems to me surprising, and I think throws some light on the wide dispersion of certain plants. Now, it has occurred to me that it would be an interesting way of testing the probability of sea-transportal of seeds, to make a list of all the European plants found in the Azores--a very oceanic archipelago--collect the seeds, and try if they would stand a pretty long immersion. Do you think the most able of your little girls would like to collect for me a packet of seeds of such Azorean plants as grow near Hitcham, I paying, say 3 pence for each packet: it would put a few shillings into their pockets, and would be an enormous advantage to me, for I grudge the time to collect the seeds, more especially as I have to learn the plants! The experiment seems to me worth trying: what do you think? Should you object offering for me this reward or payment to your little girls? You would have to select the most conscientious ones, that I might not get wrong seeds. I have just been comparing the lists, and I suspect you would not have very many of the Azorean plants. You have, however, Ranunculus repens, Ranunculus parviflorus, Papaver rhoeas,? Papaver dubium,? Chelidonium majus,? Fumaria officinalis.? All these are Azorean plants. With respect to cultivating plants, I mean to begin on very few, for I may find it too troublesome. I have already had for some months primroses and cowslips, strongly manured with guano, and with flowers picked off, and one cowslip made to grow in shade; and next spring I shall collect seed. I think you have quite misunderstood me in regard to my object in getting you to mark in accompanying list with (x) all the "close species" (323/1. See Letter 279.) i.e., such as you do not think to be varieties, but which nevertheless are very closely allied; it has nothing whatever to do with their cultivation, but I cannot tell you [my] object, as it might unconsciously influence you in marking them. Will you draw your pencil right through all the names of those (few) species, of which you may know nothing. Afterwards, when done, I will tell you my object--not that it is worth telling, though I myself am very curious on the subject. I know and can perceive that the definition of "close species" is very vague, and therefore I should not care for the list being marked by any one, except by such as yourself. Forgive this long letter. I thank you heartily for all your assistance. My dear old Master, Yours affectionately, C. Darwin. Perhaps 3 pence would be hardly enough, and if the number of kinds does not turn out very great it shall be 6 pence per packet. LETTER 324. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. (324/1. In reply to Darwin's letter, June 8th, 1855, given in "Life and Letters," II., page 61.) Harvard University, Cambridge, U.S., June 30th, 1855. Your long letter of the 8th inst. is full of interest to me, and I shall follow out your hints as far as I can. I rejoice in furnishing facts to others to work up in their bearing on general questions, and feel it the more my duty to do so inasmuch as from preoccupation of mind and time and want of experience I am unable to contribute direct original investigations of the sort to the advancement of science. Your request at the close of your letter, which you have such needless hesitation in making, is just the sort of one which it is easy for me to reply to, as it lies directly in my way. It would probably pass out of my mind, however, at the time you propose, so I will attend to it at once, to fill up the intervals of time left me while attending to one or two pupils. So I take some unbound sheets of a copy of the "Manual," and mark off the "close species" by connecting them with a bracket. Those thus connected, some of them, I should in revision unite under one, many more Dr. Hooker would unite, and for the rest it would not be extraordinary if, in any case, the discovery of intermediate forms compelled their union. As I have noted on the blank page of the sheets I send you (through Sir William Hooker), I suppose that if we extended the area, say to that of our flora of North America, we should find that the proportion of "close species" to the whole flora increased considerably. But here I speak at a venture. Some day I will test it for a few families. If you take for comparison with what I send you, the "British Flora," or Koch's "Flora Germanica," or Godron's "Flora of France," and mark the "close species" on the same principle, you will doubtless find a much greater number. Of course you will not infer from this that the two floras differ in this respect; since the difference is probably owing to the facts that (1) there have not been so many observers here bent upon detecting differences; and (2) our species, thanks mostly to Dr. Torrey and myself, have been more thoroughly castigated. What stands for one species in the "Manual" would figure in almost any European flora as two, three, or more, in a very considerable number of cases. In boldly reducing nominal species J. Hooker is doing a good work; but his vocation--like that of any other reformer--exposes him to temptations and dangers. Because you have shown that a and b are so connected by intermediate forms that we cannot do otherwise than regard them as variations of one species, we may not conclude that c and d, differing much in the same way and to the same degree, are of one species, before an equal amount of evidence is actually obtained. That is, when two sets of individuals exhibit any grave differences, the burden of proof of their common origin lies with the person who takes that view; and each case must be decided on its own evidence, and not on analogy, if our conclusions in this way are to be of real value. Of course we must often jump at conclusions from imperfect evidence. I should like to write an essay on species some day; but before I should have time to do it, in my plodding way, I hope you or Hooker will do it, and much better far. I am most glad to be in conference with Hooker and yourself on these matters, and I think we may, or rather you may, in a few years settle the question as to whether Agassiz's or Hooker's views are correct; they are certainly widely different. Apropos to this, many thanks for the paper containing your experiments on seeds exposed to sea water. Why has nobody thought of trying the experiment before, instead of taking it for granted that salt water kills seeds? I shall have it nearly all reprinted in "Silliman's Journal" as a nut for Agassiz to crack. LETTER 325. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 2nd [1856?] I have received your very kind note of April 8th. In truth it is preposterous in me to give you hints; but it will give me real pleasure to write to you just as I talk to Hooker, who says my questions are sometimes suggestive owing to my comparing the ranges, etc., in different kingdoms of Nature. I will make no further apologies about my presumption; but will just tell you (though I am certain there will be VERY little new in what I suggest and ask) the points on which I am very anxious to hear about. I forget whether you include Arctic America, but if so, for comparison with other parts of world, I would exclude the Arctic and Alpine-Arctic, as belonging to a quite distinct category. When excluding the naturalised, I think De Candolle must be right in advising the exclusion (giving list) of plants exclusively found in cultivated land, even when it is not known that they have been introduced by man. I would give list of temperate plants (if any) found in Eastern Asia, China, and Japan, and not elsewhere. Nothing would give me a better idea of the flora of United States than the proportion of its genera to all the genera which are confined to America; and the proportion of genera confined to America and Eastern Asia with Japan; the remaining genera would be common to America and Europe and the rest of world; I presume it would be impossible to show any especial affinity in genera, if ever so few, between America and Western Europe. America might be related to Eastern Asia (always excluding Arctic forms) by a genus having the same species confined to these two regions; or it might be related by the genus having different species, the genus itself not being found elsewhere. The relation of the genera (excluding identical species) seems to me a most important element in geographical distribution often ignored, and I presume of more difficult application in plants than in animals, owing to the wider ranges of plants; but I find in New Zealand (from Hooker) that the consideration of genera with representative species tells the story of relationship even plainer than the identity of the species with the different parts of the world. I should like to see the genera of the United States, say 500 (excluding Arctic and Alpine) divided into three classes, with the proportions given thus:-- 100/500 American genera; 200/500 Old World genera, but not having any identical species in common; 200/500 Old World genera, but having some identical species in common; Supposing that these 200 genera included 600 U.S. plants, then the 600 would be the denominator to the fraction of the species common to the Old World. But I am running on at a foolish length. There is an interesting discussion in De Candolle (about pages 503-514) on the relation of the size of families to the average range of the individual species; I cannot but think, from some facts which I collected long before De Candolle appeared, that he is on wrong scent in having taken families (owing to their including too great a diversity in the constitution of the species), but that if he had taken genera, he would have found that the individual species in large genera range over a greater area than do the species in small genera: I think if you have materials that this would be well worth working out, for it is a very singular relation. With respect to naturalised plants: are any social with you, which are not so in their parent country? I am surprised that the importance of this has not more struck De Candolle. Of these naturalised plants are any or many more variable in your opinion than the average of your United States plants? I am aware how very vague this must be; but De Candolle has stated that the naturalised plants do not present varieties; but being very variable and presenting distinct varieties seems to me rather a different case: if you would kindly take the trouble to answer this question I should be very much obliged, whether or no you will enter on such points in your essay. With respect to such plants, which have their southern limits within your area, are the individuals ever or often stunted in their growth or unhealthy? I have in vain endeavoured to find any botanist who has observed this point; but I have seen some remarks by Barton on the trees in United States. Trees seem in this respect to behave rather differently from other plants. It would be a very curious point, but I fear you would think it out of your essay, to compare the list of European plants in Tierra del Fuego (in Hooker) with those in North America; for, without multiple creation, I think we must admit that all now in T. del Fuego must have travelled through North America, and so far they do concern you. The discussion on social plants (vague as the terms and facts are) in De Candolle strikes me as the best which I have ever seen: two points strike me as eminently remarkable in them; that they should ever be social close to their extreme limits; and secondly, that species having an extremely confined range, yet should be social where they do occur: I should be infinitely obliged for any cases either by letter or publicly on these heads, more especially in regard to a species remaining or ceasing to be social on the confines of its range. There is one other point on which I individually should be extremely much obliged, if you could spare the time to think a little bit and inform me: viz., whether there are any cases of the same species being more variable in United States than in other countries in which it is found, or in different parts of the United States? Wahlenberg says generally that the same species in going south become more variable than in extreme north. Even still more am I anxious to know whether any of the genera, which have most of their species horribly variable (as Rubus or Hieracium are) in Europe, or other parts of the world, are less variable in the United States; or, the reverse case, whether you have any odious genera with you which are less odious in other countries? Any information on this head would be a real kindness to me. I suppose your flora is too great; but a simple list in close columns in small type of all the species, genera, and families, each consecutively numbered, has always struck me as most useful; and Hooker regrets that he did not give such list in introduction to New Zealand and other Flora. I am sure I have given you a larger dose of questions than you bargained for, and I have kept my word and treated you just as I do Hooker. Nevertheless, if anything occurs to me during the next two months, I will write freely, believing that you will forgive me and not think me very presumptuous. How well De Candolle shows the necessity of comparing nearly equal areas for proportion of families! I have re-read this letter, and it is really not worth sending, except for my own sake. I see I forgot, in beginning, to state that it appeared to me that the six heads of your Essay included almost every point which could be desired, and therefore that I had little to say. LETTER 326. TO J.D. HOOKER. (326/1. On July 5th, 1856, Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "I am going mad and am in despair over your confounded Antarctic island flora. Will you read over the Tristan list, and see if my remarks on it are at all accurate. I cannot make out why you consider the vegetation so Fuegian.") Down, 8th [July, 1856]. I do hope that this note may arrive in time to save you trouble in one respect. I am perfectly ashamed of myself, for I find in introduction to Flora of Fuegia (326/2. "Flora Antarctica," page 216. "Though only 1,000 miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island [Tristan d'Acunha] is far more intimately allied to that of Fuegia than Africa." Hooker goes on to say that only Phylica and Pelargonium are Cape forms, while seven species, or one-quarter of the flora, "are either natives of Fuegia or typical of South American botany, and the ferns and Lycopodia exhibit a still stronger affinity.") a short discussion on Tristan plants, which though scored [i.e. marked in pencil] I had quite forgotten at the time, and had thought only of looking into introduction to New Zealand Flora. It was very stupid of me. In my sketch I am forced to pick out the most striking cases of species which favour the multiple creation doctrine, without indeed great continental extensions are admitted. Of the many wonderful cases in your books, the one which strikes me most is that list of species, which you made for me, common to New Zealand and America, and confined to southern hemisphere; and in this list those common to Chile and New Zealand seem to me the most wondrous. I have copied these out and enclosed them. Now I will promise to ask no more questions, if you will tell me a little about these. What I want to know is, whether any or many of them are mountain plants of Chile, so as to bring them in some degree (like the Chonos plants) under the same category with the Fuegian plants? I see that all the genera (Edwardsia even having Sandwich Island and Indian species) are wide-ranging genera, except Myosurus, which seems extra wonderful. Do any of these genera cling to seaside? Are the other species of these genera wide rangers? Do be a good Christian and not hate me. I began last night to re-read your Galapagos paper, and to my taste it is quite admirable: I see in it some of the points which I thought best in A. De Candolle! Such is my memory. Lyell will not express any opinion on continental extensions. (326/3. See Letters 47, 48.) LETTER 327. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 8th [1856]. Very many thanks for your two notes, and especially for Maury's map: also for books which you are going to lend me. I am sorry you cannot give any verdict on continental extensions; and I infer that you think my argument of not much weight against such extensions; I know I wish I could believe. (327/1. This paragraph is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 78; it refers to a letter (June 25th, 1856, "Life and Letters," II., page 74) giving Darwin's arguments against the doctrine of "Continental Extension." See Letters 47, 48.) I have been having a look at Maury (which I once before looked at), and in respect to Madeira & Co. I must say, that the chart seems to me against land-extension explaining the introduction of organic beings. Madeira, the Canaries and Azores are so tied together, that I should have thought they ought to have been connected by some bank, if changes of level had been connected with their organic relation. The Azores ought, too, to have shown more connection with America. I had sometimes speculated whether icebergs could account for the greater number of European plants and their more northern character on the Azores, compared with Madeira; but it seems dangerous until boulders are found there. (327/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 112, for a letter (April 26th, 1858) in which Darwin exults over the discovery of boulders on the Azores and the fulfilment of the prophecy, which he was characteristically half inclined to ascribe to Lyell.) One of the more curious points in Maury is, as it strikes me, in the little change which about 9,000 feet of sudden elevation would make in the continent visible, and what a prodigious change 9,000 feet subsidence would make! Is the difference due to denudation during elevation? Certainly 12,000 feet elevation would make a prodigious change. I have just been quoting you in my essay on ice carrying seeds in the southern hemisphere, but this will not do in all the cases. I have had a week of such hard labour in getting up the relations of all the Antarctic flora from Hooker's admirable works. Oddly enough, I have just finished in great detail, giving evidence of coolness in tropical regions during the Glacial epoch, and the consequent migration of organisms through the tropics. There are a good many difficulties, but upon the whole it explains much. This has been a favourite notion with me, almost since I wrote on erratic boulders of the south. It harmonises with the modification of species; and without admitting this awful postulate, the Glacial epoch in the south and tropics does not work in well. About Atlantis, I doubt whether the Canary Islands are as much more related to the continent as they ought to be, if formerly connected by continuous land. Hooker, with whom I have formerly discussed the notion of the world or great belts of it having been cooler, though he at first saw great difficulties (and difficulties there are great enough), I think is much inclined to adopt the idea. With modification of specific forms it explains some wondrous odd facts in distribution. But I shall never stop if I get on this subject, on which I have been at work, sometimes in triumph, sometimes in despair, for the last month. LETTER 328. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Received August 20th, 1856. I enclose you a proof of the last page, that you may see what our flora amounts to. The genera of the Cryptogams (Ferns down to Hepaticae) are illustrated in fourteen crowded plates. So that the volume has become rather formidable as a class-book, which it is intended for. I have revised the last proofs to-day. The publishers will bring it out some time in August. Meanwhile, I am going to have a little holiday, which I have earned, little as I can spare the time for it. And my wife and I start on Friday to visit my mother and friends in West New York, and on our way back I will look in upon the scientific meeting at Albany on the 20th inst., or later, just to meet some old friends there. Why could not you come over, on the urgent invitation given to European savans--and free passage provided back and forth in the steamers? Yet I believe nobody is coming. Will you not come next year, if a special invitation is sent you on the same terms? Boott lately sent me your photograph, which (though not a very perfect one) I am well pleased to have... But there is another question in your last letter--one about which a person can only give an impression--and my impression is that, speaking of plants of a well-known flora, what we call intermediate varieties are generally less numerous in individuals than the two states which they connect. That this would be the case in a flora where things are put as they naturally should be, I do not much doubt; and the wider are your views about species (say, for instance, with Dr. Hooker's very latitudinarian notions) the more plainly would this appear. But practically two things stand hugely in the way of any application of the fact or principle, if such it be. 1. Our choice of what to take as the typical forms very often is not free. We take, e.g., for one of them the particular form of which Linnaeus, say, happened to have a specimen sent him, and on which [he] established the species; and I know more than one case in which that is a rare form of a common species; the other variety will perhaps be the opposite extreme--whether the most common or not, or will be what L. or [illegible] described as a 2nd species. Here various intermediate forms may be the most abundant. 2. It is just the same thing now, in respect to specimens coming in from our new western country. The form which first comes, and is described and named, determines the specific character, and this long sticks as the type, though in fact it may be far from the most common form. Yet of plants very well known in all their aspects, I can think of several of which we recognise two leading forms, and rarely see anything really intermediate, such as our Mentha borealis, its hairy and its smooth varieties. Your former query about the variability of naturalised plants as compared with others of same genera, I had not forgotten, but have taken no steps to answer. I was going hereafter to take up our list of naturalised plants and consider them--it did not fall into my plan to do it yet. Off-hand I can only say that it does not strike me that our introduced plants generally are more variable, nor as variable, perhaps, as the indigenous. But this is a mere guess. When you get my sheets of first part of article in "Silliman's Journal," remember that I shall be most glad of free critical comments; and the earlier I get them the greater use they will be to me... One more favour. Do not, I pray you, speak of your letters troubling me. I should be sorry indeed to have you stop, or write more rarely, even though mortified to find that I can so seldom give you the information you might reasonably expect. LETTER 329. TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 24th [1856]. I am much obliged for your letter, which has been very interesting to me. Your "indefinite" answers are perhaps not the least valuable part; for Botany has been followed in so much more a philosophical spirit than Zoology, that I scarcely ever like to trust any general remark in Zoology without I find that botanists concur. Thus, with respect to intermediate varieties being rare, I found it put, as I suspected, much too strongly (without the limitations and doubts which you point out) by a very good naturalist, Mr. Wollaston, in regard to insects; and if it could be established as true it would, I think, be a curious point. Your answer in regard to the introduced plants not being particularly variable, agrees with an answer which Mr. H.C. Watson has sent me in regard to British agrarian plants, or such (whether or no naturalised) [as] are now found only in cultivated land. It seems to me very odd, without any theoretical notions of any kind, that such plants should not be variable; but the evidence seems against it. Very sincere thanks for your kind invitation to the United States: in truth there is nothing which I should enjoy more; but my health is not, and will, I suppose, never be strong enough, except for the quietest routine life in the country. I shall be particularly glad of the sheets of your paper on geographical distribution; but it really is unlikely in the highest degree that I could make any suggestions. With respect to my remark that I supposed that there were but few plants common to Europe and the United States, not ranging to the Arctic regions; it was founded on vague grounds, and partly on range of animals. But I took H.C. Watson's remarks (1835) and in the table at the end I found that out of 499 plants believed to be common to the Old and New World, only 110 did not range on either side of the Atlantic up to the Arctic region. And on writing to Mr. Watson to ask whether he knew of any plants not ranging northward of Britain (say 55 deg) which were in common, he writes to me that he imagines there are very few; with Mr. Syme's assistance he found some 20 to 25 species thus circumstanced, but many of them, from one cause or other, he considered doubtful. As examples, he specifies to me, with doubt, Chrysosplenium oppositifolium; Isnardia palustris; Astragalus hypoglottis; Thlaspi alpestre; Arenaria verna; Lythrum hyssopifolium. I hope that you will be inclined to work out for your next paper, what number, of your 321 in common, do not range to Arctic regions. Such plants seem exposed to such much greater difficulties in diffusion. Very many thanks for all your kindness and answers to my questions. P.S.--If anything should occur to you on variability of naturalised or agrarian plants, I hope that you will be so kind as to let me hear, as it is a point which interests me greatly. LETTER 330. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, Mass., September 23rd, 1856. Dr. Engelmann, of St. Louis, Missouri, who knew European botany well before he came here, and has been an acute observer generally for twenty years or more in this country, in reply to your question I put to him, promptly said introduced plants are not particularly variable--are not so variable as the indigenous plants generally, perhaps. The difficulty of answering your questions, as to whether there are any plants social here which are not so in the Old World, is that I know so little about European plants in nature. The following is all I have to contribute. Lately, I took Engelmann and Agassiz on a botanical excursion over half a dozen miles of one of our seaboard counties; when they both remarked that they never saw in Europe altogether half so much barberry as in that trip. Through all this district B. vulgaris may be said to have become a truly social plant in neglected fields and copses, and even penetrating into rather close old woods. I always supposed that birds diffused the seeds. But I am not clear that many of them touch the berries. At least, these hang on the bushes over winter in the greatest abundance. Perhaps the barberry belongs to a warmer country than north of Europe, and finds itself more at home in our sunny summers. Yet out of New England it seems not to spread at all. Maruta Cotula, fide Engelmann, is a scattered and rather scarce plant in Germany. Here, from Boston to St. Louis, it covers the roadsides, and is one of our most social plants. But this plant is doubtless a native of a hotter country than North Germany. St. John's-wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an intrusive weed in all hilly pastures, etc., and may fairly be called a social plant. In Germany it is not so found, fide Engelmann. Verbascum Thapsus is diffused over all the country, is vastly more common here than in Germany, fide Engelmann. I suppose Erodium cicutarium was brought to America with cattle from Spain: it seems to be widely spread over South America out of the Tropics. In Atlantic U.S. it is very scarce and local. But it fills California and the interior of Oregon quite back to the west slope of the Rocky Mountains. Fremont mentions it as the first spring food for his cattle when he reached the western side of the Rocky Mountains. And hardly anybody will believe me when I declare it an introduced plant. I daresay it is equally abundant in Spain. I doubt if it is more so. Engelmann and I have been noting the species truly indigenous here which, becoming ruderal or campestral, are increasing in the number of individuals instead of diminishing as the country becomes more settled and forests removed. The list of our wild plants which have become true weeds is larger than I had supposed, and these have probably all of them increased their geographical range--at least, have multiplied in numbers in the Northern States since settlements. Some time ago I sent a copy of the first part of my little essay on the statistics (330/1. "Statistics of the Flora of the Northern U.S." ("Silliman's Journal," XXII. and XXIII.)) of our Northern States plants to Trubner & Co., 12, Paternoster Row, to be thence posted to you. It may have been delayed or failed, so I post another from here. This is only a beginning. Range of species in latitude must next be tabulated--disjoined species catalogued (i.e. those occurring in remote and entirely separated areas--e.g. Phryma, Monotropa uniflora, etc.)--then some of the curious questions you have suggested--the degree of consanguinity between the related species of our country and other countries, and the comparative range of species in large and small genera, etc., etc. Now, is it worth while to go on at this length of detail? There is no knowing how much space it may cover. Yet, after all, facts in all their fullness is what is wanted, and those not gathered to support (or even to test) any foregone conclusions. It will be prosy, but it may be useful. Then I have no time properly to revise MSS. and correct oversights. To my vexation, in my short list of our alpine species I have left out, in some unaccountable manner, two of the most characteristic--viz., Cassiope hypnoides and Loiseleuria procumbens. Please add them on page 28. There is much to be said about our introduced plants. But now, and for some time to come, I must be thinking of quite different matters. I mean to continue this essay in the January number--for which my MSS. must be ready about the 1st of November. I have not yet attempted to count them up; but of course I am prepared to believe that fully three-fourths of our species common to Europe will [be] found to range northward to the Arctic regions. I merely meant that I had in mind a number that do not; I think the number will not be very small; and I thought you were under the impression that very few absolutely did not so extend northwards. The most striking case I know is that of Convallaria majalis, in the mountains [of] Virginia and North Carolina, and not northward. I believe I mentioned this to you before. LETTER 331. TO ASA GRAY. Down, October 12th [1856]. I received yesterday your most kind letter of the 23rd and your "Statistics," and two days previously another copy. I thank you cordially for them. Botanists write, of course, for botanists; but, as far as the opinion of an "outsider" goes, I think your paper admirable. I have read carefully a good many papers and works on geographical distribution, and I know of only one essay (viz. Hooker's "New Zealand") that makes any approach to the clearness with which your paper makes a non-botanist appreciate the character of the flora of a country. It is wonderfully condensed (what labour it must have required!). You ask whether such details are worth giving: in my opinion, there is literally not one word too much. I thank you sincerely for the information about "social" and "varying plants," and likewise for giving me some idea about the proportion (i.e. 1/4th) of European plants which you think do not range to the extreme North. This proportion is very much greater than I had anticipated, from what I picked up in conversation, etc. To return to your "Statistics." I daresay you will give how many genera (and orders) your 260 introduced plants belong to. I see they include 113 genera non-indigenous. As you have probably a list of the introduced plants, would it be asking too great a favour to send me, per Hooker or otherwise, just the total number of genera and orders to which the introduced plants belong. I am much interested in this, and have found De Candolle's remarks on this subject very instructive. Nothing has surprised me more than the greater generic and specific affinity with East Asia than with West America. Can you tell me (and I will promise to inflict no other question) whether climate explains this greater affinity? or is it one of the many utterly inexplicable problems in botanical geography? Is East Asia nearly as well known as West America? so that does the state of knowledge allow a pretty fair comparison? I presume it would be impossible, but I think it would make in one point your tables of generic ranges more clear (admirably clear as they seem to me) if you could show, even roughly, what proportion of the genera in common to Europe (i.e. nearly half) are very general or mundane rangers. As your results now stand, at the first glance the affinity seems so very strong to Europe, owing, as I presume, to nearly half of the genera including very many genera common to the world or large portions of it. Europe is thus unfairly exalted. Is this not so? If we had the number of genera strictly, or nearly strictly European, one could compare better with Asia and Southern America, etc. But I dare say this is a Utopian wish, owing to difficulty of saying what genera to call mundane; nor have I my ideas at all clear on the subject, and I have expressed them even less clearly than I have them. I am so very glad that you intend to work out the north range of the 321 European species; for it seems to me the by far most important element in their distribution. And I am equally glad that you intend to work out range of species in regard to size of genera--i.e. number of species in genus. I have been attempting to do this in a very few cases, but it is folly for any one but a botanist to attempt it. I must think that De Candolle has fallen into error in attempting to do this for orders instead of for genera--for reasons with which I will not trouble you. LETTER 332. TO J.D. HOOKER. (332/1. The "verdict" referred to in the following letter was Sir J.D. Hooker's opinion on Darwin's MS. on geographical distribution. The first paragraph has been already published in "Life and Letters," II., page 86.) Down, November 4th [1856]. I thank you more cordially than you will think probable for your note. Your verdict has been a great relief. On my honour I had no idea whether or not you would say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad, that you would have begged me to have burnt the whole. To my own mind my MS. relieved me of some few difficulties, and the difficulties seemed to me pretty fairly stated; but I had become so bewildered with conflicting facts--evidence, reasoning and opinions--that I felt to myself that I had lost all judgment. Your general verdict is incomparably more favourable than I had anticipated. Very many thanks for your invitation. I had made up my mind, on my poor wife's account, not to come up to next Phil. Club; but I am so much tempted by your invitation, and my poor dear wife is so good-natured about it, that I think I shall not resist--i.e., if she does not get worse. I would come to dinner at about same time as before, if that would suit you, and I do not hear to the contrary; and would go away by the early train--i.e., about 9 o'clock. I find my present work tries me a good deal, and sets my heart palpitating, so I must be careful. But I should so much like to see Henslow, and likewise meet Lindley if the fates will permit. You will see whether there will be time for any criticism in detail on my MS. before dinner: not that I am in the least hurry, for it will be months before I come again to Geographical Distribution; only I am afraid of your forgetting any remarks. I do not know whether my very trifling observations on means of distribution are worth your reading, but it amuses me to tell them. The seeds which the eagle had in [its] stomach for eighteen hours looked so fresh that I would have bet five to one that they would all have grown; but some kinds were ALL killed, and two oats, one canary-seed, one clover, and one beet alone came up! Now I should have not cared swearing that the beet would not have been killed, and I should have fully expected that the clover would have been. These seeds, however, were kept for three days in moist pellets, damp with gastric juice, after being ejected, which would have helped to have injured them. Lately I have been looking, during a few walks, at excrement of small birds. I have found six kinds of seeds, which is more than I expected. Lastly, I have had a partridge with twenty-two grains of dry earth on one foot, and to my surprise a pebble as big as a tare seed; and I now understand how this is possible, for the bird scratches itself, [and the] little plumous feathers make a sort of very tenacious plaister. Think of the millions of migratory quails (332/2. See "Origin," Edition I., page 363, where the millions of migrating quails occur again.), and it would be strange if some plants have not been transported across good arms of the sea. Talking of this, I have just read your curious Raoul Island paper. (332/3. "Linn. Soc. Journal." I., 1857.) This looks more like a case of continuous land, or perhaps of several intervening, now lost, islands than any (according to my heterodox notions) I have yet seen. The concordance of the vegetation seems so complete with New Zealand, and with that land alone. I have read Salter's paper and can hardly stomach it. I wonder whether the lighters were ever used to carry grain and hay to ships. (332/4. Salter, "Linn. Soc. Journal," I., 1857, page 140, "On the Vitality of Seeds after prolonged Immersion in the Sea." It appears that in 1843 the mud was scraped from the bottom of the channels in Poole Harbour, and carried to shore in barges. On this mud a vegetation differing from that of the surrounding shore sprang up.) Adios, my dear Hooker. I thank you most honestly for your assistance--assistance, by the way, now spread over some dozen years. P.S.--Wednesday. I see from my wife's expression that she does not really much like my going, and therefore I must give up, of course, this pleasure. If you should have anything to discuss about my MS., I see that I could get to you by about 12, and then could return by the 2.19 o'clock train, and be home by 5.30 o'clock, and thus I should get two hours' talk. But it would be a considerable exertion for me, and I would not undertake it for mere pleasure's sake, but would very gladly for my book's sake. LETTER 333. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. November 9th, 1856. I have finished the reading of your MS., and have been very much delighted and instructed. Your case is a most strong one, and gives me a much higher idea of change than I had previously entertained; and though, as you know, never very stubborn about unalterability of specific type, I never felt so shaky about species before. The first half you will be able to put more clearly when you polish up. I have in several cases made pencil alterations in details as to words, etc., to enable myself to follow better,--some of it is rather stiff reading. I have a page or two of notes for discussion, many of which were answered, as I got further on with the MS., more or less fully. Your doctrine of the cooling of the Tropics is a startling one, when carried to the length of supporting plants of cold temperate regions; and I must confess that, much as I should like it, I can hardly stomach keeping the tropical genera alive in so very cool a greenhouse [pencil note by C.D., "Not so very cool, but northern ones could range further south if not opposed"]. Still I must confess that all your arguments pro may be much stronger put than you have. I am more reconciled to iceberg transport than I was, the more especially as I will give you any length of time to keep vitality in ice, and more than that, will let you transport roots that way also. (333/1. The above letter was pinned to the following note by Mr. Darwin.) In answer to this show from similarity of American, and European and Alpine-Arctic plants, that they have travelled enormously without any change. As sub-arctic, temperate and tropical are all slowly marching toward the equator, the tropical will be first checked and distressed, similarly (333/2. Almost illegible.) the temperate will invade...; after the temperate can [not] advance or do not wish to advance further the arctics will be checked and will invade. The temperates will have been far longer in Tropics than sub-arctics. The sub-arctics will first have to cross temperate [zone] and then Tropics. They would penetrate among strangers, just like the many naturalised plants brought by man, from some unknown advantage. But more, for nearly all have chance of doing so. (333/3. The point of view is more clearly given in the following letters.) LETTER 334. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 15th [1856]. I shall not consider all your notes on my MS. for some weeks, till I have done with crossing; but I have not been able to stop myself meditating on your powerful objection to the mundane cold period (334/1. See Letter 49.), viz. that MANY-fold more of the warm-temperate species ought to have crossed the Tropics than of the sub-arctic forms. I really think that to those who deny the modification of species this would absolutely disprove my theory. But according to the notions which I am testing--viz. that species do become changed, and that time is a most important element (which I think I shall be able to show very clearly in this case)--in such change, I think, the result would be as follows. Some of the warm-temperate forms would penetrate the Tropics long before the sub-arctic, and some might get across the equator long before the sub-arctic forms could do so (i.e. always supposing that the cold came on slowly), and therefore these must have been exposed to new associates and new conditions much longer than the sub-arctic. Hence I should infer that we ought to have in the warm-temperate S. hemisphere more representative or modified forms, and fewer identical species than in comparing the colder regions of the N. and S. I have expressed this very obscurely, but you will understand, I think, what I mean. It is a parallel case (but with a greater difference) to the species of the mountains of S. Europe compared with the arctic plants, the S. European alpine species having been isolated for a longer period than on the arctic islands. Whether there are many tolerably close species in the warm-temperate lands of the S. and N. I know not; as in La Plata, Cape of Good Hope, and S. Australia compared to the North, I know not. I presume it would be very difficult to test this, but perhaps you will keep it a little before your mind, for your argument strikes me as by far the most serious difficulty which has occurred to me. All your criticisms and approvals are in simple truth invaluable to me. I fancy I am right in speaking in this note of the species in common to N. and S. as being rather sub-arctic than arctic. This letter does not require any answer. I have written it to ease myself, and to get you just to bear your argument, under the modification point of view, in mind. I have had this morning a most cruel stab in the side on my notion of the distribution of mammals in relation to soundings. LETTER 335. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Sunday [November 1856]. I write only to say that I entirely appreciate your answer to my objection on the score of the comparative rareness of Northern warm-temperate forms in the Southern hemisphere. You certainly have wriggled out of it by getting them more time to change, but as you must admit that the distance traversed is not so great as the arctics have to travel, and the extremes of modifying cause not so great as the arctics undergo, the result should be considerably modified thereby. Thus: the sub-arctics have (1) to travel twice as far, (2) taking twice the time, (3) undergoing many more disturbing influences. All this you have to meet by giving the North temperate forms simply more time. I think this will hardly hold water. LETTER 336. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 18th [1856]. Many thanks for your note received this morning; and now for another "wriggle." According to my notions, the sub-arctic species would advance in a body, advancing so as to keep climate nearly the same; and as long as they did this I do not believe there would be any tendency to change, but only when the few got amongst foreign associates. When the tropical species retreated as far as they could to the equator they would halt, and then the confusion would spread back in the line of march from the far north, and the strongest would struggle forward, etc., etc. (But I am getting quite poetical in my wriggles). In short, I THINK the warm-temperates would be exposed very much longer to those causes which I believe are alone efficient in producing change than the sub-arctic; but I must think more over this, and have a good wriggle. I cannot quite agree with your proposition that because the sub-arctic have to travel twice as far they would be more liable to change. Look at the two journeys which the arctics have had from N. to S. and S. to N., with no change, as may be inferred, if my doctrine is correct, from similarity of arctic species in America and Europe and in the Alps. But I will not weary you; but I really and truly think your last objection is not so strong as it looks at first. You never make an objection without doing me much good. Hurrah! a seed has just germinated after 21 1/2 hours in owl's stomach. This, according to ornithologists' calculation, would carry it God knows how many miles; but I think an owl really might go in storm in this time 400 or 500 miles. Adios. Owls and hawks have often been seen in mid-Atlantic. (336/1. An interesting letter, dated November 23rd, 1856, occurs in the "Life and Letters," II., page 86, which forms part of this discussion. On page 87 the following passage occurs: "I shall have to discuss and think more about your difficulty of the temperate and sub-arctic forms in the S. hemisphere than I have yet done. But I am inclined to think that I am right (if my general principles are right), that there would be little tendency to the formation of a new species during the period of migration, whether shorter or longer, though considerable variability may have supervened.) LETTER 337. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 10th [1856]. It is a most tiresome drawback to my satisfaction in writing that, though I leave out a good deal and try to condense, every chapter runs to such an inordinate length. My present chapter on the causes of fertility and sterility and on natural crossing has actually run out to 100 pages MS., and yet I do not think I have put in anything superfluous... I have for the last fifteen months been tormented and haunted by land-mollusca, which occur on every oceanic island; and I thought that the double creationists or continental extensionists had here a complete victory. The few eggs which I have tried both sink and are killed. No one doubts that salt water would be eminently destructive to them; and I was really in despair, when I thought I would try them when torpid; and this day I have taken a lot out of the sea-water, after exactly seven days' immersion. (337/1. This method of dispersal is not given in the "Origin"; it seems, therefore, probable that further experiments upset the conclusion drawn in 1856. This would account for the satisfaction expressed in the following year at the discovery of another method, on which Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "The distribution of fresh-water molluscs has been a horrid incubus to me, but I think I know my way now. When first hatched they are very active, and I have had thirty or forty crawl on a dead duck's foot; and they cannot be jerked off, and will live fifteen or even twenty-four hours out of water" ("Life and Letters," II., page 93). The published account of these experiments is in the "Origin," Edition I., page 385.) Some sink and some swim; and in both cases I have had (as yet) one come to life again, which has quite astonished and delighted me. I feel as if a thousand-pound weight was taken off my back. Adios, my dear, kind friend. I must tell you another of my profound experiments! [Frank] said to me: "Why should not a bird be killed (by hawk, lightning, apoplexy, hail, etc.) with seed in its crop, and it would swim?" No sooner said than done: a pigeon has floated for thirty days in salt water with seeds in its crop, and they have grown splendidly; and to my great surprise even tares (Leguminosae, so generally killed by sea-water), which the bird had naturally eaten, have grown well. You will say gulls and dog-fish, etc., would eat up the carcase, and so they would 999 times out of a thousand, but one might escape: I have seen dead land-birds in sea-drift. LETTER 338. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. (338/1. In reply to Darwin's letter given in "Life and Letters," II., page 88.) Cambridge, Mass., February 16th, 1857. I meant to have replied to your interesting letter of January 1st long before this time, and also that of November 24th, which I doubt if I have ever acknowledged. But after getting my school-book, Lessons in Botany, off my hands--it taking up time far beyond what its size would seem to warrant--I had to fall hard at work upon a collection of small size from Japan--mostly N. Japan, which I am only just done with. As I expected, the number of species common to N. America is considerably increased in this collection, as also the number of closely representative species in the two, and a pretty considerable number of European species too. I have packed off my MSS. (though I hardly know what will become of it), or I would refer you to some illustrations. The greater part of the identical species (of Japan and N. America) are of those extending to or belonging to N.W. coast of America, but there are several peculiar to Japan and E. U. States: e.g. our Viburnum lantanoides is one of Thunberg's species. De Candolle's remarkable case of Phryma, which he so dwells upon, turns out, as Dr. Hooker said it would, to be only one out of a great many cases of the same sort. (Hooker brought Monotropa uniflora, you know, from the Himalayas; and now, by the way, I have it from almost as far south, i.e., from St. Fee, New Granada)... Well, I never meant to draw any conclusions at all, and am very sorry that the only one I was beguiled into should "rile" (338/2. "One of your conclusions makes me groan, viz., that the line of connection of the strictly alpine plants is through Greenland. I should extremely like to see your reasons published in detail, for it 'riles' me (this is a proper expression, is it not?) dreadfully" (Darwin to Gray, January 1st, 1857, "Life and Letters," II., page 89).) you, as you say it does,--that on page 73 of my second article: for if it troubles you it is not likely to be sound. Of course I had no idea of laying any great stress upon the fact (at first view so unexpected to me) that one-third of our alpine species common to Europe do not reach the Arctic circle; but the remark which I put down was an off-hand inference from what you geologists seem to have settled--viz., that the northern regions must have been a deal cooler than they are now--the northern limit of vegetation therefore much lower than now--about the epoch when it would seem probable that the existing species of our plants were created. At any rate, during the Glacial period there could have been no phaenogamous plants on our continent anywhere near the polar regions; and it seems a good rule to look in the first place for the cause or reason of what now is, in that which immediately preceded. I don't see that Greenland could help us much, but if there was any interchange of species between N. America and N. Europe in those times, was not the communication more likely to be in lower latitudes than over the pole? If, however, you say--as you may have very good reasons for saying--that the existing species got their present diffusion before the Glacial epoch, I should have no answer. I suppose you must needs assume very great antiquity for species of plants in order to account for their present dispersion, so long as we cling--as one cannot but do--to the idea of the single birthplace of species. I am curious to see whether, as you suggest, there would be found a harmony or close similarity between the geographical range in this country of the species common to Europe and those strictly representative or strictly congeneric with European species. If I get a little time I will look up the facts: though, as Dr. Hooker rightly tells me, I have no business to be running after side game of any sort, while there is so much I have to do--much more than I shall ever do probably--to finish undertakings I have long ago begun. ...As to your P.S. If you have time to send me a longer list of your protean genera, I will say if they seem to be protean here. Of those you mention:-- Salix, I really know nothing about. Rubus, the N. American species, with one exception, are very clearly marked indeed. Mentha, we have only one wild species; that has two pretty well-marked forms, which have been taken for species; one smooth, the other hairy. Saxifraga, gives no trouble here. Myosotis, only one or two species here, and those very well marked. Hieracium, few species, but pretty well marked. Rosa, putting down a set of nominal species, leaves us four; two of them polymorphous, but easy to distinguish... LETTER 339. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [1857?] One must judge by one's own light, however imperfect, and as I have found no other book (339/1. A. De Candolle's "Geographie Botanique," 1855.) so useful to me, I am bound to feel grateful: no doubt it is in main part owing to the concentrated light of the noble art of compilation. (339/2. See Letter 49.) I was aware that he was not the first who had insisted on range of Monocots. (Was not R. Brown [with] Flinders?) (339/3. M. Flinders' "Voyage to Terra Australis in 1801-3, in H.M.S. 'Investigator'"; with "Botanical Appendix," by Robert Brown, London, 1814.), and I fancy I only used expression "strongly insisted on,"--but it is quite unimportant. If you and I had time to waste, I should like to go over his [De Candolle's] book and point out the several subjects in which I fancy he is original. His remarks on the relations of naturalised plants will be very useful to me; on the ranges of large families seemed to me good, though I believe he has made a great blunder in taking families instead of smaller groups, as I have been delighted to find in A. Gray's last paper. But it is no use going on. I do so wish I could understand clearly why you do not at all believe in accidental means of dispersion of plants. The strongest argument which I can remember at this instant is A. de C., that very widely ranging plants are found as commonly on islands as over continents. It is really provoking to me that the immense contrast in proportion of plants in New Zealand and Australia seems to me a strong argument for non-continuous land; and this does not seem to weigh in the least with you. I wish I could put myself in your frame of mind. In Madeira I find in Wollaston's books a parallel case with your New Zealand case--viz., the striking absence of whole genera and orders now common in Europe, and (as I have just been hunting out) common in Europe in Miocene periods. Of course I can offer no explanation why this or that group is absent; but if the means of introduction have been accidental, then one might expect odd proportions and absences. When we meet, do try and make me see more clearly than I do, your reasons. LETTER 340. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th [1858]. I am heartily glad to hear that my Lyellian notes have been of the slightest use to you. (340/1. The Copley Medal was given to Sir Charles Lyell in 1858. Mr. Darwin supplied Sir J.D. Hooker, who was on the Council of the Royal Society, with notes for the reasons for the award. See Letter 69.) I do not think the view is exaggerated... Your letter and lists have MOST DEEPLY interested me. First for less important point, about hermaphrodite trees. (340/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 89. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 100, the author quotes Dr. Hooker to the effect that "the rule does not hold in Australia," i.e., that trees are not more generally unisexual than other plants. In the 6th edition, page 79, Darwin adds, "but if most of the Australian trees are dichogamous, the same result would follow as if they bore flowers with separated sexes.") It is enough to knock me down, yet I can hardly think that British N. America and New Zealand should all have been theoretically right by chance. Have you at Kew any Eucalyptus or Australian Mimosa which sets its seeds? if so, would it be very troublesome to observe when pollen is mature, and whether pollen-tubes enter stigma readily immediately that pollen is mature or some little time afterwards? though if pollen is not mature for some little time after flower opens, the stigma might be ready first, though according to C.C. Sprengel this is a rarer case. I wrote to Muller for chance of his being able and willing to observe this. Your fact of greater number of European plants (N.B.--But do you mean greater percentage?) in Australia than in S. America is astounding and very unpleasant to me; for from N.W. America (where nearly the same flora exists as in Canada?) to T. del Fuego, there is far more continuous high land than from Europe to Tasmania. There must have, I should think, existed some curious barrier on American High-Road: dryness of Peru, excessive damp of Panama, or some other confounded cause, which either prevented immigration or has since destroyed them. You say I may ask questions, and so I have on enclosed paper; but it will of course be a very different thing whether you will think them worth labour of answering. May I keep the lists now returned? otherwise I will have them copied. You said that you would give me a few cases of Australian forms and identical species going north by Malay Archipelago mountains to Philippines and Japan; but if these are given in your "Introduction" this will suffice for me. (340/3. See Hooker's "Introductory Essay," page l.) Your lists seem to me wonderfully interesting. According to my theoretical notions, I am not satisfied with what you say about local plants in S.W. corner of Australia (340/4. Sir Joseph replied in an undated letter: "Thanks for your hint. I shall be very cautious how I mention any connection between the varied flora and poor soil of S.W. Australia...It is not by the way only that the species are so numerous, but that these and the genera are so confoundedly well marked. You have, in short, an incredible number of VERY LOCAL, WELL MARKED genera and species crowded into that corner of Australia." See "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page li.), and the seeds not readily germinating: do be cautious on this; consider lapse of time. It does not suit my stomach at all. It is like Wollaston's confined land-snails in Porto Santo, and confined to same spots since a Tertiary period, being due to their slow crawling powers; and yet we know that other shell-snails have stocked a whole country within a very few years with the same breeding powers, and same crawling powers, when the conditions have been favourable to the life of the introduced species. Hypothetically I should rather look at the case as owing to--but as my notions are not very simple or clear, and only hypothetical, they are not worth inflicting on you. I had vowed not to mention my everlasting Abstract (340/5. The "Origin of Species" was abbreviated from the MS. of an unpublished book.) to you again, for I am sure I have bothered you far more than enough about it; but as you allude to its previous publication I may say that I have chapters on Instinct and Hybridism to abstract, which may take a fortnight each; and my materials for Palaeontology, Geographical Distribution and Affinities being less worked up, I daresay each of these will take me three weeks, so that I shall not have done at soonest till April, and then my Abstract will in bulk make a small volume. I never give more than one or two instances, and I pass over briefly all difficulties, and yet I cannot make my Abstract shorter, to be satisfactory, than I am now doing, and yet it will expand to small volume. LETTER 341. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [November?] 27th [1858]. What you say about the Cape flora's direct relation to Australia is a great trouble to me. Does not Abyssinia highland, (341/1. In a letter to Darwin, December 21st (?), 1858, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote: "Highlands of Abyssinia will not help you to connect the Cape and Australian temperate floras: they want all the types common to both, and, worse than that, India notably wants them. Proteaceae, Thymeleae, Haemodoraceae, Acacia, Rutaceae, of closely allied genera (and in some cases species), are jammed up in S.W. Australia, and C.B.S. [Cape of Good Hope]: add to this the Epacrideae (which are mere (paragraph symbol) of Ericaceae) and the absence or rarity of Rasaceae, etc., etc., and you have an amount [of] similarity in the floras and dissimilarity to that of Abyssinia and India in the same features that does demand an explanation in any theoretical history of Southern vegetation."), and the mountains on W. coast in some degree connect the extra-tropical floras of Cape and Australia? To my mind the enormous importance of the Glacial period rises daily stronger and stronger. I am very glad to hear about S.E. and S.W. Australia: I suspected after my letter was gone that the case must be as it is. You know of course that nearly the same rule holds with birds and mammals. Several years ago I reviewed in the "Annals of Natural History," (341/2. "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." Volume XIX., 1847, pages 53-56, an unsigned review of "A Natural History of the Mammalia," by G.R. Waterhouse, Volume I. The passage referred to is at page 55: "The fact of South Australia possessing only few peculiar species, it having been apparently colonised from the eastern and western coasts, is very interesting; for we believe that Mr. Robert Brown has shown that nearly the same remark is applicable to the plants; and Mr. Gould finds that most of the birds from these opposite shores, though closely allied, are distinct. Considering these facts, together with the presence in South Australia of upraised modern Tertiary deposits and of extinct volcanoes, it seems probable that the eastern and western shores once formed two islands, separated from each other by a shallow sea, with their inhabitants generically, though not specifically, related, exactly as are those of New Guinea and Northern Australia, and that within a geologically recent period a series of upheavals converted the intermediate sea into those desert plains which are now known to stretch from the southern coast far northward, and which then became colonised from the regions to the east and west." On this point see Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," page ci, where Jukes' views are discussed. For an interesting account of the bearings of the submergence of parts of Australia, see Thiselton-Dyer, "R. Geogr. Soc. Jour." XXII., No. 6.) Waterhouse's "Mammalia," and speculated that these two corners, now separated by gulf and low land, must have existed as two large islands; but it is odd that productions have not become more mingled; but it accords with, I think, a very general rule in the spreading of organic beings. I agree with what you say about Lyell; he learns more by word of mouth than by reading. Henslow has just gone, and has left me in a fit of enthusiastic admiration of his character. He is a really noble and good man. LETTER 342. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, December 1st [1858?]. I thank you for so kindly taking the trouble of writing to me, on naturalised plants. I did not know of, or had forgotten, the clover case. How I wish I knew what plants the clover took the place of; but that would require more accurate knowledge of any one piece of ground than I suppose any one has. In the case of trees being so long-lived, I should think it would be extremely difficult to distinguish between true and new spreading of a species, and a rotation of crop. With respect to your idea of plants travelling west, I was much struck by a remark of yours in the penultimate "Linnean Journal" on the spreading of plants from America near Behring Straits. Do you not consider so many more seeds and plants being taken from Europe to America, than in a reverse direction, would go some way to account for comparative fewness of naturalised American plants here? Though I think one might wildly speculate on European weeds having become well fitted for cultivated land, during thousands of years of culture, whereas cultivated land would be a new home for native American weeds, and they would not consequently be able to beat their European rivals when put in contest with them on cultivated land. Here is a bit of wild theory! (342/1. See Asa Gray, "Scientific Papers," 1889, Volume II., page 235, on "The Pertinacity and Predominance of Weeds," where the view here given is adopted. In a letter to Asa Gray (November 6th, 1862), published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 390, Darwin wrote: "Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest downright good sort of weeds.") But I did not sit down intending to scribble thus; but to beg a favour of you. I gave Hooker a list of species of Silene, on which Gartner has experimentised in crossing: now I want EXTREMELY to be permitted to say that such and such are believed by Mr. Bentham to be true species, and such and such to be only varieties. Unfortunately and stupidly, Gartner does not append author's name to the species. Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see very many difficulties of gigantic stature. If you can remember any cases of one introduced species beating out or prevailing over another, I should be most thankful to hear it. I believe the common corn-poppy has been seen indigenous in Sicily. I should like to know whether you suppose that seedlings of this wild plant would stand a contest with our own poppy; I should almost expect that our poppies were in some degree acclimatised and accustomed to our cornfields. If this could be shown to be so in this and other cases, I think we could understand why many not-trained American plants would not succeed in our agrarian habitats. LETTER 343. TO J.D. HOOKER. (343/1. Mr. Darwin used the knowledge of the spread of introduced plants in North America and Australia to throw light on the cosmic migration of plants. Sir J.D. Hooker apparently objected that it was not fair to argue from agrarian to other plants; he also took a view differing slightly from that of Darwin as to climatal and other natural conditions favouring introduced plants in Australia.) Down, January 28th, 1859. Thanks about glaciers. It is a pleasure and profit to me to write to you, and as in your last you have touched on naturalised plants of Australia, I suppose you would not dislike to hear what I can say in answer. At least I know you would not wish me to defer to your authority, as long as not convinced. I quite agree to what you say about our agrarian plants being accustomed to cultivated land, and so no fair test. Buckman has, I think, published this notion with respect to North America. With respect to roadside plants, I cannot feel so sure that these ought to be excluded, as animals make roads in many wild countries. (343/2. In the account of naturalised plants in Australia in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page cvi, many of the plants are marked "Britain--waste places," "Europe--cornfields," etc. In the same list the species which have also invaded North America--a large number--are given. On the margin of Darwin's copy is scribbled in pencil: "Very good, showing how many of the same species are naturalised in Australia and United States, with very different climates; opposed to your conclusion." Sir Joseph supposed that one chief cause of the intrusion of English plants in Australia, and not vice versa, was the great importation of European seed to Australia and the scanty return of Australian seed.) I have now looked and found passage in F. Muller's (343/3. Ferdinand Muller.) letter to me, in which he says: "In the WILDERNESSES of Australia some European perennials are "advancing in sure progress," "not to be arrested," etc. He gives as instances (so I suppose there are other cases) eleven species, viz., 3. Rumex, Poterium sanguisorba, Potentilla anserina, Medicago sativa, Taraxacum officinale, Marrubium vulgare, Plantago lanceolata, P. major, Lolium perenne. All these are seeding freely. Now I remember, years and years ago, your discussing with me how curiously easily plants get naturalised on uninhabited islands, if ships even touch there. I remember we discussed packages being opened with old hay or straw, etc. Now think of hides and wool (and wool exported largely over Europe), and plants introduced, and samples of corn; and I must think that if Australia had been the old country, and Europe had been the Botany Bay, very few, very much fewer, Australian plants would have run wild in Europe than have now in Australia. The case seems to me much stronger between La Plata and Spain. Nevertheless, I will put in my one sentence on this head, illustrating the greater migration during Glacial period from north to south than reversely, very humbly and cautiously. (343/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 379. Darwin refers to the facts given by Hooker and De Candolle showing a stronger migratory flow from north to south than in the opposite direction. Darwin accounts for this by the northern plants having been long subject to severe competition in their northern homes, and having acquired a greater "dominating power" than the southern forms. "Just in the same manner as we see at the present day that very many European productions cover the ground in La Plata, and in a lesser degree in Australia, and have to a certain extent beaten the natives; whereas extremely few southern forms have become naturalised in any part of Europe, though hides, wool, and other objects likely to carry seeds have been largely imported during the last two or three centuries from La Plata, and during the last thirty or forty years from Australia.') I am very glad to hear you are making good progress with your Australian Introduction. I am, thank God, more than half through my chapter on geographical distribution, and have done the abstract of the Glacial part... LETTER 344. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 30th, 1859. Many thanks for your agreeable note. Please keep the geographical MS. till you hear from me, for I may have to beg you to send it to Murray; as through Lyell's intervention I hope he will publish, but he requires first to see MS. (344/1. "The Origin of Species"; see a letter to Lyell in "Life and Letters," II., page 151.) I demur to what you say that we change climate of the world to account for "migration of bugs, flies, etc." WE do nothing of the sort; for WE rest on scored rocks, old moraines, arctic shells, and mammifers. I have no theory whatever about cause of cold, no more than I have for cause of elevation and subsidence; and I can see no reason why I should not use cold, or elevation, or subsidence to explain any other phenomena, such as distribution. I think if I had space and time I could make a pretty good case against any great continental changes since the Glacial epoch, and this has mainly led me to give up the Lyellian doctrine as insufficient to explain all mutations of climate. I was amused at the British Museum evidence. (344/2. This refers to the letter to Murchison (Letter 65), published with the evidence of the 1858 enquiry by the Trustees of the British Museum.) I am made to give my opinion so authoritatively on botanical matters!... As for our belief in the origin of species making any difference in descriptive work, I am sure it is incorrect, for I did all my barnacle work under this point of view. Only I often groaned that I was not allowed simply to decide whether a difference was sufficient to deserve a name. I am glad to hear about Huxley--a wonderful man. LETTER 345. TO J.D. HOOKER. Wells Terrace, Ilkley, Otley, Yorkshire, Thursday [before December 9th, 1859]. I have read your discussion (345/1. See "Introductory Essay," page c. Darwin did not receive this work until December 23rd, so that the reference is to proof-sheets.), as usual, with great interest. The points are awfully intricate, almost at present beyond the confines of knowledge. The view which I should have looked at as perhaps most probable (though it hardly differs from yours) is that the whole world during the Secondary ages was inhabited by marsupials, araucarias (Mem.--Fossil wood so common of this nature in South America (345/2. See Letter 6, Note.)), Banksia, etc.; and that these were supplanted and exterminated in the greater area of the north, but were left alive in the south. Whence these very ancient forms originally proceeded seems a hopeless enquiry. Your remarks on the passage of the northern forms southward, and of the southern forms of no kinds passing northward, seem to me grand. Admirable, also, are your remarks on the struggle of vegetation: I find that I have rather misunderstood you, for I feared I differed from you, which I see is hardly the case at all. I cannot help suspecting that you put rather too much weight to climate in the case of Australia. La Plata seems to present such analogous facts, though I suppose the naturalisation of European plants has there taken place on a still larger scale than in Australia... You will get four copies of my book--one for self, and three for the foreign botanists--in about ten days, or sooner; i.e., as soon as the sheets can be bound in cloth. I hope this will not be too late for your parcels. When you read my volume, use your pencil and score, so that some time I may have a talk with you on any criticisms. LETTER 346. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, December 17th, [1859]. Whilst I think of it, let me tell you that years ago I remember seeing in the Museum of the Geological Society a tooth of hippopotamus from Madagascar: this, on geographical and all other grounds, ought to be looked to. Pray make a note of this fact. (346/1. At a meeting of the Geological Society, May 1st, 1833, a letter was read from Mr. Telfair to Sir Alex. Johnstone, accompanying a specimen of recent conglomerate rock, from the island of Madagascar, containing fragments of a tusk, and part of a molar tooth of a hippopotamus ("Proc. Geol. Soc." 1833, page 479). There is a reference to these remains of hippopotamus in a paper by Mr. R.B. Newton in the "Geol. Mag." Volume X., 1893; and in Dr. Forsyth Major's memoir on Megaladapis Madagascariensis ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 185, page 30, 1894). Since this letter was written, several bones belonging to two or possibly three species of hippopotamus have been found in Madagascar. See Forsyth Major, "On the General Results of a Zoological Expedition to Madagascar in 1894-96" ("Proc. Zool. Soc." 1896, page 971.)) We have returned a week ago from Ilkley, and it has done me some decided good. In London I saw Lyell (the poor man who has "rushed into the bosom of two heresies"--by the way, I saw his celts, and how intensely interesting), and he told me that you were very antagonistic to my views on species. I well knew this would be the case. I must freely confess, the difficulties and objections are terrific; but I cannot believe that a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts. Do you ever see Wollaston? He and you would agree nicely about my book (346/2. "Origin of Species," 1859.)--ill luck to both of you. If you have anything at all pleasant for me to hear, do write; and if all that you can say is very unpleasant, it will do you good to expectorate. And it is well known that you are very fond of writing letters. Farewell, my good old friend and enemy. Do make a note about the hippopotamus. If you are such a gentleman as to write, pray tell me how Torquay agrees with your health. (PLATE: DR. ASA GRAY, 1867.) LETTER 347. TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 24th [1859]. I have been for ten weeks at Water-cure, and on my return a fortnight ago through London I found a copy of your Memoir, and heartily do I thank you for it. (347/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright...with Observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America and of other parts of the Northern Temperate Zone" ("Mem. American Acad. Arts and Sci." Volume VI., page 377, 1857).) I have not read it, and shall not be able very soon, for I am much overworked, and my stomach has got nearly as bad as ever. With respect to the discussion on climate, I beg you to believe that I never put myself for a moment in competition with Dana; but when one has thought on a subject, one cannot avoid forming some opinion. What I wrote to Hooker I forget, after reading only a few sheets of your Memoir, which I saw would be full of interest to me. Hooker asked me to write to you, but, as I told him, I would not presume to express an opinion to you without careful deliberation. What he wrote I know not: I had previously several years ago seen (by whom I forget) some speculation on warmer period in the U. States subsequent to Glacial period; and I had consulted Lyell, who seemed much to doubt, and Lyell's judgment is really admirably cautious. The arguments advanced in your paper and in your letter seem to me hardly sufficient; not that I should be at all sorry to admit this subsequent and intercalated warmer period--the more changes the merrier, I think. On the other hand, I do not believe that introduction of the Old World forms into New World subsequent to the Glacial period will do for the modified or representative forms in the two Worlds. There has been too much change in comparison with the little change of isolated alpine forms; but you will see this in my book. (347/2. "Origin of Species" (1859), Chapter XI., pages 365 et seq.) I may just make a few remarks why at first sight I do not attach much weight to the argument in your letter about the warmer climate. Firstly, about the level of the land having been lower subsequently to Glacial period, as evidenced by the whole, etc., I doubt whether meteorological knowledge is sufficient for this deduction: turning to the S. hemisphere, it might be argued that a greater extent of water made the temperature lower; and when much of the northern land was lower, it would have been covered by the sea and intermigration between Old and New Worlds would have been checked. Secondly, I doubt whether any inference on nature of climate can be deduced from extinct species of mammals. If the musk-ox and deer of great size of your Barren-Grounds had been known only by fossil bones, who would have ventured to surmise the excessively cold climate they lived under? With respect to food of large animals, if you care about the subject will you turn to my discussion on this subject partly in respect to the Elephas primigenius in my "Journal of Researches" (Murray's Home and Colonial Library), Chapter V., page 85. (347/3. "The firm conviction of the necessity of a vegetation possessing a character of tropical luxuriance to support such large animals, and the impossibility of reconciling this with the proximity of perpetual congelation, was one chief cause of the several theories of sudden revolutions of climate...I am far from supposing that the climate has not changed since the period when these animals lived, which now lie buried in the ice. At present I only wish to show that as far as quantity of food alone is concerned, the ancient rhinoceroses might have roamed over the steppes of Central Siberia even in their present condition, as well as the living rhinoceroses and elephants over the karoos of Southern Africa" ("Journal of Researches," page 89, 1888).) In this country we infer from remains of Elephas primigenius that the climate at the period of its embedment was very severe, as seems countenanced by its woolly covering, by the nature of the deposits with angular fragments, the nature of the co-embedded shells, and co-existence of the musk-ox. I had formerly gathered from Lyell that the relative position of the Megatherium and Mylodon with respect to the Glacial deposits, had not been well made out; but perhaps it has been so recently. Such are my reasons for not as yet admitting the warmer period subsequent to Glacial epoch; but I daresay I may be quite wrong, and shall not be at all sorry to be proved so. I shall assuredly read your essay with care, for I have seen as yet only a fragment, and very likely some parts, which I could not formerly clearly understand, will be clear enough. LETTER 348. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [December] 26th, [1859]. I have just read with intense interest as far as page xxvi (348/1. For Darwin's impression of the "Introductory Essay to the Tasmanian Flora" as a whole, see "Life and Letters," II., page 257.), i.e. to where you treat of the Australian Flora itself; and the latter part I remember thinking most of in the proof-sheets. Either you have altered a good deal, or I did not see all or was purblind, for I have been much more interested with all the first part than I was before,--not that I did not like it at first. All seems to me very clearly written, and I have been baulked at only one sentence. I think, on the whole, I like the geological, or rather palaeontological, discussion best: it seems to me excellent, and admirably cautious. I agree with all that you say as far as my want of special knowledge allows me to judge. I have no criticisms of any importance, but I should have liked more facts in one or two places, which I shall not ask about. I rather demur to the fairness of your comparison of rising and sinking areas (348/2. Hooker, op. cit., page xv, paragraph 24. Hooker's view was that sinking islands "contain comparatively fewer species and fewer peculiar generic types than those which are rising." In Darwin's copy of the Essay is written on the margin of page xvi: "I doubt whole case."), as in the Indian Ocean you compare volcanic land with exclusively coral islands, and these latter are very small in area and have very peculiar soil, and during their formation are likely to have been utterly submerged, perhaps many times, and restocked with existing plants. In the Pacific, ignorance of Marianne and Caroline and other chief islands almost prevent comparison (348/3. Gambier Island would be an interesting case. [Note in original.]); and is it right to include American islands like Juan Fernandez and Galapagos? In such lofty and probably ancient islands as Sandwich and Tahiti it cannot make much difference in the flora whether they have sunk or risen a few thousand feet of late ages. I wish you could work in your notion of certain parts of the Tropics having kept hot, whilst other parts were cooled; I tried this scheme in my mind, and it seemed to fail. On the whole, I like very much all that I have read of your Introduction, and I cannot doubt that it will have great weight in converting other botanists from the doctrine of immutable creation. What a lot of matter there is in one of your pages! There are many points I wish much to discuss with you. How I wish you could work out the Pacific floras: I remember ages ago reading some of your MS. In Paris there must be, I should think, materials from French voyages. But of all places in the world I should like to see a good flora of the Sandwich Islands. (348/4. See Hillebrand, "Flora of the Hawaiian Islands," 1888.) I would subscribe 50 pounds to any collector to go there and work at the islands. Would it not pay for a collector to go there, especially if aided by any subscription? It would be a fair occasion to ask for aid from the Government grant of the Royal Society. I think it is the most isolated group in the world, and the islands themselves well isolated from each other. LETTER 349. TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 7th [1860]. I have just finished your Japan memoir (349/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright. With observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America, etc.: 1857-59."--"Memoirs of Amer. Acad." VI.), and I must thank you for the extreme interest with which I have read it. It seems to me a most curious case of distribution; and how very well you argue, and put the case from analogy on the high probability of single centres of creation. That great man Agassiz, when he comes to reason, seems to me as great in taking a wrong view as he is great in observing and classifying. One of the points which has struck me as most remarkable and inexplicable in your memoir is the number of monotypic (or nearly so) genera amongst the representative forms of Japan and N. America. And how very singular the preponderance of identical and representative species in Eastern, compared with Western, America. I have no good map showing how wide the moderately low country is on the west side of the Rocky Mountains; nor, of course, do I know whether the whole of the low western territory has been botanised; but it has occurred to me, looking at such maps as I have, that the eastern area must be larger than the western, which would account to a certain small extent for preponderance on eastern side of the representative species. Is there any truth in this suspicion? Your memoir sets me marvelling and reflecting. I confess I am not able quite to understand your Geology at pages 447, 448; but you would probably not care to hear my difficulties, and therefore I will not trouble you with them. I was so grieved to get a letter from Dana at Florence, giving me a very poor (though improved) account of his health. LETTER 350. TO T.H. HUXLEY. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, November 1st [1860]. Your note has been wonderfully interesting. Your term, "pithecoid man," is a whole paper and theory in itself. How I hope the skull of the new Macrauchenia has come. It is grand. I return Hooker's letter, with very many thanks. The glacial action on Lebanon is particularly interesting, considering its position between Europe and Himalaya. I get more and more convinced that my doctrine of mundane Glacial period is correct (350/1. In the 1st edition of the "Origin," page 373, Darwin argues in favour of a Glacial period practically simultaneous over the globe. In the 5th edition, 1869, page 451, he adopted Mr. Croll's views on the alternation of cold periods in the northern and southern hemispheres. An interesting modification of the mundane Glacial period theory is given in Belt's "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," 1874, page 265. Mr. Belt's views are discussed in Wallace's "Geogr. Distribution," 1876, Volume I., page 151.), and that it is the most important of all late phenomena with respect to distribution of plants and animals. I hope your Review (350/2. The history of the foundation of the "Natural History Review" is given in Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume I., page 209. See Letter 107.) progresses favourably. I am exhausted and not well, so write briefly; for we have had nine days of as much misery as man can endure. My poor daughter has suffered pitiably, and night and day required three persons to support her. The crisis of extreme danger is over, and she is rallying surprisingly, but the doctors are yet doubtful of ultimate issue. But the suffering was so pitiable I almost got to wish to see her die. She is easy now. When she will be fit to travel home I know not. I most sincerely hope that Mrs. Huxley keeps up pretty well. The work which most men have to do is a blessing to them in such cases as yours. God bless you. Sir H. Holland came here to see her, and was wonderfully kind. LETTER 351. TO C. LYELL. Down, November 20th [1860]. I quite agree in admiration of Forbes' Essay (351/1. "Memoir of the Geolog. Survey of the United Kingdom," Volume I., 1846.), yet, on my life, I think it has done, in some respects, as much mischief as good. Those who believe in vast continental extensions will never investigate means of distribution. Good heavens, look at Heer's map of Atlantis! I thought his division and lines of travel of the British plants very wild, and with hardly any foundation. I quite agree with what you say of almost certainty of Glacial epoch having destroyed the Spanish saxifrages, etc., in Ireland. (351/2. See Letter 20.) I remember well discussing this with Hooker; and I suggested that a slightly different or more equable and humid climate might have allowed (with perhaps some extension of land) the plants in question to have grown along the entire western shores between Spain and Ireland, and that subsequently they became extinct, except at the present points under an oceanic climate. The point of Devonshire now has a touch of the same character. I demur in this particular case to Forbes' transportal by ice. The subject has rather gone out of my mind, and it is not worth looking to my MS. discussion on migration during the Glacial period; but I remember that the distribution of mammalia, and the very regular relation of the Alpine plants to points due north (alluded to in "Origin"), seemed to indicate continuous land at close of Glacial period. LETTER 352. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th [1861]. I have been recalling my thoughts on the question whether the Glacial period affected the whole world contemporaneously, or only one longitudinal belt after another. To my sorrow my old reasons for rejecting the latter alternative seem to me sufficient, and I should very much like to know what you think. Let us suppose that the cold affected the two Americas either before or after the Old World. Let it advance first either from north or south till the Tropics became slightly cooled, and a few temperate forms reached the Silla of Caracas and the mountains of Brazil. You would say, I suppose, that nearly all the tropical productions would be killed; and that subsequently, after the cold had moderated, tropical plants immigrated from the other non-chilled parts of the world. But this is impossible unless you bridge over the tropical parts of the Atlantic--a doctrine which you know I cannot admit, though in some respects wishing I could. Oswald Heer would make nothing of such a bridge. When the Glacial period affected the Old World, would it not be rather rash to suppose that the meridian of India, the Malay Archipelago, and Australia were refrigerated, and Africa not refrigerated? But let us grant that this was so; let us bridge over the Red Sea (though rather opposed to the former almost certain communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean); let us grant that Arabia and Persia were damp and fit for the passage of tropical plants: nevertheless, just look at the globe and fancy the cold slowly coming on, and the plants under the tropics travelling towards the equator, and it seems to me highly improbable that they could escape from India to the still hot regions of Africa, for they would have to go westward with a little northing round the northern shores of the Indian Ocean. So if Africa were refrigerated first, there would be considerable difficulty in the tropical productions of Africa escaping into the still hot regions of India. Here again you would have to bridge over the Indian Ocean within so very recent a period, and not in the line of the Laccadive Archipelago. If you suppose the cold to travel from the southern pole northwards, it will not help us, unless we suppose that the countries immediately north of the northern tropic were at the same time warmer, so as to allow free passage from India to Africa, which seems to me too complex and unsupported an hypothesis to admit. Therefore I cannot see that the supposition of different longitudinal belts of the world being cooled at different periods helps us much. The supposition of the whole world being cooled contemporaneously (but perhaps not quite equally, South America being less cooled than the Old World) seems to me the simplest hypothesis, and does not add to the great difficulty of all the tropical productions not having been exterminated. I still think that a few species of each still existing tropical genus must have survived in the hottest or most favourable spots, either dry or damp. The tropical productions, though much distressed by the fall of temperature, would still be under the same conditions of the length of the day, etc., and would be still exposed to nearly the same enemies, as insects and other animals; whereas the invading temperate productions, though finding a favouring temperature, would have some of their conditions of life new, and would be exposed to many new enemies. But I fully admit the difficulty to be very great. I cannot see the full force of your difficulty of no known cause of a mundane change of temperature. We know no cause of continental elevations and depressions, yet we admit them. Can you believe, looking to Europe alone, that the intense cold, which must have prevailed when such gigantic glaciers extended on the plains of N. Italy, was due merely to changed positions of land within so recent a period? I cannot. It would be far too long a story, but it could, I think, be clearly shown that all our continents existed approximately in their present positions long before the Glacial period; which seems opposed to such gigantic geographical changes necessary to cause such a vast fall of temperature. The Glacial period endured in Europe and North America whilst the level of the land oscillated in height fully 3,000 feet, and this does not look as if changed level was the cause of the Glacial period. But I have written an unreasonably long discussion. Do not answer me at length, but send me a few words some time on the subject. I have had this copied, that it might not bore you too much to read it. A few words more. When equatorial productions were dreadfully distressed by fall of temperature, and probably by changed humidity, and changed proportional numbers of other plants and enemies (though they might favour some of the species), I must admit that they all would be exterminated if productions exactly fitted, not only for the climate, but for all the conditions of the equatorial regions during the Glacial period existed and could everywhere have immigrated. But the productions of the temperate regions would have probably found, under the equator, in their new homes and soils, considerably different conditions of humidity and periodicity, and they would have encountered a new set of enemies (a most important consideration); for there seems good reason to believe that animals were not able to migrate nearly to the extent to which plants did during the Glacial period. Hence I can persuade myself that the temperate productions would not entirely replace and exterminate the productions of the cooled tropics, but would become partially mingled with them. I am far from satisfied with what I have scribbled. I conclude that there must have been a mundane Glacial period, and that the difficulties are much the same whether we suppose it contemporaneous over the world, or that longitudinal belts were affected one after the other. For Heaven's sake forgive me! LETTER 353. TO H.W. BATES. March 26th [1861]. I have been particularly struck by your remarks on the Glacial period. (353/1. In his "Contributions to the Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," "Trans. Entom. Soc." Volume V., page 335 (read November 24th, 1860), Mr. Bates discusses the migration of species from the equatorial regions after the Glacial period. He arrives at a result which, he points out, "is highly interesting as bearing upon the question of how far extinction is likely to have occurred in equatorial regions during the time of the Glacial epoch."..."The result is plain, that there has always (at least throughout immense geological epochs) been an equatorial fauna rich in endemic species, and that extinction cannot have prevailed to any extent within a period of time so comparatively modern as the Glacial epoch in geology." This conclusion does not support the view expressed in the "Origin of Species" (Edition I., chapter XI., page 378) that the refrigeration of the earth extended to the equatorial regions. (Bates, loc. cit., pages 352, 353.)) You seem to me to have put the case with admirable clearness and with crushing force. I am quite staggered with the blow, and do not know what to think. Of late several facts have turned up leading me to believe more firmly that the Glacial period did affect the equatorial regions; but I can make no answer to your argument, and am completely in a cleft stick. By an odd chance I have only a few days ago been discussing this subject, in relation to plants, with Dr. Hooker, who believes to a certain extent, but strongly urged the little apparent extinction in the equatorial regions. I stated in a letter some days ago to him that the tropics of S. America seem to have suffered less than the Old World. There are many perplexing points; temperate plants seem to have migrated far more than animals. Possibly species may have been formed more rapidly within tropics than one would have expected. I freely confess that you have confounded me; but I cannot yet give up my belief that the Glacial period did to certain extent affect the tropics. LETTER 354. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 25th [1862]. I have almost finished your Arctic paper, and I must tell you how I admire it. (354/1. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic Plants" [Read June 21st, 1860], "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 251. The author's remarks on Mr. Darwin's theories of Geographical Distribution are given at page 255: they are written in a characteristically generous spirit.) The subject, treated as you have treated it, is really magnificent. Good Heaven, what labour it must have cost you! And what a grand prospect there is for the future. I need not say how much pleased I am at your notice of my work; for you know that I regard your opinion more than that of all others. Such papers are the real engine to compel people to reflect on modification of species; any one with an enquiring mind could hardly fail to wish to consider the whole subject after reading your paper. By Jove! you will be driven, nolens volens, to a cooled globe. Think of your own case of Abyssinia and Fernando Po, and South Africa, and of your Lebanon case (354/2. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 337.); grant that there are highlands to favour migration, but surely the lowlands must have been somewhat cooled. What a splendid new and original evidence and case is that of Greenland: I cannot see how, even by granting bridges of continuous land, one can understand the existing flora. I should think from the state of Scotland and America, and from isothermals, that during the coldest part of Glacial period, Greenland must have been quite depopulated. Like a dog to his vomit, I cannot help going back and leaning to accidental means of transport by ice and currents. How curious also is the case of Iceland. What a splendid paper you have made of the subject. When we meet I must ask you how much you attribute richness of flora of Lapland to mere climate; it seems to me very marvellous that this point should have been a sort of focus of radiation; if, however, it is unnaturally rich, i.e. contains more species than it ought to do for its latitude, in comparison with the other Arctic regions, would it not thus falsely seem a focus of radiation? But I shall hereafter have to go over and over again your paper; at present I am quite muddy on the subject. How very odd, on any view, the relation of Greenland to the mountains of E. N. America; this looks as if there had been wholesale extinction in E. N. America. But I must not run on. By the way, I find Link in 1820 speculated on relation of Alpine and Arctic plants being due to former colder climate, which he attributed to higher mountains cutting off the warm southern winds. LETTER 355. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, November 2nd, 1862. Did I tell you how deeply pleased I was with Gray's notice of my Arctic essay? (355/1. "American Journal of Science and Arts," XXXIV., and in Gray's "Scientific Papers," Volume I., page 122.) It was awfully good of him, for I am sure he must have seen several blunders. He tells me that Dr. Dawson (355/2. A letter (No. 144) by Sir J.D. Hooker, dated November 7th, 1862, on this subject occurs in the Evolutionary section.) is down on me, and I have a very nice lecture on Arctic and Alpine plants from Dr. D., with a critique on the Arctic essay--which he did not see till afterwards. He has found some mares' nests in my essay, and one very venial blunder in the tables--he seems to HATE Darwinism--he accuses me of overlooking the geological facts, and dwells much on my overlooking subsidence of temperate America during Glacial period--and my asserting a subsidence of Arctic America, which never entered into my head. I wish, however, if it would not make your head ache too much, you would just look over my first three pages, and tell me if I have outraged any geological fact or made any oversights. I expounded the whole thing twice to Lyell before I printed it, with map and tables, intending to get (and I thought I had) his imprimatur for all I did and said; but when here three nights ago, I found he was as ignorant of my having written an Arctic essay as could be! And so I suppose he either did not take it in, or thought it of little consequence. Hector approved of it in toto. I need hardly say that I set out on biological grounds, and hold myself as independent of theories of subsidence as you do of the opinions of physicists on heat of globe! I have written a long [letter] to Dawson. By the way, did you see the "Athenaeum" notice of L. Bonaparte's Basque and Finnish language?--is it not possible that the Basques are Finns left behind after the Glacial period, like the Arctic plants? I have often thought this theory would explain the Mexican and Chinese national affinities. I am plodding away at Welwitschia by night and Genera Plantarum by day. We had a very jolly dinner at the Club on Thursday. We are all well. LETTER 356. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 4th [1862]. I have read the pages (356/1. The paper on Arctic plants in Volume XXIII. of the Linnean Society's "Transactions," 1860-62.) attentively (with even very much more admiration than the first time) and cannot imagine what makes Dr. D. accuse you of asserting a subsidence of Arctic America. (356/2. The late Sir J.W. Dawson wrote a review (signed J.W.D) of Hooker's Arctic paper which appeared in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1862, Volume VII., page 334. The chief part of the article is made up of quotations from Asa Gray's article referred to below. The remainder is a summary of geological arguments against Hooker's views. We do not find the accusation referred to above, which seems to have appeared in a lecture.) No doubt there was a subsidence of N. America during the Glacial period, and over a large part, but to maintain that the subsidence extended over nearly the whole breadth of the continent, or lasted during the whole Glacial period, I do not believe he can support. I suspect much of the evidence of subsidence during the Glacial period there will prove false, as it largely rests on ice-action, which is becoming, as you know, to be viewed as more and more subaerial. If Dawson has published criticisms I should like to see them. I have heard he is rabid against me, and no doubt partly in consequence, against anything you write in my favour (and never was anything published more favourable than the Arctic paper). Lyell had difficulty in preventing Dawson reviewing the "Origin" (356/3. Dawson reviewed the "Origin" in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1860.) on hearsay, without having looked at it. No spirit of fairness can be expected from so biassed a judge. All I can say is that your few first pages have impressed me far more this reading than the first time. Can the Scandinavian portion of the flora be so potent (356/4. Dr. Hooker wrote: "Regarded as a whole the Arctic flora is decidedly Scandinavian; for Arctic Scandinavia, or Lapland, though a very small tract of land, contains by far the richest Arctic flora, amounting to three-fourths of the whole"; he pointed out "that the Scandinavian flora is present in every latitude of the globe, and is the only one that is so" (quoted by Gray, loc. cit. infra).) from having been preserved in that corner, warmed by the Gulf Stream, and from now alone representing the entire circumpolar flora, during the warmer pre-Glacial period? From the first I have not been able to resist the impression (shared by Asa Gray, whose Review (356/5. Asa Gray's "Scientific Papers," Volume I., page 122.) on you pleased me much) that during the Glacial period there must have been almost entire extinction in Greenland; for depth of sea does not favour former southerly extension of land there. (356/6. In the driving southward of the vegetation by the Glacial epoch the Greenland flora would be "driven into the sea, that is, exterminated." (Hooker quoted by Gray, loc. cit. page 124.) I must suspect that plants have been largely introduced by sea currents, which bring so much wood from N. Europe. But here we shall split as wide as the poles asunder. All the world could not persuade me, if it tried, that yours is not a grand essay. I do not quite understand whether it is this essay that Dawson has been "down on." What a curious notion about Glacial climate, and Basques and Finns! Are the Basques mountaineers--I hope so. I am sorry I have not seen the "Athenaeum," but I now take in the "Parthenon." By the way, I have just read with much interest Max Muller (356/7. Probably his "Lectures on the Science of Language," 1861-64.); the last part, about first origin of language, seems the least satisfactory part. Pray thank Oliver heartily for his heap of references on poisons. (356/8. Doubtless in connection with Darwin's work on Drosera: he was working at this subject during his stay at Bournemouth in the autumn of 1862.) How the devil does he find them out? I must not indulge [myself] with Cypripedium. Asa Gray has made out pretty clearly that, at least in some cases, the act of fertilisation is effected by small insects being forced to crawl in and out of the flower in a particular direction; and perhaps I am quite wrong that it is ever effected by the proboscis. I retract so far that if you have the rare C. hirsutissimum, I should very much like to examine a cut single flower; for I saw one at a flower show, and as far as I could see, it seemed widely different from other forms. P.S.--Answer this, if by chance you can. I remember distinctly having read in some book of travels, I am nearly sure in Australia, an account of the natives, during famines, trying and cooking in all sorts of ways various vegetable productions, and sometimes being injured by them. Can you remember any such account? I want to find it. I thought it was in Sir G. Grey, but it is not. Could it have been in Eyre's book? LETTER 357. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. [November 1862]. ...I have speculated on the probability of there having been a post-Glacial Arctic-Norwego-Greenland in connection, which would account for the strong fact, that temperate Greenland is as Arctic as Arctic Greenland is--a fact, to me, of astounding force. I do confess, that a northern migration would thus fill Greenland as it is filled, in so far as the whole flora (temperate and Arctic) would be Arctic,--but then the same plants should have gone to the other Polar islands, and above all, so many Scandinavian Arctic plants should not be absent in Greenland, still less should whole Natural Orders be absent, and above all the Arctic Leguminosae. It is difficult (as I have told Dawson) to conceive of the force with which arguments drawn from the absence of certain familiar ubiquitous plants strike the botanists. I would not throw over altogether ice-transport and water-transport, but I cannot realise their giving rise to such anomalies, in the distribution, as Greenland presents. So, too, I have always felt the force of your objection, that Greenland should have been depopulated in the Glacial period, but then reflected that vegetation now ascends I forget how high (about 1,000 feet) in Disco, in 70 deg, and that even in a Glacial ocean there may always have been lurking-places for the few hundred plants Greenland now possesses. Supposing Greenland were repeopled from Scandinavia over ocean way, why should Carices be the chief things brought? Why should there have been no Leguminosae brought, no plants but high Arctic?--why no Caltha palustris, which gilds the marshes of Norway and paints the housetops of Iceland? In short, to my eyes, the trans-oceanic migration would no more make such an assemblage than special creations would account for representative species--and no "ingenious wriggling" ever satisfied me that it would. There, then! I dined with Henry Christy last night, who was just returned from celt hunting with Lartet, amongst the Basques,--they are Pyreneans. Lubbock was there, and told me that my precious speculation was one of Von Baer's, and that the Finns are supposed to have made the Kjokken moddings. I read Max Muller a year ago--and quite agree, first part is excellent; last, on origin of language, fatuous and feeble as a scientific argument. LETTER 358. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 12th [1862]. I return by this post Dawson's lecture, which seems to me interesting, but with nothing new. I think he must be rather conceited, with his "If Dr. Hooker had known this and that, he would have said so and so." It seems to me absurd in Dawson assuming that North America was under sea during the whole Glacial period. Certainly Greenland is a most curious and difficult problem. But as for the Leguminosae, the case, my dear fellow, is as plain as a pike-staff, as the seeds are so very quickly killed by the sea-water. Seriously, it would be a curious experiment to try vitality in salt water of the plants which ought to be in Greenland. I forget, however, that it would be impossible, I suppose, to get hardly any except the Caltha, and if ever I stumble on that plant in seed I will try it. I wish to Heaven some one would examine the rocks near sea-level at the south point of Greenland, and see if they are well scored; that would tell something. But then subsidence might have brought down higher rocks to present sea-level. I am much more willing to admit your Norwego-Greenland connecting land than most other cases, from the nature of the rocks in Spitzbergen and Bear Island. You have broached and thrown a lot of light on a splendid problem, which some day will be solved. It rejoices me to think that, when a boy, I was shown an erratic boulder in Shrewsbury, and was told by a clever old gentleman that till the world's end no one would ever guess how it came there. It makes me laugh to think of Dr. Dawson's indignation at your sentence about "obliquity of vision." (358/1. See Letter 144.) By Jove, he will try and pitch into you some day. Good night for the present. To return for a moment to the Glacial period. You might have asked Dawson whether ibex, marmot, etc., etc., were carried from mountain to mountain in Europe on floating ice; and whether musk ox got to England on icebergs? Yet England has subsided, if we trust to the good evidence of shells alone, more during Glacial period than America is known to have done. For Heaven's sake instil a word of caution into Tyndall's ears. I saw an extract that valleys of Switzerland were wholly due to glaciers. He cannot have reflected on valleys in tropical countries. The grandest valleys I ever saw were in Tahiti. Again, if I understand, he supposes that glaciers wear down whole mountain ranges; thus lower their height, decrease the temperature, and decrease the glaciers themselves. Does he suppose the whole of Scotland thus worn down? Surely he must forget oscillation of level would be more potent one way or another during such enormous lapses of time. It would be hard to believe any mountain range has been so long stationary. I suppose Lyell's book will soon be out. (358/2. "The Antiquity of Man," 1863.) I was very glad to see in a newspaper that Murray sold 4,000. What a sale! I am now working on cultivated plants, and rather like my work; but I am horribly afraid I make the rashest remarks on value of differences. I trust to a sort of instinct, and, God knows, can seldom give any reason for my remarks. Lord, in what a medley the origin of cultivated plants is. I have been reading on strawberries, and I can find hardly two botanists agree what are the wild forms; but I pick out of horticultural books here and there queer cases of variation, inheritance, etc., etc. What a long letter I have scribbled; but you must forgive me, for it is a great pleasure thus talking to you. Did you ever hear of "Condy's Ozonised Water"? I have been trying it with, I think, extraordinary advantage--to comfort, at least. A teaspoon, in water, three or four times a day. If you meet any poor dyspeptic devil like me, suggest it. LETTER 359. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 26th [March 1863]. I hope and think you are too severe on Lyell's early chapters. Though so condensed, and not well arranged, they seemed to me to convey with uncommon force the antiquity of man, and that was his object. (359/1. "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man": London, 1863.) It did not occur to me, but I fear there is some truth in your criticism, that nothing is to be trusted until he [Lyell] had observed it. I am glad to see you stirred up about tropical plants during Glacial period. Remember that I have many times sworn to you that they coexisted; so, my dear fellow, you must make them coexist. I do not think that greater coolness in a disturbed condition of things would be required than the zone of the Himalaya, in which you describe some tropical and temperate forms commingling (359/2. "During this [the Glacial period], the coldest point, the lowlands under the equator, must have been clothed with a mingled tropical and temperate vegetation, like that described by Hooker as growing luxuriantly at the height of from four to five thousand feet on the lower slopes of the Himalaya, but with perhaps a still greater preponderance of temperate forms" ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 338).); and as in the lower part of the Cameroons, and as Seemann describes, in low mountains of Panama. It is, as you say, absurd to suppose that such a genus as Dipterocarpus (359/3. Dipterocarpus, a genus of the Dipterocarpaceae, a family of dicotyledonous plants restricted to the tropics of the Old World.) could have been developed since the Glacial era; but do you feel so sure, as to oppose (359/4. The meaning seems to be: "Do you feel so sure that you can bring in opposition a large body of considerations to show, etc.") a large body of considerations on the other side, that this genus could not have been slowly accustomed to a cooler climate? I see Lindley says it has not been brought to England, and so could not have been tried in the greenhouse. Have you materials to show to what little height it ever ascends the mountains of Java or Sumatra? It makes a mighty difference, the whole area being cooled; and the area perhaps not being in all respects, such as dampness, etc., etc., fitted for such temperate plants as could get in. But, anyhow, I am ready to swear again that Dipterocarpus and any other genus you like to name did survive during a cooler period. About reversion you express just what I mean. I somehow blundered, and mentally took literally that the child inherited from his grandfather. This view of latency collates a lot of facts--secondary sexual characters in each individual; tendency of latent character to appear temporarily in youth; effect of crossing in educing talent, character, etc. When one thinks of a latent character being handed down, hidden for a thousand or ten thousand generations, and then suddenly appearing, one is quite bewildered at the host of characters written in invisible ink on the germ. I have no evidence of the reversion of all characters in a variety. I quite agree to what you say about genius. I told Lyell that passage made me groan. What a pity about Falconer! (359/5. This refers to Falconer's claim of priority against Lyell. See "Life and Letters," III., page 14; also Letters 166 and 168.) How singular and how lamentable! Remember orchid pods. I have a passion to grow the seeds (and other motives). I have not a fact to go on, but have a notion (no, I have a firm conviction!) that they are parasitic in early youth on cryptogams! (359/6. In an article on British Epiphytal Orchids ("Gard. Chron." 1884, page 144) Malaxis paludosa is described by F.W. Burbidge as being a true epiphyte on the stems of Sphagnum. Stahl states that the difficulty of cultivating orchids largely depends on their dependence on a mycorhizal fungus,--though he does not apply his view to germination. See Pringsheim's "Jahrbucher," XXXIV., page 581. We are indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker for the reference to Burbidge's paper.) Here is a fool's notion. I have some planted on Sphagnum. Do any tropical lichens or mosses, or European, withstand heat, or grow on any trees in hothouse at Kew? If so, for love of Heaven, favour my madness, and have some scraped off and sent me. I am like a gambler, and love a wild experiment. It gives me great pleasure to fancy that I see radicles of orchid seed penetrating the Sphagnum. I know I shall not, and therefore shall not be disappointed. LETTER 360. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [September 26th 1863]. ...About New Zealand, at last I am coming round, and admit it must have been connected with some terra firma, but I will die rather than admit Australia. How I wish mountains of New Caledonia were well worked!... LETTER 361. TO J.D. HOOKER. (361/1. In the earlier part of this letter Mr. Darwin refers to a review on Planchon in the "Nat. History Review," April 1865. There can be no doubt, therefore, that "Thomson's article" must be the review of Jordan's "Diagnoses d'especes nouvelles ou meconnues," etc., in the same number, page 226. It deals with "lumpers" and "splitters," and a possible trinomial nomenclature.) April 17th [1865]. I have been very much struck by Thomson's article; it seems to me quite remarkable for its judgment, force, and clearness. It has interested me greatly. I have sometimes loosely speculated on what nomenclature would come to, and concluded that it would be trinomial. What a name a plant will formally bear with the author's name after genus (as some recommend), and after species and subspecies! It really seems one of the greatest questions which can be discussed for systematic Natural History. How impartially Thomson adjusts the claims of "hair-splitters" and "lumpers"! I sincerely hope he will pretty often write reviews or essays. It is an old subject of grief to me, formerly in Geology and of late in Zoology and Botany, that the very best men (excepting those who have to write principles and elements, etc.) read so little, and give up nearly their whole time to original work. I have often thought that science would progress more if there was more reading. How few read any long and laborious papers! The only use of publishing such seems to be as a proof that the author has given time and labour to his work. LETTER 362. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 22nd and 28th, 1865. As for the anthropologists being a bete noire to scientific men, I am not surprised, for I have just skimmed through the last "Anthrop. Journal," and it shows, especially the long attack on the British Association, a curious spirit of insolence, conceit, dullness, and vulgarity. I have read with uncommon interest Travers' short paper on the Chatham Islands. (362/1. See Travers, H.H., "Notes on the Chatham Islands," "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., October 1865. Mr. Travers says he picked up a seed of Edwardsia, evidently washed ashore. The stranded logs indicated a current from New Zealand.) I remember your pitching into me with terrible ferocity because I said I thought the seed of Edwardsia might have been floated from Chili to New Zealand: now what do you say, my young man, to the three young trees of the same size on one spot alone of the island, and with the cast-up pod on the shore? If it were not for those unlucky wingless birds I could believe that the group had been colonised by accidental means; but, as it is, it appears by far to me the best evidence of continental extension ever observed. The distance, I see, is 360 miles. I wish I knew whether the sea was deeper than between New Zealand and Australia. I fear you will not admit such a small accident as the wingless birds having been transported on icebergs. Do suggest, if you have a chance, to any one visiting the Islands again, to look out for erratic boulders there. How curious his statement is about the fruit-trees and bees! (362/2. "Since the importation of bees, European fruit-trees and bushes have produced freely." Travers, "Linn. Soc. Journal," IX., page 144.) I wish I knew whether the clover had spread before the bees were introduced... I saw in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" the sentence about the "Origin" dying in Germany, but did not know it was by Seemann. LETTER 363. TO C. LYELL. Down, February 7th [1866]. I am very much obliged for your note and the extract, which have interested me extremely. I cannot disbelieve for a moment Agassiz on Glacial action after all his experience, as you say, and after that capital book with plates which he early published (363/1. "Etudes sur les Glaciers"; Neuchatel, 1840.); as for his inferences and reasoning on the valley of the Amazon that is quite another question, nor can he have seen all the regions to which Mrs. A. alludes. (363/2. A letter from Mrs. Agassiz to Lady Lyell, which had been forwarded to Mr. Darwin. The same letter was sent also to Sir Charles Bunbury, who, in writing to Lyell on February 3rd, 1866, criticises some of the statements. He speaks of Agassiz's observations on glacial phenomena in Brazil as "very astonishing indeed; so astonishing that I have very great difficulty in believing them. They shake my faith in the glacial system altogether; or perhaps they ought rather to shake the faith in Agassiz...If Brazil was ever covered with glaciers, I can see no reason why the whole earth should not have been so. Perhaps the whole terrestrial globe was once 'one entire and perfect icicle.'" (From the privately printed "Life" of Sir Charles Bunbury, edited by Lady Bunbury, Volume ii., page 334).) Her letter is not very clear to me, and I do not understand what she means by "to a height of more than three thousand feet." There are no erratic boulders (to which I particularly attended ) in the low country round Rio. It is possible or even probable that this area may have subsided, for I could detect no evidence of elevation, or any Tertiary formations or volcanic action. The Organ Mountains are from six to seven thousand feet in height; and I am only a little surprised at their bearing the marks of glacial action. For some temperate genera of plants, viz., Vaccinium, Andromeda, Gaultheria, Hypericum, Drosera, Habenaria, inhabit these mountains, and I look at this almost as good evidence of a cold period, as glacial action. That there are not more temperate plants can be accounted for by the isolated position of these mountains. There are no erratic boulders on the Pacific coast north of Chiloe, and but few glaciers in the Cordillera, but it by no means follows, I think, that there may not have been formerly gigantic glaciers on the eastern and more humid side. In the third edition of "Origin," page 403 (363/3. "Origin," Edition VI., page 335, 1882. "Mr. D. Forbes informs me that he found in various parts of the Cordillera, from lat. 13 deg W. to 30 deg S., at about the height of twelve thousand feet, deeply furrowed rocks...and likewise great masses of detritus, including grooved pebbles. Along this whole space of the Cordillera true glaciers do not now exist, even at much more considerable height. "), you will find a brief allusion, on authority of Mr. D. Forbes, on the former much lower extension of glaciers in the equatorial Cordillera. Pray also look at page 407 at what I say on the nature of tropical vegetation (which I could now much improve) during the Glacial period. (363/4. "During this, the coldest period, the lowlands under the Equator must have been clothed with a mingled tropical and temperate vegetation..." ("Origin," Edition VI., 1882, page 338).) I feel a strong conviction that soon every one will believe that the whole world was cooler during the Glacial period. Remember Hooker's wonderful case recently discovered of the identity of so many temperate plants on the summit of Fernando Po, and on the mountains of Abyssinia. (363/5. "Dr. Hooker has also lately shown that several of the plants living in the upper parts of the lofty island of Fernando Po, and in the neighbouring Cameroon Mountains, in the Gulf of Guinea, are closely related to those on the mountains of Abyssinia, and likewise to those of temperate Europe" (loc. cit., page 337).) I look at [it] as certain that these plants crossed the whole of Africa from east to west during the same period. I wish I had published a long chapter written in full, and almost ready for the press, on this subject, which I wrote ten years ago. It was impossible in the "Origin" to give a fair abstract. My health is considerably improved, so that I am able to work nearly two hours a day, and so make some little progress with my everlasting book on domestic varieties. You will have heard of my sister Catherine's easy death last Friday morning. (363/6. Catherine Darwin died in February 1866.) She suffered much, and we all look at her death as a blessing, for there was much fear of prolonged and greater suffering. We are uneasy about Susan, but she has hitherto borne it better than we could have hoped. (363/7. Susan Darwin died in October 1866.) Remember glacial action of Lebanon when you speak of no glacial action in S. on Himalaya, and in S.E. Australia. P.S.--I have been very glad to see Sir C. Bunbury's letter. (363/8. The letter from Bunbury to Lyell, already quoted on this subject. Bunbury writes: "There is nothing in the least NORTHERN, nothing that is not characteristically Brazilian, in the flora of the Organ Mountains.") If the genera which I name from Gardner (363/9. "Travels in the Interior of Brazil," by G. Gardner: London, 1846.) are not considered by him as usually temperate forms, I am, of course, silenced; but Hooker looked over the MS. chapter some ten years ago and did not score out my remarks on them, and he is generally ready enough to pitch into my ignorance and snub me, as I often deserve. My wonder was how any, ever so few, temperate forms reached the mountains of Brazil; and I supposed they travelled by the rather high land and ranges (name forgotten) which stretch from the Cordillera towards Brazil. Cordillera genera of plants have also, somehow, reached the Silla of Caracas. When I think of the vegetation of New Zealand and west coast of South America, where glaciers now descend to or very near to the sea, I feel it rash to conclude that all tropical forms would be destroyed by a considerably cooler period under the Equator. LETTER 364. TO C. LYELL. Down, Thursday, February 15th [1866]. Many thanks for Hooker's letter; it is a real pleasure to me to read his letters; they are always written with such spirit. I quite agree that Agassiz could never mistake weathered blocks and glacial action; though the mistake has, I know, been made in two or three quarters of the world. I have often fought with Hooker about the physicists putting their veto on the world having been cooler; it seems to me as irrational as if, when geologists first brought forward some evidence of elevation and subsidence, a former Hooker had declared that this could not possibly be admitted until geologists could explain what made the earth rise and fall. It seems that I erred greatly about some of the plants on the Organ Mountains. (364/1. "On the Organ Mountains of Brazil some few temperate European, some Antarctic, and some Andean genera were found by Gardner, which did not exist in the low intervening hot countries" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 336).) But I am very glad to hear about Fuchsia, etc. I cannot make out what Hooker does believe; he seems to admit the former cooler climate, and almost in the same breath to spurn the idea. To retort Hooker's words, "it is inexplicable to me" how he can compare the transport of seeds from the Andes to the Organ Mountains with that from a continent to an island. Not to mention the much greater distance, there are no currents of water from one to the other; and what on earth should make a bird fly that distance without resting many times? I do not at all suppose that nearly all tropical forms were exterminated during the cool period; but in somewhat depopulated areas, into which there could be no migration, probably many closely allied species will have been formed since this period. Hooker's paper in the "Natural History Review" (364/2. Possibly an unsigned article, entitled "New Colonial Floras" (a review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae").--"Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 46. See Letter 184.) is well worth studying; but I cannot remember that he gives good grounds for his conviction that certain orders of plants could not withstand a rather cooler climate, even if it came on most gradually. We have only just learnt under how cool a temperature several tropical orchids can flourish. I clearly saw Hooker's difficulty about the preservation of tropical forms during the cool period, and tried my best to retain one spot after another as a hothouse for their preservation; but it would not hold good, and it was a mere piece of truckling on my part when I suggested that longitudinal belts of the world were cooled one after the other. I shall very much like to see Agassiz's letter, whenever you receive one. I have written a long letter; but a squabble with or about Hooker always does me a world of good, and we have been at it many a long year. I cannot understand whether he attacks me as a wriggler or a hammerer, but I am very sure that a deal of wriggling has to be done. LETTER 365. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 30th [1866]. Many thanks about the lupin. Your letter has interested me extremely, and reminds me of old times. I suppose, by your writing, you would like to hear my notions. I cannot admit the Atlantis connecting Madeira and Canary Islands without the strongest evidence, and all on that side (365/1. Sir J.D. Hooker lectured on "Insular Floras" at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association on August 27th, 1866. His lecture is given in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1867, page 6. No doubt he was at this time preparing his remarks on continental extension, which take the form of a judicial statement, giving the arguments and difficulties on both sides. He sums up against continental extension, which, he says, accounts for everything and explains nothing; "whilst the hypothesis of trans-oceanic migration, though it leaves a multitude of facts unexplained, offers a rational solution of many of the most puzzling phenomena." In his lecture, Sir Joseph wrote that in ascending the mountains in Madeira there is but little replacement of lowland species by those of a higher northern latitude. "Plants become fewer and fewer as we ascend, and their places are not taken by boreal ones, or by but very few."): the depth is so great; there is nothing geologically in the islands favouring the belief; there are no endemic mammals or batrachians. Did not Bunbury show that some Orders of plants were singularly deficient? But I rely chiefly on the large amount of specific distinction in the insects and land-shells of P. Santo and Madeira: surely Canary and Madeira could not have been connected, if Madeira and P. Santo had long been distinct. If you admit Atlantis, I think you are bound to admit or explain the difficulties. With respect to cold temperate plants in Madeira, I, of course, know not enough to form an opinion; but, admitting Atlantis, I can see their rarity is a great difficulty; otherwise, seeing that the latitude is only a little north of the Persian Gulf, and seeing the long sea-transport for seeds, the rarity of northern plants does not seem to me difficult. The immigration may have been from a southerly direction, and it seems that some few African as well as coldish plants are common to the mountains to the south. Believing in occasional transport, I cannot feel so much surprise at there being a good deal in common to Madeira and Canary, these being the nearest points of land to each other. It is quite new and very interesting to me what you say about the endemic plants being in so large a proportion rare species. From the greater size of the workshop (i.e., greater competition and greater number of individuals, etc.) I should expect that continental forms, as they are occasionally introduced, would always tend to beat the insular forms; and, as in every area, there will always be many forms more or less rare tending towards extinction, I should certainly have expected that in islands a large proportion of the rarer forms would have been insular in their origin. The longer the time any form has existed in an island into which continental forms are occasionally introduced, by so much the chances will be in favour of its being peculiar or abnormal in nature, and at the same time scanty in numbers. The duration of its existence will also have formerly given it the best chance, when it was not so rare, of being widely distributed to adjoining archipelagoes. Here is a wriggle: the older a form is, the better the chance will be of its having become developed into a tree! An island from being surrounded by the sea will prevent free immigration and competition, hence a greater number of ancient forms will survive on an island than on the nearest continent whence the island was stocked; and I have always looked at Clethra (365/2. Clethra is an American shrubby genus of Ericaceae, found nowhere nearer to Madeira than North America. Of this plant and of Persea, Sir Charles Lyell ("Principles," 1872, Volume II., page 422) says: "Regarded as relics of a Miocene flora, they are just such forms as we should naturally expect to have come from the adjoining Miocene continent." See also "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 83, where a similar view is quoted from Heer.) and the other extra-European forms as remnants of the Tertiary flora which formerly inhabited Europe. This preservation of ancient forms in islands appears to me like the preservation of ganoid fishes in our present freshwaters. You speak of no northern plants on mountains south of the Pyrenees: does my memory quite deceive me that Boissier published a long list from the mountains in Southern Spain? I have not seen Wollaston's, "Catalogue," (365/4. Probably the "Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of the Canaries in the British Museum," 1864.) but must buy it, if it gives the facts about rare plants which you mention. And now I have given more than enough of my notions, which I well know will be in flat contradiction with all yours. Wollaston, in his "Insecta Maderensia" (365/5. "Insecta Maderensia," London, 1854.), 4to, page 12, and in his "Variation of Species," pages 82-7, gives the case of apterous insects, but I remember I worked out some additional details. I think he gives in these same works the proportion of European insects. LETTER 366. TO J.D. HOOKER. (366/1. Sir Joseph had asked (July 31st, 1866): "Is there an evidence that the south of England and of Ireland were not submerged during the Glacial epoch, when the W. and N. of England were islands in a glacial sea? And supposing they were above water, could the present Atlantic and N.W. of France floras we now find there have been there during the Glacial epoch?--Yet this is what Forbes demands, page 346. At page 347 he sees this objection, and wriggles out of his difficulty by putting the date of the Channel 'towards the close of the Glacial epoch.' What does Austen make the date of the Channel?--ante or post Glacial?" The changes in level and other questions are dealt with in a paper by R.A.C. Austen (afterwards Godwin-Austen), "On the Superficial Accumulations of the Coasts of the English Channel and the Changes they indicate." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." VII., 1851, page 118. Obit. notice by Prof. Bonney in the "Proc. Geol. Soc." XLI., page 37, 1885.) Down, August 3rd [1866]. I will take your letter seriatim. There is good evidence that S.E. England was dry land during the Glacial period. I forget what Austen says, but Mammals prove, I think, that England has been united to the Continent since the Glacial period. I don't see your difficulty about what I say on the breaking of an isthmus: if Panama was broken through would not the fauna of the Pacific flow into the W. Indies, or vice versa, and destroy a multitude of creatures? Of course I'm no judge, but I thought De Candolle had made out his case about small areas of trees. You will find at page 112, 3rd edition "Origin," a too concise allusion to the Madeira flora being a remnant of the Tertiary European flora. I shall feel deeply interested by reading your botanical difficulties against occasional immigration. The facts you give about certain plants, such as the heaths, are certainly very curious. (366/2. In Hooker's lecture he gives St. Dabeoc's Heath and Calluna vulgaris as the most striking of the few boreal plants in the Azores. Darwin seems to have been impressed by the boreal character of the Azores, thus taking the opposite view to that of Sir Joseph. See Letter 370, note.) I thought the Azores flora was more boreal, but what can you mean by saying that the Azores are nearer to Britain and Newfoundland than to Madeira?--on the globe they are nearly twice as far off. (366/3. See Letter 368.) With respect to sea currents, I formerly made enquiries at Madeira, but cannot now give you the results; but I remember that the facts were different from what is generally stated: I think that a ship wrecked on the Canary Islands was thrown up on the coast of Madeira. You speak as if only land-shells differed in Madeira and Porto Santo: does my memory deceive me that there is a host of representative insects? When you exorcise at Nottingham occasional means of transport, be honest, and admit how little is known on the subject. Remember how recently you and others thought that salt water would soon kill seeds. Reflect that there is not a coral islet in the ocean which is not pretty well clothed with plants, and the fewness of the species can hardly with justice be attributed to the arrival of few seeds, for coral islets close to other land support only the same limited vegetation. Remember that no one knew that seeds would remain for many hours in the crops of birds and retain their vitality; that fish eat seeds, and that when the fish are devoured by birds the seeds can germinate, etc. Remember that every year many birds are blown to Madeira and to the Bermudas. Remember that dust is blown 1,000 miles over the Atlantic. Now, bearing all this in mind, would it not be a prodigy if an unstocked island did not in the course of ages receive colonists from coasts whence the currents flow, trees are drifted and birds are driven by gales. The objections to islands being thus stocked are, as far as I understand, that certain species and genera have been more freely introduced, and others less freely than might have been expected. But then the sea kills some sorts of seeds, others are killed by the digestion of birds, and some would be more liable than others to adhere to birds' feet. But we know so very little on these points that it seems to me that we cannot at all tell what forms would probably be introduced and what would not. I do not for a moment pretend that these means of introduction can be proved to have acted; but they seem to me sufficient, with no valid or heavy objections, whilst there are, as it seems to me, the heaviest objections on geological and on geographical distribution grounds (pages 387, 388, "Origin" (366/4. Edition III., or Edition VI., page 323.) to Forbes' enormous continental extensions. But I fear that I shall and have bored you. LETTER 367. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. (367/1. In a letter of July 31st, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, "You must not suppose me to be a champion of continental connection, because I am not agreeable to trans-oceanic migration...either hypothesis appears to me well to cover the facts of oceanic floras, but there are grave objections to both, botanical to yours, geological to Forbes'.") The following interesting letters give some of Sir Joseph's difficulties.) Kew, August 4th, 1866. You mention ("Journal") no land-birds, except introduced, upon St. Helena. Beatson (Introduction xvii) mentions one (367/2. Aegialitis sanctae-helenae, a small plover "very closely allied to a species found in South Africa, but presenting certain differences which entitle it to the rank of a peculiar species" (Wallace, "Island Life," page 294). In the earlier editions of the "Origin" (e.g. Edition III., page 422) Darwin wrote that "Madeira does not possess one peculiar bird." In Edition IV., 1866, page 465, the mistake was put right.) "in considerable numbers," resembles sand-lark--is called "wire bird," has long greenish legs like wires, runs fast, eyes large, bill moderately long, is rather shy, does not possess much powers of flight. What was it? I have written to ask Sclater, also about birds of Madeira and Azores. It is a very curious thing that the Azores do not contain the (non-European) American genus Clethra, that is found in Madeira and Canaries, and that the Azores contain no trace of American element (beyond what is common to Madeira), except a species of Sanicula, a genus with hooked bristles to the small seed-vessels. The European Sanicula roams from Norway to Madeira, Canaries, Cape Verde, Cameroons, Cape of Good Hope, and from Britain to Japan, and also is, I think, in N. America; but does not occur in the Azores, where it is replaced by one that is of a decidedly American type. This tells heavily against the doctrine that joins Atlantis to America, and is much against your trans-oceanic migration--for considering how near the Azores are to America, and in the influence of the Gulf-stream and prevalent winds, it certainly appears marvellous. Not only are the Azores in a current that sweeps the coast of U. States, but they are in the S.W. winds, and in the eye of the S.W. hurricanes! I suppose you will answer that the European forms are prepotent, but this is riding prepotency to death. R.T. Lowe has written me a capital letter on the Madeiran, Canarian, and Cape Verde floras. I misled you if I gave you to understand that Wollaston's Catalogue said anything about rare plants. I am worked and worried to death with this lecture: and curse myself as a soft headed and hearted imbecile to have accepted it. LETTER 368. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Monday [August 6th, 1866]. Again thanks for your letter. You need not fear my not doing justice to your objections to the continental hypothesis! Referring to page 344 again (368/1. "Origin of Species," Edition III., pages 343-4: "In some cases, however, as by the breaking of an isthmus and the consequent irruption of a multitude of new inhabitants, or by the final subsidence of an island, the extinction may have been comparatively rapid."), it never occurred to me that you alluded to extinction of marine life: an isthmus is a piece of land, and you go on in the same sentence about "an island," which quite threw me out, for the destruction of an isthmus makes an island! I surely did not say Azores nearer to Britain and Newfoundland "than to Madeira," but "than Madeira is to said places." With regard to the Madeiran coleoptera I rely very little on local distribution of insects--they are so local themselves. A butterfly is a great rarity in Kew, even a white, though we are surrounded by market gardens. All insects are most rare with us, even the kinds that abound on the opposite side of Thames. So with shells, we have literally none--not a Helix even, though they abound in the lanes 200 yards off the Gardens. Of the 89 Dezertas insects [only?] 11 are peculiar. Of the 162 Porto Santan 113 are Madeiran and 51 Dezertan. Never mind bothering Murray about the new edition of the "Origin" for me. You will tell me anything bearing on my subject. LETTER 369. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 7th, 1866. Dear old Darwin, You must not let me worry you. I am an obstinate pig, but you must not be miserable at my looking at the same thing in a different light from you. I must get to the bottom of this question, and that is all I can do. Some cleverer fellow one day will knock the bottom out of it, and see his way to explain what to a botanist without a theory to support must be very great difficulties. True enough, all may be explained, as you reason it will be--I quite grant this; but meanwhile all is not so explained, and I cannot accept a hypothesis that leaves so many facts unaccounted for. You say the temperate parts of N. America [are] nearly two and a half times as distant from the Azores as Europe is. According to a rough calculation on Col. James' chart I make E. Azores to Portugal 850, West do. to Newfoundland 1500, but I am writing to a friend at Admiralty to have the distance calculated (which looks like cracking nuts with Nasmyth's hammer!) Are European birds blown to America? Are the Azorean erratics an established fact? I want them very badly, though they are not of much consequence, as a slight sinking would hide all evidence of that sort. I do want to sum up impartially, leaving the verdict to jury. I cannot do this without putting all difficulties most clearly. How do you know how you would fare with me if you were a continentalist! Then too we must recollect that I have to meet a host who are all on the continental side--in fact, pretty nearly all the thinkers, Forbes, Hartung, Heer, Unger, Wollaston, Lowe (Wallace, I suppose), and now Andrew Murray. I do not regard all these, and snap my fingers at all but you; in my inmost soul I conscientiously say I incline to your theory, but I cannot accept it as an established truth or unexceptionable hypothesis. The "Wire bird" being a Grallator is a curious fact favourable to you...How I do yearn to go out again to St. Helena. Of course I accept the ornithological evidence as tremendously strong, though why they should get blown westerly, and not change specifically, as insects, shells, and plants have done, is a mystery. LETTER 370. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 8th [1866]. It would be a very great pleasure to me if I could think that my letters were of the least use to you. I must have expressed myself badly for you to suppose that I look at islands being stocked by occasional transport as a well-established hypothesis. We both give up creation, and therefore have to account for the inhabitants of islands either by continental extensions or by occasional transport. Now, all that I maintain is that of these two alternatives, one of which must be admitted, notwithstanding very many difficulties, occasional transport is by far the most probable. I go thus far further--that I maintain, knowing what we do, that it would be inexplicable if unstocked islands were not stocked to a certain extent at least by these occasional means. European birds are occasionally driven to America, but far more rarely than in the reverse direction: they arrive via Greenland (Baird); yet a European lark has been caught in Bermuda. By the way, you might like to hear that European birds regularly migrate via the northern islands to Greenland. About the erratics in the Azores see "Origin," page 393. (370/1. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. The importance of erratic blocks on the Azores is in showing the probability of ice-borne seeds having stocked the islands, and thus accounting for the number of European species and their unexpectedly northern character. Darwin's delight in the verification of his theory is described in a letter to Sir Joseph of April 26th, 1858, in the "Life and Letters," II., page 112.) Hartung could hardly be mistaken about granite blocks on a volcanic island. I do not think it a mystery that birds have not been modified in Madeira. (370/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. Madeira has only one endemic bird. Darwin accounts for the fact from the island having been stocked with birds which had struggled together and become mutually co-adapted on the neighbouring continents. "Hence, when settled in their new homes, each kind will have been kept by the others in its proper place and habits, and will consequently have been but little liable to modification." Crossing with frequently arriving immigrants will also tend to keep down modification.) Pray look at page 422 of "Origin" [Edition III.]. You would not think it a mystery if you had seen the long lists which I have (somewhere) of the birds annually blown, even in flocks, to Madeira. The crossed stock would be the more vigorous. Remember if you do not come here before Nottingham, if you do not come afterwards I shall think myself diabolically ill-used. LETTER 371. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 9th, 1866. If my letters did not gene you it is impossible that you should suppose that yours were of no use to me! I would throw up the whole thing were it not for correspondence with you, which is the only bit of silver in the affair. I do feel it disgusting to have to make a point of a speciality in which I cannot see my way a bit further than I could before I began. To be sure, I have a very much clearer notion of the pros and cons on both sides (though these were rather forgotten facts than rediscoveries). I see the sides of the well further down more distinctly, but the bottom is as obscure as ever. I think I know the "Origin" by heart in relation to the subject, and it was reading it that suggested the queries about Azores boulders and Madeira birds. The former you and I have talked over, and I thought I remembered that you wanted it confirmed. The latter strikes me thus: why should plants and insects have been so extensively changed and birds not at all? I perfectly understand and feel the force of your argument in reference to birds per se, but why do these not apply to insects and plants? Can you not see that this suggests the conclusion that the plants are derived one way and the birds another? I certainly did take it for granted that you supposed the stocking [by] occasional transport to be something even more than a "well-established hypothesis," but disputants seldom stop to measure the strength of their antagonist's opinion. I shall be with you on Saturday week, I hope. I should have come before, but have made so little progress that I could not. I am now at St. Helena, and shall then go to, and finish with, Kerguelen's land. (371/1. After giving the distances of the Azores, etc., from America, Sir Joseph continues:--) But to my mind [it] does not mend the matter--for I do not ask why Azores have even proportionally (to distance) a smaller number of American plants, but why they have none, seeing the winds and currents set that way. The Bermudas are all American in flora, but from what Col. Munro informs me I should say they have nothing but common American weeds and the juniper (cedar). No changed forms, yet they are as far from America as Azores from Europe. I suppose they are modern and out of the pale. ...There is this, to me, astounding difference between certain oceanic islands which were stocked by continental extension and those stocked by immigration (following in both definitions your opinion), that the former [continental] do contain many types of the more distant continent, the latter do not any! Take Madagascar, with its many Asiatic genera unknown in Africa; Ceylon, with many Malayan types not Peninsular; Japan, with many non-Asiatic American types. Baird's fact of Greenland migration I was aware of since I wrote my Arctic paper. I wish I was as satisfied either of continental [extensions] or of transport means as I am of my Greenland hypothesis! Oh, dear me, what a comfort it is to have a belief (sneer away). LETTER 372. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 4th, 1866. I have just finished the New Zealand "Manual" (372/1. "Handbook of the New Zealand Flora."), and am thinking about a discussion on the geographical distribution, etc., of the plants. There is scarcely a single indigenous annual plant in the group. I wish that I knew more of the past condition of the islands, and whether they have been rising or sinking. There is much that suggests the idea that the islands were once connected during a warmer epoch, were afterwards separated and much reduced in area to what they now are, and lastly have assumed their present size. The remarkable general uniformity of the flora, even of the arboreous flora, throughout so many degrees of latitude, is a very remarkable feature, as is the representation of a good many of the southern half of certain species of the north, by very closely allied varieties or species; and, lastly, there is the immense preponderance of certain genera whose species all run into one another and vary horribly, and which suggest a rising area. I hear that a whale has been found some miles inland. LETTER 373. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 14th, 1866. I do not see how the mountains of New Zealand, S. Australia, and Tasmania could have been peopled, and [with] so large an extent of antarctic (373/1. "Introductory Essay to Flora of New Zealand," page xx. "The plants of the Antarctic islands, which are equally natives of New Zealand, Tasmania, and Australia, are almost invariably found only on the lofty mountains of these countries.") forms common to Fuegia, without some intercommunication. And I have always supposed this was before the immigration of Asiatic plants into Australia, and of which plants the temperate and tropical plants of that country may be considered as altered forms. The presence of so many of these temperate and cold Australian and New Zealand genera on the top of Kini Balu in Borneo (under the equator) is an awful staggerer, and demands a very extended northern distribution of Australian temperate forms. It is a frightful assumption that the plains of Borneo were covered with a temperate cold vegetation that was driven up Kini Balu by the returning cold. Then there is the very distant distribution of a few Australian types northward to the Philippines, China, and Japan: that is a fearful and wonderful fact, though, as these plants are New Zealand too for the most part, the migration northward may have been east of Australia. LETTER 374. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th [1866]. ...One word more about the flora derived from supposed Pleistocene antarctic land requiring land intercommunication. This will depend much, as it seems to me, upon how far you finally settle whether Azores, Cape de Verdes, Tristan d'Acunha, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez, etc., etc., etc., have all had land intercommunication. If you do not think this necessary, might not New Zealand, etc., have been stocked during commencing Glacial period by occasional means from antarctic land? As for lowlands of Borneo being tenanted by a moderate number of temperate forms during the Glacial period, so far [is it] from appearing a "frightful assumption" that I am arrived at that pitch of bigotry that I look at it as proved! LETTER 375. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 25th, 1866. I was about to write to-day, when your jolly letter came this morning, to tell you that after carefully going over the N.Z. Flora, I find that there are only about thirty reputed indigenous Dicot. annuals, of which almost half, not being found by Banks and Solander, are probably non-indigenous. This is just 1/20th of the Dicots., or, excluding the doubtful, about 1/40th, whereas the British proportion of annuals is 1/4.6 amongst Dicots.!!! Of the naturalised New Zealand plants one-half are annual! I suppose there can be no doubt but that a deciduous-leaved vegetation affords more conditions for vegetable life than an evergreen one, and that it is hence that we find countries characterised by uniform climates to be poor in species, and those to be evergreens. I can now work this point out for New Zealand and Britain. Japan may be an exception: it is an extraordinary evergreen country, and has many species apparently, but it has so much novelty that it may not be so rich in species really as it hence looks, and I do believe it is very poor. It has very few annuals. Then, again, I think that the number of plants with irregular flowers, and especially such as require insect agency, diminishes much with evergreenity. Hence in all humid temperate regions we have, as a rule, few species, many evergreens, few annuals, few Leguminosae and orchids, few lepidoptera and other flying insects, many Coniferae, Amentaceae, Gramineae, Cyperaceae, and other wind-fertilised trees and plants, etc. Orchids and Leguminosae are scarce in islets, because the necessary fertilising insects have not migrated with the plants. Perhaps you have published this. LETTER 376. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 9th [1867]. I like the first part of your paper in the "Gard. Chronicle" (376/1. The lecture on Insular Floras ("Gard. Chron." January 1867).) to an extraordinary degree: you never, in my opinion, wrote anything better. You ask for all, even minute criticisms. In the first column you speak of no alpine plants and no replacement by zones, which will strike every one with astonishment who has read Humboldt and Webb on Zones on Teneriffe. Do you not mean boreal or arctic plants? (376/2. The passage which seems to be referred to does mention the absence of BOREAL plants.) In the third column you speak as if savages (376/3. "Such plants on oceanic islands are, like the savages which in some islands have been so long the sole witnesses of their existence, the last representatives of their several races.") had generally viewed the endemic plants of the Atlantic islands. Now, as you well know, the Canaries alone of all the archipelagoes were inhabited. In the third column have you really materials to speak of confirming the proportion of winged and wingless insects on islands? Your comparison of plants of Madeira with islets of Great Britain is admirable. (376/4. "What should we say, for instance, if a plant so totally unlike anything British as the Monizia edulis...were found on one rocky islet of the Scillies, or another umbelliferous plant, Melanoselinum...on one mountain in Wales; or if the Isle of Wight and Scilly Islands had varieties, species, and genera too, differing from anything in Britain, and found nowhere else in the world!") I must allude to one of your last notes with very curious case of proportion of annuals in New Zealand. (376/5. On this subject see Hildebrand's interesting paper "Die Lebensdauer der Pflanzen" (Engler's "Botanische Jahrbucher," Volume II., 1882, page 51). He shows that annuals are rare in very dry desert-lands, in northern and alpine regions. The following table gives the percentages of annuals, etc., in various situations in Freiburg (Baden):-- Annuals. Biennials. Perennials. Trees and Shrubs. Sandy, dry, and stony places: 21 11 65 3 Dry fields: 6 4 90 Damp fields: 12 2 77 9 Woods and copses: 3 2 65 31 Water: 3 97 Cultivated land: 89 11 Are annuals adapted for short seasons, as in arctic regions, or tropical countries with dry season, or for periodically disturbed and cultivated ground? You speak of evergreen vegetation as leading to few or confined conditions; but is not evergreen vegetation connected with humid and equable climate? Does not a very humid climate almost imply (Tyndall) an equable one? I have never printed a word that I can remember about orchids and papilionaceous plants being few in islands on account of rarity of insects; and I remember you screamed at me when I suggested this a propos of Papilionaceae in New Zealand, and of the statement about clover not seeding there till the hive-bee was introduced, as I stated in my paper in "Gard. Chronicle." (376/6. "In an old number of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" an extract is given from a New Zealand newspaper in which much surprise is expressed that the introduced clover never seeded freely until the hive-bee was introduced." "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers..." ("Gard. Chron." 1858, page 828). See Letter 362, note.) I have been these last few days vexed and annoyed to a foolish degree by hearing that my MS. on Domestic Animals, etc., will make two volumes, both bigger than the "Origin." The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I have written to Murray to suggest details to be printed in small type. But I feel that the size is quite ludicrous in relation to the subject. I am ready to swear at myself and at every fool who writes a book. LETTER 377. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 15th [1867]. Thanks for your jolly letter. I have read your second article (377/1. The lecture on Insular Floras was published in instalments in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," January 5th, 12th, 19th, 26th, 1867.), and like it even more than the first, and more than this I cannot say. By mere chance I stumbled yesterday on a passage in Humboldt that a violet grows on the Peak of Teneriffe in common with the Pyrenees. If Humboldt is right that the Canary Is. which lie nearest to the continent have a much stronger African character than the others, ought you not just to allude to this? I do not know whether you admit, and if so allude to, the view which seems to me probable, that most of the genera confined to the Atlantic islands (I do not say the species) originally existed in, and were derived from, Europe, [and have] become extinct on this continent. I should thus account for the community of peculiar genera in the several Atlantic islands. About the Salvages is capital. (377/2. The Salvages are rocky islets about midway between Madeira and the Canaries; and they have an Atlantic flora, instead of, as might have been expected, one composed of African immigrants. ("Insular Floras," page 5 of separate copy.)) I am glad you speak of LINKING, though this sounds a little too close, instead of being continuous. All about St. Helena is grand. You have no faith, but if I knew any one who lived in St. Helena I would supplicate him to send me home a cask or two of earth from a few inches beneath the surface from the upper part of the island, and from any dried-up pond, and thus, as sure as I'm a wriggler, I should receive a multitude of lost plants. I did suggest to you to work out proportion of plants with irregular flowers on islands; I did this after giving a very short discussion on irregular flowers in my Lythrum paper. (377/3. "Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII., 1865, page 169.) But what on earth has a mere suggestion like this to do with meum and tuum? You have comforted me much about the bigness of my book, which yet turns me sick when I think of it. 
2740	----	MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN By Charles Darwin A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE IN TWO VOLUMES Transcriber's Notes: All biographical footnotes of both volumes appear at the end of Volume II. All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear in the text, in brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number. VOLUME II. DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN "You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement" CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862 MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN VOLUME II CHAPTER 2.VII.--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 1843-1882 (Continued) (1867-1882.) LETTER 378. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, January 20th, 1867. Prof. Miquel, of Utrecht, begs me to ask you for your carte, and offers his in return. I grieve to bother you on such a subject. I am sick and tired of this carte correspondence. I cannot conceive what Humboldt's Pyrenean violet is: no such is mentioned in Webb, and no alpine one at all. I am sorry I forgot to mention the stronger African affinity of the eastern Canary Islands. Thank you for mentioning it. I cannot admit, without further analysis, that most of the peculiar Atlantic Islands genera were derived from Europe, and have since become extinct there. I have rather thought that many are only altered forms of existing European genera; but this is a very difficult point, and would require a careful study of such genera and allies with this object in view. The subject has often presented itself to me as a grand one for analytic botany. No doubt its establishment would account for the community of the peculiar genera on the several groups and islets, but whilst so many species are common we must allow for a good deal of migration of peculiar genera too. By Jove! I will write out next mail to the Governor of St. Helena for boxes of earth, and you shall have them to grow. Thanks for telling me of having suggested to me the working out of proportions of plants with irregular flowers in islands. I thought it was a deuced deal too good an idea to have arisen spontaneously in my block, though I did not recollect your having done so. No doubt your suggestion was crystallised in some corner of my sensorium. I should like to work out the point. Have you Kerguelen Land amongst your volcanic islands? I have a curious book of a sealer who was wrecked on the island, and who mentions a volcanic mountain and hot springs at the S.W. end; it is called the "Wreck of the Favourite." (378/1. "Narrative of the Wreck of the 'Favourite' on the Island of Desolation; detailing the Adventures, Sufferings and Privations of John Munn; an Historical Account of the Island and its Whale and Sea Fisheries." Edited by W.B. Clarke: London, 1850.) LETTER 379. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 17th, 1867. It is a long time since I have written, but I cannot boast that I have refrained from charity towards you, but from having lots of work...You ask what I have been doing. Nothing but blackening proofs with corrections. I do not believe any man in England naturally writes so vile a style as I do... In your paper on "Insular Floras" (page 9) there is what I must think an error, which I before pointed out to you: viz., you say that the plants which are wholly distinct from those of nearest continent are often very common instead of very rare. (379/1. "Insular Floras," pamphlet reprinted from the "Gardeners' Chronicle," page 9: "As a general rule the species of the mother continent are proportionally the most abundant, and cover the greatest surface of the islands. The peculiar species are rarer, the peculiar genera of continental affinity are rarer still; whilst the plants having no affinity with those of the mother continent are often very common." In a letter of March 20th, 1867, Sir Joseph explains that in the case of the Atlantic islands it is the "peculiar genera of EUROPEAN AFFINITY that are so rare," while Clethra, Dracaena and the Laurels, which have no European affinity, are common.) Etty (379/2. Mr. Darwin's daughter, now Mrs. Litchfield.), who has read your paper with great interest, was confounded by this sentence. By the way, I have stumbled on two old notes: one, that twenty-two species of European birds occasionally arrive as chance wanderers to the Azores; and, secondly, that trunks of American trees have been known to be washed on the shores of the Canary Islands by the Gulf-stream, which returns southward from the Azores. What poor papers those of A. Murray are in "Gardeners' Chronicle." What conclusions he draws from a single Carabus (379/3. "Dr. Hooker on Insular Floras" ("Gardeners' Chronicle," 1867, pages 152, 181). The reference to the Carabidous beetle (Aplothorax) is at page 181.), and that a widely ranging genus! He seems to me conceited; you and I are fair game geologically, but he refers to Lyell, as if his opinion on a geological point was worth no more than his own. I have just bought, but not read a sentence of, Murray's big book (379/4. "Geographical Distribution of Mammals," 1866.), second-hand, for 30s., new, so I do not envy the publishers. It is clear to me that the man cannot reason. I have had a very nice letter from Scott at Calcutta (379/5. See Letter 150.): he has been making some good observations on the acclimatisation of seeds from plants of same species, grown in different countries, and likewise on how far European plants will stand the climate of Calcutta. He says he is astonished how well some flourish, and he maintains, if the land were unoccupied, several could easily cross, spreading by seed, the Tropics from north to south, so he knows how to please me; but I have told him to be cautious, else he will have dragons down on him... As the Azores are only about two-and-a-half times more distant from America (in the same latitude) than from Europe, on the occasional migration view (especially as oceanic currents come directly from West Indies and Florida, and heavy gales of wind blow from the same direction), a large percentage of the flora ought to be American; as it is, we have only the Sanicula, and at present we have no explanation of this apparent anomaly, or only a feeble indication of an explanation in the birds of the Azores being all European. LETTER 380. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 21st [1867]. Many thanks for your pleasant and very amusing letter. You have been treated shamefully by Etty and me, but now that I know the facts, the sentence seems to me quite clear. Nevertheless, as we have both blundered, it would be well to modify the sentence something as follows: "whilst, on the other hand, the plants which are related to those of distant continents, but have no affinity with those of the mother continent, are often very common." I forget whether you explain this circumstance, but it seems to me very mysterious (380/1. Sir Joseph Hooker wrote (March 23rd, 1867): "I see you 'smell a rat' in the matter of insular plants that are related to those of [a] distant continent being common. Yes, my beloved friend, let me make a clean breast of it. I only found it out after the lecture was in print!...I have been waiting ever since to 'think it out,' and write to you about it, coherently. I thought it best to squeeze it in, anyhow or anywhere, rather than leave so curious a fact unnoticed.")...Do always remember that nothing in the world gives us so much pleasure as seeing you here whenever you can come. I chuckle over what you say of And. Murray, but I must grapple with his book some day. LETTER 381. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 31st [1867]. Mr. [J.P. Mansel] Weale sent to me from Natal a small packet of dry locust dung, under 1/2 oz., with the statement that it is believed that they introduce new plants into a district. (381/1. See Volume I., Letter 221.) This statement, however, must be very doubtful. From this packet seven plants have germinated, belonging to at least two kinds of grasses. There is no error, for I dissected some of the seeds out of the middle of the pellets. It deserves notice that locusts are sometimes blown far out to sea. I caught one 370 miles from Africa, and I have heard of much greater distances. You might like to hear the following case, as it relates to a migratory bird belonging to the most wandering of all orders--viz. the woodcock. (381/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328.) The tarsus was firmly coated with mud, weighing when dry 9 grains, and from this the Juncus bufonius, or toad rush, germinated. By the way, the locust case verifies what I said in the "Origin," that many possible means of distribution would be hereafter discovered. I quite agree about the extreme difficulty of the distribution of land mollusca. You will have seen in the last edition of "Origin" (381/3. "Origin," Edition IV., page 429. The reference is to MM. Marten's (381/4. For Marten's read Martins' [the name is wrongly spelt in the "Origin of Species."]) experiments on seeds "in a box in the actual sea.") that my observations on the effects of sea-water have been confirmed. I still suspect that the legs of birds which roost on the ground may be an efficient means; but I was interrupted when going to make trials on this subject, and have never resumed it. We shall be in London in the middle of latter part of November, when I shall much enjoy seeing you. Emma sends her love, and many thanks for Lady Lyell's note. LETTER 382. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Wednesday [1867]. I daresay there is a great deal of truth in your remarks on the glacial affair, but we are in a muddle, and shall never agree. I am bigoted to the last inch, and will not yield. I cannot think how you can attach so much weight to the physicists, seeing how Hopkins, Hennessey, Haughton, and Thomson have enormously disagreed about the rate of cooling of the crust; remembering Herschel's speculations about cold space (382/1. The reader will find some account of Herschel's views in Lyell's "Principles," 1872, Edition XI., Volume I., page 283.), and bearing in mind all the recent speculations on change of axis, I will maintain to the death that your case of Fernando Po and Abyssinia is worth ten times more than the belief of a dozen physicists. (382/2. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 337: "Dr. Hooker has also lately shown that several of the plants living on the upper parts of the lofty island of Fernando Po and on the neighbouring Cameroon mountains, in the Gulf of Guinea, are closely related to those in the mountains of Abyssinia, and likewise to those of temperate Europe." Darwin evidently means that such facts as these are better evidence of the gigantic periods of time occupied by evolutionary changes than the discordant conclusions of the physicists. See "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume VII., page 180, for Hooker's general conclusions; also Hooker and Ball's "Marocco," Appendix F, page 421. For the case of Fernando Po see Hooker ("Linn. Soc. Journ." VI., 1861, page 3, where he sums up: "Hence the result of comparing Clarence Peak flora [Fernando Po] with that of the African continent is--(1) the intimate relationship with Abyssinia, of whose flora it is a member, and from which it is separated by 1800 miles of absolutely unexplored country; (2) the curious relationship with the East African islands, which are still farther off; (3) the almost total dissimilarity from the Cape flora." For Sir J.D. Hooker's general conclusions on the Cameroon plants see "Linn. Soc. Journ." VII., page 180. More recently equally striking cases have come to light: for instance, the existence of a Mediterranean genus, Adenocarpus, in the Cameroons and on Kilima Njaro, and nowhere else in Africa; and the probable migration of South African forms along the highlands from the Natal District to Abysinnia. See Hooker, "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIV., 1874, pages 144-5.) Your remarks on my regarding temperate plants and disregarding the tropical plants made me at first uncomfortable, but I soon recovered. You say that all botanists would agree that many tropical plants could not withstand a somewhat cooler climate. But I have come not to care at all for general beliefs without the special facts. I have suffered too often from this: thus I found in every book the general statement that a host of flowers were fertilised in the bud, that seeds could not withstand salt water, etc., etc. I would far more trust such graphic accounts as that by you of the mixed vegetation on the Himalayas and other such accounts. And with respect to tropical plants withstanding the slowly coming on cool period, I trust to such facts as yours (and others) about seeds of the same species from mountains and plains having acquired a slightly different climatal constitution. I know all that I have said will excite in you savage contempt towards me. Do not answer this rigmarole, but attack me to your heart's content, and to that of mine, whenever you can come here, and may it be soon. LETTER 383. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, 1870. (383/1. The following extract from a letter of Sir J.D. Hooker shows the tables reversed between the correspondents.) Grove is disgusted at your being disquieted about W. Thomson. Tell George from me not to sit upon you with his mathematics. When I threatened your tropical cooling views with the facts of the physicists, you snubbed me and the facts sweetly, over and over again; and now, because a scarecrow of x+y has been raised on the selfsame facts, you boo-boo. Take another dose of Huxley's penultimate G. S. Address, and send George back to college. (383/2. Huxley's Anniversary Address to the Geological Society, 1869 ("Collected Essays," VIII., page 305). This is a criticism of Lord Kelvin's paper "On Geological Time" ("Trans. Geolog. Soc. Glasgow," III.). At page 336 Mr. Huxley deals with Lord Kelvin's "third line of argument, based on the temperature of the interior of the earth." This was no doubt the point most disturbing to Mr. Darwin, since it led Lord Kelvin to ask (as quoted by Huxley), "Are modern geologists prepared to say that all life was killed off the earth 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 years ago?" Mr. Huxley, after criticising Lord Kelvin's data and conclusion, gives his conviction that the case against Geology has broken down. With regard to evolution, Huxley (page 328) ingeniously points out a case of circular reasoning. "But it may be said that it is biology, and not geology, which asks for so much time--that the succession of life demands vast intervals; but this appears to me to be reasoning in a circle. Biology takes her time from geology. The only reason we have for believing in the slow rate of the change in living forms is the fact that they persist through a series of deposits which, geology informs us, have taken a long while to make. If the geological clock is wrong, all the naturalist will have to do is to modify his notions of the rapidity of change accordingly.") LETTER 384. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 3rd [1868]. I am now reading Miquel on "Flora of Japan" (384/1. Miquel, "Flore du Japon": "Archives Neerlandaises" ii., 1867.), and like it: it is rather a relief to me (though, of course, not new to you) to find so very much in common with Asia. I wonder if A. Murray's (384/2. "Geographical Distribution of Mammals," by Andrew Murray, 1866. See Chapter V., page 47. See Letter 379.) notion can be correct, that a [profound] arm of the sea penetrated the west coast of N. America, and prevented the Asiatico-Japan element colonising that side of the continent so much as the eastern side; or will climate suffice? I shall to the day of my death keep up my full interest in Geographical Distribution, but I doubt whether I shall ever have strength to come in any fuller detail than in the "Origin" to this grand subject. In fact, I do not suppose any man could master so comprehensive a subject as it now has become, if all kingdoms of nature are included. I have read Murray's book, and am disappointed--though, as you said, here and there clever thoughts occur. How strange it is, that his view not affording the least explanation of the innumerable adaptations everywhere to be seen apparently does not in the least trouble his mind. One of the most curious cases which he adduces seems to me to be the two allied fresh-water, highly peculiar porpoises in the Ganges and Indus; and the more distantly allied form of the Amazons. Do you remember his explanation of an arm of the sea becoming cut off, like the Caspian, converted into fresh-water, and then divided into two lakes (by upheaval), giving rise to two great rivers. But no light is thus thrown on the affinity of the Amazon form. I now find from Flower's paper (384/3. "Zoolog. Trans." VI., 1869, page 115. The toothed whales are divided into the Physeteridae, the Delphinidae, and the Platanistidae, which latter is placed between the two other families, and is divided into the sub-families Iniinae and Platanistinae.) that these fresh-water porpoises form two sub-families, making an extremely isolated and intermediate, very small family. Hence to us they are clearly remnants of a large group; and I cannot doubt we here have a good instance precisely like that of ganoid fishes, of a large ancient marine group, preserved exclusively in fresh-water, where there has been less competition, and consequently little modification. (384/4. See Volume I., Letter 95.) What a grand fact that is which Miquel gives of the beech not extending beyond the Caucasus, and then reappearing in Japan, like your Himalayan Pinus, and the cedar of Lebanon. (384/5. For Pinus read Deodar. The essential identity of the deodar and the cedar of Lebanon was pointed out in Hooker's "Himalayan Journals" in 1854 (Volume I., page 257.n). In the "Nat. History Review," January, 1862, the question is more fully dealt with by him, and the distribution discussed. The nearest point at which cedars occur is the Bulgar-dagh chain of Taurus--250 miles from Lebanon. Under the name of Cedrus atlantica the tree occurs in mass on the borders of Tunis, and as Deodar it first appears to the east in the cedar forests of Afghanistan. Sir J.D. Hooker supposes that, during a period of greater cold, the cedars on the Taurus and on Lebanon lived many thousand feet nearer the sea-level, and spread much farther to the east, meeting similar belts of trees descending and spreading westward from Afghanistan along the Persian mountains.) I know of nothing that gives one such an idea of the recent mutations in the surface of the land as these living "outlyers." In the geological sense we must, I suppose, admit that every yard of land has been successively covered with a beech forest between the Caucasus and Japan! I have not yet seen (for I have not sent to the station) Falconer's works. When you say that you sigh to think how poor your reprinted memoirs would appear, on my soul I should like to shake you till your bones rattled for talking such nonsense. Do you sigh over the "Insular Floras," the Introduction to New Zealand Flora, to Australia, your Arctic Flora, and dear Galapagos, etc., etc., etc.? In imagination I am grinding my teeth and choking you till I put sense into you. Farewell. I have amused myself by writing an audaciously long letter. By the way, we heard yesterday that George has won the second Smith's Prize, which I am excessively glad of, as the Second Wrangler by no means always succeeds. The examination consists exclusively of [the] most difficult subjects, which such men as Stokes, Cayley, and Adams can set. LETTER 385. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 8th, 1868. ...While writing a few pages on the northern alpine forms of plants on the Java mountains I wanted a few cases to refer to like Teneriffe, where there are no northern forms and scarcely any alpine. I expected the volcanoes of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seemann about them. It seems a man has lately published a list of Hawaiian plants, and the mountains swarm with European alpine genera and some species! (385/1. "This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly exaggerated. There are no true alpines, and the European genera are comparatively few. See my 'Island Life,' page 323."--A.R.W.) Is not this most extraordinary, and a puzzler? They are, I believe, truly oceanic islands, in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty of birds and insects, and they are within the Tropics. Will not that be a hard nut for you when you come to treat in detail on geographical distribution? I enclose Seemann's note, which please return when you have copied the list, if of any use to you. LETTER 386. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 21st [1870]. I read yesterday the notes on Round Island (386/1. In Wallace's "Island Life," page 410, Round Island is described as an islet "only about a mile across, and situated about fourteen miles north-east of Mauritius." Wallace mentions a snake, a python belonging to the peculiar and distinct genus Casarea, as found on Round Island, and nowhere else in the world. The palm Latania Loddigesii is quoted by Wallace as "confined to Round Island and two other adjacent islets." See Baker's "Flora of the Mauritius and the Seychelles." Mr. Wallace says that, judging from the soundings, Round Island was connected with Mauritius, and that when it was "first separated [it] would have been both much larger and much nearer the main island.") which I owe to you. Was there ever such an enigma? If, in the course of a week or two, you can find time to let me hear what you think, I should very much like to hear: or we hope to be at Erasmus' on March 4th for a week. Would there be any chance of your coming to luncheon then? What a case it is. Palms, screw-pines, four snakes--not one being in main island--lizards, insects, and not one land bird. But, above everything, such a proportion of individual monocotyledons! The conditions do not seem very different from the Tuff Galapagos Island, but, as far as I remember, very few monocotyledons there. Then, again, the island seems to have been elevated. I wonder much whether it stands out in the line of any oceanic current, which does not so forcibly strike the main island? But why, oh, why should so many monocotyledons have come there? or why should they have survived there more than on the main island, if once connected? So, again, I cannot conceive that four snakes should have become extinct in Mauritius and survived on Round Island. For a moment I thought that Mauritius might be the newer island, but the enormous degradation which the outer ring of rocks has undergone flatly contradicts this, and the marine remains on the summit of Round Island indicate the island to be comparatively new--unless, indeed, they are fossil and extinct marine remains. Do tell me what you think. There never was such an enigma. I rather lean to separate immigration, with, of course, subsequent modification; some forms, of course, also coming from Mauritius. Speaking of Mauritius reminds me that I was so much pleased the day before yesterday by reading a review of a book on the geology of St. Helena, by an officer who knew nothing of my hurried observations, but confirms nearly all that I have said on the general structure of the island, and on its marvellous denudation. The geology of that island was like a novel. LETTER 387. TO A. BLYTT. Down, March 28th, 1876. (387/1. The following refers to Blytt's "Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora during Alternating Rainy and Dry Periods," Christiania, 1876.) I thank you sincerely for your kindness in having sent me your work on the "Immigration of the Norwegian Flora," which has interested me in the highest degree. Your view, supported as it is by various facts, appears to me the most important contribution towards understanding the present distribution of plants, which has appeared since Forbes' essay on the effects of the Glacial Period. LETTER 388. TO AUG. FOREL. Down, June 19th, 1876. I hope you will allow me to suggest an observation, should any opportunity occur, on a point which has interested me for many years--viz., how do the coleoptera which inhabit the nests of ants colonise a new nest? Mr. Wallace, in reference to the presence of such coleoptera in Madeira, suggests that their ova may be attached to the winged female ants, and that these are occasionally blown across the ocean to the island. It would be very interesting to discover whether the ova are adhesive, and whether the female coleoptera are guided by instinct to attach them to the female ants (388/1. Dr. Sharp is good enough to tell us that he is not aware of any such adaptation. Broadly speaking, the distribution of the nest-inhabiting beetles is due to co-migration with the ants, though in some cases the ants transport the beetles. Sitaris and Meloe are beetles which live "at the expense of bees of the genus Anthophora." The eggs are laid not in but near the bees' nest; in the early stage the larva is active and has the instinct to seize any hairy object near it, and in this way they are carried by the Anthophora to the nest. Dr. Sharp states that no such preliminary stage is known in the ant's-nest beetles. For an account of Sitaris and Meloe, see Sharp's "Insects," II., page 272.); or whether the larvae pass through an early stage, as with Sitaris or Meloe, or cling to the bodies of the females. This note obviously requires no answer. I trust that you continue your most interesting investigations on ants. (PLATE: MR. A.R. WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by Maull & Fox.) LETTER 389. TO A.R. WALLACE. (389/1. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 230.) (389/2. The following five letters refer to Mr. Wallace's "Geographical Distribution of Animals," 1876.) [Hopedene] (389/3. Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey.), June 5th, 1876. I must have the pleasure of expressing to you my unbounded admiration of your book (389/4. "Geographical Distribution," 1876.), though I have read only to page 184--my object having been to do as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plants treated in strict relation to your views; and then all insects, pulmonate molluscs and fresh-water fishes, in greater detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals. The point which has interested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point, is your protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and [Andrew] Murray! By the way, the main impression that the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the above view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will succeed, owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart. Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that we must determine the areas, chiefly by the nature of the mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject, I doubted much whether the now-called Palaearctic and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and I determined if I made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have, therefore, been able to appreciate your evidence on these points. What progress Palaeontology has made during the last twenty years! but if it advances at the same rate in the future, our views on the migration and birthplace of the various groups will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel quite easy about the Glacial period, and the extinction of large mammals, but I must hope that you are right. I think you will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal of land molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentise on the just hatched young adhering to the feet of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point--viz. in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the southern extremities of our present continents. But I could go on scribbling forever. You have written, as I believe, a grand and memorable work, which will last for years as the foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution. P.S.--You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment, by what you say of your work in relation to my chapters on distribution in the "Origin," and I heartily thank you for it. LETTER 390. FROM A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. The Dell, Grays, Essex, June 7th, 1876. Many thanks for your very kind letter. So few people will read my book at all regularly, that a criticism from one who does so will be very welcome. If, as I suppose, it is only to page 184 of Volume I. that you have read, you cannot yet quite see my conclusions on the points you refer to (land molluscs and Antarctic continent). My own conclusion fluctuated during the progress of the book, and I have, I know, occasionally used expressions (the relics of earlier ideas) which are not quite consistent with what I say further on. I am positively against any Southern continent as uniting South America with Australia or New Zealand, as you will see at Volume I., pages 398-403, and 459-66. My general conclusions as to distribution of land mollusca are at Volume II., pages 522-9. (390/1. "Geographical Distribution" II., pages 524, 525. Mr. Wallace points out that "hardly a small island on the globe but has some land-shells peculiar to it"--and he goes so far as to say that probably air-breathing mollusca have been chiefly distributed by air- or water-carriage, rather than by voluntary dispersal on the land.) When you have read these passages, and looked at the general facts which lead to them, I shall be glad to hear if you still differ from me. Though, of course, present results as to the origin and migrations of genera of mammals will have to be modified owing to new discoveries, I cannot help thinking that much will remain unaffected, because in all geographical and geological discoveries the great outlines are soon reached, the details alone remain to be modified. I also think much of the geological evidence is now so accordant with, and explanatory of, Geographical Distribution, that it is prima facie correct in outline. Nevertheless, such vast masses of new facts will come out in the next few years that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a new edition. I hope your health is improved; and when, quite at your leisure, you have waded through my book, I trust you will again let me have a few lines of friendly criticism and advice. LETTER 391. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, June 17th, 1876. I have now finished the whole of Volume I., with the same interest and admiration as before; and I am convinced that my judgment was right and that it is a memorable book, the basis of all future work on the subject. I have nothing particular to say, but perhaps you would like to hear my impressions on two or three points. Nothing has struck me more than the admirable and convincing manner in which you treat Java. To allude to a very trifling point, it is capital about the unadorned head of the Argus-pheasant. (391/1. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., pages 90 and 143, for drawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings. The ocelli on the wing feathers were favourite objects of Mr. Darwin, and sometimes formed the subject of the little lectures which on rare occasions he would give to a visitor interested in Natural History. In Mr. Wallace's book the meaning of the ocelli comes in by the way, in the explanation of Plate IX., "A Malayan Forest with some of its peculiar Birds." Mr. Wallace (volume i., page 340) points out that the head of the Argus pheasant is, during the display of the wings, concealed from the view of a spectator in front, and this accounts for the absence of bright colour on the head--a most unusual point in a pheasant. The case is described as a "remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin's views, that gaily coloured plumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose of attractive display." For the difference of opinion between the two naturalists on the broad question of coloration see "Life and Letters," III., page 123. See Letters 440-453.) How plain a thing is, when it is once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes: I am glad that you have slightly modified your views with respect to Africa. (391/2. "I think this must refer to the following passage in 'Geog. Dist. of Animals,' Volume I., pages 286-7. 'At this period (Miocene) Madagascar was no doubt united with Africa, and helped to form a great southern continent which must at one time have extended eastward as far as Southern India and Ceylon; and over the whole of this the lemurine type no doubt prevailed.' At the time this was written I had not paid so much attention to islands, and in my "Island Life" I have given ample reasons for my belief that the evidence of extinct animals does not require any direct connection between Southern India and Africa."--Note by Mr. Wallace.) And this leads me to say that I cannot swallow the so-called continent of Lemuria--i.e., the direct connection of Africa and Ceylon. (391/3. See "Geographical Distribution," I., page 76. The name Lemuria was proposed by Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged continent extending from Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra. Mr. Wallace points out that if we confine ourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to Madagascar, which he makes a subdivision of the Ethiopian Region.) The facts do not seem to me many and strong enough to justify so immense a change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islands appear to me oceanic in character. But do not suppose that I place my judgment on this subject on a level with yours. A wonderfully good paper was published about a year ago on India, in the "Geological Journal," I think by Blanford. (391/4. H.F. Blanford "On the Age and Correlations of the Plant-bearing Series of India and the Former Existence of an Indo-Oceanic Continent" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XXXI., 1875, page 519). The name Gondwana-Land was subsequently suggested by Professor Suess for this Indo-Oceanic continent. Since the publication of Blanford's paper, much literature has appeared dealing with the evidence furnished by fossil plants, etc., in favour of the existence of a vast southern continent.) Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of the best published for a long time. The author shows that India has been a continent with enormous fresh-water lakes, from the Permian period to the present day. If I remember right, he believes in a former connection with S. Africa. I am sure that I read, some twenty to thirty years ago in a French journal, an account of teeth of Mastodon found in Timor; but the statement may have been an error. (391/5. In a letter to Falconer (Letter 155), January 5th, 1863, Darwin refers to the supposed occurrence of Mastodon as having been "smashed" by Falconer.) With respect to what you say about the colonising of New Zealand, I somewhere have an account of a frog frozen in the ice of a Swiss glacier, and which revived when thawed. I may add that there is an Indian toad which can resist salt-water and haunts the seaside. Nothing ever astonished me more than the case of the Galaxias; but it does not seem known whether it may not be a migratory fish like the salmon. (391/6. The only genus of the Galaxidae, a family of fresh-water fishes occurring in New Zealand, Tasmania, and Tierra del Fuego, ranging north as far as Queensland and Chile (Wallace's "Geographical Distribution," II., page 448).) LETTER 392. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, June 25th, 1876. I have been able to read rather more quickly of late, and have finished your book. I have not much to say. Your careful account of the temperate parts of South America interested me much, and all the more from knowing something of the country. I like also much the general remarks towards the end of the volume on the land molluscs. Now for a few criticisms. Page 122. (392/1. The pages refer to Volume II. of Wallace's "Geographical Distribution.")--I am surprised at your saying that "during the whole Tertiary period North America was zoologically far more strongly contrasted with South America than it is now." But we know hardly anything of the latter except during the Pliocene period; and then the mastodon, horse, several great edentata, etc., etc., were common to the north and south. If you are right, I erred greatly in my "Journal," where I insisted on the former close connection between the two. Page 252 and elsewhere.--I agree thoroughly with the general principle that a great area with many competing forms is necessary for much and high development; but do you not extend this principle too far--I should say much too far, considering how often several species of the same genus have been developed on very small islands? Page 265.--You say that the Sittidae extend to Madagascar, but there is no number in the tabular heading. [The number (4) was erroneously omitted.--A.R.W.] Page 359.--Rhinochetus is entered in the tabular heading under No. 3 of the neotropical subregions. [An error: should have been the Australian.--A.R.W.] Reviewers think it necessary to find some fault; and if I were to review you, the sole point which I should blame is your not giving very numerous references. These would save whoever follows you great labour. Occasionally I wished myself to know the authority for certain statements, and whether you or somebody else had originated certain subordinate views. Take the case of a man who had collected largely on some island, for instance St. Helena, and who wished to work out the geographical relations of his collections: he would, I think, feel very blank at not finding in your work precise references to all that had been written on St. Helena. I hope you will not think me a confoundedly disagreeable fellow. I may mention a capital essay which I received a few months ago from Axel Blytt (392/2. Axel Blytt, "Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora." Christiania, 1876. See Letter 387.) on the distribution of the plants of Scandinavia; showing the high probability of there having been secular periods alternately wet and dry, and of the important part which they have played in distribution. I wrote to Forel (392/3. See Letter 388.), who is always at work on ants, and told him your views about the dispersal of the blind coleoptera, and asked him to observe. I spoke to Hooker about your book, and feel sure that he would like nothing better than to consider the distribution of plants in relation to your views; but he seemed to doubt whether he should ever have time. And now I have done my jottings, and once again congratulate you on having brought out so grand a work. I have been a little disappointed at the review in "Nature." (392/4. June 22nd, 1876, pages 165 et seq.) LETTER 393. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Rosehill, Dorking, July 23rd, 1876. I should have replied sooner to your last kind and interesting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packing previous to removal here, and I have only just now got my books and papers in a get-at-able state. And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two absurd mistakes in the tabular headings. As to the former greater distinction of the North and South American faunas, I think I am right. The edentata being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the post-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we know, if there is any such thing as evolution, etc., that strange ancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times. Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only, appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the north. The immense development of ungulates (in varied families, genera, and species) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however, the great feature which assimilates it to Europe, and contrasts it with South America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring the North American [fauna] much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, represented in all South America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from the north. As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability that most islands, etc., where a varied fauna now exists, have been once more extensive--eg., New Zealand, Madagascar: where there is no such evidence (e.g., Galapagos), the fauna is very restricted. Lastly, as to want of references: I confess the justice of your criticism; but I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it bit by bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else, more than once, and got my materials in such confusion that it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is. I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I found the information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combined and condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of the book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless in a few years, owing to later and better authorities. My experience of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or a reference to some third work not at hand! I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for every fact and extract; but I am too lazy, and generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time, when in London for a day. However, I will try to do something to mend this matter, should I have to prepare another edition. I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the question much; neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he thinks necessary would be of much use, because it may well be that the ova, or larvae, or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically by the ants, but only occasionally, owing to some exceptional circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be so rare as never to come under observation. Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider. I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in many parts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, it better to make some generalisations wherever possible, as I am not at all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was so overwhelmed with zoological details, that I never went through the Geological Society's "Journal" as I ought to have done, and as I mean to do before writing more on the subject. LETTER 394. TO F. BUCHANAN WHITE. (394/1. "Written in acknowledgment of a copy of a paper (published by me in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society") on the Hemiptera of St. Helena, but discussing the origin of the whole fauna and flora of that island."--F.B.W.) Down, September 23rd. [1878]. I have now read your paper, and I hope that you will not think me presumptuous in writing another line to say how excellent it seems to me. I believe that you have largely solved the problem of the affinities of the inhabitants of this most interesting little island, and this is a delightful triumph. LETTER 395. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 22nd [1879]. I have just read Ball's Essay. (395/1. The late John Ball's lecture "On the Origin of the Flora of the Alps" in the "Proceedings of the R. Geogr. Soc." 1879. Ball argues (page 18) that "during ancient Palaeozoic times, before the deposition of the Coal-measures, the atmosphere contained twenty times as much carbonic acid gas and considerably less oxygen than it does at present." He further assumes that in such an atmosphere the percentage of CO2 in the higher mountains would be excessively different from that at the sea-level, and appends the result of calculations which gives the amount of CO2 at the sea-level as 100 per 10,000 by weight, at a height of 10,000 feet as 12.5 per 10,000. Darwin understands him to mean that the Vascular Cryptogams and Gymnosperms could stand the sea-level atmosphere, whereas the Angiosperms would only be able to exist in the higher regions where the percentage of CO2 was small. It is not clear to us that Ball relies so largely on the condition of the atmosphere as regards CO2. If he does he is clearly in error, for everything we know of assimilation points to the conclusion that 100 per 10,000 (1 per cent.) is by no means a hurtful amount of CO2, and that it would lead to an especially vigorous assimilation. Mountain plants would be more likely to descend to the plains to share in the rich feast than ascend to higher regions to avoid it. Ball draws attention to the imperfection of our plant records as regards the floras of mountain regions. It is, he thinks, conceivable that there existed a vegetation on the Carboniferous mountains of which no traces have been preserved in the rocks. See "Fossil Plants as Tests of Climate," page 40, A.C. Seward, 1892. Since the first part of this note was written, a paper has been read (May 29th, 1902) by Dr. H.T. Brown and Mr. F. Escombe, before the Royal Society on "The Influence of varying amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the Air on the Photosynthetic Process of Leaves, and on the Mode of Growth of Plants." The author's experiments included the cultivation of several dicotyledonous plants in an atmosphere containing in one case 180 to 200 times the normal amount of CO2, and in another between three and four times the normal amount. The general results were practically identical in the two sets of experiments. "All the species of flowering plants, which have been the subject of experiment, appear to be accurately 'tuned' to an atmospheric environment of three parts of CO2 per 10,000, and the response which they make to slight increases in this amount are in a direction altogether unfavourable to their growth and reproduction." The assimilation of carbon increases with the increase in the partial pressure of the CO2. But there seems to be a disturbance in metabolism, and the plants fail to take advantage of the increased supply of CO2. The authors say:--"All we are justified in concluding is, that if such atmospheric variations have occurred since the advent of flowering plants, they must have taken place so slowly as never to outrun the possible adaptation of the plants to their changing conditions." Prof. Farmer and Mr. S.E. Chandler gave an account, at the same meeting of the Royal Society, of their work "On the Influence of an Excess of Carbon Dioxide in the Air on the Form and Internal Structure of Plants." The results obtained were described as differing in a remarkable way from those previously recorded by Teodoresco ("Rev. Gen. Botanique," II., 1899 It is hoped that Dr. Horace Brown and Mr. Escombe will extend their experiments to Vascular Cryptogams, and thus obtain evidence bearing more directly upon the question of an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of the Coal-period forests.) It is pretty bold. The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery. Certainly it would be a great step if we could believe that the higher plants at first could live only at a high level; but until it is experimentally [proved] that Cycadeae, ferns, etc., can withstand much more carbonic acid than the higher plants, the hypothesis seems to me far too rash. Saporta believes that there was an astonishingly rapid development of the high plants, as soon [as] flower-frequenting insects were developed and favoured intercrossing. I should like to see this whole problem solved. I have fancied that perhaps there was during long ages a small isolated continent in the S. Hemisphere which served as the birthplace of the higher plants--but this is a wretchedly poor conjecture. It is odd that Ball does not allude to the obvious fact that there must have been alpine plants before the Glacial period, many of which would have returned to the mountains after the Glacial period, when the climate again became warm. I always accounted to myself in this manner for the gentians, etc. Ball ought also to have considered the alpine insects common to the Arctic regions. I do not know how it may be with you, but my faith in the glacial migration is not at all shaken. LETTER 396. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. (396/1. This letter is in reply to Mr. Darwin's criticisms on Mr. Wallace's "Island Life," 1880.) Pen-y-Bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon, November 8th, 1880. Many thanks for your kind remarks and notes on my book. Several of the latter will be of use to me if I have to prepare a second edition, which I am not so sure of as you seem to be. 1. In your remark as to the doubtfulness of paucity of fossils being due to coldness of water, I think you overlook that I am speaking only of water in the latitude of the Alps, in Miocene and Eocene times, when icebergs and glaciers temporarily descended into an otherwise warm sea; my theory being that there was no Glacial epoch at that time, but merely a local and temporary descent of the snow-line and glaciers owing to high excentricity and winter in aphelion. 2. I cannot see the difficulty about the cessation of the Glacial period. Between the Miocene and the Pleistocene periods geographical changes occurred which rendered a true Glacial period possible with high excentricity. When the high excentricity passed away the Glacial epoch also passed away in the temperate zone; but it persists in the arctic zone, where, during the Miocene, there were mild climates, and this is due to the persistence of the changed geographical conditions. The present arctic climate is itself a comparatively new and abnormal state of things, due to geographical modification. As to "epoch" and "period," I use them as synonyms to avoid repeating the same word. 3. Rate of deposition and geological time. Here no doubt I may have gone to an extreme, but my "28 million years" may be anything under 100 millions, as I state. There is an enormous difference between mean and maximum denudation and deposition. In the case of the great faults the upheaval along a given line would itself facilitate the denudation (whether sub-aerial or marine) of the upheaved portion at a rate perhaps a hundred times above the average, just as valleys have been denuded perhaps a hundred times faster than plains and plateaux. So local subsidence might itself lead to very rapid deposition. Suppose a portion of the Gulf of Mexico, near the mouths of the Mississippi, were to subside for a few thousand years, it might receive the greater portion of the sediment from the whole Mississippi valley, and thus form strata at a very rapid rate. 4. You quote the Pampas thistles, etc., against my statement of the importance of preoccupation. But I am referring especially to St. Helena, and to plants naturally introduced from the adjacent continents. Surely if a certain number of African plants reached the island, and became modified into a complete adaptation to its climatic conditions, they would hardly be expelled by other African plants arriving subsequently. They might be so, conceivably, but it does not seem probable. The cases of the Pampas, New Zealand, Tahiti, etc., are very different, where highly developed aggressive plants have been artificially introduced. Under nature it is these very aggressive species that would first reach any island in their vicinity, and, being adapted to the island and colonising it thoroughly, would then hold their own against other plants from the same country, mostly less aggressive in character. I have not explained this so fully as I should have done in the book. Your criticism is therefore useful. 5. My Chapter XXIII. is no doubt very speculative, and I cannot wonder at your hesitating at accepting my views. To me, however, your theory of hosts of existing species migrating over the tropical lowlands from the N. temperate to the S. temperate zone appears more speculative and more improbable. For where could the rich lowland equatorial flora have existed during a period of general refrigeration sufficient for this? and what became of the wonderfully rich Cape flora, which, if the temperature of tropical Africa had been so recently lowered, would certainly have spread northwards, and on the return of the heat could hardly have been driven back into the sharply defined and very restricted area in which it now exists. As to the migration of plants from mountain to mountain not being so probable as to remote islands, I think that is fully counterbalanced by two considerations:-- a. The area and abundance of the mountain stations along such a range as the Andes are immensely greater than those of the islands in the N. Atlantic, for example. b. The temporary occupation of mountain stations by migrating plants (which I think I have shown to be probable) renders time a much more important element in increasing the number and variety of the plants so dispersed than in the case of islands, where the flora soon acquires a fixed and endemic character, and where the number of species is necessarily limited. No doubt direct evidence of seeds being carried great distances through the air is wanted, but I am afraid can hardly be obtained. Yet I feel the greatest confidence that they are so carried. Take, for instance, the two peculiar orchids of the Azores (Habenaria sp.) What other mode of transit is conceivable? The whole subject is one of great difficulty, but I hope my chapter may call attention to a hitherto neglected factor in the distribution of plants. Your references to the Mauritius literature are very interesting, and will be useful to me; and I again thank you for your valuable remarks. LETTER 397. TO J.D. HOOKER. (397/1. The following letters were written to Sir J.D. Hooker when he was preparing his Address as President of the Geographical Section of the British Association at its fiftieth meeting, at York. The second letter (August 12th) refers to an earlier letter of August 6th, published in "Life and Letters," III., page 246.) 4, Bryanston Street, W., Saturday, 26th [February, 1881]. I should think that you might make a very interesting address on Geographical Distribution. Could you give a little history of the subject. I, for one, should like to read such history in petto; but I can see one very great difficulty--that you yourself ought to figure most prominently in it; and this you would not do, for you are just the man to treat yourself in a dishonourable manner. I should very much like to see you discuss some of Wallace's views, especially his ignoring the all-powerful effects of the Glacial period with respect to alpine plants. (397/2. "Having been kindly permitted by Mr. Francis Darwin to read this letter, I wish to explain that the above statement applies only to my rejection of Darwin's view that the presence of arctic and north temperate plants in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE was brought about by the lowering of the temperature of the tropical regions during the Glacial period, so that even 'the lowlands of these great continents were everywhere tenanted under the equator by a considerable number of temperate forms ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 338). My own views are fully explained in Chapter XXIII. of my "Island Life," published in 1880. I quite accept all that Darwin, Hooker, and Asa Gray have written about the effect of the Glacial epoch in bringing about the present distribution of alpine and arctic plants in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE."--Note by Mr. Wallace.) I do not know what you think, but it appears to me that he exaggerates enormously the influence of debacles or slips and new surface of soil being exposed for the reception of wind-blown seeds. What kinds of seeds have the plants which are common to the distant mountain-summits in Africa? Wallace lately wrote to me about the mountain plants of Madagascar being the same with those on mountains in Africa, and seemed to think it proved dispersal by the wind, without apparently having inquired what sorts of seeds the plants bore. (397/3. The affinity with the flora of the Eastern African islands was long ago pointed out by Sir J.D. Hooker, "Linn. Soc. Journal," VI., 1861, page 3. Speaking of the plants of Clarence Peak in Fernando Po, he says, "The next affinity is with Mauritius, Bourbon, and Madagascar: of the whole 76 species, 16 inhabit these places and 8 more are closely allied to plants from there. Three temperate species are peculiar to Clarence Peak and the East African islands..." The facts to which Mr. Wallace called Darwin's attention are given by Mr. J.G. Baker in "Nature," December 9th, 1880, page 125. He mentions the Madagascar Viola, which occurs elsewhere only at 7,000 feet in the Cameroons, at 10,000 feet in Fernando Po and in the Abyssinian mountains; and the same thing is true of the Madagascar Geranium. In Mr. Wallace's letter to Darwin, dated January 1st, 1881, he evidently uses the expression "passing through the air" in contradistinction to the migration of a species by gradual extension of its area on land. "Through the air" would moreover include occasional modes of transport other than simple carriage by wind: e.g., the seeds might be carried by birds, either attached to the feathers or to the mud on their feet, or in their crops or intestines.) I suppose it would be travelling too far (though for the geographical section the discussion ought to be far-reaching), but I should like to see the European or northern element in the Cape of Good Hope flora discussed. I cannot swallow Wallace's view that European plants travelled down the Andes, tenanted the hypothetical Antarctic continent (in which I quite believe), and thence spread to South Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Moseley told me not long ago that he proposed to search at Kerguelen Land the coal beds most carefully, and was absolutely forbidden to do so by Sir W. Thomson, who said that he would undertake the work, and he never once visited them. This puts me in a passion. I hope that you will keep to your intention and make an address on distribution. Though I differ so much from Wallace, his "Island Life" seems to me a wonderful book. Farewell. I do hope that you may have a most prosperous journey. Give my kindest remembrances to Asa Gray. LETTER 398. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 12th, 1881. ...I think that I must have expressed myself badly about Humboldt. I should have said that he was more remarkable for his astounding knowledge than for originality. I have always looked at him as, in fact, the founder of the geographical distribution of organisms. I thought that I had read that extinct fossil plants belonging to Australian forms had lately been found in Australia, and all such cases seem to me very interesting, as bearing on development. I have been so astonished at the apparently sudden coming in of the higher phanerogams, that I have sometimes fancied that development might have slowly gone on for an immense period in some isolated continent or large island, perhaps near the South Pole. I poured out my idle thoughts in writing, as if I had been talking with you. No fact has so interested me for a heap of years as your case of the plants on the equatorial mountains of Africa; and Wallace tells me that some one (Baker?) has described analogous cases on the mountains of Madagascar (398/1. See Letter 397, note.)...I think that you ought to allude to these cases. I most fully agree that no problem is more interesting than that of the temperate forms in the southern hemisphere, common to the north. I remember writing about this after Wallace's book appeared, and hoping that you would take it up. The frequency with which the drainage from the land passes through mountain-chains seems to indicate some general law--viz., the successive formation of cracks and lines of elevation between the nearest ocean and the already upraised land; but that is too big a subject for a note. I doubt whether any insects can be shown with any probability to have been flower feeders before the middle of the Secondary period. Several of the asserted cases have broken down. Your long letter has stirred many pleasant memories of long past days, when we had many a discussion and many a good fight. LETTER 399. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 21st, 1881. I cannot aid you much, or at all. I should think that no one could have thought on the modification of species without thinking of representative species. But I feel sure that no discussion of any importance had been published on this subject before the "Origin," for if I had known of it I should assuredly have alluded to it in the "Origin," as I wished to gain support from all quarters. I did not then know of Von Buch's view (alluded to in my Historical Introduction in all the later editions). Von Buch published his "Isles Canaries" in 1836, and he here briefly argues that plants spread over a continent and vary, and the varieties in time come to be species. He also argues that closely allied species have been thus formed in the SEPARATE valleys of the Canary Islands, but not on the upper and open parts. I could lend you Von Buch's book, if you like. I have just consulted the passage. I have not Baer's papers; but, as far as I remember, the subject is not fully discussed by him. I quite agree about Wallace's position on the ocean and continent question. To return to geographical distribution: As far as I know, no one ever discussed the meaning of the relation between representative species before I did, and, as I suppose, Wallace did in his paper before the Linnean Society. Von Buch's is the nearest approach to such discussion known to me. LETTER 400. TO W.D. CRICK. (400/1. The following letters are interesting not only for their own sake, but because they tell the history of the last of Mr. Darwin's publications--his letter to "Nature" on the "Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves," April 6th, 1882.) Down, February 21st, 1882. Your fact is an interesting one, and I am very much obliged to you for communicating it to me. You speak a little doubtfully about the name of the shell, and it would be indispensable to have this ascertained with certainty. Do you know any good conchologist in Northampton who could name it? If so I should be obliged if you would inform me of the result. Also the length and breadth of the shell, and how much of leg (which leg?) of the Dytiscus [a large water-beetle] has been caught. If you cannot get the shell named I could take it to the British Museum when I next go to London; but this probably will not occur for about six weeks, and you may object to lend the specimen for so long a time. I am inclined to think that the case would be worth communicating to "Nature." P.S.--I suppose that the animal in the shell must have been alive when the Dytiscus was captured, otherwise the adductor muscle of the shell would have relaxed and the shell dropped off. LETTER 401. TO W.D. CRICK. Down, February 25th, 1882. I am much obliged for your clear and distinct answers to my questions. I am sorry to trouble you, but there is one point which I do not fully understand. Did the shell remain attached to the beetle's leg from the 18th to the 23rd, and was the beetle kept during this time in the air? Do I understand rightly that after the shell had dropped off, both being in water, that the beetle's antenna was again temporarily caught by the shell? I presume that I may keep the specimen till I go to London, which will be about the middle of next month. I have placed the shell in fresh-water, to see if the valve will open, and whether it is still alive, for this seems to me a very interesting point. As the wretched beetle was still feebly alive, I have put it in a bottle with chopped laurel leaves, that it may die an easy and quicker death. I hope that I shall meet with your approval in doing so. One of my sons tells me that on the coast of N. Wales the bare fishing hooks often bring up young mussels which have seized hold of the points; but I must make further enquiries on this head. LETTER 402. TO W.D. CRICK. Down, March 23rd, 1882. I have had a most unfortunate and extraordinary accident with your shell. I sent it by post in a strong box to Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys to be named, and heard two days afterwards that he had started for Italy. I then wrote to the servant in charge of his house to open the parcel (within which was a cover stamped and directed to myself) and return it to me. This servant, I suppose, opened the box and dropped the glass tube on a stone floor, and perhaps put his foot on it, for the tube and shell were broken into quite small fragments. These were returned to me with no explanation, the box being quite uninjured. I suppose you would not care for the fragments to be returned or the Dytiscus; but if you wish for them they shall be returned. I am very sorry, but it has not been my fault. It seems to me almost useless to send the fragments of the shell to the British Museum to be named, more especially as the umbo has been lost. It is many years since I have looked at a fresh-water shell, but I should have said that the shell was Cyclas cornea. (402/1. It was Cyclas cornea.) Is Sphaenium corneum a synonym of Cyclas? Perhaps you could tell by looking to Mr. G. Jeffreys' book. If so, may we venture to call it so, or shall I put an (?) to the name? As soon as I hear from you I will send my letter to "Nature." Do you take in "Nature," or shall I send you a copy? CHAPTER 2.VIII.--MAN. I. Descent of Man.--II. Sexual Selection.--III. Expression of the Emotions. 2.VIII.I. DESCENT OF MAN, 1860-1882. LETTER 403. TO C. LYELL. Down, April 27th [1860]. I cannot explain why, but to me it would be an infinite satisfaction to believe that mankind will progress to such a pitch that we should [look] back at [ourselves] as mere Barbarians. I have received proof-sheets (with a wonderfully nice letter) of very hostile review by Andrew Murray, read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh. (403/1. "On Mr. Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species," by Andrew Murray. "Proc. Roy. Soc., Edinb." Volume IV., pages 274-91, 1862. The review concludes with the following sentence: "I have come to be of opinion that Mr. Darwin's theory is unsound, and that I am to be spared any collision between my inclination and my convictions" (referring to the writer's belief in Design).) But I am tired with answering it. Indeed I have done nothing the whole day but answer letters. LETTER 404. TO L. HORNER. (404/1. The following letter occurs in the "Memoir of Leonard Horner, edited by his daughter Katherine M. Lyell," Volume II., page 300 (privately printed, 1890).) Down, March 20th [1861]. I am very much obliged for your Address (404/2. Mr. Horner's Anniversary Address to the Geological Society ("Proc. Geol. Soc." XVII., 1861).) which has interested me much...I thought that I had read up pretty well on the antiquity of man; but you bring all the facts so well together in a condensed focus, that the case seems much clearer to me. How curious about the Bible! (404/3. At page lxviii. Mr. Horner points out that the "chronology, given in the margin of our Bibles," i.e., the statement that the world was created 4004 B.C., is the work of Archbishop Usher, and is in no way binding on those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Mr. Horner goes on (page lxx): "The retention of the marginal note in question is by no means a matter of indifference; it is untrue, and therefore it is mischievous." It is interesting that Archbishop Sumner and Dr. Dawes, Dean of Hereford, wrote with approbation of Mr. Horner's views on Man. The Archbishop says: "I have always considered the first verse of Genesis as indicating, rather than denying, a PREADAMITE world" ("Memoir of Leonard Horner, II.", page 303).) I declare I had fancied that the date was somehow in the Bible. You are coming out in a new light as a Biblical critic. I must thank you for some remarks on the "Origin of Species" (404/4. Mr. Horner (page xxxix) begins by disclaiming the qualifications of a competent critic, and confines himself to general remarks on the philosophic candour and freedom from dogmatism of the "Origin": he does, however, give an opinion on the geological chapters IX. and X. As a general criticism he quotes Mr. Huxley's article in the "Westminster Review," which may now be read in "Collected Essays," II., page 22.) (though I suppose it is almost as incorrect to do so as to thank a judge for a favourable verdict): what you have said has pleased me extremely. I am the more pleased, as I would rather have been well attacked than have been handled in the namby-pamby, old-woman style of the cautious Oxford Professor. (404/5. This no doubt refers to Professor Phillips' "Life on the Earth," 1860, a book founded on the author's "Rede Lecture," given before the University of Cambridge. Reference to this work will be found in "Life and Letters," II., pages 309, 358, 373.) LETTER 405. TO J.D. HOOKER. (405/1. Mr. Wallace was, we believe, the first to treat the evolution of Man in any detail from the point of view of Natural Selection, namely, in a paper in the "Anthropological Review and Journal of the Anthropological Society," May 1864, page clviii. The deep interest with which Mr. Darwin read his copy is graphically recorded in the continuous series of pencil-marks along the margins of the pages. His views are fully given in Letter 406. The phrase, "in this case it is too far," refers to Mr. Wallace's habit of speaking of the theory of Natural Selection as due entirely to Darwin.) May 22nd 1864. I have now read Wallace's paper on Man, and think it MOST striking and original and forcible. I wish he had written Lyell's chapters on Man. (405/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 11 et seq. for Darwin's disappointment over Lyell's treatment of the evolutionary question in his "Antiquity of Man"; see also page 29 for Lyell's almost pathetic words about his own position between the discarded faith of many years and the new one not yet assimilated. See also Letters 132, 164, 170.) I quite agree about his high-mindedness, and have long thought so; but in this case it is too far, and I shall tell him so. I am not sure that I fully agree with his views about Man, but there is no doubt, in my opinion, on the remarkable genius shown by the paper. I agree, however, to the main new leading idea. LETTER 406. TO A.R. WALLACE. (406/1. This letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 89.) Down, [May] 28th [1864]. I am so much better that I have just finished a paper for the Linnean Society (406/2. On the three forms, etc., of Lythrum.); but I am not yet at all strong, I felt much disinclination to write, and therefore you must forgive me for not having sooner thanked you for your paper on Man (406/3. "Anthropological Review," May 1864.) received on the 11th. (406/4. Mr. Wallace wrote, May 10th, 1864: "I send you now my little contribution to the theory of the origin of man. I hope you will be able to agree with me. If you are able [to write] I shall be glad to have your criticisms. I was led to the subject by the necessity of explaining the vast mental and cranial differences between man and the apes combined with such small structural differences in other parts of the body,--and also by an endeavour to account for the diversity of human races combined with man's almost perfect stability of form during all historical epochs." But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my life been more struck by any paper than that on "Variation," etc., etc., in the "Reader." (406/5. "Reader," April 16th, 1864, an abstract of Mr. Wallace: "On the Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan Region." "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV.) I feel sure that such papers will do more for the spreading of our views on the modification of species than any separate treatises on the simple subject itself. It is really admirable; but you ought not in the Man paper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just as much yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to me your "high-minded" conduct on this head. But now for your Man paper, about which I should like to write more than I can. The great leading idea is quite new to me--viz. that during late ages the mind will have been modified more than the body; yet I had got as far as to see with you, that the struggle between the races of man depended entirely on intellectual and moral qualities. The latter part of the paper I can designate only as grand and most eloquently done. I have shown your paper to two or three persons who have been here, and they have been equally struck with it. I am not sure that I go with you on all minor points: when reading Sir G. Grey's account of the constant battles of Australian savages, I remember thinking that Natural Selection would come in, and likewise with the Esquimaux, with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes is said to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank, under a classificatory point of view, which you assign to man; I do not think any character simply in excess ought ever to be used for the higher divisions. Ants would not be separated from other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct of the one, and however low the instincts of the other. With respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has occurred to me that much may be due to the correlation of complexion (and consequently hair) with constitution. Assume that a dusky individual best escaped miasma, and you will readily see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General of the Medical Department of the Army to send printed forms to the surgeons of all regiments in tropical countries to ascertain this point, but I daresay I shall never get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the most powerful means of changing the races of man. I can show that the different races have a widely different standard of beauty. Among savages the most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and they will generally leave the most descendants. I have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views? and if so, would you like at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of chaos. There is much more that I should like to write, but I have not strength. P.S. Our aristocracy is handsomer (more hideous according to a Chinese or Negro) than the middle classes, from [having the] pick of the women; but oh, what a scheme is primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection! I fear my letter will be barely intelligible to you. LETTER 406* A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 5, Westbourne Grove Terrace, W., May 29th [1864]. You are always so ready to appreciate what others do, and especially to overestimate my desultory efforts, that I cannot be surprised at your very kind and flattering remarks on my papers. I am glad, however, that you have made a few critical observations (and am only sorry that you were not well enough to make more), as that enables me to say a few words in explanation. My great fault is haste. An idea strikes me, I think over it for a few days, and then write away with such illustrations as occur to me while going on. I therefore look at the subject almost solely from one point of view. Thus, in my paper on Man (406*/1. Published in the "Anthropological Review," 1864.), I aim solely at showing that brutes are modified in a great variety of ways by Natural Selection, but that in none of these particular ways can Man be modified, because of the superiority of his intellect. I therefore no doubt overlook a few smaller points in which Natural Selection may still act on men and brutes alike. Colour is one of them, and I have alluded to this in correlation to constitution, in an abstract I have made at Sclater's request for the "Natural History Review." (406*/2. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1864, page 328.) At the same time, there is so much evidence of migrations and displacements of races of man, and so many cases of peoples of distinct physical characters inhabiting the same or similar regions, and also of races of uniform physical characters inhabiting widely dissimilar regions,--that the external characteristics of the chief races of man must, I think, be older than his present geographical distribution, and the modifications produced by correlation to favourable variations of constitution be only a secondary cause of external modification. I hope you may get the returns from the Army. (406*/3. Measurements taken of more than one million soldiers in the United States showed that "local influences of some kind act directly on structure."--"Descent of Man," 1901, page 45.) They would be very interesting, but I do not expect the results would be favourable to your view. With regard to the constant battles of savages leading to selection of physical superiority, I think it would be very imperfect and subject to so many exceptions and irregularities that it would produce no definite result. For instance: the strongest and bravest men would lead, and expose themselves most, and would therefore be most subject to wounds and death. And the physical energy which led to any one tribe delighting in war, might lead to its extermination, by inducing quarrels with all surrounding tribes and leading them to combine against it. Again, superior cunning, stealth, and swiftness of foot, or even better weapons, would often lead to victory as well as mere physical strength. Moreover, this kind of more or less perpetual war goes on amongst savage peoples. It could lead, therefore, to no differential characters, but merely to the keeping up of a certain average standard of bodily and mental health and vigour. So with selection of variations adapted to special habits of life as fishing, paddling, riding, climbing, etc., etc., in different races, no doubt it must act to some extent, but will it be ever so rigid as to induce a definite physical modification, and can we imagine it to have had any part in producing the distinct races that now exist? The sexual selection you allude to will also, I think, have been equally uncertain in its results. In the very lowest tribes there is rarely much polygamy, and women are more or less a matter of purchase. There is also little difference of social condition, and I think it rarely happens that any healthy and undeformed man remains without wife and children. I very much doubt the often-repeated assertion that our aristocracy are more beautiful than the middle classes. I allow that they present specimens of the highest kind of beauty, but I doubt the average. I have noticed in country places a greater average amount of good looks among the middle classes, and besides we unavoidably combine in our idea of beauty, intellectual expression, and refinement of manner, which often makes the less appear the more beautiful. Mere physical beauty--i.e. a healthy and regular development of the body and features approaching to the mean and type of European man, I believe is quite as frequent in one class of society as the other, and much more frequent in rural districts than in cities. With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification, I fear I have not made myself intelligible. I never meant to adopt Owen's or any other such views, but only to point out that from one point of view he was right. I hold that a distinct family for Man, as Huxley allows, is all that can possibly be given him zoologically. But at the same time, if my theory is true, that while the animals which surrounded him have been undergoing modification in all parts of their bodies to a generic or even family degree of difference, he has been changing almost wholly in the brain and head--then in geological antiquity the SPECIES man may be as old as many mammalian families, and the origin of the FAMILY man may date back to a period when some of the ORDERS first originated. As to the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain it to be actually yours and yours only. You had worked it out in details I had never thought of, years before I had a ray of light on the subject, and my paper would never have convinced anybody or been noticed as more than an ingenious speculation, whereas your book has revolutionised the study of Natural History, and carried away captive the best men of the present age. All the merit I claim is the having been the means of inducing you to write and publish at once. I may possibly some day go a little more into this subject (of Man), and if I do will accept the kind offer of your notes. I am now, however, beginning to write the "Narrative of my Travels," which will occupy me a long time, as I hate writing narrative, and after Bates' brilliant success rather fear to fail. I shall introduce a few chapters on Geographical Distribution and other such topics. Sir C. Lyell, while agreeing with my main argument on Man, thinks I am wrong in wanting to put him back into Miocene times, and thinks I do not appreciate the immense interval even to the later Pliocene. But I still maintain my view, which in fact is a logical result of my theory; for if man originated in later Pliocene, when almost all mammalia were of closely allied species to those now living, and many even identical, then man has not been stationary in bodily structure while animals have been varying, and my theory will be proved to be all wrong. In Murchison's address to the Geographical Society, just delivered, he points out Africa as being the oldest existing land. He says there is no evidence of its having been ever submerged during the Tertiary epoch. Here then is evidently the place to find early man. I hope something good may be found in Borneo, and that the means may be found to explore the still more promising regions of tropical Africa, for we can expect nothing of man very early in Europe. It has given me great pleasure to find that there are symptoms of improvement in your health. I hope you will not exert yourself too soon or write more than is quite agreeable to you. I think I made out every word of your letter, though it was not always easy. (406*/4. For Wallace's later views see Letter 408, note.) LETTER 407. TO W. TURNER. (407/1. Sir William Turner is frequently referred to in the "Descent of Man" as having supplied Mr. Darwin with information.) Down, December 14th [1866]. Your kindness when I met you at the Royal Society makes me think that you would grant me the favour of a little information, if in your power. I am preparing a book on Domestic Animals, and as there has been so much discussion on the bearing of such views as I hold on Man, I have some thoughts of adding a chapter on this subject. The point on which I want information is in regard to any part which may be fairly called rudimentary in comparison with the same part in the Quadrumana or any other mammal. Now the os coccyx is rudimentary as a tail, and I am anxious to hear about its muscles. Mr. Flower found for me in some work that its one muscle (with striae) was supposed only to bring this bone back to its proper position after parturition. This seems to me hardly credible. He said he had never particularly examined this part, and when I mentioned your name, he said you were the most likely man to give me information. Are there any traces of other muscles? It seems strange if there are none. Do you know how the muscles are in this part in the anthropoid apes? The muscles of the ear in man may, I suppose, in most cases be considered as rudimentary; and so they seem to be in the anthropoids; at least, I am assured in the Zoological Gardens they do not erect their ears. I gather there are a good many muscles in various parts of the body which are in this same state: could you specify any of the best cases? The mammae in man are rudimentary. Are there any other glands or other organs which you can think of? I know I have no right whatever to ask all these questions, and can only say that I should be grateful for any information. If you tell me anything about the os coccyx or other structures, I hope that you will permit me to quote the statement on your authority, as that would add so greatly to its value. Pray excuse me for troubling you, and do not hurry yourself in the least in answering me. I do not know whether you would care to possess a copy, but I told my publisher to send you a copy of the new edition of the "Origin" last month. LETTER 408. TO W. TURNER. Down, February 1st [1867]. I thank you cordially for all your full information, and I regret much that I have given you such great trouble at a period when your time is so much occupied. But the facts were so valuable to me that I cannot pretend that I am sorry that I did trouble you; and I am the less so, as from what you say I hope you may be induced some time to write a full account of all rudimentary structures in Man: it would be a very curious and interesting memoir. I shall at present give only a brief abstract of the chief facts which you have so very kindly communicated to me, and will not touch on some of the doubtful points. I have received far more information than I ventured to anticipate. There is one point which has occurred to me, but I suspect there is nothing in it. If, however, there should be, perhaps you will let me have a brief note from you, and if I do not hear I will understand there is nothing in the notion. I have included the down on the human body and the lanugo on the foetus as a rudimentary representation of a hairy coat. (408/1. "Descent of Man" I., page 25; II., page 375.) I do not know whether there is any direct functional connection between the presence of hair and the panniculus carnosus (408/2. Professor Macalister draws our attention to the fact that Mr. Darwin uses the term panniculus in the generalised sense of any sheet of muscle acting on the skin.) (to put the question under another point of view, is it the primary or aboriginal function of the panniculus to move the dermal appendages or the skin itself?); but both are superficial, and would perhaps together become rudimentary. I was led to think of this by the places (as far as my ignorance of anatomy has allowed me to judge) of the rudimentary muscular fasciculi which you specify. Now, some persons can move the skin of their hairy heads; and is this not effected by the panniculus? How is it with the eyebrows? You specify the axillae and the front region of the chest and lower part of scapulae: now, these are all hairy spots in man. On the other hand, the neck, and as I suppose the covering of the gluteus medius, are not hairy; so, as I said, I presume there is nothing in this notion. If there were, the rudiments of the panniculus ought perhaps to occur more plainly in man than in woman... P.S.--If the skin on the head is moved by the panniculus, I think I ought just to allude to it, as some men alone having power to move the skin shows that the apparatus is generally rudimentary. (408/3. In March 1869 Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace: "I shall be intensely curious to read the "Quarterly." I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child." The reference is to Mr. Wallace's review, in the April number of the "Quarterly," of Lyell's "Principles of Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of Geology." Mr. Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his opposition to evolution; and this leads Mr. Wallace to give a short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species." In this article Mr. Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Mr. Darwin. He upholds the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the child he is supposed to murder). At page 391 he writes: "In the brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we have an organ...little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types...But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above those of many animals...How, then, was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies." This passage is marked in Mr. Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No," and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the first occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague. He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man, "Anthropological Review," 1864. (See Letter 406). He wrote to Lyell, May 4th, 1869, "I was dreadfully disappointed about Man; it seems to me incredibly strange." And to Mr. Wallace, April 14th, 1869, "If you had not told me, I should have thought that [your remarks on Man] had been added by some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it." LETTER 409. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, Thursday, February 21st [1868-70?]. I received the Jermyn Street programme, but have hardly yet considered it, for I was all day on the sofa on Tuesday and Wednesday. Bad though I was, I thought with constant pleasure of your very great kindness in offering to read the proofs of my essay on man. I do not know whether I said anything which might have appeared like a hint, but I assure you that such a thought had never even momentarily passed through my mind. Your offer has just made all the difference, that I can now write, whether or no my essay is ever printed, with a feeling of satisfaction instead of vague dread. Beg my colleague, Mrs. Huxley, not to forget the corrugator supercilii: it will not be easy to catch the exact moment when the child is on the point of crying, and is struggling against the wrinkling up [of] its little eyes; for then I should expect the corrugator, from being little under the command of the will, would come into play in checking or stopping the wrinkling. An explosion of tears would tell nothing. LETTER 410. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, December 23rd [1870?]. I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges) (410/1. "Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences," by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (page 55). See "Descent of Man" (1901), page 41.), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. I look forward with intense interest to each reading, but it sets me thinking so much that I find it very hard work; but that is wholly the fault of my brain, and not of your beautifully clear style. LETTER 411. TO W.R. GREG. March 21st [1871?]. Many thanks for your note. I am very glad indeed to read remarks made by a man who possesses such varied and odd knowledge as you do, and who is so acute a reasoner. I have no doubt that you will detect blunders of many kinds in my book. (411/1. "The Descent of Man.") Your MS. on the proportion of the sexes at birth seems to me extremely curious, and I hope that some day you will publish it. It certainly appears that the males are decreasing in the London districts, and a most strange fact it is. Mr. Graham, however, I observe in a note enclosed, does not seem inclined to admit your conclusion. I have never much considered the subject of the causes of the proportion. When I reflected on queen bees producing only males when not impregnated, whilst some other parthenogenetic insects produced, as far as known, only females, the subject seemed to me hopelessly obscure. It is, however, pretty clear that you have taken the one path for its solution. I wished only to ascertain how far with various animals the males exceeded the females, and I have given all the facts which I could collect. As far as I know, no other data have been published. The equality of the sexes with race-horses is surprising. My remarks on mankind are quite superficial, and given merely as some sort of standard for comparison with the lower animals. M. Thury is the writer who makes the sex depend on the period of impregnation. His pamphlet was sent me from Geneva. (411/2. "Memoire sur la loi de Production des Sexes," 2nd edition, 1863 (a pamphlet published by Cherbuliez, Geneva).) I can lend it you if you like. I subsequently read an account of experiments which convinced me that M. Thury was in error; but I cannot remember what they were, only the impression that I might safely banish this view from my mind. Your remarks on the less ratio of males in illegitimate births strikes me as the most doubtful point in your MS.--requiring two assumptions, viz. that the fathers in such cases are relatively too young, and that the result is the same as when the father is relatively too old. My son, George, who is a mathematician, and who read your MS. with much interest, has suggested, as telling in the right direction, but whether sufficient is another question, that many more illegitimate children are murdered and concealed shortly after birth, than in the case of legitimate children; and as many more males than females die during the first few days of life, the census of illegitimate children practically applies to an older age than with legitimate children, and would thus slightly reduce the excess of males. This might possibly be worth consideration. By a strange coincidence a stranger writes to me this day, making the very same suggestion. I am quite delighted to hear that my book interests you enough to lead you to read it with some care. LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873. Very many thanks for "Fraser" (412/1. "Hereditary Improvement," by Francis Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," January 1873, page 116.): I have been greatly interested by your article. The idea of castes being spontaneously formed and leading to intermarriage (412/2. "My object is to build up, by the mere process of extensive enquiry and publication of results, a sentiment of caste among those who are naturally gifted, and to procure for them, before the system has fairly taken root, such moderate social favours and preference, no more no less, as would seem reasonable to those who were justly informed of the precise measure of their importance to the nation" (loc. cit., page 123).) is quite new to me, and I should suppose to others. I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society (412/3. Mr. Galton proposes that "Some society should undertake three scientific services: the first, by means of a moderate number of influential local agencies, to institute continuous enquiries into the facts of human heredity; the second to be a centre of information on heredity for breeders of animals and plants; and the third to discuss and classify the facts that were collected" (loc. cit., page 124).) would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance. I will make one or two minor criticisms. Is it not possible that the inhabitants of malarious countries owe their degraded and miserable appearance to the bad atmosphere, though this does not kill them, rather than to "economy of structure"? I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one. That is a fine simile (page 119) about the chip of a statue (412/4. "...The life of the individual is treated as of absolutely no importance, while the race is as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the former except as a contributor to the maintenance and evolution of the latter. Myriads of inchoate lives are produced in what, to our best judgment, seems a wasteful and reckless manner, in order that a few selected specimens may survive, and be the parents of the next generation. It is as though individual lives were of no more consideration than are the senseless chips which fall from the chisel of the artist who is elaborating some ideal form from a rude block" (loc. cit., page 119).); but surely Nature does not more carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I have misunderstood what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races and species which have become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that Nature cares only for the superior individuals and then makes her new and better races? But we ought both to shudder in using so freely the word "Nature" (412/5. See Letter 190, Volume I.) after what De Candolle has said. Again let me thank you for the interest received in reading your essay. Many thanks about the rabbits; your letter has been sent to Balfour: he is a very clever young man, and I believe owes his cleverness to Salisbury blood. This letter will not be worth your deciphering. I have almost finished Greg's "Enigmas." (412/6. "The Enigmas of Life," 1872.) It is grand poetry--but too Utopian and too full of faith for me; so that I have been rather disappointed. What do you think about it? He must be a delightful man. I doubt whether you have made clear how the families on the Register are to be kept pure or superior, and how they are to be in course of time still further improved. LETTER 413. TO MAX MULLER. Down, July 3rd, 1873. (413/1. In June, 1873, Professor Max Muller sent to Mr. Darwin a copy of the sixth edition of his "Lectures on the Science of Language" (413/2. A reference to the first edition occurs in "Life and Letters," II., page 390.), with a letter concluding with these words: "I venture to send you my three lectures, trusting that, though I differ from some of your conclusions, you will believe me to be one of your diligent readers and sincere admirers.") I am much obliged for your kind note and present of your lectures. I am extremely glad to have received them from you, and I had intended ordering them. I feel quite sure from what I have read in your works that you would never say anything of an honest adversary to which he would have any just right to object; and as for myself, you have often spoken highly of me--perhaps more highly than I deserve. As far as language is concerned I am not worthy to be your adversary, as I know extremely little about it, and that little learnt from very few books. I should have been glad to have avoided the whole subject, but was compelled to take it up as well as I could. He who is fully convinced, as I am, that man is descended from some lower animal, is almost forced to believe a priori that articulate language has been developed from inarticulate cries (413/3. "Descent of Man" (1901), page 133.); and he is therefore hardly a fair judge of the arguments opposed to this belief. (413/4. In October, 1875, Mr. Darwin again wrote cordially to Professor Max Muller on receipt of a pamphlet entitled "In Self-Defence" (413/5. Printed in "Chips from a German Workshop," Volume IV., 1875, page 473.), which is a reply to Professor Whitney's "Darwinism and Language" in the "North American Review," July 1874. This essay had been brought before the "general reader" in England by an article of Mr. G. Darwin's in the "Contemporary Review," November, 1874, page 894, entitled, "Professor Whitney on the Origin of Language." The article was followed by "My reply to Mr. Darwin," contributed by Professor Muller to the "Contemporary Review," January, 1875, page 305.) LETTER 414. G. ROLLESTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. British Association, Bristol, August 30th, 1875. (414/1. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man" Mr. Darwin wrote: "It is a more curious fact that savages did not formerly waste away, as Mr. Bagehot has remarked, before the classical nations, as they now do before modern civilised nations..."(414/2. Bagehot, "Physics and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," April, 1868, page 455.) In the second edition (page 183) the statement remains, but a mass of evidence (pages 183-92) is added, to which reference occurs in the reply to the following letter.) At pages 4-5 of the enclosed Address (414/3. "British Association Reports," 1875, page 142.) you will find that I have controverted Mr. Bagehot's view as to the extinction of the barbarians in the times of classical antiquity, as also the view of Poppig as to there being some occult influence exercised by civilisation to the disadvantage of savagery when the two come into contact. I write to say that I took up this subject without any wish to impugn any views of yours as such, but with the desire of having my say upon certain anti-sanitarian transactions and malfeasance of which I had had a painful experience. On reading however what I said, and had written somewhat hastily, it has struck me that what I have said might bear the former interpretation in the eyes of persons who might not read other papers of mine, and indeed other parts of the same Address, in which my adhesion, whatever it is worth, to your views in general is plainly enough implied. I have ventured to write this explanation to you for several reasons. LETTER 415. TO G. ROLLESTON. Bassett, Southampton, September 2nd [1875]. I am much obliged to you for having sent me your Address, which has interested me greatly. I quite subscribe to what you say about Mr. Bagehot's striking remark, and wish I had not quoted it. I can perceive no sort of reflection or blame on anything which I have written, and I know well that I deserve many a good slap on the face. The decrease of savage populations interests me much, and I should like you some time to look at a discussion on this subject which I have introduced in the second edition of the "Descent of Man," and which you can find (for I have no copy here) in the list of additions. The facts have convinced me that lessened fertility and the poor constitution of the children is one chief cause of such decrease; and that the case is strictly parallel to the sterility of many wild animals when made captive, the civilisation of savages and the captivity of wild animals leading to the same result. LETTER 416. TO ERNST KRAUSE. Down, June 30th, 1877. I have been much interested by your able argument against the belief that the sense of colour has been recently acquired by man. (416/1. See "Kosmos," June 1877, page 264, a review of Dr. Hugo Magnus' "Die Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Farbensinnes," 1877. The first part is chiefly an account of the author's views; Dr. Krause's argument begins at page 269. The interest felt by Mr. Darwin is recorded by the numerous pencil-marks on the margin of his copy.) The following observation bears on this subject. I attended carefully to the mental development of my young children, and with two, or as I believe three of them, soon after they had come to the age when they knew the names of all common objects, I was startled by observing that they seemed quite incapable of affixing the right names to the colours in coloured engravings, although I tried repeatedly to teach them. I distinctly remember declaring that they were colour-blind, but this afterwards proved a groundless fear. On communicating this fact to another person he told me that he had observed a nearly similar case. Therefore the difficulty which young children experience either in distinguishing, or more probably in naming colours, seems to deserve further investigation. I will add that it formerly appeared to me that the gustatory sense, at least in the case of my own infants, and very young children, differed from that of grown-up persons. This was shown by their not disliking rhubarb mixed with a little sugar and milk, which is to us abominably nauseous; and in their strong taste for the sourest and most austere fruits, such as unripe gooseberries and crabapples. (PLATE: G.J. ROMANES, 1891. Elliott & Fry, photo. Walker and Cockerell, ph. sc.) LETTER 417. TO G.J. ROMANES. [Barlaston], August 20th, 1878. (417/1. Part of this letter (here omitted) is published in "Life and Letters," III., page 225, and the whole in the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," page 74. The lecture referred to was on animal intelligence, and was given at the Dublin meeting of the British Association.) ...The sole fault which I find with your lecture is that it is too short, and this is a rare fault. It strikes me as admirably clear and interesting. I meant to have remonstrated that you had not discussed sufficiently the necessity of signs for the formation of abstract ideas of any complexity, and then I came on the discussion on deaf mutes. This latter seems to me one of the richest of all the mines, and is worth working carefully for years, and very deeply. I should like to read whole chapters on this one head, and others on the minds of the higher idiots. Nothing can be better, as it seems to me, than your several lines or sources of evidence, and the manner in which you have arranged the whole subject. Your book will assuredly be worth years of hard labour; and stick to your subject. By the way, I was pleased at your discussing the selection of varying instincts or mental tendencies; for I have often been disappointed by no one having ever noticed this notion. I have just finished "La Psychologie, son Present et son Avenir," 1876, by Delboeuf (a mathematician and physicist of Belgium) in about a hundred pages. It has interested me a good deal, but why I hardly know; it is rather like Herbert Spencer. If you do not know it, and would care to see it, send me a postcard. Thank Heaven, we return home on Thursday, and I shall be able to go on with my humdrum work, and that makes me forget my daily discomfort. Have you ever thought of keeping a young monkey, so as to observe its mind? At a house where we have been staying there were Sir A. and Lady Hobhouse, not long ago returned from India, and she and he kept [a] young monkey and told me some curious particulars. One was that her monkey was very fond of looking through her eyeglass at objects, and moved the glass nearer and further so as to vary the focus. This struck me, as Frank's son, nearly two years old (and we think much of his intellect!!) is very fond of looking through my pocket lens, and I have quite in vain endeavoured to teach him not to put the glass close down on the object, but he always will do so. Therefore I conclude that a child under two years is inferior in intellect to a monkey. Once again I heartily congratulate you on your well-earned present, and I feel assured, grand future success. (417/2. Later in the year Mr. Darwin wrote: "I am delighted to hear that you mean to work the comparative Psychology well. I thought your letter to the "Times" very good indeed. (417/3. Romanes wrote to the "Times" August 28th, 1878, expressing his views regarding the distinction between man and the lower animals, in reply to criticisms contained in a leading article in the "Times" of August 23rd on his lecture at the Dublin meeting of the British Association.) Bartlett, at the Zoological Gardens, I feel sure, would advise you infinitely better about hardiness, intellect, price, etc., of monkey than F. Buckland; but with him it must be viva voce. "Frank says you ought to keep a idiot, a deaf mute, a monkey, and a baby in your house.") LETTER 418. TO G.A. GASKELL. Down, November 15th, 1878. (418/1. This letter has been published in Clapperton's "Scientific Meliorism," 1885, page 340, together with Mr. Gaskell's letter of November 13th (page 337). Mr. Gaskell's laws are given in his letter of November 13th, 1878. They are:-- I. The Organological Law: Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. II. The Sociological Law: Sympathetic Selection, or Indiscriminate Survival. III. The Moral Law: Social Selection, or the Birth of the Fittest.) Your letter seems to me very interesting and clearly expressed, and I hope that you are in the right. Your second law appears to be largely acted on in all civilised countries, and I just alluded to it in my remarks to the effect (as far as I remember) that the evil which would follow by checking benevolence and sympathy in not fostering the weak and diseased would be greater than by allowing them to survive and then to procreate. With regard to your third law, I do not know whether you have read an article (I forget when published) by F. Galton, in which he proposes certificates of health, etc., for marriage, and that the best should be matched. I have lately been led to reflect a little, (for, now that I am growing old, my work has become [word indecipherable] special) on the artificial checks, but doubt greatly whether such would be advantageous to the world at large at present, however it may be in the distant future. Suppose that such checks had been in action during the last two or three centuries, or even for a shorter time in Britain, what a difference it would have made in the world, when we consider America, Australia, New Zealand, and S. Africa! No words can exaggerate the importance, in my opinion, of our colonisation for the future history of the world. If it were universally known that the birth of children could be prevented, and this were not thought immoral by married persons, would there not be great danger of extreme profligacy amongst unmarried women, and might we not become like the "arreoi" societies in the Pacific? In the course of a century France will tell us the result in many ways, and we can already see that the French nation does not spread or increase much. I am glad that you intend to continue your investigations, and I hope ultimately may publish on the subject. LETTER 419. TO K. HOCHBERG. Down, January 13th, 1879. I am much obliged for your note and for the essay which you have sent me. I am a poor german scholar, and your german is difficult; but I think that I understand your meaning, and hope at some future time, when more at leisure, to recur to your essay. As far as I can judge, you have made a great advance in many ways in the subject; and I will send your paper to Mr. Edmund Gurney (The late Edmund Gurney, author of "The Power of Sound," 1880.), who has written on and is much interested in the origin of the taste for music. In reading your essay, it occurred to me that facility in the utterance of prolonged sounds (I do not think that you allude to this point) may possibly come into play in rendering them musical; for I have heard it stated that those who vary their voices much, and use cadences in long continued speaking, feel less fatigued than those who speak on the same note. LETTER 420. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, February 5th, 1880. (420/1. Romanes was at work on what ultimately came to be a book on animal intelligence. Romanes's reply to this letter is given in his "Life," page 95. The table referred to is published as a frontispiece to his "Mental Evolution in Animals," 1885.) As I feared, I cannot be of the least use to you. I could not venture to say anything about babies without reading my Expression book and paper on Infants, or about animals without reading the "Descent of Man" and referring to my notes; and it is a great wrench to my mind to change from one subject to another. I will, however, hazard one or two remarks. Firstly, I should have thought that the word "love" (not sexual passion), as shown very low in the scale, to offspring and apparently to comrades, ought to have come in more prominently in your table than appears to be the case. Secondly, if you give any instance of the appreciation of different stimulants by plants, there is a much better case than that given by you--namely, that of the glands of Drosera, which can be touched roughly two or three times and do not transmit any effect, but do so if pressed by a weight of 1/78000 grain ("Insectivorous Plants" 263). On the other hand, the filament of Dionoea may be quietly loaded with a much greater weight, while a touch by a hair causes the lobes to close instantly. This has always seemed to me a marvellous fact. Thirdly, I have been accustomed to look at the coming in of the sense of pleasure and pain as one of the most important steps in the development of mind, and I should think it ought to be prominent in your table. The sort of progress which I have imagined is that a stimulus produced some effect at the point affected, and that the effect radiated at first in all directions, and then that certain definite advantageous lines of transmission were acquired, inducing definite reaction in certain lines. Such transmission afterwards became associated in some unknown way with pleasure or pain. These sensations led at first to all sorts of violent action, such as the wriggling of a worm, which was of some use. All the organs of sense would be at the same time excited. Afterwards definite lines of action would be found to be the most useful, and so would be practised. But it is of no use my giving you my crude notions. LETTER 421. TO S. TOLVER PRESTON. Down, May 22nd, 1880. (421/1. Mr. Preston wrote (May 20th, 1880) to the effect that "self-interest as a motive for conduct is a thing to be commended--and it certainly [is] I think...the only conceivable rational motive of conduct: and always is the tacitly recognised motive in all rational actions." Mr. Preston does not, of course, commend selfishness, which is not true self-interest. There seem to be two ways of looking at the case given by Darwin. The man who knows that he is risking his life,--realising that the personal satisfaction that may follow is not worth the risk--is surely admirable from the strength of character that leads him to follow the social instinct against his purely personal inclination. But the man who blindly obeys the social instinct is a more useful member of a social community. He will act with courage where even the strong man will fail.) Your letter appears to me an interesting and valuable one; but I have now been working for some years exclusively on the physiology of plants, and all other subjects have gone out of my head, and it fatigues me much to try and bring them back again into my head. I am, moreover, at present very busy, as I leave home for a fortnight's rest at the beginning of next week. My conviction as yet remains unchanged, that a man who (for instance) jumps into a river to save a life without a second's reflection (either from an innate tendency or from one gained by habit) is deservedly more honoured than a man who acts deliberately and is conscious, for however short a time, that the risk and sacrifice give him some inward satisfaction. You are of course familiar with Herbert Spencer's writings on Ethics. (422/1. The observations to which the following letters refer were continued by Mr. Wallis, who gave an account of his work in an interesting paper in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society," March 2nd, 1897. The results on the whole confirm the belief that traces of an ancestral pointed ear exist in man.) LETTER 422. TO H.M. WALLIS. Down, March 22nd, 1881. I am very much obliged for your courteous and kind note. The fact which you communicate is quite new to me, and as I was laughed at about the tips to human ears, I should like to publish in "Nature" some time your fact. But I must first consult Eschricht, and see whether he notices this fact in his curious paper on the lanugo on human embryos; and secondly I ought to look to monkeys and other animals which have tufted ears, and observe how the hair grows. This I shall not be able to do for some months, as I shall not be in London until the autumn so as to go to the Zoological Gardens. But in order that I may not hereafter throw away time, will you be so kind as to inform me whether I may publish your observation if on further search it seems desirable? LETTER 423. TO H.M. WALLIS. Down, March 31st, 1881. I am much obliged for your interesting letter. I am glad to hear that you are looking to other ears, and will visit the Zoological Gardens. Under these circumstances it would be incomparably better (as more authentic) if you would publish a notice of your observations in "Nature" or some scientific journal. Would it not be well to confine your attention to infants, as more likely to retain any primordial character, and offering less difficulty in observing. I think, though, it would be worth while to observe whether there is any relation (though probably none) between much hairiness on the ears of an infant and the presence of the "tip" on the folded margin. Could you not get an accurate sketch of the direction of the hair of the tip of an ear? The fact which you communicate about the goat-sucker is very curious. About the difference in the power of flight in Dorkings, etc., may it not be due merely to greater weight of body in the adults? I am so old that I am not likely ever again to write on general and difficult points in the theory of Evolution. I shall use what little strength is left me for more confined and easy subjects. LETTER 424. TO MRS. TALBOT. (Mrs. Emily Talbot was secretary of the Education Department of the American Social Science Association, Boston, Mass. A circular and register was issued by the Department, and answers to various questions were asked for. See "Nature," April 28th, page 617, 1881. The above letter was published in "The Field Naturalist," Manchester, 1883, page 5, edited by Mr. W.E. Axon, to whom we are indebted for a copy.) Down, July 19th [1881?] In response to your wish, I have much pleasure in expressing the interest which I feel in your proposed investigation on the mental and bodily development of infants. Very little is at present accurately known on this subject, and I believe that isolated observations will add but little to our knowledge, whereas tabulated results from a very large number of observations, systematically made, would probably throw much light on the sequence and period of development of the several faculties. This knowledge would probably give a foundation for some improvement in our education of young children, and would show us whether the system ought to be followed in all cases. I will venture to specify a few points of inquiry which, as it seems to me, possess some scientific interest. For instance, does the education of the parents influence the mental powers of their children at any age, either at a very early or somewhat more advanced stage? This could perhaps be learned by schoolmasters and mistresses if a large number of children were first classed according to age and their mental attainments, and afterwards in accordance with the education of their parents, as far as this could be discovered. As observation is one of the earliest faculties developed in young children, and as this power would probably be exercised in an equal degree by the children of educated and uneducated persons, it seems not impossible that any transmitted effect from education could be displayed only at a somewhat advanced age. It would be desirable to test statistically, in a similar manner, the truth of the oft-repeated statement that coloured children at first learn as quickly as white children, but that they afterwards fall off in progress. If it could be proved that education acts not only on the individual, but, by transmission, on the race, this would be a great encouragement to all working on this all-important subject. It is well known that children sometimes exhibit, at a very early age, strong special tastes, for which no cause can be assigned, although occasionally they may be accounted for by reversion to the taste or occupation of some progenitor; and it would be interesting to learn how far such early tastes are persistent and influence the future career of the individual. In some instances such tastes die away without apparently leaving any after effect, but it would be desirable to know how far this is commonly the case, as we should then know whether it were important to direct as far as this is possible the early tastes of our children. It may be more beneficial that a child should follow energetically some pursuit, of however trifling a nature, and thus acquire perseverance, than that he should be turned from it because of no future advantage to him. I will mention one other small point of inquiry in relation to very young children, which may possibly prove important with respect to the origin of language; but it could be investigated only by persons possessing an accurate musical ear. Children, even before they can articulate, express some of their feelings and desires by noises uttered in different notes. For instance, they make an interrogative noise, and others of assent and dissent, in different tones; and it would, I think, be worth while to ascertain whether there is any uniformity in different children in the pitch of their voices under various frames of mind. I fear that this letter can be of no use to you, but it will serve to show my sympathy and good wishes in your researches. 2.VIII.II. SEXUAL SELECTION, 1866-1872. LETTER 425. TO JAMES SHAW. Down, February 11th [1866]. I am much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me an abstract of your paper on beauty. (425/1. A newspaper report of a communication to the "Dumfries Antiquarian and Natural History Society.") In my opinion you take quite a correct view of the subject. It is clear that Dr. Dickson has either never seen my book, or overlooked the discussion on sexual selection. If you have any precise facts on birds' "courtesy towards their own image in mirror or picture," I should very much like to hear them. Butterflies offer an excellent instance of beauty being displayed in conspicuous parts; for those kinds which habitually display the underside of the wing have this side gaudily coloured, and this is not so in the reverse case. I daresay you will know that the males of many foreign butterflies are much more brilliantly coloured than the females, as in the case of birds. I can adduce good evidence from two large classes of facts (too large to specify) that flowers have become beautiful to make them conspicuous to insects. (425/2. This letter is published in "A Country Schoolmaster, James Shaw." Edited by Robert Wallace, Edinburgh, 1899.) (425/3. Mr. Darwin wrote again to Mr. Shaw in April, 1866:--) I am much obliged for your kind letter and all the great trouble which you have taken in sending to all the various and interesting facts on birds admiring themselves. I am very glad to hear of these facts. I have just finished writing and adding to a new edition of the "Origin," and in this I have given, without going into details (so that I shall not be able to use your facts), some remarks on the subject of beauty. LETTER 426. TO A.D. BARTLETT. Down, February 16th [1867?] I want to beg two favours of you. I wish to ascertain whether the Bower-Bird discriminates colours. (426/1. Mr. Bartlett does not seem to have supplied any information on the point in question. The evidence for the Bower-Bird's taste in colour is in "Descent of Man," II., page 112.) Will you have all the coloured worsted removed from the cage and bower, and then put all in a row, at some distance from bower, the enclosed coloured worsted, and mark whether the bird AT FIRST makes any selection. Each packet contains an equal quantity; the packets had better be separate, and each thread put separate, but close together; perhaps it would be fairest if the several colours were put alternately--one thread of bright scarlet, one thread of brown, etc., etc. There are six colours. Will you have the kindness to tell me whether the birds prefer one colour to another? Secondly, I very much want several heads of the fancy and long-domesticated rabbits, to measure the capacity of skull. I want only small kinds, such as Himalaya, small Angora, Silver Grey, or any small-sized rabbit which has long been domesticated. The Silver Grey from warrens would be of little use. The animals must be adult, and the smaller the breed the better. Now when any one dies would you send me the carcase named; if the skin is of any value it might be skinned, but it would be rather better with skin, and I could make a present to any keeper to whom the skin is a perquisite. This would be of great assistance to me, if you would have the kindness thus to aid me. LETTER 427. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. (427/1. We are not aware that the experiment here suggested has ever been carried out.) Down, March 5th [1867]. I write on the bare and very improbable chance of your being able to try, or get some trustworthy person to try, the following little experiment. But I may first state, as showing what I want, that it has been stated that if two long feathers in the tail of the male Widow-Bird at the Cape of Good Hope are pulled out, no female will pair with him. Now, where two or three common cocks are kept, I want to know, if the tail sickle-feathers and saddle-feathers of one which had succeeded in getting wives were cut and mutilated and his beauty spoiled, whether he would continue to be successful in getting wives. This might be tried with drakes or peacocks, but no one would be willing to spoil for a season his peacocks. I have no strength or opportunity of watching my own poultry, otherwise I would try it. I would very gladly repay all expenses of loss of value of the poultry, etc. But, as I said, I have written on the most improbable chance of your interesting any one to make the trial, or having time and inclination yourself to make it. Another, and perhaps better, mode of making the trial would be to turn down to some hens two or three cocks, one being injured in its plumage. I am glad to say that I have begun correcting proofs. (427/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants.") I hope that you received safely the skulls which you so kindly lent me. LETTER 428. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. Down, March 30th [1867]. I am much obliged for your note, and shall be truly obliged if you will insert any question on the subject. That is a capital remark of yours about the trimmed game cocks, and shall be quoted by me. (428/1. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 117. "Mr. Tegetmeier is convinced that a game cock, though disfigured by being dubbed with his hackles trimmed, would be accepted as readily as a male retaining all his natural ornaments.") Nevertheless I am still inclined from many facts strongly to believe that the beauty of the male bird determines the choice of the female with wild birds, however it may be under domestication. Sir R. Heron has described how one pied peacock was extra attentive to the hens. This is a subject which I must take up as soon as my present book is done. I shall be most particularly obliged to you if you will dye with magenta a pigeon or two. (428/2. "Mr. Tegetmeier, at my request, stained some of his birds with magenta, but they were not much noticed by the others."--"Descent of Man" (1901), page 637.) Would it not be better to dye the tail alone and crown of head, so as not to make too great difference? I shall be very curious to hear how an entirely crimson pigeon will be received by the others as well as his mate. P.S.--Perhaps the best experiment, for my purpose, would be to colour a young unpaired male and turn him with other pigeons, and observe whether he was longer or quicker than usual in mating. LETTER 429. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 29th [1867]. I have been greatly interested by your letter, but your view is not new to me. (429/1. We have not been able to find Mr. Wallace's letter to which this is a reply. It evidently refers to Mr. Wallace's belief in the paramount importance of protection in the evolution of colour. This is clear from the P.S. to the present letter and from the passages in the "Origin" referred to. The first reference, Edition IV., page 240, is as follows: "We can sometimes plainly see the proximate cause of the transmission of ornaments to the males alone; for a pea-hen with the long tail of the male bird would be badly fitted to sit on her eggs, and a coal-black female capercailzie would be far more conspicuous on her nest, and more exposed to danger, than in her present modest attire." The passages in Edition I. (pages 89, 101) do not directly bear on the question of protection.) If you will look at page 240 of the fourth edition of the "Origin" you will find it very briefly given with two extreme examples of the peacock and black grouse. A more general statement is given at page 101, or at page 89 of the first edition, for I have long entertained this view, though I have never had space to develop it. But I had not sufficient knowledge to generalise as far as you do about colouring and nesting. In your paper perhaps you will just allude to my scanty remark in the fourth edition, because in my Essay on Man I intend to discuss the whole subject of sexual selection, explaining as I believe it does much with respect to man. I have collected all my old notes, and partly written my discussion, and it would be flat work for me to give the leading idea as exclusively from you. But, as I am sure from your greater knowledge of Ornithology and Entomology that you will write a much better discussion than I could, your paper will be of great use to me. Nevertheless I must discuss the subject fully in my Essay on Man. When we met at the Zoological Society, and I asked you about the sexual differences in kingfishers, I had this subject in view; as I had when I suggested to Bates the difficulty about gaudy caterpillars, which you have so admirably (as I believe it will prove) explained. (429/2. See a letter of February 26th, 1867, to Mr. Wallace, "Life and Letters" III., page 94.) I have got one capital case (genus forgotten) of a [Australian] bird in which the female has long tail-plumes, and which consequently builds a different nest from all her allies. (429/3. Menura superba: see "Descent of Man" (1901), page 687. Rhynchoea, mentioned a line or two lower down, is discussed in the "Descent," page 727. The female is more brightly coloured than the male, and has a convoluted trachea, elsewhere a masculine character. There seems some reason to suppose that "the male undertakes the duty of incubation.") With respect to certain female birds being more brightly coloured than the males, and the latter incubating, I have gone a little into the subject, and cannot say that I am fully satisfied. I remember mentioning to you the case of Rhynchoea, but its nesting seems unknown. In some other cases the difference in brightness seemed to me hardly sufficiently accounted for by the principle of protection. At the Falkland Islands there is a carrion hawk in which the female (as I ascertained by dissection) is the brightest coloured, and I doubt whether protection will here apply; but I wrote several months ago to the Falklands to make enquiries. The conclusion to which I have been leaning is that in some of these abnormal cases the colour happened to vary in the female alone, and was transmitted to females alone, and that her variations have been selected through the admiration of the male. It is a very interesting subject, but I shall not be able to go on with it for the next five or six months, as I am fully employed in correcting dull proof-sheets. When I return to the work I shall find it much better done by you than I could have succeeded in doing. It is curious how we hit on the same ideas. I have endeavoured to show in my MS. discussion that nearly the same principles account for young birds not being gaily coloured in many cases, but this is too complex a point for a note. On reading over your letter again, and on further reflection, I do not think (as far as I remember my words) that I expressed myself nearly strongly enough on the value and beauty of your generalisation (429/4. See Letter 203, Volume I.), viz., that all birds in which the female is conspicuously or brightly coloured build in holes or under domes. I thought that this was the explanation in many, perhaps most cases, but do not think I should ever have extended my view to your generalisation. Forgive me troubling you with this P.S. LETTER 430. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 5th [1867]. The offer of your valuable notes is most generous, but it would vex me to take so much from you, as it is certain that you could work up the subject very much better than I could. Therefore I earnestly, and without any reservation, hope that you will proceed with your paper, so that I return your notes. You seem already to have well investigated the subject. I confess on receiving your note that I felt rather flat at my recent work being almost thrown away, but I did not intend to show this feeling. As a proof how little advance I had made on the subject, I may mention that though I had been collecting facts on the colouring, and other sexual differences in mammals, your explanation with respect to the females had not occurred to me. I am surprised at my own stupidity, but I have long recognised how much clearer and deeper your insight into matters is than mine. I do not know how far you have attended to the laws of inheritance, so what follows may be obvious to you. I have begun my discussion on sexual selection by showing that new characters often appear in one sex and are transmitted to that sex alone, and that from some unknown cause such characters apparently appear oftener in the male than in the female. Secondly, characters may be developed and be confined to the male, and long afterwards be transferred to the female. Thirdly, characters may arise in either sex and be transmitted to both sexes, either in an equal or unequal degree. In this latter case I have supposed that the survival of the fittest has come into play with female birds and kept the female dull-coloured. With respect to the absence of spurs in the female gallinaceous birds, I presume that they would be in the way during incubation; at least I have got the case of a German breed of fowls in which the hens were spurred, and were found to disturb and break their eggs much. With respect to the females of deer not having horns, I presume it is to save the loss of organised matter. In your note you speak of sexual selection and protection as sufficient to account for the colouring of all animals, but it seems to me doubtful how far this will come into play with some of the lower animals, such as sea anemones, some corals, etc., etc. On the other hand Hackel (430/1. See "Descent of Man" (1901) page 402.) has recently well shown that the transparency and absence of colour in the lower oceanic animals, belonging to the most different classes, may be well accounted for on the principle of protection. Some time or other I should like much to know where your paper on the nests of birds has appeared, and I shall be extremely anxious to read your paper in the "Westminster Review." (430/2. "Westminster Review," July, 1867.) Your paper on the sexual colouring of birds will, I have no doubt, be very striking. Forgive me, if you can, for a touch of illiberality about your paper. LETTER 431. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 19th, 1868. (431/1. "The Variation of Animals and Plants" having been published on January 30th, 1868, Mr. Darwin notes in his diary that on February 4th he "Began on Man and Sexual Selection." He had already (in 1864 and 1867) corresponded with Mr. Wallace on these questions--see for instance the "Life and Letters," III., page 89; but, owing to various interruptions, serious work on the subject did not begin until 1869. The following quotations show the line of work undertaken early in 1868. Mr. Wallace wrote (March 19th, 1868): "I am glad you have got good materials on sexual selection. It is no doubt a difficult subject. One difficulty to me is, that I do not see how the constant MINUTE variations, which are sufficient for Natural Selection to work with, could be SEXUALLY selected. We seem to require a series of bold and abrupt variations. How can we imagine that an inch in the tail of the peacock, or 1/4-inch in that of the Bird of Paradise, would be noticed and preferred by the female.") In regard to sexual selection. A girl sees a handsome man, and without observing whether his nose or whiskers are the tenth of an inch longer or shorter than in some other man, admires his appearance and says she will marry him. So, I suppose, with the pea-hen; and the tail has been increased in length merely by, on the whole, presenting a more gorgeous appearance. J. Jenner Weir, however, has given me some facts showing that birds apparently admire details of plumage. LETTER 432. TO F. MULLER. March 28th [1868]. I am particularly obliged to you for your observations on the stridulation of the two sexes of Lamellicorns. (432/1. We are unable to find any mention of F. Muller's observations on this point; but the reference is clearly to Darwin's observations on Necrophorus and Pelobius, in which the stridulating rasp was bigger in the males in the first individuals examined, but not so in succeeding specimens. "Descent of Man," Edition II., Volume I., page 382.) I begin to fear that I am completely in error owing to that common cause, viz. mistaking at first individual variability for sexual difference. I go on working at sexual selection, and, though never idle, I am able to do so little work each day that I make very slow progress. I knew from Azara about the young of the tapir being striped, and about young deer being spotted (432/2. Fritz Muller's views are discussed in the "Descent of Man," Edition II., Volume II., page 305.); I have often reflected on this subject, and know not what to conclude about the loss of the stripes and spots. From the geographical distribution of the striped and unstriped species of Equus there seems to be something very mysterious about the loss of stripes; and I cannot persuade myself that the common ass has lost its stripes owing to being rendered more conspicuous from having stripes and thus exposed to danger. LETTER 433. TO J. JENNER WEIR. (433/1. Mr. John Jenner Weir, to whom the following letters are addressed, is frequently quoted in the "Descent of Man" as having supplied Mr. Darwin with information on a variety of subjects.) Down, February 27th [1868]. I must thank you for your paper on apterous lepidoptera (433/2. Published by the West Kent Natural History, Microscopical and Photographic Society, Greenwich, 1867. Mr. Weir's paper seems chiefly to have interested Mr. Darwin as affording a good case of gradation in the degree of degradation of the wings in various species.), which has interested me exceedingly, and likewise for the very honourable mention which you make of my name. It is almost a pity that your paper was not published in some Journal in which it would have had a wider distribution. It contained much that was new to me. I think the part about the relation of the wings and spiracles and tracheae might have been made a little clearer. Incidentally, you have done me a good service by reminding me of the rudimentary spurs on the legs of the partridge, for I am now writing on what I have called sexual selection. I believe that I am not mistaken in thinking that you have attended much to birds in confinement, as well as to insects. If you could call to mind any facts bearing on this subject, with birds, insects, or any animals--such as the selection by a female of any particular male--or conversely of a particular female by a male, or on the rivalry between males, or on the allurement of the females by the males, or any such facts, I should be most grateful for the information, if you would have the kindness to communicate it. P.S.--I may give as instance of [this] class of facts, that Barrow asserts that a male Emberiza (?) at the Cape has immensely long tail-feathers during the breeding season (433/3. Barrow describes the long tail feathers of Emberiza longicauda as enduring "but the season of love." "An Account of Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa": London, 1801, Volume I., page 244.); and that if these are cut off, he has no chance of getting a wife. I have always felt an intense wish to make analogous trials, but have never had an opportunity, and it is not likely that you or any one would be willing to try so troublesome an experiment. Colouring or staining the fine red breast of a bullfinch with some innocuous matter into a dingy tint would be an analogous case, and then putting him and ordinary males with a female. A friend promised, but failed, to try a converse experiment with white pigeons--viz., to stain their tails and wings with magenta or other colours, and then observe what effect such a prodigious alteration would have on their courtship. (433/4. See Letter 428.) It would be a fairer trial to cut off the eyes of the tail-feathers of male peacocks; but who would sacrifice the beauty of their bird for a whole season to please a mere naturalist? LETTER 434. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, February 29th [1868]. I have hardly ever received a note which has interested me more than your last; and this is no exaggeration. I had a few cases of birds perceiving slight changes in the dress of their owners, but your facts are of tenfold value. I shall certainly make use of them, and need not say how much obliged I should be for any others about which you feel confident. Do you know of any birds besides some of the gallinaceae which are polygamous? Do you know of any birds besides pigeons, and, as it is said, the raven, which pair for their whole lives? Many years ago I visited your brother, who showed me his pigeons and gave me some valuable information. Could you persuade him (but I fear he would think it high treason) to stain a male pigeon some brilliant colour, and observe whether it excited in the other pigeons, especially the females, admiration or contempt? For the chance of your liking to have a copy and being able to find some parts which would interest you, I have directed Mr. Murray to send you my recent book on "Variation under Domestication." P.S.--I have somewhere safe references to cases of magpies, of which one of a pair has been repeatedly (I think seven times) killed, and yet another mate was always immediately found. (434/1. On this subject see "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 104, where Mr. Weir's observations were made use of. This statement is quoted from Jenner ("Phil. Trans." 1824) in the "Descent of Man" (1901), page 620.) A gamekeeper told me yesterday of analogous case. This perplexes me much. Are there many unmarried birds? I can hardly believe it. Or will one of a pair, of which the nest has been robbed, or which are barren, always desert his or her mate for a strange mate with the attraction of a nest, and in one instance with young birds in the nest? The gamekeeper said during breeding season he had never observed a single or unpaired partridge. How can the sexes be so equally matched? P.S. 2nd.--I fear you will find me a great bore, but I will be as reasonable as can be expected in plundering one so rich as you. P.S. 3rd.--I have just received a letter from Dr. Wallace (434/2. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., pages 386-401, where Dr. Wallace's observations are quoted.), of Colchester, about the proportional numbers of the two sexes in Bombyx; and in this note, apropos to an incidental remark of mine, he stoutly maintains that female lepidoptera never notice the colours or appearance of the male, but always receive the first male which comes; and this appears very probable. He says he has often seen fine females receive old battered and pale-tinted males. I shall have to admit this very great objection to sexual selection in insects. His observations no doubt apply to English lepidoptera, in most of which the sexes are alike. The brimstone or orange-tip would be good to observe in this respect, but it is hopelessly difficult. I think I have often seen several males following one female; and what decides which male shall succeed? How is this about several males; is it not so? LETTER 435. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 6, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square, W. [March 6th, 1868]. I have come here for a few weeks, for a little change and rest. Just as I was leaving home I received your first note, and yesterday a second; and both are most interesting and valuable to me. That is a very curious observation about the goldfinch's beak (435/1. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 39. Mr. Weir is quoted as saying that the birdcatchers can distinguish the males of the goldfinch, Carduelis elegans, by their "slightly longer beaks."), but one would hardly like to trust it without measurement or comparison of the beaks of several male and female birds; for I do not understand that you yourself assert that the beak of the male is sensibly longer than that of the female. If you come across any acute birdcatchers (I do not mean to ask you to go after them), I wish you would ask what is their impression on the relative numbers of the sexes of any birds which they habitually catch, and whether some years males are more numerous and some years females. I see that I must trust to analogy (an unsafe support) for sexual selection in regard to colour in butterflies. You speak of the brimstone butterfly and genus Edusa (435/2. Colias Edusa.) (I forget what this is, and have no books here, unless it is Colias) not opening their wings. In one of my notes to Mr. Stainton I asked him (but he could or did not answer) whether butterflies such as the Fritillaries, with wings bright beneath and above, opened and shut their wings more than Vanessae, most of which, I think, are obscure on the under surface. That is a most curious observation about the red underwing moth and the robin (435/3. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 395. Mr. Weir describes the pursuit of a red-underwing, Triphoena pronuba, by a robin which was attracted by the bright colour of the moth, and constantly missed the insect by breaking pieces off the wing instead of seizing the body. Mr. Wallace's facts are given on the same page.), and strongly supports a suggestion (which I thought hardly credible) of A.R. Wallace, viz. that the immense wings of some exotic lepidoptera served as a protection from difficulty of birds seizing them. I will probably quote your case. No doubt Dr. Hooker collected the Kerguelen moth, for I remember he told me of the case when I suggested in the "Origin," the explanation of the coleoptera of Madeira being apterous; but he did not know what had become of the specimens. I am quite delighted to hear that you are observing coloured birds (435/4. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 110.), though the probability, I suppose, will be that no sure result will be gained. I am accustomed with my numerous experiments with plants to be well satisfied if I get any good result in one case out of five. You will not be able to read all my book--too much detail. Some of the chapters in the second volume are curious, I think. If any man wants to gain a good opinion of his fellow-men, he ought to do what I am doing, pester them with letters. LETTER 436. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W., March 13th [1868]. You make a very great mistake when you speak of "the risk of your notes boring me." They are of the utmost value to me, and I am sure I shall never be tired of receiving them; but I must not be unreasonable. I shall give almost all the facts which you have mentioned in your two last notes, as well as in the previous ones; and my only difficulty will be not to give too much and weary my readers. Your last note is especially valuable about birds displaying the beautiful parts of their plumage. Audubon (436/1. In his "Ornithological Biography," 5 volumes, Edinburgh, 1831-49.) gives a good many facts about the antics of birds during courtship, but nothing nearly so much to the purpose as yours. I shall never be able to resist giving the whole substance of your last note. It is quite a new light to me, except with the peacock and Bird of Paradise. I must now look to turkey's wings; but I do not think that their wings are beautiful when opened during courtship. Its tail is finely banded. How about the drake and Gallus bankiva? I forget how their wings look when expanded. Your facts are all the more valuable as I now clearly see that for butterflies I must trust to analogy altogether in regard to sexual selection. But I think I shall make out a strong case (as far as the rather deceitful guide of analogy will serve) in the sexes of butterflies being alike or differing greatly--in moths which do not display the lower surface of their wings not having them gaudily coloured, etc., etc.--nocturnal moths, etc.--and in some male insects fighting for the females, and attracting them by music. My discussion on sexual selection will be a curious one--a mere dovetailing of information derived from you, Bates, Wallace, etc., etc., etc. We remain at above address all this month, and then return home. In the summer, could I persuade you to pay us a visit of a day or two, and I would try and get Bates and some others to come down? But my health is so precarious, I can ask no one who will not allow me the privilege of a poor old invalid; for talking, I find by long and dear-bought experience, tries my head more than anything, and I am utterly incapable of talking more than half an hour, except on rare occasions. I fear this note is very badly written; but I was very ill all yesterday, and my hand shakes to-day. LETTER 437. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W., March 22nd [1868]. I hope that you will not think me ungrateful that I have not sooner answered your note of the 16th; but in fact I have been overwhelmed both with calls and letters; and, alas! one visit to the British Museum of an hour or hour and a half does for me for the whole day. I was particularly glad to hear your and your brother's statement about the "gay" deceiver-pigeons. (437/1. Some cock pigeons "called by our English fanciers gay birds are so successful in their gallantries that, as Mr. H. Weir informs me, they must be shut up, on account of the mischief which they cause.") I did not at all know that certain birds could win the affections of the females more than other males, except, indeed, in the case of the peacock. Conversely, Mr. Hewitt, I remember, states that in making hybrids the cock pheasant would prefer certain hen fowls and strongly dislike others. I will write to Mr. H. in a few days, and ask him whether he has observed anything of this kind with pure unions of fowls, ducks, etc. I had utterly forgotten the case of the ruff (437/2. The ruff, Machetes pugnax, was believed by Montague to be polygamous. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 270.), but now I remember having heard that it was polygamous; but polygamy with birds, at least, does not seem common enough to have played an important part. So little is known of habits of foreign birds: Wallace does not even know whether Birds of Paradise are polygamous. Have you been a large collector of caterpillars? I believe so. I inferred from a letter from Dr. Wallace, of Colchester, that he would account for Mr. Stainton and others rearing more female than male by their having collected the larger and finer caterpillars. But I misunderstood him, and he maintains that collectors take all caterpillars, large and small, for that they collect the caterpillars alone of the rarer moths or butterflies. What think you? I hear from Professor Canestrini (437/3. See "Descent of Man" (1901), page 385.) in Italy that females are born in considerable excess with Bombyx mori, and in greater excess of late years than formerly! Quatrefages writes to me that he believes they are equal in France. So that the farther I go the deeper I sink into the mire. With cordial thanks for your most valuable letters. We remain here till April 1st, and then hurrah for home and quiet work. LETTER 438. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, N.W., March 27th [1868]. I hardly know which of your three last letters has interested me most. What splendid work I shall have hereafter in selecting and arranging all your facts. Your last letter is most curious--all about the bird-catchers--and interested us all. I suppose the male chaffinch in "pegging" approaches the captive singing-bird, from rivalry or jealousy--if I am wrong please tell me; otherwise I will assume so. Can you form any theory about all the many cases which you have given me, and others which have been published, of when one [of a] pair is killed, another soon appearing? Your fact about the bullfinches in your garden is most curious on this head. (438/1. Mr. Weir stated that at Blackheath he never saw or heard a wild bullfinch, yet when one of his caged males died, a wild one in the course of a few days generally came and perched near the widowed female, whose call-note is not loud. "Descent of Man" (1901), page 623.) Are there everywhere many unpaired birds? What can the explanation be? Mr. Gould assures me that all the nightingales which first come over are males, and he believes this is so with other migratory birds. But this does not agree with what the bird-catchers say about the common linnet, which I suppose migrates within the limits of England. Many thanks for very curious case of Pavo nigripennis. (438/2. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 306.) I am very glad to get additional evidence. I have sent your fact to be inserted, if not too late, in four foreign editions which are now printing. I am delighted to hear that you approve of my book; I thought every mortal man would find the details very tedious, and have often repented of giving so many. You will find pangenesis stiff reading, and I fear will shake your head in disapproval. Wallace sticks up for the great god Pan like a man. The fertility of hybrid canaries would be a fine subject for careful investigation. LETTER 439. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, April 4th [1868]. I read over your last ten (!) letters this morning, and made an index of their contents for easy reference; and what a mine of wealth you have bestowed on me. I am glad you will publish yourself on gay-coloured caterpillars and birds (439/1. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 417, where Mr. Weir's experiments are given; they were made to test Mr. Wallace's theory that caterpillars, which are protected against birds by an unpleasant taste, have been rendered conspicuous, so that they are easily recognised. They thus escape being pecked or tasted, which to soft-skinned animals would be as fatal as being devoured. See Mr. Jenner Weir's papers, "Transact. Entomolog. Soc." 1869, page 2; 1870, page 337. In regard to one of these papers Mr. Darwin wrote (May 13th, 1869): "Your verification of Wallace's suggestion seems to me to amount to quite a discovery."); it seems to me much the best plan; therefore, I will not forward your letter to Mr. Wallace. I was much in the Zoological Gardens during my month in London, and picked up what scraps of knowledge I could. Without my having mentioned your most interesting observations on the display of the Fringillidae (439/2. "Descent of Man" (1901), page 738.), Mr. Bartlett told me how the Gold Pheasant erects his collar and turns from side to side, displaying it to the hen. He has offered to give me notes on the display of all Gallinaceae with which he is acquainted; but he is so busy a man that I rather doubt whether he will ever do so. I received about a week ago a remarkably kind letter from your brother, and I am sorry to hear that he suffers much in health. He gave me some fine facts about a Dun Hen Carrier which would never pair with a bird of any other colour. He told me, also, of some one at Lewes who paints his dog! and will inquire about it. By the way, Mr. Trimen tells me that as a boy he used to paint butterflies, and that they long haunted the same place, but he made no further observations on them. As far as colour is concerned, I see I shall have to trust to mere inference from the males displaying their plumage, and other analogous facts. I shall get no direct evidence of the preference of the hens. Mr. Hewitt, of Birmingham, tells me that the common hen prefers a salacious cock, but is quite indifferent to colour. Will you consider and kindly give me your opinion on the two following points. Do very vigorous and well-nourished hens receive the male earlier in the spring than weaker or poorer hens? I suppose that they do. Secondly, do you suppose that the birds which pair first in the season have any advantage in rearing numerous and healthy offspring over those which pair later in the season? With respect to the mysterious cases of which you have given me so many, in addition to those previously collected, of when one bird of a pair is shot another immediately supplying its place, I was drawing to the conclusion that there must be in each district several unpaired birds; yet this seems very improbable. You allude, also, to the unknown causes which keep down the numbers of birds; and often and often have I marvelled over this subject with respect to many animals. LETTER 440. TO A.R. WALLACE. (440/1. The following refers to Mr. Wallace's article "A Theory of Birds' Nests," in Andrew Murray's "Journal of Travel," Volume I., page 73. He here treats in fuller detail the view already published in the "Westminster Review," July 1867, page 38. The rule which Mr. Wallace believes, with very few exceptions, to hold good is, "that when both sexes are of strikingly gay and conspicuous colours, the nest is...such as to conceal the sitting bird; while, whenever there is a striking contrast of colours, the male being gay and conspicuous, the female dull and obscure, the nest is open, and the sitting bird exposed to view." At this time Mr. Wallace allowed considerably more influence to sexual selection (in combination with the need of protection) than in his later writings. The following extract from a letter from Mr. Wallace to Darwin (July 23rd, 1877) fixes the period at which the change in his views occurred: "I am almost afraid to tell you that in going over the subject of the colours of animals, etc., etc., for a small volume of essays, etc., I am preparing, I have come to conclusions directly opposed to voluntary sexual selection, and believe that I can explain (in a general way) all the phenomena of sexual ornaments and colours by laws of development aided by simple 'Natural Selection.'" He finally rejected Mr. Darwin's theory that colours "have been developed by the preference of the females, the more ornamented males becoming the parents of each successive generation." "Darwinism," 1889, page 285. See also Letters 442, 443, 449, 450, etc.) Down, April 15th, [1868]. I have been deeply interested by your admirable article on birds' nests. I am delighted to see that we really differ very little,--not more than two men almost always will. You do not lay much or any stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one sex (generally the male), and being transmitted exclusively, or more commonly only in excess, to that sex. I, on the other hand, formerly paid far too little attention to protection. I had only a glimpse of the truth; but even now I do not go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid thinking rather more than you do about the exceptions in nesting to the rule, especially the partial exceptions, i.e., when there is some little difference between the sexes in species which build concealed nests. I am not quite satisfied about the incubating males; there is so little difference in conspicuousness between the sexes. I wish with all my heart I could go the whole length with you. You seem to think that male birds probably select the most beautiful females; I must feel some doubt on this head, for I can find no evidence of it. Though I am writing so carping a note, I admire the article thoroughly. And now I want to ask a question. When female butterflies are more brilliant than their males you believe that they have in most cases, or in all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other species, and thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having been rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? (440/2. See Wallace in the "Westminster Review," July, 1867, page 37, on the protection to the female insect afforded by its resemblance either to an inanimate object or to another insect protected by its unpalatableness. The cases are discussed in relation to the much greater importance (to the species as a whole) of the preservation of the female insect with her load of eggs than the male who may safely be sacrificed after pairing. See Letter 189, note.) Although it may be most for the welfare of the species that the female should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger. For my part, I should say that the female alone had happened to vary in the right manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted to the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals a strong probability) that variations leading to beauty must often have occurred in the males alone, and been transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the need of the protective principle. I should be grateful for an answer on the point. LETTER 441. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, April 18th [1868]. You see that I have taken you at your word, and have not (owing to heaps of stupid letters) earlier noticed your three last letters, which as usual are rich in facts. Your letters make almost a little volume on my table. I daresay you hardly knew yourself how much curious information was lying in your mind till I began the severe pumping process. The case of the starling married thrice in one day is capital, and beats the case of the magpies of which one was shot seven times consecutively. A gamekeeper here tells me that he has repeatedly shot one of a pair of jays, and it has always been immediately replaced. I begin to think that the pairing of birds must be as delicate and tedious an operation as the pairing of young gentlemen and ladies. If I can convince myself that there are habitually many unpaired birds, it will be a great aid to me in sexual selection, about which I have lately had many troubles, and am therefore rejoiced to hear in your last note that your faith keeps staunch. That is a curious fact about the bullfinches all appearing to listen to the German singer (441/1. See Letter 445, note.); and this leads me to ask how much faith may I put in the statement that male birds will sing in rivalry until they injure themselves. Yarrell formerly told me that they would sometimes even sing themselves to death. I am sorry to hear that the painted bullfinch turns out to be a female; though she has done us a good turn in exhibiting her jealousy, of which I had no idea. Thank you for telling me about the wildness of the hybrid canaries: nothing has hardly ever surprised me more than the many cases of reversion from crossing. Do you not think it a very curious subject? I have not heard from Mr. Bartlett about the Gallinaceae, and I daresay I never shall. He told me about the Tragopan, and he is positive that the blue wattle becomes gorged with blood, and not air. Returning to the first of the last three letters. It is most curious the number of persons of the name of Jenner who have had a strong taste for Natural History. It is a pity you cannot trace your connection with the great Jenner, for a duke might be proud of his blood. I heard lately from Professor Rolleston of the inherited effects of an injury in the same eye. Is the scar on your son's leg on the same side and on exactly the same spot where you were wounded? And did the wound suppurate, or heal by the first intention? I cannot persuade myself of the truth of the common belief of the influence of the mother's imagination on the child. A point just occurs to me (though it does not at present concern me) about birds' nests. Have you read Wallace's recent articles? (441/2. A full discussion of Mr. Wallace's views is given in "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., Chapter XV. Briefly, Mr. Wallace's point is that the dull colour of the female bird is protective by rendering her inconspicuous during incubation. Thus the relatively bright colour of the male would not simply depend on sexual selection, but also on the hen being "saved, through Natural Selection, from acquiring the conspicuous colours of the male" (loc. cit., page 155).) I always distrust myself when I differ from him; but I cannot admit that birds learn to make their nests from having seen them whilst young. I must think it as true an instinct as that which leads a caterpillar to suspend its cocoon in a particular manner. Have you had any experience of birds hatched under a foster-mother making their nests in the proper manner? I cannot thank you enough for all your kindness. LETTER 442. TO A.R. WALLACE. (442/1. Dr. Clifford Allbutt's view probably had reference to the fact that the sperm-cell goes, or is carried, to the germ-cell, never vice versa. In this letter Darwin gives the reason for the "law" referred to. Mr. A.R. Wallace has been good enough to give us the following note:--"It was at this time that my paper on 'Protective Resemblance' first appeared in the 'Westminster Review,' in which I adduced the greater, or rather, the more continuous, importance of the female (in the lower animals) for the race, and my 'Theory of Birds' Nests' ('Journal of Travel and Natural History,' No. 2) in which I applied this to the usually dull colours of female butterflies and birds. It is to these articles as well as to my letters that Darwin chiefly refers."--Note by Mr. Wallace, May 27th, 1902.) Down, April 30th [1868]. Your letter, like so many previous ones, has interested me much. Dr. Allbutt's view occurred to me some time ago, and I have written a short discussion on it. It is, I think, a remarkable law, to which I have found no exception. The foundation lies in the fact that in many cases the eggs or seeds require nourishment and protection by the mother-form for some time after impregnation. Hence the spermatozoa and antherozoids travel in the lower aquatic animals and plants to the female, and pollen is borne to the female organ. As organisms rise in the scale it seems natural that the male should carry the spermatozoa to the female in his own body. As the male is the searcher, he has required and gained more eager passions than the female; and, very differently from you, I look at this as one great difficulty in believing that the males select the more attractive females; as far as I can discover, they are always ready to seize on any female, and sometimes on many females. Nothing would please me more than to find evidence of males selecting the more attractive females. I have for months been trying to persuade myself of this. There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I know in hybrid unions of males preferring particular females, but, alas, not guided by colour. Perhaps I may get more evidence as I wade through my twenty years' mass of notes. I am not shaken about the female protected butterflies. I will grant (only for argument) that the life of the male is of very little value,--I will grant that the males do not vary, yet why has not the protective beauty of the female been transferred by inheritance to the male? The beauty would be a gain to the male, as far as we can see, as a protection; and I cannot believe that it would be repulsive to the female as she became beautiful. But we shall never convince each other. I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one man to convince another, unless his mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself to a certain extent contradict my own remark, for I believe far more in the importance of protection than I did before reading your articles. I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what you admit in your letters: viz., "there seems to be some production of vividness...of colour in the male independent of protection." This I am making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that I believe that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked by being dangerous. That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of male alone assuming protective colours; but in the cases in which protection has been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexual selection would interfere with the male losing his beauty. If the male alone had acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily overlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than their females. Moreover, I grant that the life of the male is somewhat less precious, and thus there would be less rigorous selection with the male, so he would be less likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for protection. (442/2. This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greater the excess of males, and the less precious their lives, so much the better for sexual selection. [Note in original.]) But it seems to me a good argument, and very good if it could be thoroughly established. I do not know whether you will care to read this scrawl. LETTER 443. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 5th [1868?]. I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble in writing to me at such length. I am glad to say that I agree almost entirely with your summary, except that I should put sexual selection as an equal, or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than Natural Selection for protection. As I get on in my work I hope to get clearer and more decided ideas. Working up from the bottom of the scale, I have as yet only got to fishes. What I rather object to in your articles is that I do not think any one would infer from them that you place sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary. It was very natural that you should give only a line to sexual selection in the summary to the "Westminster Review," but the result at first to my mind was that you attributed hardly anything to its power. In your penultimate note you say "in the great mass of cases in which there is great differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due almost wholly to the need of protection to the female." Now, looking to the whole animal kingdom, I can at present by no means admit this view; but pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent, I do not thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirable generalisation on birds' nests. With respect to this latter point, however, although, following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look at the whole case from a rather different point of view. You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris. (443/1. See "Westminster Review," July, 1867, page 37; also Letter 440.) I believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by selection. I can make no answer with respect to the elephants. With respect to the female reindeer, I have hitherto looked at the horns simply as the consequence of inheritance not having been limited by sex. Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller males seems good, and I presume that you will not object to my giving it as your suggestion. LETTER 444. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, May 7th [1868]. I have now to thank you for no less than four letters! You are so kind that I will not apologise for the trouble I cause you; but it has lately occurred to me that you ought to publish a paper or book on the habits of the birds which you have so carefully observed. But should you do this, I do not think that my giving some of the facts for a special object would much injure the novelty of your work. There is such a multitude of points in these last letters that I hardly know what to touch upon. Thanks about the instinct of nidification, and for your answers on many points. I am glad to hear reports about the ferocious female bullfinch. I hope you will have another try in colouring males. I have now finished lepidoptera, and have used your facts about caterpillars, and as a caution the case of the yellow-underwings. I have now begun on fishes, and by comparing different classes of facts my views are getting a little more decided. In about a fortnight or three weeks I shall come to birds, and then I dare say that I shall be extra troublesome. I will now enclose a few queries for the mere chance of your being able to answer some of them, and I think it will save you trouble if I write them on a separate slip, and then you can sometimes answer by a mere "no" or "yes." Your last letter on male pigeons and linnets has interested me much, for the precise facts which you have given me on display are of the utmost value for my work. I have written to Mr. Bartlett on Gallinaceae, but I dare say I shall not get an answer. I had heard before, but am glad to have confirmation about the ruffs being the most numerous. I am greatly obliged to your brother for sending out circulars. I have not heard from him as yet. I want to ask him whether he has ever observed when several male pigeons are courting one female that the latter decides with which male she will pair. The story about the black mark on the lambs must be a hoax. The inaccuracy of many persons is wonderful. I should like to tell you a story, but it is too long, about beans growing on the wrong side of the pod during certain years. Queries: Does any female bird regularly sing? Do you know any case of both sexes, more especially of the female, [being] more brightly coloured whilst young than when come to maturity and fit to breed? An imaginary instance would be if the female kingfisher (or male) became dull coloured when adult. Do you know whether the male and female wild canary bird differ in plumage (though I believe I could find this out for myself), and do any of the domestic breeds differ sexually? Do you know any gallinaceous bird in which the female has well developed spurs? It is very odd that my memory should fail me, but I cannot remember whether, in accordance with your views, the wing of Gallus bankiva (or Game-Cock, which is so like the wild) is ornamental when he opens and scrapes it before the female. I fear it is not; but though I have often looked at wing of the wild and tame bird, I cannot call to mind the exact colours. What a number of points you have attended to; I did not know that you were a horticulturist. I have often marvelled at the different growth of the flowering and creeping branches of the ivy; but had no idea that they kept their character when propagated by cuttings. There is a S. American genus (name forgotten just now) which differs in an analogous manner but even greater degree, but it is difficult to cultivate in our hot-house. I have tried and failed. LETTER 445. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, May 30th [1868]. I am glad to hear your opinion on the nest-making instinct, for I am Tory enough not to like to give up all old beliefs. Wallace's view (445/1. See Letter 440, etc.) is also opposed to a great mass of analogical facts. The cases which you mention of suddenly reacquired wildness seem curious. I have also to thank you for a previous valuable letter. With respect to spurs on female Gallinaceae, I applied to Mr. Blyth, who has wonderful systematic knowledge, and he tells me that the female Pavo muticus and Fire-back pheasants are spurred. From various interruptions I get on very slowly with my Bird MS., but have already often and often referred to your volume of letters, and have used various facts, and shall use many more. And now I am ashamed to say that I have more questions to ask; but I forget--you told me not to apologise. 1. In your letter of April 14th you mention the case of about twenty birds which seemed to listen with much interest to an excellent piping bullfinch. (445/2. Quoted in the "Descent of Man" (1901), page 564. "A bullfinch which had been taught to pipe a German waltz...when this bird was first introduced into a room where other birds were kept and he began to sing, all the others, consisting of about twenty linnets and canaries, ranged themselves on the nearest side of their cages, and listened with the greatest interest to the new performer.") What kind of birds were these twenty? 2. Is it true, as often stated, that a bird reared by foster-parents, and who has never heard the song of its own species, imitates to a certain extent the song of the species which it may be in the habit of hearing? Now for a more troublesome point. I find it very necessary to make out relation of immature plumage to adult plumage, both when the sexes differ and are alike in the adult state. Therefore, I want much to learn about the first plumage (answering, for instance, to the speckled state of the robin before it acquires the red breast) of the several varieties of the canary. Can you help me? What is the character or colour of the first plumage of bright yellow or mealy canaries which breed true to these tints? So with the mottled-brown canaries, for I believe that there are breeds which always come brown and mottled. Lastly, in the "prize-canaries," which have black wing- and tail-feathers during their first (?) plumage, what colours are the wings and tails after the first (?) moult or when adult? I should be particularly glad to learn this. Heaven have mercy on you, for it is clear that I have none. I am going to investigate this same point with all the breeds of fowls, as Mr. Tegetmeier will procure for me young birds, about two months old, of all the breeds. In the course of this next month I hope you will come down here on the Saturday and stay over the Sunday. Some months ago Mr. Bates said he would pay me a visit during June, and I have thought it would be pleasanter for you to come here when I can get him, so that you would have a companion if I get knocked up, as is sadly too often my bad habit and great misfortune. Did you ever hear of the existence of any sub-breed of the canary in which the male differs in plumage from the female? LETTER 446. TO F. MULLER. Down, June 3rd [1868]. Your letter of April 22nd has much interested me. I am delighted that you approve of my book, for I value your opinion more than that of almost any one. I have yet hopes that you will think well of pangenesis. I feel sure that our minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great relief to have some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect on the wonderful transformations of animals, the re-growth of parts, and especially the direct action of pollen on the mother form, etc. It often appears to me almost certain that the characters of the parents are "photographed" on the child, only by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child. I am sorry about the mistake in regard to Leptotes. (446/1. See "Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 134, where it is stated that Oncidium is fertile with Leptotes, a mistake corrected in the 2nd edition.) I daresay it was my fault, yet I took pains to avoid such blunders. Many thanks for all the curious facts about the unequal number of the sexes in crustacea, but the more I investigate this subject the deeper I sink in doubt and difficulty. Thanks, also, for the confirmation of the rivalry of Cicadae. (446/2. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 351, for F. Muller's observations; and for a reference to Landois' paper.) I have often reflected with surprise on the diversity of the means for producing music with insects, and still more with birds. We thus get a high idea of the importance of song in the animal kingdom. Please to tell me where I can find any account of the auditory organs in the orthoptera? Your facts are quite new to me. Scudder has described an annectant insect in Devonian strata, furnished with a stridulating apparatus. (446/3. The insect is no doubt Xenoneura antiquorum, from the Devonian rocks of New Brunswick. Scudder compared a peculiar feature in the wing of this species to the stridulating apparatus of the Locustariae, but afterwards stated that he had been led astray in his original description, and that there was no evidence in support of the comparison with a stridulating organ. See the "Devonian Insects of New Brunswick," reprinted in S.H. Scudder's "Fossil Insects of N. America," Volume I., page 179, New York, 1890.) I believe he is to be trusted, and if so the apparatus is of astonishing antiquity. After reading Landois' paper I have been working at the stridulating organ in the lamellicorn beetles, in expectation of finding it sexual, but I have only found it as yet in two cases, and in these it was equally developed in both sexes. I wish you would look at any of your common lamellicorns and take hold of both males and females and observe whether they make the squeaking or grating noise equally. If they do not, you could perhaps send me a male and female in a light little box. How curious it is that there should be a special organ for an object apparently so unimportant as squeaking. Here is another point: have you any Toucans? if so, ask any trustworthy hunter whether the beaks of the males, or of both sexes, are more brightly coloured during the breeding season than at other times of the year? I have also to thank you for a previous letter of April 3rd, with some interesting facts on the variation of maize, the sterility of Bignonia and on conspicuous seeds. Heaven knows whether I shall ever live to make use of half the valuable facts which you have communicated to me... LETTER 447. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, June 18th [1868]. Many thanks. I am glad that you mentioned the linnet, for I had much difficulty in persuading myself that the crimson breast could be due to change in the old feathers, as the books say. I am glad to hear of the retribution of the wicked old she-bullfinch. You remember telling me how many Weirs and Jenners have been naturalists; now this morning I have been putting together all my references about one bird of a pair being killed, and a new mate being soon found; you, Jenner Weir, have given me some most striking cases with starlings; Dr. Jenner gives the most curious case of all in "Philosophical Transactions" (447/1. "Phil. Trans." 1824.), and a Mr. Weir gives the next most striking in Macgillivray. (447/2. Macgillivray's "History of British Birds," Volume I., page 570. See "Descent of Man" (1901), page 621.) Now, is this not odd? Pray remember how very glad we shall be to see you here whenever you can come. Did some ancient progenitor of the Weirs and Jenners puzzle his brains about the mating of birds, and has the question become indelibly fixed in all your minds? LETTER 448. TO A.R. WALLACE. August 19th [1868]. I had become, before my nine weeks' horrid interruption of all work, extremely interested in sexual selection, and was making fair progress. In truth it has vexed me much to find that the farther I get on the more I differ from you about the females being dull-coloured for protection. I can now hardly express myself as strongly, even, as in the "Origin." This has much decreased the pleasure of my work. In the course of September, if I can get at all stronger, I hope to get Mr. J. Jenner Weir (who has been wonderfully kind in giving me information) to pay me a visit, and I will then write for the chance of your being able to come, and I hope bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If I could get several of you together it would be less dull for you, for of late I have found it impossible to talk with any human being for more than half an hour, except on extraordinary good days. (448/1. On September 16th Darwin wrote to Wallace on the same subject:--) You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe distress about protection and sexual selection; this morning I oscillated with joy towards you; this evening I have swung back to the old position, out of which I fear I shall never get. LETTER 449. TO A.R. WALLACE. (449/1. From "Life and Letters," Volume III., page 123.) Down, September 23rd [1868]. I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writing me your long letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answer it would require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I have rewritten some pages you would know how anxious I am to arrive as near as I can to the truth. I lay great stress on what I know takes place under domestication; I think we start with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it is most difficult, but not, I think, impossible to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which are at first transmitted to both sexes, would come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not enough that females should be produced from the males with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but these females must have a latent tendency to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of their male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by their producing the red feathers when old, or diseased in their ovaria. But I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if the few red feathers in the male from the first tended to be sexually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female may have been modified, either at the same time or subsequently, for protection by the accumulation of variations limited in their transmission to the female sex. I owe to your writings the consideration of this latter point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females alone have often been modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble briefly to tell me, whether you believe that the plainer head and less bright colours of female chaffinch, the less red on the head and less clean colours of female goldfinch, the much less red on the breast of the female bullfinch, the paler crest of golden-crested wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection? I cannot think so, any more than I can that the considerable differences between female and male house-sparrow, or much greater brightness of male Parus caeruleus (both of which build under cover) than of female Parus, are related to protection. I even misdoubt much whether the less blackness of female blackbird is for protection. Again, can you give me reasons for believing that the moderate differences between the female pheasant, the female Gallus bankiva, the female of black grouse, the pea-hen, the female partridge, have all special references to protection under slightly different conditions? I, of course, admit that they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think, from some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for their difference by partial transference of colour from the male, and by other means too long to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason to believe that each is specially adapted for concealment to its environment. I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and makes me constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each other. I value the cases of bright-coloured, incubating male fisher, and brilliant female butterflies, solely as showing that one sex may be made brilliant without any necessary transference of beauty to the other sex; for in these cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was checked by selection. I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answer about your belief in regard to the female finches and Gallinaceae would suffice. LETTER 450. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 9, St. Mark's Crescent, N.W., September 27th, 1868. Your view seems to be that variations occurring in one sex are transmitted either to that sex exclusively or to both sexes equally, or more rarely partially transferred. But we have every gradation of sexual colours, from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this is explained solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours of one or other sex will be always (in relation to the environment) a matter of chance. I cannot think this. I think selection more powerful than laws of inheritance, of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, three or four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have little doubt, been specialised for protection. To answer your first question is most difficult, if not impossible, because we have no sufficient evidence in individual cases of slight sexual difference, to determine whether the male alone has acquired his superior brightness by sexual selection, or the female been made duller by need of protection, or whether the two causes have acted. Many of the sexual differences of existing species may be inherited differences from parent forms, which existed under different conditions and had greater or less need of protection. I think I admitted before, the general tendency (probably) of males to acquire brighter tints. Yet this cannot be universal, for many female birds and quadrupeds have equally bright tints. To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I do think the females of the Gallinaceae you mention have been modified or been prevented from acquiring the brighter plumage of the male, by need of protection. I know that the Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more open situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found among grassy and leafy vegetation, corresponding with the colours of the two. So the Argus pheasant, male and female, are, I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding to the dead leaves of the lofty forest in which they dwell, and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant Lophura viellottii is of a very similar rich brown colour. I do not, however, at all think the question can be settled by individual cases, but by only large masses of facts. The colours of the mass of female birds seem to me strictly analogous to the colours of both sexes of snipes, woodcocks, plovers, etc., which are undoubtedly protective. Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a male bird become more and more brilliant by sexual selection, and a good deal of that colour is transmitted to the female till it becomes positively injurious to her during incubation, and the race is in danger of extinction; do you not think that all the females who had acquired less of the male's bright colours, or who themselves varied in a protective direction, would be preserved, and that thus a good protective colouring would soon be acquired? If you admit that this could occur, and can show no good reason why it should not often occur, then we no longer differ, for this is the main point of my view. Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla beautifully imitating the red fructification of lichens used in the nest, and therefore the FEMALES have it too? Yet this is a very sexual-looking character. If sexes have been differentiated entirely by sexual selection the females can have no relation to environment. But in groups when both sexes require protection during feeding or repose, as snipes, woodcock, ptarmigan, desert birds and animals, green forest birds, etc., arctic birds of prey, and animals, then both sexes are modified for protection. Why should that power entirely cease to act when sexual differentiation exists and when the female requires protection, and why should the colour of so many FEMALE BIRDS seem to be protective, if it has not been made protective by selection. It is contrary to the principles of "Origin of Species," that colour should have been produced in both sexes by sexual selection and never have been modified to bring the female into harmony with the environment. "Sexual selection is less rigorous than Natural Selection," and will therefore be subordinate to it. I think the case of female Pieris pyrrha proves that females alone can be greatly modified for protection. (450/1. My latest views on this subject, with many new facts and arguments, will be found in the later editions of my "Darwinism," Chapter X. (A.R.W.)) LETTER 451. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. (451/1. On October 4th, 1868, Mr. Wallace wrote again on the same subject without adding anything of importance to his arguments of September 27th. We give his final remarks:--) October 4th, 1868. I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this point is a source of anxiety to you. Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come out at last, and our difference may be the means of setting others to work who may set us both right. After all, this question is only an episode (though an important one) in the great question of the "Origin of Species," and whether you or I are right will not at all affect the main doctrine--that is one comfort. I hope you will publish your treatise on "Sexual Selection" as a separate book as soon as possible; and then, while you are going on with your other work, there will no doubt be found some one to battle with me over your facts on this hard problem. LETTER 452. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October 6th [1868]. Your letter is very valuable to me, and in every way very kind. I will not inflict a long answer, but only answer your queries. There are breeds (viz. Hamburg) in which both sexes differ much from each other and from both sexes of Gallus bankiva; and both sexes are kept constant by selection. The comb of the Spanish male has been ordered to be upright, and that of Spanish female to lop over, and this has been effected. There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with females very distinct and males almost identical; but this, apparently, is the result of spontaneous variation, without special selection. I am very glad to hear of case of female Birds of Paradise. I have never in the least doubted possibility of modifying female birds alone for protection, and I have long believed it for butterflies. I have wanted only evidence for the female alone of birds having had their colour modified for protection. But then I believe that the variations by which a female bird or butterfly could get or has got protective colouring have probably from the first been variations limited in their transmission to the female sex. And so with the variations of the male: when the male is more beautiful than the female, I believe the variations were sexually limited in their transmission to the males. LETTER 453. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, October 31st, 1868. (453/1. A short account of the Periodical Cicada (C. septendecim) is given by Dr. Sharp in the Cambridge Natural History, Insects II., page 570. We are indebted to Dr. Sharp for calling our attention to Mr. C.L. Marlatt's full account of the insect in "Bulletin No. 14 [NS.] of the U.S. Department of Agriculture," 1898. The Cicada lives for long periods underground as larva and pupa, so that swarms of the adults of one race (septendecim) appear at intervals of 17 years, while those of the southern form or race (tredecim) appear at intervals of 13 years. This fact was first made out by Phares in 1845, but was overlooked or forgotten, and was only re-discovered by Walsh and Riley in 1868, who published a joint paper in the "American Entomologist," Volume I., page 63. Walsh appears to have adhered to the view that the 13- and 17-year forms are distinct species, though, as we gather from Marlatt's paper (page 14), he published a letter to Mr. Darwin in which he speaks of the 13-year form as an incipient species; see "Index to Missouri Entomolog. Reports Bull. 6," U.S.E.C., page 58 (as given by Marlatt). With regard to the cause of the difference in period of the two forms, Marlatt (pages 15, 16) refers doubtfully to difference of temperature as the determining factor. Experiments have been instituted by moving 17-year eggs to the south, and vice versa with 13-year eggs. The results were, however, not known at the time of publication of Marlatt's paper.) I am very much obliged for the extracts about the "drumming," which will be of real use to me. I do not at all know what to think of your extraordinary case of the Cicadas. Professor Asa Gray and Dr. Hooker were staying here, and I told them of the facts. They thought that the 13-year and the 17-year forms ought not to be ranked as distinct species, unless other differences besides the period of development could be discovered. They thought the mere rarity of variability in such a point was not sufficient, and I think I concur with them. The fact of both the forms presenting the same case of dimorphism is very curious. I have long wished that some one would dissect the forms of the male stag-beetle with smaller mandibles, and see if they were well developed, i.e., whether there was an abundance of spermatozoa; and the same observations ought, I think, to be made on the rarer form of your Cicada. Could you not get some observer, such as Dr. Hartman (453/2. Mr. Walsh sent Mr. Darwin an extract from Dr. Hartman's "Journal of the doings of a Cicada septendecim," in which the females are described as flocking round the drumming males. "Descent of Man" (1901), page 433.), to note whether the females flocked in equal numbers to the "drumming" of the rarer form as to the common form? You have a very curious and perplexing subject of investigation, and I wish you success in your work. LETTER 454. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, June 15th [1869?]. You must not suppose from my delay that I have not been much interested by your long letter. I write now merely to thank you, and just to say that probably you are right on all the points you touch on, except, as I think, about sexual selection, which I will not give up. My belief in it, however, is contingent on my general belief in sexual selection. It is an awful stretcher to believe that a peacock's tail was thus formed; but, believing it, I believe in the same principle somewhat modified applied to man. LETTER 455. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, February 13th [N.D.] I wrote a little time ago asking you an odd question about elephants, and now I am going to ask you an odder. I hope that you will not think me an intolerable bore. It is most improbable that you could get me an answer, but I ask on mere chance. Macacus silenus (455/1. Macacus silenus L., an Indian ape.) has a great mane of hair round neck, and passing into large whiskers and beard. Now what I want most especially to know is whether these monkeys, when they fight in confinement (and I have seen it stated that they are sometimes kept in confinement), are protected from bites by this mane and beard. Any one who watched them fighting would, I think, be able to judge on this head. My object is to find out with various animals how far the mane is of any use, or a mere ornament. Is the male Macacus silenus furnished with longer hair than the female about the neck and face? As I said, it is a hundred or a thousand to one against your finding out any one who has kept these monkeys in confinement. LETTER 456. TO F. MULLER. Down, August 28th [1870]. I have to thank you very sincerely for two letters: one of April 25th, containing a very curious account of the structure and morphology of Bonatea. I feel that it is quite a sin that your letters should not all be published! but, in truth, I have no spare strength to undertake any extra work, which, though slight, would follow from seeing your letters in English through the press--not but that you write almost as clearly as any Englishman. This same letter also contained some seeds for Mr. Farrer, which he was very glad to receive. Your second letter, of July 5th, was chiefly devoted to mimicry in lepidoptera: many of your remarks seem to me so good, that I have forwarded your letter to Mr. Bates; but he is out of London having his summer holiday, and I have not yet heard from him. Your remark about imitators and imitated being of such different sizes, and the lower surface of the wings not being altered in colour, strike me as the most curious points. I should not be at all surprised if your suggestion about sexual selection were to prove true; but it seems rather too speculative to be introduced in my book, more especially as my book is already far too speculative. The very same difficulty about brightly coloured caterpillars had occurred to me, and you will see in my book what, I believe, is the true explanation from Wallace. The same view probably applies in part to gaudy butterflies. My MS. is sent to the printers, and, I suppose, will be published in about three months: of course I will send you a copy. By the way, I settled with Murray recently with respect to your book (456/1. The translation of "Fur Darwin," published in 1869.), and had to pay him only 21 pounds 2 shillings 3 pence, which I consider a very small price for the dissemination of your views; he has 547 copies as yet unsold. This most terrible war will stop all science in France and Germany for a long time. I have heard from nobody in Germany, and know not whether your brother, Hackel, Gegenbaur, Victor Carus, or my other friends are serving in the army. Dohrn has joined a cavalry regiment. I have not yet met a soul in England who does not rejoice in the splendid triumph of Germany over France (456/2. See Letter 239, Volume I.): it is a most just retribution against that vainglorious, war-liking nation. As the posts are all in confusion, I will not send this letter through France. The Editor has sent me duplicate copies of the "Revue des Cours Scientifiques," which contain several articles about my views; so I send you copies for the chance of your liking to see them. LETTER 457. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Holly House, Barking, E., January 27th, 1871. Many thanks for your first volume (457/1. "The Descent of Man".), which I have just finished reading through with the greatest pleasure and interest; and I have also to thank you for the great tenderness with which you have treated me and my heresies. On the subject of "sexual selection" and "protection," you do not yet convince me that I am wrong; but I expect your heaviest artillery will be brought up in your second volume, and I may have to capitulate. You seem, however, to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning, and I do not think the difference between us is quite so great as you seem to think it. There are a number of passages in which you argue against the view that the female has in any large number of cases been "specially modified" for protection, or that colour has generally been obtained by either sex for purposes of protection. But my view is, as I thought I had made it clear, that the female has (in most cases) been simply prevented from acquiring the gay tints of the male (even when there was a tendency for her to inherit it), because it was hurtful; and that, when protection is not needed, gay colours are so generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance by both sexes of colour variations is the most usual, when not prevented from acting by Natural Selection. The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual selection or by other unknown causes. There are, however, difficulties in the very wide application you give to sexual selection which at present stagger me, though no one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfect truth of the principle or the immense importance and great variety of its applications. Your chapters on "Man" are of intense interest--but as touching my special heresy, not as yet altogether convincing, though, of course, I fully agree with every word and every argument which goes to prove the "evolution" or "development" of man out of a lower form. My ONLY difficulties are, as to whether you have accounted for EVERY STEP of the development by ascertained laws. I feel sure that the book will keep up and increase your high reputation, and be immensely successful, as it deserves to be... LETTER 458. TO G.B. MURDOCH. Down, March 13th, 1871. (458/1. We are indebted to Mr. Murdoch for a draft of his letter dated March 10th, 1871. It is too long to be quoted at length; the following citations give some idea of its contents: "In your 'Descent of Man,' in treating of the external differences between males and females of the same variety, have you attached sufficient importance to the different amount and kind of energy expended by them in reproduction?" Mr. Murdoch sums up: "Is it wrong, then, to suppose that extra growth, complicated structure, and activity in one sex exist as escape-valves for surplus vigour, rather than to please or fight with, though they may serve these purposes and be modified by them?") I am much obliged for your valuable letter. I am strongly inclined to think that I have made a great and complete oversight with respect to the subject which you discuss. I am the more surprised at this, as I remember reflecting on some points which ought to have led me to your conclusion. By an odd chance I received the day before yesterday a letter from Mr. Lowne (author of an excellent book on the anatomy of the Blow-fly) (458/2. "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Blow-fly (Musca vomitaria L.)," by B.T. Lowne. London, 1870.) with a discussion very nearly to the same effect as yours. His conclusions were drawn from studying male insects with great horns, mandibles, etc. He informs me that his paper on this subject will soon be published in the "Transact. Entomolog. Society." (458/3. "Observations on Immature Sexuality and Alternate Generation in Insects." By B.T. Lowne. "Trans. Entomolog. Soc." 1871 [Read March 6th, 1871]. "I believe that certain cutaneous appendages, as the gigantic mandibles and thoracic horns of many males, are complemental to the sexual organs; that, in point of fact, they are produced by the excess of nutriment in the male, which in the female would go to form the generative organs and ova" (loc. cit., page 197).) I am inclined to look at your and Mr. Lowne's view as specially valuable from probably throwing light on the greater variability of male than female animals, which manifestly has much bearing on sexual selection. I will keep your remarks in mind whenever a new edition of my book is demanded. LETTER 459. TO GEORGE FRASER. (459/1. The following letter refers to two letters to Mr. Darwin, in which Mr. Fraser pointed out that illustrations of the theory of Sexual Selection might be found amongst British butterflies and moths. Mr. Fraser, in explanation of the letters, writes: "As an altogether unknown and far from experienced naturalist, I feared to send my letters for publication without, in the first place, obtaining Mr. Darwin's approval." The information was published in "Nature," Volume III., April 20th, 1871, page 489. The article was referred to in the second edition of the "Descent of Man" (1874), pages 312, 316, 319. Mr. Fraser adds: "This is only another illustration of Mr. Darwin's great conscientiousness in acknowledging suggestions received by him from the most humble sources." (Letter from Mr. Fraser to F. Darwin, March 21, 1888.) Down, April 14th [1871]. I am very much obliged for your letter and the interesting facts which it contains, and which are new to me. But I am at present so much engaged with other subjects that I cannot fully consider them; and, even if I had time, I do not suppose that I should have anything to say worth printing in a scientific journal. It would obviously be absurd in me to allow a mere note of thanks from me to be printed. Whenever I have to bring out a corrected edition of my book I will well consider your remarks (which I hope that you will send to "Nature"), but the difficulty will be that my friends tell me that I have already introduced too many facts, and that I ought to prune rather than to introduce more. LETTER 460. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, December 3rd, 1871. I am much obliged to you for having sent me your two interesting papers, and for the kind writing on the cover. I am very glad to have my error corrected about the protective colouring of shells. (460/1. "On Adaptive Coloration of the Mollusca," "Boston Society of Natural History Proc." Volume XIV., April 5th, 1871. Mr. Morse quotes from the "Descent of Man," I., page 316, a passage to the effect that the colours of the mollusca do not in general appear to be protective. Mr. Morse goes on to give instances of protective coloration.) It is no excuse for my broad statement, but I had in my mind the species which are brightly or beautifully coloured, and I can as yet hardly think that the colouring in such cases is protective. LETTER 461. TO AUG. WEISMANN. Down, February 29th, 1872. I am rejoiced to hear that your eyesight is somewhat better; but I fear that work with the microscope is still out of your power. I have often thought with sincere sympathy how much you must have suffered from your grand line of embryological research having been stopped. It was very good of you to use your eyes in writing to me. I have just received your essay (461/1. "Ueber der Einfluss der Isolirung auf die Artbildung": Leipzig, 1872.); but as I am now staying in London for the sake of rest, and as German is at all times very difficult to me, I shall not be able to read your essay for some little time. I am, however, very curious to learn what you have to say on isolation and on periods of variation. I thought much about isolation when I wrote in Chapter IV. on the circumstances favourable to Natural Selection. No doubt there remains an immense deal of work to do on "Artbildung." I have only opened a path for others to enter, and in the course of time to make a broad and clear high-road. I am especially glad that you are turning your attention to sexual selection. I have in this country hardly found any naturalists who agree with me on this subject, even to a moderate extent. They think it absurd that a female bird should be able to appreciate the splendid plumage of the male; but it would take much to persuade me that the peacock does not spread his gorgeous tail in the presence of the female in order to fascinate or excite her. The case, no doubt, is much more difficult with insects. I fear that you will find it difficult to experiment on diurnal lepidoptera in confinement, for I have never heard of any of these breeding in this state. (461/2. We are indebted to Mr. Bateson for the following note: "This belief does not seem to be well founded, for since Darwin's time several species of Rhopalocera (e.g. Pieris, Pararge, Caenonympha) have been successfully bred in confinement without any special difficulty; and by the use of large cages members even of strong-flying genera, such as Vanessa, have been induced to breed.") I was extremely pleased at hearing from Fritz Muller that he liked my chapter on lepidoptera in the "Descent of Man" more than any other part, excepting the chapter on morals. LETTER 462. TO H. MULLER. Down [May, 1872]. I have now read with the greatest interest your essay, which contains a vast amount of matter quite new to me. (462/1. "Anwendung der Darwin'schen Lehre auf Bienen," "Verhandl. d. naturhist. Vereins fur preuss. Rheinld. u. Westf." 1872. References to Muller's paper occur in the second edition of the "Descent of Man.") I really have no criticisms or suggestions to offer. The perfection of the gradation in the character of bees, especially in such important parts as the mouth-organs, was altogether unknown to me. You bring out all such facts very clearly by your comparison with the corresponding organs in the allied hymenoptera. How very curious is the case of bees and wasps having acquired, independently of inheritance from a common source, the habit of building hexagonal cells and of producing sterile workers! But I have been most interested by your discussion on secondary sexual differences; I do not suppose so full an account of such differences in any other group of animals has ever been published. It delights me to find that we have independently arrived at almost exactly the same conclusion with respect to the more important points deserving investigation in relation to sexual selection. For instance, the relative number of the two sexes, the earlier emergence of the males, the laws of inheritance, etc. What an admirable illustration you give of the transference of characters acquired by one sex--namely, that of the male of Bombus possessing the pollen-collecting apparatus. Many of your facts about the differences between male and female bees are surprisingly parallel with those which occur with birds. The reading your essay has given me great confidence in the efficacy of sexual selection, and I wanted some encouragement, as extremely few naturalists in England seem inclined to believe in it. I am, however, glad to find that Prof. Weismann has some faith in this principle. The males of Bombus follow one remarkable habit, which I think it would interest you to investigate this coming summer, and no one could do it better than you. (462/2. Mr. Darwin's observations on this curious subject were sent to Hermann Muller, and after his death were translated and published in Krause's "Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von Charles Darwin," 1887, page 84. The male bees had certain regular lines of flight at Down, as from the end of the kitchen garden to the corner of the "sand-walk," and certain regular "buzzing places" where they stopped on the wing for a moment or two. Mr. Darwin's children remember vividly the pleasure of helping in the investigation of this habit.) I have therefore enclosed a briefly and roughly drawn-up account of this habit. Should you succeed in making any observations on this subject, and if you would like to use in any way my MS. you are perfectly welcome. I could, should you hereafter wish to make any use of the facts, give them in rather fuller detail; but I think that I have given enough. I hope that you may long have health, leisure, and inclination to do much more work as excellent as your recent essay. 2.VIII.III. EXPRESSION, 1868-1874. LETTER 463. TO F. MULLER. Down, January 30th [1868]. I am very much obliged for your answers, though few in number (October 5th), about expression. I was especially glad to hear about shrugging the shoulders. You say that an old negro woman, when expressing astonishment, wonderfully resembled a Cebus when astonished; but are you sure that the Cebus opened its mouth? I ask because the Chimpanzee does not open its mouth when astonished, or when listening. (463/1. Darwin in the "Expression of the Emotions," adheres to this statement as being true of monkeys in general.) Please have the kindness to remember that I am very anxious to know whether any monkey, when screaming violently, partially or wholly closes its eyes. LETTER 464. TO W. BOWMAN. (464/1. The late Sir W. Bowman, the well-known surgeon, supplied a good deal of information of value to Darwin in regard to the expression of the emotions. The gorging of the eyes with blood during screaming is an important factor in the physiology of weeping, and indirectly in the obliquity of the eyebrows--a characteristic expression of suffering. See "Expression of the Emotions," pages 160 and 192.) Down, March 30th [1868]. I called at your house about three weeks since, and heard that you were away for the whole month, which I much regretted, as I wished to have had the pleasure of seeing you, of asking you a question, and of thanking you for your kindness to my son George. You did not quite understand the last note which I wrote to you--viz., about Bell's precise statement that the conjunctiva of an infant or young child becomes gorged with blood when the eyes are forcibly opened during a screaming fit. (464/2. Sir C. Bell's statement in his "Anatomy of Expression" (1844, page 106) is quoted in the "Expression of the Emotions," page 158.) I have carefully kept your previous note, in which you spoke doubtfully about Bell's statement. I intended in my former note only to express a wish that if, during your professional work, you were led to open the eyelids of a screaming child, you would specially observe this point about the eye showing signs of becoming gorged with blood, which interests me extremely. Could you ask any one to observe this for me in an eye-dispensary or hospital? But I now have to beg you kindly to consider one other question at any time when you have half an hour's leisure. When a man coughs violently from choking or retches violently, even when he yawns, and when he laughs violently, tears come into the eyes. Now, in all these cases I observe that the orbicularis muscle is more or less spasmodically contracted, as also in the crying of a child. So, again, when the muscles of the abdomen contract violently in a propelling manner, and the breath is, I think, always held, as during the evacuation of a very costive man, and as (I hear) with a woman during severe labour-pains, the orbicularis contracts, and tears come into the eyes. Sir J.E. Tennant states that tears roll down the cheeks of elephants when screaming and trumpeting at first being captured; accordingly I went to the Zoological Gardens, and the keeper made two elephants trumpet, and when they did this violently the orbicularis was invariably plainly contracted. Hence I am led to conclude that there must be some relation between the contraction of this muscle and the secretion of tears. Can you tell me what this relation is? Does the orbicularis press against, and so directly stimulate, the lachrymal gland? As a slight blow on the eye causes, by reflex action, a copious effusion of tears, can the slight spasmodic contraction of the orbicularis act like a blow? This seems hardly possible. Does the same nerve which runs to the orbicularis send off fibrils to the lachrymal glands; and if so, when the order goes for the muscle to contract, is nervous force sent sympathetically at the same time to the glands? (464/3. See "Expression of the Emotions," page 169.) I should be extremely much obliged if you [would] have the kindness to give me your opinion on this point. LETTER 465. TO F.C. DONDERS. (465/1. Mr. Darwin was indebted to Sir W. Bowman for an introduction to Professor Donders, whose work on Sir Charles Bell's views is quoted in the "Expression of the Emotions," pages 160-62.) Down, June 3rd [1870?]. I do not know how to thank you enough for the very great trouble which you have taken in writing at such length, and for your kind expressions towards me. I am particularly obliged for the abstract with respect to Sir C. Bell's views (465/2. See "Expression of the Emotions," pages 158 et seq.: Sir Charles Bell's view is that adopted by Darwin--viz. that the contraction of the muscles round the eyes counteracts the gorging of the parts during screaming, etc. The essay of Donders is, no doubt, "On the Action of the Eyelids in Determination of Blood from Expiratory Effort" in Beale's "Archives of Medicine," Volume V., 1870, page 20, which is a translation of the original in Dutch.), as I shall now proceed with some confidence; but I am intensely curious to read your essay in full when translated and published, as I hope, in the "Dublin Journal," as you speak of the weak point in the case--viz., that injuries are not known to follow from the gorging of the eye with blood. I may mention that my son and his friend at a military academy tell me that when they perform certain feats with their heads downwards their faces become purple and veins distended, and that they then feel an uncomfortable sensation in their eyes; but that as it is necessary for them to see, they cannot protect their eyes by closing the eyelids. The companions of one young man, who naturally has very prominent eyes, used to laugh at him when performing such feats, and declare that some day both eyes would start out of his head. Your essay on the physiological and anatomical relations between the contraction of the orbicular muscles and the secretion of tears is wonderfully clear, and has interested me greatly. I had not thought about irritating substances getting into the nose during vomiting; but my clear impression is that mere retching causes tears. I will, however, try to get this point ascertained. When I reflect that in vomiting (subject to the above doubt), in violent coughing from choking, in yawning, violent laughter, in the violent downward action of the abdominal muscle...and in your very curious case of the spasms (465/3. In some cases a slight touch to the eye causes spasms of the orbicularis muscle, which may continue for so long as an hour, being accompanied by a flow of tears. See "Expression of the Emotions," page 166.)--that in all these cases the orbicular muscles are strongly and unconsciously contracted, and that at the same time tears often certainly flow, I must think that there is a connection of some kind between these phenomena; but you have clearly shown me that the nature of the relation is at present quite obscure. LETTER 466. TO A.D. BARTLETT. 6, Queen Anne Street, W., December 19th [1870?]. I was with Mr. Wood this morning, and he expressed himself strongly about your and your daughter's kindness in aiding him. He much wants assistance on another point, and if you would aid him, you would greatly oblige me. You know well the appearance of a dog when approaching another dog with hostile intentions, before they come close together. The dog walks very stiffly, with tail rigid and upright, hair on back erected, ears pointed and eyes directed forwards. When the dog attacks the other, down go the ears, and the canines are uncovered. Now, could you anyhow arrange so that one of your dogs could see a strange dog from a little distance, so that Mr. Wood could sketch the former attitude, viz., of the stiff gesture with erected hair and erected ears. (466/1. In Chapter II. of the "Expression of the Emotions" there are sketches of dogs in illustration of the "Principle of Antithesis," drawn by Mr. Riviere and by Mr. A. May (figures 5-8). Mr. T.W. Wood supplied similar drawings of a cat (figures 9, 10), also a sketch of the head of a snarling dog (figure 14).) And then he could afterwards sketch the same dog, when fondled by his master and wagging his tail with drooping ears. These two sketches I want much, and it would be a great favour to Mr. Wood, and myself, if you could aid him. P.S.--When a horse is turned out into a field he trots with high, elastic steps, and carries his tail aloft. Even when a cow frisks about she throws up her tail. I have seen a drawing of an elephant, apparently trotting with high steps, and with the tail erect. When the elephants in the garden are turned out and are excited so as to move quickly, do they carry their tails aloft? How is this with the rhinoceros? Do not trouble yourself to answer this, but I shall be in London in a couple of months, and then perhaps you will be able to answer this trifling question. Or, if you write about wolves and jackals turning round, you can tell me about the tails of elephants, or of any other animals. (466/2. In the "Expression of the Emotions," page 44, reference is made under the head of "Associated habitual movements in the lower animals," to dogs and other animals turning round and round and scratching the ground with their fore-paws when they wish to go to sleep on a carpet, or other similar surface.) LETTER 467. TO A.D. BARTLETT. Down, January 5th, [1871?] Many thanks about Limulus. I am going to ask another favour, but I do not want to trouble you to answer it by letter. When the Callithrix sciureus screams violently, does it wrinkle up the skin round the eyes like a baby always does? (467/1. "Humboldt also asserts that the eyes of the Callithrix sciureus 'instantly fill with tears when it is seized with fear'; but when this pretty little monkey in the Zoological Gardens was teased, so as to cry out loudly, this did not occur. I do not, however, wish to throw the least doubt on the accuracy of Humboldt's statement." ("The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals," 1872, page 137.) When thus screaming do the eyes become suffused with moisture? Will you ask Sutton to observe carefully? (467/2. One of the keepers who made many observations on monkeys for Mr. Darwin.) Could you make it scream without hurting it much? I should be truly obliged some time for this information, when in spring I come to the Gardens. LETTER 468. TO W. OGLE. Down, March 7th [1871]. I wrote to Tyndall, but had no clear answer, and have now written to him again about odours. (468/1. Dr. Ogle's work on the Sense of Smell ("Medico-Chirurgical Trans." LIII., page 268) is referred to in the "Expression of the Emotions," page 256.) I write now to ask you to be so kind (if there is no objection) to tell me the circumstances under which you saw a man arrested for murder. (468/2. Given in the "Expression of the Emotions," page 294.) I say in my notes made from your conversation: utmost horror--extreme pallor--mouth relaxed and open--general prostration--perspiration--muscle of face contracted--hair observed on account of having been dyed, and apparently not erected. Secondly, may I quote you that you have often (?) seen persons (young or old? men or women?) who, evincing no great fear, were about to undergo severe operation under chloroform, showing resignation by (alternately?) folding one open hand over the other on the lower part of chest (whilst recumbent?)--I know this expression, and think I ought to notice it. Could you look out for an additional instance? I fear you will think me very troublesome, especially when I remind you (not that I am in a hurry) about the Eustachian tube. LETTER 469. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, June 14th [1870]. As usual, I am going to beg for information. Can you tell me whether any Fringillidae or Sylviadae erect their feathers when frightened or enraged? (469/1. See "Expression of the Emotions," page 99.) I want to show that this expression is common to all or most of the families of birds. I know of this only in the fowl, swan, tropic-bird, owl, ruff and reeve, and cuckoo. I fancy that I remember having seen nestling birds erect their feathers greatly when looking into nests, as is said to be the case with young cuckoos. I should much like to know whether nestlings do really thus erect their feathers. I am now at work on expression in animals of all kinds, and birds; and if you have any hints I should be very glad for them, and you have a rich wealth of facts of all kinds. Any cases like the following: the sheldrake pats or dances on the tidal sands to make the sea-worms come out; and when Mr. St. John's tame sheldrakes came to ask for their dinners they used to pat the ground, and this I should call an expression of hunger and impatience. How about the Quagga case? (469/2. See Letter 235, Volume I.) I am working away as hard as I can on my book; but good heavens, how slow my progress is. LETTER 470. TO F.C. DONDERS. Down, March 18th, 1871. Very many thanks for your kind letter. I have been interested by what you tell me about your views published in 1848, and I wish I could read your essay. It is clear to me that you were as near as possible in preceding me on the subject of Natural Selection. You will find very little that is new to you in my last book; whatever merit it may possess consists in the grouping of the facts and in deductions from them. I am now at work on my essay on Expression. My last book fatigued me much, and I have had much correspondence, otherwise I should have written to you long ago, as I often intended to tell you in how high a degree your essay published in Beale's Archives interested me. (470/1. Beale's "Archives of Medicine," Volume V., 1870.) I have heard others express their admiration at the complete manner in which you have treated the subject. Your confirmation of Sir C. Bell's rather loose statement has been of paramount importance for my work. (470/2. On the contraction of the muscles surrounding the eye. See "Expression of the Emotions," page 158. See Letters 464, 465.) You told me that I might make further enquiries from you. When a person is lost in meditation his eyes often appear as if fixed on a distant object (470/3. The appearance is due to divergence of the lines of vision produced by muscular relaxation. See "Expression of the Emotions," Edition II., page 239.), and the lower eyelids may be seen to contract and become wrinkled. I suppose the idea is quite fanciful, but as you say that the eyeball advances in adaptation for vision for close objects, would the eyeball have to be pushed backwards in adaptation for distant objects? (470/4. Darwin seems to have misunderstood a remark of Donders.) If so, can the wrinkling of the lower eyelids, which has often perplexed me, act in pushing back the eyeball? But, as I have said, I daresay this is quite fanciful. Gratiolet says that the pupil contracts in rage, and dilates enormously in terror. (470/5. See "Expression of the Emotions," Edition II., page 321.) I have not found this great anatomist quite trustworthy on such points, and am making enquiries on this subject. But I am inclined to believe him, as the old Scotch anatomist Munro says, that the iris of parrots contracts and dilates under passions, independently of the amount of light. Can you give any explanation of this statement? When the heart beats hard and quick, and the head becomes somewhat congested with blood in any illness, does the pupil contract? Does the pupil dilate in incipient faintness, or in utter prostration, as when after a severe race a man is pallid, bathed in perspiration, with all his muscles quivering? Or in extreme prostration from any illness? LETTER 471. TO W. TURNER. Down, March 28th [1871]. I am much obliged for your kind note, and especially for your offer of sending me some time corrections, for which I shall be truly grateful. I know that there are many blunders to which I am very liable. There is a terrible one confusing the supra-condyloid foramen with another one. (471/1. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man," I., page 28, in quoting Mr. Busk "On the Caves of Gibraltar," Mr. Darwin confuses together the inter-condyloid foramen in the humerus with the supra-condyloid foramen. His attention was called to the mistake by Sir William Turner, to whom he had been previously indebted for other information on the anatomy of man. The error is one, as Sir William Turner points out in a letter, "which might easily arise where the writer is not minutely acquainted with human anatomy." In speaking of his correspondence with Darwin, Sir William remarks on a characteristic of Darwin's method of asking for information, namely, his care in avoiding leading questions.) This, however, I have corrected in all the copies struck off after the first lot of 2500. I daresay there will be a new edition in the course of nine months or a year, and this I will correct as well as I can. As yet the publishers have kept up type, and grumble dreadfully if I make heavy corrections. I am very far from surprised that "you have not committed yourself to full acceptation" of the evolution of man. Difficulties and objections there undoubtedly are, enough and to spare, to stagger any cautious man who has much knowledge like yourself. I am now at work at my hobby-horse essay on Expression, and I have been reading some old notes of yours. In one you say it is easy to see that the spines of the hedgehog are moved by the voluntary panniculus. Now, can you tell me whether each spine has likewise an oblique unstriped or striped muscle, as figured by Lister? (472/2. "Expression of the Emotions," page 101.) Do you know whether the tail-coverts of peacock or tail of turkey are erected by unstriped or striped muscles, and whether these are homologous with the panniculus or with the single oblique unstriped muscles going to each separate hair in man and many animals? I wrote some time ago to Kolliker to ask this question (and in relation to quills of porcupine), and I received a long and interesting letter, but he could not answer these questions. If I do not receive any answer (for I know how busy you must be), I will understand you cannot aid me. I heard yesterday that Paget was very ill; I hope this is not true. What a loss he would be; he is so charming a man. P.S.--As I am writing I will trouble you with one other question. Have you seen anything or read of any facts which could induce you to think that the mind being intently and long directed to any portion of the skin (or, indeed, any organ) would influence the action of the capillaries, causing them either to contract or dilate? Any information on this head would be of great value to me, as bearing on blushing. If I remember right, Paget seems to be a great believer in the influence of the mind in the nutrition of parts, and even in causing disease. It is awfully audacious on my part, but I remember thinking (with respect to the latter assertion on disease) when I read the passage that it seemed rather fanciful, though I should like to believe in it. Sir H. Holland alludes to this subject of the influence of the mind on local circulation frequently, but gives no clear evidence. (472/3. Ibid., pages 339 et seq.) LETTER 472. TO W. TURNER. Down, March 29th [1871]. Forgive me for troubling you with one line. Since writing my P.S. I have read the part on the influence of the nervous system on the nutrition of parts in your last edition of Paget's "Lectures." (472/1. "Lectures on Surgical Pathology," Edition III., revised by Professor Turner, 1870.) I had not read before this part in this edition, and I see how foolish I was. But still, I should be extremely grateful for any hint or evidence of the influence of mental attention on the capillary or local circulation of the skin, or of any part to which the mind may be intently and long directed. For instance, if thinking intently about a local eruption on the skin (not on the face, for shame might possibly intervene) caused it temporarily to redden, or thinking of a tumour caused it to throb, independently of increased heart action. LETTER 473. TO HUBERT AIRY. (473/1. Dr. Airy had written to Mr. Darwin on April 3rd:-- "With regard to the loss of voluntary movement of the ears in man and monkey, may I ask if you do not think it might have been caused, as it is certainly compensated, by the facility and quickness in turning the head, possessed by them in virtue of their more erect stature, and the freedom of the atlanto-axial articulation? (in birds the same end is gained by the length and flexibility of the neck.) The importance, in case of danger, of bringing the eyes to help the ears would call for a quick turn of the head whenever a new sound was heard, and so would tend to make superfluous any special means of moving the ears, except in the case of quadrupeds and the like, that have great trouble (comparatively speaking) in making a horizontal turn of the head--can only do it by a slow bend of the whole neck." (473/2. We are indebted to Dr. Airy for furnishing us with a copy of his letter to Mr. Darwin, the original of which had been mislaid.) Down, April 5th [1871]. I am greatly obliged for your letter. Your idea about the easy turning of the head instead of the ears themselves strikes me as very good, and quite new to me, and I will keep it in mind; but I fear that there are some cases opposed to the notion. If I remember right the hedgehog has very human ears, but birds support your view, though lizards are opposed to it. Several persons have pointed out my error about the platysma. (473/3. The error in question occurs on page 19 of the "Descent of Man," Edition I., where it is stated that the Platysma myoides cannot be voluntarily brought into action. In the "Expression of the Emotions" Darwin remarks that this muscle is sometimes said not to be under voluntary control, and he shows that this is not universally true.) Nor can I remember how I was misled. I find I can act on this muscle myself, now that I know the corners of the mouth have to be drawn back. I know of the case of a man who can act on this muscle on one side, but not on the other; yet he asserts positively that both contract when he is startled. And this leads me to ask you to be so kind as to observe, if any opportunity should occur, whether the platysma contracts during extreme terror, as before an operation; and secondly, whether it contracts during a shivering fit. Several persons are observing for me, but I receive most discordant results. I beg you to present my most respectful and kind compliments to your honoured father [Sir G.B. Airy]. LETTER 474. TO FRANCIS GALTON. (474/1. Mr. Galton had written on November 7th, 1872, offering to send to various parts of Africa Darwin's printed list of questions intended to guide observers on expression. Mr. Galton goes on: "You do not, I think, mention in "Expression" what I thought was universal among blubbering children (when not trying to see if harm or help was coming out of the corner of one eye) of pressing the knuckles against the eyeballs, thereby reinforcing the orbicularis.") Down, November 8th [1872]. Many thanks for your note and offer to send out the queries; but my career is so nearly closed that I do not think it worth while. What little more I can do shall be chiefly new work. I ought to have thought of crying children rubbing their eyes with their knuckles, but I did not think of it, and cannot explain it. As far as my memory serves, they do not do so whilst roaring, in which case compression would be of use. I think it is at the close of the crying fit, as if they wished to stop their eyes crying, or possibly to relieve the irritation from the salt tears. I wish I knew more about the knuckles and crying. What a tremendous stir-up your excellent article on prayer has made in England and America! (474/2. The article entitled "Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer" appeared in the "Fortnightly Review," 1872. In Mr. Francis Galton's book on "Enquiries into Human Faculty and its Development," London, 1883, a section (pages 277-94) is devoted to a discussion on the "Objective Efficacy of Prayer.") LETTER 475. TO F.C. DONDERS. (475/1. We have no means of knowing whether the observations suggested in the following letter were made--if not, the suggestion is worthy of record.) Down, December 21st, 1872. You will have received some little time ago my book on Expression, in writing which I was so deeply indebted to your kindness. I want now to beg a favour of you, if you have the means to grant it. A clergyman, the head of an institution for the blind in England (475/2. The Rev. R.H. Blair, Principal of the Worcester College: "Expression of the Emotions," Edition II., page 237.), has been observing the expression of those born blind, and he informs me that they never or very rarely frown. He kept a record of several cases, but at last observed a frown on two of the children who he thought never frowned; and then in a foolish manner tore up his notes, and did not write to me until my book was published. He may be a bad observer and altogether mistaken, but I think it would be worth while to ascertain whether those born blind, when young, and whilst screaming violently, contract the muscles round the eyes like ordinary infants. And secondly, whether in after years they rarely or never frown. If it should prove true that infants born blind do not contract their orbicular muscles whilst screaming (though I can hardly believe it) it would be interesting to know whether they shed tears as copiously as other children. The nature of the affection which causes blindness may possibly influence the contraction of the muscles, but on all such points you will judge infinitely better than I can. Perhaps you could get some trustworthy superintendent of an asylum for the blind to attend to this subject. I am sure that you will forgive me asking this favour. LETTER 476. TO D. HACK TUKE. Down, December 22nd, 1872. I have now finished your book, and have read it with great interest. (476/1. "Influence of the Mind upon the Body. Designed to elucidate the Power of the Imagination." 1872.) Many of your cases are very striking. As I felt sure would be the case, I have learnt much from it; and I should have modified several passages in my book on Expression, if I had had the advantage of reading your work before my publication. I always felt, and said so a year ago to Professor Donders, that I had not sufficient knowledge of Physiology to treat my subject in a proper way. With many thanks for the interest which I have felt in reading your work... LETTER 477. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 10th [1873]. I have read your Review with much interest, and I thank you sincerely for the very kind spirit in which it is written. I cannot say that I am convinced by your criticisms. (477/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," January, 1873, page 116: "I can hardly believe that when a cat, lying on a shawl or other soft material, pats or pounds it with its feet, or sometimes sucks a piece of it, it is the persistence of the habit of pressing the mammary glands and sucking during kittenhood." Mr. Wallace goes on to say that infantine habits are generally completely lost in adult life, and that it seems unlikely that they should persist in a few isolated instances.) If you have ever actually observed a kitten sucking and pounding, with extended toes, its mother, and then seen the same kitten when a little older doing the same thing on a soft shawl, and ultimately an old cat (as I have seen), and do not admit that it is identically the same action, I am astonished. With respect to the decapitated frog, I have always heard of Pfluger as a most trustworthy observer. (477/2. Mr. Wallace speaks of "a readiness to accept the most marvellous conclusions or interpretations of physiologists on what seem very insufficient grounds," and he goes on to assert that the frog experiment is either incorrectly recorded or else that it "demonstrates volition, and not reflex action.") If, indeed, any one knows a frog's habits so well as to say that it never rubs off a bit of leaf or other object which may stick to its thigh, in the same manner as it did the acid, your objection would be valid. Some of Flourens' experiments, in which he removed the cerebral hemispheres from a pigeon, indicate that acts apparently performed consciously can be done without consciousness. I presume through the force of habit, in which case it would appear that intellectual power is not brought into play. Several persons have made suggestions and objections as yours about the hands being held up in astonishment; if there was any straining of the muscles, as with protruded arms under fright, I would agree; as it is I must keep to my old opinion, and I dare say you will say that I am an obstinate old blockhead. (477/3. The raising of the hands in surprise is explained ("Expression of Emotions," Edition I., page 287) on the doctrine of antithesis as being the opposite of listlessness. Mr. Wallace's view (given in the 2nd edition of "Expression of the Emotions," page 300) is that the gesture is appropriate to sudden defence or to the giving of aid to another person.) The book has sold wonderfully; 9,000 copies have now been printed. LETTER 478. TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, September 21st, 1874. I have read your long letter with the greatest interest, and it was extremely kind of you to take such great trouble. Now that you call my attention to the fact, I well know the appearance of persons moving the head from side to side when critically viewing any object; and I am almost sure that I have seen the same gesture in an affected person when speaking in exaggerated terms of some beautiful object not present. I should think your explanation of this gesture was the true one. But there seems to me a rather wide difference between inclining or moving the head laterally, and moving it in the same plane, as we do in negation, and, as you truly add, in disapprobation. It may, however, be that these two movements of the head have been confounded by travellers when speaking of the Turks. Perhaps Prof. Lowell would remember whether the movement was identically the same. Your remarks on the effects of viewing a sunset, etc., with the head inverted are very curious. (478/1. The letter dated September 3rd, 1874, is published in Mr. Thayer's "Letters" of Chauncey Wright, privately printed, Cambridge, Mass., 1878. Wright quotes Mr. Sophocles, a native of Greece, at the time Professor of Modern and Ancient Greek at Harvard University, to the effect that the Turks do not express affirmation by a shake of the head, but by a bow or grave nod, negation being expressed by a backward nod. From the striking effect produced by looking at a landscape with the head inverted, or by looking at its reflection, Chauncey Wright was led to the lateral movement of the head, which is characteristic of critical inspection--eg. of a picture. He thinks that in this way a gesture of deliberative assent arose which may have been confused with our ordinary sign of negation. He thus attempts to account for the contradictions between Lieber's statement that a Turk or Greek expresses "yes" by a shake of the head, and the opposite opinion of Prof. Sophocles, and lastly, Mr. Lowell's assertion that in Italy our negative shake of the head is used in affirmation (see "Expression of the Emotions," Edition II., page 289).) We have a looking-glass in the drawing-room opposite the flower-garden, and I have often been struck how extremely pretty and strange the flower garden and surrounding bushes appear when thus viewed. Your letter will be very useful to me for a new edition of my Expression book; but this will not be for a long time, if ever, as the publisher was misled by the very large sale at first, and printed far too many copies. I daresay you intend to publish your views in some essay, and I think you ought to do so, for you might make an interesting and instructive discussion. I have been half killing myself of late with microscopical work on plants. I begin to think that they are more wonderful than animals. P.S., January 29th, 1875.--You will see that by a stupid mistake in the address this letter has just been returned to me. It is by no means worth forwarding, but I cannot bear that you should think me so ungracious and ungrateful as not to have thanked you for your long letter. As I forget whether "Cambridge" is sufficient address, I will send this through Asa Gray. (PLATE: CHARLES LYELL. Engraved by G.I. (J). Stodart from a photograph.) CHAPTER 2.IX. GEOLOGY, 1840-1882. I. Vulcanicity and Earth-movements.--II. Ice-action.--III. The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy.--IV. Coral Reefs, Fossil and Recent.--V. Cleavage and Foliation.--VI. Age of the World.--VII. Geological Action of Earthworms.--VIII. Miscellaneous. 2.IX.I. VULCANICITY AND EARTH-MOVEMENTS, 1840-1881. LETTER 479. TO DAVID MILNE. 12, Upper Gower Street, Thursday [March] 20th [1840]. I much regret that I am unable to give you any information of the kind you desire. You must have misunderstood Mr. Lyell concerning the object of my paper. (479/1. "On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena, and on the Formation of Mountain-chains and the Effects of Continental Elevations." "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume V., 1840, pages 601-32 [March 7th, 1838].) It is an account of the shock of February, 1835, in Chile, which is particularly interesting, as it ties most closely together volcanic eruptions and continental elevations. In that paper I notice a very remarkable coincidence in volcanic eruptions in S. America at very distant places. I have also drawn up some short tables showing, as it appears to me, that there are periods of unusually great volcanic activity affecting large portions of S. America. I have no record of any coincidences between shocks there and in Europe. Humboldt, by his table in the "Pers. Narrative" (Volume IV., page 36, English Translation), seems to consider the elevation of Sabrina off the Azores as connected with S. American subterranean activity: this connection appears to be exceedingly vague. I have during the past year seen it stated that a severe shock in the northern parts of S. America coincided with one in Kamstchatka. Believing, then, that such coincidences are purely accidental, I neglected to take a note of the reference; but I believe the statement was somewhere in "L'Institut" for 1839. (479/2. "L'Institut, Journal General des Societes et Travaux Scientifiques de la France et de l'Etranger," Tome VIII. page 412, Paris, 1840. In a note on some earthquakes in the province Maurienne it is stated that they occurred during a change in the weather, and at times when a south wind followed a north wind, etc.) I was myself anxious to see the list of the 1200 shocks alluded to by you, but I have not been able to find out that the list has been published. With respect to any coincidences you may discover between shocks in S. America and Europe, let me venture to suggest to you that it is probably a quite accurate statement that scarcely one hour in the year elapses in S. America without an accompanying shock in some part of that large continent. There are many regions in which earthquakes take place every three and four days; and after the severer shocks the ground trembles almost half-hourly for months. If, therefore, you had a list of the earthquakes of two or three of these districts, it is almost certain that some of them would coincide with those in Scotland, without any other connection than mere chance. My paper will be published immediately in the "Geological Transactions," and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy in the course of (as I hope) a week or ten days. A large part of it is theoretical, and will be of little interest to you; but the account of the Concepcion shock of 1835 will, I think, be worth your perusal. I have understood from Mr. Lyell that you believe in some connection between the state of the weather and earthquakes. Under the very peculiar climate of Northern Chile, the belief of the inhabitants in such connection can hardly, in my opinion, be founded in error. It must possibly be worth your while to turn to pages 430-433 in my "Journal of Researches during the Voyage of the 'Beagle'," where I have stated this circumstance. (479/3. "Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle' round the World." London, 1870, page 351.) On the hypothesis of the crust of the earth resting on fluid matter, would the influence of the moon (as indexed by the tides) affect the periods of the shocks, when the force which causes them is just balanced by the resistance of the solid crust? The fact you mention of the coincidence between the earthquakes of Calabria and Scotland appears most curious. Your paper will possess a high degree of interest to all geologists. I fancied that such uniformity of action, as seems here indicated, was probably confined to large continents, such as the Americas. How interesting a record of volcanic phenomena in Iceland would be, now that you are collecting accounts of every slight trembling in Scotland. I am astonished at their frequency in that quiet country, as any one would have called it. I wish it had been in my power to have contributed in any way to your researches on this most interesting subject. LETTER 480. TO L. HORNER. Down, August 29th [1844]. I am greatly obliged for your kind note, and much pleased with its contents. If one-third of what you say be really true, and not the verdict of a partial judge (as from pleasant experience I much suspect), then should I be thoroughly well contented with my small volume which, small as it is, cost me much time. (480/1. "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle'": London, 1844. A French translation has been made by Professor Renard of Ghent, and published by Reinwald of Paris in 1902.) The pleasure of observation amply repays itself: not so that of composition; and it requires the hope of some small degree of utility in the end to make up for the drudgery of altering bad English into sometimes a little better and sometimes worse. With respect to craters of elevation (480/2. "Geological Observations," pages 93-6.), I had no sooner printed off the few pages on that subject than I wished the whole erased. I utterly disbelieve in Von Buch and de Beaumont's views; but on the other hand, in the case of the Mauritius and St. Jago, I cannot, perhaps unphilosophically, persuade myself that they are merely the basal fragments of ordinary volcanoes; and therefore I thought I would suggest the notion of a slow circumferential elevation, the central part being left unelevated, owing to the force from below being spent and [relieved?] in eruptions. On this view, I do not consider these so-called craters of elevation as formed by the ejection of ashes, lava, etc., etc., but by a peculiar kind of elevation acting round and modified by a volcanic orifice. I wish I had left it all out; I trust that there are in other parts of the volume more facts and less theory. The more I reflect on volcanoes, the more I appreciate the importance of E. de Beaumont's measurements (480/3. Elie de Beaumont's views are discussed by Sir Charles Lyell both in the "Principles of Geology" (Edition X., 1867, Volume I. pages 633 et seq.) and in the "Elements of Geology" (Edition III., 1878, pages 495, 496). See also Darwin's "Geological Observations," Edition II., 1876, page 107.) (even if one does not believe them implicitly) of the natural inclination of lava-streams, and even more the importance of his view of the dikes, or unfilled fissures, in every volcanic mountain, being the proofs and measures of the stretching and consequent elevation which all such mountains must have undergone. I believe he thus unintentionally explains most of his cases of lava-streams being inclined at a greater angle than that at which they could have flowed. But excuse this lengthy note, and once more let me thank you for the pleasure and encouragement you have given me--which, together with Lyell's never-failing kindness, will help me on with South America, and, as my books will not sell, I sometimes want such aid. I have been lately reading with care A. d'Orbigny's work on South America (480/4. "Voyage dans l'Amerique Meridionale--execute pendant les annees 1826-33": six volumes, Paris, 1835-43.), and I cannot say how forcibly impressed I am with the infinite superiority of the Lyellian school of Geology over the continental. I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brain, and that I never acknowledge this sufficiently; nor do I know how I can without saying so in so many words--for I have always thought that the great merit of the "Principles" was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind, and therefore that, when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes--it would have been in some respects better if I had done this less: but again excuse my long, and perhaps you will think presumptuous, discussion. Enclosed is a note from Emma to Mrs. Horner, to beg you, if you can, to give us the great pleasure of seeing you here. We are necessarily dull here, and can offer no amusements; but the weather is delightful, and if you could see how brightly the sun now shines you would be tempted to come. Pray remember me most kindly to all your family, and beg of them to accept our proposal, and give us the pleasure of seeing them. LETTER 481. TO C. LYELL. Down, [September, 1844]. I was glad to get your note, and wanted to hear about your work. I have been looking to see it advertised; it has been a long task. I had, before your return from Scotland, determined to come up and see you; but as I had nothing else to do in town, my courage has gradually eased off, more especially as I have not been very well lately. We get so many invitations here that we are grown quite dissipated, but my stomach has stood it so ill that we are going to have a month's holidays, and go nowhere. The subject which I was most anxious to talk over with you I have settled, and having written sixty pages of my "S. American Geology," I am in pretty good heart, and am determined to have very little theory and only short descriptions. The two first chapters will, I think, be pretty good, on the great gravel terraces and plains of Patagonia and Chili and Peru. I am astonished and grieved over D'Orbigny's nonsense of sudden elevations. (481/1. D'Orbigny's views are referred to by Lyell in chapter vii. of the "Principles," Volume I. page 131. "This mud [i.e. the Pampean mud] contains in it recent species of shells, some of them proper to brackish water, and is believed by Mr. Darwin to be an estuary or delta deposit. M.A. D'Orbigny, however, has advanced an hypothesis...that the agitation and displacement of the waters of the ocean, caused by the elevation of the Andes, gave rise to a deluge, of which this Pampean mud, which reaches sometimes the height of 12,000 feet, is the result and monument.") I must give you one of his cases: He finds an old beach 600 feet above sea. He finds STILL ATTACHED to the rocks at 300 feet six species of truly littoral shells. He finds at 20 to 30 feet above sea an immense accumulation of chiefly littoral shells. He argues the whole 600 feet uplifted at one blow, because the attached shells at 300 feet have not been displaced. Therefore when the sea formed a beach at 600 feet the present littoral shells were attached to rocks at 300 feet depth, and these same shells were accumulating by thousands at 600 feet. Hear this, oh Forbes. Is it not monstrous for a professed conchologist? This is a fair specimen of his reasoning. One of his arguments against the Pampas being a slow deposit, is that mammifers are very seldom washed by rivers into the sea! Because at 12,000 feet he finds the same kind of clay with that of the Pampas he never doubts that it is contemporaneous with the Pampas [debacle?] which accompanied the right royal salute of every volcano in the Cordillera. What a pity these Frenchmen do not catch hold of a comet, and return to the good old geological dramas of Burnett and Whiston. I shall keep out of controversy, and just give my own facts. It is enough to disgust one with Geology; though I have been much pleased with the frank, decided, though courteous manner with which D'Orbigny disputes my conclusions, given, unfortunately, without facts, and sometimes rashly, in my journal. Enough of S. America. I wish you would ask Mr. Horner (for I forgot to do so, and am unwilling to trouble him again) whether he thinks there is too much detail (quite independent of the merits of the book) in my volcanic volume; as to know this would be of some real use to me. You could tell me when we meet after York, when I will come to town. I had intended being at York, but my courage has failed. I should much like to hear your lecture, but still more to read it, as I think reading is always better than hearing. I am very glad you talk of a visit to us in the autumn if you can spare the time. I shall be truly glad to see Mrs. Lyell and yourself here; but I have scruples in asking any one--you know how dull we are here. Young Hooker (481/2. Sir J.D. Hooker.) talks of coming; I wish he might meet you,--he appears to me a most engaging young man. I have been delighted with Prescott, of which I have read Volume I. at your recommendation; I have just been a good deal interested with W. Taylor's (of Norwich) "Life and Correspondence." On your return from York I shall expect a great supply of Geological gossip. LETTER 482. TO C. LYELL. [October 3rd, 1846.] I have been much interested with Ramsay, but have no particular suggestions to offer (482/1. "On the Denudation of South Wales and the Adjacent Counties of England." A.C. Ramsay, "Mem. Geol. Survey Great Britain," Volume I., London, 1846.); I agree with all your remarks made the other day. My final impression is that the only argument against him is to tell him to read and re-read the "Principles," and if not then convinced to send him to Pluto. Not but what he has well read the "Principles!" and largely profited thereby. I know not how carefully you have read this paper, but I think you did not mention to me that he does (page 327) (482/2. Ramsay refers the great outlines of the country to the action of the sea in Tertiary times. In speaking of the denudation of the coast, he says: "Taking UNLIMITED time into account, we can conceive that any extent of land might be so destroyed...If to this be added an EXCEEDINGLY SLOW DEPRESSION of the land and sea bottom, the wasting process would be materially assisted by this depression" (loc. cit., page 327).) believe that the main part of his great denudation was effected during a vast (almost gratuitously assumed) slow Tertiary subsidence and subsequent Tertiary oscillating slow elevation. So our high cliff argument is inapplicable. He seems to think his great subsidence only FAVOURABLE for great denudation. I believe from the general nature of the off-shore sea's bottoms that it is almost necessary; do look at two pages--page 25 of my S. American volume--on this subject. (482/3. "Geological Observations on S. America," 1846, page 25. "When viewing the sea-worn cliffs of Patagonia, in some parts between 800 and 900 feet in height, and formed of horizontal Tertiary strata, which must once have extended far seaward...a difficulty often occurred to me, namely, how the strata could possibly have been removed by the action of the sea at a considerable depth beneath its surface." The cliffs of St. Helena are referred to in illustration of the same problem; speaking of these, Darwin adds: "Now, if we had any reason to suppose that St. Helena had, during a long period, gone on slowly subsiding, every difficulty would be removed...I am much inclined to suspect that we shall hereafter find in all such cases that the land with the adjoining bed of the sea has in truth subsided..." (loc. cit., pages 25-6).) The foundation of his views, viz., of one great sudden upheaval, strikes me as threefold. First, to account for the great dislocations. This strikes me as the odder, as he admits that a little northwards there were many and some violent dislocations at many periods during the accumulation of the Palaeozoic series. If you argue against him, allude to the cool assumption that petty forces are conflicting: look at volcanoes; look at recurrent similar earthquakes at same spots; look at repeatedly injected intrusive masses. In my paper on Volcanic Phenomena in the "Geol. Transactions." (482/4. "On the Connection of certain Volcanic Phenomena, and on the Formation of Mountain-chains and the Effects of Continental Elevations." "Geol. Soc. Proc." Volume II., pages 654-60, 1838; "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume V., pages 601-32, 1842. [Read March 7th, 1838.]) I have argued (and Lonsdale thought well of the argument, in favour, as he remarked, of your original doctrine) that if Hopkins' views are correct, viz., that mountain chains are subordinate consequences to changes of level in mass, then, as we have evidence of such horizontal movements in mass having been slow, the foundation of mountain chains (differing from volcanoes only in matter being injected instead of ejected) must have been slow. Secondly, Ramsay has been influenced, I think, by his Alpine insects; but he is wrong in thinking that there is any necessary connection of tropics and large insects--videlicet--Galapagos Arch., under the equator. Small insects swarm in all parts of tropics, though accompanied generally with large ones. Thirdly, he appears influenced by the absence of newer deposits on the old area, blinded by the supposed necessity of sediment accumulating somewhere near (as no doubt is true) and being PRESERVED--an example, as I think, of the common error which I wrote to you about. The preservation of sedimentary deposits being, as I do not doubt, the exception when they are accumulated during periods of elevation or of stationary level, and therefore the preservation of newer deposits would not be probable, according to your view that Ramsay's great Palaeozoic masses were denuded, whilst slowly rising. Do pray look at end of Chapter II., at what little I have said on this subject in my S. American volume. (482/5. The second chapter of the "Geological Observations" concludes with a Summary on the Recent Elevations of the West Coast of South America, (page 53).) I do not think you can safely argue that the whole surface was probably denuded at same time to the level of the lateral patches of Magnesian conglomerate. The latter part of the paper strikes me as good, but obvious. I shall send him my S. American volume for it is curious on how many similar points we enter, and I modestly hope it may be a half-oz. weight towards his conversion to better views. If he would but reject his great sudden elevations, how sound and good he would be. I doubt whether this letter will be worth the reading. LETTER 483. TO C. LYELL. Down [September 4th, 1849]. It was very good of you to write me so long a letter, which has interested me much. I should have answered it sooner, but I have not been very well for the few last days. Your letter has also flattered me much in many points. I am very glad you have been thinking over the relation of subsidence and the accumulation of deposits; it has to me removed many great difficulties; please to observe that I have carefully abstained from saying that sediment is not deposited during periods of elevation, but only that it is not accumulated to sufficient thickness to withstand subsequent beach action; on both coasts of S. America the amount of sediment deposited, worn away, and redeposited, oftentimes must have been enormous, but still there have been no wide formations produced: just read my discussion (page 135 of my S. American book (483/1. See Letter 556, note. The discussion referred to ("Geological Observations on South America," 1846) deals with the causes of the absence of recent conchiferous deposits on the coasts of South America.)) again with this in your mind. I never thought of your difficulty (i.e. in relation to this discussion) of where was the land whence the three miles of S. Wales strata were derived! (483/2. In his classical paper "On the Denudation of South Wales and the Adjacent Counties of England" ("Mem. Geol. Survey," Volume I., page 297, 1846), Ramsay estimates the thickness of certain Palaeozoic formations in South Wales, and calculates the cubic contents of the strata in the area they now occupy together with the amount removed by denudation; and he goes on to say that it is evident that the quantity of matter employed to form these strata was many times greater than the entire amount of solid land they now represent above the waves. "To form, therefore, so great a thickness, a mass of matter of nearly equal cubic contents must have been worn by the waves and the outpourings of rivers from neighbouring lands, of which perhaps no original trace now remains" (page 334.)) Do you not think that it may be explained by a form of elevation which I have always suspected to have been very common (and, indeed, had once intended getting all facts together), viz. thus?-- (Figure 1. A line drawing of ocean bottom subsiding beside mountains and continent rising.) The frequency of a DEEP ocean close to a rising continent bordered with mountains, seems to indicate these opposite movements of rising and sinking CLOSE TOGETHER; this would easily explain the S. Wales and Eocene cases. I will only add that I should think there would be a little more sediment produced during subsidence than during elevation, from the resulting outline of coast, after long period of rise. There are many points in my volume which I should like to have discussed with you, but I will not plague you: I should like to hear whether you think there is anything in my conjecture on Craters of Elevation (483/3. In the "Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands," 1844, pages 93-6, Darwin speaks of St. Helena, St. Jago and Mauritius as being bounded by a ring of basaltic mountains which he regards as "Craters of Elevation." While unable to accept the theory of Elie de Beaumont and attribute their formation to a dome-shaped elevation and consequent arching of the strata, he recognises a "very great difficulty in admitting that these basaltic mountains are merely the basal fragments of great volcanoes, of which the summits have been either blown off, or, more probably, swallowed by subsidence." An explanation of the origin and structure of these volcanic islands is suggested which would keep them in the class of "Craters of Elevation," but which assumes a slow elevation, during which the central hollow or platform having been formed "not by the arching of the surface, but simply by that part having been upraised to a less height."); I cannot possibly believe that Saint Jago or Mauritius are the basal fragments of ordinary volcanoes; I would sooner even admit E. de Beaumont's views than that--much as I would sooner in my own mind in all cases follow you. Just look at page 232 in my "S. America" for a trifling point, which, however, I remember to this day relieved my mind of a considerable difficulty. (483/4. This probably refers to a paragraph (page 232) "On the Eruptive Sources of the Porphyritic Claystone and Greenstone Lavas." The opinion is put forward that "the difficulty of tracing the streams of porphyries to their ancient and doubtless numerous eruptive sources, may be partly explained by the very general disturbance which the Cordillera in most parts has suffered"; but, Darwin adds, "a more specific cause may be that 'the original points of eruption tend to become the points of injection'...On this view of there being a tendency in the old points of eruption to become the points of subsequent injection and disturbance, and consequently of denudation, it ceases to be surprising that the streams of lava in the porphyritic claystone conglomerate formation, and in other analogous cases, should most rarely be traceable to their actual sources." The latter part of this letter is published in "Life and Letters," I., pages 377, 378.) I remember being struck with your discussion on the Mississippi beds in relation to Pampas, but I should wish to read them over again; I have, however, re-lent your work to Mrs. Rich, who, like all whom I have met, has been much interested by it. I will stop about my own Geology. But I see I must mention that Scrope did suggest (and I have alluded to him, page 118 (483/5. "Geological Observations," Edition II., 1876. Chapter VI. opens with a discussion "On the Separation of the Constituent Minerals of Lava, according to their Specific Gravities." Mr. Darwin calls attention to the fact that Mr. P. Scrope had speculated on the subject of the separation of the trachytic and basaltic series of lavas (page 113).), but without distinct reference and I fear not sufficiently, though I utterly forgot what he wrote) the separation of basalt and trachyte; but he does not appear to have thought about the crystals, which I believe to be the keystone of the phenomenon. I cannot but think this separation of the molten elements has played a great part in the metamorphic rocks: how else could the basaltic dykes have come in the great granitic districts such as those of Brazil? What a wonderful book for labour is d'Archiac!...(483/6. Possibly this refers to d'Archiac's "Histoire des Progres de la Geologie," 1848.) LETTER 484. TO LADY LYELL. Down, Wednesday night [1849?]. I am going to beg a very very great favour of you: it is to translate one page (and the title) of either Danish or Swedish or some such language. I know not to whom else to apply, and I am quite dreadfully interested about the barnacles therein described. Does Lyell know Loven, or his address and title? for I must write to him. If Lyell knows him I would use his name as introduction; Loven I know by name as a first-rate naturalist. Accidentally I forgot to give you the "Footsteps," which I now return, having ordered a copy for myself. I sincerely hope the "Craters of Denudation" prosper; I pin my faith to this view. (484/1. "On Craters of Denudation, with Observations on the Structure and Growth of Volcanic Cones." "Proc. Geol. Soc." Volume VI., 1850, pages 207-34. In a letter to Bunbury (January 17th, 1850) Lyell wrote:..."Darwin adopts my views as to Mauritius, St. Jago, and so-called elevation craters, which he has examined, and was puzzled with."--"Life of Sir Charles Lyell," Volume II., page 158.) Please tell Sir C. Lyell that outside the crater-like mountains at St. Jago, even throughout a distance of two or three miles, there has been much denudation of the older volcanic rocks contemporaneous with those of the ring of mountains. (484/2. The island of St. Jago, one of the Cape de Verde group, is fully described in the "Volcanic Islands," Chapter 1.) I hope that you will not find the page troublesome, and that you will forgive me asking you. LETTER 485. TO C. LYELL. [November 6th, 1849]. I have been deeply interested in your letter, and so far, at least, worthy of the time it must have cost you to write it. I have not much to say. I look at the whole question as settled. Santorin is splendid! it is conclusive! it is perfect! (485/1. "The Gulf of Santorin, in the Grecian Archipelago, has been for two thousand years a scene of active volcanic operations. The largest of the three outer islands of the groups (to which the general name of Santorin is given) is called Thera (or sometimes Santorin), and forms more than two-thirds of the circuit of the Gulf" ("Principles of Geology," Volume II., Edition X., London, 1868, page 65). Lyell attributed "the moderate slope of the beds in Thera...to their having originally descended the inclined flanks of a large volcanic cone..."; he refuted the theory of "Elevation Craters" by Leopold von Buch, which explained the slope of the rocks in a volcanic mountain by assuming that the inclined beds had been originally horizontal and subsequently tilted by an explosion.) You have read Dufrenoy in a hurry, I think, and added to the difficulty--it is the whole hill or "colline" which is composed of tuff with cross-stratification; the central boss or "monticule" is simply trachyte. Now, I have described one tuff crater at Galapagos (page 108) (485/2. The pages refer to Darwin's "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, etc." 1844.) which has broken through a great solid sheet of basalt: why should not an irregular mass of trachyte have been left in the middle after the explosion and emission of mud which produced the overlying tuff? Or, again, I see no difficulty in a mass of trachyte being exposed by subsequent dislocations and bared or cleaned by rain. At Ascension (page 40), subsequent to the last great aeriform explosion, which has covered the country with fragments, there have been dislocations and a large circular subsidence...Do not quote Banks' case (485/3. This refers to Banks' Cove: see "Volcanic Islands," page 107.) (for there has been some denudation there), but the "elliptic one" (page 105), which is 1,500 yards (three-quarters of a nautical mile) in internal diameter...and is the very one the inclination of whose mud stream on tuff strata I measured (before I had ever heard the name Dufrenoy) and found varying from 25 to 30 deg. Albemarle Island, instead of being a crater of elevation, as Von Buch foolishly guessed, is formed of four great subaerial basaltic volcanoes (page 103), of one of which you might like to know the external diameter of the summit or crater was above three nautical miles. There are no "craters of denudation" at Galapagos. (485/4. See Lyell "On Craters of Denudation, with Observations on the Structure and Growth of Volcanic Cones," "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume VI., 1850, page 207.) I hope you will allude to Mauritius. I think this is the instance on the largest scale of any known, though imperfectly known. If I were you I would give up consistency (or, at most, only allude in note to your old edition) and bring out the Craters of Denudation as a new view, which it essentially is. You cannot, I think, give it prominence as a novelty and yet keep to consistency and passages in old editions. I should grudge this new view being smothered in your address, and should like to see a separate paper. The one great channel to Santorin and Palma, etc., etc., is just like the one main channel being kept open in atolls and encircling barrier reefs, and on the same principle of water being driven in through several shallow breaches. I of course utterly reprobate my wild notion of circular elevation; it is a satisfaction to me to think that I perceived there was a screw loose in the old view, and, so far, I think I was of some service to you. Depend on it, you have for ever smashed, crushed, and abolished craters of elevation. There must be craters of engulfment, and of explosion (mere modifications of craters of eruption), but craters of denudation are the ones which have given rise to all the discussions. Pray give my best thanks to Lady Lyell for her translation, which was as clear as daylight to me, including "leglessness." LETTER 486. TO C. LYELL. Down [November 20th, 1849]. I remembered the passage in E. de B. [Elie de Beaumont] and have now re-read it. I have always and do still entirely disbelieve it; in such a wonderful case he ought to have hammered every inch of rock up to actual junction; he describes no details of junction, and if I were in your place I would absolutely dispute the fact of junction (or articulation as he oddly calls it) on such evidence. I go farther than you; I do not believe in the world there is or has been a junction between a dike and stream of lava of exact shape of either (1) or (2) Figure 2]. (Figures 2, 3 and 4.) If dike gave immediate origin to volcanic vent we should have craters of [an] elliptic shape [Figure 3]. I believe that when the molten rock in a dike comes near to the surface, some one two or three points will always certainly chance to afford an easier passage upward to the actual surface than along the whole line, and therefore that the dike will be connected (if the whole were bared and dissected) with the vent by a column or cone (see my elegant drawing) of lava [Figure 4]. I do not doubt that the dikes are thus indirectly connected with eruptive vents. E. de B. seems to have observed many of his T; now without he supposes the whole line of fissure or dike to have poured out lava (which implies, as above remarked, craters of an elliptic or almost linear shape) on both sides, how extraordinarily improbable it is, that there should have been in a single line of section so many intersections of points eruption; he must, I think, make his orifices of eruption almost linear or, if not so, astonishingly numerous. One must refer to what one has seen oneself: do pray, when you go home, look at the section of a minute cone of eruption at the Galapagos, page 109 (486/1. "Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands." London, 1890, page 238.), which is the most perfect natural dissection of a crater which I have ever heard of, and the drawing of which you may, I assure you, trust; here the arching over of the streams as they were poured out over the lip of the crater was evident, and are now thus seen united to the central irregular column. Again, at St. Jago I saw some horizontal sections of the bases of small craters, and the sources or feeders were circular. I really cannot entertain a doubt that E. de B. is grossly wrong, and that you are right in your view; but without most distinct evidence I will never admit that a dike joins on rectangularly to a stream of lava. Your argument about the perpendicularity of the dike strikes me as good. The map of Etna, which I have been just looking at, looks like a sudden falling in, does it not? I am not much surprised at the linear vent in Santorin (this linear tendency ought to be difficult to a circular-crater-of-elevation-believer), I think Abich (486/2. "Geologische Beobachtungen uber die vulkanischen Erscheinungen und Bildungen in Unter- und Mittel-Italien." Braunschweig, 1841.) describes having seen the same actual thing forming within the crater of Vesuvius. In such cases what outline do you give to the upper surface of the lava in the dike connecting them? Surely it would be very irregular and would send up irregular cones or columns as in my above splendid drawing. At the Royal on Friday, after more doubt and misgiving than I almost ever felt, I voted to recommend Forbes for Royal Medal, and that view was carried, Sedgwick taking the lead. I am glad to hear that all your party are pretty well. I know from experience what you must have gone through. From old age with suffering death must be to all a happy release. (486/3. This seems to refer to the death of Sir Charles Lyell's father, which occurred on November 8th, 1849.) I saw Dan Sharpe the other day, and he told me he had been working at the mica schist (i.e. not gneiss) in Scotland, and that he was quite convinced my view was right. You are wrong and a heretic on this point, I know well. LETTER 487. TO C.H.L. WOODD. Down, March 4th [1850]. (487/1. The paper was sent in MS., and seems not to have been published. Mr. Woodd was connected by marriage with Mr. Darwin's cousin, the late Rev. W. Darwin Fox. It was perhaps in consequence of this that Mr. Darwin proposed Mr. Woodd for the Geological Society.) I have read over your paper with attention; but first let me thank you for your very kind expressions towards myself. I really feel hardly competent to discuss the questions raised by your paper; I feel the want of mathematical mechanics. All such problems strike me as awfully complicated; we do not even know what effect great pressure has on retarding liquefaction by heat, nor, I apprehend, on expansion. The chief objection which strikes me is a doubt whether a mass of strata, when heated, and therefore in some slight degree at least softened, would bow outwards like a bar of metal. Consider of how many subordinate layers each great mass would be composed, and the mineralogical changes in any length of any one stratum: I should have thought that the strata would in every case have crumpled up, and we know how commonly in metamorphic strata, which have undergone heat, the subordinate layers are wavy and sinuous, which has always been attributed to their expansion whilst heated. Before rocks are dried and quarried, manifold facts show how extremely flexible they are even when not at all heated. Without the bowing out and subsequent filling in of the roof of the cavity, if I understand you, there would be no subsidence. Of course the crumpling up of the strata would thicken them, and I see with you that this might compress the underlying fluidified rock, which in its turn might escape by a volcano or raise a weaker part of the earth's crust; but I am too ignorant to have any opinion whether force would be easily propagated through a viscid mass like molten rock; or whether such viscid mass would not act in some degree like sand and refuse to transmit pressure, as in the old experiment of trying to burst a piece of paper tied over the end of a tube with a stick, an inch or two of sand being only interposed. I have always myself felt the greatest difficulty in believing in waves of heat coming first to this and then to that quarter of the world: I suspect that heat plays quite a subordinate part in the upward and downward movements of the earth's crust; though of course it must swell the strata where first affected. I can understand Sir J. Herschel's manner of bringing heat to unheated strata--namely, by covering them up by a mile or so of new strata, and then the heat would travel into the lower ones. But who can tell what effect this mile or two of new sedimentary strata would have from mere gravity on the level of the supporting surface? Of course such considerations do not render less true that the expansion of the strata by heat would have some effect on the level of the surface; but they show us how awfully complicated the phenomenon is. All young geologists have a great turn for speculation; I have burned my fingers pretty sharply in that way, and am now perhaps become over-cautious; and feel inclined to cavil at speculation when the direct and immediate effect of a cause in question cannot be shown. How neatly you draw your diagrams; I wish you would turn your attention to real sections of the earth's crust, and then speculate to your heart's content on them; I can have no doubt that speculative men, with a curb on, make far the best observers. I sincerely wish I could have made any remarks of more interest to you, and more directly bearing on your paper; but the subject strikes me as too difficult and complicated. With every good wish that you may go on with your geological studies, speculations, and especially observations... LETTER 488. TO C. LYELL. Down, March 24th [1853]. I have often puzzled over Dana's case, in itself and in relation to the trains of S. American volcanoes of different heights in action at the same time (page 605, Volume V. "Geological Transactions." (488/1. "On the Connection of certain Volcanic Phenomena in South America, and on the Formation of Mountain Chains and Volcanoes, as the Effect of the same Power by which Continents are Elevated" ("Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume V., page 601, 1840). On page 605 Darwin records instances of the simultaneous activity after an earthquake of several volcanoes in the Cordillera.)) I can throw no light on the subject. I presume you remember that Hopkins (488/2. See "Report on the Geological Theories of Elevation and Earthquakes," by W. Hopkins, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1847, page 34.) in some one (I forget which) of his papers discusses such cases, and urgently wishes the height of the fluid lava was known in adjoining volcanoes when in contemporaneous action; he argues vehemently against (as far as I remember) volcanoes in action of different heights being connected with one common source of liquefied rock. If lava was as fluid as water, the case would indeed be hopeless; and I fancy we should be led to look at the deep-seated rock as solid though intensely hot, and becoming fluid as soon as a crack lessened the tension of the super-incumbent strata. But don't you think that viscid lava might be very slow in communicating its pressure equally in all directions? I remember thinking strongly that Dana's case within the one crater of Kilauea proved too much; it really seems monstrous to suppose that the lava within the same crater is not connected at no very great depth. When one reflects on (and still better sees) the enormous masses of lava apparently shot miles high up, like cannon-balls, the force seems out of all proportion to the mere gravity of the liquefied lava; I should think that a channel a little straightly or more open would determine the line of explosion, like the mouth of a cannon compared to the touch-hole. If a high-pressure boiler was cracked across, no one would think for a moment that the quantity of water and steam expelled at different points depended on the less or greater height of the water within the boiler above these points, but on the size of the crack at these points; and steam and water might be driven out both at top and bottom. May not a volcano be likened to a protruding and cracked portion on a vast natural high-pressure boiler, formed by the surrounding area of country? In fact, I think my simile would be truer if the difference consisted only in the cracked case of the boiler being much thicker in some parts than in others, and therefore having to expel a greater thickness or depth of water in the thicker cracks or parts--a difference of course absolutely as nothing. I have seen an old boiler in action, with steam and drops of water spurting out of some of the rivet-holes. No one would think whether the rivet-holes passed through a greater or less thickness of iron, or were connected with the water higher or lower within the boiler, so small would the gravity be compared with the force of the steam. If the boiler had been not heated, then of course there would be a great difference whether the rivet-holes entered the water high or low, so that there was greater or less pressure of gravity. How to close my volcanic rivet-holes I don't know. I do not know whether you will understand what I am driving at, and it will not signify much whether you do or not. I remember in old days (I may mention the subject as we are on it) often wishing I could get you to look at continental elevations as THE phenomenon, and volcanic outbursts and tilting up of mountain chains as connected, but quite secondary, phenomena. I became deeply impressed with the truth of this view in S. America, and I do not think you hold it, or if so make it clear: the same explanation, whatever it may be, which will account for the whole coast of Chili rising, will and must apply to the volcanic action of the Cordillera, though modified no doubt by the liquefied rock coming to the surface and reaching water, and so [being] rendered explosive. To me it appears that this ought to be borne in mind in your present subject of discussion. I have written at too great length; and have amused myself if I have done you no good--so farewell. LETTER 489. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 5th [1856]. I am very much obliged for your long letter, which has interested me much; but before coming to the volcanic cosmogony I must say that I cannot gather your verdict as judge and jury (and not as advocate) on the continental extensions of late authors (489/1. See "Life and Letters," II., page 74; Letter to Lyell, June 25th, 1856: also letters in the sections of the present work devoted to Evolution and Geographical Distribution.), which I must grapple with, and which as yet strikes me as quite unphilosophical, inasmuch as such extensions must be applied to every oceanic island, if to any one, as to Madeira; and this I cannot admit, seeing that the skeletons, at least, of our continents are ancient, and seeing the geological nature of the oceanic islands themselves. Do aid me with your judgment: if I could honestly admit these great [extensions], they would do me good service. With respect to active volcanic areas being rising areas, which looks so pretty on the coral maps, I have formerly felt "uncomfortable" on exactly the same grounds with you, viz. maritime position of volcanoes; and still more from the immense thicknesses of Silurian, etc., volcanic strata, which thicknesses at first impress the mind with the idea of subsidence. If this could be proved, the theory would be smashed; but in deep oceans, though the bottom were rising, great thicknesses of submarine lava might accumulate. But I found, after writing Coral Book, cases in my notes of submarine vesicular lava-streams in the upper masses of the Cordillera, formed, as I believe, during subsidence, which staggered me greatly. With respect to the maritime position of volcanoes, I have long been coming to the conclusion that there must be some law causing areas of elevation (consequently of land) and of subsidence to be parallel (as if balancing each other) and closely approximate; I think this from the form of continents with a deep ocean on one side, from coral map, and especially from conversations with you on immense subsidences of the Carboniferous and [other] periods, and yet with continued great supply of sediment. If this be so, such areas, with opposite movements, would probably be separated by sets of parallel cracks, and would be the seat of volcanoes and tilts, and consequently volcanoes and mountains would be apt to be maritime; but why volcanoes should cling to the rising edge of the cracks I cannot conjecture. That areas with extinct volcanic archipelagoes may subside to any extent I do not doubt. Your view of the bottom of Atlantic long sinking with continued volcanic outbursts and local elevations at Madeira, Canaries, etc., grates (but of course I do not know how complex the phenomena are which are thus explained) against my judgment; my general ideas strongly lead me to believe in elevatory movements being widely extended. One ought, I think, never to forget that when a volcano is in action we have distinct proof of an action from within outwards. Nor should we forget, as I believe follows from Hopkins (489/2. "Researches in Physical Geology," W. Hopkins, "Trans. Phil. Soc. Cambridge," Volume VI., 1838. See also "Report on the Geological Theories of Elevation and Earthquakes," W. Hopkins, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." page 33, 1847 (Oxford meeting).), and as I have insisted in my Earthquake paper, that volcanoes and mountain chains are mere accidents resulting from the elevation of an area, and as mountain chains are generally long, so should I view areas of elevation as generally large. (489/3. "On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena in S. America, and on the Formation of Mountain Chains and Volcanoes, as the Effect of the same Power by which Continents are Elevated," "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume V., page 601, 1840. "Bearing in mind Mr. Hopkins' demonstration, if there be considerable elevation there must be fissures, and, if fissures, almost certainly unequal upheaval, or subsequent sinking down, the argument may be finally thus put: mountain chains are the effects of continental elevations; continental elevations and the eruptive force of volcanoes are due to one great motive, now in progressive action..." (loc. cit., page 629).) Your old original view that great oceans must be sinking areas, from there being causes making land and yet there being little land, has always struck me till lately as very good. But in some degree this starts from the assumption that within periods of which we know anything there was either a continent in such areas, or at least a sea-bottom of not extreme depth. LETTER 490. TO C. LYELL. King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight, July 18th [1858]. I write merely to thank you for the abstract of the Etna paper. (490/1. "On the Structure of Lavas which have Consolidated on Steep Slopes, with Remarks on the Mode of Origin of Mount Etna and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation,'" by C. Lyell, "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., page 703, 1859.) It seems to me a very grand contribution to our volcanic knowledge. Certainly I never expected to see E. de B.'s [Elie de Beaumont] theory of slopes so completely upset. He must have picked out favourable cases for measurement. And such an array of facts he gives! You have scotched, and will see die, I now think, the Crater of Elevation theory. But what vitality there is in a plausible theory! (490/2. The rest of this letter is published in "Life and Letters," II., page 129.) LETTER 491. TO C. LYELL. Down, November 25th [1860]. I have endeavoured to think over your discussion, but not with much success. You will have to lay down, I think, very clearly, what foundation you argue from--four parts (which seems to me exceedingly moderate on your part) of Europe being now at rest, with one part undergoing movement. How it is, that from this you can argue that the one part which is now moving will have rested since the commencement of the Glacial period in the proportion of four to one, I do not pretend to see with any clearness; but does not your argument rest on the assumption that within a given period, say two or three million years, the whole of Europe necessarily has to undergo movement? This may be probable or not so, but it seems to me that you must explain the foundation of your argument from space to time, which at first, to me was very far from obvious. I can, of course, see that if you can make out your argument satisfactorily to yourself and others it would be most valuable. I can imagine some one saying that it is not fair to argue that the great plains of Europe and the mountainous districts of Scotland and Wales have been at all subjected to the same laws of movement. Looking to the whole world, it has been my opinion, from the very size of the continents and oceans, and especially from the enormous ranges of so many mountain-chains (resulting from cracks which follow from vast areas of elevation, as Hopkins argues (491/1. See "Report on the Geological Theories of Elevation and Earthquakes." by William Hopkins. "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1847, pages 33-92; also the Anniversary Address to the Geological Society by W. Hopkins in 1852 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume VIII.); in this Address, pages lxviii et seq.) reference is made to the theory of elevation which rests on the supposition "of the simultaneous action of an upheaving force at every point of the area over which the phenomena of elevation preserve a certain character of continuity...The elevated mass...becomes stretched, and is ultimately torn and fissured in those directions in which the tendency thus to tear is greatest...It is thus that the complex phenomena of elevation become referable to a general and simple mechanical cause...")) and from other reasons, it has been my opinion that, as a general rule, very large portions of the world have been simultaneously affected by elevation or subsidence. I can see that this does not apply so strongly to broken Europe, any more than to the Malay Archipelago. Yet, had I been asked, I should have said that probably nearly the whole of Europe was subjected during the Glacial period to periods of elevation and of subsidence. It does not seem to me so certain that the kinds of partial movement which we now see going on show us the kind of movement which Europe has been subjected to since the commencement of the Glacial period. These notions are at least possible, and would they not vitiate your argument? Do you not rest on the belief that, as Scandinavia and some few other parts are now rising, and a few others sinking, and the remainder at rest, so it has been since the commencement of the Glacial period? With my notions I should require this to be made pretty probable before I could put much confidence in your calculations. You have probably thought this all over, but I give you the reflections which come across me, supposing for the moment that you took the proportions of space at rest and in movement as plainly applicable to time. I have no doubt that you have sufficient evidence that, at the commencement of the Glacial period, the land in Scotland, Wales, etc., stood as high or higher than at present, but I forget the proofs. Having burnt my own fingers so consumedly with the Wealden, I am fearful for you, but I well know how infinitely more cautious, prudent, and far-seeing you are than I am; but for heaven's sake take care of your fingers; to burn them severely, as I have done, is very unpleasant. Your 2 1/2 feet for a century of elevation seems a very handsome allowance. can D. Forbes really show the great elevation of Chili? I am astounded at it, and I took some pains on the point. I do not pretend to say that you may not be right to judge of the past movements of Europe by those now and recently going on, yet it somehow grates against my judgment,--perhaps only against my prejudices. As a change from elevation to subsidence implies some great subterranean or cosmical change, one may surely calculate on long intervals of rest between. Though, if the cause of the change be ever proved to be astronomical, even this might be doubtful. P.S.--I do not know whether I have made clear what I think probable, or at least possible: viz., that the greater part of Europe has at times been elevated in some degree equably; at other times it has all subsided equably; and at other times might all have been stationary; and at other times it has been subjected to various unequal movements, up and down, as at present. LETTER 492. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 4th [1860]. It certainly seems to me safer to rely solely on the slowness of ascertained up-and-down movement. But you could argue length of probable time before the movement became reversed, as in your letter. And might you not add that over the whole world it would probably be admitted that a larger area is NOW at rest than in movement? and this I think would be a tolerably good reason for supposing long intervals of rest. You might even adduce Europe, only guarding yourself by saying that possibly (I will not say probably, though my prejudices would lead me to say so) Europe may at times have gone up and down all together. I forget whether in a former letter you made a strong point of upward movement being always interrupted by long periods of rest. After writing to you, out of curiosity I glanced at the early chapters in my "Geology of South America," and the areas of elevation on the E. and W. coasts are so vast, and proofs of many successive periods of rest so striking, that the evidence becomes to my mind striking. With regard to the astronomical causes of change: in ancient days in the "Beagle" when I reflected on the repeated great oscillations of level on the very same area, and when I looked at the symmetry of mountain chains over such vast spaces, I used to conclude that the day would come when the slow change of form in the semi-fluid matter beneath the crust would be found to be the cause of volcanic action, and of all changes of level. And the late discussion in the "Athenaeum" (492/1. "On the Change of Climate in Different Regions of the Earth." Letters from Sir Henry James, Col. R.E., "Athenaeum," August 25th, 1860, page 256; September 15th, page 355; September 29th, page 415; October 13th, page 483. Also letter from J. Beete Jukes, Local Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland, loc. cit., September 8th, page 322; October 6th, page 451.), by Sir H. James (though his letter seemed to me mighty poor, and what Jukes wrote good), reminded me of this notion. In case astronomical agencies should ever be proved or rendered probable, I imagine, as in nutation or precession, that an upward movement or protrusion of fluidified matter below might be immediately followed by movement of an opposite nature. This is all that I meant. I have not read Jamieson, or yet got the number. (492/2. Possibly William Jameson, "Journey from Quito to Cayambe," "Geog. Soc. Journ." Volume XXXI., page 184, 1861.) I was very much struck with Forbes' explanation of n[itrate] of soda beds and the saliferous crust, which I saw and examined at Iquique. (492/3. "On the Geology of Bolivia and Southern Peru," by D. Forbes, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVII., page 7, 1861. Mr. Forbes attributes the formation of the saline deposits to lagoons of salt water, the communication of which with the sea has been cut off by the rising of the land (loc. cit., page 13).) I often speculated on the greater rise inland of the Cordilleras, and could never satisfy myself... I have not read Stur, and am awfully behindhand in many things...(492/4. The end of this letter is published as a footnote in "Life and Letters," II., page 352.) (FIGURE 5. Map of part of South America and the Galapagos Archipelago.) LETTER 493. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 18th [1867]. (493/1. The first part of this letter is published in "Life and Letters," III., page 71.) (493/2. Tahiti (Society Islands) is coloured blue in the map showing the distribution of the different kinds of reefs in "The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs," Edition III., 1889, page 185. The blue colour indicates the existence of barrier reefs and atolls which, on Darwin's theory, point to subsidence.) Tahiti is, I believe, rightly coloured, for the reefs are so far from the land, and the ocean so deep, that there must have been subsidence, though not very recently. I looked carefully, and there is no evidence of recent elevation. I quite agree with you versus Herschel on Volcanic Islands. (493/3. Sir John Herschel suggested that the accumulation on the sea-floor of sediment, derived from the waste of the island, presses down the bed of the ocean, the continent being on the other hand relieved of pressure; "this brings about a state of strain in the crust which will crack in its weakest spot, the heavy side going down, and the light side rising." In discussing this view Lyell writes ("Principles," Volume II. Edition X., page 229), "This hypothesis appears to me of very partial application, for active volcanoes, even such as are on the borders of continents, are rarely situated where great deltas have been forming, whether in Pliocene or post-Tertiary times. The number, also, of active volcanoes in oceanic islands is very great, not only in the Pacific, but equally in the Atlantic, where no load of coral matter...can cause a partial weighting and pressing down of a supposed flexible crust.") Would not the Atlantic and Antarctic volcanoes be the best examples for you, as there then can be no coral mud to depress the bottom? In my "Volcanic Islands," page 126, I just suggest that volcanoes may occur so frequently in the oceanic areas as the surface would be most likely to crack when first being elevated. I find one remark, page 128 (493/4. "Volcanic Islands," page 128: "The islands, moreover, of some of the small volcanic groups, which thus border continents, are placed in lines related to those along which the adjoining shores of the continents trend" [see Figure 5].), which seems to me worth consideration--viz. the parallelism of the lines of eruption in volcanic archipelagoes with the coast lines of the nearest continent, for this seems to indicate a mechanical rather than a chemical connection in both cases, i.e. the lines of disturbance and cracking. In my "South American Geology," page 185 (493/5. "Geological Observations on South America," London, 1846, page 185.), I allude to the remarkable absence at present of active volcanoes on the east side of the Cordillera in relation to the absence of the sea on this side. Yet I must own I have long felt a little sceptical on the proximity of water being the exciting cause. The one volcano in the interior of Asia is said, I think, to be near great lakes; but if lakes are so important, why are there not many other volcanoes within other continents? I have always felt rather inclined to look at the position of volcanoes on the borders of continents, as resulting from coast lines being the lines of separation between areas of elevation and subsidence. But it is useless in me troubling you with my old speculations. LETTER 494. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 22nd [1869]. (494/1. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace refers to his "Malay Archipelago," 1869.) I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am not sure that other geologists would agree with me. You repeatedly speak as if the pouring out of lava, etc., from volcanoes actually caused the subsidence of an adjoining area. I quite agree that areas undergoing opposite movements are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must, I think, be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling up of a great dome or surface of plutonic rocks, and there seems no more reason to conclude that such swelling or elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidence, than that the subsidence is the cause of the elevation, which latter view is indeed held by some geologists. I have regretted to find so little about the habits of the many animals which you have seen. LETTER 495. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 20th, 1869. I have been much pleased to hear that you have been looking at my S. American book (495/1. "Geological Observations on South America," London, 1846.), which I thought was as completely dead and gone as any pre-Cambrian fossil. You are right in supposing that my memory about American geology has grown very hazy. I remember, however, a paper on the Cordillera by D. Forbes (495/2. "Geology of Bolivia and South Peru," by Forbes, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVII., pages 7-62, 1861. Forbes admits that there is "the fullest evidence of elevation of the Chile coast since the arrival of the Spaniards. North of Arica, if we accept the evidence of M. d'Orbigny and others, the proof of elevation is much more decided; and consequently it may be possible that here, as is the case about Lima, according to Darwin, the elevation may have taken place irregularly in places..." (loc. cit., page 11).), with splendid sections, which I saw in MS., but whether "referred" to me or lent to me I cannot remember. This would be well worth your looking to, as I think he both supports and criticises my views. In Ormerod's Index to the Journal (495/3. "Classified Index to the Transactions, Proceedings and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society."), which I do not possess, you would, no doubt, find a reference; but I think the sections would be worth borrowing from Forbes. Domeyko (495/4. Reference is made by Forbes in his paper on Bolivia and Peru to the work of Ignacio Domeyko on the geology of Chili. Several papers by this author were published in the "Annales des Mines" between 1840 and 1869, also in the "Comptes Rendus" of 1861, 1864, etc.) has published in the "Comptes Rendus" papers on Chili, but not, as far as I can remember, on the structure of the mountains. Forbes, however, would know. What you say about the plications being steepest in the central and generally highest part of the range is conclusive to my mind that there has been the chief axis of disturbance. The lateral thrusting has always appeared to me fearfully perplexing. I remember formerly thinking that all lateral flexures probably occurred deep beneath the surface, and have been brought into view by an enormous superincumbent mass having been denuded. If a large and deep box were filled with layers of damp paper or clay, and a blunt wedge was slowly driven up from beneath, would not the layers above it and on both sides become greatly convoluted, whilst those towards the top would be only slightly arched? When I spoke of the Andes being comparatively recent, I suppose that I referred to the absence of the older formations. In looking to my volume, which I have not done for many years, I came upon a passage (page 232) which would be worth your looking at, if you have ever felt perplexed, as I often was, about the sources of volcanic rocks in mountain chains. You have stirred up old memories, and at the risk of being a bore I should like to call your attention to another point which formerly perplexed me much--viz. the presence of basaltic dikes in most great granitic areas. I cannot but think the explanation given at page 123 of my "Volcanic Islands" is the true one. (495/5. On page 123 of the "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" 1844, Darwin quotes several instances of greenstone and basaltic dikes intersecting granitic and allied metamorphic rocks. He suggests that these dikes "have been formed by fissures penetrating into partially cooled rocks of the granitic and metamorphic series, and by their more fluid parts, consisting chiefly of hornblende oozing out, and being sucked into such fissures.") LETTER 496. TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, March 21st, 1876. The very kind expressions in your letter have gratified me deeply. I quite forget what I said about my geological works, but the papers referred to in your letter are the right ones. I enclose a list with those which are certainly not worth translating marked with a red line; but whether those which are not thus marked with a red line are worth translation you will have to decide. I think much more highly of my book on "Volcanic Islands" since Mr. Judd, by far the best judge on the subject in England, has, as I hear, learnt much from it. I think the short paper on the "formation of mould" is worth translating, though, if I have time and strength, I hope to write another and longer paper on the subject. I can assure you that the idea of any one translating my books better than you never even momentarily crossed my mind. I am glad that you can give a fairly good account of your health, or at least that it is not worse. LETTER 497. TO T. MELLARD READE. London, December 9th, 1880. I am sorry to say that I do not return home till the middle of next week, and as I order no pamphlets to be forwarded to me by post, I cannot return the "Geolog. Mag." until my return home, nor could my servants pick it out of the multitude which come by the post. (497/1. Article on "Oceanic Islands," by T. Mellard Reade, "Geol. Mag." Volume VIII., page 75, 1881.) As I remarked in a letter to a friend, with whom I was discussing Wallace's last book (497/2. Wallace's "Island Life," 1880.), the subject to which you refer seems to me a most perplexing one. The fact which I pointed out many years ago, that all oceanic islands are volcanic (except St. Paul's, and now this is viewed by some as the nucleus of an ancient volcano), seems to me a strong argument that no continent ever occupied the great oceans. (497/3. "During my investigations on coral reefs I had occasion to consult the works of many voyagers, and I was invariably struck with the fact that, with rare exceptions, the innumerable islands scattered through the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans were composed either of volcanic or of modern coral rocks" ("Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands, etc." Edition II., 1876, page 140).) Then there comes the statement from the "Challenger" that all sediment is deposited within one or two hundred miles from the shores, though I should have thought this rather doubtful with respect to great rivers like the Amazons. The chalk formerly seemed to me the best case of an ocean having extended where a continent now stands; but it seems that some good judges deny that the chalk is an oceanic deposit. On the whole, I lean to the side that the continents have since Cambrian times occupied approximately their present positions. But, as I have said, the question seems a difficult one, and the more it is discussed the better. LETTER 498. TO A. AGASSIZ. Down, January 1st, 1881. I must write a line or two to thank you much for having written to me so long a letter on coral reefs at a time when you must have been so busy. Is it not difficult to avoid believing that the wonderful elevation in the West Indies must have been accompanied by much subsidence, notwithstanding the state of Florida? (498/1. The Florida reefs cannot be explained by subsidence. Alexander Agassiz, who has described these reefs in detail ("Three Cruises of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Steamer 'Blake,'" 2 volumes, London, 1888), shows that the southern extremity of the peninsula "is of comparatively recent growth, consisting of concentric barrier-reefs, which have been gradually converted into land by the accumulation of intervening mud-flats" (see also Appendix II., page 287, to Darwin's "Coral Reefs," by T.G. Bonney, Edition III., 1889.)) When reflecting in old days on the configuration of our continents, the position of mountain chains, and especially on the long-continued supply of sediment over the same areas, I used to think (as probably have many other persons) that areas of elevation and subsidence must as a general rule be separated by a single great line of fissure, or rather of several closely adjoining lines of fissure. I mention this because, when looking within more recent times at charts with the depths of the sea marked by different tints, there seems to be some connection between the profound depths of the ocean and the trends of the nearest, though distant, continents; and I have often wished that some one like yourself, to whom the subject was familiar, would speculate on it. P.S.--I do hope that you will re-urge your views about the reappearance of old characters (498/2. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 245, 246.), for, as far as I can judge, the most important views are often neglected unless they are urged and re-urged. I am greatly indebted to you for sending me very many most valuable works published at your institution. 2.IX.II. ICE-ACTION, 1841-1882. LETTER 499. TO C. LYELL. [1841.] Your extract has set me puzzling very much, and as I find I am better at present for not going out, you must let me unload my mind on paper. I thought everything so beautifully clear about glaciers, but now your case and Agassiz's statement about the cavities in the rock formed by cascades in the glaciers, shows me I don't understand their structure at all. I wish out of pure curiosity I could make it out. (499/1. "Etudes sur les Glaciers," by Louis Agassiz, 1840, contains a description of cascades (page 343), and "des cavites interieures" (page 348).) If the glacier travelled on (and it certainly does travel on), and the water kept cutting back over the edge of the ice, there would be a great slit in front of the cascade; if the water did not cut back, the whole hollow and cascade, as you say, must travel on; and do you suppose the next season it falls down some crevice higher up? In any case, how in the name of Heaven can it make a hollow in solid rock, which surely must be a work of many years? I must point out another fact which Agassiz does not, as it appears to me, leave very clear. He says all the blocks on the surface of the glaciers are angular, and those in the moraines rounded, yet he says the medial moraines whence the surface rocks come and are a part [of], are only two lateral moraines united. Can he refer to terminal moraines alone when he says fragments in moraines are rounded? What a capital book Agassiz's is. In [reading] all the early part I gave up entirely the Jura blocks, and was heartily ashamed of my appendix (499/2. "M. Agassiz has lately written on the subject of the glaciers and boulders of the Alps. He clearly proves, as it appears to me, that the presence of the boulders on the Jura cannot be explained by any debacle, or by the power of ancient glaciers driving before them moraines...M. Agassiz also denies that they were transported by floating ice." ("Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'" Volume III., 1839: "Journal and Remarks: Addenda," page 617.)) (and am so still of the manner in which I presumptuously speak of Agassiz), but it seems by his own confession that ordinary glaciers could not have transported the blocks there, and if an hypothesis is to be introduced the sea is much simpler; floating ice seems to me to account for everything as well as, and sometimes better than the solid glaciers. The hollows, however, formed by the ice-cascades appear to me the strongest hostile fact, though certainly, as you said, one sees hollow round cavities on present rock-beaches. I am glad to observe that Agassiz does not pretend that direction of scratches is hostile to floating ice. By the way, how do you and Buckland account for the "tails" of diluvium in Scotland? (499/3. Mr. Darwin speaks of the tails of diluvium in Scotland extending from the protected side of a hill, of which the opposite side, facing the direction from which the ice came, is marked by grooves and striae (loc. cit., pages 622, 623).) I thought in my appendix this made out the strongest argument for rocks having been scratched by floating ice. Some facts about boulders in Chiloe will, I think, in a very small degree elucidate some parts of Jura case. What a grand new feature all this ice work is in Geology! How old Hutton would have stared! (499/4. Sir Charles Lyell speaks of the Huttonian theory as being characterised by "the exclusion of all causes not supposed to belong to the present order of Nature" (Lyell's "Principles," Edition XII., volume I., page 76, 1875). Sir Archibald Geikie has recently edited the third volume of Hutton's "Theory of the Earth," printed by the Geological Society, 1899. See also "The Founders of Geology," by Sir Archibald Geikie; London, 1897.) I ought to be ashamed of myself for scribbling on so. Talking of shame, I have sent a copy of my "Journal" (499/5. "Journal and Remarks," 1832-36. See note 2, page 148.) with very humble note to Agassiz, as an apology for the tone I used, though I say, I daresay he has never seen my appendix, or would care at all about it. I did not suppose my note about Glen Roy could have been of any use to you--I merely scribbled what came uppermost. I made one great oversight, as you would perceive. I forgot the Glacier theory: if a glacier most gradually disappeared from mouth of Spean Valley [this] would account for buttresses of shingle below lowest shelf. The difficulty I put about the ice-barrier of the middle Glen Roy shelf keeping so long at exactly same level does certainly appear to me insuperable. (499/5. For a description of the shelves or parallel roads in Glen Roy see Darwin's "Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, etc." "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 39; also Letter 517 et seq.) What a wonderful fact this breakdown of old Niagara is. How it disturbs the calculations about lengths of time before the river would have reached the lakes. I hope Mrs. Lyell will read this to you, then I shall trust for forgiveness for having scribbled so much. I should have sent back Agassiz sooner, but my servant has been very unwell. Emma is going on pretty well. My paper on South American boulders and "till," which latter deposit is perfectly characterised in Tierra del Fuego, is progressing rapidly. (499/6. "On the Distribution of the Erratic Boulders and on the Contemporaneous Unstratified Deposits of South America," "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume VI., page 415, 1842.) I much like the term post-Pliocene, and will use it in my present paper several times. P.S.--I should have thought that the most obvious objection to the marine-beach theory for Glen Roy would be the limited extension of the shelves. Though certainly this is not a valid one, after an intermediate one, only half a mile in length, and nowhere else appearing, even in the valley of Glen Roy itself, has been shown to exist. LETTER 500. TO C. LYELL. 1842. I had some talk with Murchison, who has been on a flying visit into Wales, and he can see no traces of glaciers, but only of the trickling of water and of the roots of the heath. It is enough to make an extraneous man think Geology from beginning to end a work of imagination, and not founded on observation. Lonsdale, I observe, pays Buckland and myself the compliment of thinking Murchison not seeing as worth nothing; but I confess I am astonished, so glaringly clear after two or three days did the evidence appear to me. Have you seen last "New Edin. Phil. Journ.", it is ice and glaciers almost from beginning to end. (500/1. "The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal," Volume XXXIII. (April-October), 1842, contains papers by Sir G.S. Mackenzie, Prof. H.G. Brown, Jean de Charpentier, Roderick Murchison, Louis Agassiz, all dealing with glaciers or ice; also letters to the Editor relating to Prof. Forbes' account of his recent observations on Glaciers, and a paper by Charles Darwin entitled "Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Carnarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by Floating Ice.") Agassiz says he saw (and has laid down) the two lowest terraces of Glen Roy in the valley of the Spean, opposite mouth of Glen Roy itself, where no one else has seen them. (500/2. "The Glacial Theory and its Recent Progress," by Louis Agassiz, loc. cit., page 216. Agassiz describes the parallel terraces on the flanks of Glen Roy and Glen Spean (page 236), and expresses himself convinced "that the Glacial theory alone satisfies all the exigencies of the phenomenon" of the parallel roads.) I carefully examined that spot, owing to the sheep tracks [being] nearly but not quite parallel to the terrace. So much, again, for difference of observation. I do not pretend to say who is right. LETTER 501. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 12th, 1849. I was heartily glad to get your last letter; but on my life your thanks for my very few and very dull letters quite scalded me. I have been very indolent and selfish in not having oftener written to you and kept my ears open for news which would have interested you; but I have not forgotten you. Two days after receiving your letter, there was a short leading notice about you in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (501/1. The "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1849, page 628.); in which it is said you have discovered a noble crimson rose and thirty rhododendrons. I must heartily congratulate you on these discoveries, which will interest the public; and I have no doubt that you will have made plenty of most interesting botanical observations. This last letter shall be put with all your others, which are now safe together. I am very glad that you have got minute details about the terraces in the valleys: your description sounds curiously like the terraces in the Cordillera of Chili; these latter, however, are single in each valley; but you will hereafter see a description of these terraces in my "Geology of S. America." (501/2. "Geological Observations," pages 10 et passim.) At the end of your letter you speak about giving up Geology, but you must not think of it; I am sure your observations will be very interesting. Your account of the great dam in the Yangma valley is most curious, and quite full; I find that I did not at all understand its wonderful structure in your former letter. Your notion of glaciers pushing detritus into deep fiords (and ice floating fragments on their channels), is in many respects new to me; but I cannot help believing your dam is a lateral moraine: I can hardly persuade myself that the remains of floating ice action, at a period so immensely remote as when the Himalaya stood at a low level in the sea, would now be distinguishable. (501/3. Hooker's "Himalayan Journals," Volume II., page 121, 1854. In describing certain deposits in the Lachoong valley, Hooker writes: "Glaciers might have forced immense beds of gravel into positions that would dam up lakes between the ice and the flanks of the valley" (page 121). In a footnote he adds: "We are still very ignorant of many details of ice action, and especially of the origin of many enormous deposits which are not true moraines." Such deposits are referred to as occurring in the Yangma valley.) Your not having found scored boulders and solid rocks is an objection both to glaciers and floating ice; for it is certain that both produce such. I believe no rocks escape scoring, polishing and mammillation in the Alps, though some lose it easily when exposed. Are you familiar with appearance of ice-action? If I understand rightly, you object to the great dam having been produced by a glacier, owing to the dryness of the lateral valley and general infrequency of glaciers in Himalaya; but pray observe that we may fairly (from what we see in Europe) assume that the climate was formerly colder in India, and when the land stood at a lower height more snow might have fallen. Oddly enough, I am now inclined to believe that I saw a gigantic moraine crossing a valley, and formerly causing a lake above it in one of the great valleys (Valle del Yeso) of the Cordillera: it is a mountain of detritus, which has puzzled me. If you have any further opportunities, do look for scores on steep faces of rock; and here and there remove turf or matted parts to have a look. Again I beg, do not give up Geology:--I wish you had Agassiz's work and plates on Glaciers. (501/4. "Etudes sur les Glaciers." L. Agassiz, Neuchatel, 1840.) I am extremely sorry that the Rajah, ill luck to him, has prevented your crossing to Thibet; but you seem to have seen most interesting country: one is astonished to hear of Fuegian climate in India. I heard from the Sabines that you were thinking of giving up Borneo; I hope that this report may prove true. LETTER 502. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 8th [1855]. The notion you refer to was published in the "Geological Journal" (502/1. "on the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher Level." By C. Darwin.), Volume IV. (1848), page 315, with reference to all the cases which I could collect of boulders apparently higher than the parent rock. The argument of probable proportion of rock dropped by sea ice compared to land glaciers is new to me. I have often thought of the idea of the viscosity and enormous momentum of great icebergs, and still think that the notion I pointed out in appendix to Ramsay's paper is probable, and can hardly help being applicable in some cases. (502/2. The paper by Ramsay has no appendix; probably, therefore Mr. Darwin's notes were published separately as a paper in the "Phil. Mag.") I wonder whether the "Phil. Journal [Magazine?.]" would publish it, if I could get it from Ramsay or the Geological Society. (502/3. "On the Power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface." By C. Darwin, "Phil. Mag." Volume X., page 96, 1855.) If you chance to meet Ramsay will you ask him whether he has it? I think it would perhaps be worth while just to call the N. American geologists' attention to the idea; but it is not worth any trouble. I am tremendously busy with all sorts of experiments. By the way, Hopkins at the Geological Society seemed to admit some truth in the idea of scoring by (viscid) icebergs. If the Geological Society takes so much [time] to judge of truth of notions, as you were telling me in regard to Ramsay's Permian glaciers (502/4. "On the Occurrence of angular, sub-angular, polished, and striated Fragments and Boulders in the Permian Breccia of Shropshire, Worcestershire, etc.; and on the Probable Existence of Glaciers and Icebergs in the Permian Epoch." By A.C. Ramsay, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XI., page 185, 1855.), it will be as injurious to progress as the French Institut. LETTER 503. TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, [September] 21st [1862]. I am especially obliged to you for sending me Haast's communications. (503/1. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXI., pages 130, 133, 1865; Volume XXIII., page 342, 1867.) They are very interesting and grand about glacial and drift or marine glacial. I see he alludes to the whole southern hemisphere. I wonder whether he has read the "Origin." Considering your facts on the Alpine plants of New Zealand and remarks, I am particularly glad to hear of the geological evidence of glacial action. I presume he is sure to collect and send over the mountain rat of which he speaks. I long to know what it is. A frog and rat together would, to my mind, prove former connection of New Zealand to some continent; for I can hardly suppose that the Polynesians introduced the rat as game, though so esteemed in the Friendly Islands. Ramsay sent me his paper (503/2. "On the Glacial Origin of certain Lakes in Switzerland, etc." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 185, 1862.) and asked my opinion on it. I agree with you and think highly of it. I cannot doubt that it is to a large extent true; my only doubt is, that in a much disturbed country, I should have thought that some depressions, and consequently lakes, would almost certainly have been left. I suggested a careful consideration of mountainous tropical countries such as Brazil, peninsula of India, etc.; if lakes are there, [they are] very rare. I should fully subscribe to Ramsay's views. What presumption, as it seems to me, in the Council of Geological Society that it hesitated to publish the paper. We return home on the 30th. I have made up [my] mind, if I can keep up my courage, to start on the Saturday for Cambridge, and stay the last few days of the [British] Association there. I do so hope that you may be there then. LETTER 504. TO J.D. HOOKER. November 3rd [1864]. When I wrote to you I had not read Ramsay. (504/1. "On the Erosion of Valleys and Lakes: a Reply to Sir Roderick Murchison's Anniversary Address to the Geographical Society." "Phil. Mag." Volume XXVIII., page 293, 1864) How capitally it is written! It seems that there is nothing for style like a man's dander being put up. I think I agree largely with you about denudation--but the rocky-lake-basin theory is the part which interests me at present. It seems impossible to know how much to attribute to ice, running water, and sea. I did not suppose that Ramsay would deny that mountains had been thrown up irregularly, and that the depressions would become valleys. The grandest valleys I ever saw were at Tahiti, and here I do not believe ice has done anything; anyhow there were no erratics. I said in my S. American Geology (504/2. "Finally, the conclusion at which I have arrived with respect to the relative powers of rain, and sea-water on the land is, that the latter is by far the most efficient agent, and that its chief tendency is to widen the valleys, whilst torrents and rivers tend to deepen them and to remove the wreck of the sea's destroying action" ("Geol. Observations," pages 66, 67).) that rivers deepen and the sea widens valleys, and I am inclined largely to stick to this, adding ice to water. I am sorry to hear that Tyndall has grown dogmatic. H. Wedgwood was saying the other day that T.'s writings and speaking gave him the idea of intense conceit. I hope it is not so, for he is a grand man of science. ...I have had a prospectus and letter from Andrew Murray (504/3. See Volume II., Letters 379, 384, etc.) asking me for suggestions. I think this almost shows he is not fit for the subject, as he gives me no idea what his book will be, excepting that the printed paper shows that all animals and all plants of all groups are to be treated of. Do you know anything of his knowledge? In about a fortnight I shall have finished, except concluding chapter, my book on "Variation under Domestication"; (504/4. Published in 1868.) but then I have got to go over the whole again, and this will take me very many months. I am able to work about two hours daily. LETTER 505. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [July, 1865]. I was glad to read your article on Glaciers, etc., in Yorkshire. You seem to have been struck with what most deeply impressed me at Glen Roy (wrong as I was on the whole subject)--viz. the marvellous manner in which every detail of surface of land had been preserved for an enormous period. This makes me a little sceptical whether Ramsay, Jukes, etc., are not a little overdoing sub-aerial denudation. In the same "Reader" (505/1. Sir J.D. Hooker wrote to Darwin, July 13th, 1865, from High Force Inn, Middleton, Teesdale: "I am studying the moraines all day long with as much enthusiasm as I am capable of after lying in bed till nine, eating heavy breakfasts, and looking forward to dinner as the summum bonum of existence." The result of his work, under the title "Moraines of the Tees Valley," appeared in the "Reader" (July 15th, 1865, page 71), of which Huxley was one of the managers or committee-men, and Norman Lockyer was scientific editor ("Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 211). Hooker describes the moraines and other evidence of glacial action in the upper part of the Tees valley, and speaks of the effect of glaciers in determining the present physical features of the country.) there was a striking article on English and Foreign Men of Science (505/2. "British and Foreign Science," "The Reader," loc. cit., page 61. The writer of the article asserts the inferiority of English scientific workers.), and I think unjust to England except in pure Physiology; in biology Owen and R. Brown ought to save us, and in Geology we are most rich. It is curious how we are reading the same books. We intend to read Lecky and certainly to re-read Buckle--which latter I admired greatly before. I am heartily glad you like Lubbock's book so much. It made me grieve his taking to politics, and though I grieve that he has lost his election, yet I suppose, now that he is once bitten, he will never give up politics, and science is done for. Many men can make fair M.P.'s; and how few can work in science like him! I have been reading a pamphlet by Verlot on "Variation of Flowers," which seems to me very good; but I doubt whether it would be worth your reading. it was published originally in the "Journal d'Hort.," and so perhaps you have seen it. It is a very good plan this republishing separately for sake of foreigners buying, and I wish I had tried to get permission of Linn. Soc. for my Climbing paper, but it is now too late. Do not forget that you have my paper on hybridism, by Max Wichura. (505/3. Wichura, M.E., "L'Hybridisation dans le regne vegetal etudiee sur les Saules," "Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat." XXIII., page 129, 1865.) I hope you are returned to your work, refreshed like a giant by your huge breakfasts. How unlucky you are about contagious complaints with your children! I keep very weak, and had much sickness yesterday, but am stronger this morning. Can you remember how we ever first met? (505/4. See "Life and Letters," II., page 19.) It was in Park Street; but what brought us together? I have been re-reading a few old letters of yours, and my heart is very warm towards you. LETTER 506. TO C. LYELL. Down, March 8th [1866]. (506/1. In a letter from Sir Joseph Hooker to Mr. Darwin on February 21st, 1866, the following passage occurs: "I wish I could explain to you my crude notions as to the Glacial period and your position towards it. I suppose I hold this doctrine: that there was a Glacial period, but that it was not one of universal cold, because I think that the existing distribution of glaciers is sufficiently demonstrative of the proposition that by comparatively slight redispositions of sea and land, and perhaps axis of globe, you may account for all the leading palaeontological phenomena." This letter was sent by Mr. Darwin to Sir Charles Lyell, and the latter, writing on March 1st, 1866, expresses his belief that "the whole globe must at times have been superficially cooler. Still," he adds, "during extreme excentricity the sun would make great efforts to compensate in perihelion for the chill of a long winter in aphelion in one hemisphere, and a cool summer in the other. I think you will turn out to be right in regard to meridional lines of mountain-chains by which the migrations across the equator took place while there was contemporaneous tropical heat of certain lowlands, where plants requiring heat and moisture were saved from extinction by the heat of the earth's surface, which was stored up in perihelion, being prevented from radiating off freely into space by a blanket of aqueous vapour caused by the melting of ice and snow. But though I am inclined to profit by Croll's maximum excentricity for the glacial period, I consider it quite subordinate to geographical causes or the relative position of land and sea and the abnormal excess of land in polar regions." In another letter (March 5th, 1866) Lyell writes: "In the beginning of Hooker's letter to you he speaks hypothetically of a change in the earth's axis as having possibly co-operated with redistribution of land and sea in causing the cold of the Glacial period. Now, when we consider how extremely modern, zoologically and botanically, the Glacial period is proved to be, I am shocked at any one introducing, with what I may call so much levity, so organic a change as a deviation in the axis of the planet...' (see Lyell's "Principles," 1875, Chapter XIII.; also a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker printed in the "Life of Sir Charles Lyell," Volume II., page 410.)) Many thanks for your interesting letter. From the serene elevation of my old age I look down with amazement at your youth, vigour, and indomitable energy. With respect to Hooker and the axis of the earth, I suspect he is too much overworked to consider now any subject properly. His mind is so acute and critical that I always expect to hear a torrent of objections to anything proposed; but he is so candid that he often comes round in a year or two. I have never thought on the causes of the Glacial period, for I feel that the subject is beyond me; but though I hope you will own that I have generally been a good and docile pupil to you, yet I must confess that I cannot believe in change of land and water, being more than a subsidiary agent. (506/2. In Chapter XI. of the "Origin," Edition V., 1869, page 451, Darwin discusses Croll's theory, and is clearly inclined to trust in Croll's conclusion that "whenever the northern hemisphere passes through a cold period the temperature of the southern hemisphere is actually raised..." In Edition VI., page 336, he expresses his faith even more strongly. Mr. Darwin apparently sent his MS. on the climate question, which was no doubt prepared for a new edition of the "Origin," to Sir Charles. The arrival of the MS. is acknowledged in a letter from Lyell on March 10th, 1866 ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 408), in which the writer says that he is "more than ever convinced that geographical changes...are the principal and not the subsidiary causes.") I have come to this conclusion from reflecting on the geographical distribution of the inhabitants of the sea on the opposite sides of our continents and of the inhabitants of the continents themselves. LETTER 507. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 8th [1866]. Many thanks for the pamphlet, which was returned this morning. I was very glad to read it, though chiefly as a psychological curiosity. I quite follow you in thinking Agassiz glacier-mad. (507/1. Agassiz's pamphlet, ("Geology of the Amazons") is referred to by Lyell in a letter written to Bunbury in September, 1866 ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 409): "Agassiz has written an interesting paper on the 'Geology of the Amazons,' but, I regret to say, he has gone wild about glaciers, and has actually announced his opinion that the whole of the great valley, down to its mouth in latitude 0 deg., was filled by ice..." Agassiz published a paper, "Observations Geologiques faites dans la Vallee de l'Amazone," in the "Comptes Rendus," Volume LXIV., page 1269, 1867. See also a letter addressed to M. Marcou, published in the "Bull. Soc. Geol. France," Volume XXIV., page 109, 1866.) His evidence reduces itself to supposed moraines, which would be difficult to trace in a forest-clad country; and with respect to boulders, these are not said to be angular, and their source cannot be known in a country so imperfectly explored. When I was at Rio, I was continually astonished at the depth (sometimes 100 feet) to which the granitic rocks were decomposed in situ, and this soft matter would easily give rise to great alluvial accumulations; I well remember finding it difficult to draw a line between the alluvial matter and the softened rock in situ. What a splendid imagination Agassiz has, and how energetic he is! What capital work he would have done, if he had sucked in your "Principles" with his mother's milk. It is wonderful that he should have written such wild nonsense about the valley of the Amazon; yet not so wonderful when one remembers that he once maintained before the British Association that the chalk was all deposited at once. With respect to the insects of Chili, I knew only from Bates that the species of Carabus showed no special affinity to northern species; from the great difference of climate and vegetation I should not have expected that many insects would have shown such affinity. It is more remarkable that the birds on the broad and lofty Cordillera of Tropical S. America show no affinity with European species. The little power of diffusion with birds has often struck me as a most singular fact--even more singular than the great power of diffusion with plants. Remember that we hope to see you in the autumn. P.S.--There is a capital paper in the September number of "Annals and Magazine," translated from Pictet and Humbert, on Fossil Fish of Lebanon, but you will, I daresay, have received the original. (507/2. "Recent Researches on the Fossil Fishes of Mount Lebanon," "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVIII., page 237, 1866.) It is capital in relation to modification of species; I would not wish for more confirmatory facts, though there is no direct allusion to the modification of species. Hooker, by the way, gave an admirable lecture at Nottingham; I read it in MS., or rather, heard it. I am glad it will be published, for it was capital. (507/3. Sir Joseph Hooker delivered a lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association (1866) on "Insular Floras," published in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1867. See Letters 366-377, etc.) Sunday morning. P.S.--I have just received a letter from Asa Gray with the following passage, so that, according to this, I am the chief cause of Agassiz's absurd views:-- "Agassiz is back (I have not seen him), and he went at once down to the National Academy of Sciences, from which I sedulously keep away, and, I hear, proved to them that the Glacial period covered the whole continent of America with unbroken ice, and closed with a significant gesture and the remark: 'So here is the end of the Darwin theory.' How do you like that? "I said last winter that Agassiz was bent on covering the whole continent with ice, and that the motive of the discovery he was sure to make was to make sure that there should be no coming down of any terrestrial life from Tertiary or post-Tertiary period to ours. You cannot deny that he has done his work effectually in a truly imperial way." LETTER 508. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 14th, 1868. Mr. Agassiz's book has been read aloud to me, and I am wonderfully perplexed what to think about his precise statements of the existence of glaciers in the Ceara Mountains, and about the drift formation near Rio. (508/1. "Sur la Geologie de l'Amazone," by MM. Agassiz and Continho, "Bull. Soc. Geol. France," Volume XXV., page 685, 1868. See also "A Journey in Brazil," by Professor and Mrs. Louis Agassiz, Boston, 1868.) There is a sad want of details. Thus he never mentions whether any of the blocks are angular, nor whether the embedded rounded boulders, which cannot all be disintegrated, are scored. Yet how can so experienced an observer as A. be deceived about lateral and terminal moraines? If there really were glaciers in the Ceara Mountains, it seems to me one of the most important facts in the history of the inorganic and organic world ever observed. Whether true or not, it will be widely believed, and until finally decided will greatly interfere with future progress on many points. I have made these remarks in the hope that you will coincide. If so, do you think it would be possible to persuade some known man, such as Ramsay, or, what would be far better, some two men, to go out for a summer trip, which would be in many respects delightful, for the sole object of observing these phenomena in the Ceara Mountains, and if possible also near Rio? I would gladly put my name down for 50 pounds in aid of the expense of travelling. Do turn this over in your mind. I am so very sorry not to have seen you this summer, but for the last three weeks I have been good for nothing, and have had to stop almost all work. I hope we may meet in the autumn. LETTER 509. TO JAMES CROLL. Down, November 24th, 1868. I have read with the greatest interest the last paper which you have kindly sent me. (509/1. Croll discussed the power of icebergs as grinding and striating agents in the latter part of a paper ("On Geological Time, and the probable Dates of the Glacial and the Upper Miocene Period") published in the "Philosophical Magazine," Volume XXXV., page 363, 1868, Volume XXXVI., pages 141, 362, 1868. His conclusion was that the advocates of the Iceberg theory had formed "too extravagant notions regarding the potency of floating ice as a striating agent.") If we are to admit that all the scored rocks throughout the more level parts of the United States result from true glacier action, it is a most wonderful conclusion, and you certainly make out a very strong case; so I suppose I must give up one more cherished belief. But my object in writing is to trespass on your kindness and ask a question, which I daresay I could answer for myself by reading more carefully, as I hope hereafter to do, all your papers; but I shall feel much more confidence in a brief reply from you. Am I right in supposing that you believe that the glacial periods have always occurred alternately in the northern and southern hemispheres, so that the erratic deposits which I have described in the southern parts of America, and the glacial work in New Zealand, could not have been simultaneous with our Glacial period? From the glacial deposits occurring all round the northern hemisphere, and from such deposits appearing in S. America to be as recent as in the north, and lastly, from there being some evidence of the former lower descent of glaciers all along the Cordilleras, I inferred that the whole world was at this period cooler. It did not appear to me justifiable without distinct evidence to suppose that the N. and S. glacial deposits belonged to distinct epochs, though it would have been an immense relief to my mind if I could have assumed that this had been the case. Secondly, do you believe that during the Glacial period in one hemisphere the opposite hemisphere actually becomes warmer, or does it merely retain the same temperature as before? I do not ask these questions out of mere curiosity; but I have to prepare a new edition of my "Origin of Species," and am anxious to say a few words on this subject on your authority. I hope that you will excuse my troubling you. LETTER 510. TO J. CROLL. Down, January 31st, 1869. To-morrow I will return registered your book, which I have kept so long. I am most sincerely obliged for its loan, and especially for the MS., without which I should have been afraid of making mistakes. If you require it, the MS. shall be returned. Your results have been of more use to me than, I think, any other set of papers which I can remember. Sir C. Lyell, who is staying here, is very unwilling to admit the greater warmth of the S. hemisphere during the Glacial period in the N.; but, as I have told him, this conclusion which you have arrived at from physical considerations, explains so well whole classes of facts in distribution, that I must joyfully accept it; indeed, I go so far as to think that your conclusion is strengthened by the facts in distribution. Your discussion on the flowing of the great ice-cap southward is most interesting. I suppose that you have read Mr. Moseley's recent discussion on the force of gravity being quite insufficient to account for the downward movement of glaciers (510/1. Canon Henry Moseley, "On the Mechanical Impossibility of the Descent of Glaciers by their Weight only." "Proc. R. Soc." Volume XVII., page 202, 1869; "Phil. Mag." Volume XXXVII., page 229, 1869.): if he is right, do you not think that the unknown force may make more intelligible the extension of the great northern ice-cap? Notwithstanding your excellent remarks on the work which can be effected within the million years (510/2. In his paper "On Geological Time, and the probable Date of the Glacial and the Upper Miocene Period" ("Phil. Mag." Volume XXXV., page 363, 1868), Croll endeavours to convey to the mind some idea of what a million years really is: "Take a narrow strip of paper, an inch broad or more, and 83 feet 4 inches in length, and stretch it along the wall of a large hall, or round the walls of an apartment somewhat over 20 feet square. Recall to memory the days of your boyhood, so as to get some adequate conception of what a period of a hundred years is. Then mark off from one of the ends of the strip one-tenth of an inch. The one-tenth of an inch will then represent a hundred years, and the entire length of the strip a million of years" (loc. cit., page 375).), I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thomson (510/3. In a paper communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) stated his belief that the age of our planet must be more than twenty millions of years, but not more than four hundred millions of years ("Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XXIII., page 157, 1861, "On the Secular Cooling of the Earth."). This subject has been recently dealt with by Sir Archibald Geikie in his address as President of the Geological Section of the British Association, 1899 ("Brit. Assoc. Report," Dover Meeting, 1899, page 718).), for I require for my theoretical views a very long period BEFORE the Cambrian formation. If it would not trouble you, I should like to hear what you think of Lyell's remark on the magnetic force which comes from the sun to the earth: might not this penetrate the crust of the earth and then be converted into heat? This would give a somewhat longer time during which the crust might have been solid; and this is the argument on which Sir W. Thomson seems chiefly to rest. You seem to argue chiefly on the expenditure of energy of all kinds by the sun, and in this respect Lyell's remark would have no bearing. My new edition of the "Origin" (510/4. Fifth edition, May, 1869.) will be published, I suppose, in about two months, and for the chance of your liking to have a copy I will send one. P.S.--I wish that you would turn your astronomical knowledge to the consideration whether the form of the globe does not become periodically slightly changed, so as to account for the many repeated ups and downs of the surface in all parts of the world. I have always thought that some cosmical cause would some day be discovered. LETTER 511. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 12th [1872]. I have been glad to see the enclosed and return it. It seems to me very cool in Agassiz to doubt the recent upheaval of Patagonia, without having visited any part; and he entirely misrepresents me in saying that I infer upheaval from the form of the land, as I trusted entirely to shells embedded and on the surface. It is simply monstrous to suppose that the terraces stretching on a dead level for leagues along the coast, and miles in breadth, and covered with beds of stratified gravel, 10 to 30 feet in thickness, are due to subaerial denudation. As for the pond of salt-water twice or thrice the density of sea-water, and nearly dry, containing sea-shells in the same relative proportions as on the adjoining coast, it almost passes my belief. Could there have been a lively midshipman on board, who in the morning stocked the pool from the adjoining coast? As for glaciation, I will not venture to express any opinion, for when in S. America I knew nothing about glaciers, and perhaps attributed much to icebergs which ought to be attributed to glaciers. On the other hand, Agassiz seems to me mad about glaciers, and apparently never thinks of drift ice. I did see one clear case of former great extension of a glacier in T. del Fuego. LETTER 512. TO J. GEIKIE. (512/1. The following letter was in reply to a request from Prof. James Geikie for permission to publish Mr. Darwin's views, communicated in a previous letter (November 1876), on the vertical position of stones in gravelly drift near Southampton. Prof. Geikie wrote (July 15th, 1880): "You may remember that you attributed the peculiar position of those stones to differential movements in the drift itself arising from the slow melting of beds of frozen snow interstratified into the gravels...I have found this explanation of great service even in Scotland, and from what I have seen of the drift-gravels in various parts of southern England and northern France, I am inclined to think that it has a wide application.") Down, July 19th, 1880. Your letter has pleased me very much, and I truly feel it an honour that anything which I wrote on the drift, etc., should have been of the least use or interest to you. Pray make any use of my letter (512/2. Professor James Geikie quotes the letter in "Prehistoric Europe," London, 1881 (page 141). Practically the whole of it is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 213.): I forget whether it was written carefully or clearly, so pray touch up any passages that you may think fit to quote. All that I have seen since near Southampton and elsewhere has strengthened my notion. Here I live on a chalk platform gently sloping down from the edge of the escarptment to the south (512/3. Id est, sloping down from the escarpment which is to the south.) (which is about 800 feet in height) to beneath the Tertiary beds to the north. The (512/4. From here to the end of the paragraph is quoted by Prof. Geikie, loc. cit., page 142.) beds of the large and broad valleys (and only of these) are covered with an immense mass of closely packed broken and angular flints; in which mass the skull of the musk-ox [musk-sheep] and woolly elephant have been found. This great accumulation of unworn flints must therefore have been made when the climate was cold, and I believe it can be accounted for by the larger valleys having been filled up to a great depth during a large part of the year with drifted frozen snow, over which rubbish from the upper parts of the platforms was washed by the summer rains, sometimes along one line and sometimes along another, or in channels cut through the snow all along the main course of the broad valleys. I suppose that I formerly mentioned to you the frequent upright position of elongated flints in the red clayey residue over the chalk, which residue gradually subsides into the troughs and pipes corroded in the solid chalk. This letter is very untidy, but I am tired. P.S. Several palaeolithic celts have recently been found in the great angular gravel-bed near Southampton in several places. LETTER 513. TO D. MACKINTOSH. Down, November 13th, 1880. Your discovery is a very interesting one, and I congratulate you on it. (513/1. "On the Precise Mode of Accumulation and Derivation of the Moel-Tryfan Shelly Deposits; on the Discovery of Similar High-level Deposits along the Eastern Slopes of the Welsh Mountains; and on the Existence of Drift-Zones, showing probable Variations in the Rate of Submergence." By D. Mackintosh, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVII., pages 351-69, 1881. [Read April 27th, 1881.]) I failed to find shells on Moel Tryfan, but was interested by finding ("Philosoph. Mag." 3rd series, Volume XXI., page 184) shattered rocks (513/2. In reviewing the work by previous writers on the Moel-Tryfan deposits, Mackintosh refers to Darwin's "very suggestive description of the Moel-Tryfan deposits...Under the drift he saw that the surface of the slate, TO A DEPTH OF SEVERAL FEET, HAD BEEN SHATTERED AND CONTORTED IN A VERY PECULIAR MANNER." The contortion of the slate, which Mackintosh regarded as "the most interesting of the Moel-Tryfan phenomena," had not previously been regarded as "sufficiently striking to arrest attention" by any geologist except Darwin. The Pleistocene gravel and sand containing marine shells on Moel-Tryfan, about five miles south-east of Caernarvon, have been the subject of considerable controversy. By some geologists the drift deposits have been regarded as evidence of a great submergence in post-Pliocene times, while others have explained their occurrence at a height of 1300 feet by assuming that the gravel and sand had been thrust uphill by an advancing ice-sheet. (See H.B. Woodward, "Geology of England and Wales," Edition II., 1887, pages 491, 492.) Darwin attributed the shattering and contorting of the slates below the drift to "icebergs grating over the surface.") and far-distant rounded boulders, which I attributed to the violent impact of icebergs or coast-ice. I can offer no opinion on whether the more recent changes of level in England were or were not accompanied by earthquakes. It does not seem to me a correct expression (which you use probably from haste in your note) to speak of elevations or depressions as caused by earthquakes: I suppose that every one admits that an earthquake is merely the vibration from the fractured crust when it yields to an upward or downward force. I must confess that of late years I have often begun to suspect (especially when I think of the step-like plains of Patagonia, the heights of which were measured by me) that many of the changes of level in the land are due to changes of level in the sea. (513/3. This view is an agreement with the theory recently put forward by Suess in his "Antlitz der Erde" (Prag and Leipzig, 1885). Suess believes that "the local invasions and transgressions of the continental areas by the sea" are due to "secular movements of the hydrosphere itself." (See J. Geikie, F.R.S., Presidential Address before Section E at the Edinburgh Meeting of the British Association, "Annual Report," page 794.) I suppose that there can be no doubt that when there was much ice piled up in the Arctic regions the sea would be attracted to them, and the land on the temperate regions would thus appear to have risen. There would also be some lowering of the sea by evaporation and the fixing of the water as ice near the Pole. I shall read your paper with much interest when published. LETTER 514. TO J. GEIKIE. Down, December 13th, 1880. You must allow me the pleasure of thanking you for the great interest with which I have read your "Prehistoric Europe." (514/1. "Prehistoric Europe: a Geological Sketch," London, 1881.) Nothing has struck me more than the accumulated evidence of interglacial periods, and assuredly the establishment of such periods is of paramount importance for understanding all the later changes of the earth's surface. Reading your book has brought vividly before my mind the state of knowledge, or rather ignorance, half a century ago, when all superficial matter was classed as diluvium, and not considered worthy of the attention of a geologist. If you can spare the time (though I ask out of mere idle curiosity) I should like to hear what you think of Mr. Mackintosh's paper, illustrated by a little map with lines showing the courses or sources of the erratic boulders over the midland counties of England. (514/2. "Results of a Systematic Survey, in 1878, of the Directions and Limits of Dispersion, Mode of Occurrence, and Relation to Drift-Deposits of the Erratic Blocks or Boulders of the West of England and East of Wales, including a Revision of Many Years' Previous Observations," D. Mackintosh, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXV., page 425, 1879.) It is a little suspicious their ending rather abruptly near Wolverhampton, yet I must think that they were transported by floating ice. Fifty years ago I knew Shropshire well, and cannot remember anything like till, but abundance of gravel and sand beds, with recent marine shells. A great boulder (514/3. Mackintosh alludes (loc. cit., page 442) to felstone boulders around Ashley Heath, the highest ground between the Pennine and Welsh Hills north of the Wrekin; also to a boulder on the summit of the eminence (774 feet above sea-level), "probably the same as that noticed many years ago by Mr. Darwin." In a later paper, "On the Correlation of the Drift-Deposits of the North-West of England with those of the Midland and Eastern Counties" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVI., page 178, 1880) Mackintosh mentions a letter received from Darwin, "who was the first to elucidate the boulder-transporting agency of floating ice," containing an account of the great Ashley Heath boulder, which he was the first to discover and expose,...so as to find that the block rested on fragments of New Red Sandstone, one of which was split into two and deeply scored...The facts mentioned in the letter from Mr. Darwin would seem to show that the boulder must have fallen through water from floating ice with a force sufficient to split the underlying lump of sandstone, but not sufficient to crush it.") which I had undermined on the summit of Ashley Heath, 720 (?) feet above the sea, rested on clean blocks of the underlying red sandstone. I was also greatly interested by your long discussion on the Loss (514/4. For an account of the Loss of German geologists--"a fine-grained, more or less homogeneous, consistent, non-plastic loam, consisting of an intimate admixture of clay and carbonate of lime," see J. Geikie, loc. cit., page 144 et seq.); but I do not feel satisfied that all has been made out about it. I saw much brick-earth near Southampton in some manner connected with the angular gravel, but had not strength enough to make out relations. It might be worth your while to bear in mind the possibility of fine sediment washed over and interstratified with thick beds of frozen snow, and therefore ultimately dropped irrespective of the present contour of the country. I remember as a boy that it was said that the floods of the Severn were more muddy when the floods were caused by melting snow than from the heaviest rains; but why this should be I cannot see. Another subject has interested me much--viz. the sliding and travelling of angular debris. Ever since seeing the "streams of stones" at the Falkland Islands (514/5. "Geological Observations on South America" (1846), page 19 et seq.), I have felt uneasy in my mind on this subject. I wish Mr. Kerr's notion could be fully elucidated about frozen snow. Some one ought to observe the movements of the fields of snow which supply the glaciers in Switzerland. Yours is a grand book, and I thank you heartily for the instruction and pleasure which it has given me. For heaven's sake forgive the untidiness of this whole note. LETTER 515. TO JOHN LUBBOCK [Lord Avebury]. Down, November 6th, 1881. If I had written your Address (515/1. Address delivered by Lord Avebury as President of the British Association at York in 1881. Dr. Hicks is mentioned as having classed the pre-Cambrian strata in "four great groups of immense thickness and implying a great lapse of time" and giving no evidence of life. Hicks' third formation was named by him the Arvonian ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVII., 1881, Proc., page 55.) (but this requires a fearful stretch of imagination on my part) I should not alter what I had said about Hicks. You have the support of the President [of the] Geological Society (515/2. Robert Etheridge.), and I think that Hicks is more likely to be right than X. The latter seems to me to belong to the class of objectors general. If Hicks should be hereafter proved to be wrong about this third formation, it would signify very little to you. I forget whether you go as far as to support Ramsay about lakes as large as the Italian ones: if so, I would myself modify the passage a little, for these great lakes have always made me tremble for Ramsay, yet some of the American geologists support him about the still larger N. American lakes. I have always believed in the main in Ramsay's views from the date of publication, and argued the point with Lyell, and am convinced that it is a very interesting step in Geology, and that you were quite right to allude to it. (515/3. "Glacial Origin of Lakes in Switzerland, Black Forest, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., pages 185-204, 1862). Sir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury) gives a brief statement of Ramsay's views concerning the origin of lakes (Presidential Address, Brit. Assoc. 1881, page 22): "Prof. Ramsay divides lakes into three classes: (1) Those which are due to irregular accumulations of drift, and which are generally quite shallow; (2) those which are formed by moraines; and (3) those which occupy true basins scooped by glaciers out of the solid rocks. To the latter class belong, in his opinion, most of the great Swiss and Italian lakes...Professor Ramsay's theory seems, therefore, to account for a large number of interesting facts." Sir Archibald Geikie has given a good summary of Ramsay's theory in his "Memoir of Sir Andrew Crombie Ramsay," page 361, London, 1895.) LETTER 516. TO D. MACKINTOSH. Down, February 28th, 1882. I have read professor Geikie's essay, and it certainly appears to me that he underrated the importance of floating ice. (516/1. "The Intercrossing of Erratics in Glacial Deposits," by James Geikie, "Scottish Naturalist," 1881.) Memory extending back for half a century is worth a little, but I can remember nothing in Shropshire like till or ground moraine, yet I can distinctly remember the appearance of many sand and gravel beds--in some of which I found marine shells. I think it would be well worth your while to insist (but perhaps you have done so) on the absence of till, if absent in the Western Counties, where you find many erratic boulders. I was pleased to read the last sentence in Geikie's essay about the value of your work. (516/2. The concluding paragraph reads as follows: "I cannot conclude this paper without expressing my admiration for the long-continued and successful labours of the well-known geologist whose views I have been controverting. Although I entered my protest against his iceberg hypothesis, and have freely criticised his theoretical opinions, I most willingly admit that the results of his unwearied devotion to the study of those interesting phenomena with which he is so familiar have laid all his fellow-workers under a debt of gratitude." Mr. Darwin used to speak with admiration of Mackintosh's work, carried on as it was under considerable difficulties.) With respect to the main purport of your note, I hardly know what to say. Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. I remember the time, above fifty years ago, when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces. As far as external form is concerned, Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised and inorganised bodies. If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e., fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly. If you have not read W. Graham's "Creed of Science," (516/3. "The Creed of Science: Religious, Moral, and Social," London, 1881.), it would, I think, interest you, and he supports the view which you are inclined to uphold. 2.IX.III. THE PARALLEL ROADS OF GLEN ROY, 1841-1880. (517/1. In the bare hilly country of Lochaber, in the Scotch Highlands, the slopes of the mountains overlooking the vale of Glen Roy are marked by narrow terraces or parallel roads, which sweep round the shoulders of the hills with "undeviating horizontality." These roads are described by Sir Archibald Geikie as having long been "a subject of wonderment and legendary story among the Highlanders, and for so many years a source of sore perplexity among men of science." (517/2. "The Scenery of Scotland," 1887, page 266.) In Glen Roy itself there are three distinct shelves or terraces, and the mountain sides of the valley of the Spean and other glens bear traces of these horizontal "roads." The first important papers dealing with the origin of this striking physical feature were those of MacCulloch (517/3. "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., page 314, 1817.) and Sir Thomas Lauder Dick (517/4. "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume IX., page 1, 1823.), in which the writers concluded that the roads were the shore-lines of lakes which once filled the Lochaber valleys. Towards the end of June 1838 Mr. Darwin devoted "eight good days" (517/5. "Life and Letters," I., page 290.) to the examination of the Lochaber district, and in the following year he communicated a paper to the Royal Society of London, in which he attributed their origin to the action of the sea, and regarded them as old sea beaches which had been raised to their present level by a gradual elevation of the Lochaber district. In 1840 Louis Agassiz and Buckland (517/6. "Edinb. New Phil. Journal," Volume XXXIII., page 236, 1842.) proposed the glacier-ice theory; they described the valleys as having been filled with lakes dammed back by glaciers which formed bars across the valleys of Glen Roy, Glen Spean, and the other glens in which the hill-sides bear traces of old lake-margins. Agassiz wrote in 1842: "When I visited the parallel roads of Glen Roy with Dr. Buckland we were convinced that the glacial theory alone satisfied all the exigencies of the phenomenon." (517/7. Ibid., page 236.) Mr. David Milne (afterwards Milne-Home) (517/8. "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XVI., page 395, 1847.) in 1847 upheld the view that the ledges represent the shore-lines of lakes which were imprisoned in the valleys by dams of detrital material left in the glens during a submergence of 3,000 feet, at the close of the Glacial period. Chambers, in his "Ancient Sea Margins" (1848), expressed himself in agreement with Mr. Darwin's marine theory. The Agassiz-Buckland theory was supported by Mr. Jamieson (517/9. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIX., page 235, 1863.), who brought forward additional evidence in favour of the glacial barriers. Sir Charles Lyell at first (517/10. "Elements of Geology," Edition II., 1841.) accepted the explanation given by Mr. Darwin, but afterwards (517/11. "Antiquity of Man," 1863, pages 252 et seq.) came to the conclusion that the terrace-lines represent the beaches of glacial lakes. In a paper published in 1878 (517/12. "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1879, page 663.), Prof. Prestwich stated his acceptance of the lake theory of MacCulloch and Sir T. Lauder Dick and of the glacial theory of Agassiz, but differed from these authors in respect of the age of the lakes and the manner of formation of the roads. The view that has now gained general acceptance is that the parallel roads of Glen Roy represent the shores of a lake "that came into being with the growth of the glaciers and vanished as these melted away." (517/13. Sir Archibald Geikie, loc. cit., page 269.) Mr. Darwin became a convert to the glacier theory after the publication of Mr. Jamieson's paper. He speaks of his own paper as "a great failure"; he argued in favour of sea action as the cause of the terraces "because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge." Convinced of his mistake, Darwin looked upon his error as "a good lesson never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion." (517/14. "Life and Letters," I., page 69.) LETTER 517. TO C. LYELL. [March 9th, 1841.] I have just received your note. It is the greatest pleasure to me to write or talk Geology with you... I think I have thought over the whole case without prejudice, and remain firmly convinced they [the parallel roads] are marine beaches. My principal reason for doing so is what I have urged in my paper (517/15. "Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of Marine Origin." "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 39.), the buttress-like accumulations of stratified shingle on sides of valley, especially those just below the lowest shelf in Spean Valley. 2nd. I can hardly conceive the extension of the glaciers in front of the valley of Kilfinnin, where I found a new road--where the sides of Great Glen are not very lofty. 3rd. The flat watersheds which I describe in places where there are no roads, as well as those connected with "roads." These remain unexplained. I might continue to add many other such reasons, all of which, however, I daresay would appear trifling to any one who had not visited the district. With respect to equable elevation, it cannot be a valid objection to any one who thinks of Scandinavia or the Pampas. With respect to the glacier theory, the greatest objection appears to me the following, though possibly not a sound one. The water has beyond doubt remained very long at the levels of each shelf--this is unequivocally shown by the depth of the notch or beach formed in many places in the hard mica-slate, and the large accumulations or buttresses of well-rounded pebbles at certain spots on the level of old beaches. (The time must have been immense, if formed by lakes without tides.) During the existence of the lakes their drainage must have been at the head of the valleys, and has given the flat appearance of the watersheds. All this is very clear for four of the shelves (viz., upper and lower in Glen Roy, the 800-foot one in Glen Spean, and the one in Kilfinnin), and explains the coincidence of "roads" with the watersheds more simply than my view, and as simply as the common lake theory. But how was the Glen Roy lake drained when the water stood at level of the middle "road"? It must (for there is no other exit whatever) have been drained over the glacier. Now this shelf is full as narrow in a vertical line and as deeply worn horizontally into the mountain side and with a large accumulation of shingle (I can give cases) as the other shelves. We must, therefore, on the glacier theory, suppose that the surface of the ice remained at exactly the same level, not being worn down by the running water, or the glacier moved by its own movement during the very long period absolutely necessary for a quiet lake to form such a beach as this shelf presents in its whole course. I do not know whether I have explained myself clearly. I should like to know what you think of this difficulty. I shall much like to talk over the Jura case with you. I am tired, so goodbye. LETTER 518. TO L. HORNER. Down [1846]. (518/1. It was agreed at the British Association meeting held at Southampton in 1846 "That application be made to Her Majesty's Government to direct that during the progress of the Ordnance Trigonometrical Surveys in the North of Scotland, the so-called Parallel Roads of Glen Roy and the adjoining country be accurately surveyed, with the view of determining whether they are truly parallel and horizontal, the intervening distances, and their elevations above the present sea-level" ("British Association Report," 1846, page xix). The survey was undertaken by the Government Ordnance Survey Office under Col. Sir Henry James, who published the results in 1874 ("Notes on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy"); the map on which the details are given is sheet 63 (one-inch scale).) In following your suggestion in drawing out something about Glen Roy for the Geological Committee, I have been completely puzzled how to do it. I have written down what I should say if I had to meet the head of the Survey and wished to persuade him to undertake the task; but as I have written it, it is too long, ill expressed, seems as if it came from nobody and was going to nobody, and therefore I send it to you in despair, and beg you to turn the subject in your mind. I feel a conviction if it goes through the Geological part of Ordnance Survey it will be swamped, and as it is a case for mere accurate measurements it might, I think without offence, go to the head of the real Surveyors. If Agassiz or Buckland are on the Committee they will sneer at the whole thing and declare the beaches are those of a glacier-lake, than which I am sure I could convince you that there never was a more futile theory. I look forward to Southampton (518/2. The British Association meeting (1846).) with much interest, and hope to hear to-morrow that the lodgings are secured to us. You cannot think how thoroughly I enjoyed our geological talks, and the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Horner and yourself here. (518/3. This letter is published in the privately printed "Memoir of Leonard Horner," II., page 103.) [Here follows Darwin's Memorandum.] The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, in Scotland, have been the object of repeated examination, but they have never hitherto been levelled with sufficient accuracy. Sir T. Lauder Dick (518/4. "On the Parallel Roads of Lochaber" (with map and plates), by Sir Thomas Lauder Dick, "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume IX., page 1, 1823.) procured the assistance of an engineer for this purpose, but owing to the want of a true ground-plan it was impossible to ascertain their exact curvature, which, as far as could be estimated, appeared equal to that of the surface of the sea. Considering how very rarely the sea has left narrow and well-defined marks of its action at any considerable height on the land, and more especially considering the remarkable observations by M. Bravais (518/5. "On the Lines of Ancient Level of the Sea in Finmark," by M. A. Bravais, translated from "Voyages de la Commission Scientifique du Nord, etc."; "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume I., page 534, 1845.) on the ancient sea-beaches of Scandinavia, showing the they are not strictly parallel to each other, and that the movement has been greater nearer the mountains than on the coast, it appears highly desirable that the roads of Glen Roy should be examined with the utmost care during the execution of the Ordnance Survey of Scotland. The best instruments and the most accurate measurements being necessary for this end almost precludes the hope of its being ever undertaken by private individuals; but by the means at the disposal of the Ordnance, measurements would be easily made even more accurate than those of M. Bravais. It would be desirable to take two lines of the greatest possible length in the district, and at nearly right angles to each other, and to level from the beach at one extremity to that at the other, so that it might be ascertained whether the curvature does exactly correspond with that of the globe, or, if not, what is the direction of the line of greatest elevation. Much attention would be requisite in fixing on either the upper or lower edge of the ancient beaches as the standard of measurement, and in rendering this line conspicuous. The heights of the three roads, one above the other and above the level of the sea, ought to be accurately ascertained. Mr. Darwin observed one short beach-line north of Glen Roy, and he has indicated, on the authority of Sir David Brewster, others in the valley of the Spey. If these could be accurately connected, by careful measurements of their absolute heights or by levelling, with those of Glen Roy, it would make a most valuable addition to our knowledge on this subject. Although the observations here specified would probably be laborious, yet, considering how rarely such evidence is afforded in any quarter of the world, it cannot be doubted that one of the most important problems in Geology--namely, the exact manner in which the crust of the earth rises in mass--would be much elucidated, and a great service done to geological science. LETTER 519. R. CHAMBERS TO D. MILNE-HOME. St. Andrews, September 7th, 1847. I have had a letter to-day from Mr. Charles Darwin, beseeching me to obtain for him a copy of your paper on Glen Roy. (519/1. No doubt Mr. Milne's paper "On the Parallel Roads of Lochaber," "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XVI., page 395, 1849. [Read March 1st and April 5th, 1847.]) I am sure you will have pleasure in sending him one; his address is "Down, Farnborough, Kent." I have again read over your paper carefully, and feel assured that the careful collection and statement of facts which are found in it must redound to your credit with all candid persons. The suspicions, however, which I obtained some time ago as to land-straits and heights of country being connected with sea-margins and their ordinary memorials still possesses me, and I am looking forward to some means of further testing the Glen Roy mystery. If my suspicion turn out true, I shall at once be regretful on your account, and shall feel it as a great check and admonition to myself not to be too confident about anything in science till it has been proved over and over again. The ground hereabouts is now getting clear of the crops; perhaps when I am in town a few days hence we may be able to make some appointment for an examination of the beaches of the district, my list of which has been greatly enlarged during the last two months. LETTER 520. TO R. CHAMBERS. September 11th, 1847. I hope you will read the first part of my paper before you go [to Glen Roy], and attend to the manner in which the lines end in Glen Collarig. I wish Mr. Milne had read it more carefully. He misunderstands me in several respects, but [I] suppose it is my own fault, for my paper is most tediously written. Mr. Milne fights me very pleasantly, and I plead guilty to his rebuke about "demonstration." (520/1. See Letter 521, note.) I do not know what you think; but Mr. Milne will think me as obstinate as a pig when I say that I think any barriers of detritus at the mouth of Glen Roy, Collarig and Glaster more utterly impossible than words can express. I abide by all that I have written on that head. Conceive such a mass of detritus having been removed, without great projections being left on each side, in the very close proximity to every little delta preserved on the lines of the shelves, even on the shelf 4, which now crosses with uniform breadth the spot where the barrier stood, with the shelves dying gradually out, etc. To my mind it is monstrous. Oddly enough, Mr. Milne's description of the mouth of Loch Treig (I do not believe that valley has been well examined in its upper end) leaves hardly a doubt that a glacier descended from it, and, if the roads were formed by a lake of any kind, I believe it must have been an ice-lake. I have given in detail to Lyell my several reasons for not thinking ice-lakes probable (520/2. Mr. Darwin gives some arguments against the glacier theory in the letter (517) to Sir Charles Lyell; but the letter alluded to is no doubt the one written to Lyell on "Wednesday, 8th" (Letter 522), in which the reasons are fully stated.); but to my mind they are incomparably more probable than detritus of rock-barriers. Have you ever attended to glacier action? After having seen N. Wales, I can no more doubt the former existence of gigantic glaciers than I can the sun in the heaven. I could distinguish in N. Wales to a certain extent icebergs from glacier action (Lyell has shown that icebergs at the present day score rocks), and I suspect that in Lochaber the two actions are united, and that the scored rock on the watersheds, when tideways, were rubbed and bumped by half-stranded icebergs. You will, no doubt, attend to Glen Glaster. Mr. Milne, I think, does not mention whether shelf 4 enters it, which I should like to know, and especially he does not state whether rocks worn on their upper faces are found on the whole 212 [feet] vertical course of this Glen down to near L. Loggan, or whether only in the upper part; nor does he state whether these rocks are scored, or polished, or moutonnees, or whether there are any "perched" boulders there or elsewhere. I suspect it would be difficult to distinguish between a river-bed and tidal channel. Mr. Milne's description of the Pass of Mukkul, expanding to a width of several hundred yards 21 feet deep in the shoalest part, and with a worn islet in the middle, sounds to me much more like a tidal channel than a river-bed. There must have been, on the latter view, plenty of fresh water in those days. With respect to the coincidence of the shelves with the now watersheds, Mr. Milne only gives half of my explanation. Please read page 65 of my paper. (520/3. "Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other Parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an Attempt to Prove that they are of Marine Origin." "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 39. [Read February 7th, 1839.]) I allude only to the head of Glen Roy and Kilfinnin as silted up. I did not know Mukkul Pass; and Glen Roy was so much covered up that I did not search it well, as I was not able to walk very well. It has been an old conjectural belief of mine that a rising surface becomes stationary, not suddenly, but by the movement becoming very slow. Now, this would greatly aid the tidal currents cutting down the passes between the mountains just before, and to the level of, the stationary periods. The currents in the fiords in T. del Fuego in a narrow crooked part are often most violent; in other parts they seem to silt up. Shall you do any levelling? I believe all the levelling has been [done] in Glen Roy, nearly parallel to the Great Glen of Scotland. For inequalities of elevation, the valley of the Spean, at right angles to the apparent axes of elevation, would be the one to examine. If you go to the head of Glen Roy, attend to the apparent shelf above the highest one in Glen Roy, lying on the south side of Loch Spey, and therefore beyond the watershed of Glen Roy. It would be a crucial case. I was too unwell on that day to examine it carefully, and I had no levelling instruments. Do these fragments coincide in level with Glen Gluoy shelf? MacCulloch talks of one in Glen Turret above the shelf. I could not see it. These would be important discoveries. But I will write no more, and pray your forgiveness for this long, ill-written outpouring. I am very glad you keep to your subject of the terraces. I have lately observed that you have one great authority (C. Prevost), [not] that authority signifies a [farthing?] on your side respecting your heretical and damnable doctrine of the ocean falling. You see I am orthodox to the burning pitch. LETTER 521. TO D. MILNE-HOME. Down, [September] 20th, [1847]. I am much obliged by your note. I returned from London on Saturday, and I found then your memoir (521/1. "On the Parallel Roads of Lochaber, with Remarks on the Change of Relative Levels of Sea and Land in Scotland, and on the Detrital Deposits in that Country," "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XVI., page 395, 1849. [Read March 1st and April 5th, 1847.]), which I had not then received, owing to the porter having been out when I last sent to the Geological Society. I have read your paper with the greatest interest, and have been much struck with the novelty and importance of many of your facts. I beg to thank you for the courteous manner in which you combat me, and I plead quite guilty to your rebuke about demonstration. (521/2. Mr. Milne quotes a passage from Mr. Darwin's paper ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 56), in which the latter speaks of the marine origin of the parallel roads of Lochaber as appearing to him as having been demonstrated. Mr. Milne adds: "I regret that Mr. Darwin should have expressed himself in these very decided and confident terms, especially as his survey was incomplete; for I venture to think that it can be satisfactorily established that the parallel roads of Lochaber were formed by fresh-water lakes" (Milne, loc. cit., page 400).) You have misunderstood my paper on a few points, but I do not doubt that is owing to its being badly and tediously written. You will, I fear, think me very obstinate when I say that I am not in the least convinced about the barriers (521/3. Mr. Milne believed that the lower parts of the valleys were filled with detritus, which constituted barriers and thus dammed up the waters into lakes.): they remain to me as improbable as ever. But the oddest result of your paper on me (and I assure you, as far as I know myself, it is not perversity) is that I am very much staggered in favour of the ice-lake theory of Agassiz and Buckland (521/4. Agassiz and Buckland believed that the lakes which formed the "roads" were confined by glaciers or moraines. See "The Glacial Theory and its Recent Progress," by Louis Agassiz, "Edinb. New Phil. Journ." Volume XXXIII., page 217, 1842 (with map).): until I read your important discovery of the outlet in Glen Glaster I never thought this theory at all tenable. (521/5. Mr. Milne discovered that the middle shelf of Glen Roy, which Mr. Darwin stated was "not on a level with any watershed" (Darwin, loc. cit., page 43), exactly coincided with a watershed at the head of Glen Glaster (Milne, loc. cit., page 398).) Now it appears to me that a very good case can be made in its favour. I am not, however, as yet a believer in the ice-lake theory, but I tremble for the result. I have had a good deal of talk with Mr. Lyell on the subject, and from his advice I am going to send a letter to the "Scotsman," in which I give briefly my present impression (though there is not space to argue with you on such points as I think I could argue), and indicate what points strike me as requiring further investigation with respect, chiefly, to the ice-lake theory, so that you will not care about it... P.S.--Some facts mentioned in my "Geology of S. America," page 24 (521/6. The creeks which penetrate the western shores of Tierra del Fuego are described as "almost invariably much shallower close to the open sea at their mouths than inland...This shoalness of the sea-channels near their entrances probably results from the quantity of sediment formed by the wear and tear of the outer rocks exposed to the full force of the open sea. I have no doubt that many lakes--for instance, in Scotland--which are very deep within, and are separated from the sea apparently only by a tract of detritus, were originally sea-channels, with banks of this nature near their mouths, which have since been upheaved" ("Geol. Obs. S. America," page 24, footnote.), with regard to the shoaling of the deep fiords of T. del Fuego near their mouths, and which I have remarked would tend, with a little elevation, to convert such fiords into lakes with a great mound-like barrier of detritus at their mouths, might, possibly, have been of use to you with regard to the lakes of Glen Roy. LETTER 522. TO C. LYELL. Down, Wednesday, 8th. Many thanks for your paper. (522/1. "On the Ancient Glaciers of Forfarshire." "Proc. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page 337, 1840.) I do admire your zeal on a subject on which you are not immediately at work. I will give my opinion as briefly as I can, and I have endeavoured my best to be honest. Poor Mrs. Lyell will have, I foresee, a long letter to read aloud, but I will try to write better than usual. Imprimis, it is provoking that Mr. Milne (522/2. "On the Parallel Roads of Lochaber, etc." "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XVI., page 395, 1849. [Read March 1st and April 5th, 1847.]) has read my paper (522/3. "Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, etc." "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 39. [Read February 7th, 1839.].) with little attention, for he makes me say several things which I do not believe--as, that the water sunk suddenly! (page 10), that the Valley of Glen Roy, page 13, and Spean was filled up with detritus to level of the lower shelf, against which there is, I conceive, good evidence, etc., but I suppose it is the consequence of my paper being most tediously written. He gives me a just snub for talking of demonstration, and he fights me in a very pleasant manner. Now for business. I utterly disbelieve in the barriers (522/4. See note, Letter 521.) for his lakes, and think he has left that point exactly where it was in the time of MacCulloch (522/5. "On the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy." "Geol. Trans." Volume IV., page 314, 1817 (with several maps and sections).) and Dick. (522/6. "On the Parallel Roads of Lochaber." "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume IX., page 1, 1823.) Indeed, in showing that there is a passage at Glen Glaster at the level of the intermediate shelf, he makes the difficulty to my mind greater. (522/7. See Letter 521, note.) When I think of the gradual manner in which the two upper terraces die out at Glen Collarig and at the mouth of Glen Roy, the smooth rounded form of the hills there, and the lower shelf retaining its usual width where the immense barrier stood, I can deliberately repeat "that more convincing proofs of the non-existence of the imaginary Loch Roy could scarcely have been invented with full play given to the imagination," etc.: but I do not adhere to this remark with such strength when applied to the glacier-lake theory. Oddly, I was never at all staggered by this theory until now, having read Mr. Milne's argument against it. I now can hardly doubt that a great glacier did emerge from Loch Treig, and this by the ice itself (not moraine) might have blocked up the three outlets from Glen Roy. I do not, however, yet believe in the glacier theory, for reasons which I will presently give. There are three chief hostile considerations in Mr. Milne's paper. First, the Glen [shelf?], not coinciding in height with the upper one [outlet?], from observations giving 12 feet, 15 feet, 29 feet, 23 feet: if the latter are correct the terrace must be quite independent, and the case is hostile; but Mr. Milne shows that there is one in Glen Roy 14 feet below the upper one, and a second one again (which I observed) beneath this, and then we come to the proper second shelf. Hence there is no great improbability in an independent shelf having been found in Glen Gluoy. This leads me to Mr. Milne's second class of facts (obvious to every one), namely the non-extension of the three shelves beyond Glen Roy; but I abide by what I have written on that point, and repeat that if in Glen Roy, where circumstances have been so favourable for the preservation or formation of the terraces, a terrace could be formed quite plain for three-quarters of a mile with hardly a trace elsewhere, we cannot argue, from the non-existence of shelves, that water did not stand at the same levels in other valleys. Feeling absolutely convinced that there was no barrier of detritus at the mouth of Glen Roy, and pretty well convinced that there was none of ice, the manner in which the terraces die out when entering Glen Spean, which must have been a tideway, shows on what small circumstances the formation of these shelves depended. With respect to the non-existence of shelves in other parts of Scotland, Mr. Milne shows that many others do exist, and their heights above the sea have not yet been carefully measured, nor have even those of Glen Roy, which I suspect are all 100 feet too high. Moreover, according to Bravais (522/8. "On the Lines of Ancient Level of the Sea in Finmark." By A. Bravais, Member of the Scientific Commission of the North. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume I., page 534, 1845 (a translation).), we must not feel sure that either the absolute height or the intermediate heights between the terraces would be at all the same at distant points. In levelling the terraces in Lochaber, all, I believe, have been taken in Glen Roy, nearly N. and S. There should be levels taken at right angles to this line and to the Great Glen of Scotland or chief line of elevation. Thirdly, the nature of the outlets from the supposed lakes. This appears to me the best and newest part of the paper. If Sir James Clark would like to attend to any particular points, direct his attention to this: especially to follow Glen Glaster from Glen Roy to L. Laggan. Mr. Milne describes this as an old and great river-course with a fall of 212 feet. He states that the rocks are smooth on upper face and rough on lower, but he does not mention whether this character prevails throughout the whole 212 vertical feet--a most important consideration; nor does he state whether these rocks are polished or scratched, as might have happened even to a considerable depth beneath the water (Mem. great icebergs in narrow fiords of T. del Fuego (522/9. In the "Voyage of the 'Beagle'" a description is given of the falling of great masses of ice from the icy cliffs of the glaciers with a crash that "reverberates like the broadside of a man-of-war, through the lonely channels" which intersect the coast-line of Tierra del Fuego. Loc. cit., page 246.)) by the action of icebergs, for that icebergs transported boulders on to terraces, I have no doubt. Mr. Milne's description of the outlets of his lake sound to me more like tidal channels, nor does he give any arguments how such are to be distinguished from old river-courses. I cannot believe in the body of fresh water which must, on the lake theory, have flowed out of them. At the Pass of Mukkul he states that the outlet is 70 feet wide and the rocky bottom 21 feet below the level of the shelf, and that the gorge expands to the eastwards into a broad channel of several hundred yards in width, divided in the middle by what has formerly been a rocky islet, against which the waters of this large river had chafed in issuing from the pass. We know the size of the river at the present day which would flow out through this pass, and it seems to me (and in the other given cases) to be as inadequate; the whole seems to me far easier explained by a tideway than by a formerly more humid climate. With respect to the very remarkable coincidence between the shelves and the outlets (rendered more remarkable by Mr. Milne's discovery of the outlet to the intermediate shelf at Glen Glaster (522/10. See Letter 521, note.)), Mr. Milne gives only half of my explanation; he alludes to (and disputes) the smoothing and silting-up action, which I still believe in. I state: If we consider what must take place during the gradual rise of a group of islands, we shall have the currents endeavouring to cut down and deepen some shallow parts in the channels as they are successively brought near the surface, but tending from the opposition of tides to choke up others with littoral deposits. During a long interval of rest, from the length of time allowed to the above processes, the tendency would often prove effective, both in forming, by accumulation of matter, isthmuses, and in keeping open channels. Hence such isthmuses and channels just kept open would oftener be formed at the level which the waters held at the interval of rest, than at any other (page 65). I look at the Pass of Mukkul (21 feet deep, Milne) as a channel just kept open, and the head of Glen Roy (where there is a great bay silted up) and of Kilfinnin (at both which places there are level-topped mounds of detritus above the level of the terraces) as instances of channels filled up at the stationary levels. I have long thought it a probable conjecture that when a rising surface becomes stationary it becomes so, not at once, but by the movements first becoming very slow; this would greatly favour the cutting down many gaps in the mountains to the level of the stationary periods. GLACIER THEORY. If a glacialist admitted that the sea, before the formation of the terraces, covered the country (which would account for land-straits above level of terraces), and that the land gradually emerged, and if he supposed his lakes were banked by ice alone, he would make out, in my opinion, the best case against the marine origin of the terraces. From the scattered boulders and till, you and I must look at it as certain that the sea did cover the whole country, and I abide quite by my arguments from the buttresses, etc., that water of some kind receded slowly from the valleys of Lochaber (I presume Mr. Milne admits this). Now, I do not believe in the ice-lake theory, from the following weak but accumulating reasons: because, 1st, the receding water must have been that of a lake in Glen Spean, and of the sea in the other valleys of Scotland, where I saw similar buttresses at many levels; 2nd, because the outlets of the supposed lakes as already stated seem, from Mr. Milne's statements, too much worn and too large; 3rd, when the lake stood at the three-quarters of a mile shelf the water from it must have flowed over ice itself for a very long time, and kept at the same exact level: certainly this shelf required a long time for its formation; 4th, I cannot believe a glacier would have blocked up the short, very wide valley of Kilfinnin, the Great Glen of Scotland also being very low there; 5th, the country at some places where Mr. Milne has described terraces is not mountainous, and the number of ice-lakes appears to me very improbable; 6th, I do not believe any lake could scoop the rocks so much as they are at the entrance to Loch Treig or cut them off at the head of Upper Glen Roy; 7th, the very gradual dying away of the terraces at the mouth of Glen Roy does not look like a barrier of any kind; 8th, I should have expected great terminal moraines across the mouth of Glen Roy, Glen Collarig, and Glaster, at least at the bottom of the valleys. Such, I feel pretty sure, do not exist. I fear I must have wearied you with the length of this letter, which I have not had time to arrange properly. I could argue at great length against Mr. Milne's theory of barriers of detritus, though I could help him in one way--viz., by the soundings which occur at the entrances of the deepest fiords in T. del Fuego. I do not think he gives the smallest satisfaction with respect to the successive and comparatively sudden breakage of his many lakes. Well, I enjoyed my trip to Glen Roy very much, but it was time thrown away. I heartily wish you would go there; it should be some one who knows glacier and iceberg action, and sea action well. I wish the Queen would command you. I had intended being in London to-morrow, but one of my principal plagues will, I believe, stop me; if I do I will assuredly call on you. I have not yet read Mr. Milne on Elevation (522/11. "On a Remarkable Oscillation of the Sea, observed at Various Places on the Coasts of Great Britain in the First Week of July, 1843." "Trans. R. Soc. Edinb." Volume XV., page 609, 1844.), so will keep his paper for a day or two. P.S.--As you cannot want this letter, I wish you would return it to me, as it will serve as a memorandum for me. Possibly I shall write to Mr. Chambers, though I do not know whether he will care about what I think on the subject. This letter is too long and ill-written for Sir J. Clark. LETTER 523. TO LADY LYELL. [October 4th, 1847.] I enclose a letter from Chambers, which has pleased me very much (which please return), but I cannot feel quite so sure as he does. If the Lochaber and Tweed roads really turn out exactly on a level, the sea theory is proved. What a magnificent proof of equality of elevation, which does not surprise me much; but I fear I see cause of doubt, for as far as I remember there are numerous terraces, near Galashiels, with small intervals of height, so that the coincidence of height might be cooked. Chambers does not seem aware of one very striking coincidence, viz., that I made by careful measurement my Kilfinnin terrace 1202 feet above sea, and now Glen Gluoy is 1203 feet, according to the recent more careful measurements. Even Agassiz (523/1. "On the Glacial Theory," by Louis Agassiz, "Edinb. New Phil. Journ." Volume XXXIII., page 217, 1842. The parallel terraces are dealt with by Agassiz, pages 236 et seq.) would be puzzled to block up Glen Gluoy and Kilfinnin by the same glacier, and then, moreover, the lake would have two outlets. With respect to the middle terrace of Glen Roy--seen by Chambers in the Spean (figured by Agassiz, and seen by myself but not noticed, as I thought it might have been a sheep track)--it might yet have been formed on the ice-lake theory by two independent glaciers going across the Spean, but it is very improbable that two such immense ones should not have been united into one. Chambers, unfortunately, does not seem to have visited the head of the Spey, and I have written to propose joining funds and sending some young surveyor there. If my letter is published in the "Scotsman," how Buckland (523/2. Professor Buckland may be described as joint author, with Agassiz, of the Glacier theory.), as I have foreseen, will crow over me: he will tell me he always knew that I was wrong, but now I shall have rather ridiculously to say, "but I am all right again." I have been a good deal interested in Miller (523/3. Hugh Miller's "First Impressions of England and its People," London, 1847.), but I find it not quick reading, and Emma has hardly begun it yet. I rather wish the scenic descriptions were shorter, and that there was a little less geologic eloquence. Lyell's picture now hangs over my chimneypiece, and uncommonly glad I am to have it, and thank you for it. LETTER 524. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 6th [1861]. I think the enclosed is worth your reading. I am smashed to atoms about Glen Roy. My paper was one long gigantic blunder from beginning to end. Eheu! Eheu! (524/1. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 68, 69, also pages 290, 291.) LETTER 525. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 22nd [1861]. I have read Mr. Jamieson's last letter, like the former ones, with very great interest. (525/1. Mr. Jamieson visited Glen Roy in August 1861 and in July 1862. His paper "On the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and their Place in the History of the Glacial Period," was published in the "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society" in 1863, Volume XIX., page 235. His latest contribution to this subject was published in the "Quarterly Journal," Volume XLVIII., page 5, 1892.) What a problem you have in hand! It beats manufacturing new species all to bits. It would be a great personal consolation to me if Mr. J. can admit the sloping Spean terrace to be marine, and would remove one of my greatest difficulties--viz. the vast contrast of Welsh and Lochaber valleys. But then, as far as I dare trust my observations, the sloping terraces ran far up the Roy valley, so as to reach not far below the lower shelf. If the sloping fringes are marine and the shelves lacustrine, all I can say is that nature has laid a shameful trap to catch an unwary wretch. I suppose that I have underrated the power of lakes in producing pebbles; this, I think, ought to be well looked to. I was much struck in Wales on carefully comparing the glacial scratches under a lake (formed by a moraine and which must have existed since the Glacial epoch) and above water, and I could perceive NO difference. I believe I saw many such beds of good pebbles on level of lower shelf, which at the time I could not believe could have been found on shores of lake. The land-straits and little cliffs above them, to which I referred, were quite above the highest shelf; they may be of much more ancient date than the shelves. Some terrace-like fringes at head of the Spey strike me as very suspicious. Mr. J. refers to absence of pebbles at considerable heights: he must remember that every storm, every deer, every hare which runs tends to roll pebbles down hill, and not one ever goes up again. I may mention that I particularly alluded to this on S. Ventanao (525/2. "Geolog. Obs. on South America," page 79. "On the flanks of the mountains, at a height of 300 or 400 feet above the plain, there were a few small patches of conglomerate and breccia, firmly cemented by ferruginous matter to the abrupt and battered face of the quartz--traces being thus exhibited of ancient sea-action.") in N. Patagonia, a great isolated rugged quartz-mountain 3,000 feet high, and I could find not one pebble except on one very small spot, where a ferruginous spring had firmly cemented a few to the face of mountain. If the Lochaber lakes had been formed by an ice-period posterior to the (marine?) sloping terraces in the Spean, would not Mr. J. have noticed gigantic moraines across the valley opposite the opening of Lake Treig? I go so far as not to like making the elevation of the land in Wales and Scotland considerably different with respect to the ice-period, and still more do I dislike it with respect to E. and W. Scotland. But I may be prejudiced by having been so long accustomed to the plains of Patagonia. But the equality of level (barring denudation) of even the Secondary formations in Britain, after so many ups and downs, always impresses my mind, that, except when the crust-cracks and mountains are formed, movements of elevation and subsidence are generally very equable. But it is folly my scribbling thus. You have a grand problem, and heaven help you and Mr. Jamieson through it. It is out of my line nowadays, and above and beyond me. LETTER 526. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 28th [1861]. It is, I believe, true that Glen Roy shelves (I remember your Indian letter) were formed by glacial lakes. I persuaded Mr. Jamieson, an excellent observer, to go and observe them; and this is his result. There are some great difficulties to be explained, but I presume this will ultimately be proved the truth... LETTER 527. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 1st [1861]. Thank you for the most interesting correspondence. What a wonderful case that of Bedford. (527/1. No doubt this refers to the discovery of flint implements in the Valley of the Ouse, near Bedford, in 1861 (see Lyell's "Antiquity of Man," pages 163 et seq., 1863.) I thought the problem sufficiently perplexing before, but now it beats anything I ever heard of. Far from being able to give any hypothesis for any part, I cannot get the facts into my mind. What a capital observer and reasoner Mr. Jamieson is. The only way that I can reconcile my memory of Lochaber with the state of the Welsh valleys is by imagining a great barrier, formed by a terminal moraine, at the mouth of the Spean, which the river had to cut slowly through, as it drained the lowest lake after the Glacial period. This would, I can suppose, account for the sloping terraces along the Spean. I further presume that sharp transverse moraines would not be formed under the waters of the lake, where the glacier came out of L. Treig and abutted against the opposite side of the valley. A nice mess I made of Glen Roy! I have no spare copy of my Welsh paper (527/2. "Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by Floating Ice," "Edinb. New Phil. Journ." Volume XXXIII., page 352, 1842.); it would do you no good to lend it. I suppose I thought that there must have been floating ice on Moel Tryfan. I think it cannot be disputed that the last event in N. Wales was land-glaciers. I could not decide where the action of land-glaciers ceased and marine glacial action commenced at the mouths of the valleys. What a wonderful case the Bedford case. Does not the N. American view of warmer or more equable period, after great Glacial period, become much more probable in Europe? But I am very poorly to-day, and very stupid, and hate everybody and everything. One lives only to make blunders. I am going to write a little book for Murray on Orchids (527/3. "On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects," London, 1862.), and to-day I hate them worse than everything. So farewell, in a sweet frame of mind. LETTER 528. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 14th [1861]. I return Jamieson's capital letter. I have no comments, except to say that he has removed all my difficulties, and that now and for evermore I give up and abominate Glen Roy and all its belongings. It certainly is a splendid case, and wonderful monument of the old Ice-period. You ought to give a woodcut. How many have blundered over those horrid shelves! That was a capital paper by Jamieson in the last "Geol. Journal." (528/1. "On the Drift and Rolled Gravel of the North of Scotland," "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVI., page 347, 1860.) I was never before fully convinced of the land glacialisation of Scotland before, though Chambers tried hard to convince me. I must say I differ rather about Ramsay's paper; perhaps he pushes it too far. (528/2. "On the Glacial Origin of Certain Lakes, etc." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 185. See Letter 503.) It struck me the more from remembering some years ago marvelling what could be the meaning of such a multitude of lakes in Friesland and other northern districts. Ramsay wrote to me, and I suggested that he ought to compare mountainous tropical regions with northern regions. I could not remember many lakes in any mountainous tropical country. When Tyndall talks of every valley in Switzerland being formed by glaciers, he seems to forget there are valleys in the tropics; and it is monstrous, in my opinion, the accounting for the Glacial period in the Alps by greater height of mountains, and their lessened height, if I understand, by glacial erosion. "Ne sutor ultra crepidam," I think, applies in this case to him. I am hard at work on "Variation under Domestication." (528/3. Published 1868.) P.S.--I am rather overwhelmed with letters at present, and it has just occurred to me that perhaps you will forward my note to Mr. Jamieson; as it will show that I entirely yield. I do believe every word in my Glen Roy paper is false. LETTER 529. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 20th [1861]. Notwithstanding the orchids, I have been very glad to see Jamieson's letter; no doubt, as he says, certainty will soon be reached. With respect to the minor points of Glen Roy, I cannot feel easy with a mere barrier of ice; there is so much sloping, stratified detritus in the valleys. I remember that you somewhere have stated that a running stream soon cuts deeply into a glacier. I have been hunting up all old references and pamphlets, etc., on shelves in Scotland, and will send them off to Mr. J., as they possibly may be of use to him if he continues the subject. The Eildon Hills ought to be specially examined. Amongst MS. I came across a very old letter from me to you, in which I say: "If a glacialist admitted that the sea, before the formation of the shelves, covered the country (which would account for the land-straits above the level of the shelves), and if he admitted that the land gradually emerged, and if he supposed that his lakes were banked up by ice alone, he would make out, in my opinion, the best case against the marine origin of the shelves." (529/1. See Letter 522.) This seems very much what you and Mr. J. have come to. The whole glacial theory is really a magnificent subject. LETTER 530. TO C. LYELL. Down, April 1st [1862]. I am not quite sure that I understand your difficulty, so I must give what seems to me the explanation of the glacial lake theory at some little length. You know that there is a rocky outlet at the level of all the shelves. Please look at my map. (530/1. The map accompanying Mr. Darwin's paper in the "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839.) I suppose whole valley of Glen Spean filled with ice; then water would escape from an outlet at Loch Spey, and the highest shelf would be first formed. Secondly, ice began to retreat, and water will flow for short time over its surface; but as soon as it retreated from behind the hill marked Craig Dhu, where the outlet on level of second shelf was discovered by Milne (530/2. See note, Letter 521.), the water would flow from it and the second shelf would be formed. This supposes that a vast barrier of ice still remains under Ben Nevis, along all the lower part of the Spean. Lastly, I suppose the ice disappeared everywhere along L. Loggan, L. Treig, and Glen Spean, except close under Ben Nevis, where it still formed a barrier, the water flowing out at level of lowest shelf by the Pass of Mukkul at head of L. Loggan. This seems to me to account for everything. It presupposes that the shelves were formed towards the close of the Glacial period. I come up to London to read on Thursday a short paper at the Linnean Society. Shall I call on Friday morning at 9.30 and sit half an hour with you? Pray have no scruple to send a line to Queen Anne Street to say "No" if it will take anything out of you. If I do not hear, I will come. LETTER 531. TO J. PRESTWICH. Down, January 3rd, 1880. You are perfectly right. (531/1. Prof. Prestwich's paper on Glen Roy was published in the "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." for 1879, page 663.) As soon as I read Mr. Jamieson's article on the parallel roads, I gave up the ghost with more sighs and groans than on almost any other occasion in my life. 2.IX.IV. CORAL REEFS, FOSSIL AND RECENT, 1841-1881. LETTER 532. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury, Tuesday, 6th [July, 1841]. Your letter was forwarded me here. I was the more glad to receive it, as I never dreamed of your being able to find time to write, now that you must be so very busy; and I had nothing to tell you about myself, else I should have written. I am pleased to hear how extensive and successful a trip you appear to have made. You must have worked hard, and got your Silurian subject well in your head, to have profited by so short an excursion. How I should have enjoyed to have followed you about the coral-limestone. I once was close to Wenlock (532/1. The Wenlock limestone (Silurian) contains an abundance of corals. "The rock seems indeed to have been formed in part by massive sheets and bunches of coral" (Geikie, "Text-book of Geology," 1882, page 678.), something such as you describe, and made a rough drawing, I remember, of the masses of coral. But the degree in which the whole mass was regularly stratified, and the quantity of mud, made me think that the reefs could never have been like those in the Pacific, but that they most resembled those on the east coast of Africa, which seem (from charts and descriptions) to confine extensive flats and mangrove swamps with mud, or like some imperfect ones about the West India Islands, within the reefs of which there are large swamps. All the reefs I have myself seen could be associated only with nearly pure calcareous rocks. I have received a description of a reef lying some way off the coast near Belize (terra firma), where a thick bed of mud seems to have invaded and covered a coral reef, leaving but very few islets yet free from it. But I can give you no precise information without my notes (even if then) on these heads... Bermuda differs much from any other island I am acquainted with. At first sight of a chart it resembles an atoll; but it differs from this structure essentially in the gently shelving bottom of the sea all round to some distance; in the absence of the defined circular reefs, and, as a consequence, of the defined central pool or lagoon; and lastly, in the height of the land. Bermuda seems to be an irregular, circular, flat bank, encrusted with knolls and reefs of coral, with land formed on one side. This land seems once to have been more extensive, as on some parts of the bank farthest removed from the island there are little pinnacles of rock of the same nature as that of the high larger islands. I cannot pretend to form any precise notion how the foundation of so anomalous an island has been produced, but its whole history must be very different from that of the atolls of the Indian and Pacific oceans--though, as I have said, at first glance of the charts there is a considerable resemblance. LETTER 533. TO C. LYELL. [1842.] Considering the probability of subsidence in the middle of the great oceans being very slow; considering in how many spaces, both large ones and small ones (within areas favourable to the growth of corals), reefs are absent, which shows that their presence is determined by peculiar conditions; considering the possible chance of subsidence being more rapid than the upward growth of the reefs; considering that reefs not very rarely perish (as I cannot doubt) on part, or round the whole, of some encircled islands and atolls: considering these things, I admit as very improbable that the polypifers should continue living on and above the same reef during a subsidence of very many thousand feet; and therefore that they should form masses of enormous thickness, say at most above 5,000 feet. (533/1. "...As we know that some inorganic causes are highly injurious to the growth of coral, it cannot be expected that during the round of change to which earth, air, and water are exposed, the reef-building polypifers should keep alive for perpetuity in any one place; and still less can this be expected during the progressive subsidences...to which by our theory these reefs and islands have been subjected, and are liable" ("The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs," page 107: London, 1842).) This admission, I believe, is in no way fatal to the theory, though it is so to certain few passages in my book. In the areas where the large groups of atolls stand, and where likewise a few scattered atolls stand between such groups, I always imagined that there must have been great tracts of land, and that on such large tracts there must have been mountains of immense altitudes. But not, it appears to me, that one is only justified in supposing that groups of islands stood there. There are (as I believe) many considerable islands and groups of islands (Galapagos Islands, Great Britain, Falkland Islands, Marianas, and, I believe, Viti groups), and likewise the majority of single scattered islands, all of which a subsidence between 4,000 and 5,000 feet would entirely submerge or would leave only one or two summits above water, and hence they would produce either groups of nothing but atolls, or of atolls with one or two encircled islands. I am far from wishing to say that the islands of the great oceans have not subsided, or may not continue to subside, any number of feet, but if the average duration (from all causes of destruction) of reefs on the same spot is limited, then after this limit has elapsed the reefs would perish, and if the subsidence continued they would be carried down; and if the group consisted only of atolls, only open ocean would be left; if it consisted partly or wholly of encircled islands, these would be left naked and reefless, but should the area again become favourable for growth of reefs, new barrier-reefs might be formed round them. As an illustration of this notion of a certain average duration of reefs on the same spot, compared with the average rate of subsidence, we may take the case of Tahiti, an island of 7,000 feet high. Now here the present barrier-reefs would never be continued upwards into an atoll, although, should the subsidence continue at a period long after the death of the present reefs, new ones might be formed high up round its sides and ultimately over it. The case resolves itself into: what is the ordinary height of groups of islands, of the size of existing groups of atolls (excepting as many of the highest islands as there now ordinarily occur encircling barrier-reefs in the existing groups of atolls)? and likewise what is the height of the single scattered islands standing between such groups of islands? Subsidence sufficient to bury all these islands (with the exception of as many of the highest as there are encircled islands in the present groups of atolls) my theory absolutely requires, but no more. To say what amount of subsidence would be required for this end, one ought to know the height of all existing islands, both single ones and those in groups, on the face of the globe--and, indeed, of half a dozen worlds like ours. The reefs may be of much greater [thickness] than that just sufficient on an average to bury groups of islands; and the probability of the thickness being greater seems to resolve itself into the average rate of subsidence allowing upward growth, and average duration of reefs on the same spot. Who will say what this rate and what this duration is? but till both are known, we cannot, I think, tell whether we ought to look for upraised coral formations (putting on one side denudation) above the unknown limit, say between 3,000 and 5,000 feet, necessary to submerge groups of common islands. How wretchedly involved do these speculations become. LETTER 534. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, January 29th, 1879. I thank you cordially for the continuation of your fine work on the Tyrolese Dolomites (534/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens": Wien, 1878.), with its striking engravings and the maps, which are quite wonderful from the amount of labour which they exhibit, and its extreme difficulty. I well remember more than forty years ago examining a section of Silurian limestone containing many corals, and thinking to myself that it would be for ever impossible to discover whether the ancient corals had formed atolls or barrier reefs; so you may well believe that your work will interest me greatly as soon as I can find time to read it. I am much obliged for your photograph, and from its appearance rejoice to see that much more good work may be expected from you. I enclose my own photograph, in case you should like to possess a copy. LETTER 535. TO A. AGASSIZ. (535/1. Part of this letter is published in "Life and Letters," III., pages 183, 184.) Down, May 5th, 1881. It was very good of you to write to me from Tortugas, as I always feel much interested in hearing what you are about, and in reading your many discoveries. It is a surprising fact that the peninsula of Florida should have remained at the same level for the immense period requisite for the accumulation of so vast a pile of debris. (535/2. Alexander Agassiz published a paper on "The Tortugas and Florida Reefs" in the "Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci." XI., page 107, 1885. See also his "Three Cruises of the 'Blake,'" Volume I., 1888.) You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. (535/3. "On the Structure and Origin of Coral Reefs and Islands," "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." Volume X., page 505, 1880. Prof. Bonney has given a summary of Sir John Murray's views in Appendix II. of the third edition of Darwin's "Coral Reefs," 1889.) Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the 'Beagle' in the S. Temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the smaller corals, etc., etc., decayed and were dissolved when not protected by the deposition of sediment; and sediment could not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly shells, etc., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe, in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of many hundred feet. I think that it has been shown that the oscillations from great waves extend down to a considerable depth, and if so the oscillating water would tend to lift up (according to an old doctrine propounded by Playfair) minute particles lying at the bottom, and allow them to be slowly drifted away from the submarine bank by the slightest current. Lastly, I cannot understand Mr. Murray, who admits that small calcareous organisms are dissolved by the carbonic acid in the water at great depths, and that coral reefs, etc., etc., are likewise dissolved near the surface, but that this does not occur at intermediate depths, where he believes that the minute oceanic calcareous organisms accumulate until the bank reaches within the reef-building depth. But I suppose that I must have misunderstood him. Pray forgive me for troubling you at such a length, but it has occurred to me that you might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much and long-continued subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet. (535/4. In 1891 a Committee of the British Association was formed for the investigation of an atoll by means of boring. The Royal Society took up the scheme, and an expedition was sent to Funafuti, with Prof. Sollas as leader. Another expedition left Sydney in 1897 under the direction of Prof. Edgeworth David, and a deeper boring was made. The Reports will be published in the "Philosophical Transactions," and will contain Prof. David's notes upon the boring and the island generally, Dr. Hinde's description of the microscopic structure of the cores and other examinations of them, carried on at the Royal College of Science, South Kensington. The boring reached a depth of 1114 feet; the cores were found to consist entirely of reef-forming corals in situ and in fragments, with foraminifera and calcareous algae; at the bottom there were no traces of any other kind of rock. It seems, therefore, to us, that unless it can be proved that reef-building corals began their work at depths of at least 180 fathoms--far below that hitherto assigned--the result gives the strongest support to Darwin's theory of subsidence; the test which Darwin wished to be applied has been fairly tried, and the verdict is entirely in his favour.) 2.IX.V. CLEAVAGE AND FOLIATION, 1846-1856. LETTER 536. TO D. SHARPE. (536/1. The following eight letters were written at a time when the subjects of cleavage and foliation were already occupying the minds of several geologists, including Sharpe, Sorby, Rogers, Haughton, Phillips, and Tyndall. The paper by Sharpe referred to was published in 1847 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume III.), and his ideas were amplified in two later papers (ibid., Volume V., 1849, and "Phil. Trans." 1852). Darwin's own views, based on his observations during the "Beagle" expedition, had appeared in Chapter XIII. of "South America" (1846) and in the "Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), but are perhaps nowhere so clearly expressed as in this correspondence. His most important contribution to the question was in establishing the fact that foliation is often a part of the same process as cleavage, and is in nowise necessarily connected with planes of stratification. Herein he was opposed to Lyell and the other geologists of the day, but time has made good his position. The postscript to Letter 542 is especially interesting. We are indebted to Mr. Harker, of St. John's College, for this note.) Down, August 23rd [1846?]. I must just send one line to thank you for your note, and to say how heartily glad I am that you stick to the cleavage and foliation question. Nothing will ever convince me that it is not a noble subject of investigation, which will lead some day to great views. I think it quite extraordinary how little the subject seems to interest British geologists. You will, I think live to see the importance of your paper recognised. (536/2. Probably the paper "On Slaty Cleavage." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page 74, 1847.) I had always thought that Studer was one of the few geologists who had taken a correct and enlarged view on the subject. LETTER 537. TO D. SHARPE. Down [November 1846]. I have been much interested with your letter, and am delighted that you have thought my few remarks worth attention. My observations on foliation are more deserving confidence than those on cleavage; for during my first year in clay-slate countries, I was quite unaware of there being any marked difference between cleavage and stratification; I well remember my astonishment at coming to the conclusion that they were totally different actions, and my delight at subsequently reading Sedgwick's views (537/1. "Remarks on the Structure of Large Mineral Masses, and especially on the Chemical Changes produced in the Aggregation of Stratified Rocks during different periods after their Deposition." "Trans. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page 461, 1835. In the section of this paper dealing with cleavage (page 469) Prof. Sedgwick lays stress on the fact that "the cleavage is in no instance parallel to the true beds."); hence at that time I was only just getting out of a mist with respect to cleavage-laminae dipping inwards on mountain flanks. I have certainly often observed it--so often that I thought myself justified in propounding it as usual. I might perhaps have been in some degree prejudiced by Von Buch's remarks, for which in those days I had a somewhat greater deference than I now have. The Mount at M. Video (page 146 of my book (537/2. "Geol. Obs. S. America." page 146. The mount is described as consisting of hornblendic slate; "the laminae of the slate on the north and south side near the summit dip inwards.")) is certainly an instance of the cleavage-laminae of a hornblendic schist dipping inwards on both sides, for I examined this hill carefully with compass in hand and notebook. I entirely admit, however, that a conclusion drawn from striking a rough balance in one's mind is worth nothing compared with the evidence drawn from one continuous line of section. I read Studer's paper carefully, and drew the conclusion stated from it; but I may very likely be in an error. I only state that I have frequently seen cleavage-laminae dipping inwards on mountain sides; that I cannot give up, but I daresay a general extension of the rule (as might justly be inferred from the manner of my statement) would be quite erroneous. Von Buch's statement is in his "Travels in Norway" (537/3. "Travels through Norway and Lapland during the years 1806-8": London, 1813.); I have unfortunately lost the reference, and it is a high crime, I confess, even to refer to an opinion without a precise reference. If you never read these travels they might be worth skimming, chiefly as an amusement; and if you like and will send me a line by the general post of Monday or Tuesday, I will either send it up with Hopkins on Wednesday, or bring it myself to the Geological Society. I am very glad you are going to read Hopkins (537/4. "Researches in Physical Geology," by W. Hopkins. "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1839, page 381; ibid, 1842, page 43, etc.); his views appear to me eminently worth well comprehending; false views and language appear to me to be almost universally held by geologists on the formation of fissures, dikes and mountain chains. If you would have the patience, I should be glad if you would read in my "Volcanic Islands" from page 65, or even pages 54 to 72--viz., on the lamination of volcanic rocks; I may add that I sent the series of specimens there described to Professor Forbes of Edinburgh, and he thought they bore out my views. There is a short extract from Prof. Rogers (537/5. "On Cleavage of Slate-strata." "Edinburgh New Phil. Journ." Volume XLI., page 422, 1846.) in the last "Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," well worth your attention, on the cleavage of the Appalachian chain, and which seems far more uniform in the direction of dip than in any case which I have met with; the Rogers doctrine of the ridge being thrown up by great waves I believe is monstrous; but the manner in which the ridges have been thrown over (as if by a lateral force acting on one side on a higher level than on the other) is very curious, and he now states that the cleavage is parallel to the axis-planes of these thrown-over ridges. Your case of the limestone beds to my mind is the greatest difficulty on any mechanical doctrine; though I did not expect ever to find actual displacement, as seems to be proved by your shell evidence. I am extremely glad you have taken up this most interesting subject in such a philosophical spirit; I have no doubt you will do much in it; Sedgwick let a fine opportunity slip away. I hope you will get out another section like that in your letter; these are the real things wanted. LETTER 538. TO D. SHARPE. Down, [January 1847]. I am very much obliged for the MS., which I return. I do not quite understand from your note whether you have struck out all on this point in your paper: I much hope not; if you have, allow me to urge on you to append a note, briefly stating the facts, and that you omitted them in your paper from the observations not being finished. I am strongly tempted to suspect that the cleavage planes will be proved by you to have slided a little over each other, and to have been planes of incipient tearing, to use Forbes' expression in ice; it will in that case be beautifully analogical with my laminated lavas, and these in composition are intimately connected with the metamorphic schists. The beds without cleavage between those with cleavage do not weigh quite so heavily on me as on you. You remember, of course, Sedgwick's facts of limestone, and mine of sandstone, breaking in the line of cleavage, transversely to the planes of deposition. If you look at cleavage as I do, as the result of chemical action or crystalline forces, super-induced in certain places by their mechanical state of tension, then it is not surprising that some rocks should yield more or less readily to the crystalline forces. I think I shall write to Prof. Forbes (538/1. Prof. D. Forbes.) of Edinburgh, with whom I corresponded on my laminated volcanic rocks, to call his early attention to your paper. LETTER 539. TO D. SHARPE. Down, October 16th [1851]. I am very much obliged to you for telling me the results of your foliaceous tour, and I am glad you are drawing up an account for the Royal Society. (539/1. "On the Arrangement of the Foliation and Cleavage of the Rocks of the North of Scotland." "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1852, page 445, with Plates XXIII. and XXIV.) I hope you will have a good illustration or map of the waving line of junction of the slate and schist with uniformly directed cleavage and foliation. It strikes me as crucial. I remember longing for an opportunity to observe this point. All that I say is that when slate and the metamorphic schists occur in the same neighbourhood, the cleavage and foliation are uniform: of this I have seen many cases, but I have never observed slate overlying mica-slate. I have, however, observed many cases of glossy clay-slate included within mica-schist and gneiss. All your other observations on the order, etc., seem very interesting. From conversations with Lyell, etc., I recommend you to describe in a little detail the nature of the metamorphic schists; especially whether there are quasi-substrata of different varieties of mica-slate or gneiss, etc.; and whether you traced such quasi beds into the cleavage slate. I have not the least doubt of such facts occurring, from what I have seen (and described at M. Video) of portions of fine chloritic schists being entangled in the midst of a gneiss district. Have you had any opportunity of tracing a bed of marble? This, I think, from reasons given at page 166 of my "S. America," would be very interesting. (539/2. "I have never had an opportunity of tracing, for any distance, along the line both of strike and dip, the so-called beds in the metamorphic schists, but I strongly suspect that they would not be found to extend, with the same character, very far in the line either of their dip or strike. Hence I am led to believe that most of the so-called beds are of the nature of complex folia, and have not been separately deposited. Of course, this view cannot be extended to THICK masses included in the metamorphic series, which are of totally different composition from the adjoining schists, and which are far-extended, as is sometimes the case with quartz and marble; these must generally be of the nature of true strata" ("Geological Observations," page 166).) A suspicion has sometimes occurred to me (I remember more especially when tracing the clay-slate at the Cape of Good Hope turning into true gneiss) that possibly all the metamorphic schists necessarily once existed as clay-slate, and that the foliation did not arise or take its direction in the metamorphic schists, but resulted simply from the pre-existing cleavage. The so-called beds in the metamorphic schists, so unlike common cleavage laminae, seems the best, or at least one argument against such a suspicion. Yet I think it is a point deserving your notice. Have you thought at all over Rogers' Law, as he reiterates it, of cleavage being parallel to his axes-planes of elevation? If you know beforehand, will you tell me when your paper is read, for the chance of my being able to attend? I very seldom leave home, as I find perfect quietude suits my health best. (PLATE: CHARLES DARWIN, Cir. 1854. Maull & Fox, photo. Walker & Cockerell, ph. sc.) LETTER 540. TO C. LYELL. Down, January 10th, 1855. I received your letter yesterday, but was unable to answer it, as I had to go out at once on business of importance. I am very glad that you are reconsidering the subject of foliation; I have just read over what I have written on the subject, and admire it very much, and abide by it all. (540/1. "Geological Observations on South America," Chapter VI., 1846.) You will not readily believe how closely I attended to the subject, and in how many and wide areas I verified my remarks. I see I have put pretty strongly the mechanical view of origin; but I might even then, but was afraid, have put my belief stronger. Unfortunately I have not D. Sharpe's paper here to look over, but I think his chief points [are] (1) the foliation forming great symmetrical curves, and (2) the proof from effects of form of shell (540/2. This refers to the distortion of shells in cleaved rocks.) of the mechanical action in cleaved rocks. The great curvature would be, I think, a grand discovery of Sharpe's, but I confess there is some want of minuteness in the statement of Sharpe which makes me wish to see his facts confirmed. That the foliation and cleavage are parts of curves I am quite prepared, from what I have seen, to believe; but the simplicity and grandeur of Sharpe's curves rather stagger me. I feel deeply convinced that when (and I and Sharpe have seen several most striking and obvious examples) great neighbouring or alternating regions of true metamorphic schists and clay-slate have their foliations and cleavage parallel, there is no way of escaping the conclusion, that the layers of pure quartz, feldspar, mica, chlorite, etc., etc., are due not to original deposition, but to segregation; and this is I consider the point which I have established. This is very odd, but I suspect that great metamorphic areas are generally derived from the metamorphosis of clay-slate, and not from alternating layers of ordinary sedimentary matter. I think you have exactly put the chief difficulty in its strongest light--viz. what would be the result of pure or nearly pure layers of very different mineralogical composition being metamorphosed? I believe even such might be converted into an ordinary varying mass of metamorphic schists. I am certain of the correctness of my account of patches of chlorite schists enclosed in other schist, and of enormous quartzose veins of segregation being absolutely continuous and contemporaneous with the folia of quartz, and such, I think, might be the result of the folia crossing a true stratum of quartz. I think my description of the wonderful and beautiful laminated volcanic rocks at Ascension would be worth your looking at. (540/3. "Geological Observations on S. America," pages 166, 167; also "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands," Chapter III. (Ascension), 1844.) LETTER 541. TO C. LYELL. Down, January 14th [1855]. We were yesterday and the day before house-hunting, so I could not answer your letter. I hope we have succeeded in a house, after infinite trouble, but am not sure, in York Place, Baker Street. I do not doubt that I either read or heard from Sharpe about the Grampians; otherwise from my own old suspicion I should not have inserted the passage in the manual. The laminated rocks at Ascension are described at page 54. (541/1. "Volcanic Islands," page 54. "Singular laminated beds alternating with and passing into obsidian.") As far as my experience has gone, I should speak only of clay-slate being associated with mica-slate, for when near the metamorphic schists I have found stratification so gone that I should not dare to speak of them as overlying them. With respect to the difficulty of beds of quartz and marble, this has for years startled me, and I have longed (since I have felt its force) to have some opportunity of testing this point, for without you are sure that the beds of quartz dip, as well as strike, parallel to the foliation, the case is only just like true strata of sandstone included in clay-slate and striking parallel to the cleavage of the clay-slate, but of course with different dip (excepting in those rare cases when cleavage and stratification are parallel). Having this difficulty before my eyes, I was much struck with MacCulloch's statement (page 166 of my "S. America") about marble in the metamorphic series not forming true strata. (FIGURE 6.) Your expectation of the metamorphic schists sending veins into neighbouring rocks is quite new to me; but I much doubt whether you have any right to assume fluidity from almost any amount of molecular change. I have seen in fine volcanic sandstone clear evidence of all the calcareous matter travelling at least 4 1/2 feet in distance to concretions on either hand (page 113 of "S. America") (541/2. "Some of these concretions (flattened spherical concretions composed of hard calcareous sandstone, containing a few shells, occurring in a bed of sandstone) were 4 feet in diameter, and in a horizontal line 9 feet apart, showing that the calcareous matter must have been drawn to the centres of attraction from a distance of four feet and a half on both sides" ("Geological Observations on S. America," page 113).) I have not examined carefully, from not soon enough seeing all the difficulties; but I believe, from what I have seen, that the folia in the metamorphic schists (I do not here refer to the so-called beds) are not of great length, but thin out, and are succeeded by others; and the notion I have of the molecular movements is shown in the indistinct sketch herewith sent [Figure 6]. The quartz of the strata might here move into the position of the folia without much more movement of molecules than in the formation of concretions. I further suspect in such cases as this, when there is a great original abundance of quartz, that great branching contemporaneous veins of segregation (as sometimes called) of quartz would be formed. I can only thus understand the relation which exists between the distorted foliation (not appearing due to injection) and the presence of such great veins. I believe some gneiss, as the gneiss-granite of Humboldt, has been as fluid as granite, but I do not believe that this is usually the case, from the frequent alternations of glossy clay and chlorite slates, which we cannot suppose to have been melted. I am far from wishing to doubt that true sedimentary strata have been converted into metamorphic schists: all I can say is, that in the three or four great regions, where I could ascertain the relations of the metamorphic schists to the neighbouring cleaved rocks, it was impossible (as it appeared to me) to admit that the foliation was due to aqueous deposition. Now that you intend agitating the subject, it will soon be cleared up. LETTER 542. TO C. LYELL. 27, York Place, Baker Street [1855]. I have received your letter from Down, and I have been studying my S. American book. I ought to have stated [it] more clearly, but undoubtedly in W. Tierra del Fuego, where clay-slate passes by alternation into a grand district of mica-schist, and in the Chonos Islands and La Plata, where glossy slates occur within the metamorphic schists, the foliation is parallel to the cleavage--i.e. parallel in strike and dip; but here comes, I am sorry and ashamed to say, a great hiatus in my reasoning. I have assumed that the cleavage in these neighbouring or intercalated beds was (as in more distant parts) distinct from stratification. If you choose to say that here the cleavage was or might be parallel to true bedding, I cannot gainsay it, but can only appeal to apparent similarity to the great areas of uniformity of strike and high angle--all certainly unlike, as far as my experience goes, to true stratification. I have long known how easily I overlook flaws in my own reasoning, and this is a flagrant case. I have been amused to find, for I had quite forgotten, how distinctly I give a suspicion (top of page 155) to the idea, before Sharpe, of cleavage (not foliation) being due to the laminae forming parts of great curves. (542/1. "I suspect that the varying and opposite dips (of the cleavage-planes) may possibly be accounted for by the cleavage-laminae...being parts of large abrupt curves, with their summits cut off and worn down" ("Geological Observations on S. America," page 155). I well remember the fine section at the end of a region where the cleavage (certainly cleavage) had been most uniform in strike and most variable in dip. I made with really great care (and in MS. in detail) observations on a case which I believe is new, and bears on your view of metamorphosis (page 149, at bottom). (Ibid., page 149.) (FIGURE 7.) In a clay-slate porphyry region, where certain thin sedimentary layers of tuff had by self-attraction shortened themselves into little curling pieces, and then again into crystals of feldspar of large size, and which consequently were all strictly parallel, the series was perfect and beautiful. Apparently also the rounded grains of quartz had in other parts aggregated themselves into crystalline nodules of quartz. [Figure 7.] I have not been able to get Sorby yet, but shall not probably have anything to write on it. I am delighted you have taken up the subject, even if I am utterly floored. P.S.--I have a presentiment it will turn out that when clay-slate has been metamorphosed the foliation in the resultant schist has been due generally (if not, as I think, always) to the cleavage, and this to a certain degree will "save my bacon" (please look at my saving clause, page 167) (542/2. "As in some cases it appears that where a fissile rock has been exposed to partial metamorphic action (for instance, from the irruption of granite) the foliation has supervened on the already existing cleavage-planes; so, perhaps in some instances, the foliation of a rock may have been determined by the original planes of deposition or of oblique current laminae. I have, however, myself never seen such a case, and I must maintain that in most extensive metamorphic areas the foliation is the extreme result of that process, of which cleavage is the first effect" (Ibid., page 167).), but [with] other rocks than that, stratification has been the ruling agent, the strike, but not the dip, being in such cases parallel to any adjoining clay-slate. If this be so, pre-existing planes of division, we must suppose on my view of the cause, determining the lines of crystallisation and segregation, and not planes of division produced for the first time during the act of crystallisation, as in volcanic rocks. If this should ever be proved, I shall not look back with utter shame at my work. LETTER 543. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th [1856]. I got your letter of the 1st this morning, and a real good man you have been to write. Of all the things I ever heard, Mrs. Hooker's pedestrian feats beat them. My brother is quite right in his comparison of "as strong as a woman," as a type of strength. Your letter, after what you have seen in the Himalayas, etc., gives me a wonderful idea of the beauty of the Alps. How I wish I was one-half or one-quarter as strong as Mrs. Hooker: but that is a vain hope. You must have had some very interesting work with glaciers, etc. When will the glacier structure and motion ever be settled! When reading Tyndall's paper it seemed to me that movement in the particles must come into play in his own doctrine of pressure; for he expressly states that if there be pressure on all sides, there is no lamination. I suppose I cannot have understood him, for I should have inferred from this that there must have been movement parallel to planes of pressure. (543/1. Prof. Tyndall had published papers "On Glaciers," and "On some Physical Properties of Ice" ("Proc. R. Inst." 1854-58) before the date of this letter. In 1856 he wrote a paper entitled "Observations on 'The Theory of the Origin of Slaty Cleavage,' by H.C. Sorby." "Phil. Mag." XII., 1856, page 129.) Sorby read a paper to the Brit. Assoc., and he comes to the conclusion that gneiss, etc., may be metamorphosed cleavage or strata; and I think he admits much chemical segregation along the planes of division. (543/2. "On the Microscopical Structure of Mica-schist:" "Brit. Ass. Rep." 1856, page 78. See also Letters 540-542.) I quite subscribe to this view, and should have been sorry to have been so utterly wrong, as I should have been if foliation was identical with stratification. I have been nowhere and seen no one, and really have no news of any kind to tell you. I have been working away as usual, floating plants in salt water inter alia, and confound them, they all sink pretty soon, but at very different rates. Working hard at pigeons, etc., etc. By the way, I have been astonished at the differences in the skeletons of domestic rabbits. I showed some of the points to Waterhouse, and asked him whether he could pretend that they were not as great as between species, and he answered, "They are a great deal more." How very odd that no zoologist should ever have thought it worth while to look to the real structure of varieties... 2.IX.VI. AGE OF THE WORLD, 1868-1877. LETTER 544. TO J. CROLL. Down, September 19th, 1868. I hope that you will allow me to thank you for sending me your papers in the "Phil. Magazine." (544/1. Croll published several papers in the "Philosophical Magazine" between 1864 and the date of this letter (1868).) I have never, I think, in my life been so deeply interested by any geological discussion. I now first begin to see what a million means, and I feel quite ashamed of myself at the silly way in which I have spoken of millions of years. I was formerly a great believer in the power of the sea in denudation, and this was perhaps natural, as most of my geological work was done near sea-coasts and on islands. But it is a consolation to me to reflect that as soon as I read Mr. Whitaker's paper (544/2. "On Subaerial Denudation," and "On Cliffs and Escarpments of the Chalk and Lower Tertiary Beds," "Geol. Mag." Volume IV., page 447, 1867.) on the escarpments of England, and Ramsay (544/3. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 185, 1862. "On the Glacial Origin of certain Lakes in Switzerland, the Black Forest, Great Britain, Sweden, North America, and elsewhere.') and Jukes' papers (544/4. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 378, 1862. "On the Mode of Formation of some River-Valleys in the South of Ireland."), I gave up in my own mind the case; but I never fully realised the truth until reading your papers just received. How often I have speculated in vain on the origin of the valleys in the chalk platform round this place, but now all is clear. I thank you cordially for having cleared so much mist from before my eyes. LETTER 545. TO T. MELLARD READE. Down, February 9th, 1877. I am much obliged for your kind note, and the present of your essay. I have read it with great interest, and the results are certainly most surprising. (545/1. Presidential Address delivered by T. Mellard Reade before the Liverpool Geological Society ("Proc. Liverpool Geol. Soc." Volume III., pt. iii., page 211, 1877). See also "Examination of a Calculation of the Age of the Earth, based upon the hypothesis of the Permanence of Oceans and Continents." "Geol. Mag." Volume X., page 309, 1883.) It appears to me almost monstrous that Professor Tait should say that the duration of the world has not exceeded ten million years. (545/2. "Lecture on Some Recent Advances in Physical Science," by P.G. Tait, London, 1876.) The argument which seems the most weighty in favour of the belief that no great number of millions of years have elapsed since the world was inhabited by living creatures is the rate at which the temperature of the crust increases, and I wish that I could see this argument answered. LETTER 546. TO J. CROLL. Down, August 9th, 1877. I am much obliged for your essay, which I have read with the greatest interest. With respect to the geological part, I have long wished to see the evidence collected on the time required for denudation, and you have done it admirably. (546/1. In a paper "On the Tidal Retardation Argument for the Age of the Earth" ("Brit. Assoc. Report," 1876, page 88), Croll reverts to the influence of subaerial denudation in altering the form of the earth as an objection to the argument from tidal retardation. He had previously dealt with this subject in "Climate and Time," Chapter XX., London, 1875.) I wish some one would in a like spirit compare the thickness of sedimentary rocks with the quickest estimated rate of deposition by a large river, and other such evidence. Your main argument with respect to the sun seems to me very striking. My son George desires me to thank you for his copy, and to say how much he has been interested by it. 2.IX.VII. GEOLOGICAL ACTION OF EARTHWORMS, 1880-1882. "My whole soul is absorbed with worms just at present." (From a letter to Sir W. Thistleton-Dyer, November 26th, 1880.) LETTER 547. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). (547/1. The five following letters, written shortly before and after the publication of "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms," 1881, deal with questions connected with Mr. Darwin's work on the habits and geological action of earthworms.) Down, October 20th, 1880. What a man you are to do thoroughly whatever you undertake to do! The supply of specimens has been magnificent, and I have worked at them for a day and a half. I find a very few well-rounded grains of brick in the castings from over the gravel walk, and plenty over the hole in the field, and over the Roman floor. (547/2. See "The Formation of Vegetable Mould," 1881, pages 178 et seq. The Roman remains formed part of a villa discovered at Abinger, Surrey. Excavations were carried out, under Lord Farrer's direction, in a field adjoining the ground in which the Roman villa was first found, and extended observations were made by Lord Farrer, which led Mr. Darwin to conclude that a large part of the fine vegetable mould covering the floor of the villa had been brought up from below by worms.) You have done me the greatest possible service by making me more cautious than I should otherwise have been--viz., by sending me the rubbish from the road itself; in this rubbish I find very many particles, rounded (I suppose) by having been crushed, angles knocked off, and somewhat rolled about. But not a few of the particles may have passed through the bodies of worms during the years since the road was laid down. I still think that the fragments are ground in the gizzards of worms, which always contain bits of stone; but I must try and get more evidence. I have to-day started a pot with worms in very fine soil, with sharp fragments of hard tiles laid on the surface, and hope to see in the course of time whether any of those become rounded. I do not think that more specimens from Abinger would aid me... LETTER 548. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, March 7th. I was quite mistaken about the "Gardeners' Chronicle;" in my index there are only the few enclosed and quite insignificant references having any relation to the minds of animals. When I returned to my work, I found that I had nearly completed my statement of facts about worms plugging up their burrows with leaves (548/1. Chapter II., of "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms," 1881, contains a discussion on the intelligence shown by worms in the manner of plugging up their burrows with leaves (pages 78 et seq.).), etc., etc., so I waited until I had naturally to draw up a few concluding remarks. I hope that it will not bore you to read the few accompanying pages, and in the middle you will find a few sentences with a sort of definition of, or rather discussion on, intelligence. I am altogether dissatisfied with it. I tried to observe what passed in my own mind when I did the work of a worm. If I come across a professed metaphysician, I will ask him to give me a more technical definition, with a few big words about the abstract, the concrete, the absolute, and the infinite; but seriously, I should be grateful for any suggestions, for it will hardly do to assume that every fool knows what "intelligent" means. (548/2. "Mr. Romanes, who has specially studied the minds of animals, believes that we can safely infer intelligence only when we see an individual profiting by its own experience...Now, if worms try to drag objects into their burrows, first in one way and then in another, until they at last succeed, they profit, at least in each particular instance, by experience" ("The Formation of Vegetable Mould," 1881, page 95).) You will understand that the MS. is only the first rough copy, and will need much correction. Please return it, for I have no other copy--only a few memoranda. When I think how it has bothered me to know what I mean by "intelligent," I am sorry for you in your great work on the minds of animals. I daresay that I shall have to alter wholly the MS. LETTER 549. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, March 8th [1881]. Very many thanks for your note. I have been observing the [worm] tracks on my walks for several months, and they occur (or can be seen) only after heavy rain. As I know that worms which are going to die (generally from the parasitic larva of a fly) always come out of their burrows, I have looked out during these months, and have usually found in the morning only from one to three or four along the whole length of my walks. On the other hand, I remember having in former years seen scores or hundreds of dead worms after heavy rain. (549/1. "After heavy rain succeeding dry weather, an astonishing number of dead worms may sometimes be seen lying on the ground. Mr. Galton informs me that on one occasion (March, 1881), the dead worms averaged one for every two-and-a-half paces in length on a walk in Hyde Park, four paces in width" (loc. cit., page 14).) I cannot possibly believe that worms are drowned in the course of even three or four days' immersion; and I am inclined to conclude that the death of sickly (probably with parasites) worms is thus hastened. I will add a few words to what I have said about these tracks. Occasionally worms suffer from epidemics (of what nature I know not) and die by the million on the surface of the ground. Your ruby paper answers capitally, but I suspect that it is only for dimming the light, and I know not how to illuminate worms by the same intensity of light, and yet of a colour which permits the actinic rays to pass. I have tried drawing triangles of damp paper through a small cylindrical hole, as you suggested, and I can discover no source of error. (549/2. Triangles of paper were used in experiments to test the intelligence of worms (loc. cit., page 83).) Nevertheless, I am becoming more doubtful about the intelligence of worms. The worst job is that they will do their work in a slovenly manner when kept in pots (549/3. Loc. cit., page 75.), and I am beyond measure perplexed to judge how far such observations are trustworthy. LETTER 550. TO E. RAY LANKESTER. (550/1. Mr. Lankester had written October 11th, 1881, to thank Mr. Darwin for the present of the Earthworm book. He asks whether Darwin knows of "any experiments on the influence of sea-water on earthworms. I have assumed that it is fatal to them. But there is a littoral species (Pontodrilus of Perrier) found at Marseilles." Lankester adds, "It is a great pleasure and source of pride to me to see my drawing of the earthworm's alimentary canal figuring in your pages." Down, October 13th [1881]. I have been much pleased and interested by your note. I never actually tried sea-water, but I was very fond of angling when a boy, and as I could not bear to see the worms wriggling on the hook, I dipped them always first in salt water, and this killed them very quickly. I remember, though not very distinctly, seeing several earthworms dead on the beach close to where a little brook entered, and I assumed that they had been brought down by the brook, killed by the sea-water, and cast on shore. With your skill and great knowledge, I have no doubt that you will make out much new about the anatomy of worms, whenever you take up the subject again. LETTER 551. TO J.H. GILBERT. Down, January, 12th, 1882. I have been much interested by your letter, for which I thank you heartily. There was not the least cause for you to apologise for not having written sooner, for I attributed it to the right cause, i.e. your hands being full of work. Your statement about the quantity of nitrogen in the collected castings is most curious, and much exceeds what I should have expected. In lately reading one of your and Mr. Lawes' great papers in the "Philosophical Transactions" (551/1. The first Report on "Agricultural, Botanical, and Chemical Results of Experiments on the Mixed Herbage of Permanent Grassland, conducted for many years in succession on the same land," was published in the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" in 1880, the second paper appeared in the "Phil. Trans." for 1882, and the third in the "Phil. Trans." of 1900, Volume 192, page 139.) (the value and importance of which cannot, in my opinion, be exaggerated) I was struck with the similarity of your soil with that near here; and anything observed here would apply to your land. Unfortunately I have never made deep sections in this neighbourhood, so as to see how deep the worms burrow, except in one spot, and here there had been left on the surface of the chalk a little very fine ferruginous sand, probably of Tertiary age; into this the worms had burrowed to a depth of 55 and 61 inches. I have never seen here red castings on the surface, but it seems possible (from what I have observed with reddish sand) that much of the red colour of the underlying clay would be discharged in passing through the intestinal canal. Worms usually work near the surface, but I have noticed that at certain seasons pale-coloured earth is brought up from beneath the outlying blackish mould on my lawn; but from what depth I cannot say. That some must be brought up from a depth of four or five or six feet is certain, as the worms retire to this depth during very dry and very cold weather. As worms devour greedily raw flesh and dead worms, they could devour dead larvae, eggs, etc., etc., in the soil, and thus they might locally add to the amount of nitrogen in the soil, though not of course if the whole country is considered. I saw in your paper something about the difference in the amount of nitrogen at different depths in the superficial mould, and here worms may have played a part. I wish that the problem had been before me when observing, as possibly I might have thrown some little light on it, which would have pleased me greatly. 2.IX.VIII. MISCELLANEOUS, 1846-1878. (552/1. The following four letters refer to questions connected with the origin of coal.) LETTER 552. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May [1846]. I am delighted that you are in the field, geologising or palaeontologising. I beg you to read the two Rogers' account of the Coal-fields of N. America; in my opinion they are eminently instructive and suggestive. (552/1. "On the Physical Structure of the Appalachian Chain," by W.B. and H.D. Rogers. Boston, 1843. See also "Geology of Pennsylvania," by H.D. Rogers. 4 volumes. London and Philadelphia, 1843.) I can lend you their resume of their own labours, and, indeed, I do not know that their work is yet published in full. L. Horner gives a capital balance of difficulties on the Coal-theory in his last Anniversary Address, which, if you have not read, will, I think, interest you. (552/2. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., 1846, page 170.) In a paper just read an author (552/3. "On the Remarkable Fossil Trees lately discovered near St. Helen's." By E.W. Binney. "Phil. Mag." Volume XXIV., page 165, 1844. On page 173 the author writes: "The Stigmaria or Sigillaria, whichever name is to be retained... was a tree that undoubtedly grew in water.") throws out the idea that the Sigillaria was an aquatic plant (552/4. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 356 et seq.)--I suppose a Cycad-Conifer with the habits of the mangrove. From simple geological reasoning I have for some time been led to suspect that the great (and great and difficult it is) problem of the Coal would be solved on the theory of the upright plants having been aquatic. But even on such, I presume improbable notion, there are, as it strikes me, immense difficulties, and none greater than the width of the coal-fields. On what kind of coast or land could the plants have lived? It is a grand problem, and I trust you will grapple with it. I shall like much to have some discussion with you. When will you come here again? I am very sorry to infer from your letter that your sister has been ill. LETTER 553. TO J.D. HOOKER. [June 2nd, 1847.] I received your letter the other day, full of curious facts, almost all new to me, on the coal-question. (553/1. Sir Joseph Hooker deals with the formation of coal in his classical paper "On the Vegetation of the Carboniferous Period, as compared with that of the Present Day." "Mem. Geol. Surv. Great Britain," Volume II., pt. ii., 1848.) I will bring your note to Oxford (553/2. The British Association met at Oxford in 1847.), and then we will talk it over. I feel pretty sure that some of your purely geological difficulties are easily solvable, and I can, I think, throw a very little light on the shell difficulty. Pray put no stress in your mind about the alternate, neatly divided, strata of sandstone and shale, etc. I feel the same sort of interest in the coal question as a man does watching two good players at play, he knowing little or nothing of the game. I confess your last letter (and this you will think very strange) has almost raised Binney's notion (an old, growing hobby-horse of mine) to the dignity of an hypothesis (553/3. Binney suggested that the Coal-plants grew in salt water. (See Letters 102, 552.) Recent investigations have shown that several of the plants of the Coal period possessed certain anatomical peculiarities, which indicate xerophytic characteristics, and lend support to the view that some at least of the plants grew in seashore swamps.), though very far yet below the promotion of being properly called a theory. I will bring the remainder of my species-sketch to Oxford to go over your remarks. I have lately been getting a good many rich facts. I saw the poor old Dean of Manchester (553/4. Dean Herbert.) on Friday, and he received me very kindly. He looked dreadfully ill, and about an hour afterwards died! I am most sincerely sorry for it. LETTER 554. TO J.D. HOOKER. [May 12th, 1847.] I cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note. Pray do not think that I was annoyed by your letter. I perceived that you had been thinking with animation, and accordingly expressed yourself strongly, and so I understood it. Forefend me from a man who weighs every expression with Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your noble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk with you and hear your ultimatum. (554/1. The above paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," I., page 359.) I do really think, after Binney's pamphlet (554/2. "On the Origin of Coal," "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc." Manchester Volume VIII., page 148, 1848.), it will be worth your while to array your facts and ideas against an aquatic origin of the coal, though I do not know whether you object to freshwater. I am sure I have read somewhere of the cones of Lepidodendron being found round the stump of a tree, or am I confusing something else? How interesting all rooted--better, it seems from what you say, than upright--specimens become. I wish Ehrenberg would undertake a microscopical hunt for infusoria in the underclay and shales; it might reveal something. Would a comparison of the ashes of terrestrial peat and coal give any clue? (554/3. In an article by M. F. Rigaud on "La Formation de la Houille," published in the "Revue Scientifique," Volume II., page 385, 1894, the author lays stress on the absence of certain elements in the ash of coals, which ought to be present, on the assumption that the carbon has been derived from plant tissues. If coal consists of altered vegetable debris, we ought to find a certain amount of alkalies and phosphoric acid in its ash. Had such substances ever been present, it is difficult to understand how they could all have been removed by the solvent action of water. (Rigaud's views are given at greater length in an article on the "Structure and Formation of Coal," "Science Progress," Volume II., pages 355 and 431, 1895.)) Peat ashes are good manure, and coal ashes, except mechanically, I believe are of little use. Does this indicate that the soluble salts have been washed out? i.e., if they are NOT present. I go up to Geological Council to-day--so farewell. (554/4. In a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, October 6th, 1847, Mr. Darwin, in referring to the origin of Coal, wrote: "...I sometimes think it could not have been formed at all. Old Sir Anthony Carlisle once said to me gravely that he supposed Megatherium and such cattle were just sent down from heaven to see whether the earth would support them, and I suppose the coal was rained down to puzzle mortals. You must work the coal well in India.") LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 22nd, 1860. Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria "grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal." (Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture? LETTER 556. TO L. HORNER. Down [1846?]. I am truly pleased at your approval of my book (556/1. "Geological Observations on South America," London, 1846.): it was very kind of you taking the trouble to tell me so. I long hesitated whether I would publish it or not, and now that I have done so at a good cost of trouble, it is indeed highly satisfactory to think that my labour has not been quite thrown away. I entirely acquiesce in your criticism on my calling the Pampean formation "recent" (556/2. "We must, therefore, conclude that the Pampean formation belongs, in the ordinary geological sense of the word, to the Recent Period." ("Geol. Obs." page 101).); Pleistocene would have been far better. I object, however, altogether on principle (whether I have always followed my principle is another question) to designate any epoch after man. It breaks through all principles of classification to take one mammifer as an epoch. And this is presupposing we know something of the introduction of man: how few years ago all beds earlier than the Pleistocene were characterised as being before the monkey epoch. It appears to me that it may often be convenient to speak of an Historical or Human deposit in the same way as we speak of an Elephant bed, but that to apply it to an epoch is unsound. I have expressed myself very ill, and I am not very sure that my notions are very clear on this subject, except that I know that I have often been made wroth (even by Lyell) at the confidence with which people speak of the introduction of man, as if they had seen him walk on the stage, and as if, in a geological chronological sense, it was more important than the entry of any other mammifer. You ask me to do a most puzzling thing, to point out what is newest in my volume, and I found myself incapable of doing almost the same for Lyell. My mind goes from point to point without deciding: what has interested oneself or given most trouble is, perhaps quite falsely, thought newest. The elevation of the land is perhaps more carefully treated than any other subject, but it cannot, of course, be called new. I have made out a sort of index, which will not take you a couple of minutes to skim over, and then you will perhaps judge what seems newest. The summary at the end of the book would also serve same purpose. I do not know where E. de B. [Elie de Beaumont] has lately put forth on the recent elevation of the Cordillera. He "rapported" favourably on d'Orbigny, who in late times fires off a most Royal salute; every volcano bursting forth in the Andes at the same time with their elevation, the debacle thus caused depositing all the Pampean mud and all the Patagonian shingle! Is not this making Geology nice and simple for beginners? We have been very sorry to hear of Bunbury's severe illness; I believe the measles are often dangerous to grown-up people. I am very glad that your last account was so much better. I am astonished that you should have had the courage to go right through my book. It is quite obvious that most geologists find it far easier to write than to read a book. Chapter I. and II.--Elevation of the land: equability on E. coast as shown by terraces, page 19; length on W. coast, page 53; height at Valparaiso, page 32; number of periods of rest at Coquimbo, page 49; elevation within Human period near Lima greater than elsewhere observed; the discussion (page 41) on non-horizontality of terraces perhaps one of newest features--on formation of terraces rather newish. Chapter III., page 65.--Argument of horizontal elevation of Cordillera I believe new. I think the connection (page 54) between earthquake [shocks] and insensible rising important. Chapter IV.--The strangeness of the (Eocene) mammifers, co-existing with recent shells. Chapter V.--Curious pumiceous infusorial mudstone (page 118) of Patagonia; climate of old Tertiary period, page 134. The subject which has been most fertile in my mind is the discussion from page 135 to end of chapter on the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits. (556/3. The last section of Chapter V. treats of "the Absence of extensive modern Conchiferous Deposits in South America; and on the contemporaneousness of the older Tertiary Deposits at distant points being due to contemporaneous movements of subsidence." Darwin expresses the view that "the earth's surface oscillates up and down; and...during the elevatory movements there is but a small chance of durable fossiliferous deposits accumulating" (loc. cit., page 139).) Chapter VI.--Perhaps some facts on metamorphism, but chiefly on the layers in mica-slate, etc., being analogous to cleavage. Chapter VII.--The grand up-and-down movements (and vertical silicified trees) in the Cordillera: see summary, page 204 and page 240. Origin of the Claystone porphyry formation, page 170. Chapter VIII., page 224.--Mixture of Cretaceous and Oolitic forms (page 226)--great subsidence. I think (page 232) there is some novelty in discussion on axes of eruption and injection. (page 247) Continuous volcanic action in the Cordillera. I think the concluding summary (page 237) would show what are the most salient features in the book. LETTER 557. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury [August 10th, 1846]. I was delighted to receive your letter, which was forwarded here to me. I am very glad to hear about the new edition of the "Principles," (557/1. The seventh edition of the "Principles of Geology" was published in 1847.), and I most heartily hope you may live to bring out half a dozen more editions. There would not have been such books as d'Orbigny's S. American Geology (557/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique meridionale execute pendant les Annees 1826-37." 6 volumes, Paris, 1835-43.) published, if there had been seven editions of the "Principles" distributed in France. I am rather sorry about the small type; but the first edition, my old true love, which I never deserted for the later editions, was also in small type. I much fear I shall not be able to give any assistance to Book III. (557/3. This refers to Book III. of the "Principles"--"Changes of the Organic World now in Progress.") I think I formerly gave my few criticisms, but I will read it over again very soon (though I am striving to finish my S. American Geology (557/4. "Geological Observations on South America" was published in 1846.)) and see whether I can give you any references. I have been thinking over the subject, and can remember no one book of consequence, as all my materials (which are in an absolute chaos on separate bits of paper) have been picked out of books not directly treating of the subjects you have discussed, and which I hope some day to attempt; thus Hooker's "Antarctic Flora" I have found eminently useful (557/5. "Botany of the Antarctic Voyage of H.M.S. 'Erebus' and 'Terror' in the Years 1839-43." I., "Flora Antarctica." 2 volumes, London, 1844-47.), and yet I declare I do not know what precise facts I could refer you to. Bronn's "Geschichte" (557/6. "Naturgeschichte der drei Reiche." H.E. Bronn, Stuttgart, 1834-49.) which you once borrowed) is the only systematic book I have met with on such subjects; and there are no general views in such parts as I have read, but an immense accumulation of references, very useful to follow up, but not credible in themselves: thus he gives hybrids from ducks and fowls just as readily as between fowls and pheasants! You can have it again if you like. I have no doubt Forbes' essay, which is, I suppose, now fairly out, will be very good under geographical head. (557/7. "On the Connection between the Distribution of the existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles, and the Geological Changes which have affected their Area, especially during the Epoch of the Northern Drift," by E. Forbes. "Memoirs of Geological Survey," Volume I., page 336, 1846.) Kolreuter's German book is excellent on hybrids, but it will cost you a good deal of time to work out any conclusion from his numerous details. (557/8. Joseph Gottlieb Kolreuter's "Vorlaufige Nachricht von eininigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen." Leipzig, 1761.) With respect to variation I have found nothing--but minute details scattered over scores of volumes. But I will look over Book III. again. What a quantity of work you have in hand! I almost wish you could have finished America, and thus have allowed yourself rather more time for the old "Principles"; and I am quite surprised that you could possibly have worked your own new matter in within six weeks. Your intention of being in Southampton will much strengthen mine, and I shall be very glad to hear some of your American Geology news. LETTER 558. TO L. HORNER. Down, Sunday [January 1847]. Your most agreeable praise of my book is enough to turn my head; I am really surprised at it, but shall swallow it with very much gusto... (558/1. "Geological Observations in S. America," London, 1846.) E. de Beaumont measured the inclination with a sextant and artificial horizon, just as you take the height of the sun for latitude. With respect to my Journal, I think the sketches in the second edition (558/2. "Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.'" Edition II. London, 1845.) are pretty accurate; but in the first they are not so, for I foolishly trusted to my memory, and was much annoyed to find how hasty and inaccurate many of my remarks were, when I went over my huge pile of descriptions of each locality. If ever you meet anyone circumstanced as I was, advise him not, on any account, to give any sketches until his materials are fully worked out. What labour you must be undergoing now; I have wondered at your patience in having written to me two such long notes. How glad Mrs. Horner will be when your address is completed. (558/3. Anniversary Address of the President ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page xxii, 1847).) I must say that I am much pleased that you will notice my volume in your address, for former Presidents took no notice of my two former volumes. I am exceedingly glad that Bunbury is going on well. LETTER 559. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 3rd [1849]. I don't know when I have read a book so interesting (559/1. "A Second Visit to the United States of North America." 2 volumes, London, 1849.); some of your stories are very rich. You ought to be made Minister of Public Education--not but what I should think even that beneath the author of the old "Principles." Your book must, I should think, do a great deal of good and set people thinking. I quite agree with the "Athenaeum" that you have shown how a man of science can bring his powers of observation to social subjects. (559/2. "Sir Charles Lyell, besides the feelings of a gentleman, seems to carry with him the best habits of scientific observation into other strata than those of clay, into other 'formations' than those of rock or river-margin." "The Athenaeum," June 23rd, 1849, page 640.) You have made H. Wedgwood, heart and soul, an American; he wishes the States would annex us, and was all day marvelling how anyone who could pay his passage money was so foolish as to remain here. LETTER 560. TO C. LYELL. Down, [December, 1849]. (560/1. In this letter Darwin criticises Dana's statements in his volume on "Geology," forming Volume X. of the "Wilkes Exploring Expedition," 1849.) ...Dana is dreadfully hypothetical in many parts, and often as "d--d cocked sure" as Macaulay. He writes however so lucidly that he is very persuasive. I am more struck with his remarks on denudation than you seem to be. I came to exactly the same conclusion in Tahiti, that the wonderful valleys there (on the opposite extreme of the scale of wonder [to] the valleys of New South Wales) were formed exclusively by fresh water. He underrates the power of sea, no doubt, but read his remarks on valleys in the Sandwich group. I came to the conclusion in S. America (page 67) that the main effect of fresh water is to deepen valleys, and sea to widen them; I now rather doubt whether in a valley or fiord...the sea would deepen the rock at its head during the elevation of the land. I should like to tour on the W. coast of Scotland, and attend to this. I forget how far generally the shores of fiords (not straits) are cliff-formed. It is a most interesting subject. I return once again to Coral. I find he does not differ so much in detail with me regarding areas of subsidence; his map is coloured on some quite unintelligible principle, and he deduces subsidence from the vaguest grounds, such as that the N. Marianne Islands must have subsided because they are small, though long in volcanic action: and that the Marquesas subsided because they are penetrated by deep bays, etc., etc. I utterly disbelieve his statements that most of the atolls have been lately raised a foot or two. He does not condescend to notice my explanation for such appearances. He misrepresents me also when he states that I deduce, without restriction, elevation from all fringing reefs, and even from islands without any reefs! If his facts are true, it is very curious that the atolls decrease in size in approaching the vast open ocean S. of the Sandwich Islands. Dana puts me in a passion several times by disputing my conclusions without condescending to allude to my reasons; thus, regarding S. Lorenzo elevation, he is pleased to speak of my "characteristic accuracy" (560/2. Dana's "Geology" (Wilkes expedition), page 590.), and then gives difficulties (as if his own) when they are stated by me, and I believe explained by me--whereas he only alludes to a few of the facts. So in Australian valleys, he does not allude to my several reasons. But I am forgetting myself and running on about what can only interest myself. He strikes me as a very clever fellow; I wish he was not quite so grand a generaliser. I see little of interest except on volcanic action and denudation, and here and there scattered remarks; some of the later chapters are very bald. LETTER 561. TO J.D. DANA. Down, December 5th, 1849. I have not for some years been so much pleased as I have just been by reading your most able discussion on coral reefs. I thank you most sincerely for the very honourable mention you make of me. (561/1. "United States Exploring Expedition during the Years 1839-42 under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N." Volume X., "Geology," by J.D. Dana, 1849.) This day I heard that the atlas has arrived, and this completes your munificent present to me. I have not yet come to the chapter on subsidence, and in that I fancy we shall disagree, but in the descriptive part our agreement has been eminently satisfactory to me, and far more than I ever ventured to anticipate. I consider that now the subsidence theory is established. I have read about half through the descriptive part of the "Volcanic Geology" (561/2. Part of Dana's "Geology" is devoted to volcanic action.) (last night I ascended the peaks of Tahiti with you, and what I saw in my short excursion was most vividly brought before me by your descriptions), and have been most deeply interested by it. Your observations on the Sandwich craters strike me as the most important and original of any that I have read for a long time. Now that I have read yours, I believe I saw at the Galapagos, at a distance, instances of those most curious fissures of eruption. There are many points of resemblance between the Galapagos and Sandwich Islands (even to the shape of the mound-like hills)--viz., in the liquidity of the lavas, absence of scoriae, and tuff-craters. Many of your scattered remarks on denudation have particularly interested me; but I see that you attribute less to sea and more to running water than I have been accustomed to do. After your remarks in your last very kind letter I could not help skipping on to the Australian valleys (561/3. Ibid., pages 526 et seq.: "The Formation of Valleys, etc., in New South Wales."), on which your remarks strike me as exceedingly ingenious and novel, but they have not converted me. I cannot conceive how the great lateral bays could have been scooped out, and their sides rendered precipitous by running water. I shall go on and read every word of your excellent volume. If you look over my "Geological Instructions" you will be amused to see that I urge attention to several points which you have elaborately discussed. (561/4. "A Manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General." Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. London, 1849 (Section VI., "Geology." By Charles Darwin).) I lately read a paper of yours on Chambers' book, and was interested by it. I really believe the facts of the order described by Chambers, in S. America, which I have described in my Geolog. volume. This leads me to ask you (as I cannot doubt that you will have much geological weight in N. America) to look to a discussion at page 135 in that volume on the importance of subsidence to the formation of deposits, which are to last to a distant age. This view strikes me as of some importance. When I meet a very good-natured man I have that degree of badness of disposition in me that I always endeavour to take advantage of him; therefore I am going to mention some desiderata, which if you can supply I shall be very grateful, but if not no answer will be required. Thank you for your "Conspectus Crust.," but I am sorry to say I am not worthy of it, though I have always thought the Crustacea a beautiful subject. (561/5. "Conspectus Crustaceorum in orbis terrarum circumnavigatione, C. Wilkes duce, collectorum." Cambridge (U.S.A.), 1847.) LETTER 562. TO C. LYELL. [Down, March 9th, 1850.] I am uncommonly much obliged to you for your address, which I had not expected to see so soon, and which I have read with great interest. (562/1. Anniversary Address of the President, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume VI., page 32, 1850.) I do not know whether you spent much time over it, but it strikes me as extra well arranged and written--done in the most artistic manner, to use an expression which I particularly hate. Though I am necessarily pretty well familiar with your ideas from your conversation and books, yet the whole had an original freshness to me. I am glad that you broke through the routine of the President's addresses, but I should be sorry if others did. Your criticisms on Murchison were to me, and I think would be to many, particularly acceptable. (562/2. In a paper "On the Geological Structure of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume V., page 157, 1849) Murchison expressed his belief that the apparent inversion of certain Tertiary strata along the flanks of the Alps afforded "a clear demonstration of a sudden operation or catastrophe." It is this view of paroxysmal energy that Lyell criticises in the address.) Capital, that metaphor of the clock. (562/3. "In a word, the movement of the inorganic world is obvious and palpable, and might be likened to the minute-hand of a clock, the progress of which can be seen and heard, whereas the fluctuations of the living creation are nearly invisible, and resemble the motion of the hour-hand of a timepiece" (loc. cit., page xlvi).) I shall next February be much interested by seeing your hour-hand of the organic world going. Many thanks for your kindness in taking the trouble to tell me of the anniversary dinner. What a compliment that was which Lord Mahon paid me! I never had so great a one. He must be as charming a man as his wife is a woman, though I was formerly blind to his merit. Bunsen's speech must have been very interesting and very useful, if any orthodox clergyman were present. Your metaphor of the pebbles of pre-existing languages reminds me that I heard Sir J. Herschel at the Cape say how he wished some one would treat language as you had Geology, and study the existing causes of change, and apply the deduction to old languages. We are all pretty flourishing here, though I have been retrograding a little, and I think I stand excitement and fatigue hardly better than in old days, and this keeps me from coming to London. My cirripedial task is an eternal one; I make no perceptible progress. I am sure that they belong to the hour-hand, and I groan under my task. LETTER 563. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN. April 23rd, 1855. I have seen a good deal of French geologists and palaeontologists lately, and there are many whom I should like to put on the R.S. Foreign List, such as D'Archiac, Prevost, and others. But the man who has made the greatest sacrifices and produced the greatest results, who has, in fact, added a new period to the calendar, is Barrande. The importance of his discoveries as they stand before the public fully justify your choice of him; but what is unpublished, and which I have seen, is, if possible, still more surprising. Thirty genera of gasteropods (150 species) and 150 species of lamellibranchiate bivalves in the Silurian! All obtained by quarries opened solely by him for fossils. A man of very moderate fortune spending nearly all his capital on geology, and with success. E. Forbes' polarity doctrines are nearly overturned by the unpublished discoveries of Barrande. (563/1. See note, Letter 41, Volume I.) I have called Barrande's new period Cambrian (see "Manual," 5th edition), and you will see why. I could not name it Protozoic, but had Barrande called it Bohemian, I must have adopted that name. All the French will rejoice if you confer an honour on Barrande. Dana is well worthy of being a foreign member. Should you succeed in making Barrande F.R.S., send me word. LETTER 564. TO J.D. HOOKER. June 5th [1857]. (564/1. The following, which bears on the subject of medals, forms part of the long letter printed in the "Life and Letters," II., page 100.) I do not quite agree with your estimate of Richardson's merits. Do, I beg you (whenever you quietly see), talk with Lyell on Prestwich: if he agrees with Hopkins, I am silenced; but as yet I must look at the correlation of the Tertiaries as one of the highest and most frightfully difficult tasks a man could set himself, and excellent work, as I believe, P. has done. (564/2. Prof. Prestwich had published numerous papers dealing with Tertiary Geology before 1857. The contributions referred to are probably those "On the Correlation of the Lower Tertiaries of England with those of France and Belgium," "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume X., 1854, page 454; and "On the Correlation of the Middle Eocene Tertiaries of England, France, and Belgium," ibid., XII., 1856, page 390.) I confess I do not value Hopkins' opinion on such a point. I confess I have never thought, as you show ought to be done, on the future. I quite agree, under all circumstances, with the propriety of Lindley. How strange no new geologists are coming forward! Are there not lots of good young chemists and astronomers or physicists? Fitton is the only old geologist left who has done good work, except Sedgwick. Have you thought of him? He would be a brilliant companion for Lindley. Only it would never do to give Lyell a Copley and Sedgwick a Royal in the same year. It seems wrong that there should be three Natural Science medals in the same year. Lindley, Sedgwick, and Bunsen sounds well, and Lyell next year for the Copley. (564/3. In 1857 a Royal medal was awarded to John Lindley; Lyell received the Copley in 1858, and Bunsen in 1860.) You will see that I am speculating as a mere idle amateur. LETTER 565. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, May 27th [1856]. I am very much obliged to you for having taken the trouble to answer my query so fully. I can now be at rest, for from what you say and from what little I remember Forbes said, my point is unanswerable. The case of Terebratula is to the point as far as it goes, and is negative. I have already attempted to get a solution through geographical distribution by Dr. Hooker's means, and he finds that the same genera which have very variable species in Europe have other very variable species elsewhere. This seems the general rule, but with some few exceptions. I see from the several reasons which you assign, that there is no hope of comparing the same genus at two different periods, and seeing whether the tendency to vary is greater at one period in such genus than at another period. The variability of certain genera or groups of species strikes me as a very odd fact. (565/1. The late Dr. Neumayr has dealt, to some extent, with this subject in "Die Stamme des Thierreichs," Volume I., Wien, 1889.) I shall have no points, as far as I can remember, to suggest for your reconsideration, but only some on which I shall have to beg for a little further information. However, I feel inclined very much to dispute your doctrine of islands being generally ancient in comparison, I presume, with continents. I imagine you think that islands are generally remnants of old continents, a doctrine which I feel strongly disposed to doubt. I believe them generally rising points; you, it seems, think them sinking points. LETTER 566. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 14th [1860]. Many thanks for your kind and pleasant letter. I have been much interested by "Deep-sea Soundings,", and will return it by this post, or as soon as I have copied a few sentences. (566/1. Specimens of the mud dredged by H.M.S. "Cyclops" were sent to Huxley for examination, who gave a brief account of them in Appendix A of Capt. Dayman's Report, 1858, under the title "Deep-sea Soundings in the North Atlantic.") I think you said that some one was investigating the soundings. I earnestly hope that you will ask the some one to carefully observe whether any considerable number of the calcareous organisms are more or less friable, or corroded, or scaling; so that one might form some crude notion whether the deposition is so rapid that the foraminifera are preserved from decay and thus are forming strata at this profound depth. This is a subject which seems to me to have been much neglected in examining soundings. Bronn has sent me two copies of his Morphologische Studien uber die Gestaltungsgesetze." (H.G. Bronn, "Morphologische Studien uber die Gestaltungsgesetze der Naturkorper uberhaupt und der organischen insbesondere": Leipzig, 1858.) It looks elementary. If you will write you shall have the copy; if not I will give it to the Linnean Library. I quite agree with the letter from Lyell that your extinguished theologians lying about the cradle of each new science, etc., etc., is splendid. (566/2. "Darwiniana, Collected Essays," Volume II., page 52.) LETTER 567. TO T.H. HUXLEY. May 10th [1862 or later]. I have been in London, which has prevented my writing sooner. I am very sorry to hear that you have been ill: if influenza, I can believe in any degree of prostration of strength; if from over-work, for God's sake do not be rash and foolish. You ask for criticisms; I have none to give, only impressions. I fully agree with your "skimming-of-pot theory," and very well you have put it. With respect [to] contemporaneity I nearly agree with you, and if you will look to the d--d book, 3rd edition, page 349 you will find nearly similar remarks. (567/1. "When the marine forms are spoken of as having changed simultaneously throughout the world, it must not be supposed that this expression relates to the same year, or to the same century, or even that it has a very strict geological sense; for if all the marine animals now living in Europe, and all those that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene period (a very remote period as measured by years, including the whole Glacial epoch), were compared with those now existing in South America or in Australia, the most skilful naturalist would hardly be able to say whether the present or the Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe resembled most closely those of the Southern hemisphere." "Origin," Edition VI., page 298. The passage in Edition III., page 350, is substantially the same.) But at page 22 of your Address, in my opinion you put your ideas too far. (567/2. Anniversary Address to the Geological Society of London ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page xl, 1862). As an illustration of the misleading use of the term "contemporaneous" as employed by geologists, Huxley gives the following illustration: "Now suppose that, a million or two of years hence, when Britain has made another dip beneath the sea and has come up again, some geologist applies this doctrine [i.e., the doctrine of the Contemporaneity of the European and of the North American Silurians: proof of contemporaneity is considered to be established by the occurrence of 60 per cent. of species in common], in comparing the strata laid bare by the upheaval of the bottom, say, of St. George's Channel with what may then remain of the Suffolk Crag. Reasoning in the same way, he will at once decide the Suffolk Crag and the St. George's Channel beds to be contemporaneous; although we happen to know that a vast period...of time...separates the two" (loc. cit., page xlv). This address is republished in the "Collected Essays," Volume VIII.; the above passage is at page 284.) I cannot think that future geologists would rank the Suffolk and St. George's strata as contemporaneous, but as successive sub-stages; they rank N. America and British stages as contemporaneous, notwithstanding a percentage of different species (which they, I presume, would account for by geographical difference) owing to the parallel succession of the forms in both countries. For terrestrial productions I grant that great errors may creep in (567/3. Darwin supposes that terrestrial productions have probably not changed to the same extent as marine organisms. "If the Megatherium, Mylodon...had been brought to Europe from La Plata, without any information in regard to their geological position, no one would have suspected that they had co-existed with sea shells all still living" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 298).); but I should require strong evidence before believing that, in countries at all well-known, so-called Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata could be contemporaneous. You seem to me on the third point, viz., on non-advancement of organisation, to have made a very strong case. I have not knowledge or presumption enough to criticise what you say. I have said what I could at page 363 of "Origin." It seems to me that the whole case may be looked at from several points of view. I can add only one miserable little special case of advancement in cirripedes. The suspicion crosses me that if you endeavoured your best you would say more on the other side. Do you know well Bronn in his last Entwickelung (or some such word) on this subject? it seemed to me very well done. (567/4. Probably "Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungsgesetze der organischen Welt wahrend der Bildungszeit unserer Erdoberflache," Stuttgart, 1858. Translated by W.S. Dallas in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume IV., page 81.) I hope before you publish again you will read him again, to consider the case as if you were a judge in a court of appeal; it is a very important subject. I can say nothing against your side, but I have an "inner consciousness" (a highly philosophical style of arguing!) that something could be said against you; for I cannot help hoping that you are not quite as right as you seem to be. Finally, I cannot tell why, but when I finished your Address I felt convinced that many would infer that you were dead against change of species, but I clearly saw that you were not. I am not very well, so good-night, and excuse this horrid letter. LETTER 568. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 30th [1866]. I have heard from Sulivan (who, poor fellow, gives a very bad account of his own health) about the fossils (568/1. In a letter to Huxley (June 4th, 1866) Darwin wrote: "Admiral Sulivan several years ago discovered an astonishingly rich accumulation of fossil bones not far from the Straits [of Magellan]...During many years it has seemed to me extremely desirable that these should be collected; and here is an excellent opportunity.")... The place is Gallegos, on the S. coast of Patagonia. Sulivan says that in the course of two or three days all the boats in the ship could be filled twice over; but to get good specimens out of the hardish rock two or three weeks would be requisite. It would be a grand haul for Palaeontology. I have been thinking over your lecture. (568/2. A lecture on "Insular Floras" given at the British Association meeting at Nottingham, August 27th, 1866, published in the "Gard. Chron." 1867.) Will it not be possible to give enlarged drawings of some leading forms of trees? You will, of course, have a large map, and George tells me that he saw at Sir H. James', at Southampton, a map of the world on a new principle, as seen from within, so that almost 4/5ths of the globe was shown at once on a large scale. Would it not be worth while to borrow one of these from Sir H. James as a curiosity to hang up? Remember you are to come here before Nottingham. I have almost finished the last number of H. Spencer, and am astonished at its prodigality of original thought. But the reflection constantly recurred to me that each suggestion, to be of real value to science, would require years of work. It is also very unsatisfactory, the impossibility of conjecturing where direct action of external circumstances begins and ends--as he candidly owns in discussing the production of woody tissue in the trunks of trees on the one hand, and on the other in spines and the shells of nuts. I shall like to hear what you think of this number when we meet. LETTER 569. TO A. GAUDRY. Down, November 17th, 1868. On my return home after a short absence I found your note of Nov. 9th, and your magnificent work on the fossil animals of Attica. (569/1. The "Geologie de l'Attique," 2 volumes 4to, 1862-7, is the only work of Gaudry's of this date in Mr. Darwin's library.) I assure you that I feel very grateful for your generosity, and for the honour which you have thus conferred on me. I know well, from what I have already read of extracts, that I shall find your work a perfect mine of wealth. One long passage which Sir C. Lyell quotes from you in the 10th and last edition of the "Principles of Geology" is one of the most striking which I have ever read on the affiliation of species. (569/2. The quotation in Lyell's "Principles," Edition X., Volume II., page 484, is from M. Gaudry's "Animaux Fossiles de Pikermi," 1866, page 34:-- "In how different a light does the question of the nature of species now present itself to us from that in which it appeared only twenty years ago, before we had studied the fossil remains of Greece and the allied forms of other countries. How clearly do these fossil relics point to the idea that species, genera, families, and orders now so distinct have had common ancestors. The more we advance and fill up the gaps, the more we feel persuaded that the remaining voids exist rather in our knowledge than in nature. A few blows of the pickaxe at the foot of the Pyrenees, of the Himalaya, of Mount Pentelicus in Greece, a few diggings in the sandpits of Eppelsheim, or in the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska, have revealed to us the closest connecting links between forms which seemed before so widely separated. How much closer will these links be drawn when Palaeontology shall have escaped from its cradle!") LETTER 570. A. SEDGWICK TO CHARLES DARWIN. (570/1. In May, 1870, Darwin "went to the Bull Hotel, Cambridge, to see the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment." (570/2. See "Life and Letters," III., 125.) The following letter was received after his return to Down.) Trinity College, Cambridge, May 30th, 1870. My dear Darwin, Your very kind letter surprised me. Not that I was surprised at the pleasant and very welcome feeling with which it was written. But I could not make out what I had done to deserve the praise of "extraordinary kindness to yourself and family." I would most willingly have done my best to promote the objects of your visit, but you gave me no opportunity of doing so. I was truly grieved to find that my joy at seeing you again was almost too robust for your state of nerves, and that my society, after a little while, became oppressive to you. But I do trust that your Cambridge visit has done you no constitutional harm; nay, rather that it has done you some good. I only speak honest truth when I say that I was overflowing with joy when I saw you, and saw you in the midst of a dear family party, and solaced at every turn by the loving care of a dear wife and daughters. How different from my position--that of a very old man, living in cheerless solitude! May god help and cheer you all with the comfort of hopeful hearts--you and your wife, and your sons and daughters! You were talking about my style of writing,--I send you my last specimen, and it will probably continue to be my last. It is the continuation of a former pamphlet of which I have not one spare copy. I do not ask you to read it. It is addressed to the old people in my native Dale of Dent, on the outskirts of Westmorland. While standing at the door of the old vicarage, I can see down the valley the Lake mountains--Hill Bell at the head of Windermere, about twenty miles off. On Thursday next (D.V.) I am to start for Dent, which I have not visited for full two years. Two years ago I could walk three or four miles with comfort. Now, alas! I can only hobble about on my stick. I remain your true-hearted old friend A. Sedgwick. LETTER 571. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 3rd [1874]. Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter. I was glad to hear at Southampton from Miss Heathcote a good account of your health and strength. With respect to the great subject to which you refer in your P.S., I always try to banish it from my mind as insoluble; but if I were circumstanced as you are, no doubt it would recur in the dead of the night with painful force. Many persons seem to make themselves quite easy about immortality (571/1. See "Life and Letters," I., page 312.) and the existence of a personal God, by intuition; and I suppose that I must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction on any such points. We returned home about ten days ago from Southampton, and I enjoyed my holiday, which did me much good. But already I am much fatigued by microscope and experimental work with insect-eating plants. When at Southampton I was greatly interested by looking at the odd gravel deposits near at hand, and speculating about their formation. You once told me something about them, but I forget what; and I think that Prestwich has written on the superficial deposits on the south coasts, and I must find out his paper and read it. (571/2. Prof. Prestwich contributed several papers to the Geological Society on the Superficial Deposits of the South of England.) From what I have seen of Mr. Judd's papers I have thought that he would rank amongst the few leading British geologists. LETTER 572. TO J.D. HOOKER. (572/1. The following letter was written before Mr. Darwin knew that Sir Charles Lyell was to be buried in Westminster Abbey, a memorial which thoroughly satisfied him. See "Life and Letters," III., 197.) Down, February 23rd, 1875. I have just heard from Miss Buckley of Lyell's death. I have long felt opposed to the present rage for testimonials; but when I think how Lyell revolutionised Geology, and aided in the progress of so many other branches of science, I wish that something could be done in his honour. On the other hand it seems to me that a poor testimonial would be worse than none; and testimonials seem to succeed only when a man has been known and loved by many persons, as in the case of Falconer and Forbes. Now, I doubt whether of late years any large number of scientific men did feel much attachment towards Lyell; but on this head I am very ill fitted to judge. I should like to hear some time what you think, and if anything is proposed I should particularly wish to join in it. We have both lost as good and as true a friend as ever lived. LETTER 573. TO J.D. HOOKER. (573/1. This letter shows the difficulty which the inscription for Sir Charles Lyell's memorial gave his friends. The existing inscription is, "Charles Lyell...Author of 'The Principles of Geology'...Throughout a long and laborious life he sought the means of deciphering the fragmentary records of the Earth's history in the patient investigation of the present order of Nature, enlarging the boundaries of knowledge, and leaving on Scientific thought an enduring influence..." Down, June 21st [1876]. I am sorry for you about the inscription, which has almost burst me. We think there are too many plurals in yours, and when read aloud it hisses like a goose. I think the omission of some words makes it much stronger. "World" (573/2. The suggested sentence runs: "he gave to the world the results of his labour, etc.") is much stronger and truer than "public." As Lyell wrote various other books and memoirs, I have some little doubt about the "Principles of Geology." People here do not like your "enduring value": it sounds almost an anticlimax. They do not much like my "last (or endure) as long as science lasts." If one reads a sentence often enough, it always becomes odious. God help you. LETTER 574. TO OSWALD HEER. Down, March 8th [1875]. I thank you for your very kind and deeply interesting letter of March 1st, received yesterday, and for the present of your work, which no doubt I shall soon receive from Dr. Hooker. (574/1. "Flora Fossilis Arctica," Volume III., 1874, sent by Prof. Heer through Sir Joseph Hooker.) The sudden appearance of so many Dicotyledons in the Upper Chalk appears to me a most perplexing phenomenon to all who believe in any form of evolution, especially to those who believe in extremely gradual evolution, to which view I know that you are strongly opposed. (574/2. The volume referred to contains a paper on the Cretaceous Flora of the Arctic Zone (Spitzbergen and Greenland), in which several dicotyledonous plants are described. In a letter written by Heer to Darwin the author speaks of a species of poplar which he describes as the oldest Dicotyledon so far recorded.) The presence of even one true Angiosperm in the Lower Chalk makes me inclined to conjecture that plants of this great division must have been largely developed in some isolated area, whence owing to geographical changes, they at last succeeded in escaping, and spread quickly over the world. (574/3. No satisfactory evidence has so far been brought forward of the occurrence of fossil Angiosperms in pre-Cretaceous rocks. The origin of the Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons remains one of the most difficult and attractive problems of Palaeobotany.) (574/4. See Letters 395, 398.) But I fully admit that this case is a great difficulty in the views which I hold. Many as have been the wonderful discoveries in Geology during the last half-century, I think none have exceeded in interest your results with respect to the plants which formerly existed in the Arctic regions. How I wish that similar collections could be made in the Southern hemisphere, for instance in Kerguelen's Land. The death of Sir C. Lyell is a great loss to science, but I do not think to himself, for it was scarcely possible that he could have retained his mental powers, and he would have suffered dreadfully from their loss. The last time I saw him he was speaking with the most lively interest about his last visit to you, and I was grieved to hear from him a very poor account of your health. I have been working for some time on a special subject, namely insectivorous plants. I do not know whether the subject will interest you, but when my book is published I will have the pleasure of sending you a copy. I am very much obliged for your photograph, and enclose one of myself. LETTER 574*. TO S.B.J. SKERTCHLY. March 2nd, 1878. It is the greatest possible satisfaction to a man nearly at the close of his career to believe that he has aided or stimulated an able and energetic fellow-worker in the noble cause of science. Therefore your letter has deeply gratified me. I am writing this away from home, as my health failed, and I was forced to rest; and this will account for the delay in answering your letter. No doubt on my return home I shall find the memoir which you have kindly sent me. I shall read it with much interest, as I have heard something of your work from Prof. Geikie, and have read his admirable "Ice Age." (574/5. "The Great Ice Age and its Relation to the Antiquity of Man": London, 1874. By James Geikie.) I have noticed the criticisms on your work, but such opposition must be expected by every one who draws fine grand conclusions, and such assuredly are yours as abstracted in your letter. (574/6. Mr. S.B.J. Skertchly recorded "the discovery of palaeolithic flint implements, mammalian bones, and fresh-water shells in brick-earths below the Boulder-clay of East Anglia," in a letter published in the "Geol. Mag." Volume III., page 476, 1876. (See also "The Fenland, Past and Present." S.H. Miller and S.B.J. Skertchly, London, 1878.) The conclusions of Mr. Skertchly as to the pre-Glacial age of the flint implements were not accepted by some authorities. (See correspondence in "Nature," Volume XV., 1877, pages 141, 142.) We are indebted to Mr. Marr for calling our attention to Mr. Skertchly's discovery.) What magnificent progress Geology has made within my lifetime! I shall have very great pleasure in sending you any of my books with my autograph, but I really do not know which to send. It will cost you only the trouble of a postcard to tell me which you would like, and it shall soon be sent. Forgive this untidy note, as it is rather an effort to write. With all good wishes for your continued success in science and for your happiness... CHAPTER 2.X.--BOTANY, 1843-1871. 2.X.I. Miscellaneous.--2.X.II. Melastomaceae.--2.X.III. Correspondence with John Scott. 2.X.I. MISCELLANEOUS, 1843-1862. (PLATE: SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, 1897. From a Photograph by W.J. Hawker Wimborne. Walker & Cockerell, ph. sc.) LETTER 575. TO WILLIAM JACKSON HOOKER. Down, March 12th [1843]. ...When you next write to your son, will you please remember me kindly to him and give him my best thanks for his note? I had the pleasure yesterday of reading a letter from him to Mr. Lyell of Kinnordy, full of the most interesting details and descriptions, and written (if I may be permitted to make such a criticism) in a particularly agreeable style. It leads me anxiously to hope, even more than I did before, that he will publish some separate natural history journal, and not allow (if it can be avoided) his materials to be merged in another work. I am very glad to hear you talk of inducing your son to publish an Antarctic Flora. I have long felt much curiosity for some discussion on the general character of the flora of Tierra del Fuego, that part of the globe farthest removed in latitude from us. How interesting will be a strict comparison between the plants of these regions and of Scotland and Shetland. I am sure I may speak on the part of Prof. Henslow that all my collection (which gives a fair representation of the Alpine flora of Tierra del Fuego and of Southern Patagonia) will be joyfully laid at his disposal. LETTER 576. TO JOHN LINDLEY. Down, Saturday [April 8th, 1843]. I take the liberty, at the suggestion of Dr. Royle, of forwarding to you a few seeds, which have been found under very singular circumstances. They have been sent to me by Mr. W. Kemp, of Galashiels, a (partially educated) man, of whose acuteness and accuracy of observation, from several communications on geological subjects, I have a VERY HIGH opinion. He found them in a layer under twenty-five feet thickness of white sand, which seems to have been deposited on the margins of an anciently existing lake. These seeds are not known to the provincial botanists of the district. He states that some of them germinated in eight days after being planted, and are now alive. Knowing the interest you took in some raspberry seeds, mentioned, I remember, in one of your works, I hope you will not think me troublesome in asking you to have these seeds carefully planted, and in begging you so far to oblige me as to take the trouble to inform me of the result. Dr. Daubeny has started for Spain, otherwise I would have sent him some. Mr. Kemp is anxious to publish an account of his discovery himself, so perhaps you will be so kind as to communicate the result to me, and not to any periodical. The chance, though appearing so impossible, of recovering a plant lost to any country if not to the world, appears to me so very interesting, that I hope you will think it worth while to have these seeds planted, and not returned to me. LETTER 577. TO C. LYELL. [September, 1843.] An interesting fact has lately, as it were, passed through my hands. A Mr. Kemp (almost a working man), who has written on "parallel roads," and has corresponded with me (577/1. In a letter to Henslow, Darwin wrote: "If he [Mr. Kemp] had not shown himself a most careful and ingenious observer, I should have thought nothing of the case."), sent me in the spring some seeds, with an account of the spot where they were found, namely, in a layer at the bottom of a deep sand pit, near Melrose, above the level of the river, and which sand pit he thinks must have been accumulated in a lake, when the whole features of the valleys were different, ages ago; since which whole barriers of rock, it appears, must have been worn down. These seeds germinated freely, and I sent some to the Horticultural Society, and Lindley writes to me that they turn out to be a common Rumex and a species of Atriplex, which neither he nor Henslow (as I have since heard) have ever seen, and certainly not a British plant! Does this not look like a vivification of a fossil seed? It is not surprising, I think, that seeds should last ten or twenty thousand [years], as they have lasted two or three [thousand years] in the Druidical mounds, and have germinated. When not building, I have been working at my volume on the volcanic islands which we visited; it is almost ready for press...I hope you will read my volume, for, if you don't, I cannot think of anyone else who will! We have at last got our house and place tolerably comfortable, and I am well satisfied with our anchorage for life. What an autumn we have had: completely Chilian; here we have had not a drop of rain or a cloudy day for a month. I am positively tired of the fine weather, and long for the sight of mud almost as much as I did when in Peru. (577/2. The vitality of seeds was a subject in which Darwin continued to take an interest. In July, 1855 ("Life and Letters," II., page 65), he wrote to Hooker: "A man told me the other day of, as I thought, a splendid instance--and splendid it was, for according to his evidence the seed came up alive out of the lower part of the London Clay! I disgusted him by telling him that palms ought to have come up." In the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1855, page 758, appeared a notice (half a column in length) by Darwin on the "Vitality of Seeds." The facts related refer to the "Sand-walk" at Down; the wood was planted in 1846 on a piece of pasture land laid down as grass in 1840. In 1855, on the soil being dug in several places, Charlock (Brassica sinapistrum) sprang up freely. The subject continued to interest him, and we find a note dated July 2nd, 1874, in which Darwin recorded that forty-six plants of Charlock sprang up in that year over a space (14 x 7 feet) which had been dug to a considerable depth. In the course of the article in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," Darwin remarks: "The power in seeds of retaining their vitality when buried in damp soil may well be an element in preserving the species, and therefore seeds may be specially endowed with this capacity; whereas the power of retaining vitality in a dry artificial condition must be an indirect, and in one sense accidental, quality in seeds of little or no use to the species." The point of view expressed in the letter to Lyell above given is of interest in connection with the research of Horace Brown and F. Escombe (577/3. "Proc. Roy. Soc." Volume LXII., page 160.) on the remarkable power possessed by dry seeds of resistance to the temperature of liquid air. The point of the experiment is that life continues at a temperature "below that at which ordinary chemical reactions take place." A still more striking demonstration of the fact has been made by Thiselton-Dyer and Dewar who employed liquid hydrogen as a refrigerant. (577/4. Read before the British Association (Dover), 1899, and published in the "Comptes rendus," 1899, and in the "Proc. R. Soc." LXV., page 361, 1899.) The connection between these facts and the dormancy of buried seeds is only indirect; but inasmuch as the experiment proves the possibility of life surviving a period in which no ordinary chemical change occurs, it is clear that they help one to believe in greatly prolonged dormancy in conditions which tend to check metabolism. For a discussion of the bearing of their results on the life-problem, and for the literature of the subject, reference should be made to the paper by Brown and Escombe. See also C. de Candolle "On Latent Life in Seeds," "Brit. Assoc. Report," 1896, page 1023 and F. Escombe, "Science Progress," Volume I., N.S., page 585, 1897.) LETTER 578. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, Saturday [November 5th, 1843]. I sent that weariful Atriplex to Babington, as I said I would, and he tells me that he has reared a facsimile by sowing the seeds of A. angustifolia in rich soil. He says he knows the A. hastata, and that it is very different. Until your last note I had not heard that Mr. Kemp's seeds had produced two Polygonums. He informs me he saw each plant bring up the husk of the individual seed which he planted. I believe myself in his accuracy, but I have written to advise him not to publish, for as he collected only two kinds of seeds--and from them two Polygomuns, two species or varieties of Atriplex and a Rumex have come up, any one would say (as you suggested) that more probably all the seeds were in the soil, than that seeds, which must have been buried for tens of thousands of years, should retain their vitality. If the Atriplex had turned out new, the evidence would indeed have been good. I regret this result of poor Mr. Kemp's seeds, especially as I believed, from his statements and the appearance of the seeds, that they did germinate, and I further have no doubt that their antiquity must be immense. I am sorry also for the trouble you have had. I heard the other day through a circuitous course how you are astonishing all the clodhoppers in your whole part of the county: and [what is] far more wonderful, as it was remarked to me, that you had not, in doing this, aroused the envy of all the good surrounding sleeping parsons. What good you must do to the present and all succeeding generations. (578/1. For an account of Professor Henslow's management of his parish of Hitcham see "Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow, M.A." by the Rev. Leonard Jenyns: 8vo, London, 1862.) LETTER 579. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th [1855]. You well know how credulous I am, and therefore you will not be surprised at my believing the Raspberry story (579/1. This probably refers to Lindley's story of the germination of raspberry seeds taken from a barrow 1600 years old.): a very similar case is on record in Germany--viz., seeds from a barrow; I have hardly zeal to translate it for the "Gardeners' Chronicle." (579/2. "Vitality of Seeds," "Gardeners' Chronicle," November 17th, 1855, page 758.) I do not go the whole hog--viz., that sixty and two thousand years are all the same, for I should imagine that some slight chemical change was always going on in a seed. Is this not so? The discussions have stirred me up to send my very small case of the charlock; but as it required some space to give all details, perhaps Lindley will not insert; and if he does, you, you worse than an unbelieving dog, will not, I know, believe. The reason I do not care to try Mr. Bentham's plan is that I think it would be very troublesome, and it would not, if I did not find seed, convince me myself that none were in the earth, for I have found in my salting experiments that the earth clings to the seeds, and the seeds are very difficult to find. Whether washing would do I know not; a gold-washer would succeed, I daresay. LETTER 580. TO W.J. HOOKER. Testimonial from Charles Darwin, Esq., M.A., F.R.S. and G.S., late Naturalist to Captain Fitz-Roy's Voyage. Down House, Farnborough, August 25th, 1845. I have heard with much interest that your son, Dr. Hooker, is a candidate for the Botanical Chair at Edinburgh. From my former attendance at that University, I am aware how important a post it is for the advancement of science, and I am therefore the more anxious for your son's success, from my firm belief that no one will fulfil its duties with greater zeal or ability. Since his return from the famous Antarctic expedition, I have had, as you are aware, much communication with him, with respect to the collections brought home by myself, and on other scientific subjects; and I cannot express too strongly my admiration at the accuracy of his varied knowledge, and at his powers of generalisation. From Dr. Hooker's disposition, no one, in my opinion, is more fitted to communicate to beginners a strong taste for those pursuits to which he is himself so ardently devoted. For the sake of the advancement of Botany in all its branches, your son has my warmest wishes for his success. LETTER 581. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday [June 11th, 1847]. Many thanks for your kindness about the lodgings--it will be of great use to me. (581/1. The British Association met at Oxford in 1847.) Please let me know the address if Mr. Jacobson succeeds, for I think I shall go on the 22nd and write previously to my lodgings. I have since had a tempting invitation from Daubeny to meet Henslow, etc., but upon the whole, I believe, lodgings will answer best, for then I shall have a secure solitary retreat to rest in. I am extremely glad I sent the Laburnum (581/2. This refers to the celebrated form known as Cytisus Adami, of which a full account is given in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume I., Edition II., page 413. It has been supposed to be a seminal hybrid or graft-hybrid between C. laburnum and C. purpureus. It is remarkable for bearing "on the same tree tufts of dingy red, bright yellow, and purple flowers, borne on branches having widely different leaves and manner of growth." In a paper by Camuzet in the "Annales de la Societe d'Horticulture de Paris, XIII., 1833, page 196, the author tries to show that Cytisus Adami is a seminal hybrid between C. alpinus and C. laburnum. Fuchs ("Sitz. k. Akad. Wien," Bd. 107) and Beijerinck ("K. Akad. Amsterdam," 1900) have spoken on Cytisus Adami, but throw no light on the origin of the hybrid. See letters to Jenner Weir in the present volume.): the raceme grew in centre of tree, and had a most minute tuft of leaves, which presented no unusual appearance: there is now on one raceme a terminal bilateral [i.e., half yellow, half purple] flower, and on other raceme a single terminal pure yellow and one adjoining bilateral flower. If you would like them I will send them; otherwise I would keep them to see whether the bilateral flowers will seed, for Herbert (581/3. Dean Herbert.) says the yellow ones will. Herbert is wrong in thinking there are no somewhat analogous facts: I can tell you some, when we meet. I know not whether botanists consider each petal and stamen an individual; if so, there seems to me no especial difficulty in the case, but if a flower-bud is a unit, are not their flowers very strange? I have seen Dillwyn in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and was disgusted at it, for I thought my bilateral flowers would have been a novelty for you. (581/4. In a letter to Hooker, dated June 2nd, 1847, Darwin makes a bold suggestion as to floral symmetry:--) I send you a tuft of the quasi-hybrid Laburnum, with two kinds of flowers on same stalk, and with what strikes [me] as very curious (though I know it has been observed before), namely, a flower bilaterally different: one other, I observe, has half its calyx purple. Is this not very curious, and opposed to the morphological idea that a flower is a condensed continuous spire of leaves? Does it not look as if flowers were normally bilateral; just in the same way as we now know that the radiating star-fish, etc., are bilateral? The case reminds me of those insects with exactly half having secondary male characters and the other half female. (581/5. It is interesting to note his change of view in later years. In an undated letter written to Mr. Spencer, probably in 1873, he says: "With respect to asymmetry in the flowers themselves, I remain contented, from all that I have seen, with adaptation to visits of insects. There is, however, another factor which it is likely enough may have come into play--viz., the protection of the anthers and pollen from the injurious effects of rain. I think so because several flowers inhabiting rainy countries, as A. Kerner has lately shown, bend their heads down in rainy weather.") LETTER 582. TO J.D. HOOKER. June [1855]. (582/1. This is an early example of Darwin's interest in the movements of plants. Sleeping plants, as is well-known, may acquire a rhythmic movement differing from their natural period, but the precise experiment here described has not, as far as known, been carried out. See Pfeffer, "Periodische Bewegungen," 1875, page 32.) I thank you much for Hedysarum: I do hope it is not very precious, for, as I told you, it is for probably a most foolish purpose. I read somewhere that no plant closes its leaves so promptly in darkness, and I want to cover it up daily for half an hour, and see if I can TEACH IT to close by itself, or more easily than at first in darkness. I am rather puzzled about its transmission, from not knowing how tender it is... LETTER 583. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 19th, 1856. I thank you warmly for the very kind manner with which you have taken my request. It will, in truth, be a most important service to me; for it is absolutely necessary that I should discuss single and double creations, as a very crucial point on the general origin of species, and I must confess, with the aid of all sorts of visionary hypotheses, a very hostile one. I am delighted that you will take up possibility of crossing, no botanist has done so, which I have long regretted, and I am glad to see that it was one of A. De Candolle's desiderata. By the way, he is curiously contradictory on subject. I am far from expecting that no cases of apparent impossibility will be found; but certainly I expect that ultimately they will disappear; for instance, Campanulaceae seems a strong case, but now it is pretty clear that they must be liable to crossing. Sweet-peas (583/1. In Lathyrus odoratus the absence of the proper insect has been supposed to prevent crossing. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume II., page 68; but the explanation there given for Pisum may probably apply to Lathyrus.), bee-orchis, and perhaps hollyhocks are, at present, my greatest difficulties; and I find I cannot experimentise by castrating sweet-peas, without doing fatal injury. Formerly I felt most interest on this point as one chief means of eliminating varieties; but I feel interest now in other ways. One general fact [that] makes me believe in my doctrine (583/2. The doctrine which has been epitomised as "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation," and is generally known as Knight's Law or the Knight-Darwin Law, is discussed by Francis Darwin in "Nature," 1898. References are there given to the chief passages in the "Origin of Species," etc., bearing on the question. See Letter 19, Volume I.), is that NO terrestrial animal in which semen is liquid is hermaphrodite except with mutual copulation; in terrestrial plants in which the semen is dry there are many hermaphrodites. Indeed, I do wish I lived at Kew, or at least so that I could see you oftener. To return again to subject of crossing: I have been inclined to speculate so far, as to think (my!?) notion (I say MY notion, but I think others have put forward nearly or quite similar ideas) perhaps explains the frequent separation of the sexes in trees, which I think I have heard remarked (and in looking over the mono- and dioecious Linnean classes in Persoon seems true) are very apt to have sexes separated; for [in] a tree having a vast number of flowers on the same individual, or at least the same stock, each flower, if only hermaphrodite on the common plan, would generally get its own pollen or only pollen from another flower on same stock,--whereas if the sexes were separate there would be a better chance of occasional pollen from another distinct stock. I have thought of testing this in your New Zealand Flora, but I have no standard of comparison, and I found myself bothered by bushes. I should propound that some unknown causes had favoured development of trees and bushes in New Zealand, and consequent on this there had been a development of separation of sexes to prevent too much intermarriage. I do not, of course, suppose the prevention of too much intermarriage the only good of separation of sexes. But such wild notions are not worth troubling you with the reading of. LETTER 584. TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park [May 2nd, 1857]. The most striking case, which I have stumbled on, on apparent, but false relation of structure of plants to climate, seems to be Meyer and Doege's remark that there is not one single, even moderately-sized, family at the Cape of Good Hope which has not one or several species with heath-like foliage; and when we consider this together with the number of true heaths, any one would have been justified, had it not been for our own British heaths (584/1. It is well known that plants with xerophytic characteristics are not confined to dry climates; it is only necessary to mention halophytes, alpine plants and certain epiphytes. The heaths of Northern Europe are placed among the xerophytes by Warming ("Lehrbuch der okologischen Pflanzengeographie," page 234, Berlin, 1896).), in saying that heath-like foliage must stand in direct relation to a dry and moderately warm climate. Does this not strike you as a good case of false relation? I am so pleased with this place and the people here, that I am greatly tempted to bring Etty here, for she has not, on the whole, derived any benefit from Hastings. With thanks for your never failing assistance to me... I remember that you were surprised at number of seeds germinating in pond mud. I tried a fourth pond, and took about as much mud (rather more than in former case) as would fill a very large breakfast cup, and before I had left home 118 plants had come up; how many more will be up on my return I know not. This bears on chance of birds by their muddy feet transporting fresh-water plants. This would not be a bad dodge for a collector in country when plants were not in seed, to collect and dry mud from ponds. LETTER 585. TO ASA GRAY. Down [1857]. I am very glad to hear that you think of discussing the relative ranges of the identical and allied U. States and European species, when you have time. Now this leads me to make a very audacious remark in opposition to what I imagine Hooker has been writing (585/1. See Letter 338, Volume I.), and to your own scientific conscience. I presume he has been urging you to finish your great "Flora" before you do anything else. Now I would say it is your duty to generalise as far as you safely can from your as yet completed work. Undoubtedly careful discrimination of species is the foundation of all good work; but I must look at such papers as yours in Silliman as the fruit. As careful observation is far harder work than generalisation, and still harder than speculation, do you not think it very possible that it may be overvalued? It ought never to be forgotten that the observer can generalise his own observations incomparably better than any one else. How many astronomers have laboured their whole lives on observations, and have not drawn a single conclusion; I think it is Herschel who has remarked how much better it would be if they had paused in their devoted work and seen what they could have deduced from their work. So do pray look at this side of the question, and let us have another paper or two like the last admirable ones. There, am I not an audacious dog! You ask about my doctrine which led me to expect that trees would tend to have separate sexes. I am inclined to believe that no organic being exists which perpetually self-fertilises itself. This will appear very wild, but I can venture to say that if you were to read my observations on this subject you would agree it is not so wild as it will at first appear to you, from flowers said to be always fertilised in bud, etc. It is a long subject, which I have attended to for eighteen years. Now, it occurred to me that in a large tree with hermaphrodite flowers, we will say it would be ten to one that it would be fertilised by the pollen of its own flower, and a thousand or ten thousand to one that if crossed it would be crossed only with pollen from another flower of same tree, which would be opposed to my doctrine. Therefore, on the great principle of "Nature not lying," I fully expected that trees would be apt to be dioecious or monoecious (which, as pollen has to be carried from flower to flower every time, would favour a cross from another individual of the same species), and so it seems to be in Britain and New Zealand. Nor can the fact be explained by certain families having this structure and chancing to be trees, for the rule seems to hold both in genera and families, as well as in species. I give you full permission to laugh your fill at this wild speculation; and I do not pretend but what it may be chance which, in this case, has led me apparently right. But I repeat that I feel sure that my doctrine has more probability than at first it appears to have. If you had not asked, I should not have written at such length, though I cannot give any of my reasons. The Leguminosae are my greatest opposers: yet if I were to trust to observations on insects made during many years, I should fully expect crosses to take place in them; but I cannot find that our garden varieties ever cross each other. I do NOT ask you to take any trouble about it, but if you should by chance come across any intelligent nurseryman, I wish you would enquire whether they take any pains in raising the varieties of papilionaceous plants apart to prevent crossing. (I have seen a statement of naturally formed crossed Phaseoli near N. York.) The worst is that nurserymen are apt to attribute all varieties to crossing. Finally I incline to believe that every living being requires an occasional cross with a distinct individual; and as trees from the mere multitude of flowers offer an obstacle to this, I suspect this obstacle is counteracted by tendency to have sexes separated. But I have forgotten to say that my maximum difficulty is trees having papilionaceous flowers: some of them, I know, have their keel-petals expanded when ready for fertilisation; but Bentham does not believe that this is general: nevertheless, on principle of nature not lying, I suspect that this will turn out so, or that they are eminently sought by bees dusted with pollen. Again I do NOT ask you to take trouble, but if strolling under your Robinias when in full flower, just look at stamens and pistils whether protruded and whether bees visit them. I must just mention a fact mentioned to me the other day by Sir W. Macarthur, a clever Australian gardener: viz., how odd it was that his Erythrinas in N.S. Wales would not set a seed, without he imitated the movements of the petals which bees cause. Well, as long as you live, you will never, after this fearfully long note, ask me why I believe this or that. LETTER 586. TO ASA GRAY. June 18th [1857]. It has been extremely kind of you telling me about the trees: now with your facts, and those from Britain, N. Zealand, and Tasmania I shall have fair materials for judging. I am writing this away from home, but I think your fraction of 95/132 is as large as in other cases, and is at least a striking coincidence. I thank you much for your remarks about my crossing notions, to which, I may add, I was led by exactly the same idea as yours, viz., that crossing must be one means of eliminating variation, and then I wished to make out how far in animals and vegetables this was possible. Papilionaceous flowers are almost dead floorers to me, and I cannot experimentise, as castration alone often produces sterility. I am surprised at what you say about Compositae and Gramineae. From what I have seen of latter they seemed to me (and I have watched wheat, owing to what L. de Longchamps has said on their fertilisation in bud) favourable for crossing; and from Cassini's observations and Kolreuter's on the adhesive pollen, and C.C. Sprengel's, I had concluded that the Compositae were eminently likely (I am aware of the pistil brushing out pollen) to be crossed. (586/1. This is an instance of the curious ignorance of the essential principles of floral mechanism which was to be found even among learned and accomplished botanists such as Gray, before the publication of the "Fertilisation of Orchids." Even in 1863 we find Darwin explaining the meaning of dichogamy in a letter to Gray.) If in some months' time you can find time to tell me whether you have made any observations on the early fertilisation of plants in these two orders, I should be very glad to hear, as it would save me from great blunder. In several published remarks on this subject in various genera it has seemed to me that the early fertilisation has been inferred from the early shedding of the pollen, which I think is clearly a false inference. Another cause, I should think, of the belief of fertilisation in the bud, is the not-rare, abnormal, early maturity of the pistil as described by Gartner. I have hitherto failed in meeting with detailed accounts of regular and normal impregnation in the bud. Podostemon and Subularia under water (and Leguminosae) seem and are strongest cases against me, as far as I as yet know. I am so sorry that you are so overwhelmed with work; it makes your VERY GREAT kindness to me the more striking. It is really pretty to see how effectual insects are. A short time ago I found a female holly sixty measured yards from any other holly, and I cut off some twigs and took by chance twenty stigmas, cut off their tops, and put them under the microscope: there was pollen on every one, and in profusion on most! weather cloudy and stormy and unfavourable, wind in wrong direction to have brought any. LETTER 587. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 12th [1858]. I want to ask a question which will take you only few words to answer. It bears on my former belief (and Asa Gray strongly expressed opinion) that Papilionaceous flowers were fatal to my notion of there being no eternal hermaphrodites. First let me say how evidence goes. You will remember my facts going to show that kidney-beans require visits of bees to be fertilised. This has been positively stated to be the case with Lathyrus grandiflorus, and has been very partially verified by me. Sir W. Macarthur tells me that Erythrina will hardly seed in Australia without the petals are moved as if by bee. I have just met the statement that, with common bean, when the humble-bees bite holes at the base of the flower, and therefore cease visiting the mouth of the corolla, "hardly a bean will set." But now comes a much more curious statement, that [in] 1842-43, "since bees were established at Wellington (New Zealand), clover seeds all over the settlement, WHICH IT DID NOT BEFORE." (587/1. See Letter 362, Volume I.) The writer evidently has no idea what the connection can be. Now I cannot help at once connecting this statement (and all the foregoing statements in some degree support each other, as all have been advanced without any sort of theory) with the remarkable absence of Papilionaceous plants in N. Zealand. I see in your list Clianthus, Carmichaelia (four species), a new genus, a shrub, and Edwardsia (is latter Papilionaceous?). Now what I want to know is whether any of these have flowers as small as clover; for if they have large flowers they may be visited by humble-bees, which I think I remember do exist in New Zealand; and which humble-bees would not visit the smaller clover. Even the very minute little yellow clover in England has every flower visited and revisited by hive-bees, as I know by experience. Would it not be a curious case of correlation if it could be shown to be probable that herbaceous and small Leguminosae do not exist because when [their] seeds [are] washed ashore (!!!) no small bees exist there. Though this latter fact must be ascertained. I may not prove anything, but does it not seem odd that so many quite independent facts, or rather statements, should point all in one direction, viz., that bees are necessary to the fertilisation of Papilionaceous flowers? LETTER 588. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Sunday [1859]. Do you remember calling my attention to certain flowers in the truss of Pelargoniums not being true, or not having the dark shade on the two upper petals? I believe it was Lady Lubbock's observation. I find, as I expected, it is always the central or sub-central flower; but what is far more curious, the nectary, which is blended with the peduncle of the flowers, gradually lessens and quite disappears (588/1. This fact is mentioned in Maxwell Masters' "Vegetable Teratology" (Ray Society's Publications), 1869, page 221.), as the dark shade on the two upper petals disappears. Compare the stalk in the two enclosed parcels, in each of which there is a perfect flower. Now, if your gardener will not be outrageous, do look over your geraniums and send me a few trusses, if you can find any, having the flowers without the marks, sending me some perfect flowers on same truss. The case seems to me rather a pretty one of correlation of growth; for the calyx also becomes slightly modified in the flowers without marks. LETTER 589. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 7th [1860]. I hope that you will excuse the liberty which I take in writing to you and begging a favour. I have been very much interested by the abstract (too brief) of your lecture at the Royal Institution. Many of the facts alluded to are full of interest for me. But on one point I should be infinitely obliged if you could procure me any information: namely, with respect to sweet-peas. I am a great believer in the natural crossing of individuals of the same species. But I have been assured by Mr. Cattell (589/1. The nurseryman he generally dealt with.), of Westerham, that the several varieties of sweet-pea can be raised close together for a number of years without intercrossing. But on the other hand he stated that they go over the beds, and pull up any false plant, which they very naturally attribute to wrong seeds getting mixed in the lot. After many failures, I succeeded in artificially crossing two varieties, and the offspring out of the same pod, instead of being intermediate, was very nearly like the two pure parents; yet in one, there was a trace of the cross, and these crossed peas in the next generation showed still more plainly their mongrel origin. Now, what I want to know is, whether there is much variation in sweet-peas which might be owing to natural crosses. What I should expect would be that they would keep true for many years, but that occasionally, perhaps at long intervals, there would be a considerable amount of crossing of the varieties grown close together. Can you give, or obtain from your father, any information on this head, and allow me to quote your authority? It would really be a very great favour and kindness. LETTER 590. TO J.D. HOOKER. (590/1. The genera Scaevola and Leschenaultia, to which the following letter refers, belong to the Goodeniaceae (Goodenovieae, Bentham & Hooker), an order allied to the Lobeliaceae, although the mechanism of fertilisation resembles rather more nearly that of Campanula. The characteristic feature of the flower in this order is the indusium, or, as Delpino (590/2. Delpino's observations on Dichogamy, summarised by Hildebrand in "Bot. Zeitung," 1870, page 634.) calls it, the "collecting cup": this cuplike organ is a development of the style, and serves the same function as the hairs on the style of Campanula, namely, that of taking the pollen from the anthers and presenting it to the visiting insect. During this stage the immature stigma is at the bottom of the cup, and though surrounded by pollen is incapable of being pollinated. In most genera of the order the pollen is pushed out of the indusium by the growth of the style or stigma, very much as occurs in Lobelia or the Compositae. Finally the style emerges from the indusium (590/3. According to Hamilton ("Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales," X., 1895, page 361) the stigma rarely grows beyond the indusium in Dampiera. In the same journal (1885-6, page 157, and IX., 1894, page 201) Hamilton has given a number of interesting observations on Goodenia, Scaevola, Selliera, Brunonia. There seem to be mechanisms for cross- and also for self-fertilisation.), the stigmas open out and are pollinated from younger flowers. The mechanism of fertilisation has been described by F. Muller (590/4. In a letter to Hildebrand published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, page 113.), and more completely by Delpino (loc. cit.). Mr. Bentham wrote a paper (590/5. "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1869, page 203.) on the style and stigma in the Goodenovieae, where he speaks of Mr. Darwin's belief that fertilisation takes place outside the indusium. This statement, which we imagine Mr. Bentham must have had from an unpublished source, was incomprehensible to him as long as he confined his work to such genera as Goodenia, Scaevola, Velleia, Coelogyne, in which the mechanism is much as above described; but on examining Leschenaultia the meaning became clear. Bentham writes of this genus:--"The indusium is usually described as broadly two-lipped, without any distinct stigma. The fact appears to be that the upper less prominent lip is stigmatic all over, inside and out, with a transverse band of short glandular hairs at its base outside, while the lower more prominent lip is smooth and glabrous, or with a tuft of rigid hairs. Perhaps this lower lip and the upper band of hairs are all that correspond to the indusium of other genera; and the so-called upper lip, outside of which impregnation may well take place, as observed by Mr. Darwin, must be regarded as the true stigma." Darwin's interest in the Goodeniaceae was due to the mechanism being apparently fitted for self-fertilisation. In 1871 a writer signing himself F.W.B. made a communication to the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (590/6. 1871, page 1103.), in which he expresses himself as "agreeably surprised" to find Leschenaultia adapted for self-fertilisation, or at least for self-pollinisation. This led Darwin to publish a short note in the same journal, in which he describes the penetration of pollen-tubes into the viscid surface on the outside of the indusium. (590/7. 1871, page 1166. He had previously written in the "Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener," May 28th, 1861, page 151:--"Leschenaultia formosa has apparently the most effective contrivance to prevent the stigma of one flower ever receiving a grain of pollen from another flower; for the pollen is shed in the early bud, and is there shut up round the stigma within a cup or indusium. But some observations led me to suspect that nevertheless insect agency here comes into play; for I found by holding a camel-hair pencil parallel to the pistil, and moving it as if it were a bee going to suck the nectar, the straggling hairs of the brush opened the lip of the indusium, entered it, stirred up the pollen, and brought out some grains. I did this to five flowers, and marked them. These five flowers all set pods; whereas only two other pods set on the whole plant, though covered with innumerable flowers...I wrote to Mr. James Drummond, at Swan River in Australia,...and he soon wrote to me that he had seen a bee cleverly opening the indusium and extracting pollen.") He also describes how a brush, pushed into the flower in imitation of an insect, presses "against the slightly projecting lower lip of the indusium, opens it, and some of the hairs enter and become smeared with pollen." The yield of pollen is therefore differently arranged in Leschenaultia; for in the more typical genera it depends on the growth of the style inside the indusium. Delpino, however (see Hildebrand's version, loc. cit.), describes a similar opening of the cup produced by pressure on the hairs in some genera of the order.) Down, June 7th [1860]. Best and most beloved of men, I supplicate and entreat you to observe one point for me. Remember that the Goodeniaceae have weighed like an incubus for years on my soul. It relates to Scaevola microcarpa. I find that in bud the indusium collects all the pollen splendidly, but, differently from Leschenaultia, cannot be afterwards easily opened. Further, I find that at an early stage, when the flower first opens, a boat-shaped stigma lies at the bottom of the indusium, and further that this stigma, after the flower has some time expanded, grows very rapidly, when the plant is kept hot, and pushes out of the indusium a mass of pollen; and at same time two horns project at the corners of the indusium. Now the appearance of these horns makes me suppose that these are the stigmatic surfaces. Will you look to this? for if they be by the relative position of the parts (with indusium and stigma bent at right angles to style) [I am led to think] that an insect entering a flower could not fail to have [its] whole back (at the period when, as I have seen, a whole mass of pollen is pushed out) covered with pollen, which would almost certainly get rubbed on the two horns. Indeed, I doubt whether, without this aid, pollen would get on to the horns. What interests me in the case is the analogy in result with the Lobelia, but by very different means. In Lobelia the stigma, before it is mature, pushes by its circular brush of hairs the pollen out of the conjoined anthers; here the indusium collects pollen, and then the growth of the stigma pushes it out. In the course of about 1 1/2 hour, I found an indusium with hairs on the outer edge perfectly clogged with pollen, and horns protruded, which before the 1 1/2 hour had not one grain of pollen outside the indusium, and no trace of protruding horns. So you will see how I wish to know whether the horns are the true stigmatic surfaces. I would try the case experimentally by putting pollen on the horns, but my greenhouse is so cold, and my plant so small, and in such a little pot, that I suppose it would not seed... The little length of stigmatic horns at the moment when pollen is forced out of the indusium, compared to what they ultimately attain, makes me fancy that they are not then mature or ready, and if so, as in Lobelia, each flower must be fertilised by pollen from another and earlier flower. How curious that the indusium should first so cleverly collect pollen and then afterwards push it out! Yet how closely analogous to Campanula brushing pollen out of the anther and retaining it on hairs till the stigma is ready. I am going to try whether Campanula sets seed without insect agency. LETTER 591. TO J.D. HOOKER. (591/1. The following letters are given here rather than in chronological order, as bearing on the Leschenaultia problem. The latter part of Letter 591 refers to the cleistogamic flowers of Viola.) Down, May 1st [1862]. If you can screw out time, do look at the stigma of the blue Leschenaultia biloba. I have just examined a large bud with the indusium not yet closed, and it seems to me certain that there is no stigma within. The case would be very important for me, and I do not like to trust solely to myself. I have been impregnating flowers, but it is rather difficult... I have just looked again at Viola canina. The case is odder: only 2 stamens which embrace the stigma have pollen; the 3 other stamens have no anther-cells and no pollen. These 2 fertile anthers are of different shape from the 3 sterile others, and the scale representing the lower lip is larger and differently shaped from the 4 other scales representing 4 other petals. In V. odorata (single flower) all five stamens produce pollen. But I daresay all this is known. LETTER 592. TO J.D. HOOKER. November 3rd [1862]. Do you remember the scarlet Leschenaultia formosa with the sticky margin outside the indusium? Well, this is the stigma--at least, I find the pollen-tubes here penetrate and nowhere else. What a joke it would be if the stigma is always exterior, and this by far the greatest difficulty in my crossing notions should turn out a case eminently requiring insect aid, and consequently almost inevitably ensuring crossing. By the way, have you any other Goodeniaceae which you could lend me, besides Leschenaultia and Scaevola, of which I have seen enough? I had a long letter the other day from Crocker of Chichester; he has the real spirit of an experimentalist, but has not done much this summer. LETTER 593. TO F. MULLER. Down, April 9th and 15th [1866]. I am very much obliged by your letter of February 13th, abounding with so many highly interesting facts. Your account of the Rubiaceous plant is one of the most extraordinary that I have ever read, and I am glad you are going to publish it. I have long wished some one to observe the fertilisation of Scaevola, and you must permit me to tell you what I have observed. First, for the allied genus of Leschenaultia: utterly disbelieving that it fertilises itself, I introduced a camel-hair brush into the flower in the same way as a bee would enter, and I found that the flowers were thus fertilised, which never otherwise happens; I then searched for the stigma, and found it outside the indusium with the pollen-tubes penetrating it; and I convinced Dr. Hooker that botanists were quite wrong in supposing that the stigma lay inside the indusium. In Scaevola microcarpa the structure is very different, for the immature stigma lies at the base within the indusium, and as the stigma grows it pushes the pollen out of the indusium, and it then clings to the hairs which fringe the tips of the indusium; and when an insect enters the flower, the pollen (as I have seen) is swept from these long hairs on to the insect's back. The stigma continues to grow, but is not apparently ready for impregnation until it is developed into two long protruding horns, at which period all the pollen has been pushed out of the indusium. But my observations are here at fault, for I did not observe the penetration of the pollen-tubes. The case is almost parallel with that of Lobelia. Now, I hope you will get two plants of Scaevola, and protect one from insects, leaving the other uncovered, and observe the results, both in the number of capsules produced, and in the average number of seeds in each. It would be well to fertilise half a dozen flowers under the net, to prove that the cover is not injurious to fertility. With respect to your case of Aristolochia, I think further observation would convince you that it is not fertilised only by larvae, for in a nearly parallel case of an Arum and a Aristolochia, I found that insects flew from flower to flower. I would suggest to you to observe any cases of flowers which catch insects by their probosces, as occurs with some of the Apocyneae (593/1. Probably Asclepiadeae. See H. Muller, "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 396.); I have never been able to conceive for what purpose (if any) this is effected; at the same time, if I tempt you to neglect your zoological work for these miscellaneous observations I shall be guilty of a great crime. To return for a moment to the indusium: how curious it is that the pollen should be thus collected in a special receptacle, afterwards to be swept out by insects' agency! I am surprised at what you tell me about the fewness of the flowers of your native orchids which produce seed-capsules. What a contrast with our temperate European species, with the exception of some species of Ophrys!--I now know of three or four cases of self-fertilising orchids, but all these are provided with means for an occasional cross. I am sorry to say Dr. Cruger is dead from a fever. I received yesterday your paper in the "Botanische Zeitung" on the wood of climbing plants. (593/2. Fritz Muller, "Ueber das Holz einiger um Desterro wachsenden Kletterpflanzen." "Botanische Zeitung," 1866, pages 57, 65.) I have read as yet only your very interesting and curious remarks on the subject as bearing on the change of species; you have pleased me by the very high compliments which you pay to my paper. I have been at work since March 1st on a new English edition (593/3. The 4th Edition.) of my "Origin," of which when published I will send you a copy. I have much regretted the time it has cost me, as it has stopped my other work. On the other hand, it will be useful for a new third German edition, which is now wanted. I have corrected it largely, and added some discussions, but not nearly so much as I wished to do, for, being able to work only two hours daily, I feared I should never get it finished. I have taken some facts and views from your work "Fur Darwin"; but not one quarter of what I should like to have quoted. LETTER 594. TO A.G. MORE. Down, June 24th, 1860. I hope that you will forgive the liberty which I take in writing to you and requesting a favour. Mr. H.C. Watson has given me your address, and has told me that he thought that you would be willing to oblige me. Will you please to read the enclosed, and then you will understand what I wish observed with respect to the bee-orchis. (594/1. Ophrys apifera.) What I especially wish, from information which I have received since publishing the enclosed, is that the state of the pollen-masses should be noted in flowers just beginning to wither, in a district where the bee-orchis is extremely common. I have been assured that in parts of Isle of Wight, viz., Freshwater Gate, numbers occur almost crowded together: whether anything of this kind occurs in your vicinity I know not; but, if in your power, I should be infinitely obliged for any information. As I am writing, I will venture to mention another wish which I have: namely, to examine fresh flowers and buds of the Aceras, Spiranthes, marsh Epipactis, and any other rare orchis. The point which I wish to examine is really very curious, but it would take too long space to explain. Could you oblige me by taking the great trouble to send me in an old tin canister any of these orchids, permitting me, of course, to repay postage? It would be a great kindness, but perhaps I am unreasonable to make such a request. If you will inform me whether you have leisure so far to oblige me, I would tell you my movements, for on account of my own health and that of my daughter, I shall be on the move for the next two or three weeks. I am sure I have much cause to apologise for the liberty which I have taken... LETTER 595. TO A.G. MORE. Down, August 3rd, 1860. I thank you most sincerely for sending me the Epipactis [palustris]. You can hardly imagine what an interesting morning's work you have given me, as the rostellum exhibited a quite new modification of structure. It has been extremely kind of you to take so very much trouble for me. Have you looked at the pollen-masses of the bee-Ophrys? I do not know whether the Epipactis grows near to your house: if it does, and any object takes you to the place (pray do not for a moment think me so very unreasonable as to ask you to go on purpose), would you be so kind [as] to watch the flowers for a quarter of an hour, and mark whether any insects (and what?) visit these flowers. I should suppose they would crawl in by depressing the terminal portion of the labellum; and that when within the flower this terminal portion would resume its former position; and lastly, that the insect in crawling out would not depress the labellum, but would crawl out at back of flower. (595/1. The observations of Mr. William Darwin on Epipactis palustris given in the "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., 1877, page 99, bear on this point. The chief fertilisers are hive-bees, which are too big to crawl into the flower. They cling to the labellum, and by depressing it open up the entrance to the flower. Owing to the elasticity of the labellum and its consequent tendency to spring up when released, the bees, "as they left the flower, seemed to fly rather upwards." This agrees with Darwin's conception of the mechanism of the flower as given in the first edition of the Orchid book, 1862, page 100, although at that time he imagined that the fertilising insect crawled into the flower. The extreme flexibility and elasticity of the labellum was first observed by Mr. More (see first edition, page 99). The description of the flower given in the above letter to Mr. More is not quite clear; the reader is referred to the "Fertilisation of Orchids," loc. cit.) An insect crawling out of a recently opened flower would, I believe, have parts of the pollen-masses adhering to the back or shoulder. I have seen this in Listera. How I should like to watch the Epipactis. If you can it any time send me Spiranthes or Aceras or O. ustulata, you would complete your work of kindness. P.S.--If you should visit the Epipactis again, would you gather a few of the lower flowers which have been opened for some time and have begun to wither a little, and observe whether pollen is well cleared out of anther-case. I have been struck with surprise that in nearly all the lower flowers sent by you, though much of the pollen has been removed, yet a good deal of pollen is left wasted within the anthers. I observed something of this kind in Cephalanthera grandiflora. But I fear that you will think me an intolerable bore. LETTER 596. TO A.G. MORE. Down, August 5th, 1860. I am infinitely obliged for your most clearly stated observations on the bee-orchis. It is now perfectly clear that something removes the pollen-masses far more with you than in this neighbourhood. But I am utterly puzzled about the foot-stalk being so often cut through. I should suspect snails. I yesterday found thirty-nine flowers, and of them only one pollen-mass in three flowers had been removed, and as these were extremely much-withered flowers I am not quite sure of the truth of this. The wind again is a new element of doubt. Your observations will aid me extremely in coming to some conclusion. (596/1. Mr. More's observations on the percentage of flowers in which the pollinia were absent are quoted in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 68.) I hope in a day or two to receive some day-moths, on the probosces of which I am assured the pollen-masses of the bee-orchis still adhere (596/2. He was doomed to disappointment. On July 17th, 1861, he wrote to Mr. More:--"I found the other day a lot of bee-Ophrys with the glands of the pollinia all in their pouches. All facts point clearly to eternal self-fertilisation in this species; yet I cannot swallow the bitter pill. Have you looked at any this year?")... I wrote yesterday to thank you for the Epipactis. For the chance of your liking to look at what I have found: take a recently opened flower, drag gently up the stigmatic surface almost any object (the side of a hooked needle), and you will find the cap of the hemispherical rostellum comes off with a touch, and being viscid on under-surface, clings to needle, and as pollen-masses are already attached to the back of rostellum, the needle drags out much pollen. But to do this, the curiously projecting and fleshy summits of anther-cases must at some time be pushed back slightly. Now when an insect's head gets into the flower, when the flap of the labellum has closed by its elasticity, the insect would naturally creep out by the back-side of the flower. And mark when the insect flies to another flower with the pollen-masses adhering to it, if the flap of labellum did not easily open and allow free ingress to the insect, it would surely rub off the pollen on the upper petals, and so not leave it on stigma. It is to know whether I have rightly interpreted the structure of this whole flower that I am so curious to see how insects act. Small insects, I daresay, would crawl in and out and do nothing. I hope that I shall not have wearied you with these details. If you would like to see a pretty and curious little sight, look to Orchis pyramidalis, and you will see that the sticky glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ. Remove this under microscope by pincers applied to foot-stalk of pollen-mass, and look quickly at the spontaneous movement of the saddle-shaped organs and see how beautifully adapted to seize proboscis of moth. LETTER 597. TO J.D. HOOKER December 4th [1860]. Many thanks about Apocynum and Meyen. The latter I want about some strange movements in cells of Drosera, which Meyen alone seems to have observed. (597/1. No observations of Meyen are mentioned in "Insectivorous Plants.") It is very curious, but Trecul disbelieves that Drosera really clasps flies! I should very much wish to talk over Drosera with you. I did chloroform it, and the leaves which were already expanded did not recover thirty seconds of exposure for three days. I used the expression weight for the bit of hair which caused movement and weighed 1/78000 of a grain; but I do not believe it is weight, and what it is, I cannot after many experiments conjecture. (597/2. The doubt here expressed as to whether the result is due to actual weight is interesting in connection with Pfeffer's remarkable discovery that a smooth object in contact with the gland produces no effect if the plant is protected from all vibration; on an ordinary table the slight shaking which reaches the plant is sufficient to make the body resting on the gland tremble, and thus produce a series of varying pressures--under these circumstances the gland is irritated, and the tentacle moves. See Pfeffer, "Untersuchungen aus d. bot. Institut zu Tubingen," Volume I., 1885, page 483; also "Insectivorous Plants," Edition II., page 22.) The movement in this case does not depend on the chemical nature of substance. Latterly I have tried experiments on single glands, and a microscopical atom of raw meat causes such rapid movement that I could see it move like hand of clock. In this case it is the nature of the object. It is wonderful the rapidity of the absorption: in ten seconds weak solution of carbonate of ammonia changes not the colour, but the state of contents within the glands. In two minutes thirty seconds juice of meat has been absorbed by gland and passed from cell to cell all down the pedicel (or hair) of the gland, and caused the sap to pass from the cells on the upper side of the pedicel to the lower side, and this causes the curvature of the pedicel. I shall work away next summer when Drosera opens again, for I am much interested in subject. After the glandular hairs have curved, the oddest changes take place--viz., a segregation of the homogeneous pink fluid and necessary slow movements in the thicker matter. By Jove, I sometimes think Drosera is a disguised animal! You know that I always so like telling you what I do, that you must forgive me scribbling on my beloved Drosera. Farewell. I am so very glad that you are going to reform your ways; I am sure that you would have injured your health seriously. There is poor Dana has done actually nothing--cannot even write a letter--for a year, and it is hoped that in another YEAR he may quite recover. After this homily, good night, my dear friend. Good heavens, I ought not to scold you, but thank you, for writing so long and interesting a letter. LETTER 598. TO E. CRESY. Down, December 12th [1860?]. After writing out the greater part of my paper on Drosera, I thought of so many points to try, and I wished to re-test the basis of one large set of experiments, namely, to feel still more sure than I am, that a drop of plain water never produces any effect, that I have resolved to publish nothing this year. For I found in the record of my daily experiments one suspicious case. I must wait till next summer. It will be difficult to try any solid substances containing nitrogen, such as ivory; for two quite distinct causes excite the movement, namely, mechanical irritation and presence of nitrogen. When a solid substance is placed on leaf it becomes clasped, but is released sooner than when a nitrogenous solid is clasped; yet it is difficult (except with raw meat and flies) to be sure of the result, owing to differences in vigour of different plants. The last experiments which I tried before my plants became too languid are very curious, and were tried by putting microscopical atoms on the gland itself of single hairs; and it is perfectly evident that an atom of human hair, 1/76000 of a grain (as ascertained by weighing a length of hair) in weight, causes conspicuous movement. I do not believe (for atoms of cotton thread acted) it is the chemical nature; and some reasons make me doubt whether it is actual weight; it is not the shadow; and I am at present, after many experiments, confounded to know what the cause is. That these atoms did really act and alter the state of the contents of all the cells in the glandular hair, which moved, was perfectly clear. But I hope next summer to make out a good deal more... LETTER 599. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 14th [1861]. I have been putting off writing from day to day, as I did not wish to trouble you, till my wish for a little news will not let me rest... I have no news to tell you, for I have had no interesting letters for some time, and have not seen a soul. I have been going through the "Cottage Gardener" of last year, on account chiefly of Beaton's articles (599/1. Beaton was a regular contributor to the "Cottage Gardener," and wrote various articles on cross breeding, etc., in 1861. One of these was in reply to a letter published in the "Cottage Gardener," May 14th, 1861, page 112, in which Darwin asked for information as to the Compositae and the hollyhock being crossed by insect visitors. In the number for June 8th, 1861, page 211, Darwin wrote on the variability of the central flower of the carrot and the peloria of the central flower in Pelargonium. An extract from a letter by Darwin on Leschenaultia, "Cottage Gardener," May 28th, 1861, page 151, is given in Letter 590, note.); he strikes me as a clever but d--d cock-sure man (as Lord Melbourne said), and I have some doubts whether to be much trusted. I suspect he has never recorded his experiment at the time with care. He has made me indignant by the way he speaks of Gartner, evidently knowing nothing of his work. I mean to try and pump him in the "Cottage Gardener," and shall perhaps defend Gartner. He alludes to me occasionally, and I cannot tell with what spirit. He speaks of "this Mr. Darwin" in one place as if I were a very noxious animal. Let me have a line about poor Henslow pretty soon. (599/2. In a letter of May 18th, 1861, Darwin wrote again:--) By the way, thanks about Beaton. I have now read more of his writings, and one answer to me in "Cottage Gardener." I can plainly see that he is not to be trusted. He does not well know his own subject of crossing. LETTER 600. TO J.D. HOOKER. (600/1. Part of this letter has been published in "Life and Letters," III., page 265.) 2, Hesketh Crescent, Torquay [1861]. ...The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me unparalleled. I should think or guess [that] waxy pollen was most differentiated. In Cypripedium, which seems least modified, and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In all others, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four; and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in Orchis, into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious that a flower should exist which could, at most, fertilise only two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is; this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the contrivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness, is carried from flower to flower. By the way, Cephalanthera has single pollen-grains, but this seems to be a case of degradation, for the rostellum is utterly aborted. Oddly, the columns of pollen are here kept in place by very early penetration of pollen-tubes into the edge of the stigma; nevertheless, it receives more pollen by insect agency. Epithecia [Dichaea] has done me one good little turn. I often speculated how the caudicle of Orchis had been formed. (600/2. The gradation here suggested is thoroughly worked out in the "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 323, Edition II., page 257.) I had noticed slight clouds in the substance half way down; I have now dissected them out, and I find they are pollen-grains fairly embedded and useless. If you suppose the pollen-grains to abort in the lower half of the pollinia of Epipactis, but the parallel elastic threads to remain and cohere, you have the caudicle of Orchis, and can understand the few embedded and functionless pollen-grains. I must not look at any more exotic orchids: hearty thanks for your offer. But if you would make one single observation for me on Cypripedium, I should be glad. Asa Gray writes to me that the outside of the pollen-masses is sticky in this genus; I find that the whole mass consists of pollen-grains immersed in a sticky brownish thick fluid. You could tell by a mere lens and penknife. If it is, as I find it, pollen could not get on the stigma without insect aid. Cypripedium confounds me much. I conjecture that drops of nectar are secreted by the surface of the labellum beneath the anthers and in front of the stigma, and that the shield over the anthers and the form of labellum is to compel insects to insert their proboscis all round both organs. (600/3. This view was afterwards given up.) It would be troublesome for you to look at this, as it is always bothersome to catch the nectar secreting, and the cup of the labellum gets filled with water by gardener's watering. I have examined Listera ovata, cordata, and Neottia nidus avis: the pollen is uniform; I suspect you must have seen some observation founded on a mistake from the penetration and hardening of sticky fluid from the rostellum, which does penetrate the pollen a little. It is mere virtue which makes me not wish to examine more orchids; for I like it far better than writing about varieties of cocks and hens and ducks. Nevertheless, I have just been looking at Lindley's list in the "Vegetable Kingdom," and I cannot resist one or two of his great division of Arethuseae, which includes Vanilla. And as I know so well the Ophreae, I should like (God forgive me) any one of the Satyriadae, Disidae and Corycidae. I fear my long lucubrations will have wearied you, but it has amused me to write, so forgive me. LETTER 601. TO J.D. HOOKER. (601/1. Part of the following letter is published in the "Life and Letters," the remainder, with the omission of part bearing on the Glen Roy problem, is now given as an example of the varied botanical assistance Darwin received from Sir Joseph Hooker. For the part relating to Verbascum see the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., 1875, Volume II., page 83. The point is that the white and yellow flowered plants which occur in two species of Verbascum are undoubted varieties, yet "the sterility which results from the crossing of the differently coloured varieties of the same species is fully as great as that which occurs in many cases when distinct species are crossed." The sterility of the long-styled form (B) of Linum grandiflorum, with its own pollen is described in "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 87: his conclusions on the short-styled form (A) differ from those in the present letter.) September 28th [1861]. I am going to beg for help, and I will explain why I want it. You offer Cypripedium; I should be very glad of a specimen, and of any good-sized Vandeae, or indeed any orchids, for this reason: I never thought of publishing separately, and therefore did not keep specimens in spirits, and now I should be very glad of a few woodcuts to illustrate my few remarks on exotic orchids. If you can send me any, send them by post in a tin canister on middle of day of Saturday, October 5th, for Sowerby will be here. Secondly: Have you any white and yellow varieties of Verbascum which you could give me, or propagate for me, or LEND me for a year? I have resolved to try Gartner's wonderful and repeated statement, that pollen of white and yellow varieties, whether used on the varieties or on DISTINCT species, has different potency. I do not think any experiment can be more important on the origin of species; for if he is correct we certainly have what Huxley calls new physiological species arising. I should require several species of Verbascum besides the white and yellow varieties of the same species. It will be tiresome work, but if I can anyhow get the plants, it shall be tried. Thirdly: Can you give me seeds of any Rubiaceae of the sub-order Cinchoneae, as Spermacoce, Diodia, Mitchella, Oldenlandia? Asa Gray says they present two forms like Primula. I am sure that this subject is well worth working out. I have just almost proved a very curious case in Linum grandiflorum which presents two forms, A and B. Pollen of A is perfectly fertile on stigma of A. But pollen of B is absolutely barren on its own stigma; you might as well put so much flour on it. It astounded me to see the stigmas of B purple with its own pollen; and then put a few grains of similar-looking pollen of A on them, and the germen immediately and always swelled; those not thus treated never swelling. Fourthly: Can you give me any very hairy Saxifraga (for their functions) [i.e. the functions of the hairs]? I send you a resume of my requests, to save you trouble. Nor would I ask for so much aid if I did not think all these points well worth trying to investigate. My dear old friend, a letter from you always does me a world of good. And, the Lord have mercy on me, what a return I make. LETTER 602. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 4th [1861]. Will you have the kindness to read the enclosed, and look at the diagram. Six words will answer my question. It is not an important point, but there is to me an irresistible charm in trying to make out homologies. (602/1. In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham: "It was very kind of you to write to me about the Orchideae, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the least use to you about the nature of the parts."--"Life and Letters," III., page 264.) You know the membranous cup or clinandrum, in many orchids, behind the stigma and rostellum: it is formed of a membrane which unites the filament of the normal dorsal anther with the edges of the pistil. The clinandrum is largely developed in Malaxis, and is of considerable importance in retaining the pollinia, which as soon as the flower opens are quite loose. The appearance and similarity of the tissues, etc., at once gives suspicion that the lateral membranes of the clinandrum are the two other and rudimentary anthers, which in Orchis and Cephalanthera, etc., exist as mere papillae, here developed and utilised. Now for my question. Exactly in the middle of the filament of the normal anther, and exactly in the middle of the lateral membrane of the clinandrum, and running up to the same height, are quite similar bundles of spiral vessels; ending upwards almost suddenly. Now is not this structure a good argument that I interpret the homologies of the sides of clinandrum rightly? (602/2. Though Robert Brown made use of the spiral vessels of orchids, yet according to Eichler, "Bluthendiagramme," 1875, Volume I., page 184, Darwin was the first to make substantial additions to the conclusions deducible from the course of the vessels in relation to the problem of the morphology of these plants. Eichler gives Darwin's diagram side by side with that of Van Tieghem without attempting to decide between the differences in detail by which they are characterised.) I find that the great Bauer does not draw very correctly! (602/3. F. Bauer, whom Pritzel calls "der grosste Pflanzenmaler." The reference is to his "Illustrations of Orchidaceous Plants, with Notes and Prefatory Remarks by John Lindley," London, 1830-38, Folio. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 82.) And, good Heavens, what a jumble he makes on functions. LETTER 603. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 22nd. [1861]. Acropera is a beast,--stigma does not open, everything seems contrived that it shall NOT be anyhow fertilised. There is something very odd about it, which could only be made out by incessant watching on several individual plants. I never saw the very curious flower of Canna; I should say the pollen was deposited where it is to prevent inevitable self-fertilisation. You have no time to try the smallest experiment, else it would be worth while to put pollen on some stigmas (supposing that it does not seed freely with you). Anyhow, insects would probably carry pollen from flower to flower, for Kurr states the tube formed by pistil, stamen and "nectarblatt" secretes (I presume internally) much nectar. Thanks for sending me the curious flower. Now I want much some wisdom; though I must write at considerable length, your answer may be very brief. (FIGURE 8.--FLORAL DIAGRAM OF AN ORCHID. The "missing bundle" could not be found in some species.) In R. Brown's admirable paper in the "Linnean Transacts." (603/4. Volume XVI., page 685.) he suggests (and Lindley cautiously agrees) that the flower of orchids consists of five whorls, the inner whorl of the two whorls of anthers being all rudimentary, and when the labellum presents ridges, two or three of the anthers of both whorls [are] combined with it. In the ovarium there are six bundles of vessels: R. Brown judged by transverse sections. It occurred to me, after what you said, to trace the vessels longitudinally, and I have succeeded well. Look at my diagram [Figure 8] (which please return, for I am transported with admiration at it), which shows the vessels which I have traced, one bundle to each of fifteen theoretical organs, and no more. You will see the result is nothing new, but it seems to confirm strongly R. Brown, for I have succeeded (perhaps he did, but he does not say so) in tracing the vessels belonging to each organ in front of each other to the same bundle in the ovarium: thus the vessels going to the lower sepal, to the side of the labellum, and to one stigma (when there are two) all distinctly branch from one ovarian bundle. So in other cases, but I have not completely traced (only seen) that going to the rostellum. But here comes my only point of novelty: in all orchids as yet looked at (even one with so simple a labellum as Gymnadenia and Malaxis) the vessels on the two sides of the labellum are derived from the bundle which goes to the lower sepal, as in the diagram. This leads me to conclude that the labellum is always a compound organ. Now I want to know whether it is conceivable that the vessels coming from one main bundle should penetrate an organ (the labellum) which receives its vessels from another main bundle? Does it not imply that all that part of the labellum which is supplied by vessels coming from a lateral bundle must be part of a primordially distinct organ, however closely the two may have become united? It is curious in Gymnadenia to trace the middle anterior bundle in the ovarium: when it comes to the orifice of the nectary it turns and runs right down it, then comes up the opposite side and runs to the apex of the labellum, whence each side of the nectary is supplied by vessels from the bundles, coming from the lower sepals. Hence even the thin nectary is essentially, I infer, tripartite; hence its tendency to bifurcation at its top. This view of the labellum always consisting of three organs (I believe four when thick, as in Mormodes, at base) seems to me to explain its great size and tripartite form, compared with the other petals. Certainly, if I may trust the vessels, the simple labellum of Gymnadenia consists of three organs soldered together. Forgive me for writing at such length; a very brief answer will suffice. I am desperately interested in the subject: the destiny of the whole human race is as nothing to the course of vessels of orchids... What plant has the most complex single stigma and pistil? The most complex I, in my ignorance, can think of is in Iris. I want to know whether anything beats in modification the rostellum of Catasetum. To-morrow I mean to be at Catasetum. Hurrah! What species is it? It is wonderfully different from that which Veitch sent me, which was C. saccatum. According to the vessels, an orchid flower consists of three sepals and two petals free; and of a compound organ (its labellum), consisting of one petal and of two (or three) modified anthers; and of a second compound body consisting of three pistils, one normal anther, and two modified anthers often forming the sides of the clinandrum. LETTER 604. TO JOHN LINDLEY. (604/1. It was in the autumn of 1861 that Darwin made up his mind to publish his Orchid work as a book, rather than as a paper in the Linnean Society's "Journal." (604/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 266.) The following letter shows that the new arrangement served as an incitement to fresh work.) Down, October 25th [1861?] Mr. James Veitch has been most generous. I did not know that you had spoken to him. If you see him pray say I am truly grateful; I dare not write to a live Bishop or a Lady, but if I knew the address of "Rucker"? and might use your name as introduction, I might write. I am half mad on the subject. Hooker has sent me many exotics, but I stopped him, for I thought I should make a fool of myself; but since I have determined to publish I much regret it. (FIGURE 9.--HABENARIA CHLORANTHA (Longitudinal course of bundles).) (605/1. The three upper curved outlines, two of which passing through the words "upper sepal," "upper petal," "lower sepal," were in red in the original; for explanation see text.) LETTER 605. TO J.D. HOOKER. (605/2. The following letter is of interest because it relates to one of the two chief difficulties Darwin met with in working out the morphology of the orchid flower. In the orchid book (605/3. Edition I., page 303.) he wrote, "This anomaly [in Habenaria] is so far of importance, as it throws some doubt on the view which I have taken of the labellum being always an organ compounded of one petal and two petaloid stamens." That is to say, it leaves it open for a critic to assert that the vessels which enter the sides of the labellum are lateral vessels of the petal and do not necessarily represent petaloid stamens. In the sequel he gives a satisfactory answer to the supposed objector.) Down, November 10th, [1861]. For the love of God help me. I believe all my work (about a fortnight) is useless. Look at this accursed diagram (Figure 9) of the butterfly-orchis [Habenaria], which I examined after writing to you yesterday, when I thought all my work done. Some of the ducts of the upper sepal (605/4. These would be described by modern morphologists as lower, not upper, sepals, etc. Darwin was aware that he used these terms incorrectly.) and upper petal run to the wrong bundles on the column. I have seen no such case. This case apparently shows that not the least reliance can be placed on the course of ducts. I am sure of my facts. There is great adhesion and extreme displacement of parts where the organs spring from the top of the ovarium. Asa Gray says ducts are very early developed, and it seems to me wonderful that they should pursue this course. It may be said that the lateral ducts in the labellum running into the antero-lateral ovarian bundle is no argument that the labellum consists of three organs blended together. In desperation (and from the curious way the base of upper petals are soldered at basal edges) I fancied the real form of upper sepal, upper petal and lower sepal might be as represented by red lines, and that there had been an incredible amount of splitting of sepals and petals and subsequent fusion. This seems a monstrous notion, but I have just looked at Bauer's drawing of allied Bonatea, and there is a degree of lobing of petals and sepals which would account for anything. Now could you spare me a dry flower out of your Herbarium of Bonatea speciosa (605/5. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 304 (note), where the resemblances between the anomalous vessels of Bonatea and Habenaria are described. On November 14th, 1861, he wrote to Sir Joseph: "You are a true friend in need. I can hardly bear to let the Bonatea soak long enough."), that I might soak and look for ducts. If I cannot explain the case of Habenaria all my work is smashed. I was a fool ever to touch orchids. LETTER 606. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 17th [1861]. What two very interesting and useful letters you have sent me. You rather astound me with respect to value of grounds of generalisation in the morphology of plants. It reminds me that years ago I sent you a grass to name, and your answer was, "It is certainly Festuca (so-and-so), but it agrees as badly with the description as most plants do." I have often laughed over this answer of a great botanist...Lindley, from whom I asked for an orchid with a simple labellum, has most kindly sent me a lot of what he marks "rare" and "rarissima" of peloric orchids, etc., but as they are dried I know not whether they will be of use. He has been most kind, and has suggested my writing to Lady D. Nevill, who has responded in a wonderfully kind manner, and has sent a lot of treasures. But I must stop; otherwise, by Jove, I shall be transformed into a botanist. I wish I had been one; this morphology is surprisingly interesting. Looking to your note, I may add that certainly the fifteen alternating bundles of spiral vessels (mingled with odd beadlike vessels in some cases) are present in many orchids. The inner whorl of anther ducts are oftenest aborted. I must keep clear of Apostasia, though I have cast many a longing look at it in Bauer. (606/1. Apostasia has two fertile anthers like Cypripedium. It is placed by Engler and Prantl in the Apostasieae or Apostasiinae, among the Orchideae, by others in a distinct but closely allied group.) I hope I may be well enough to read my own paper on Thursday, but I have been very seedy lately. (606/2. "On the two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the Species of the Genus Primula," "Linn. Soc. Journ." 1862. He did read the paper, but it cost him the next day in bed. "Life and Letters," III., page 299.) I see there is a paper at the Royal on the same night, which will more concern you, on fossil plants of Bovey (606/3. Oswald Heer, "The Fossil Flora of Bovey Tracey," "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1862, page 1039.), so that I suppose I shall not have you; but you must read my paper when published, as I shall very much like to hear what you think. It seems to me a large field for experiment. I shall make use of my Orchid little volume in illustrating modification of species doctrine, but I keep very, very doubtful whether I am not doing a foolish action in publishing. How I wish you would keep to your old intention and write a book on plants. (606/4. Possibly a book similar to that described in Letter 696.) LETTER 607. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 26th [1861]. Our notes have crossed on the road. I know it is an honour to have a paper in the "Transactions," and I am much obliged to you for proposing it, but I should greatly prefer to publish in the "Journal." Nor does this apply exclusively to myself, for in old days at the Geological Society I always protested against an abstract appearing when the paper itself might appear. I abominate also the waste of time (and it would take me a day) in making an abstract. If the referee on my paper should recommend it to appear in the "Transactions," will you be so kind as to lay my earnest request before the Council that it may be permitted to appear in the "Journal?" You must be very busy with your change of residence; but when you are settled and have some leisure, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me some cases of dimorphism, like that of Primula. Should you object to my adding them to those given me by A. Gray? By the way, I heard from A. Gray this morning, and he gives me two very curious cases in Boragineae. LETTER 608. TO JOHN LINDLEY. (608/1. In the following fragment occurs the earliest mention of Darwin's work on the three sexual forms of Catasetum tridentatum. Sir R. Schomburgk (608/2. "Trans. Linn. Soc." XVII., page 522.) described Catasetum tridentatum, Monacanthus viridis and Myanthus barbatus occurring on a single plant, but it remained for Darwin to make out that they are the male, female and hermaphrodite forms of a single species. (608/3. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 236; Edition II., page 196.) With regard to the species of Acropera (Gongora) (608/4. Acropera Loddigesii = Gongora galeata: A. luteola = G. fusca ("Index Kewensis").) he was wrong in his surmise. The apparent sterility seems to be explicable by Hildebrand's discovery (608/5. "Bot. Zeitung," 1863 and 1865.) that in some orchids the ovules are not developed until pollinisation has occurred. (608/6. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 172. See Letter 633.)) Down, December 15th [1861]. I am so nearly ready for press that I will not ask for anything more; unless, indeed, you stumbled on Mormodes in flower. As I am writing I will just mention that I am convinced from the rudimentary state of the ovules, and from the state of the stigma, that the whole plant of Acropera luteola (and I believe A. Loddigesii) is male. Have you ever seen any form from the same countries which could be the females? Of course no answer is expected unless you have ever observed anything to bear on this. I may add [judging from the] state of the ovules and of the pollen [that]:-- Catasetum tridentatum is male (and never seeds, according to Schomburgk, whom you have accidentally misquoted in the "Vegetable Kingdom"). Monacanthus viridis is female. Myanthus barbatus is the hermaphrodite form of same species. LETTER 609. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 18th [1861]. Thanks for your note. I have not written for a long time, for I always fancy, busy as you are, that my letters must be a bore; though I like writing, and always enjoy your notes. I can sympathise with you about fear of scarlet fever: to the day of my death I shall never forget all the sickening fear about the other children, after our poor little baby died of it. The "Genera Plantarum" must be a tremendous work, and no doubt very valuable (such a book, odd as it may appear, would be very useful even to me), but I cannot help being rather sorry at the length of time it must take, because I cannot enter on and understand your work. Will you not be puzzled when you come to the orchids? It seems to me orchids alone would be work for a man's lifetime; I cannot somehow feel satisfied with Lindley's classification; the Malaxeae and Epidendreae seem to me very artificially separated. (609/1. Pfitzer (in the "Pflanzenfamilien") places Epidendrum in the Laeliinae-Cattleyeae, Malaxis in the Liparidinae. He states that Bentham united the Malaxideae and Epidendreae.) Not that I have seen enough to form an opinion worth anything. Your African plant seems to be a vegetable Ornithorhynchus, and indeed much more than that. (609/2. See Sir J.D. Hooker, "On Welwitschia, a new genus of Gnetaceae." "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIV., 1862-3.) The more I read about plants the more I get to feel that all phanerogams seem comparable with one class, as lepidoptera, rather than with one kingdom, as the whole insecta. (609/3. He wrote to Hooker (December 28th, 1861): "I wrote carelessly about the value of phanerogams; what I was thinking of was that the sub-groups seemed to blend so much more one into another than with most classes of animals. I suspect crustacea would show more difference in the extreme forms than phanerogams, but, as you say, it is wild speculation. Yet it is very strange what difficulty botanists seem to find in grouping the families together into masses.") Thanks for your comforting sentence about the accursed ducts (accursed though they be, I should like nothing better than to work at them in the allied orders, if I had time). I shall be ready for press in three or four weeks, and have got all my woodcuts drawn. I fear much that publishing separately will prove a foolish job, but I do not care much, and the work has greatly amused me. The Catasetum has not flowered yet! In writing to Lindley about an orchid which he sent me, I told him a little about Acropera, and in answer he suggests that Gongora may be its female. He seems dreadfully busy, and I feel that I have more right to kill you than to kill him; so can you send me one or at most two dried flowers of Gongora? if you know the habitat of Acropera luteola, a Gongora from the same country would be the best, but any true Gongora would do; if its pollen should prove as rudimentary as that of Monacanthus relatively to Catasetum, I think I could easily perceive it even in dried specimens when well soaked. I have picked a little out of Lecoq, but it is awful tedious hunting. Bates is getting on with his natural history travels in one volume. (609/4. H.W. Bates, the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863. See Volume I., Letters 123, 148, also "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 381.) I have read the first chapter in MS., and I think it will be an excellent book and very well written; he argues, in a good and new way to me, that tropical climate has very little direct relation to the gorgeous colouring of insects (though of course he admits the tropics have a far greater number of beautiful insects) by taking all the few genera common to Britain and Amazonia, and he finds that the species proper to the latter are not at all more beautiful. I wonder how this is in species of the same restricted genera of plants. If you can remember it, thank Bentham for getting my Primula paper printed so quickly. I do enjoy getting a subject off one's hands completely. I have now got dimorphism in structure in eight natural orders just like Primula. Asa Gray sent me dried flowers of a capital case in Amsinkia spectabilis, one of the Boragineae. I suppose you do not chance to have the plant alive at Kew. LETTER 610. TO A.G. MORE. Down, June 7th, 1862. If you are well and have leisure, will you kindly give me one bit of information: Does Ophrys arachnites occur in the Isle of Wight? or do the intermediate forms, which are said to connect abroad this species and the bee-orchis, ever there occur? Some facts have led me to suspect that it might just be possible, though improbable in the highest degree, that the bee [orchis] might be the self-fertilising form of O. arachnites, which requires insects' aid, something [in the same way] as we have self-fertilising flowers of the violet and others requiring insects. I know the case is widely different, as the bee is borne on a separate plant and is incomparably commoner. This would remove the great anomaly of the bee being a perpetual self-fertiliser. Certain Malpighiaceae for years produce only one of the two forms. What has set my head going on this is receiving to-day a bee having one alone of the best marked characters of O. arachnites. (610/1. Ophrys arachnites is probably more nearly allied to O. aranifera than to O. apifera. For a case somewhat analogous to that suggested see the description of O. scolopax in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 52.) Pray forgive me troubling you. LETTER 611. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, June 22nd [1862?]. Here is a piece of presumption! I must think that you are mistaken in ranking Hab[enaria] chlorantha (611/1. In Hooker's "Students' Flora," 1884, page 395, H. chlorantha is given as a subspecies of H. bifolia. Sir J.D. Hooker adds that they are "according to Darwin, distinct, and require different species of moths to fertilise them. They vary in the position and distances of their anther-cells, but intermediates occur." See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 73.) as a variety of H. bifolia; the pollen-masses and stigma differ more than in most of the best species of Orchis. When I first examined them I remember telling Hooker that moths would, I felt sure, fertilise them in a different manner; and I have just had proof of this in a moth sent me with the pollinia (which can be easily recognised) of H. chlorantha attached to its proboscis, instead of to the sides of its face, as an H. bifolia. Forgive me scribbling this way; but when a man gets on his hobby-horse he always is run away with. Anyhow, nothing here requires any answer. LETTER 612. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [September] 14th [1862]. Your letter is a mine of wealth, but first I must scold you: I cannot abide to hear you abuse yourself, even in joke, and call yourself a stupid dog. You, in fact, thus abuse me, because for long years I have looked up to you as the man whose opinion I have valued more on any scientific subject than any one else in the world. I continually marvel at what you know, and at what you do. I have been looking at the "Genera" (612/1. "Genera Plantarum," by Bentham and Hooker, Volume I., Part I., 1862.), and of course cannot judge at all of its real value, but I can judge of the amount of condensed facts under each family and genus. I am glad you know my feeling of not being able to judge about one's own work; but I suspect that you have been overworking. I should think you could not give too much time to Wellwitchia (I spell it different every time I write it) (612/2. "On Welwitschia," "Linn. Soc. Trans." [1862], XXIV., 1863.); at least I am sure in the animal kingdom monographs cannot be too long on the osculant groups. Hereafter I shall be excessively glad to read a paper about Aldrovanda (612/3. See "Insectivorous Plants," page 321.), and am very much obliged for reference. It is pretty to see how the caught flies support Drosera; nothing else can live. Thanks about plants with two kinds of anthers. I presume (if an included flower was a Cassia) (612/4. Todd has described a species of Cassia with an arrangement of stamens like the Melastomads. See Chapter 2.X.II.) that Cassia is like lupines, but with some stamens still more rudimentary. If I hear I will return the three Melastomads; I do not want them, and, indeed, have cuttings. I am very low about them, and have wasted enormous labour over them, and cannot yet get a glimpse of the meaning of the parts. I wish I knew any botanical collector to whom I could apply for seeds in their native land of any Heterocentron or Monochoetum; I have raised plenty of seedlings from your plants, but I find in other cases that from a homomorphic union one generally gets solely the parent form. Do you chance to know of any botanical collector in Mexico or Peru? I must not now indulge myself with looking after vessels and homologies. Some future time I will indulge myself. By the way, some time I want to talk over the alternation of organs in flowers with you, for I think I must have quite misunderstood you that it was not explicable. I found out the Verbascum case by pure accident, having transplanted one for experiment, and finding it to my astonishment utterly sterile. I formerly thought with you about rarity of natural hybrids, but I am beginning to change: viz., oxlips (not quite proven), Verbascum, Cistus (not quite proven), Aegilops triticoides (beautifully shown by Godron), Weddell's and your orchids (612/5. For Verbascum see "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 356; for Cistus, Ibid., Edition II., Volume I., page 356, Volume II., page 122; for Aegilops, Ibid., Edition II., Volume I., page 330, note.), and I daresay many others recorded. Your letters are one of my greatest pleasures in life, but I earnestly beg you never to write unless you feel somewhat inclined, for I know how hard you work, as I work only in the morning it is different with me, and is only a pleasant relaxation. You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement. LETTER 613. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, Hants, September 2nd [1862]. Hearty thanks for your note. I am so glad that your tour answered so splendidly. My poor patients (613/1. Mrs. Darwin and one of her sons, both recovering from scarlet fever.) got here yesterday, and are doing well, and we have a second house for the well ones. I write now in great haste to beg you to look (though I know how busy you are, but I cannot think of any other naturalist who would be careful) at any field of common red clover (if such a field is near you) and watch the hive-bees: probably (if not too late) you will see some sucking at the mouth of the little flowers and some few sucking at the base of the flowers, at holes bitten through the corollas. All that you will see is that the bees put their heads deep into the [flower] head and rout about. Now, if you see this, do for Heaven's sake catch me some of each and put in spirits and keep them separate. I am almost certain that they belong to two castes, with long and short proboscids. This is so curious a point that it seems worth making out. I cannot hear of a clover field near here. LETTER 614. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, Wednesday, September 3rd [1862]. I beg a million pardons. Abuse me to any degree, but forgive me: it is all an illusion (but almost excusable) about the bees. (614/1. H. Muller, "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 186, describes hive-bees visiting Trifolium pratense for the sake of the pollen. Darwin may perhaps have supposed that these were the variety of bees whose proboscis was long enough to reach the nectar. In "Cross and Self Fertilisation," page 361, Darwin describes hive-bees apparently searching for a secretion on the calyx. In the same passage in "Cross and Self Fertilisation" he quotes Muller as stating that hive-bees obtain nectar from red clover by breaking apart the petals. This seems to us a misinterpretation of the "Befruchtung der Blumen," page 224.) I do so hope that you have not wasted any time from my stupid blunder. I hate myself, I hate clover, and I hate bees. (FIGURE 10.--DIAGRAM OF CRUCIFEROUS FLOWER. FIGURE 11.--DISSECTION OF CRUCIFEROUS FLOWER. Laid flat open, showing by dotted lines the course of spiral vessels in all the organs; sepals and petals shown on one side alone, with the stamens on one side above with course of vessels indicated, but not prolonged. Near side of pistil with one spiral vessel cut away.) LETTER 615. TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, September 11th, 1862. You once told me that Cruciferous flowers were anomalous in alternation of parts, and had given rise to some theory of dedoublement. Having nothing on earth to do here, I have dissected all the spiral vessels in a flower, and instead of burning my diagrams [Figures 10 and 11], I send them to you, you miserable man. But mind, I do not want you to send me a discussion, but just some time to say whether my notions are rubbish, and then burn the diagrams. It seems to me that all parts alternate beautifully by fours, on the hypothesis that two short stamens of outer whorl are aborted (615/1. The view given by Darwin is (according to Eichler) that previously held by Knuth, Wydler, Chatin, and others. Eichler himself believes that the flower is dimerous, the four longer stamens being produced by the doubling or splitting of the upper (i.e. antero-posterior) pair of stamens. If this view is correct, and there are good reasons for it, it throws much suspicion on the evidence afforded by the course of vessels, for there is no trace of the common origin of the longer stamens in the diagram (Figure 11). Again, if Eichler is right, the four vessels shown in the section of the ovary are misleading. Darwin afterwards gave a doubtful explanation of this, and concluded that the ovary is dimerous. See Letter 616.); and this view is perhaps supported by their being so few, only two sub-bundles in the two lateral main bundles, where I imagine two short stamens have aborted, but I suppose there is some valid objection against this notion. The course of the side vessels in the sepals is curious, just like my difficulty in Habenaria. (615/2. See Letter 605.) I am surprised at the four vessels in the ovarium. Can this indicate four confluent pistils? anyhow, they are in the right alternating position. The nectary within the base of the shorter stamens seems to cause the end sepals apparently, but not really, to arise beneath the lateral sepals. I think you will understand my diagrams in five minutes, so forgive me for bothering you. My writing this to you reminds me of a letter which I received yesterday from Claparede, who helped the French translatress of the "Origin" (615/3. The late Mlle. Royer.), and he tells me he had difficulty in preventing her (who never looked at a bee's cell) from altering my whole description, because she affirmed that an hexagonal prism must have an hexagonal base! Almost everywhere in the "Origin," when I express great doubt, she appends a note explaining the difficulty, or saying that there is none whatever!! (615/4. See "Life and Letters," II., page 387.) It is really curious to know what conceited people there are in the world (people, for instance, after looking at one Cruciferous flower, explain their homologies). This is a nice, but most barren country, and I can find nothing to look at. Even the brooks and ponds produce nothing. The country is like Patagonia. my wife is almost well, thank God, and Leonard is wonderfully improved ...Good God, what an illness scarlet fever is! The doctor feared rheumatic fever for my wife, but she does not know her risk. It is now all over. (FIGURE 12.) LETTER 616. TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, Thursday Evening [September 18th, 1862]. Thanks for your pleasant note, which told me much news, and upon the whole good, of yourselves. You will be awfully busy for a time, but I write now to say that if you think it really worth while to send me a few Dielytra, or other Fumariaceous plant (which I have already tried in vain to find here) in a little tin box, I will try and trace the vessels; but please observe, I do not know that I shall have time, for I have just become wonderfully interested in experimenting on Drosera with poisons, etc. If you send any Fumariaceous plant, send if you can, also two or three single balsams. After writing to you, I looked at vessels of ovary of a sweet-pea, and from this and other cases I believe that in the ovary the midrib vessel alone gives homologies, and that the vessels on the edge of the carpel leaf often run into the wrong bundle, just like those on the sides of the sepals. Hence I [suppose] in Crucifers that the ovarium consists of two pistils; AA [Figure 12] being the midrib vessels, and BB being those formed of the vessels on edges of the two carpels, run together, and going to wrong bundles. I came to this conclusion before receiving your letter. I wonder why Asa Gray will not believe in the quaternary arrangement; I had fancied that you saw some great difficulty in the case, and that made me think that my notion must be wrong. LETTER 617. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 27th [1862]. Masdevallia turns out nothing wonderful (617/1. This may refer to the homologies of the parts. He was unable to understand the mechanism of the flower.--"Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 136.); I was merely stupid about it; I am not the less obliged for its loan, for if I had lived till 100 years old I should have been uneasy about it. It shall be returned the first day I send to Bromley. I have steamed the other plants, and made the sensitive plant very sensitive, and shall soon try some experiments on it. But after all it will only be amusement. Nevertheless, if not causing too much trouble, I should be very glad of a few young plants of this and Hedysarum in summer (617/2. Hedysarum or Desmodium gyrans, the telegraph-plant.), for this kind of work takes no time and amuses me much. Have you seeds of Oxalis sensitiva, which I see mentioned in books? By the way, what a fault it is in Henslow's "Botany" that he gives hardly any references; he alludes to great series of experiments on absorption of poison by roots, but where to find them I cannot guess. Possibly the all-knowing Oliver may know. I can plainly see that the glands of Drosera, from rapid power (almost instantaneous) of absorption and power of movement, give enormous advantage for such experiments. And some day I will enjoy myself with a good set to work; but it will be a great advantage if I can get some preliminary notion on other sensitive plants and on roots. Oliver said he would speak about some seeds of Lythrum hyssopifolium being preserved for me. By the way, I am rather disgusted to find I cannot publish this year on Lythrum salicaria; I must make 126 additional crosses. All that I expected is true, but I have plain indication of much higher complexity. There are three pistils of different structure and functional power, and I strongly suspect altogether five kinds of pollen all different in this one species! (617/3. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 138.) By any chance have you at Kew any odd varieties of the common potato? I want to grow a few plants of every variety, to compare flowers, leaves, fruit, etc., as I have done with peas, etc. (617/4. "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 346. Compare also the similar facts with regard to cabbages, loc. cit., page 342. Some of the original specimens are in the Botanical Museum at Cambridge.) LETTER 618. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. (618/1. The following is part of Letter 144, Volume I. It refers to reviews of "Fertilisation of Orchids" in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1862, pages 789, 863, 910, and in the "Natural History Review," October, 1862, page 371.) November 7th, 1862. Dear old Darwin, I assure you it was not my fault! I worried Lindley over and over again to notice your orchid book in the "Chronicle" by the very broadest hints man could give. (618/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 273.) At last he said, "really I cannot, you must do it for me," and so I did--volontiers. Lindley felt that he ought to have done it himself, and my main effort was to write it "a la Lindley," and in this alone I have succeeded--that people all think it is exactly Lindley's style!!! which diverts me vastly. The fact is, between ourselves, I fear that poor L. is breaking up--he said that he could not fix his mind on your book. He works himself beyond his mental or physical powers. And now, my dear Darwin, I may as well make a clean breast of it, and tell you that I wrote the "Nat. Hist. Review" notice too--to me a very difficult task, and one I fancied I failed in, comparatively. Of this you are no judge, and can be none; you told me to tell Oliver it pleased you, and so I am content and happy. LETTER 619. TO W.E. DARWIN. Down, 4th [about 1862-3?] I have been looking at the fertilisation of wheat, and I think possibly you might find something curious. I observed in almost every one of the pollen-grains, which had become empty and adhered to (I suppose the viscid) branching hairs of the stigma, that the pollen-tube was always (?) emitted on opposite side of grain to that in contact with the branch of the stigma. This seems very odd. The branches of the stigma are very thin, formed apparently of three rows of cells of hardly greater diameter than pollen-tube. I am astonished that the tubes should be able to penetrate the walls. The specimens examined (not carefully by me) had pollen only during few hours on stigma; and the mere SUSPICION has crossed me that the pollen-tubes crawl down these branches to the base and then penetrate the stigmatic tissue. (619/1. See Strasburger's "Neue Untersuchungen uber den Befruchtungsvorgang bei den Phanerogamen," 1884. In Alopecurus pratensis he describes the pollen as adhering to the end of a projection from the stigma where it germinates; the tube crawls along or spirally round this projection until it reaches the angle where the stigmatic branch is given off; here it makes an entrance and travels in the middle lamella between two cells.) The paleae open for a short period for stigma to be dusted, and then close again, and such travelling down would take place under protection. High powers and good adjustment are necessary. Ears expel anthers when kept in water in room; but the paleae apparently do not open and expose stigma; but the stigma could easily be artificially impregnated. If I were you I would keep memoranda of points worth attending to. 2.X.II. MELASTOMACEAE, 1862-1881. (620/1. The following series of letters (620-630) refers to the Melastomaceae and certain other flowers of analogous form. In 1862 Darwin attempted to explain the existence of two very different sets of stamens in these plants as a case of dimorphism, somewhat analogous to the state of things in Primula. In this view he was probably wrong, but this does not diminish the interest of the crossing experiments described in the letters. The persistence of his interest in this part of the subject is shown in the following passage from his Preface to the English translation of H. Muller's "Befruchtung der Blumen"; the passage is dated February, 1882, but was not published until the following year. "There exist also some few plants the flowers of which include two sets of stamens, differing in the shape of the anthers and in the colour of the pollen; and at present no one knows whether this difference has any functional significance, and this is a point which ought to be determined." It is not obvious why he spoke of the problem as if no light had been thrown on it, since in 1881 Fritz Muller had privately (see Letter 629) offered an explanation which Darwin was strongly inclined to accept. (620/2. H. Muller published ("Nature," August 4th, 1881) a letter from his brother Fritz giving the theory in question for Heeria. Todd ("American Naturalist," April 1882), described a similar state of things in Solanum rostratum and in Cassia: and H.O. Forbes ("Nature," August 1882, page 386) has done the same for Melastoma. In Rhexia virginica Mr. W.H. Leggett ("Bulletin Torrey Bot. Club, New York," VIII., 1881, page 102) describes the curious structure of the anther, which consists of two inflated portions and a tubular part connecting the two. By pressing with a blunt instrument on one of the ends, the pollen is forced out in a jet through a fine pore in the other inflated end. Mr. Leggett has seen bees treading on the anthers, but could not get near enough to see the pollen expelled. In the same journal, Volume IX., page 11, Mr. Bailey describes how in Heterocentron roseum, "upon pressing the bellows-like anther with a blunt pencil, the pollen was ejected to a full inch in distance." On Lagerstroemia as comparable with the Melastomads see Letter 689.) Fritz Muller's theory with regard to the Melastomads and a number of analogous cases in other genera are discussed in H. Muller's article in "Kosmos" (620/3. "Kosmos," XIII., 1883, page 241.), where the literature is given. F. Muller's theory is that in Heeria the yellow anthers serve merely as a means of attracting pollen-collecting bees, while the longer stamens with purple or crimson anthers supply pollen for fertilising purposes. If Muller is right the pollen from the yellow anthers would not normally reach the stigma. The increased vigour observed in the seedlings from the yellow anthers would seem to resemble the good effect of a cross between different individuals of the same species as worked out in "Cross and Self Fertilisation," for it is difficult to believe that the pollen of the purple anthers has become, by adaptation, less effective than that of the yellow anthers. In the letters here given there is some contradiction between the statements as to the position of the two sets of stamens in relation to the sepals. According to Eichler ("Bluthendiagramme, II., page 482) the longer stamens may be either epipetalous or episepalous in this family. The work on the Melastomads is of such intrinsic importance that we have thought it right to give the correspondence in considerable detail; we have done so in spite of the fact that Darwin arrived at no definite conclusion, and in spite of an element of confusion and unsatisfactoriness in the series of letters. This applies also to Letter 629, written after Darwin had learned Fritz Muller's theory, which is obscured by some errors or slips of the pen.) LETTER 620. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, February 3rd [1862?] As you so kindly helped me before on dimorphism, will you forgive me begging for a little further information, if in your power to give it? The case is that of the Melastomads with eight stamens, on which I have been experimenting. I am perplexed by opposed statements: Lindley says the stamens which face the petals are sterile; Wallich says in Oxyspora paniculata that the stamens which face the sepals are destitute of pollen; I find plenty of apparently good pollen in both sets of stamens in Heterocentron [Heeria], Monochoetum, and Centradenia. Can you throw any light on this? But there is another point on which I am more anxious for information. Please look at the enclosed miserable diagram. I find that the pollen of the yellow petal-facing stamens produce more than twice as much seed as the pollen of the purple sepal-facing stamens. This is exactly opposed to Lindley's statement--viz., that the petal-facing stamens are sterile. But I cannot at present believe that the case has any relation to abortion; it is hardly possible to believe that the longer and very curious stamens, which face the sepals in this Heterocentron, are tending to be rudimentary, though their pollen applied to their own flowers produces so much less seed. It is conformable with what we see in Primula that the [purple] sepal-facing anthers, which in the plant seen by me stood quite close on each side of the stigma, should have been rendered less fitted to fertilise the stigma than the stamens on the opposite side of the flower. Hence the suspicion has crossed me that if many plants of the Heterocentron roseum were examined, half would be found with the pistil nearly upright, instead of being rectangularly bent down, as shown in the diagram (620/4. According to Willis, "Flowering Plants and Ferns," 1897, Volume II., page 252, the style in Monochoetum, "at first bent downwards, moves slowly up till horizontal."); or, if the position of pistil is fixed, that in half the plants the petal-facing stamens would bend down, and in the other half of the plants the sepal-facing stamens would bend down as in the diagram. I suspect the former case, as in Centradenia I find the pistil nearly straight. Can you tell me? (620/5. No reply by Mr. Bentham to this or the following queries has been found.) Can the name Heterocentron have any reference to such diversity? Would it be asking too great a favour to ask you to look at dried specimens of Heterocentron roseum (which would be best), or of Monochoetum, or any eight-stamened Melastomad, of which you have specimens from several localities (as this would ensure specimens having been taken from distinct plants), and observe whether the pistil bends differently or stamens differently in different plants? You will at once see that, if such were the fact, it would be a new form of dimorphism, and would open up a large field of inquiry with respect to the potency of the pollen in all plants which have two sets of stamens--viz., longer and shorter. Can you forgive me for troubling you at such unreasonable length? But it is such waste of time to experiment without some guiding light. I do not know whether you have attended particularly to Melastoma; if you have not, perhaps Hooker or Oliver may have done so. I should be very grateful for any information, as it will guide future experiments. P.S.--Do you happen to know, when there are only four stamens, whether it is the petal or sepal-facers which are preserved? and whether in the four-stamened forms the pistil is rectangularly bent or is straight? LETTER 621. TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 16th [1862?]. I have been trying a few experiments on Melastomads; and they seem to indicate that the pollen of the two curious sets of anthers (i.e. the petal-facers and the sepal-facers) have very different powers; and it does not seem that the difference is connected with any tendency to abortion in the one set. Now I think I can understand the structure of the flower and means of fertilisation, if there be two forms,--one with the pistil bent rectangularly out of the flower, and the other with it nearly straight. Our hot-house and green-house plants have probably all descended by cuttings from a single plant of each species; so I can make out nothing from them. I applied in vain to Bentham and Hooker; but Oliver picked out some sentences from Naudin, which seem to indicate differences in the position of the pistil. I see that Rhexia grows in Massachusetts; and I suppose has two different sets of stamens. Now, if in your power, would you observe the position of the pistil in different plants, in lately opened flowers of the same age? (I specify this because in Monochaetum I find great changes of position in the pistils and stamens, as flower gets old). Supposing that my prophecy should turn out right, please observe whether in both forms the passage into the flower is not [on] the upper side of the pistil, owing to the basal part of the pistil lying close to the ring of filaments on the under side of the flower. Also I should like to know the colour of the two sets of anthers. This would take you only a few minutes, and is the only way I see that I can find out whether these plants are dimorphic in this peculiar way--i.e., only in the position of the pistil (621/1. In Exacum and in Saintpaulia the flowers are dimorphic in this sense: the style projects to either the right or the left side of the corolla, from which it follows that a right-handed flower would fertilise a left-handed one, and vice versa. See Willis, "Flowering Plants and Ferns," 1897, Volume I., page 73.) and in its relation to the two kinds of pollen. I am anxious about this, because if it should prove so, it will show that all plants with longer and shorter or otherwise different anthers will have to be examined for dimorphism. LETTER 622. TO ASA GRAY. March 15th [1862]. ...I wrote some little time ago about Rhexia; since then I have been carefully watching and experimenting on another genus, Monochaetum; and I find that the pistil is first bent rectangularly (as in the sketch sent), and then in a few days becomes straight: the stamens also move. If there be not two forms of Rhexia, will you compare the position of the part in young and old flowers? I have a suspicion (perhaps it will be proved wrong when the seed-capsules are ripe) that one set of anthers are adapted to the pistil in early state, and the other set for it in its later state. If bees visit the Rhexia, for Heaven's sake watch exactly how the anther and stigma strike them, both in old and young flowers, and give me a sketch. Again I say, do not hate me. LETTER 623. TO J.D. HOOKER. Leith Hill Place, Dorking, Thursday, 15th [May 1862]. You stated at the Linnean Society that different sets of seedling Cinchona (623/1. Cinchona is apparently heterostyled: see "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 134.) grew at very different rate, and from my Primula case you attributed it probably to two sorts of pollen. I confess I thought you rash, but I now believe you were quite right. I find the yellow and crimson anthers of the same flower in the Melastomatous Heterocentron roseum have different powers; the yellow producing on the same plant thrice as many seeds as the crimson anthers. I got my neighbour's most skilful gardener to sow both kinds of seeds, and yesterday he came to me and said it is a most extraordinary thing that though both lots have been treated exactly alike, one lot all remain dwarfs and the other lot are all rising high up. The dwarfs were produced by the pollen of the crimson anthers. In Monochaetum ensiferum the facts are more complex and still more strange; as the age and position of the pistils comes into play, in relation to the two kinds of pollen. These facts seem to me so curious that I do not scruple to ask you to see whether you can lend me any Melastomad just before flowering, with a not very small flower, and which will endure for a short time a greenhouse or sitting-room; when fertilised and watered I could send it to Mr. Turnbull's to a cool stove to mature seed. I fully believe the case is worth investigation. P.S.--You will not have time at present to read my orchid book; I never before felt half so doubtful about anything which I published. When you read it, do not fear "punishing" me if I deserve it. Adios. I am come here to rest, which I much want. Whenever you have occasion to write, pray tell me whether you have Rhododendron Boothii from Bhootan, with a smallish yellow flower, and pistil bent the wrong way; if so, I would ask Oliver to look for nectary, for it is an abominable error of Nature that must be corrected. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the pistil. LETTER 624. TO ASA GRAY. January 19th [1863]. I have been at those confounded Melastomads again; throwing good money (i.e. time) after bad. Do you remember telling me you could see no nectar in your Rhexia? well, I can find none in Monochaetum, and Bates tells me that the flowers are in the most marked manner neglected by bees and lepidoptera in Amazonia. Now the curious projections or horns to the stamens of Monochaetum are full of fluid, and the suspicion occurs to me that diptera or small hymenoptera may puncture these horns like they puncture (proved since my orchid book was published) the dry nectaries of true Orchis. I forget whether Rhexia is common; but I very much wish you would next summer watch on a warm day a group of flowers, and see whether they are visited by small insects, and what they do. LETTER 625. TO I.A. HENRY. Down, January 20th [1863]. ...You must kindly permit me to mention any point on which I want information. If you are so inclined, I am curious to know from systematic experiments whether Mr. D. Beaton's statement that the pollen of two shortest anthers of scarlet Pelargonium produce dwarf plants (625/1. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 150, for a brief account of Darwin's experiments on this genus. Also loc. cit., page 338 (note), for a suggested experiment.), in comparison with plants produced from the same mother-plant by the pollen of longer stamens from the same flower. It would aid me much in some laborious experiments on Melastomads. I confess I feel a little doubtful; at least, I feel pretty nearly sure that I know the meaning of short stamens in most plants. This summer (for another object) I crossed Queen of Scarlet Pelargonium with pollen of long and short stamens of multiflora alba, and it so turns out that plants from short stamens are the tallest; but I believe this to have been mere chance. My few crosses in Pelargonium were made to get seed from the central peloric or regular flower (I have got one from peloric flower by pollen of peloric), and this leads me to suggest that it would be very interesting to test fertility of peloric flowers in three ways,--own peloric pollen on peloric stigma, common pollen on peloric stigma, peloric pollen on common stigma of same species. My object is to discover whether with change of structure of flower there is any change in fertility of pollen or of female organs. This might also be tested by trying peloric and common pollen on stigma of a distinct species, and conversely. I believe there is a peloric and common variety of Tropaeolum, and a peloric or upright and common variation of some species of Gloxinia, and the medial peloric flowers of Pelargonium, and probably others unknown to me. LETTER 626. TO I.A. HENRY. Hartfield, May 2nd [1863]. In scarlet dwarf Pelargonium, you will find occasionally an additional and abnormal stamen on opposite and lower side of flower. Now the pollen of this one occasional short stamen, I think, very likely would produce dwarf plants. If you experiment on Pelargonium I would suggest your looking out for this single stamen. I observed fluctuations in length of pistil in Phloxes, but thought it was mere variability. If you could raise a bed of seedling Phloxes of any species except P. Drummondii, it would be highly desirable to see if two forms are presented, and I should be very grateful for information and flowers for inspection. I cannot remember, but I know that I had some reason to look after Phloxes. (626/1. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 119, where the conjecture is hazarded that Phlox subulata shows traces of a former heterostyled condition.) I do not know whether you have used microscopes much yet. It adds immensely to interest of all such work as ours, and is indeed indispensable for much work. Experience, however, has fully convinced me that the use of the compound without the simple microscope is absolutely injurious to progress of N[atural] History (excepting, of course, with Infusoria). I have, as yet, found no exception to the rule, that when a man has told me he works with the compound alone his work is valueless. LETTER 627. TO ASA GRAY. March 20th [1863]. I wrote to him [Dr. H. Cruger, of Trinidad] to ask him to observe what the insects did in the flowers of Melastomaceae: he says not proper season yet, but that on one species a small bee seemed busy about the horn-like appendages to the anthers. It will be too good luck if my study of the flowers in the greenhouse has led me to right interpretation of these appendages. LETTER 628. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 28th [1871]. If you had come here on Sunday I should have asked you whether you could give me seed or seedlings of any Melastomad which would flower soon to experiment on! I wrote also to J. Scott to ask if he could give me seed. Several years ago I raised a lot of seedlings of a Melastomad greenhouse bush (Monochaetus or some such name) (628/1. Monochaetum.) from stigmas fertilised separately by the two kinds of pollen, and the seedlings differed remarkably in size, and whilst young, in appearance; and I never knew what to think of the case (so you must not use it), and have always wished to try again, but they are troublesome beasts to fertilise. On the other hand I could detect no difference in the product from the two coloured anthers of Clarkia. (628/2. Clarkia has eight stamens divided into two groups which differ in the colour of the anthers.) If you want to know further particulars of my experiments on Monochaetum (?) and Clarkia, I will hunt for my notes. You ask about difference in pollen in the same species. All dimorphic and trimorphic plants present such difference in function and in size. Lythrum and the trimorphic Oxalis are the most wonderful cases. The pollen of the closed imperfect cleistogamic flowers differ in the transparency of the integument, and I think in size. The latter point I could ascertain from my notes. The pollen or female organs must differ in almost every individual in some manner; otherwise the pollen of varieties and even distinct individuals of same varieties would not be so prepotent over the individual plant's own pollen. Here follows a case of individual differences in function of pollen or ovules or both. Some few individuals of Reseda odorata and R. lutea cannot be fertilised, or only very rarely, by pollen of the same plant, but can by pollen of any other individual. I chanced to have two plants of R. odorata in this state; so I crossed them and raised five seedlings, all of which were self sterile and all perfectly fertile with pollen of any other individual mignonette. So I made a self sterile race! I do not know whether these are the kinds of facts which you require. Think whether you can help me to seed or better seedlings (not cuttings) of any Melastomad. LETTER 629. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 20th, 1881. I have received the seeds and your most interesting letter of February 7th. The seeds shall be sown, and I shall like to see the plants sleeping; but I doubt whether I shall make any more detailed observations on this subject, as, now that I feel very old, I require the stimulus of some novelty to make me work. This stimulus you have amply given me in your remarkable view of the meaning of the two-coloured stamens in many flowers. I was so much struck with this fact with Lythrum, that I began experimenting on some Melastomaceae, which have two sets of extremely differently coloured anthers. After reading your letter I turned to my notes (made 20 years ago!) to see whether they would support or contradict your suggestion. I cannot tell yet, but I have come across one very remarkable result, that seedlings from the crimson anthers were not 11/20ths of the size of seedlings from the yellow anthers of the same flowers. Fewer good seeds were produced by the crimson pollen. I concluded that the shorter stamens were aborting, and that the pollen was not good. (629/1. "Shorter stamens" seems to be a slip of the pen for "longer,"--unless the observations were made on some genus in which the structure is unusual.) The mature pollen is incoherent, and must be [word illegible] against the visiting insect's body. I remembered this, and I find it said in my EARLY notes that bees would never visit the flowers for pollen. This made me afterwards write to the late Dr. Cruger in the West Indies, and he observed for me the flowers, and saw bees pressing the anthers with their mandibles from the base upwards, and this forced a worm-like thread of pollen from the terminal pore, and this pollen the bees collected with their hind legs. So that the Melastomads are not opposed to your views. I am now working on the habits of worms, and it tires me much to change my subject; so I will lay on one side your letter and my notes, until I have a week's leisure, and will then see whether my facts bear on your views. I will then send a letter to "Nature" or to the Linn. Soc., with the extract of your letter (and this ought to appear in any case), with my own observations, if they appear worth publishing. The subject had gone out of my mind, but I now remember thinking that the imperfect action of the crimson stamens might throw light on hybridism. If this pollen is developed, according to your view, for the sake of attracting insects, it might act imperfectly, as well as if the stamens were becoming rudimentary. (629/2. As far as it is possible to understand the earlier letters it seems that the pollen of the shorter stamens, which are adapted for attracting insects, is the most effective.) I do not know whether I have made myself intelligible. LETTER 630. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, March 21st [1881]. I have had a letter from Fritz Muller suggesting a novel and very curious explanation of certain plants producing two sets of anthers of different colour. This has set me on fire to renew the laborious experiments which I made on this subject, now 20 years ago. Now, will you be so kind as to turn in your much worked and much holding head, whether you can think of any plants, especially annuals, producing 2 such sets of anthers. I believe that this is the case with Clarkia elegans, and I have just written to Thompson for seeds. The Lythraceae must be excluded, as these are heterostyled. I have got seeds from Dr. King of some Melastomaceae, and will write to Veitch to see if I can get the Melastomaceous genera Monochaetum and Heterocentron or some such name, on which I before experimented. Now, if you can aid me, I know that you will; but if you cannot, do not write and trouble yourself. 2.X.III. CORRESPONDENCE WITH JOHN SCOTT, 1862-1871. "If he had leisure he would make a wonderful observer, to my judgment; I have come across no one like him."--Letter to J.D. Hooker, May 29th [1863]. (631/1. The following group of letters to John Scott, of whom some account is given elsewhere (Volume I., Letters 150 and 151, and Index.) deal chiefly with experimental work in the fertilisation of flowers. In addition to their scientific importance, several of the letters are of special interest as illustrating the encouragement and friendly assistance which Darwin gave to his correspondent.) LETTER 631. JOHN SCOTT TO CHARLES DARWIN. Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, November 11th, 1862. I take the liberty of addressing you for the purpose of directing your attention to an error in one of your ingenious explanations of the structural adaptations of the Orchidaceae in your late work. This occurs in the genus Acropera, two species of which you assume to be unisexual, and so far as known represented by male individuals only. Theoretically you have no doubt assigned good grounds for this view; nevertheless, experimental observations that I am now making have already convinced me of its fallacy. And I thus hurriedly, and as you may think prematurely, direct your attention to it, before I have seen the final result of my own experiment, that you might have the longer time for reconsidering the structure of this genus for another edition of your interesting book, if indeed it be not already called for. I am furthermore induced to communicate the results of my yet imperfect experiments in the belief that the actuating principle of your late work is the elicitation of truth, and that you will gladly avail yourself of this even at the sacrifice of much ingenious theoretical argumentation. Since I have had an opportunity of perusing your work on orchid fertilisation, my attention has been particularly directed to the curiously constructed floral organs of Acropera. I unfortunately have as yet had only a few flowers for experimental enquiry, otherwise my remarks might have been clearer and more satisfactory. Such as they are, however, I respectfully lay [them] before you, with a full assurance of their veracity, and I sincerely trust that as such you will receive them. Your observations seem to have been chiefly directed to the A. luteola, mine to the A. Loddigesii, which, however, as you remark, is in a very similar constructural condition with the former; having the same narrow stigmatic chamber, abnormally developed placenta, etc. In regard to the former point--contraction of stigmatic chamber--I may remark that it does not appear to be absolutely necessary that the pollen-masses penetrate this chamber for effecting fecundation. Thus a raceme was produced upon a plant of A. Loddigesii in the Botanic Gardens here lately; upon this I left only six flowers. These I attempted to fertilise, but with two only of the six have I been successful: I succeeded in forcing a single pollen-mass into the stigmatic chamber of one of the latter, but I failed to do this on the other; however, by inserting a portion of a pedicel with a pollinium attached, I caused the latter to adhere, with a gentle press, to the mouth of the stigmatic chamber. Both of these, as I have already remarked, are nevertheless fertilised; one of them I have cut off for examination, and its condition I will presently describe; the other is still upon the plant, and promises fair to attain maturity. In regard to the other four flowers, I may remark that though similarly fertilised--part having pollinia inserted, others merely attached--they all withered and dropped off without the least swelling of the ovary. Can it be, then, that this is really an [andro-monoecious] species?--part of the flowers male, others truly hermaphrodite. In making longitudinal sections of the fertilised ovary before mentioned, I found the basal portion entirely destitute of ovules, their place being substituted by transparent cellular ramification of the placentae. As I traced the placentae upwards, the ovules appeared, becoming gradually more abundant towards its apex. A transverse section near the apex of the ovary, however, still exhibited a more than ordinary placental development--i.e. [congenitally?] considered--each end giving off two branches, which meet each other in the centre of the ovary, the ovules being irregularly and sparingly disposed upon their surfaces. In regard to the mere question of fertilisation, then, I am perfectly satisfied, but there are other points which require further elucidation. Among these I may particularly refer to the contracted stigmatic chamber, and the slight viscidity of its disk. The latter, however, may be a consequence of uncongenial conditions--as you do not mention particularly its examination by any author in its natural habitat. If such be the case, the contracted stigmatic chamber will offer no real difficulty, should the viscous exudations be only sufficient to render the mouth adhesive. For, as I have already shown, the pollen-tubes may be emitted in this condition, and effect fecundation without being in actual contact with the stigmatic surface, as occurs pretty regularly in the fertilisation of the Stapelias, for example. But, indeed, your own discovery of the independent germinative capabilities of the pollen-grains of certain Orchidaceae is sufficiently illustrative of this. I may also refer to the peculiar abnormal condition that many at least of the ovaries present in a comparative examination of the placentae, and of which I beg to suggest the following explanation, though it is as yet founded on limited observations. In examining certain young ovaries of A. Loddigesii, I found some of them filled with the transparent membranous fringes of more or less distinctly cellular matter, which, from your description of the ovaries of luteola, appears to differ simply in the greater development in the former species. Again, in others I found small mammillary bodies, which appeared to be true ovules, though I could not perfectly satisfy myself as to the existence of the micropyle or nucleus. I unfortunately neglected to apply any chemical test. The fact, however, that in certain of the examined ovaries few or none of the latter bodies occurred--the placenta alone being developed in an irregular membranous form, taken in conjunction with the results of my experiments--before alluded to--on their fertilisation, leads me to infer that two sexual conditions are presented by the flowers of this plant. In short, that many of the ovaries are now normally abortive, though Nature occasionally makes futile efforts for their perfect development, in the production of ovuloid bodies; these then I regard as the male flowers. The others that are still capable of fertilisation, and likewise possessing male organs, are hermaphrodite, and must, I think, from the results of your comparative examinations, present a somewhat different condition; as it can scarcely be supposed that ovules in the condition you describe could ever be fertilised. This is at least the most plausible explanation I can offer for the different results in my experiments on the fertilisation of apparently similar morphologically constructed flowers; others may, however, occur to you. Here there is not, as in the Catasetum, any external change visible in the respective unisexual and bisexual flowers. And yet it would appear from your researches that the ovules of Acropera are in a more highly atrophied condition than occurs in Catasetum, though, as you likewise remark, M. Neumann has never succeeded in fertilising C. tridentatum. If there be not, then, an arrangement of the reproductive structures, such as I have indicated, how can the different results in M. Neumann's experiments and mine be accounted for? However, as you have examined many flowers of both A. luteola and Loddigesii, such a difference in the ovulary or placental structures could scarcely have escaped your observation. But, be this as it may, the--to me at least--demonstrated fact still remains, that certain flowers of A. Loddigesii are capable of fertilisation, and that, though there are good grounds for supposing that important physiological changes are going on in the sexual phenomena of this species, there is no evidence whatever for supposing that external morphological changes have so masked certain individuals as to prevent their recognition. I would now, sir, in conclusion beg you to excuse me for this infringement upon your valuable time, as I have been induced to write you in the belief that you have had negative results from other experimenters, before you ventured to propose your theoretical explanation, and consequently that you have been unknowingly led into error. I will continue, as opportunities present themselves, to examine the many peculiarities you have pointed out in this as well as others of the Orchid family; and at present I am looking forward with anxiety for the maturation of the ovary of A. Loddigesii, which will bear testimony to the veracity of the remarks I have ventured to lay before you. LETTER 632. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 18th [November 1862]. Strange to say, I have only one little bother for you to-day, and that is to let me know about what month flowers appear in Acropera Loddigesii and luteola; for I want extremely to beg a few more flowers, and if I knew the time I would keep a memorandum to remind you. Why I want these flowers is (and I am much alarmed) that Mr. J. Scott, of Bot. Garden of Edinburgh (do you know anything of him?) has written me a very long and clever letter, in which he confirms most of my observations; but tells me that with much difficulty he managed to get pollen into orifice, or as far as mouth of orifice, of six flowers of A. Loddigesii (the ovarium of which I did not examine), and two pods set; one he gathered, and saw a very few ovules, as he thinks, on the large and mostly rudimentary placenta. I shall be most curious to hear whether the other pod produces a good lot of seed. He says he regrets that he did not test the ovules with chemical agents: does he mean tincture of iodine? He suggests that in a state of nature the viscid matter may come to the very surface of stigmatic chamber, and so pollen-masses need not be inserted. This is possible, but I should think improbable. Altogether the case is very odd, and I am very uneasy, for I cannot hope that A. Loddigesii is hermaphrodite and A. luteola the male of the same species. Whenever I can get Acropera would be a very good time for me to look at Vanda in spirits, which you so kindly preserved for me. LETTER 633. TO J. SCOTT. (633/1. The following is Darwin's reply to the above letter from Scott. In the first edition of "Fertilisation of Orchids" (page 209) he assumed that the sexes in Acropera, as in Catasetum, were separate. In the second edition (page 172) he writes: "I was, however, soon convinced of my error by Mr. Scott, who succeeded in artificially fertilising the flowers with their own pollen. A remarkable discovery by Hildebrand (633/2. "Bot. Zeitung," 1863 and 1865.), namely, that in many orchids the ovules are not developed unless the stigma is penetrated by the pollen-tubes...explains the state of the ovarium in Acropera, as observed by me." In regard to this subject see Letter 608.) Down, November 12th, 1862. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness in writing to me, and for [your] very interesting letter. Your fact has surprised me greatly, and has alarmed me not a little, for if I am in error about Acropera I may be in error about Catasetum. Yet when I call to mind the state of the placentae in A. luteola, I am astonished that they should produce ovules. You will see in my book that I state that I did not look at the ovarium of A. Loddigesii. Would you have the kindness to send me word which end of the ovarium is meant by apex (that nearest the flower?), for I must try and get this species from Kew and look at its ovarium. I shall be extremely curious to hear whether the fruit, which is now maturing, produces a large number of good and plump seed; perhaps you may have seen the ripe capsules of other Vandeae, and may be able to form some conjecture what it ought to produce. In the young, unfertilised ovaria of many Vandeae there seemed an infinitude of ovules. In desperation it occurs to me as just possible, as almost everything in nature goes by gradation, that a properly male flower might occasionally produce a few seeds, in the same manner as female plants sometimes produce a little pollen. All your remarks seem to me excellent and very interesting, and I again thank you for your kindness in writing to me. I am pleased to observe that my description of the structure of Acropera seems to agree pretty well with what you have observed. Does it not strike you as very difficult to understand how insects remove the pollinia and carry them to the stigmas? Your suggestion that the mouth of the stigmatic cavity may become charged with viscid matter and thus secure the pollinia, and that the pollen-tubes may then protrude, seems very ingenious and new to me; but it would be very anomalous in orchids, i.e. as far as I have seen. No doubt, however, though I tried my best, I shall be proved wrong in many points. Botany is a new subject to me. With respect to the protrusion of pollen-tubes, you might like to hear (if you do not already know the fact) that, as I saw this summer, in the little imperfect flowers of Viola and Oxalis, which never open, the pollen-tubes always come out of the pollen-grain, whilst still in the anthers, and direct themselves in a beautiful manner to the stigma seated at some little distance. I hope that you will continue your very interesting observations. LETTER 634. TO J. SCOTT. Down, November 19th [1862]. I am much obliged for your letter, which is full of interesting matter. I shall be very glad to look at the capsule of the Acropera when ripe, and pray present my thanks to Mr. MacNab. (634/1. See Letter 608 (Lindley, December 15th, 1861). Also "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 172, for an account of the observations on Acropera which were corrected by Scott.) I should like to keep it till I could get a capsule of some other member of the Vandeae for comparison, but ultimately all the seeds shall be returned, in case you would like to write any notice on the subject. It was, as I said (634/2. Letter 633.), only "in desperation" that I suggested that the flower might be a male and occasionally capable of producing a few seeds. I had forgotten Gartner's remark; in fact, I know only odds and ends of Botany, and you know far more. One point makes the above view more probable in Acropera than in other cases, viz. the presence of rudimentary placentae or testae, for I cannot hear that these have been observed in the male plants. They do not occur in male Lychnis dioica, but next spring I will look to male holly flowers. I fully admit the difficulty of similarity of stigmatic chamber in the two Acroperas. As far as I remember, the blunt end of pollen-mass would not easily even stick in the orifice of the chamber. Your view may be correct about abundance of viscid matter, but seems rather improbable. Your facts about female flowers occurring where males alone ought to occur is new to me; if I do not hear that you object, I will quote the Zea case on your authority in what I am now writing on the varieties of the maize. (634/3. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 339: "Mr. Scott has lately observed the rarer case of female flowers on a true male panicle, and likewise hermaphrodite flowers." Scott's paper on the subject is in "Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh," Volume VIII. See Letter 151, Volume I.) I am glad to hear that you are now working on the most curious subject of parthenogenesis. I formerly fancied that I observed female Lychnis dioica seeded without pollen. I send by this post a paper on Primula, which may interest you. (634/4. "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1862.) I am working on the subject, and if you should ever observe any analogous case I should be glad to hear. I have added another very clever pamphlet by Prof. Asa Gray. Have you a copy of my Orchis book? If you have not, and would like one, I should be pleased to send one. I plainly see that you have the true spirit of an experimentalist and good observer. Therefore, I ask whether you have ever made any trials on relative fertility of varieties of plants (like those I quote from Gartner on the varieties of Verbascum). I much want information on this head, and on those marvellous cases (as some Lobelias and Crinum passiflora) in which a plant can be more easily fertilised by the pollen of another species than by its own good pollen. I am compelled to write in haste. With many thanks for your kindness. LETTER 635. TO J. SCOTT. Down, 20th [1862?]. What a magnificent capsule, and good Heavens, what a number of seeds! I never before opened pods of larger orchids. It did not signify a few seed being lost, as it would be hopeless to estimate number in comparison with other species. If you sow any, had you not better sow a good many? so I enclose small packet. I have looked at the seeds; I never saw in the British orchids nearly so many empty testae; but this goes for nothing, as unnatural conditions would account for it. I suspect, however, from the variable size and transparency, that a good many of the seeds when dry (and I have put the capsule on my chimney-piece) will shrivel up. So I will wait a month or two till I get the capsule of some large Vandeae for comparison. It is more likely that I have made some dreadful blunder about Acropera than that it should be male yet not a perfect male. May there be some sexual relation between A. Loddigesii and luteola; they seem very close? I should very much like to examine the capsule of the unimpregnated flower of A. Loddigesii. I have got both species from Kew, but whether we shall have skill to flower them I know not. One conjectures that it is imperfect male; I still should incline to think it would produce by seed both sexes. But you are right about Primula (and a very acute thought it was): the long-styled P. sinensis, homomorphically fertilised with own-form pollen, has produced during two successive homomorphic generations only long-styled plants. (635/1. In "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 216, a summary of the transmission of forms in the "homomorphic" unions of P. sinensis is given. Darwin afterwards used "illegitimate" for homomorphic, and "legitimate" for "heteromorphic" ("Forms of Flowers," Edition i., page 24).) The short-styled the same, i.e. produced short-styled for two generations with the exception of a single plant. I cannot say about cowslips yet. I should like to hear your case of the Primula: is it certainly propagated by seed? LETTER 636. TO J. SCOTT. Down, December 3rd, [1862?]. What a capital observer you are! and how well you have worked the primulas. All your facts are new to me. It is likely that I overrate the interest of the subject; but it seems to me that you ought to publish a paper on the subject. It would, however, greatly add to the value if you were to cover up any of the forms having pistil and anther of the same height, and prove that they were fully self-fertile. The occurrence of dimorphic and non-dimorphic species in the same genus is quite the same as I find in Linum. (636/1. Darwin finished his paper on Linum in December 1862, and it was published in the "Linn. Soc. Journal" in 1863.) Have any of the forms of Primula, which are non-dimorphic, been propagated for some little time by seed in garden? I suppose not. I ask because I find in P. sinensis a third rather fluctuating form, apparently due to culture, with stigma and anthers of same height. I have been working successive generations homomorphically of this Primula, and think I am getting curious results; I shall probably publish next autumn; and if you do not (but I hope you will) publish yourself previously, I should be glad to quote in abstract some of your facts. But I repeat that I hope you will yourself publish. Hottonia is dimorphic, with pollen of very different sizes in the two forms. I think you are mistaken about Siphocampylus, but I feel rather doubtful in saying this to so good an observer. In Lobelia the closed pistil grows rapidly, and pushes out the pollen and then the stigma expands, and the flower in function is monoecious; from appearance I believe this is the case with your plant. I hope it is so, for this plant can hardly require a cross, being in function monoecious; so that dimorphism in such a case would be a heavy blow to understanding its nature or good in all other cases. I see few periodicals: when have you published on Clivia? I suppose that you did not actually count the seeds in the hybrids in comparison with those of the parent-forms; but this is almost necessary after Gartner's observations. I very much hope you will make a good series of comparative trials on the same plant of Tacsonia. (636/2. See Scott in "Linn. Soc. Journal," VIII.) I have raised 700-800 seedlings from cowslips, artificially fertilised with care; and they presented not a hair's-breadth approach to oxlips. I have now seed in pots of cowslip fertilised by pollen of primrose, and I hope they will grow; I have also got fine seedlings from seed of wild oxlips; so I hope to make out the case. You speak of difficulties on Natural Selection: there are indeed plenty; if ever you have spare time (which is not likely, as I am sure you must be a hard worker) I should be very glad to hear difficulties from one who has observed so much as you have. The majority of criticisms on the "Origin" are, in my opinion, not worth the paper they are printed on. Sir C. Lyell is coming out with what, I expect, will prove really good remarks. (636/3. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man" was published in the spring of 1863. In the "Life and Letters," Volume III., pages 8, 11, Darwin's correspondence shows his deep disappointment at what he thought Lyell's half-heartedness in regard to evolution. See Letter 164, Volume I.) Pray do not think me intrusive; but if you would like to have any book I have published, such as my "Journal of Researches" or the "Origin," I should esteem it a compliment to be allowed to send it. Will you permit me to suggest one experiment, which I should much like to see tried, and which I now wish the more from an extraordinary observation by Asa Gray on Gymnadenia tridentata (in number just out of Silliman's N. American Journal) (636/4. In Gymnadenia tridentata, according to Asa Gray, the anther opens in the bud, and the pollen being somewhat coherent falls on the stigma and on the rostellum which latter is penetrated by the pollen-tubes. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 68. Asa Gray's papers are in "American Journal of Science," Volume XXXIV., 1862, and XXXVI., 1863.); namely, to split the labellum of a Cattleya, or of some allied orchis, remove caudicle from pollen-mass (so that no loose grains are about) and put it carefully into the large tongue-like rostellum, and see if pollen-tubes will penetrate, or better, see if capsule will swell. Similar pollen-masses ought to be put on true stigmas of two or three other flowers of same plants for comparison. It is to discover whether rostellum yet retains some of its primordial function of being penetrated by pollen-tubes. You will be sorry that you ever entered into correspondence with me. But do not answer till at leisure, and as briefly as you like. My handwriting, I know, is dreadfully bad. Excuse this scribbling paper, as I can write faster on it, and I have a rather large correspondence to keep up. LETTER 637. TO J. SCOTT. Down, January 21st, 1863. I thank you for your very interesting letter; I must answer as briefly as I can, for I have a heap of other letters to answer. I strongly advise you to follow up and publish your observations on the pollen-tubes of orchids; they promise to be very interesting. If you could prove what I only conjectured (from state of utriculi in rostellum and in stigma of Catasetum and Acropera) that the utriculi somehow induce, or are correlated with, penetration of pollen-tubes you will make an important physiological discovery. I will mention, as worth your attention (and what I have anxiously wished to observe, if time had permitted, and still hope to do)--viz., the state of tissues or cells of stigma in an utterly sterile hybrid, in comparison with the same in fertile parent species; to test these cells, immerse stigmas for 48 hours in spirits of wine. I should expect in hybrids that the cells would not show coagulated contents. It would be an interesting discovery to show difference in female organs of hybrids and pure species. Anyhow, it is worth trial, and I recommend you to make it, and publish if you do. The pollen-tubes directing themselves to stigma is also very curious, though not quite so new, but well worth investigation when you get Cattleya, etc., in flower. I say not so new, for remember small flowers of Viola and Oxalis; or better, see Bibliography in "Natural History Review," No. VIII., page 419 (October, 1862) for quotation from M. Baillon on pollen-tubes finding way from anthers to stigma in Helianthemum. I should doubt gum getting solid from [i.e. because of] continued secretion. Why not sprinkle fresh plaster of Paris and make impenetrable crust? (637/1. The suggestion that the stigma should be covered with a crust of plaster of Paris, pierced by a hole to allow the pollen-tubes to enter, bears a resemblance to Miyoshi's experiments with germinating pollen and fungal spores. See "Pringsheim's Jahrbucher," 1895; "Flora," 1894.) You might modify experiment by making little hole in one lower corner, and see if tubes find it out. See in my future paper on Linum pollen and stigma recognising each other. If you will tell me that pollen smells the stigma I will try and believe you; but I will not believe the Frenchman (I forget who) who says that stigma of Vanilla actually attracts mechanically, by some unknown force, the solid pollen-masses to it! Read Asa Gray in 2nd Review of my Orchis book on pollen of Gymnadenia penetrating rostellum. I can, if you like, lend you these Reviews; but they must be returned. R. Brown, I remember, says pollen-tubes separate from grains before the lower ends of tubes reach ovules. I saw, and was interested by, abstract of your Drosera paper (637/2. A short note on the irritability of Drosera in the "Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin." Volume VII.); we have been at very much the same work. LETTER 638. TO J. SCOTT. Down, February 16th [1863]. Absence from home has prevented me from answering you sooner. I should think that the capsule of Acropera had better be left till it shows some signs of opening, as our object is to judge whether the seeds are good; but I should prefer trusting to your better judgment. I am interested about the Gongora, which I hope hereafter to try myself, as I have just built a small hot-house. Asa Gray's observations on the rostellum of Gymnadenia are very imperfect, yet worth looking at. Your case of Imatophyllum is most interesting (638/1. A sucker of Imatophyllum minatum threw up a shoot in which the leaves were "two-ranked instead of four-ranked," and showed other differences from the normal.--"Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 411.); even if the sport does not flower it will be worth my giving. I did not understand, or I had forgotten, that a single frond on a fern will vary; I now see that the case does come under bud-variation, and must be given by me. I had thought of it only as proof [of] inheritance in cryptogams; I am much obliged for your correction, and will consult again your paper and Mr. Bridgeman's. (638/2. The facts are given in "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 408.) I enclose varieties of maize from Asa Gray. Pray do not thank me for trusting you; the thanks ought to go the other way. I felt a conviction after your first letter that you were a real lover of Natural History. If you can advance good evidence showing that bisexual plants are more variable than unisexual, it will be interesting. I shall be very glad to read the discussion which you are preparing. I admit as fully as any one can do that cross-impregnation is the great check to endless variability; but I am not sure that I understand your view. I do not believe that the structure of Primula has any necessary relation to a tendency to a dioecious structure, but seeing the difference in the fertility of the two forms, I felt bound unwillingly to admit that they might be a step towards dioeciousness; I allude to this subject in my Linum paper. (638/3. "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1863.) Thanks for your answers to my other queries. I forgot to say that I was at Kew the other day, and I find that they can give me capsules of several Vandeae. LETTER 639. TO J. SCOTT. Down, March 24th [1863]. Your letter, as every one you have written, has greatly interested me. If you can show that certain individual Passifloras, under certain known or unknown conditions of life, have stigmas capable of fertilisation by pollen from another species, or from another individual of its own species, yet not by its own individual pollen (its own individual pollen being proved to be good by its action on some other species), you will add a case of great interest to me; and which in my opinion would be quite worth your publication. (639/1. Cases nearly similar to those observed by Scott were recorded by Gartner and Kolreuter, but in these instances only certain individuals were self-impotent. In "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 114, where the phenomenon is fully discussed, Scott's observations ("Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin." 1863) are given as the earliest, except for one case recorded by Lecoq ("Fecondation," 1862). Interesting work was afterwards done by Hildebrand and Fritz Muller, as illustrated in many of the letters addressed to the latter.) I always imagined that such recorded cases must be due to unnatural conditions of life; and think I said so in the "Origin." (639/2. See "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 251, for Herbert's observations on self-impotence in Hippeastrum. In spite of the uniformness of the results obtained in many successive years, Darwin inferred that the plants must have been in an "unnatural state.") I am not sure that I understand your result, [nor] whether it means what I have above obscurely expressed. If you can prove the above, do publish; but if you will not publish I earnestly beg you to let me have the facts in detail; but you ought to publish, for I may not use the facts for years. I have been much interested by what you say on the rostellum exciting pollen to protrude tubes; but are you sure that the rostellum does excite them? Would not tubes protrude if placed on parts of column or base of petals, etc., near to the stigma? Please look at the "Cottage Gardener" (or "Journal of Horticulture") (639/3. "Journal of Horticulture" and "Cottage Gardener," March 31st, 1863. A short note describing Cruger's discovery of self-fertilisation in Cattleya, Epidendrum, etc., and referring to the work of "an excellent observer, Mr. J. Scott." Darwin adds that he is convinced that he has underrated the power of tropical orchids occasionally to produce seeds without the aid of insects.) to be published to-morrow week for letter of mine, in which I venture to quote you, and in which you will see a curious fact about unopened orchid flowers setting seed in West Indies. Dr. Cruger attributes protrusion of tubes to ants carrying stigmatic secretion to pollen (639/4. In Cruger's paper ("Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII., 1865; read March 3rd 1864) he speaks of the pollen-masses in situ being acted on by the stigmatic secretion, but no mention is made of the agency of ants. He describes the pollen-tubes descending "from the [pollen] masses still in situ down into the ovarian canal."); but this is mere hypothesis. Remember, pollen-tubes protrude within anther in Neottia nidus-avis. I did think it possible or probable that perfect fertilisation might have been effected through rostellum. What a curious case your Gongora must be: could you spare me one of the largest capsules? I want to estimate the number of seed, and try my hand if I can make them grow. This, however, is a foolish attempt, for Dr. Hooker, who was here a day or two ago, says they cannot at Calcutta, and yet imported species have seeded and have naturally spread on to the adjoining trees! Dr. Cruger thinks I am wrong about Catasetum: but I cannot understand his letter. He admits there are three forms in two species; and he speaks as if the sexes were separate in some and that others were hermaphrodites (639/5. Cruger ("Linn. Soc. Journal," VIII., page 127) says that the apparently hermaphrodite form is always sterile in Trinidad. Darwin modified his account in the second edition of the orchid book.); but I cannot understand what he means. He has seen lots of great humble-bees buzzing about the flowers with the pollinia sticking to their backs! Happy man!! I have the promise, but not yet surety, of some curious results with my homomorphic seedling cowslips: these have not followed the rule of Chinese Primula; homomorphic seedlings from short-styled parent have presented both forms, which disgusts me. You will see that I am better; but still I greatly fear that I must have a compulsory holiday. With sincere thanks and hearty admiration at your powers of observation... My poor P. scotica looks very sick which you so kindly sent me. (639/6. Sent by Scott, January 6th, 1863.) LETTER 640. TO J. SCOTT. April 12th [1863]. I really hardly know how to thank you enough for your very interesting letter. I shall certainly use all the facts which you have given me (in a condensed form) on the sterility of orchids in the work which I am now slowly preparing for publication. But why do you not publish these facts in a separate little paper? (640/1. See Letter 642, note, for reference to Scott's paper.) They seem to me well worth it, and you really ought to get your name known. I could equally well use them in my book. I earnestly hope that you will experiment on Passiflora, and let me give your results. Dr. A. Gray's observations were made loosely; he said in a letter he would attend this summer further to the case, which clearly surprised him much. I will say nothing about the rostellum, stigmatic utriculi, fertility of Acropera and Catasetum, for I am completely bewildered: it will rest with you to settle these points by your excellent observations and experiments. I must own I never could help doubting Dr. Hooker's case of the poppy. You may like to hear what I have seen this morning: I found (640/2. See Letter 658.) a primrose plant with flowers having three pistils, which when pulled asunder, without any tearing, allowed pollen to be placed on ovules. This I did with three flowers--pollen-tubes did not protrude after several days. But this day, the sixteenth (N.B.--primulas seem naturally slowly fertilised), I found many tubes protruded, and, what is very odd, they certainly seemed to have penetrated the coats of the ovules, but in no one instance the foramen of the ovule!! I mention this because it directly bears on your explanation of Dr. Cruger's case. (640/3. Cruger's case here referred to is doubtless the cleistogamic fertilisation of Epidendrum, etc. Scott discusses the question of self-fertilisation at great length in a letter to Darwin dated April, and obviously written in 1863. In Epidendrum he observed a viscid matter extending from the stigmatic chamber to the anther: pollen-tubes had protruded from the anther not only where it was in contact with the viscid matter, but also from the central part, and these spread "over the anterior surface of the rostellum downward into the stigma." Cruger believed the viscid matter reaching the anther was a necessary condition for the germination of the pollen-grains. Scott points out that the viscid matter is produced in large quantity only after the pollen-grains have penetrated the stigma, and that it is, in fact, a consequence, not a preliminary to fertilisation. He finally explains Cruger's case thus: "The greater humidity and equability of temperature consequent on such conditions [i.e. on the flowers being closed] is, I believe, the probable cause of these abnormally conditioned flowers so frequently fertilising themselves." Scott also calls attention to the danger of being deceived by fungal hyphae in observations on germination of pollen.) I believe that your explanation is right; I should never have thought of it; yet this was stupid of me, for I remember thinking that the almost closed imperfect flowers of Viola and Oxalis were related to the protrusion of the pollen-tubes. My case of the Aceras with the aborted labellum squeezed against stigma supports your view. (640/4. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 258: the pollen germinated within the anther of a monstrous flower.) Dr. Cruger's notion about the ants was a simple conjecture. About cryptogamic filaments, remember Dr. C. says that the unopened flowers habitually set fruit. I think that you will change your views on the imperfect flowers of Viola and Oxalis... LETTER 641. (?) LETTER 642. TO J. SCOTT. May 2nd [1863]. I have left home for a fortnight to see if I can, with little hope, improve my health. The parcel of orchid pods, which you have so kindly sent me, has followed me. I am sure you will forgive the liberty which I take in returning you the postage stamps. I never heard of such a scheme as that you were compelled to practise to fertilise the Gongora! (642/1. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition, II., page 169. "Mr. Scott tried repeatedly, but in vain, to force the pollen-masses into the stigma of Gongora atro-purpurea and truncata; but he readily fertilised them by cutting off the clinandrum and placing pollen-masses on the now exposed stigma.") It is a most curious problem what plan Nature follows in this genus and Acropera. (642/2. In the "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 169, Darwin speculates as to the possible fertilisation of Acropera by an insect with pollen-masses adhering to the extremity of its abdomen. It would appear that this guess (which does not occur in the first edition) was made before he heard of Cruger's observation on the allied genus Gongora, which is visited by a bee with a long tongue, which projects, when not in use, beyond and above the tip of the abdomen. Cruger believes that this tongue is the pollinating agent. Cruger's account is in the "Journal of the Linn. Soc." VIII., 1865, page 130.) Some day I will try and estimate how many seeds there are in Gongora. I suppose and hope you have kept notes on all your observations on orchids, for, with my broken health and many other subjects, I do not know whether I shall ever have time to publish again; though I have a large collection of notes and facts ready. I think you show your wisdom in not wishing to publish too soon; a young author who publishes every trifle gets, sometimes unjustly, to be disregarded. I do not pretend to be much of a judge; but I can conscientiously say that I have never written one word to you on the merit of your letters that I do not fully believe in. Please remember that I should very much wish for a copy of your paper on sterility of individual orchids (642/3. "On the Individual Sterility and Cross-Impregnation of Certain Species of Oncidium." [Read June 2nd, 1864.] "Linn. Soc. Journal," VIII., 1865. This paper gives a full account of the self-sterility of Oncidium in cases where the pollen was efficient in fertilising other individuals of the same species and of distinct species. Some of the facts were given in Scott's paper, "Experiments on the Fertilisation of Orchids in the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh," published in the "Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb." 1863. It is probably to the latter paper that Darwin refers.) and on Drosera. (642/4. "Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh," Volume VII.) Thanks for [note] about Campanula perfoliata. I have asked Asa Gray for seeds, to whom I have mentioned your observations on rostellum, and asked him to look closer to the case of Gymnadenia. (642/5. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 68.) Let me hear about the sporting Imatophyllum if it flowers. Perhaps I have blundered about Primula; but certainly not about mere protrusion of pollen-tubes. I have been idly watching bees of several genera and diptera fertilising O. morio at this place, and it is a very pretty sight. I have confirmed in several ways the entire truth of my statement that there is no vestige of nectar in the spur; but the insects perforate the inner coat. This seems to me a curious little fact, which none of my reviewers have noticed. LETTER 643. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 23rd [1863]. You can confer a real service on a good man, John Scott, the writer of the enclosed letter, by reading it and giving me your opinion. I assure [you] John Scott is a truly remarkable man. The part struck out is merely that he is not comfortable under Mr. McNab, and this part must be considered as private. Now the question is, what think you of the offer? Is expense of living high at Darjeeling? May I say it is healthy? Will he find the opportunity for experimental observations, which are a passion with him? It seems to me rather low pay. Will you advise me for him? I shall say that as far as experiments in hand at the Botanical Garden in Edinburgh are concerned, it would be a pity to hesitate to accept the offer. J. Scott is head of the propagating department. I know you will not grudge aiding by your advice a good man. I shall tell him that I have not the slightest power to aid him in any way for the appointment. I should think voyage out and home ought to be paid for? LETTER 644. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, May 25th, 1863. Now for a few words on science. I do not think I could be mistaken about the stigma of Bolbophyllum (644/1. Bolbophyllum is remarkable for the closure of the stigmatic cavity which comes on after the flower has been open a little while, instead of after fertilisation, as in other genera. Darwin connects the fact with the "exposed condition of the whole flower."--"Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 137.); I had the plant alive from Kew, and watched many flowers. That is a most remarkable observation on foreign pollen emitting tubes, but not causing orifice to close (644/2. See Scott, "Bot. Soc. Edin." 1863, page 546, note. He applied pollinia from Cypripedium and Asclepias to flowers of Tricopilia tortilis; and though the pollen germinated, the stigmatic chamber remained open, yet it invariably closes eighteen hours after the application of its own pollen.); it would have been interesting to have observed how close an alliance of form would have acted on the orifice of the stigma. It will probably be so many years, if ever, [before] I work up my observations on Drosera, that I will not trouble you to send your paper, for I could not now find time to read it. If you have spare copy of your Orchid paper, please send it, but do not get a copy of the journal, for I can get one, and you must often want to buy books. Let me know when it is published. I have been glad to hear about Mercurialis, but I will not accept your offer of seed on account of time, time, time, and weak health. For the same reason I must give up Primula mollis. What a wonderful, indefatigable worker you are! You seem to have made a famous lot of interesting experiments. D. Beaton once wrote that no man could cross any species of Primula. You have apparently proved the contrary with a vengeance. Your numerous experiments seem very well selected, and you will exhaust the subject. Now when you have completed your work you should draw up a paper, well worth publishing, and give a list of all the dimorphic and non-dimorphic forms. I can give you, on the authority of Prof. Treviranus in "Bot. Zeitung," case of P. longiflora non-dimorphic. I am surprised at your cowslips in this state. Is it a common yellow cowslip? I have seen oxlips (which from some experiments I now look at as certainly natural hybrids) in same state. If you think the Botanical Society of Edinburgh would not do justice and publish your paper, send it to me to be communicated to the Linnean Society. I will delay my paper on successive dimorphic generations in Primula (644/3. Published in the "Journ. Linn. Soc." X., 1869 [1868].) till yours appears, so as in no way to interfere with your paper. Possibly my results may be hardly worth publishing, but I think they will; the seedlings from two successive homomorphic generations seem excessively sterile. I will keep this letter till I hear from Dr. Hooker. I shall be very glad if you try Passiflora. Your experiments on Primula seem so well chosen that whatever the result is they will be of value. But always remember that not one naturalist out of a dozen cares for really philosophical experiments. LETTER 645. TO J. SCOTT. Down, May 31st [1863]. I am unwell, and must write briefly. I am very much obliged for the "Courant." (645/1. The Edinburgh "Evening Courant" used to publish notices of the papers read at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh. The paper referred to here was Scott's on Oncidium.) The facts will be of highest use to me. I feel convinced that your paper will have permanent value. Your case seems excellently and carefully worked out. I agree that the alteration of title was unfortunate, but, after all, title does not signify very much. So few have attended to such points that I do not expect any criticism; but if so, I should think you had much better reply, but I could if you wished it much. I quite understand about the cases being individual sterility; so Gartner states it was with him. Would it be worth while to send a corrected copy of the "Courant" to the "Gardeners' Chronicle?" (645/2. An account of Scott's work appeared in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 13th, 1863, which is, at least partly, a reprint of the "Courant," since it contains the awkward sentence criticised by Darwin and referred to below. The title is "On the Fertilisation of Orchids," which was no doubt considered unfortunate as not suggesting the subject of the paper, and as being the same as that of Darwin's book.) I did not know that you had tried Lobelia fulgens: can you give me any particulars on the number of plants and kinds used, etc., that I may quote, as in a few days I shall be writing on this whole subject? No one will ever convince me that it is not a very important subject to philosophical naturalists. The Hibiscus seems a very curious case, and I agree with your remarks. You say that you are glad of criticisms (by the way avoid "former and latter," the reader is always forced to go back to look). I think you would have made the case more striking if you had first showed that the pollen of Oncidium sphacelatum was good; secondly, that the ovule was capable of fertilisation; and lastly, shown that the plant was impotent with its own pollen. "Impotence of organs capable of elimination"--capable here strictly refers to organs; you mean to impotence. To eliminate impotence is a curious expression; it is removing a non-existent quality. But style is a trifle compared with facts, and you are capable of writing well. I find it a good rule to imagine that I want to explain the case in as few and simple words as possible to one who knows nothing of the subject. (645/3. See Letter 151, Volume I.) I am tired. In my opinion you are an excellent observer. LETTER 646. TO J. SCOTT. Down, June 6th, 1863. I fear that you think that I have done more than I have with respect to Dr. Hooker. I did not feel that I had any right to ask him to remember you for a colonial appointment: all that I have done is to speak most highly of your scientific merits. Of course this may hereafter fructify. I really think you cannot go on better, for educational purposes, than you are now doing,--observing, thinking, and some reading beat, in my opinion, all systematic education. Do not despair about your style; your letters are excellently written, your scientific style is a little too ambitious. I never study style; all that I do is to try to get the subject as clear as I can in my own head, and express it in the commonest language which occurs to me. But I generally have to think a good deal before the simplest arrangement and words occur to me. Even with most of our best English writers, writing is slow work; it is a great evil, but there is no help for it. I am sure you have no cause to despair. I hope and suppose your sending a paper to the Linnean Society will not offend your Edinburgh friends; you might truly say that you sent the paper to me, and that (if it turns out so) I thought it worth communicating to the Linnean Society. I shall feel great interest in studying all your facts on Primula, when they are worked out and the seed counted. Size of capsules is often very deceptive. I am astonished how you can find time to make so many experiments. If you like to send me your paper tolerably well written, I would look it over and suggest any criticisms; but then this would cause you extra copying. Remember, however, that Lord Brougham habitually wrote everything important three times over. The cases of the Primulae which lose by variation their dimorphic characters seem to me very interesting. I find that the mid-styled (by variation) P. sinensis is more fertile with own pollen, even, than a heteromorphic union! If you have time it will be very good to experiment on Linum Lewisii. I wrote formerly to Asa Gray begging for seed. If you have time, I think experiments on any peloric flowers would be useful. I shall be sorry (and I am certain it is a mistake on the part of the Society) if your orchid paper is not printed in extenso. I am now at work compiling all such cases, and shall give a very full abstract of all your observations. I hope to add in autumn some from you on Passiflora. I would suggest to you the advantage, at present, of being very sparing in introducing theory in your papers (I formerly erred much in Geology in that way): LET THEORY GUIDE YOUR OBSERVATIONS, but till your reputation is well established be sparing in publishing theory. It makes persons doubt your observations. How rarely R. Brown ever indulged in theory: too seldom perhaps! Do not work too hard, and do not be discouraged because your work is not appreciated by the majority. LETTER 647. TO J. SCOTT. July 2nd [1863?] Many thanks for capsules. I would give table of the Auricula (647/1. In Scott's paper ("Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII.) many experiments on the Auricula are recorded.), especially owing to enclosed extract, which you can quote. Your facts about varying fertility of the primulas will be appreciated by but very few botanists; but I feel sure that the day will come when they will be valued. By no means modify even in the slightest degree any result. Accuracy is the soul of Natural History. It is hard to become accurate; he who modifies a hair's breadth will never be accurate. It is a golden rule, which I try to follow, to put every fact which is opposed to one's preconceived opinion in the strongest light. Absolute accuracy is the hardest merit to attain, and the highest merit. Any deviation is ruin. Sincere thanks for all your laborious trials on Passiflora. I am very busy, and have got two of my sons ill--I very much fear with scarlet fever; if so, no more work for me for some days or weeks. I feel greatly interested about your Primula cases. I think it much better to count seed than to weigh. I wish I had never weighed; counting is more accurate, though so troublesome. LETTER 648. TO J. SCOTT. Down, 25th [1863?] From what you say I looked again at "Bot. Zeitung." (648/1. "Ueber Dichogamie," "Bot. Zeit." January 1863.) Treviranus speaks of P. longiflora as short-styled, but this is evidently a slip of the pen, for further on, I see, he says the stigma always projects beyond anthers. Your experiments on coloured primroses will be most valuable if proved true. (648/2. The reference seems to be to Scott's observation that the variety rubra of the primrose was sterile when crossed with pollen from the common primrose. Darwin's caution to Scott was in some measure justified, for in his experiments on seedlings raised by self-fertilisation of the Edinburgh plants, he failed to confirm Scott's result. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 225. Scott's facts are in the "Journal Linn. Soc." VIII., page 97 (read February 4th, 1864).) I will advise to best of my power when I see MS. If evidence is not good I would recommend you, for your reputation's sake, to try them again. It is not likely that you will be anticipated, and it is a great thing to fully establish what in future time will be considered an important discovery (or rediscovery, for no one has noticed Gartner's facts). I will procure coloured primroses for next spring, but you may rely I will not publish before you. Do not work too hard to injure your health. I made some crosses between primrose and cowslip, and I send the results, which you may use if you like. But remember that I am not quite certain that I well castrated the short-styled primrose; I believe any castration would be superfluous, as I find all [these] plants sterile when insects are excluded. Be sure and save seed of the crossed differently coloured primroses or cowslips which produced least seed, to test the fertility of the quasi-hybrid seedlings. Gartner found the common primrose and cowslip very difficult to cross, but he knew nothing on dimorphism. I am sorry about delay [of] your orchid paper; I should be glad of abstract of your new observations of self-sterility in orchids, as I should probably use the new facts. There will be an important paper in September in "Annals and Magazine of Natural History," on ovules of orchids being formed after application of pollen, by Dr. F. Hildebrand of Bonn. (648/3. "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." XII., 1863, page 169. The paper was afterwards published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1863.) LETTER 649. TO J. SCOTT. Down, November 7th [1863]. Every day that I could do anything, I have read a few pages of your paper, and have now finished it, and return it registered. (649/1. This refers to the MS. of Scott's paper on the Primulaceae, "Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII. [February 4th, 1864] 1865.) It has interested me deeply, and is, I am sure, an excellent memoir. It is well arranged, and in most parts well written. In the proof sheets you can correct a little with advantage. I have suggested a few alterations in pencil for your consideration, and have put in here and there a slip of paper. There will be no occasion to rewrite the paper--only, if you agree with me, to alter a few pages. When finished, return it to me, and I will with the highest satisfaction communicate it to the Linnean Society. I should be proud to be the author of the paper. I shall not have caused much delay, as the first meeting of the Society was on November 5th. When your Primula paper is finished, if you are so inclined, I should like to hear briefly about your Verbascum and Passiflora experiments. I tried Verbascum, and have got the pods, but do not know when I shall be able to see to the results. This subject might make another paper for you. I may add that Acropera luteola was fertilised by me, and had produced two fine pods. I congratulate you on your excellent paper. P.S.--In the summary to Primula paper can you conjecture what is the typical or parental form, i.e. equal, long or short styled? LETTER 650. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [January 24th, 1864]. (650/1. Darwin's interest in Scott's Primula work is shown by the following extracts from a letter to Hooker of January 24th, 1864, written, therefore, before the paper was read, and also by the subsequent correspondence with Hooker and Asa Gray. The first part of this letter illustrates Darwin's condition during a period of especially bad health.) As I do nothing all day I often get fidgety, and I now fancy that Charlie or some of your family [are] ill. When you have time let me have a short note to say how you all are. I have had some fearful sickness; but what a strange mechanism one's body is; yesterday, suddenly, I had a slight attack of rheumatism in my back, and I instantly became almost well, and so wonderfully strong that I walked to the hot-houses, which must be more than a hundred yards. I have sent Scott's paper to the Linnean Society; I feel sure it is really valuable, but I fear few will care about it. Remember my URGENT wish to be able to send the poor fellow a word of praise from any one. I have had work to get him to allow me to send the paper to the Linnean Society, even after it was written out. LETTER 651. TO J. SCOTT. Down, February 9th, 1864. (651/1. Scott's paper on Primulaceae was read at the Linnean Society on February 4th, 1864.) The President, Mr. Bentham, I presume, was so much struck by your paper that he sent me a message to know whether you would like to be elected an associate. As only one is elected annually, this is a decided honour. The enclosed list shows what respectable men are associates. I enclose the rules of admission. I feel sure that the rule that if no communication is received within three years the associate is considered to have voluntarily withdrawn, is by no means rigorously adhered to. Therefore, I advise you to accept; but of course the choice is quite free. You will see there is no payment. You had better write to me on this subject, as Dr. Hooker or I will propose you. LETTER 652. TO J.D. HOOKER. September 13th, 1864. I have been greatly interested by Scott's paper. I probably overrate it from caring for the subject, but it certainly seems to me one of the very most remarkable memoirs on such subjects which I have ever read. From the subject being complex, and the style in parts obscure, I suppose very few will read it. I think it ought to be noticed in the "Natural History Review," otherwise the more remarkable facts will never be known. Try and persuade Oliver to do it; with the summary it would not be troublesome. I would offer, but I have sworn to myself I will do nothing till my volume on "Variation under Domestication" is complete. I know you will not have time to read Scott, and therefore I will just point out the new and, as they seem to me, important points. Firstly, the red cowslip, losing its dimorphic structure and changing so extraordinarily in its great production of seed with its own pollen, especially being nearly sterile when fertilised by, or fertilising, the common cowslip. The analogous facts with red and white primrose. Secondly, the utter dissimilarity of action of the pollen of long- and short-styled form of one species in crossing with a distinct species. And many other points. Will you suggest to Oliver to review this paper? if he does so, and if it would be of any service to him, I would (as I have attended so much to these subjects) just indicate, with pages, leading and new points. I could send him, if he wishes, a separate and spare copy marked with pencil. LETTER 653. TO ASA GRAY. September 13th [1864]. (653/1. In September, 1864, Darwin wrote to Asa Gray describing Scott's work on the Primulaceae as:--) A paper which has interested me greatly by a gardener, John Scott; it seems to me a most remarkable production, though written rather obscurely in parts, but worth the labour of studying. I have just bethought me that for the chance of your noticing it in the "Journal," I will point out the new and very remarkable facts. I have paid the poor fellow's passage out to India, where I hope he will succeed, as he is a most laborious and able man, with the manners almost of a gentleman. (653/2. The following is an abstract of the paper which was enclosed in the letter to Asa Gray.) Pages 106-8. Red cowslip by variation has become non-dimorphic, and with this change of structure has become much more productive of seed than even the heteromorphic union of the common cowslip. Pages 91-2, similar case with Auricula; on the other hand a non-dimorphic variety of P. farinosa (page 115) is less fertile. These changes, or variations, in the generative system seem to me very remarkable. But far more remarkable is the fact that the red cowslip (pages 106-8) is very sterile when fertilising, or fertilised by the common cowslip. Here we have a new "physiological species." Analogous facts given (page 98) on the crossing of red and white primroses with common primroses. It is very curious that the two forms of the same species (pages 93, 94, 95, and 117) hybridise with extremely different degrees of facility with distinct species. He shows (page 94) that sometimes a cross with a quite distinct species yields more seed than a homomorphic union with own pollen. He shows (page 111) that of the two homomorphic unions possible with each dimorphic species the short-styled (as I stated) is the most sterile, and that my explanation is probably true. There is a good summary to the paper. LETTER 654. TO J.D. HOOKER. (654/1. The following letters to Hooker, April 1st, April 5th and May 22nd, refer to Darwin's scheme of employing Scott as an assistant at Down, and to Scott's appointment to the Botanic Garden at Calcutta.) Down, April 1st, 1864. I shall not at present allude to your very interesting letter (which as yet has been read to me only twice!), for I am full of a project which I much want you to consider. You will have seen Scott's note. He tells me he has no plans for the future. Thinking over all his letters, I believe he is a truly remarkable man. He is willing to follow suggestions, but has much originality in varying his experiments. I believe years may pass before another man appears fitted to investigate certain difficult and tedious points--viz. relative fertility of varieties of plants, including peloric and other monsters (already Scott has done excellent work on this head); and, secondly, whether a plant's own pollen is less effective than that of another individual. Now, if Scott is moderate in his wishes, I would pay him for a year or two to work and publish on these or other such subjects which might arise. But I dare not have him here, for it would quite overwork me. There would not be plants sufficient for his work, and it would probably be an injury to himself, as it would put him out of the way of getting a good situation. Now, I believe you have gardeners at Kew who work and learn there without pay. What do you think of having Scott there for a year or two to work and experiment? I can see enormous difficulties. In the first place you will not perhaps think the points indicated so highly important as I do. Secondly, he would require ground in some out-of-the-way place where the plants could be covered by a net, which would be unsightly. On the other hand, I presume you would like a series of memoirs published on work done at Kew, which I am fully convinced would have permanent value. It would, of course I conceive, be absolutely necessary that Scott should be under the regular orders of the superintendent. The only way I can fancy that it could be done would be to explain to the superintendent that I temporarily supported Scott solely for the sake of science, and appeal to his kindness to assist him. If you approved of having him (which I can see is improbable), and you simply ordered the superintendent to assist him, I believe everything would go to loggerheads. As for Scott himself, it would be of course an advantage to him to study the cultivation at Kew. You would get to know him, and if he really is a good man you could perhaps be able to recommend him to some situation at home or abroad. Pray turn this [over] in your mind. I have no idea whether Scott would like the place, but I can see that he has a burning zeal for science. He told me that his parents were in better circumstances, and that he chose a gardener's life solely as the best way of following science. I may just add that in his last letter he gives me the results of many experiments on different individuals of the same species of orchid, showing the most remarkable diversity in their sexual condition. It seems to me a grievous loss that such a man should have all his work cut short. Please remember that I know nothing of him excepting from his letters: these show remarkable talent, astonishing perseverance, much modesty, and what I admire, determined difference from me on many points. What will Sir William say? LETTER 655. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 5th [1864]. I see my scheme for Scott has invincible difficulties, and I am very much obliged to you for explaining them at such length. If ever I get decently well, and Scott is free and willing, I will have him here for a couple of years to work out several problems, which otherwise would never be done. I cannot see what will become of the poor fellow. I enclose a little pamphlet from him, which I suppose is not of much scientific value, but is surprising as the work of a gardener. If you have time do just glance over it. I never heard anything so extraordinary as what you say about poisoning plants, etc. ...The post has just come in. Your interest about Scott is extraordinarily kind, and I thank you cordially. It seems absurd to say so, but I suspect that X is prejudiced against Scott because he partially supports my views. (655/1. In a letter to Scott (dated June 11th) Darwin warns him to keep his views "pretty quiet," and quotes Hooker's opinion that "if it is known that you agree at all with my views on species it is enough to make you unpopular in Edinburgh.") You must not trust my former letter about Clematis. I worked on too old a plant, and blundered. I have now gone over the work again. It is really curious that the stiff peduncles are acted upon by a bit of thread weighing .062 of a grain. Clematis glandulosa was a valuable present to me. My gardener showed it to me and said, "This is what they call a Clematis," evidently disbelieving it. So I put a little twig to the peduncle, and the next day my gardener said, "You see it is a Clematis, for it feels." That's the way we make out plants at Down. My dear old friend, God bless you! LETTER 656. TO J.D. HOOKER. [May 22nd, 1864]. What a good kind heart you have got. You cannot tell how your letter has pleased me. I will write to Scott and ask him if he chooses to go out and risk engagement. If he will not he must want all energy. He says himself he wants stoicism, and is too sensitive. I hope he may not want courage. I feel sure he is a remarkable man, with much good in him, but no doubt many errors and blemishes. I can vouch for his high intellect (in my judgment he is the best observer I ever came across); for his modesty, at least in correspondence; and there is something high-minded in his determination not to receive money from me. I shall ask him whether he can get a good character for probity and sobriety, and whether he can get aid from his relations for his voyage out. I will help, and, if necessary, pay the whole voyage, and give him enough to support him for some weeks at Calcutta. I will write when I hear from him. God bless you; you, who are so overworked, are most generous to take so much trouble about a man you have had nothing to do with. (656/1. Scott had left the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh in March 1864, chagrined at what, justly or unjustly, he considered discouragement and slight. The Indian offer was most gladly and gratefully accepted.) LETTER 657. TO J. SCOTT. Down, November 1st, 1871. Dr. Hooker has forwarded to me your letter as the best and simplest plan of explaining affairs. I am sincerely grieved to hear of the pecuniary problem which you have undergone, but now fortunately passed. I assure you that I have never entertained any feelings in regard to you which you suppose. Please to remember that I distinctly stated that I did not consider the sum which I advanced as a loan, but as a gift; and surely there is nothing discreditable to you, under the circumstances, in receiving a gift from a rich man, as I am. Therefore I earnestly beg you to banish the whole subject from your mind, and begin laying up something for yourself in the future. I really cannot break my word and accept payment. Pray do not rob me of my small share in the credit of aiding to put the right man in the right place. You have done good work, and I am sure will do more; so let us never mention the subject again. I am, after many interruptions, at work again on my essay on Expression, which was written out once many months ago. I have found your remarks the best of all which have been sent me, and so I state. CHAPTER 2.XI.--BOTANY, 1863-1881. 2.XI.I. Miscellaneous, 1863-1866.--2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881.--2.XI.III. Miscellaneous, 1868-1881. 2.XI.I. MISCELLANEOUS, 1863-1866. LETTER 658. TO D. OLIVER. Down [April, 1863]. (658/1. The following letter illustrates the truth of Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer's remark that Darwin was never "afraid of his facts." (658/2. "Charles Darwin" (Nature Series), 1882, page 43.) The entrance of pollen-tubes into the nucellus by the chalaza, instead of through the micropyle, was first fully demonstrated by Treub in his paper "Sur les Casuarinees et leur place dans le Systeme naturel," published in the "Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg," X., 1891. Two years later Miss Benson gave an account of a similar phenomenon in certain Amentiferae ("Trans. Linn. Soc." 1888-94, page 409). This chalazogamic method of fertilisation has since been recognised in other flowering plants, but not, so far as we are aware, in the genus Primula.) It is a shame to trouble [you], but will you tell me whether the ovule of Primula is "anatropal," nearly as figured by Gray, page 123, "Lessons in Botany," or rather more tending to "amphitropal"? I never looked at such a point before. Why I am curious to know is because I put pollen into the ovarium of monstrous primroses, and now, after sixteen days, and not before (the length of time agrees with slowness of natural impregnation), I find abundance of pollen-tubes emitted, which cling firmly to the ovules, and, I think I may confidently state, penetrate the ovule. But here is an odd thing: they never once enter at (what I suppose to be) the "orifice," but generally at the chalaza...Do you know how pollen-tubes go naturally in Primula? Do they run down walls of ovarium, and then turn up the placenta, and so debouch near the "orifices" of the ovules? If you thought it worth while to examine ovules, I would see if there are more monstrous flowers, and put pollen into the ovarium, and send you the flowers in fourteen or fifteen days afterwards. But it is rather troublesome. I would not do it unless you cared to examine the ovules. Like a foolish and idle man, I have wasted a whole morning over them... In two ovules there was an odd appearance, as if the outer coat of ovule at the chalaza end (if I understand the ovule) had naturally opened or withered where most of the pollen-tubes seemed to penetrate, which made me at first think this was a widely open foramen. I wonder whether the ovules could be thus fertilised? LETTER 659. TO D. OLIVER. Down [April, 1863]. Many thanks about the Primula. I see that I was pretty right about the ovules. I have been thinking that the apparent opening at the chalaza end must have been withering or perhaps gnawing by some very minute insects, as the ovarium is open at the upper end. If I have time I will have another look at pollen-tubes, as, from what you say, they ought to find their way to the micropyle. But ovules to me are far more troublesome to dissect than animal tissue; they are so soft, and muddy the water. LETTER 660. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 6th [1863]. I have been very glad to read your paper on Peloria. (660/1. "On the Existence of Two Forms of Peloria." "Natural History Review," April, 1863, page 258.) For the mere chance of the following case being new I send it. A plant which I purchased as Corydalis tuberosa has, as you know, one nectary--short, white, and without nectar; the pistil is bowed towards the true nectary; and the hood formed by the inner petals slips off towards the opposite side (all adaptations to insect agency, like many other pretty ones in this family). Now on my plants there are several flowers (the fertility of which I will observe) with both nectaries equal and purple and secreting nectar; the pistil is straight, and the hood slips off either way. In short, these flowers have the exact structure of Dielytra and Adlumia. Seeing this, I must look at the case as one of reversion; though it is one of the spreading of irregularity to two sides. As columbine [Aquilegia] has all petals, etc., irregular, and as monkshood [Aconitum] has two petals irregular, may not the case given by Seringe, and referred to [by] you (660/2. "Seringe describes and figures a flower [of Aconitum] wherein all the sepals were helmet-shaped," and the petals similarly affected. Maxwell Masters, op. cit., page 260.), by you be looked at as reversion to the columbine state? Would it be too bold to suppose that some ancient Linaria, or allied form, and some ancient Viola, had all petals spur-shaped, and that all cases of "irregular peloria" in these genera are reversions to such imaginary ancient form? (660/3. "'Regular or Congenital Peloria' would include those flowers which, contrary to their usual habit, retain throughout the whole of their growth their primordial regularity of form and equality of proportion. 'Irregular or Acquired Peloria,' on the other hand, would include those flowers in which the irregularity of growth that ordinarily characterises some portions of the corolla is manifested in all of them." Maxwell Masters, loc. cit.) It seems to me, in my ignorance, that it would be advantageous to consider the two forms of Peloria WHEN OCCURRING IN THE VERY SAME SPECIES as probably due to the same general law--viz., one as reversion to very early state, and the other as reversion to a later state when all the petals were irregularly formed. This seems at least to me a priori a more probable view than to look at one form of Peloria as due to reversion and the other as something distinct. (660/4. See Maxwell Masters, "Vegetable Teratology," 1869, page 235; "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 33.) What do you think of this notion? LETTER 661. TO P.H. GOSSE. (661/1. The following was written in reply to Mr. Gosse's letter of May 30th asking for a solution of his difficulties in fertilising Stanhopea. It is reprinted by the kind permission of Mr. Edmund Gosse from his delightful book, the "Life of Philip Henry Gosse," London, 1890, page 299.) Down, June 2nd, 1863. It would give me real pleasure to resolve your doubts, but I cannot. I can give only suspicions and my grounds for them. I should think the non-viscidity of the stigmatic hollow was due to the plant not living under its natural conditions. Please see what I have said on Acropera. An excellent observer, Mr. J. Scott, of the Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, finds all that I say accurate, but, nothing daunted, he with the knife enlarged the orifice and forced in pollen-masses; or he simply stuck them into the contracted orifice without coming into contact with the stigmatic surface, which is hardly at all viscid, when, lo and behold, pollen-tubes were emitted and fine seed capsules obtained. This was effected with Acropera Loddigesii; but I have no doubt that I have blundered badly about A. luteola. I mention all this because, as Mr. Scott remarks, as the plant is in our hot-houses, it is quite incredible it ever could be fertilised in its native land. The whole case is an utter enigma to me. Probably you are aware that there are cases (and it is one of the oddest facts in Physiology) of plants which, under culture, have their sexual functions in so strange a condition, that though their pollen and ovules are in a sound state and can fertilise and be fertilised by distinct but allied species, they cannot fertilise themselves. Now, Mr. Scott has found this the case with certain orchids, which again shows sexual disturbance. He had read a paper at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, and I daresay an abstract which I have seen will appear in the "Gardeners' Chronicle"; but blunders have crept in in copying, and parts are barely intelligible. How insects act with your Stanhopea I will not pretend to conjecture. In many cases I believe the acutest man could not conjecture without seeing the insect at work. I could name common English plants in this predicament. But the musk-orchis [Herminium monorchis] is a case in point. Since publishing, my son and myself have watched the plant and seen the pollinia removed, and where do you think they invariably adhere in dozens of specimens?--always to the joint of the femur with the trochanter of the first pair of legs, and nowhere else. When one sees such adaptation as this, it would be hopeless to conjecture on the Stanhopea till we know what insect visits it. I have fully proved that my strong suspicion was correct that with many of our English orchids no nectar is excreted, but that insects penetrate the tissues for it. So I expect it must be with many foreign species. I forgot to say that if you find that you cannot fertilise any of your exotics, take pollen from some allied form, and it is quite probable that will succeed. Will you have the kindness to look occasionally at your bee-Ophrys near Torquay, and see whether pollinia are ever removed? It is my greatest puzzle. Please read what I have said on it, and on O. arachnites. I have since proved that the account of the latter is correct. I wish I could have given you better information. P.S.--If the Flowers of the Stanhopea are not too old, remove pollen-masses from their pedicels, and stick them with a little liquid pure gum to the stigmatic cavity. After the case of the Acropera, no one can dare positively say that they would not act. LETTER 662. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Saturday, 5th [December 1863]. I am very glad that this will reach you at Kew. You will then get rest, and I do hope some lull in anxiety and fear. Nothing is so dreadful in this life as fear; it still sickens me when I cannot help remembering some of the many illnesses our children have endured. My father, who was a sceptical man, was convinced that he had distinctly traced several cases of scarlet fever to handling letters from convalescents. The vases (662/1. Probably Wedgwood ware.) did come from my sister Susan. She is recovering, and was much pleased to hear that you liked them; I have now sent one of your notes to her, in which you speak of them as "enchanting," etc. I have had a bad spell--vomiting, every day for eleven days, and some days many times after every meal. It is astonishing the degree to which I keep up some strength. Dr. Brinton was here two days ago, and says he sees no reason [why] I may not recover my former degree of health. I should like to live to do a little more work, and often I feel sure I shall, and then again I feel that my tether is run out. Your Hastings note, my dear old fellow, was a Copley Medal to me and more than a Copley Medal: not but what I know well that you overrate what I have been able to do. (662/2. The proposal to give the medal to Darwin failed in 1863, but his friends were successful in 1864: see "Life and Letters," III., page 28.) Now that I am disabled, I feel more than ever what a pleasure observing and making out little difficulties is. By the way, here is a very little fact which may interest you. A partridge foot is described in "Proc. Zoolog. Soc." with a huge ball of earth attached to it as hard as rock. (662/3. "Proc. Zool. Soc." 1863, page 127, by Prof. Newton, who sent the foot to Darwin: see "Origin," Edition VI., page 328.) Bird killed in 1860. Leg has been sent me, and I find it diseased, and no doubt the exudation caused earth to accumulate; now already thirty-two plants have come up from this ball of earth. By Jove! I must write no more. Good-bye, my best of friends. There is an Italian edition of the "Origin" preparing. This makes the fifth foreign edition--i.e. in five foreign countries. Owen will not be right in telling Longmans that the book would be utterly forgotten in ten years. Hurrah! LETTER 663. TO D. OLIVER. Down, February 17th [1864]. Many thanks for the Epacrids, which I have kept, as they will interest me when able to look through the microscope. Dr. Cruger has sent me the enclosed paper, with power to do what I think fit with it. He would evidently prefer it to appear in the "Nat. Hist. Review." Please read it, and let me have your decision pretty soon. Some germanisms must be corrected; whether woodcuts are necessary I have not been able to pay attention enough to decide. If you refuse, please send it to the Linnean Society as communicated by me. (663/1. H. Cruger's "A Few Notes on the Fecundation of Orchids, etc." [Read March, 1864.] "Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII., 1864-5, page 127.) The paper has interested me extremely, and I shall have no peace till I have a good boast. The sexes are separate in Catasetum, which is a wonderful relief to me, as I have had two or three letters saying that the male C. tridentatum seeds. (663/2. See footnote Letter 608 on the sexual relation between the three forms known as Catasetum tridentatum, Monacanthus viridis, and Myanthus barbatus. For further details see Darwin, "Linn. Soc. Journ." VI., 1862, page 151, and "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 196.) It is pretty clear to me that two or three forms are confounded under this name. Observe how curiously nearly perfect the pollen of the female is, according to Cruger,--certainly more perfect than the pollen from the Guyana species described by me. I was right in the manner in which the pollen adheres to the hairy back of the humble-bee, and hence the force of the ejection of the pollina. (663/3. This view was given in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., 1862, page 230.) I am still more pleased that I was right about insects gnawing the fleshy labellum. This is important, as it explains all the astounding projections on the labellum of Oncidium, Phalaenopsis, etc. Excuse all my boasting. It is the best medicine for my stomach. Tell me whether you mean to take up orchids, as Hooker said you were thinking of doing. Do you know Coryanthes, with its wonderful basket of water? See what Cruger says about it. It beats everything in orchids. (663/4. For Coryanthes see "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 173.) LETTER 664. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [September 13th, 1864]. Thanks for your note of the 5th. You think much and greatly too much of me and my doings; but this is pleasant, for you have represented for many years the whole great public to me. I have read with interest Bentham's address on hybridism. I am glad that he is cautious about Naudin's view, for I cannot think that it will hold. (664/1. C. Naudin's "Nouvelles Recherches sur l'Hydridite dans les Vegetaux." The complete paper, with coloured plates, was presented to the Academy in 1861, and published in full in the "Nouvelles Archives de Museum d'Hist. Nat." Volume I., 1865, page 25. The second part only appeared in the "Ann. Sci. Nat." XIX., 1863. Mr. Bentham's address dealing with hybridism is in "Proc. Linn. Soc." VIII., 1864, page ix. A review of Naudin is given in the "Natural History Review," 1864, page 50. Naudin's paper is of much interest, as containing a mechanical theory of reproduction of the same general character as that of pangenesis. In the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 395, Darwin states that in his treatment of hybridism in terms of gemmules he is practically following Naudin's treatment of the same theme in terms of "essences." Naudin, however, does not clearly distinguish between hybrid and pure gemmules, and makes the assumption that the hybrid or mixed essences tend constantly to dissociate into pure parental essences, and thus lead to reversion. It is to this view that Darwin refers when he says that Naudin's view throws no light on the reversion to long-lost characters. His own attempt at explaining this fact occurs in "Variation under Domestication," II., Edition II., page 395. Mr. Bateson ("Mendel's Principle of Heredity," Cambridge, 1902, page 38) says: "Naudin clearly enuntiated what we shall henceforth know as the Mendelian conception of the dissociation of characters of cross-breds in the formation of the germ-cells, though apparently he never developed this conception." It is remarkable that, as far as we know, Darwin never in any way came across Mendel's work. One of Darwin's correspondents, however, the late Mr. T. Laxton, of Stamford, was close on the trail of Mendelian principle. Mr. Bateson writes (op. cit., page 181): "Had he [Laxton] with his other gifts combined this penetration which detects a great principle hidden in the thin mist of 'exceptions,' we should have been able to claim for him that honour which must ever be Mendel's in the history of discovery.") The tendency of hybrids to revert to either parent is part of a wider law (which I am fully convinced that I can show experimentally), namely, that crossing races as well as species tends to bring back characters which existed in progenitors hundreds and thousands of generations ago. Why this should be so, God knows. But Naudin's view throws no light, that I can see, on this reversion of long-lost characters. I wish the Ray Society would translate Gartner's "Bastarderzeugung"; it contains more valuable matter than all other writers put together, and would do great service if better known. (664/2. "Versuche uber die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich": Stuttgart, 1849.) LETTER 665. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (665/1. Mr. Huxley had doubted the accuracy of observations on Catasetum published in the "Fertilisation of Orchids." In what formed the postscript to the following letter, Darwin wrote: "I have had more Catasetums,--all right, you audacious 'caviller.'") Down, October 31st [1862]. In a little book, just published, called the "Three Barriers" (a theological hash of old abuse of me), Owen gives to the author a new resume of his brain doctrine; and I thought you would like to hear of this. He ends with a delightful sentence. "No science affords more scope or easier ground for the caviller and controversialist; and these do good by preventing scholars from giving more force to generalisations than the master propounding them does, or meant his readers or hearers to give." You will blush with pleasure to hear that you are of some use to the master. LETTER 666. TO J.D. HOOKER. [February, 1864?] I shall write again. I write now merely to ask, if you have Naravelia (666/1. Ranunculaceae.) (the Clematis-like plant told me by Oliver), to try and propagate me a plant at once. Have you Clematis cirrhosa? It will amuse me to tell you why Clematis interests me, and why I should so very much like to have Naravelia. The leaves of Clematis have no spontaneous movement, nor have the internodes; but when by growth the peduncles of leaves are brought into contact with any object, they bend and catch hold. The slightest stimulus suffices, even a bit of cotton thread a few inches long; but the stimulus must be applied during six or twelve hours, and when the peduncles once bend, though the touching object be removed, they never get straight again. Now mark the difference in another leaf-climber--viz., Tropaeolum: here the young internodes revolve day and night, and the peduncles of the leaves are thus brought into contact with an object, and the slightest momentary touch causes them to bend in any direction and catch the object, but as the axis revolves they must be often dragged away without catching, and then the peduncles straighten themselves again, and are again ready to catch. So that the nervous system of Clematis feels only a prolonged touch--that of Tropaeolum a momentary touch: the peduncles of the latter recover their original position, but Clematis, as it comes into contact by growth with fixed objects, has no occasion to recover its position, and cannot do so. You did send me Flagellaria, but most unfortunately young plants do not have tendrils, and I fear my plant will not get them for another year, and this I much regret, as these leaf-tendrils seem very curious, and in Gloriosa I could not make out the action, but I have now a young plant of Gloriosa growing up (as yet with simple leaves) which I hope to make out. Thank Oliver for decisive answer about tendrils of vines. It is very strange that tendrils formed of modified leaves and branches should agree in all their four highly remarkable properties. I can show a beautiful gradation by which LEAVES produce tendrils, but how the axis passes into a tendril utterly puzzles me. I would give a guinea if vine-tednrils could be found to be leaves. (666/2. It is an interesting fact that Darwin's work on climbing plants was well advanced before he discovered the existence of the works of Palm, Mohl, and Dutrochet on this subject. On March 22nd, 1864, he wrote to Hooker:--"You quite overrate my tendril work, and there is no occasion to plague myself about priority." In June he speaks of having read "two German books, and all, I believe, that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to find that I have a good deal of new matter.") LETTER 667. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 2nd [1864]. You once offered me a Combretum. (667/1. The two forms of shoot in C. argenteum are described in "Climbing Plants," page 41.) I having C. purpureum, out of modesty like an ass refused. Can you now send me a plant? I have a sudden access of furor about climbers. Do you grow Adlumia cirrhosa? Your seed did not germinate with me. Could you have a seedling dug up and potted? I want it fearfully, for it is a leaf-climber, and therefore sacred. I have some hopes of getting Adlumia, for I used to grow the plant, and seedlings have often come up, and we are now potting all minute reddish-coloured weeds. (667/2. We believe that the Adlumia which came up year by year in flower boxes in the Down verandah grew from seed supplied by Asa Gray.) I have just got a plant with sensitive axis, quite a new case; and tell Oliver I now do not care at all how many tendrils he makes axial, which at one time was a cruel torture to me. LETTER 668. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 3rd [1864]. Many thanks for your splendid long letter. But first for business. Please look carefully at the enclosed specimen of Dicentra thalictriformis, and throw away. (668/1. Dicentra thalictrifolia, a Himalayan species of Fumariaceae, with leaf-tendrils.) When the plant was young I concluded certainly that the tendrils were axial, or modified branches, which Mohl says is the case with some Fumariaceae. (668/2. "Ueber den Bau und das Winden der Ranken und Schlingpflanzen. Eine gekronte Preisschrift," 4to, Tubingen, 1827. At page 43 Mohl describes the tips of the branches of Fumaria [Corydalis] clavicualta as being developed into tendrils, as well as the leaves. For this reason Darwin placed the plant among the tendril-bearers rather than among the true leaf-climbers: see "Climbing Plants," Edition II., 1875, page 121.) You looked at them here and agreed. But now the plant is old, what I thought was a branch with two leaves and ending in a tendril looks like a gigantic leaf with two compound leaflets, and the terminal part converted into a tendril. For I see buds in the fork between supposed branch and main stem. Pray look carefully--you know I am profoundly ignorant--and save me from a horrid mistake. LETTER 669. TO J.D. HOOKER. (669/1. The following is interesting, as containing a foreshadowing of the chemotaxis of antherozoids which was shown to exist by Pfeffer in 1881: see "Untersuchungen aus dem botanischen Institut zu Tubingen," Volume I., page 363. There are several papers by H.J. Carter on the reproduction of the lower organisms in the "Annals and Magazine of Natural History" between 1855 and 1865.) Down, Sunday, 22nd, and Saturday, 28th [October, 1865]. I have been wading through the "Annals and Mag. of N. History." for last ten years, and have been interested by several papers, chiefly, however, translations; but none have interested me more than Carter's on lower vegetables, infusoria, and protozoa. Is he as good a workman as he appears? for if so he would deserve a Royal medal. I know it is not new; but how wonderful his account of the spermatozoa of some dioecious alga or conferva, swimming and finding the minute micropyle in a distinct plant, and forcing its way in! Why, these zoospores must possess some sort of organ of sense to guide their locomotive powers to the small micropyle; and does not this necessarily imply something like a nervous system, in the same way as complemental male cirripedes have organs of sense and locomotion, and nothing else but a sack of spermatozoa? LETTER 670. TO F. HILDEBRAND. May 16th, 1866. Since writing to you before, I have read your admirable memoir on Salvia (670/1. "Pringsheim's Jahrbucher," Volume IV., 1866.), and it has interested me almost as much as when I first investigated the structure of orchids. Your paper illustrates several points in my "Origin of Species," especially the transition of organs. Knowing only two or three species in the genus, I had often marvelled how one cell of the anther could have been transformed into the moveable plate or spoon; and how well you show the gradations. But I am surprised that you did not more strongly insist on this point. I shall be still more surprised if you do not ultimately come to the same belief with me, as shown by so many beautiful contrivances,--that all plants require, from some unknown cause, to be occasionally fertilised by pollen from a distinct individual. (PLATE: FRITZ MULLER.) 2.XI.II. CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRITZ MULLER, 1865-1881. (671/1. The letters from Darwin to Muller are given as a separate group, instead of in chronological sequence with the other botanical letters, as better illustrating the uninterrupted friendship and scientific comradeship of the two naturalists.) LETTER 671. TO F. MULLER. Down, October 17th [1865]. I received about a fortnight ago your second letter on climbing plants, dated August 31st. It has greatly interested me, and it corrects and fills up a great hiatus in my paper. As I thought you could not object, I am having your letter copied, and will send the paper to the Linnean Society. (671/2. "Notes on some of the Climbing Plants near Desterro" [1865], "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., 1867.) I have slightly modified the arrangement of some parts and altered only a few words, as you write as good English as an Englishman. I do not quite understand your account of the arrangement of the leaves of Strychnos, and I think you use the word "bracteae" differently to what English authors do; therefore I will get Dr. Hooker to look over your paper. I cannot, of course, say whether the Linnean Society will publish your paper; but I am sure it ought to do so. As the Society is rather poor, I fear that it will give only a few woodcuts from your truly admirable sketches. LETTER 672. TO F. MULLER. (672/1. In Darwin's book on Climbing Plants, 1875 (672/2. First given as a paper before the Linnean Society, and published in the "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume IX.,), he wrote (page 205): "The conclusion is forced on our minds that the capacity of revolving, on which most climbing plants depend, is inherent, though undeveloped, in almost every plant in the vegetable Kingdom"--a conclusion which was verified in the "Power of Movement in Plants." The present letter is interesting in referring to Fritz Muller's observations on the "revolving nutation," or circumnutation of Alisma macrophylla and Linum usitatissimum, the latter fact having been discovered by F. Muller's daughter Rosa. This was probably the earliest observation on the circumnutation of a non-climbing plant, and Muller, in a paper dated 1868, and published in Volume V. of the "Jenaische Zeitschrift," page 133, calls attention to its importance in relation to the evolution of the habit of climbing. The present letter was probably written in 1865, since it refers to Muller's paper read before the Linnean Soc. on December 7th, 1865. If so, the facts on circumnutation must have been communicated to Darwin some years before their publication in the "Jenaische Zeitschrift.") Down, December 9th [1865]. I have received your interesting letter of October 10th, with its new facts on branch-tendrils. If the Linnean Society publishes your paper (672/3. Ibid., 1867, page 344.), as I am sure it ought to do, I will append a note with some of these new facts. I forwarded immediately your MS. to Professor Max Schultze, but I did not read it, for German handwriting utterly puzzles me, and I am so weak, I am capable of no exertion. I took the liberty, however, of asking him to send me a copy, if separate ones are printed, and I reminded him about the Sponge paper. You will have received before this my book on orchids, and I wish I had known that you would have preferred the English edition. Should the German edition fail to reach you, I will send an English one. That is a curious observation of your daughter about the movement of the apex of the stem of Linum, and would, I think, be worth following out. (672/4. F. Muller, "Jenaische Zeitschrift," Bd. V., page 137. Here, also, are described the movements of Alisma.) I suspect many plants move a little, following the sun; but all do not, for I have watched some pretty carefully. I can give you no zoological news, for I live the life of the most secluded hermit. I occasionally hear from Ernest Hackel, who seems as determined as you are to work out the subject of the change of species. You will have seen his curious paper on certain medusae reproducing themselves by seminal generation at two periods of growth. (672/5. On April 3rd, 1868, Darwin wrote to F. Muller: "Your diagram of the movements of the flower-peduncle of the Alisma is extremely curious. I suppose the movement is of no service to the plant, but shows how easily the species might be converted into a climber. Does it bend through irritability when rubbed?" LETTER 673. TO F. MULLER. Down, September 25th [1866]. I have just received your letter of August 2nd, and am, as usual, astonished at the number of interesting points which you observe. It is quite curious how, by coincidence, you have been observing the same subjects that have lately interested me. Your case of the Notylia is quite new to me (673/1. See F. Muller, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, page 630; "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 171.); but it seems analogous with that of Acropera, about the sexes of which I blundered greatly in my book. I have got an Acropera now in flower, and have no doubt that some insect, with a tuft of hairs on its tail, removes by the tuft, the pollinia, and inserts the little viscid cap and the long pedicel into the narrow stigmatic cavity, and leaves it there with the pollen-masses in close contact with, but not inserted into, the stigmatic cavity. I find I can thus fertilise the flowers, and so I can with Stanhopea, and I suspect that this is the case with your Notylia. But I have lately had an orchis in flower--viz. Acineta, which I could not anyhow fertilise. Dr. Hildebrand lately wrote a paper (673/2. "Bot. Zeitung," 1863, 1865.) showing that with some orchids the ovules are not mature and are not fertilised until months after the pollen-tubes have penetrated the column, and you have independently observed the same fact, which I never suspected in the case of Acropera. The column of such orchids must act almost like the spermatheca of insects. Your orchis with two leaf-like stigmas is new to me; but I feel guilty at your wasting your valuable time in making such beautiful drawings for my amusement. Your observations on those plants being sterile which grow separately, or flower earlier than others, are very interesting to me: they would be worth experimenting on with other individuals. I shall give in my next book several cases of individual plants being sterile with their own pollen. I have actually got on my list Eschscholtzia (673/3. See "Animals and Plants," II., Edition II., page 118.) for fertilising with its own pollen, though I did not suspect it would prove sterile, and I will try next summer. My object is to compare the rate of growth of plants raised from seed fertilised by pollen from the same flower and by pollen from a distinct plant, and I think from what I have seen I shall arrive at interesting results. Dr. Hildebrand has lately described a curious case of Corydalis cava which is quite sterile with its own pollen, but fertile with pollen of any other individual plant of the species. (673/4. "International Horticultural Congress," London, 1866, quoted in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 113.) What I meant in my paper on Linum about plants being dimorphic in function alone, was that they should be divided into two equal bodies functionally but not structurally different. I have been much interested by what you say on seeds which adhere to the valves being rendered conspicuous. You will see in the new edition of the "Origin" (673/5. "Origin of Species," Edition IV., 1866, page 238. A discussion on the origin of beauty, including the bright colours of flowers and fruits.) why I have alluded to the beauty and bright colours of fruit; after writing this it troubled me that I remembered to have seen brilliantly coloured seed, and your view occurred to me. There is a species of peony in which the inside of the pod is crimson and the seeds dark purple. I had asked a friend to send me some of these seeds, to see if they were covered with anything which could prove attractive to birds. I received some seeds the day after receiving your letter, and I must own that the fleshy covering is so thin that I can hardly believe it would lead birds to devour them; and so it was in an analogous case with Passiflora gracilis. How is this in the cases mentioned by you? The whole case seems to me rather a striking one. I wish I had heard of Mikania being a leaf-climber before your paper was printed (673/6. See "Climbing Plants (3rd thousand, 1882), page 116. Mikania and Mutisia both belong to the Compositae. Mikania scandens is a twining plant: it is another species which, by its leaf-climbing habit, supplies a transition to the tendril-climber Mutisia. F. Muller's paper is in "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., page 344.), for we thus get a good gradation from M. scandens to Mutisia, with its little modified, leaf-like tendrils. I am glad to hear that you can confirm (but render still more wonderful) Hackel's most interesting case of Linope. Huxley told me that he thought the case would somehow be explained away. LETTER 674. TO F. MULLER. Down [Received January 24th, 1867]. I have so much to thank you for that I hardly know how to begin. I have received the bulbils of Oxalis, and your most interesting letter of October 1st. I planted half the bulbs, and will plant the other half in the spring. The case seems to me very curious, and until trying some experiments in crossing I can form no conjecture what the abortion of the stamens in so irregular a manner can signify. But I fear from what you say the plant will prove sterile, like so many others which increase largely by buds of various kinds. Since I asked you about Oxalis, Dr. Hildebrand has published a paper showing that a great number of species are trimorphic, like Lythrum, but he has tried hardly any experiments. (674/1. Hildebrand's work, published in the "Monatsb. d. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin," 1866, was chiefly on herbarium specimens. His experimental work was published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1871.) I am particularly obliged for the information and specimens of Cordia (674/2. Cordiaceae: probably dimorphic.), and shall be most grateful for seed. I have not heard of any dimorphic species in this family. Hardly anything in your letter interested me so much as your account and drawing of the valves of the pod of one of the Mimoseae with the really beautiful seeds. I will send some of these seeds to Kew to be planted. But these seeds seem to me to offer a very great difficulty. They do not seem hard enough to resist the triturating power of the gizzard of a gallinaceous bird, though they must resist that of some other birds; for the skin is as hard as ivory. I presume that these seeds cannot be covered with any attractive pulp? I soaked one of the seeds for ten hours in warm water, which became only very slightly mucilaginous. I think I will try whether they will pass through a fowl uninjured. (674/3. The seeds proved to be those of Adenanthera pavonina. The solution of the difficulty is given in the following extract from a letter to Muller, March 2nd, 1867: "I wrote to India on the subject, and I hear from Mr. J. Scott that parrots are eager for the seeds, and, wonderful as the fact is, can split them open with their beaks; they first collect a large number in their beaks, and then settle themselves to split them, and in doing so drop many; thus I have no doubt they are disseminated, on the same principle that the acorns of our oaks are most widely disseminated." Possibly a similar explanation may hold good for the brightly coloured seeds of Abrus precatorius.) I hope you will observe whether any bird devours them; and could you get any young man to shoot some and observe whether the seeds are found low down in the intestines? It would be well worth while to plant such seeds with undigested seeds for comparison. An opponent of ours might make a capital case against us by saying that here beautiful pods and seeds have been formed not for the good of the plant, but for the good of birds alone. These seeds would make a beautiful bracelet for one of my daughters, if I had enough. I may just mention that Euonymus europoeus is a case in point: the seeds are coated by a thin orange layer, which I find is sufficient to cause them to be devoured by birds. I have received your paper on Martha [Posoqueria (674/4. "Bot. Zeitung," 1866.)]; it is as wonderful as the most wonderful orchis; Ernst Hackel brought me the paper and stayed a day with me. I have seldom seen a more pleasant, cordial, and frank man. He is now in Madeira, where he is going to work chiefly on the Medusae. His great work is now published, and I have a copy; but the german is so difficult I can make out but little of it, and I fear it is too large a work to be translated. Your fact about the number of seeds in the capsule of the Maxillaria (674/5. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 115.) came just at the right time, as I wished to give one or two such facts. Does this orchid produce many capsules? I cannot answer your question about the aerial roots of Catasetum. I hope you have received the new edition of the "Origin." Your paper on climbing plants (674/6. "Linn. Soc. Journal," IX., 1867, page 344.) is printed, and I expect in a day or two to receive the spare copies, and I will send off three copies as before stated, and will retain some in case you should wish me to send them to any one in Europe, and will transmit the remainder to yourself. LETTER 675. TO F. MULLER. Down [received February 24th, 1867]. Your letter of November 2nd contained an extraordinary amount of interesting matter. What a number of dimorphic plants South Brazil produces: you observed in one day as many or more dimorphic genera than all the botanists in Europe have ever observed. When my present book is finished I shall write a final paper upon these plants, so that I am extremely glad to hear of your observations and to see the dried flowers; nevertheless, I should regret MUCH if I prevented you from publishing on the subject. Plumbago (675/1. Plumbago has not been shown to be dimorphic.) is quite new to me, though I had suspected it. It is curious how dimorphism prevails by groups throughout the world, showing, as I suppose, that it is an ancient character; thus Hedyotis is dimorphic in India (675/2. Hedyotis was sent to Darwin by F. Muller; it seems possible, therefore, that Hedyotis was written by mistake for some other Rubiaceous plant, perhaps Oldenlandia, which John Scott sent him from India.); the two other genera in the same sub-family with Villarsia are dimorphic in Europe and Ceylon; a sub-genus of Erythroxylon (675/3. No doubt Sethia.) is dimorphic in Ceylon, and Oxalis with you and at the Cape of Good Hope. If you can find a dimorphic Oxalis it will be a new point, for all known species are trimorphic or monomorphic. The case of Convolvulus will be new, if proved. I am doubtful about Gesneria (675/4. Neither Convolvulus nor Gesneria have been shown to be dimorphic.), and have been often myself deceived by varying length of pistil. A difference in the size of the pollen-grains would be conclusive evidence; but in some cases experiments by fertilisation can alone decide the point. As yet I know of no case of dimorphism in flowers which are very irregular; such flowers being apparently always sufficiently visited and crossed by insects. LETTER 676. TO F. MULLER. Down, April 22nd [1867]. I am very sorry your papers on climbing plants never reached you. They must be lost, but I put the stamps on myself and I am sure they were right. I despatched on the 20th all the remaining copies, except one for myself. Your letter of March 4th contained much interesting matter, but I have to say this of all your letters. I am particularly glad to hear that Oncidium flexuosum (676/1. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 114. Observations on Oncidium were made by John Scott, and in Brazil by F. Muller, who "fertilised above one hundred flowers of the above-mentioned Oncidium flexuosum, which is there endemic, with its own pollen, and with that taken from distinct plants: all the former were sterile, whilst those fertilised by pollen from any OTHER PLANT of the same species were fertile.') is endemic, for I always thought that the cases of self-sterility with orchids in hot-houses might have been caused by their unnatural conditions. I am glad, also, to hear of the other analogous cases, all of which I will give briefly in my book that is now printing. The lessened number of good seeds in the self-fertilising Epidendrums is to a certain extent a new case. You suggest the comparison of the growth of plants produced from self-fertilised and crossed seeds. I began this work last autumn, and the result, in some cases, has been very striking; but only, as far as I can yet judge, with exotic plants which do not get freely crossed by insects in this country. In some of these cases it is really a wonderful physiological fact to see the difference of growth in the plants produced from self-fertilised and crossed seeds, both produced by the same parent-plant; the pollen which has been used for the cross having been taken from a distinct plant that grew in the same flower-pot. Many thanks for the dimorphic Rubiaceous plant. Three of your Plumbagos have germinated, but not as yet any of the Lobelias. Have you ever thought of publishing a work which might contain miscellaneous observations on all branches of Natural History, with a short description of the country and of any excursions which you might take? I feel certain that you might make a very valuable and interesting book, for every one of your letters is so full of good observations. Such books, for instance Bates' "Travels on the Amazons," are very popular in England. I will give your obliging offer about Brazilian plants to Dr. Hooker, who was to have come here to-day, but has failed. He is an excellent good fellow, as well as naturalist. He has lately published a pamphlet, which I think you would like to read; and I will try and get a copy and send you. (676/2. Sir J.D. Hooker's lecture on Insular Floras, given before the British Association in August, 1866, is doubtless referred to. It appeared in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and was published as a pamphlet in January, 1867. This fact helps to fix the date of the present letter.) LETTER 677. TO F. MULLER. (677/1. The following refers to the curious case of Eschscholtzia described in "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," pages 343-4. The offspring of English plants after growing for two generations in Brazil became self-sterile, while the offspring of Brazilian plants became partly self-fertile in England.) January 30th [1868]. ...The flowers of Eschscholtzia when crossed with pollen from a distinct plant produced 91 per cent. of capsules; when self-fertilised the flowers produced only 66 per cent. of capsules. An equal number of crossed and self-fertilised capsules contained seed by weight in the proportion of 100 to 71. Nevertheless, the self-fertilised flowers produced an abundance of seed. I enclose a few crossed seeds in hopes that you will raise a plant, cover it with a net, and observe whether it is self-fertile; at the same time allowing several uncovered plants to produce capsules, for the sterility formerly observed by you seems to me very curious. LETTER 678. TO F. MULLER. Down, November 28th [1868]. You end your letter of September 9th by saying that it is a very dull one; indeed, you make a very great mistake, for it abounds with interesting facts and thoughts. Your account of the tameness of the birds which apparently have wandered from the interior, is very curious. But I must begin on another subject: there has been a great and very vexatious, but unavoidable delay in the publication of your book. (678/1. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," 1869, a translation by the late Mr. Dallas of F. Muller's "Fur Darwin," 1864: see Volume I., Letter 227.) Prof. Huxley agrees with me that Mr. Dallas is by far the best translator, but he is much overworked and had not quite finished the translation about a fortnight ago. He has charge of the Museum at York, and is now trying to get the situation of Assistant Secretary at the Geological Society; and all the canvassing, etc., and his removal, if he gets the place, will, I fear, cause more than a month's delay in the completion of the translation; and this I very much regret. I am particularly glad to hear that you intend to repeat my experiments on illegitimate offspring, for no one's observations can be trusted until repeated. You will find the work very troublesome, owing to the death of plants and accidents of all kinds. Some dimorphic plant will probably prove too sterile for you to raise offspring; and others too fertile for much sterility to be expected in their offspring. Primula is bad on account of the difficulty of deciding which seeds may be considered as good. I have earnestly wished that some one would repeat these experiments, but I feared that years would elapse before any one would take the trouble. I received your paper on Bignonia in "Bot. Zeit." and it interested me much. (678/2. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 117. Fritz Muller's paper, "Befruchtungsversuche an Cipo alho (Bignonia)," "Botanische Zeitung," September 25th, 1868, page 625, contains an interesting foreshadowing of the generalisation arrived at in "Cross and Self-Fertilisation." Muller wrote: "Are the three which grow near each other seedlings from the same mother-plant or perhaps from seeds of the same capsule? Or have they, from growing in the same place and under the same conditions, become so like each other that the pollen of one has hardly any more effect on the others than their own pollen? Or, on the contrary, were the plants originally one--i.e., are they suckers from a single stock, which have gained a slight degree of mutual fertility in the course of an independent life? Or, lastly, is the result 'ein neckische Zufall,'" (The above is a free translation of Muller's words.)) I am convinced that if you can prove that a plant growing in a distant place under different conditions is more effective in fertilisation than one growing close by, you will make a great step in the essence of sexual reproduction. Prof. Asa Gray and Dr. Hooker have been staying here, and, oddly enough, they knew nothing of your paper on Martha (678/3. F. Muller has described ("Bot. Zeitung," 1866, page 129) the explosive mechanism by which the pollen is distributed in Martha (Posoqueria) fragrans. He also gives an account of the remarkable arrangement for ensuring cross-fertilisation. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 131.), though the former was aware of the curious movements of the stamens, but so little understood the structure of the plant that he thought it was probably a dimorphic species. Accordingly, I showed them your drawings and gave them a little lecture, and they were perfectly charmed with your account. Hildebrand (678/4. See Letter 206, Volume I.) has repeated his experiments on potatoes, and so have I, but this summer with no result. LETTER 679. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 14th [1869]. I received some time ago a very interesting letter from you with many facts about Oxalis, and about the non-seeding and spreading of one species. I may mention that our common O. acetosella varies much in length of pistils and stamens, so that I at first thought it was certainly dimorphic, but proved it by experiment not to be so. Boiseria (679/1. This perhaps refers to Boissiera (Ladizabala).) has after all seeded well with me when crossed by opposite form, but very sparingly when self-fertilised. Your case of Faramea astonishes me. (679/2. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 129. Faramea is placed among the dimorphic species.) Are you sure there is no mistake? The difference in size of flower and wonderful difference in size and structure of pollen-grains naturally make me rather sceptical. I never fail to admire and to be surprised at the number of points to which you attend. I go on slowly at my next book, and though I never am idle, I make but slow progress; for I am often interrupted by being unwell, and my subject of sexual selection has grown into a very large one. I have also had to correct a new edition of my "Origin," (679/3. The 5th edition.), and this has taken me six weeks, for science progresses at railroad speed. I cannot tell you how rejoiced I am that your book is at last out; for whether it sells largely or not, I am certain it will produce a great effect on all capable judges, though these are few in number. P.S.--I have just received your letter of January 12th. I am greatly interested by what you say on Eschscholtzia; I wish your plants had succeeded better. It seems pretty clear that the species is much more self-sterile under the climate of Brazil than here, and this seems to me an important result. (679/4. See Letter 677.) I have no spare seeds at present, but will send for some from the nurseryman, which, though not so good for our purpose, will be worth trying. I can send some of my own in the autumn. You could simply cover up separately two or three single plants, and see if they will seed without aid,--mine did abundantly. Very many thanks for seeds of Oxalis: how I wish I had more strength and time to carry on these experiments, but when I write in the morning, I have hardly heart to do anything in the afternoon. Your grass is most wonderful. You ought to send account to the "Bot. Zeitung." Could you not ascertain whether the barbs are sensitive, and how soon they become spiral in the bud? Your bird is, I have no doubt, the Molothrus mentioned in my "Journal of Travels," page 52, as representing a North American species, both with cuckoo-like habits. I know that seeds from same spike transmitted to a certain extent their proper qualities; but as far as I know, no one has hitherto shown how far this holds good, and the fact is very interesting. The experiment would be well worth trying with flowers bearing different numbers of petals. Your explanation agrees beautifully with the hypothesis of pangenesis, and delights me. If you try other cases, do draw up a paper on the subject of inheritance of separate flowers for the "Bot. Zeitung" or some journal. Most men, as far as my experience goes, are too ready to publish, but you seem to enjoy making most interesting observations and discoveries, and are sadly too slow in publishing. LETTER 680. TO F. MULLER. Barmouth, July 18th, 1869. I received your last letter shortly before leaving home for this place. Owing to this cause and to having been more unwell than usual I have been very dilatory in writing to you. When I last heard, about six or eight weeks ago, from Mr. Murray, one hundred copies of your book had been sold, and I daresay five hundred may now be sold. (680/1. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," 1869: see Volume I., Letter 227.) This will quite repay me, if not all the money; for I am sure that your book will have got into the hands of a good many men capable of understanding it: indeed, I know that it has. But it is too deep for the general public. I sent you two or three reviews--one of which, in the "Athenaeum," was unfavourable; but this journal has abused me, and all who think with me, for many years. (680/2. "Athenaeum," 1869, page 431.) I enclose two more notices, not that they are worth sending: some other brief notices have appeared. The case of the Abitulon sterile with some individuals is remarkable (680/3. "Bestaubungsversuche an Abutilon-Arten." "Jenaische Zeitschr." VII., 1873, page 22.): I believe that I had one plant of Reseda odorata which was fertile with own pollen, but all that I have tried since were sterile except with pollen from some other individual. I planted the seeds of the Abitulon, but I fear that they were crushed in the letter. Your Eschscholtzia plants were growing well when I left home, to which place we shall return by the end of this month, and I will observe whether they are self-sterile. I sent your curious account of the monstrous Begonia to the Linnean Society, and I suppose it will be published in the "Journal." (680/4. "On the Modification of the Stamens in a Species of Begonia." "Journ. Linn. Soc." XI., 1871, page 472.) I sent the extract about grafted orange trees to the "Gardeners' Chronicle," where it appeared. I have lately drawn up some notes for a French translation of my Orchis book: I took out your letters to make an abstract of your numerous discussions, but I found I had not strength or time to do so, and this caused me great regret. I have [in the French edition] alluded to your work, which will also be published in English, as you will see in my paper, and which I will send you. (680/5. "Notes on the Fertilisation of Orchids." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." 1869, Volume IV., page 141. The paper gives an English version of the notes prepared for the French edition of the Orchid book.) P.S.--By an odd chance, since I wrote the beginning of this letter, I have received one from Dr. Hooker, who has been reading "Fur Darwin": he finds that he has not knowledge enough for the first part; but says that Chapters X. and XI. "strike me as remarkably good." He is also particularly struck with one of your highly suggestive remarks in the note to page 119. Assuredly all who read your book will greatly profit by it, and I rejoice that it has appeared in English. LETTER 681. TO F. MULLER. Down, December 1st [1869]. I am much obliged for your letter of October 18th, with the curious account of Abutilon, and for the seeds. A friend of mine, Mr. Farrer, has lately been studying the fertilisation of Passiflora (681/1. See Letters 701 and 704.), and concluded from the curiously crooked passage into the nectary that it could not be fertilised by humming-birds; but that Tacsonia was thus fertilised. Therefore I sent him the passage from your letter, and I enclose a copy of his answer. If you are inclined to gratify him by making a few observations on this subject I shall be much obliged, and will send them on to him. I enclose a copy of my rough notes on your Eschscholtzia, as you might like to see them. Somebody has sent me from Germany two papers by you, one with a most curious account of Alisma (681/2. See Letter 672.), and the other on crustaceans. Your observations on the branchiae and heart have interested me extremely. Alex. Agassiz has just paid me a visit with his wife. He has been in England two or three months, and is now going to tour over the Continent to see all the zoologists. We liked him very much. He is a great admirer of yours, and he tells me that your correspondence and book first made him believe in evolution. This must have been a great blow to his father, who, as he tells me, is very well, and so vigorous that he can work twice as long as he (the son) can. Dr. Meyer has sent me his translation of Wallace's "Malay Archipelago," which is a valuable work; and as I have no use for the translation, I will this day forward it to you by post, but, to save postage, via England. LETTER 682. TO F. MULLER. Down, May 12th [1870]. I thank you for your two letters of December 15th and March 29th, both abounding with curious facts. I have been particularly glad to hear in your last about the Eschscholtzia (682/1. See Letter 677.); for I am now rearing crossed and self-fertilised plants, in antagonism to each other, from your semi-sterile plants so that I may compare this comparative growth with that of the offspring of English fertile plants. I have forwarded your postscript about Passiflora, with the seeds, to Mr. Farrer, who I am sure will be greatly obliged to you; the turning up of the pendant flower plainly indicates some adaptation. When I next go to London I will take up the specimens of butterflies, and show them to Mr. Butler, of the British Museum, who is a learned lepidopterist and interested on the subject. This reminds me to ask you whether you received my letter [asking] about the ticking butterfly, described at page 33 of my "Journal of Researches"; viz., whether the sound is in anyway sexual? Perhaps the species does not inhabit your island. (682/2. Papilio feronia, a Brazilian species capable of making "a clicking noise, similar to that produced by a toothed wheel passing under a spring catch."--"Journal," 1879, page 34.) The case described in your last letter of the trimorphic monocotyledon Pontederia is grand. (682/3. This case interested Darwin as the only instance of heterostylism in Monocotyledons. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 183. F. Muller's paper is in the "Jenaische Zeitschrift," 1871.) I wonder whether I shall ever have time to recur to this subject; I hope I may, for I have a good deal of unpublished material. Thank you for telling me about the first-formed flower having additional petals, stamens, carpels, etc., for it is a possible means of transition of form; it seems also connected with the fact on which I have insisted of peloric flowers being so often terminal. As pelorism is strongly inherited (and [I] have just got a curious case of this in a leguminous plant from India), would it not be worth while to fertilise some of your early flowers having additional organs with pollen from a similar flower, and see whether you could not make a race thus characterised? (682/4. See Letters 588, 589. Also "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., pages 388-9.) Some of your Abutilons have germinated, but I have been very unfortunate with most of your seed. You will remember having given me in a former letter an account of a very curious popular belief in regard to the subsequent progeny of asses, which have borne mules; and now I have another case almost exactly like that of Lord Morton's mare, in which it is said the shape of the hoofs in the subsequent progeny are affected. (Pangenesis will turn out true some day!) (682/5. See "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 435. For recent work on telegony see Ewart's "Experimental Investigations on Telegony," "Phil. Trans. R. Soc." 1899. A good account of the subject is given in the "Quarterly Review," 1899, page 404. See also Letter 275, Volume I.) A few months ago I received an interesting letter and paper from your brother, who has taken up a new and good line of investigation, viz., the adaptation in insects for the fertilisation of flowers. The only scientific man I have seen for several months is Kolliker, who came here with Gunther, and whom I liked extremely. I am working away very hard at my book on man and on sexual selection, but I do not suppose I shall go to press till late in the autumn. LETTER 683. TO F. MULLER. Down, January 1st, 1874. No doubt I owe to your kindness two pamphlets received a few days ago, which have interested me in an extraordinary degree. (683/1. This refers to F. Muller's "Bestaubungsversuche an Abutilon-Arten" in the "Jenaische Zeitschr." Volume VII., which are thus referred to by Darwin ("Cross and Self Fert." pages 305-6): "Fritz Muller has shown by his valuable experiments on hybrid Abutilons, that the union of brothers and sisters, parents and children, and of other near relations is highly injurious to the fertility of the offspring." The Termite paper is in the same volume (viz., VII.) of the "Jenaische Zeitschr.") It is quite new to me what you show about the effects of relationship in hybrids--that is to say, as far as direct proof is concerned. I felt hardly any doubt on the subject, from the fact of hybrids becoming more fertile when grown in number in nursery gardens, exactly the reverse of what occurred with Gartner. (683/2. When many hybrids are grown together the pollination by near relatives is minimised.) The paper on Termites is even still more interesting, and the analogy with cleistogene flowers is wonderful. (683/3. On the back of his copy of Muller's paper Darwin wrote: "There exist imperfectly developed male and female Termites, with wings much shorter than those of queen and king, which serve to continue the species if a fully developed king and queen do not after swarming (which no doubt is for an occasional cross) enter [the] nest. Curiously like cleistogamic flowers.") The manner in which you refer to to my chapter on crossing is one of the most elegant compliments which I have ever received. I have directed to be sent to you Belt's "Nicaragua," which seems to me the best Natural History book of travels ever published. Pray look to what he says about the leaf-carrying ant storing the leaves up in a minced state to generate mycelium, on which he supposes that the larvae feed. Now, could you open the stomachs of these ants and examine the contents, so as to prove or disprove this remarkable hypothesis? (683/4. The hypothesis has been completely confirmed by the researches of Moller, a nephew of F. Muller's: see his "Brasilische Pilzblumen" ("Botan. Mittheilgn. aus den Tropen," hrsg. von A.F.W. Schimper, Heft 7).) LETTER 684. TO F. MULLER. Down, May 9th, 1877. I have been particularly glad to receive your letter of March 25th on Pontederia, for I am now printing a small book on heterostyled plants, and on some allied subjects. I feel sure you will not object to my giving a short account of the flowers of the new species which you have sent me. I am the more anxious to do so as a writer in the United States has described a species, and seems to doubt whether it is heterostyled, for he thinks the difference in the length of the pistil depends merely on its growth! In my new book I shall use all the information and specimens which you have sent me with respect to the heterostyled plants, and your published notices. One chapter will be devoted to cleistogamic species, and I will just notice your new grass case. My son Francis desires me to thank you much for your kindness with respect to the plants which bury their seeds. I never fail to feel astonished, when I receive one of your letters, at the number of new facts you are continually observing. With respect to the great supposed subterranean animal, may not the belief have arisen from the natives having seen large skeletons embedded in cliffs? I remember finding on the banks of the Parana a skeleton of a Mastodon, and the Gauchos concluded that it was a borrowing animal like the Bizcacha. (684/1. On the supposed existence in Patagonia of a gigantic land-sloth, see "Natural Science," XIII., 1898, page 288, where Ameghino's discovery of the skin of Neomylodon listai was practically first made known, since his privately published pamphlet was not generally seen. The animal was afterwards identified with a Glossotherium, closely allied to Owen's G. Darwini, which has been named Glossotherium listai or Grypotherium domesticum. For a good account of the discoveries see Smith Woodward in "Natural Science," XV., 1899, page 351, where the literature is given.) LETTER 685. TO F. MULLER. Down, May 14th [1877]. I wrote to you a few days ago to thank you about Pontederia, and now I am going to ask you to add one more to the many kindnesses which you have done for me. I have made many observations on the waxy secretion on leaves which throw off water (e.g., cabbage, Tropoeolum), and I am now going to continue my observations. Does any sensitive species of Mimosa grow in your neighbourhood? If so, will you observe whether the leaflets keep shut during long-continued warm rain. I find that the leaflets open if they are continuously syringed with water at a temperature of about 19 deg C., but if the water is at a temperature of 33-35 deg C., they keep shut for more than two hours, and probably longer. If the plant is continuously shaken so as to imitate wind the leaflets soon open. How is this with the native plants during a windy day? I find that some other plants--for instance, Desmodium and Cassia--when syringed with water, place their leaves so that the drops fall quickly off; the position assumed differing somewhat from that in the so-called sleep. Would you be so kind as to observe whether any [other] plants place their leaves during rain so as to shoot off the water; and if there are any such I should be very glad of a leaf or two to ascertain whether they are coated with a waxy secretion. (685/1. See Letters 737-41.) There is another and very different subject, about which I intend to write, and should be very glad of a little information. Are earthworms (Lumbricus) common in S. Brazil (685/2. F. Muller's reply is given in "Vegetable Mould," page 122.), and do they throw up on the surface of the ground numerous castings or vermicular masses such as we so commonly see in Europe? Are such castings found in the forests beneath the dead withered leaves? I am sure I can trust to your kindness to forgive me for asking you so many questions. LETTER 686. TO F. MULLER. Down, July 24th, 1878. Many thanks for the five kinds of seeds; all have germinated, and the Cassia seedlings have interested me much, and I daresay that I shall find something curious in the other plants. Nor have I alone profited, for Sir J. Hooker, who was here on Sunday, was very glad of some of the seeds for Kew. I am particularly obliged for the information about the earthworms. I suppose the soil in your forests is very loose, for in ground which has lately been dug in England the worms do not come to the surface, but deposit their castings in the midst of the loose soil. I have some grand plants (and I formerly sent seeds to Kew) of the cleistogamic grass, but they show no signs of producing flowers of any kind as yet. Your case of the panicle with open flowers being sterile is parallel to that of Leersia oryzoides. I have always fancied that cross-fertilisation would perhaps make such panicles fertile. (686/1. The meaning of this sentence is somewhat obscure. Darwin apparently implies that the perfect flowers, borne on the panicles which occasionally emerge from the sheath, might be fertile if pollinated from another individual. See "Forms of Flowers," page 334.) I am working away as hard as I can at all the multifarious kinds of movements of plants, and am trying to reduce them to some simple rules, but whether I shall succeed I do not know. I have sent the curious lepidopteron case to Mr. Meldola. LETTER 687. F. MULLER TO CHARLES DARWIN. (687/1. In November, 1880, on receipt of an account of a flood in Brazil from which Fritz Muller had barely escaped with his life ("Life and Letters," III., 242); Darwin immediately wrote to Hermann Muller begging to be allowed to help in making good any loss in books or scientific instruments that his brother had sustained. It is this offer of help that is referred to in the first paragraph of the following letter: Darwin repeats the offer in Letter 690.) Blumenau, Sa Catharina, Brazil, January 9th, 1881. I do not know how to express [to] you my deep heartfelt gratitude for the generous offer which you made to my brother on hearing of the late dreadful flood of the Itajahy. From you, dear sir, I should have accepted assistance without hesitation if I had been in need of it; but fortunately, though we had to leave our house for more than a week, and on returning found it badly damaged, my losses have not been very great. I must thank you also for your wonderful book on the movements of plants, which arrived here on New Year's Day. I think nobody else will have been delighted more than I was with the results which you have arrived at by so many admirably conducted experiments and observations; since I observed the spontaneous revolving movement of Alisma I had seen similar movements in so many and so different plants that I felt much inclined to consider spontaneous revolving movement or circumnutation as common to all plants and the movements of climbing plants as a special modification of that general phenomenon. And this you have now convincingly, nay, superabundantly, proved to be the case. I was much struck with the fact that with you Maranta did not sleep for two nights after having its leaves violently shaken by wind, for here we have very cold nights only after storms from the west or south-west, and it would be very strange if the leaves of our numerous species of Marantaceae should be prevented by these storms to assume their usual nocturnal position, just when nocturnal radiation was most to be feared. It is rather strange, also, that Phaseolus vulgaris should not sleep during the early part of the summer, when the leaves are most likely to be injured during cold nights. On the contrary, it would not do any harm to many sub-tropical plants, that their leaves must be well illuminated during the day in order that they may assume at night a vertical position; for, in our climate at least, cold nights are always preceded by sunny days. Of nearly allied plants sleeping very differently I can give you some more instances. In the genus Olyra (at least, in the one species observed by me) the leaves bend down vertically at night; now, in Endlicher's "Genera plantarum" this genus immediately precedes Strephium, the leaves of which you saw rising vertically. In one of two species of Phyllanthus, growing as weeds near my house, the leaves of the erect branches bend upwards at night, while in the second species, with horizontal branches, they sleep like those of Phyllanthus Niruri or of Cassia. In this second species the tips of the branches also are curled downwards at night, by which movement the youngest leaves are yet better protected. From their vertical nyctitropic position the leaves of this Phyllanthus might return to horizontality, traversing 90 deg, in two ways, either to their own or to the opposite side of the branch; on the latter way no rotation would be required, while on the former each leaf must rotate on its own axis in order that its upper surface may be turned upwards. Thus the way to the wrong side appears to be even less troublesome. And indeed, in some rare cases I have seen three, four or even almost all the leaves of one side of a branch horizontally expanded on the opposite side, with their upper surfaces closely appressed to the lower surfaces of the leaves of that side. This Phyllanthus agrees with Cassia not only in its manner of sleeping, but also by its leaves being paraheliotropic. (687/2. Paraheliotropism is the movement by which some leaves temporarily direct their edges to the source of light. See "Movements of Plants," page 445.) Like those of some Cassiae its leaves take an almost perfectly vertical position, when at noon, on a summer day, the sun is nearly in the zenith; but I doubt whether this paraheliotropism will be observable in England. To-day, though continuing to be fully exposed to the sun, at 3 p.m. the leaves had already returned to a nearly horizontal position. As soon as there are ripe seeds I will send you some; of our other species of Phyllanthus I enclose a few seeds in this letter. In several species of Hedychium the lateral halves of the leaves when exposed to bright sunshine, bend downwards so that the lateral margins meet. It is curious that a hybrid Hedychium in my garden shows scarcely any trace of this paraheliotropism, while both the parent species are very paraheliotropic. Might not the inequality of the cotyledons of Citrus and of Pachira be attributed to the pressure, which the several embryos enclosed in the same seed exert upon each other? I do not know Pachira aquatica, but [in] a species, of which I have a tree in my garden, all the seeds are polyembryonic, and so were almost all the seeds of Citrus which I examined. With Coffea arabica also seeds including two embryos are not very rare; but I have not yet observed whether in this case the cotyledons be inequal. I repeated to-day Duval-Jouve's measurements on Bryophyllum calycinum (687/3. "Power of Movement in Plants," page 237. F. Muller's measurements show, however, that there is a tendency in the leaves to be more highly inclined at night than in the middle of the day, and so far they agree with Duval-Jouve's results.); but mine did not agree with his; they are as follows:-- Distances in mm. between the tips of the upper pair of leaves. January 9th, 1881 3 A.M. 1 P.M. 6 P.M. 1st plant 54 43 36 2nd plant 28 25 23 3rd plant 28 27 27 4th plant 51 46 39 5th plant 61 52 45 _______________________________________________ 222 193 170 LETTER 688. TO F. MULLER. Down, February 23rd, 1881. Your letter has interested me greatly, as have so many during many past years. I thought that you would not object to my publishing in "Nature" (688/1. "Nature," March 3rd, 1881, page 409.) some of the more striking facts about the movements of plants, with a few remarks added to show the bearing of the facts. The case of the Phyllanthus (688/2. See Letter 687.), which turns up its leaves on the wrong side, is most extraordinary and ought to be further investigated. Do the leaflets sleep on the following night in the usual manner? Do the same leaflets on successive nights move in the same strange manner? I was particularly glad to hear of the strongly marked cases of paraheliotropism. I shall look out with much interest for the publication about the figs. (688/3. F. Muller published on Caprification in "Kosmos," 1882.) The creatures which you sketch are marvellous, and I should not have guessed that they were hymenoptera. Thirty or forty years ago I read all that I could find about caprification, and was utterly puzzled. I suggested to Dr. Cruger in Trinidad to investigate the wild figs, in relation to their cross-fertilisation, and just before he died he wrote that he had arrived at some very curious results, but he never published, as I believe, on the subject. I am extremely glad that the inundation did not so greatly injure your scientific property, though it would have been a real pleasure to me to have been allowed to have replaced your scientific apparatus. (688/4. See Letter 687.) I do not believe that there is any one in the world who admires your zeal in science and wonderful powers of observation more than I do. I venture to say this, as I feel myself a very old man, who probably will not last much longer. P.S.--With respect to Phyllanthus, I think that it would be a good experiment to cut off most of the leaflets on one side of the petiole, as soon as they are asleep and vertically dependent; when the pressure is thus removed, the opposite leaflets will perhaps bend beyond their vertically dependent position; if not, the main petiole might be a little twisted so that the upper surfaces of the dependent and now unprotected leaflets should face obliquely the sky when the morning comes. In this case diaheliotropism would perhaps conquer the ordinary movements of the leaves when they awake, and [assume] their diurnal horizontal position. As the leaflets are alternate, and as the upper surface will be somewhat exposed to the dawning light, it is perhaps diaheliotropism which explains your extraordinary case. LETTER 689. TO F. MULLER. Down, April 12th, 1881. I have delayed answering your last letter of February 25th, as I was just sending to the printers the MS. of a very little book on the habits of earthworms, of which I will of course send you a copy when published. I have been very much interested by your new facts on paraheliotropism, as I think that they justify my giving a name to this kind of movement, about which I long doubted. I have this morning drawn up an account of your observations, which I will send in a few days to "Nature." (689/1. "Nature," 1881, page 603. Curious facts are given on the movements of Cassia, Phyllanthus, sp., Desmodium sp. Cassia takes up a sunlight position unlike its own characteristic night-position, but resembling rather that of Haematoxylon (see "Power of Movement," figure 153, page 369). One species of Phyllanthus takes up in sunshine the nyctitropic attitude of another species. And the same sort of relation occurs in the genus Bauhinia.) I have thought that you would not object to my giving precedence to paraheliotropism, which has been so little noticed. I will send you a copy of "Nature" when published. I am glad that I was not in too great a hurry in publishing about Lagerstroemia. (689/2. Lagerstraemia was doubtfully placed among the heterostyled plants ("Forms of Flowers," page 167). F. Muller's observations showed that a totally different interpretation of the two sizes of stamen is possible. Namely, that one set serves merely to attract pollen-collecting bees, who in the act of visiting the flowers transfer the pollen of the longer stamens to other flowers. A case of this sort in Heeria, a Melastomad, was described by Muller ("Nature," August 4th, 1881, page 308), and the view was applied to the cases of Lagerstroemia and Heteranthera at a later date ("Nature," 1883, page 364). See Letters 620-30.) I have procured some plants of Melastomaceae, but I fear that they will not flower for two years, and I may be in my grave before I can repeat my trials. As far as I can imperfectly judge from my observations, the difference in colour of the anthers in this family depends on one set of anthers being partially aborted. I wrote to Kew to get plants with differently coloured anthers, but I learnt very little, as describers of dried plants do not attend to such points. I have, however, sowed seeds of two kinds, suggested to me as probable. I have, therefore, been extremely glad to receive the seeds of Heteranthera reniformis. As far as I can make out it is an aquatic plant; and whether I shall succeed in getting it to flower is doubtful. Will you be so kind as to send me a postcard telling me in what kind of station it grows. In the course of next autumn or winter, I think that I shall put together my notes (if they seem worth publishing) on the use or meaning of "bloom" (689/3. See Letters 736-40.), or the waxy secretion which makes some leaves glaucous. I think that I told you that my experiments had led me to suspect that the movement of the leaves of Mimosa, Desmodium and Cassia, when shaken and syringed, was to shoot off the drops of water. If you are caught in heavy rain, I should be very much obliged if you would keep this notion in your mind, and look to the position of such leaves. You have such wonderful powers of observation that your opinion would be more valued by me than that of any other man. I have among my notes one letter from you on the subject, but I forget its purport. I hope, also, that you may be led to follow up your very ingenious and novel view on the two-coloured anthers or pollen, and observe which kind is most gathered by bees. LETTER 690. TO F. MULLER. [Patterdale], June 21st, 1881. I should be much obliged if you could without much trouble send me seeds of any heterostyled herbaceous plants (i.e. a species which would flower soon), as it would be easy work for me to raise some illegitimate seedlings to test their degree of infertility. The plant ought not to have very small flowers. I hope that you received the copies of "Nature," with extracts from your interesting letters (690/1. "Nature," March 3rd, 1881, Volume XXIII., page 409, contains a letter from C. Darwin on "Movements of Plants," with extracts from Fritz Muller's letter. Another letter, "On the Movements of Leaves," was published in "Nature," April 28th, 1881, page 603, with notes on leaf-movements sent to Darwin by Muller.), and I was glad to see a notice in "Kosmos" on Phyllanthus. (690/2. "Verirrte Blatter," by Fritz Muller ("Kosmos," Volume V., page 141, 1881). In this article an account is given of a species of Phyllanthus, a weed in Muller's garden. See Letter 687.) I am writing this note away from my home, but before I left I had the satisfaction of seeing Phyllanthus sleeping. Some of the seeds which you so kindly sent me would not germinate, or had not then germinated. I received a letter yesterday from Dr. Breitenbach, and he tells me that you lost many of your books in the desolating flood from which you suffered. Forgive me, but why should you not order, through your brother Hermann, books, etc., to the amount of 100 pounds, and I would send a cheque to him as soon as I heard the exact amount? This would be no inconvenience to me; on the contrary, it would be an honour and lasting pleasure to me to have aided you in your invaluable scientific work to this small and trifling extent. (690/3. See Letter 687, also "Life and Letters," III., page 242.) LETTER 691. TO F. MULLER. (691/1. The following extract from a letter to F. Muller shows what was the nature of Darwin's interest in the effect of carbonate of ammonia on roots, etc. He was, we think, wrong in adhering to the belief that the movements of aggregated masses are of an amoeboid nature. The masses change shape, just as clouds do under the moulding action of the wind. In the plant cell the moulding agent is the flowing protoplasm, but the masses themselves are passive.) September 10th, 1881. Perhaps you may remember that I described in "Insectivorous Plants" a really curious phenomenon, which I called the aggregation of the protoplasm in the cells of the tentacles. None of the great German botanists will admit that the moving masses are composed of protoplasm, though it is astonishing to me that any one could watch the movement and doubt its nature. But these doubts have led me to observe analogous facts, and I hope to succeed in proving my case. LETTER 692. TO F. MULLER. Down, November 13th, 1881. I received a few days ago a small box (registered) containing dried flower-heads with brown seeds somewhat sculptured on the sides. There was no name, and I should be much obliged if some time you would tell me what these seeds are. I have planted them. I sent you some time ago my little book on earthworms, which, though of no importance, has been largely read in England. I have little or nothing to tell you about myself. I have for a couple of months been observing the effects of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll and on the roots of certain plants (692/1. Published under the title "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of Certain Plants and on Chlorophyll Bodies," "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIX., 1882, pages 239-61, 262-84.), but the subject is too difficult for me, and I cannot understand the meaning of some strange facts which I have observed. The mere recording new facts is but dull work. Professor Wiesner has published a book (692/2. See Letter 763.), giving a different explanation to almost every fact which I have given in my "Power of Movement in Plants." I am glad to say that he admits that almost all my statements are true. I am convinced that many of his interpretations of the facts are wrong, and I am glad to hear that Professor Pfeffer is of the same opinion; but I believe that he is right and I wrong on some points. I have not the courage to retry all my experiments, but I hope to get my son Francis to try some fresh ones to test Wiesner's explanations. But I do not know why I have troubled you with all this. LETTER 693. TO F. MULLER. [4, Bryanston Street], December 19th, 1881. I hope that you may find time to go on with your experiments on such plants as Lagerstroemia, mentioned in your letter of October 29th, for I believe you will arrive at new and curious results, more especially if you can raise two sets of seedlings from the two kinds of pollen. Many thanks for the facts about the effect of rain and mud in relation to the waxy secretion. I have observed many instances of the lower side being protected better than the upper side, in the case, as I believe, of bushes and trees, so that the advantage in low-growing plants is probably only an incidental one. (693/1. The meaning is here obscure: it appears to us that the significance of bloom on the lower surface of the leaves of both trees and herbs depends on the frequency with which all or a majority of the stomata are on the lower surface--where they are better protected from wet (even without the help of bloom) than on the exposed upper surface. On the correlation between bloom and stomata, see Francis Darwin "Linn. Soc. Journ." XXII., page 99.) As I am writing away from my home, I have been unwilling to try more than one leaf of the Passiflora, and this came out of the water quite dry on the lower surface and quite wet on the upper. I have not yet begun to put my notes together on this subject, and do not at all know whether I shall be able to make much of it. The oddest little fact which I have observed is that with Trifolium resupinatum, one half of the leaf (I think the right-hand side, when the leaf is viewed from the apex) is protected by waxy secretion, and not the other half (693/2. In the above passage "leaf" should be "leaflet": for a figure of Trifolium resupinatum see Letter 740.); so that when the leaf is dipped into water, exactly half the leaf comes out dry and half wet. What the meaning of this can be I cannot even conjecture. I read last night your very interesting article in "Kosmos" on Crotalaria, and so was very glad to see the dried leaves sent by you: it seems to me a very curious case. I rather doubt whether it will apply to Lupinus, for, unless my memory deceives me, all the leaves of the same plant sometimes behaved in the same manner; but I will try and get some of the same seeds of the Lupinus, and sow them in the spring. Old age, however, is telling on me, and it troubles me to have more than one subject at a time on hand. (693/3. In a letter to F. Muller (September 10, 1881) occurs a sentence which may appropriately close this series: "I often feel rather ashamed of myself for asking for so many things from you, and for taking up so much of your valuable time, but I can assure you that I feel grateful.") 2.XI.III. MISCELLANEOUS, 1868-1881. LETTER 694. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, April 22nd, 1868. I have been extremely much pleased by your letter, and I take it as a very great compliment that you should have written to me at such length...I am not at all surprised that you cannot digest pangenesis: it is enough to give any one an indigestion; but to my mind the idea has been an immense relief, as I could not endure to keep so many large classes of facts all floating loose in my mind without some thread of connection to tie them together in a tangible method. With respect to the men who have recently written on the crossing of plants, I can at present remember only Hildebrand, Fritz Muller, Delpino, and G. Henslow; but I think there are others. I feel sure that Hildebrand is a very good observer, for I have read all his papers, and during the last twenty years I have made unpublished observations on many of the plants which he describes. [Most of the criticisms which I sometimes meet with in French works against the frequency of crossing I am certain are the result of mere ignorance. I have never hitherto found the rule to fail that when an author describes the structure of a flower as specially adapted for self-fertilisation, it is really adapted for crossing. The Fumariaceae offer a good instance of this, and Treviranus threw this order in my teeth; but in Corydalis Hildebrand shows how utterly false the idea of self-fertilisation is. This author's paper on Salvia (694/1. Hildebrand, "Pringsheim's Jahrbucher," IV.) is really worth reading, and I have observed some species, and know that he is accurate]. (694/2. The passage within [] was published in the "Life and Letters," III., page 279.) Judging from a long review in the "Bot. Zeitung", and from what I know of some the plants, I believe Delpino's article especially on the Apocynaea, is excellent; but I cannot read Italian. (694/3. Hildebrand's paper in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1867, refers to Delpino's work on the Asclepiads, Apocyneae and other Orders.) Perhaps you would like just to glance at such pamphlets as I can lay my hands on, and therefore I will send them, as if you do not care to see them you can return them at once; and this will cause you less trouble than writing to say you do not care to see them. With respect to Primula, and one point about which I feel positive is that the Bardfield and common oxlips are fundamentally distinct plants, and that the common oxlip is a sterile hybrid. (694/4. For a general account of the Bardfield oxlip (Primula elatior) see Miller Christy, "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume XXXIII., page 172, 1897.) I have never heard of the common oxlip being found in great abundance anywhere, and some amount of difference in number might depend on so small a circumstance as the presence of some moth which habitually sucked the primrose and cowslip. To return to the subject of crossing: I am experimenting on a very large scale on the difference in power and growth between plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds, and it is no exaggeration to say that the difference in growth and vigour is sometimes truly wonderful. Lyell, Huxley, and Hooker have seen some of my plants, and been astonished; and I should much like to show them to you. I always supposed until lately that no evil effects would be visible until after several generations of self-fertilisation, but now I see that one generation sometimes suffices, and the existence of dimorphic plants and all the wonderful contrivances of orchids are quite intelligible to me. LETTER 695. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). Down, June 5th, 1868. I must write a line to cry peccavi. I have seen the action in Ophrys exactly as you describe, and am thoroughly ashamed of my inaccuracy. (695/1. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 46, where Lord Farrer's observations on the movement of the pollinia in Ophrys muscifera are given.) I find that the pollinia do not move if kept in a very damp atmosphere under a glass; so that it is just possible, though very improbable, that I may have observed them during a very damp day. I am not much surprised that I overlooked the movement in Habenaria, as it takes so long. (695/2. This refers to Peristylus viridis, sometimes known as Habenaria viridis. Lord Farrer's observations are given in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 63.) I am glad you have seen Listera; it requires to be seen to believe in the co-ordination in the position of the parts, the irritability, and the chemical nature of the viscid fluid. This reminds me that I carefully described to Huxley the shooting out of the pollinia in Catasetum, and received for an answer, "Do you really think that I can believe all that!" (695/3. See Letter 665.) LETTER 696. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd, 1868. It is a splendid scheme, and if you make only a beginning on a "Flora," which shall serve as an index to all papers on curious points in the life-history of plants, you will do an inestimable good service. Quite recently I was asked by a man how he could find out what was known on various biological points in our plants, and I answered that I knew of no such book, and that he might ask half a dozen botanists before one would chance to remember what had been published on this or that point. Not long ago another man, who had been experimenting on the quasi-bulbs on the leaves of Cardamine, wrote to me to complain that he could not find out what was known on the subject. It is almost certain that some early or even advanced students, if they found in their "Flora" a line or two on various curious points, with references for further investigation, would be led to make further observations. For instance, a reference to the viscid threads emitted by the seeds of Compositae, to the apparatus (if it has been described) by which Oxalis spurts out its seeds, to the sensitiveness of the young leaves of Oxalis acetosella with reference to O. sensitiva. Under Lathyrus nissolia it would [be] better to refer to my hypothetical explanation of the grass-like leaves than to nothing. (696/1. No doubt the view given in "Climbing Plants," page 201, that L. nissolia has been evolved from a form like L. aphaca.) Under a twining plant you might say that the upper part of the shoot steadily revolves with or against the sun, and so, when it strikes against any object it turns to the right or left, as the case may be. If, again, references were given to the parasitism of Euphrasia, etc., how likely it would be that some young man would go on with the investigation; and so with endless other facts. I am quite enthusiastic about your idea; it is a grand idea to make a "Flora" a guide for knowledge already acquired and to be acquired. I have amused myself by speculating what an enormous number of subjects ought to be introduced into a Eutopian (696/2. A mis-spelling of Utopian.) Flora, on the quickness of the germination of the seeds, on their means of dispersal; on the fertilisation of the flower, and on a score of other points, about almost all of which we are profoundly ignorant. I am glad to read what you say about Bentham, for my inner consciousness tells me that he has run too many forms together. Should you care to see an elaborate German pamphlet by Hermann Muller on the gradation and distinction of the forms of Epipactis and of Platanthera? (696/3. "Verhand. d. Nat. Ver. f. Pr. Rh. u. Wesfal." Jahrg. XXV.: see "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., pages 74, 102.) It may be absurd in me to suggest, but I think you would find curious facts and references in Lecoq's enormous book (696/4. "Geographie Botanique," 9 volumes, 1854-58.), in Vaucher's four volumes (696/5. "Plantes d'Europe," 4 volumes, 1841.), in Hildebrand's "Geschlechter Vertheilung" (696/6 "Geschlechter Vertheilung bei den Pflanzen," 1 volume, Leipzig, 1867.), and perhaps in Fournier's "De la Fecondation." (696/7. "De la Fecondation dans les Phanerogames," par Eugene Fournier: thesis published in Paris in 1863. The facts noted in Darwin's copy are the explosive stamens of Parietaria, the submerged flowers of Alisma containing air, the manner of fertilisation of Lopezia, etc.) I wish you all success in your gigantic undertaking; but what a pity you did not think of it ten years ago, so as to have accumulated references on all sorts of subjects. Depend upon it, you will have started a new era in the floras of various countries. I can well believe that Mrs. Hooker will be of the greatest possible use to you in lightening your labours and arranging your materials. LETTER 697. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 5th, 1868. ...Now I want to beg for assistance for the new edition of "Origin." Nageli himself urges that plants offer many morphological differences, which from being of no service cannot have been selected, and which he accounts for by an innate principle of progressive development. (697/1. Nageli's "Enstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art." An address delivered at the public session of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Munich, March 28th, 1865; published by the Academy. Darwin's copy is the 2nd edition; it bears signs, in the pencilled notes on the margins, of having been read with interest. Much of it was translated for him by a German lady, whose version lies with the original among his pamphlets. At page 27 Nageli writes: "It is remarkable that the useful adaptations which Darwin brings forward in the case of animals, and which may be discovered in numbers among plants, are exclusively of a physiological kind, that they always show the formation or transformation of an organ to a special function. I do not know among plants a morphological modification which can be explained on utilitarian principles." Opposite this passage Darwin has written "a very good objection": but Nageli's sentence seems to us to be of the nature of a truism, for it is clear that any structure whose evolution can be believed to have come about by Natural Selection must have a function, and the case falls into the physiological category. The various meanings given to the term morphological makes another difficulty. Nageli cannot use it in the sense of "structural"--in which sense it is often applied, since that would mean that no plant structures have a utilitarian origin. The essence of morphology (in the better and more precise sense) is descent; thus we say that a pollen-grain is morphologically a microspore. And this very example serves to show the falseness of Nageli's view, since a pollen-grain is an adaptation to aerial as opposed to aquatic fertilisation. In the 5th edition of the "Origin," 1869, page 151, Darwin discusses Nageli's essay, confining himself to the simpler statement that there are many structural characters in plants to which we cannot assign uses. See Volume I., Letter 207.) I find old notes about this difficulty; but I have hitherto slurred it over. Nageli gives as instances the alternate and spiral arrangement of leaves, and the arrangement of the cells in the tissues. Would you not consider as a morphological difference the trimerous, tetramerous, etc., divisions of flowers, the ovules being erect or suspended, their attachment being parietal or placental, and even the shape of the seed when of no service to the plant. Now, I have thought, and want to show, that such differences follow in some unexplained manner from the growth or development of plants which have passed through a long series of adaptive changes. Anyhow, I want to show that these differences do not support the idea of progressive development. Cassini states that the ovaria on the circumference and centre of Compos. flowers differ in essential characters, and so do the seeds in sculpture. The seeds of Umbelliferae in the same relative positions are coelospermous and orthospermous. There is a case given by Augt. St. Hilaire of an erect and suspended ovule in the same ovarium, but perhaps this hardly bears on the point. The summit flower, in Adoxa and rue differ from the lower flowers. What is the difference in flowers of the rue? how is the ovarium, especially in the rue? As Augt. St. Hilaire insists on the locularity of the ovarium varying on the same plant in some of the Rutaceae, such differences do not speak, as it seems to me, in favour of progressive development. Will you turn the subject in your mind, and tell me any more facts. Difference in structure in flowers in different parts of the same plant seems best to show that they are the result of growth or position or amount of nutriment. I have got your photograph (697/2. A photograph by Mrs. Cameron.) over my chimneypiece, and like it much; but you look down so sharp on me that I shall never be bold enough to wriggle myself out of any contradiction. Owen pitches into me and Lyell in grand style in the last chapter of volume 3 of "Anat. of Vertebrates." He is a cool hand. He puts words from me in inverted commas and alters them. (697/3. The passage referred to seems to be in Owen's "Anatomy of Vertebrata," III., pages 798, 799, note. "I deeply regretted, therefore, to see in a 'Historical Sketch' of the Progress of Enquiry into the origin of species, prefixed to the fourth edition of that work (1866), that Mr. Darwin, after affirming inaccurately and without evidence, that I admitted Natural Selection to have done something toward that end, to wit, the 'origin of species,' proceeds to remark: 'It is surprising that this admission should not have been made earlier, as Prof. Owen now believes that he promulgated the theory of Natural Selection in a passage read before the Zoological Society in February, 1850, ("Trans." Volume IV., page 15).'" The first of the two passages quoted by Owen from the fourth edition of the "Origin" runs: "Yet he [Prof. Owen] at the same time admits that Natural Selection MAY [our italics] have done something towards this end." In the sixth edition of the "Origin," page xviii., Darwin, after referring to a correspondence in the "London Review" between the Editor of that Journal and Owen, goes on: "It appeared manifest to the editor, as well as to myself, that Prof. Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of Natural Selection before I had done so;...but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published passages (Ibid. ["Anat. of Vert."], Volume III., page 798), I have either partly or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find Prof. Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or no Prof. Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthews.") LETTER 698. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 29th, 1868. Your letter is quite invaluable, for Nageli's essay (698/1. See preceding Letter.) is so clever that it will, and indeed I know it has produced a great effect; so that I shall devote three or four pages to an answer. I have been particularly struck by your statements about erect and suspended ovules. You have given me heart, and I will fight my battle better than I should otherwise have done. I think I cannot resist throwing the contrivances in orchids into his teeth. You say nothing about the flowers of the rue. (698/2. For Ruta see "Origin," Edition V., page 154.) Ask your colleagues whether they know anything about the structure of the flower and ovarium in the uppermost flower. But don't answer on purpose. I have gone through my long Index of "Gardeners' Chronicle," which was made solely for my own use, and am greatly disappointed to find, as I fear, hardly anything which will be of use to you. (698/3. For Hooker's projected biological book, see Letter 696.) I send such as I have for the chance of their being of use. LETTER 699. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 16th [1869]. Your two notes and remarks are of the utmost value, and I am greatly obliged to you for your criticism on the term. "Morphological" seems quite just, but I do not see how I can avoid using it. I found, after writing to you, in Vaucher about the Rue (699/1. "Plantes d'Europe," Volume I., page 559, 1841.), but from what you say I will speak more cautiously. It is the Spanish Chesnut that varies in divergence. Seeds named Viola nana were sent me from Calcutta by Scott. I must refer to the plants as an "Indian species," for though they have produced hundreds of closed flowers, they have not borne one perfect flower. (699/2. The cleistogamic flowers of Viola are used in the discussion on Nageli's views. See "Origin," Edition V., page 153.) You ask whether I want illustrations "of ovules differing in position in different flowers on the same plant." If you know of such cases, I should certainly much like to hear them. Again you speak of the angle of leaf-divergence varying and the variations being transmitted. Was the latter point put in in a hurry to round the sentence, or do you really know of cases? Whilst looking for notes on the variability of the divisions of the ovarium, position of the ovules, aestivation, etc., I found remarks written fifteen or twenty years ago, showing that I then supposed that characters which were nearly uniform throughout whole groups must be of high vital importance to the plants themselves; consequently I was greatly puzzled how, with organisms having very different habits of life, this uniformity could have been acquired through Natural Selection. Now, I am much inclined to believe, in accordance with the view given towards the close of my MS., that the near approach to uniformity in such structures depends on their not being of vital importance, and therefore not being acted on by Natural Selection. (699/3. This view is given in the "Origin," Edition VI., page 372.) If you have reflected on this point, what do you think of it? I hope that you approved of the argument deduced from the modifications in the small closed flowers. It is only about two years since last edition of "Origin," and I am fairly disgusted to find how much I have to modify, and how much I ought to add; but I have determined not to add much. Fleeming Jenkin has given me much trouble, but has been of more real use to me than any other essay or review. (699/4. On Fleeming Jenkin's review, "N. British Review," June, 1867, see "Life and Letters," III., page 107.) LETTER 700. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [January 22nd, 1869]. Your letter is quite splenditious. I am greatly tempted, but shall, I hope, refrain from using some of your remarks in my chapter on Classification. It is very true what you say about unimportant characters being so important systematically; yet it is hardly paradoxical bearing in mind that the natural system is genetic, and that we have to discover the genealogies anyhow. Hence such parts as organs of generation are so useful for classification though not concerned with the manner of life. Hence use for same purpose of rudimentary organs, etc. You cannot think what a relief it is that you do not object to this view, for it removes PARTLY a heavy burden from my shoulders. If I lived twenty more years and was able to work, how I should have to modify the "Origin," and how much the views on all points will have to be modified! Well, it is a beginning, and that is something... LETTER 701. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). Down, August 10th, 1869. Your view seems most ingenious and probable; but ascertain in a good many cases that the nectar is actually within the staminal tube. (701/1. It seems that Darwin did not know that the staminal tube in the diadelphous Leguminosae serves as a nectar-holder, and this is surprising, as Sprengel was aware of the fact.) One can see that if there is to be a split in the tube, the law of symmetry would lead it to be double, and so free one stamen. Your view, if confirmed, would be extremely well worth publication before the Linnean Society. It is to me delightful to see what appears a mere morphological character found to be of use. It pleases me the more as Carl Nageli has lately been pitching into me on this head. Hooker, with whom I discussed the subject, maintained that uses would be found for lots more structures, and cheered me by throwing my own orchids into my teeth. (701/2. See Letters 697-700.) All that you say about changed position of the peduncle in bud, in flower, and in seed, is quite new to me, and reminds me of analogous cases with tendrils. (701/3. See Vochting, "Bewegung der Bluthen und Fruchte," 1882; also Kerner, "Pflanzenleben," Volume I., page 494, Volume II., page 121.) This is well worth working out, and I dare say the brush of the stigma. With respect to the hairs or filaments (about which I once spoke) within different parts of flowers, I have a splendid Tacsonia with perfectly pendent flowers, and there is only a microscopical vestige of the corona of coloured filaments; whilst in most common passion-flowers the flowers stand upright, and there is the splendid corona which apparently would catch pollen. (701/4. Sprengel ("Entdeckte Geheimniss," page 164) imagined that the crown of the Passion-flower served as a nectar-guide and as a platform for insects, while other rings of filaments served to keep rain from the nectar. F. Muller, quoted in H. Muller ("Fertilisation," page 268), looks at the crowns of hairs, ridges in some species, etc., as gratings serving to imprison flies which attract the fertilising humming-birds. There is, we believe, no evidence that the corona catches pollen. See Letter 704, note.) On the lower side of corolla of foxglove there are some fine hairs, but these seem of not the least use (701/5. It has been suggested that the hairs serve as a ladder for humble bees; also that they serve to keep out "unbidden guests.")--a mere purposeless exaggeration of down on outside--as I conclude after watching the bees at work, and afterwards covering up some plants; for the protected flowers rarely set any seed, so that the hairy lower part of corolla does not come into contact with stigma, as some Frenchman says occurs with some other plants, as Viola odorata and I think Iris. I heartily wish I could accept your kind invitation, for I am not by nature a savage, but it is impossible. Forgive my dreadful handwriting, none of my womenkind are about to act as amanuensis. LETTER 702. TO WILLIAM C. TAIT. (702/1. Mr. Tait, to whom the following letter is addressed, was resident in Portugal. His kindness in sending plants of Drosophyllum lusitanicum is acknowledged in "Insectivorous Plants.") Down, March 12th, 1869. I have received your two letters of March 2nd and 5th, and I really do not know how to thank you enough for your extraordinary kindness and energy. I am glad to hear that the inhabitants notice the power of the Drosophyllum to catch flies, for this is the subject of my studies. (702/2. The natives are said to hang up plants of Drosophyllum in their cottages to act as fly-papers ("Insectivorous Plants," page 332).) I have observed during several years the manner in which this is effected, and the results produced in several species of Drosera, and in the wonderful American Dionoea, the leaves of which catch insects just like a steel rat-trap. Hence I was most anxious to learn how the Drosophyllum would act, so that the Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew wrote some years ago to Portugal to obtain specimens for me, but quite failed. So you see what a favour you have conferred on me. With Drosera it is nothing less than marvellous how minute a fraction of a grain of any nitrogenised matter the plant can detect; and how differently it behaves when matter, not containing nitrogen, of the same consistence, whether fluid or solid, is applied to the glands. It is also exquisitely sensitive to a weight of even the 1/70000 of a grain. From what I can see of the glands on Drosophyllum I suspect that I shall find only the commencement, or nascent state of the wonderful capacities of the Drosera, and this will be eminently interesting to me. My MS. on this subject has been nearly ready for publication during some years, but when I shall have strength and time to publish I know not. And now to turn to other points in your letter. I am quite ignorant of ferns, and cannot name your specimen. The variability of ferns passes all bounds. With respect to your Laugher Pigeons, if the same with the two sub-breeds which I kept, I feel sure from the structure of the skeleton, etc., that it is a descendant of C. livia. In regard to beauty, I do not feel the difficulty which you and some others experience. In the last edition of my "Origin" I have discussed the question, but necessarily very briefly. (702/3. Fourth Edition, page 238.) A new and I hope amended edition of the "Origin" is now passing through the press, and will be published in a month or two, and it will give me great pleasure to send you a copy. Is there any place in London where parcels are received for you, or shall I send it by post? With reference to dogs' tails, no doubt you are aware that a rudimentary stump is regularly inherited by certain breeds of sheep-dogs, and by Manx cats. You speak of a change in the position of the axis of the earth: this is a subject quite beyond me, but I believe the astronomers reject the idea. Nevertheless, I have long suspected that some periodical astronomical or cosmical cause must be the agent of the incessant oscillations of level in the earth's crust. About a month ago I suggested this to a man well capable of judging, but he could not conceive any such agency; he promised, however, to keep it in mind. I wish I had time and strength to write to you more fully. I had intended to send this letter off at once, but on reflection will keep it till I receive the plants. LETTER 703. TO H. MULLER. Down, March 14th, 1870. I think you have set yourself a new, very interesting, and difficult line of research. As far as I know, no one has carefully observed the structure of insects in relation to flowers, although so many have now attended to the converse relation. (703/1. See Letter 462, also H. Muller, "Fertilisation of Flowers," English Translation, page 30, on "The insects which visit flowers." In Muller's book references are given to several of his papers on this subject.) As I imagine few or no insects are adapted to suck the nectar or gather the pollen of any single family of plants, such striking adaptations can hardly, I presume, be expected in insects as in flowers. LETTER 704. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). Down, May 28th, 1870. I suppose I must have known that the stamens recovered their former position in Berberis (704/1. See Farrer, "Nature," II., 1870, page 164. Lord Farrer was before H. Muller in making out the mechanism of the barberry.), for I formerly tried experiments with anaesthetics, but I had forgotten the facts, and I quite agree with you that it is a sound argument that the movement is not for self-fertilisation. The N. American barberries (Mahonia) offer a good proof to what an extent natural crossing goes on in this genus; for it is now almost impossible in this country to procure a true specimen of the two or three forms originally introduced. I hope the seeds of Passiflora will germinate, for the turning up of the pendent flower must be full of meaning. (704/2. Darwin had (May 12th, 1870) sent to Farrer an extract from a letter from F. Muller, containing a description of a Passiflora visited by humming-birds, in which the long flower-stalk curls up so that "the flower itself is upright." Another species visited by bees is described as having "dependent flowers." In a letter, June 29th, 1870, Mr. Farrer had suggested that P. princeps, which he described as having sub-erect flowers, is fitted for humming-birds' visits. In another letter, October 13th, 1869, he says that Tacsonia, which has pendent flowers and no corona, is not fertilised by insects in English glass-houses, and may be adapted for humming-birds. See "Life and Letters," III., page 279, for Farrer's remarks on Tacsonia and Passiflora; also H. Muller's "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 268, for what little is known on the subject; also Letter 701 in the present volume.) I am so glad that you are able to occupy yourself a little with flowers: I am sure it is most wise in you, for your own sake and children's sakes. Some little time ago Delpino wrote to me praising the Swedish book on the fertilisation of plants; as my son George can read a little Swedish, I should like to have it back for a time, just to hear a little what it is about, if you would be so kind as to return it by book-post. (704/3. Severin Axell, "Om anordningarna for de Fanerogama Vaxternas Befruktning," Stockholm, 1869.) I am going steadily on with my experiments on the comparative growth of crossed and self-fertilised plants, and am now coming to some very curious anomalies and some interesting results. I forget whether I showed you any of them when you were here for a few hours. You ought to see them, as they explain at a glance why Nature has taken such extraordinary pains to ensure frequent crosses between distinct individuals. If in the course of the summer you should feel any inclination to come here for a day or two, I hope that you will propose to do so, for we should be delighted to see you... LETTER 705. TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 7th, 1870. I have been very glad to receive your letter this morning. I have for some time been wishing to write to you, but have been half worked to death in correcting my uncouth English for my new book. (705/1. "Descent of Man.") I have been glad to hear of your cases appearing like incipient dimorphism. I believe that they are due to mere variability, and have no significance. I found a good instance in Nolana prostrata, and experimented on it, but the forms did not differ in fertility. So it was with Amsinckia, of which you told me. I have long thought that such variations afforded the basis for the development of dimorphism. I was not aware of such cases in Phlox, but have often admired the arrangement of the anthers, causing them to be all raked by an inserted proboscis. I am glad also to hear of your curious case of variability in ovules, etc. I said that I had been wishing to write to you, and this was about your Drosera, which after many fluctuations between life and death, at last made a shoot which I could observe. The case is rather interesting; but I must first remind you that the filament of Dionoea is not sensitive to very light prolonged pressure, or to nitrogenous matter, but is exquisitely sensitive to the slightest touch. (705/2. In another connection the following reference to Dionoea is of some interest: "I am sure I never heard of Curtis's observations on Dionoea, nor have I met with anything more than general statements about this plant or about Nepenthes catching insects." (From a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker, July 12th, 1860.)) In our Drosera the filaments are not sensitive to a slight touch, but are sensitive to prolonged pressure from the smallest object of any nature; they are also sensitive to solid or fluid nitrogenous matter. Now in your Drosera the filaments are not sensitive to a rough touch or to any pressure from non-nitrogenous matter, but are sensitive to solid or fluid nitrogenous matter. (705/3. Drosera filiformis: see "Insectivorous Plants," page 281. The above account does not entirely agree with Darwin's published statement. The filaments moved when bits of cork or cinder were placed on them; they did not, however, respond to repeated touches with a needle, thus behaving differently from D. rotundifolia. It should be remembered that the last-named species is somewhat variable in reacting to repeated touches.) Is it not curious that there should be such diversified sensitiveness in allied plants? I received a very obliging letter from Mr. Morgan, but did not see him, as I think he said he was going to start at once for the Continent. I am sorry to hear rather a poor account of Mrs. Gray, to whom my wife and I both beg to be very kindly remembered. LETTER 706. TO C.V. RILEY. (706/1. In Riley's opinion his most important work was the series entitled "Annual Report on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri" (Jefferson City), beginning in 1869. These reports were greatly admired by Mr. Darwin, and his copies of them, especially of Nos. 3 and 4, show signs of careful reading.) Down, June 1st [1871]. I received some little time ago your report on noxious insects, and have now read the whole with the greatest interest. (706/2. "Third Annual Report on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri" (Jefferson City, Mo.). The mimetic case occurs at page 67; the 1875 pupae of Pterophorus periscelidactylus, the "Grapevine Plume," have pupae either green or reddish brown, the former variety being found on the leaves, the latter on the brown stems of the vine.) There are a vast number of facts and generalisations of value to me, and I am struck with admiration at your powers of observation. The discussion on mimetic insects seems to me particularly good and original. Pray accept my cordial thanks for the instruction and interest which I have received. What a loss to Natural Science our poor mutual friend Walsh has been; it is a loss ever to be deplored... Your country is far ahead of ours in some respects; our Parliament would think any man mad who should propose to appoint a State Entomologist. LETTER 707A. TO C.V. RILEY. (706A/1. We have found it convenient to place the two letters to Riley together, rather than separate them chronologically.) Down, September 28th, 1881. I must write half a dozen lines to say how much interested I have been by your "Further Notes" on Pronuba which you were so kind as to send me. (706A/2. "Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci." 1880.) I had read the various criticisms, and though I did not know what answer could be made, yet I felt full confidence in your result, and now I see that I was right...If you make any further observation on Pronuba it would, I think, be well worth while for you to observe whether the moth can or does occasionally bring pollen from one plant to the stigma of a distinct one (706A/3. Riley discovered the remarkable fact that the Yucca moth (Pronuba yuccasella) lays its eggs in the ovary of Yucca flowers, which it has previously pollinated, thus making sure of a supply of ovules for the larvae.), for I have shown that the cross-fertilisation of the flowers on the same plant does very little good; and, if I am not mistaken, you believe that Pronuba gathers pollen from the same flower which she fertilises. What interesting and beautiful observations you have made on the metamorphoses of the grasshopper-destroying insects. LETTER 707. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, February 9th [1872]. Owing to other occupations I was able to read only yesterday your paper on the dispersal of the seeds of Compositae. (707/1. "Ueber die Verbreitungsmittel der Compositenfruchte." "Bot. Zeitung," 1872, page 1.) Some of the facts which you mention are extremely interesting. I write now to suggest as worthy of your examination the curious adhesive filaments of mucus emitted by the achenia of many Compositae, of which no doubt you are aware. My attention was first called to the subject by the achenia of an Australian Pumilio (P. argyrolepis), which I briefly described in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1861, page 5. As the threads of mucus dry and contract they draw the seeds up into a vertical position on the ground. It subsequently occurred to me that if these seeds were to fall on the wet hairs of any quadruped they would adhere firmly, and might be carried to any distance. I was informed that Decaisne has written a paper on these adhesive threads. What is the meaning of the mucus so copiously emitted from the moistened seeds of Iberis, and of at least some species of Linum? Does the mucus serve as a protection against their being devoured, or as a means of attachment. (707/2. Various theories have been suggested, e.g., that the slime by anchoring the seed to the soil facilitates the entrance of the radicle into the soil: the slime has also been supposed to act as a temporary water-store. See Klebs in Pfeffer's "Untersuchungen aus dem Bot. Inst. zu Tubingen," I., page 581.) I have been prevented reading your paper sooner by attempting to read Dr. Askenasy's pamphlet, but the German is too difficult for me to make it all out. (707/3. E. Askenasy, "Beitrage zur Kritik der Darwin'schen Lehre." Leipzig, 1872.) He seems to follow Nageli completely. I cannot but think that both much underrate the utility of various parts of plants; and that they greatly underrate the unknown laws of correlated growth, which leads to all sorts of modifications, when some one structure or the whole plant is modified for some particular object. LETTER 708. TO T.H. FARRER. (Lord Farrer). (708/1. The following letter refers to a series of excellent observations on the fertilisation of Leguminosae, made by Lord Farrer in the autumn of 1869, in ignorance of Delpino's work on the subject. The result was published in "Nature," October 10th and 17th, 1872, and is full of interesting suggestions. The discovery of the mechanism in Coronilla mentioned in a note was one of the cases in which Lord Farrer was forestalled.) Down [1872]. I declare I am almost as sorry as if I had been myself forestalled--indeed, more so, for I am used to it. It is, however, a paramount, though bothersome duty in every naturalist to try and make out all that has been done by others on the subject. By all means publish next summer your confirmation and a summary of Delpino's observations, with any new ones of your own. Especially attend about the nectary exterior to the staminal tube. (708/2. This refers to a species of Coronilla in which Lord Farrer made the remarkable discovery that the nectar is secreted on the outside of the calyx. See "Nature," July 2nd, 1874, page 169; also Letter 715.) This will in every way be far better than writing to Delpino. It would not be at all presumptuous in you to criticise Delpino. I am glad you think him so clever; for so it struck me. Look at hind legs yourself of some humble and hive-bees; in former take a very big individual (if any can be found) for these are the females, the males being smaller, and they have no pollen-collecting apparatus. I do not remember where it is figured--probably in Kirby & Spence--but actual inspection better... Please do not return any of my books until all are finished, and do not hurry. I feel certain you will make fine discoveries. LETTER 709. TO T.H. FARRER. (Lord Farrer). Sevenoaks, October 13th, 1872. I must send you a line to say how extremely good your article appears to me to be. It is even better than I thought, and I remember thinking it very good. I am particularly glad of the excellent summary of evidence about the common pea, as it will do for me hereafter to quote; nocturnal insects will not do. I suspect that the aboriginal parent had bluish flowers. I have seen several times bees visiting common and sweet peas, and yet varieties, purposely grown close together, hardly ever intercross. This is a point which for years has half driven me mad, and I have discussed it in my "Var. of Animals and Plants under Dom." (709/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume I., page 348, Darwin added, with respect to the rarity of spontaneous crosses in Pisum: "I have reason to believe that this is due to their stignas being prematurely fertilised in this country by pollen from the same flower." This explanation is, we think, almost certainly applicable to Lathyrus odoratus, though in Darwin's latest publication on the subject he gives reasons to the contrary. See "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," page 156, where the problem is left unsolved. Compare Letter 714 to Delpino. In "Life and Letters," III., page 261, the absence of cross-fertilisation is explained as due to want of perfect adaptation between the pea and our native insects. This is Hermann Muller's view: see his "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 214. See Letter 583, note.) I now suspect (and I wish I had strength to experimentise next spring) that from changed climate both species are prematurely fertilised, and therefore hardly ever cross. When artificially crossed by removal of own pollen in bud, the offspring are very vigorous. Farewell.--I wish I could compel you to go on working at fertilisation instead of so insignificant a subject as the commerce of the country! You pay me a very pretty compliment at the beginning of your paper. LETTER 710. TO J.D. HOOKER. (710/1. The following letters to Sir J.D. Hooker and the late Mr. Moggridge refer to Moggridge's observation that seeds stored in the nest of the ant Atta at Mentone do not germinate, though they are certainly not dead. Moggridge's observations are given in his book, "Harvesting Ants and Trap-Door Spiders," 1873, which is full of interesting details. The book is moreover remarkable in having resuscitated our knowledge of the existence of the seed-storing habit. Mr. Moggridge points out that the ancients were familiar with the facts, and quotes the well-known fable of the ant and the grasshopper, which La Fontaine borrowed from Aesop. Mr. Moggridge (page 5) goes on: "So long as Europe was taught Natural History by southern writers the belief prevailed; but no sooner did the tide begin to turn, and the current of information to flood from north to south, than the story became discredited." In Moggridge's "supplement" on the same subject, published in 1874, the author gives an account of his experiments made at Darwin's suggestion, and concludes (page 174) that "the vapour of formic acid is incapable of rendering the seeds dormant after the manner of the ants," and that indeed "its influence is always injurious to the seeds, even when present only in excessively minute quantities." Though unable to explain the method employed, he was convinced "that the non-germination of the seeds is due to some direct influence voluntarily exercised by the ants, and not merely to the conditions found in the nest" (page 172). See Volume I., Letter 251.) Down, February 21st [1873]. You have given me exactly the information which I wanted. Geniuses jump. I have just procured formic acid to try whether its vapour or minute drops will delay germination of fresh seeds; trying others at same time for comparison. But I shall not be able to try them till middle of April, as my despotic wife insists on taking a house in London for a month from the middle of March. I am glad to hear of the Primer (710/2. "Botany" (Macmillan's Science Primers).); it is not at all, I think, a folly. Do you know Asa Gray's child book on the functions of plants, or some such title? It is very good in giving an interest to the subject. By the way, can you lend me the January number of the "London Journal of Botany" for an article on insect-agency in fertilisation? LETTER 711. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Down, August 27th, 1873. I thank you for your very interesting letter, and I honour you for your laborious and careful experiments. No one knows till he tries how many unexpected obstacles arise in subjecting plants to experiments. I can think of no suggestions to make; but I may just mention that I had intended to try the effects of touching the dampened seeds with the minutest drop of formic acid at the end of a sharp glass rod, so as to imitate the possible action of the sting of the ant. I heartily hope that you may be rewarded by coming to some definite result; but I fail five times out of six in my own experiments. I have lately been trying some with poor success, and suppose that I have done too much, for I have been completely knocked up for some days. LETTER 712. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Down, March 10th, 1874. I am very sorry to hear that the vapour experiments have failed; but nothing could be better, as it seems to me, than your plan of enclosing a number of the ants with the seeds. The incidental results on the power of different vapours in killing seeds and stopping germination appear very curious, and as far as I know are quite new. P.S.--I never before heard of seeds not germinating except during a certain season; it will be a very strange fact if you can prove this. (712/1. Certain seeds pass through a resting period before germination. See Pfeffer's "Pflanzenphysiologie," Edition I., Volume II., page III.) LETTER 713. TO H. MULLER. Down, May 30th, 1873. I am much obliged for your letter received this morning. I write now chiefly to give myself the pleasure of telling you how cordially I admire the last part of your book, which I have finished. (713/1. "Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten": Leipzig, 1873. An English translation was published in 1883 by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson. The "Prefatory Notice" to this work (February 6th, 1882) is almost the last of Mr. Darwin's writings. See "Life and Letters," page 281.) The whole discussion seems to me quite excellent, and it has pleased me not a little to find that in the rough MS. of my last chapter I have arrived on many points at nearly the same conclusions that you have done, though we have reached them by different routes. (713/2. "The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom": London, 1876.) LETTER 714. TO F. DELPINO. Down, June 25th [1873]. I thank you sincerely for your letter. I am very glad to hear about Lathyrus odoratus, for here in England the vars. never cross, and yet are sometimes visited by bees. (714/1. In "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," page 156, Darwin quotes the information received from Delpino and referred to in the present letter--namely, that it is the fixed opinion of the Italian gardeners that the varieties do intercross. See Letter 709.) Pisum sativum I have also many times seen visited by Bombus. I believe the cause of the many vars. not crossing is that under our climate the flowers are self-fertilised at an early period, before the corolla is fully expanded. I shall examine this point with L. odoratus. I have read H. Muller's book, and it seems to me very good. Your criticism had not occurred to me, but is, I think just--viz. that it is much more important to know what insects habitually visit any flower than the various kinds which occasionally visit it. Have you seen A. Kerner's book "Schutzmittel des Pollens," 1873, Innsbruck. (714/2. Afterwards translated by Dr. Ogle as "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests," with a prefatory letter by Charles Darwin, 1878.) It is very interesting, but he does not seem to know anything about the work of other authors. I have Bentham's paper in my house, but have not yet had time to read a word of it. He is a man with very sound judgment, and fully admits the principle of evolution. I have lately had occasion to look over again your discussion on anemophilous plants, and I have again felt much admiration at your work. (714/3. "Atti della Soc. Italiana di Scienze Nat." Volume XIII.) (714/4. In the beginning of August, 1873, Darwin paid the first of several visits to Lord Farrer's house at Abinger. When sending copies of Darwin's letters for the "Life and Letters," Lord Farrer was good enough to add explanatory notes and recollections, from which we quote the following sketch.) "Above my house are some low hills, standing up in the valley, below the chalk range on the one hand and the more distant range of Leith Hill on the other, with pretty views of the valley towards Dorking in one direction and Guildford in the other. They are composed of the less fertile Greensand strata, and are covered with fern, broom, gorse, and heath. Here it was a particular pleasure of his to wander, and his tall figure, with his broad-brimmed Panama hat and long stick like an alpenstock, sauntering solitary and slow over our favourite walks, is one of the pleasantest of the many pleasant associations I have with the place." LETTER 715. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). (715/1. The following note by Lord Farrer explains the main point of the letter, which, however, refers to the "bloom" problem as well as to Coronilla:-- "I thought I had found out what puzzled us in Coronilla varia: in most of the Papilionaceae, when the tenth stamen is free, there is nectar in the staminal tube, and the opening caused by the free stamen enables the bee to reach the nectar, and in so doing the bee fertilises the plant. In Coronilla varia, and in several other species of Coronilla, there is no nectar in the staminal tube or in the tube of the corolla. But there are peculiar glands with nectar on the outside of the calyx, and peculiar openings in the tube of the corolla through which the proboscis of the bee, whilst entering the flower in the usual way and dusting itself with pollen, can reach these glands, thus fertilising the plant in getting the nectar. On writing this to Mr. Darwin, I received the following characteristic note. The first postscript relates to the rough ground behind my house, over which he was fond of strolling. It had been ploughed up and then allowed to go back, and the interest was to watch how the numerous species of weeds of cultivation which followed the plough gradually gave way in the struggle for existence to the well-known and much less varied flora of an English common.") Bassett, Southampton, August 14th, 1873. You are the man to conquer a Coronilla. (715/2. In a former letter to Lord Farrer, Darwin wrote: "Here is a maxim for you, 'It is disgraceful to be beaten by a Coronilla.'") I have been looking at the half-dried flowers, and am prepared to swear that you have solved the mystery. The difference in the size of the cells on the calyx under the vexillum right down to the common peduncle is conspicuous. The flour still adhered to this side; I see little bracteae or stipules apparently with glandular ends at the base of the calyces. Do these secrete? It seems to me a beautiful case. When I saw the odd shape of the base of the vexillum, I concluded that it must have some meaning, but little dreamt what that was. Now there remains only the one serious point--viz.the separation of the one stamen. I daresay that you are right in that nectar was originally secreted within the staminal tube; but why has not the one stamen long since cohered? The great difference in structure for fertilisation within the same genus makes one believe that all such points are vary variable. (715/3. Coronilla emerus is of the ordinary papilionaceous type.) With respect to the non-coherence of the one stamen, do examine some flower-buds at a very early age; for parts which are largely developed are often developed to an unusual degree at a very early age, and it seems to me quite possible that the base of the vexillum (to which the single stamen adhered) might thus be developed, and thus keep it separate for a time from the other stamens. The cohering stamens to the right and left of the single one seem to me to be pushed out a little laterally. When you have finished your observations, you really ought to send an account with a diagram to "Nature," recalling your generalisation about the diadelphous structure, and now explaining the exception of Coronilla. (715/4. The observations were published in "Nature," Volume X., 1874, page 169.) Do add a remark how almost every detail of structure has a meaning where a flower is well examined. Your observations pleased me so much that I could not sit still for half an hour. Please to thank Mr. Payne (715/5. Lord Farrer's gardener.) for his remarks, which are of value to me, with reference to Mimosa. I am very much in doubt whether opening the sashes can act by favouring the evaporation of the drops; may not the movement of the leaves shake off the drops, or change their places? If Mr. Payne remembers any plant which is easily injured by drops, I wish he would put a drop or two on a leaf on a bright day, and cover the plant with a clean bell-glass, and do the same for another plant, but without a bell-glass over it, and observe the effects. Thank you much for wishing to see us again at Abinger, and it is very doubtful whether it will be Coronilla, Mr. Payne, the new garden, the children, E. [Lady Farrer], or yourself which will give me the most pleasure to see again. P.S. 1.--It will be curious to note in how many years the rough ground becomes quite uniform in its flora. P.S. 2.--One may feel sure that periodically nectar was secreted within the flower and then secreted by the calyx, as in some species of Iris and orchids. This latter being taken advantage of in Coronilla would allow of the secretion within the flower ceasing, and as this change was going on in the two secretions, all the parts of the flower would become modified and correlated. LETTER 716. TO J. BURDON SANDERSON. Down, Tuesday, September 9th [1873]. (716/1. Sir J. Burdon Sanderson showed that in Dionoea movement is accompanied by electric disturbances closely analogous to those occurring in muscle (see "Nature," 1874, pages 105, 127; "Proc. R. Soc." XXI., and "Phil. Trans." Volume CLXXIII., 1883, where the results are finally discussed).) I will send up early to-morrow two plants [of Dionoea] with five goodish leaves, which you will know by their being tied to sticks. Please remember that the slightest touch, even by a hair, of the three filaments on each lobe makes the leaf close, and it will not open for twenty-four hours. You had better put 1/4 in. of water into the saucers of the pots. The plants have been kept too cool in order to retard them. You had better keep them rather warm (i.e. temperature of warm greenhouse) for a day, and in a good light. I am extremely glad you have undertaken this subject. If you get a positive result, I should think you ought to publish it separately, and I could quote it; or I should be most glad to introduce any note by you into my account. I have no idea whether it is troublesome to try with the thermo-electric pile any change of temperature when the leaf closes. I could detect none with a common thermometer. But if there is any change of temperature I should expect it would occur some eight to twelve or twenty-four hours after the leaf has been given a big smashed fly, and when it is copiously secreting its acid digestive fluid. I forgot to say that, as far as I can make out, the inferior surface of the leaf is always in a state of tension, and that the contraction is confined to the upper surface; so that when this contraction ceases or suddenly fails (as by immersion in boiling water) the leaf opens again, or more widely than is natural to it. Whenever you have quite finished, I will send for the plants in their basket. My son Frank is staying at 6, Queen Anne Street, and comes home on Saturday afternoon, but you will not have finished by that time. P.S. I have repeated my experiment on digestion in Drosera with complete success. By giving leaves a very little weak hydrochloric acid, I can make them digest albumen--i.e. white of egg--quicker than they can do naturally. I most heartily thank you for all your kindness. I have been pretty bad lately, and must work very little. LETTER 717. TO J. BURDON SANDERSON. September 13th [1873]. How very kind it was of you to telegraph to me. I am quite delighted that you have got a decided result. Is it not a very remarkable fact? It seems so to me, in my ignorance. I wish I could remember more distinctly what I formerly read of Du Bois Raymond's results. My poor memory never serves me for more than a vague guide. I really think you ought to try Drosera. In a weak solution of phosphate of ammonia (viz. 1 gr. to 20 oz. of water) it will contract in about five minutes, and even more quickly in pure warm water; but then water, I suppose, would prevent your trial. I forget, but I think it contracts pretty quickly (i.e. in an hour or two) with a large drop of a rather stronger solution of the phosphate, or with an atom of raw meat on the disc of the leaf. LETTER 718. TO J.D. HOOKER. October 31st, 1873. Now I want to tell you, for my own pleasure, about the movements of Desmodium. 1. When the plant goes to sleep, the terminal leaflets hang vertically down, but the petioles move up towards the axis, so that the dependent leaves are all crowded round it. The little leaflets never go to sleep, and this seems to me very odd; they are at their games of play as late as 11 o'clock at night and probably later. (718/1. Stahl ("Botanische Zeitung," 1897, page 97) has suggested that the movements of the dwarf leaflets in Desmodium serve to shake the large terminal leaflets, and thus increase transpiration. According to Stahl's view their movement would be more useful at night than by day, because stagnation of the transpiration-current is more likely to occur at night.) 2. If the plant is shaken or syringed with tepid water, the terminal leaflets move down through about an angle of 45 deg, and the petioles likewise move about 11 deg downwards; so that they move in an opposite direction to what they do when they go to sleep. Cold water or air produces the same effect as does shaking. The little leaflets are not in the least affected by the plant being shaken or syringed. I have no doubt, from various facts, that the downward movement of the terminal leaflets and petioles from shaking and syringing is to save them from injury from warm rain. 3. The axis, the main petiole, and the terminal leaflets are all, when the temperature is high, in constant movement, just like that of climbing plants. This movement seems to be of no service, any more than the incessant movement of amoeboid bodies. The movement of the terminal leaflets, though insensible to the eye, is exactly the same as that of the little lateral leaflets--viz. from side to side, up and down, and half round their own axes. The only difference is that the little leaflets move to a much greater extent, and perhaps more rapidly; and they are excited into movement by warm water, which is not the case with the terminal leaflet. Why the little leaflets, which are rudimentary in size and have lost their sleep-movements and their movements from being shaken, should not only have retained, but have their spontaneous movements exaggerated, I cannot conceive. It is hardly credible that it is a case of compensation. All this makes me very anxious to examine some plant (if possible one of the Leguminosae) with either the terminal or lateral leaflets greatly reduced in size, in comparison with the other leaflets on the same leaf. Can you or any of your colleagues think of any such plant? It is indirectly on this account that I so much want the seeds of Lathyrus nissolia. I hear from Frank that you think that the absence of both lateral leaflets, or of one alone, is due to their having dropped off; I thought so at first, and examined extremely young leaves from the tips of the shoots, and some of them presented the same characters. Some appearances make me think that they abort by becoming confluent with the main petiole. I hear also that you doubt about the little leaflets ever standing not opposite to each other: pray look at the enclosed old leaf which has been for a time in spirits, and can you call the little leaflets opposite? I have seen many such cases on both my plants, though few so well marked. LETTER 719. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 23rd [1873]. How good you have been about the plants; but indeed I did not intend you to write about Drosophyllum, though I shall be very glad to have a specimen. Experiments on other plants lead to fresh experiments. Neptunia is evidently a hopeless case. I shall be very glad of the other plants whenever they are ready. I constantly fear that I shall become to you a giant of bores. I am delighted to hear that you are at work on Nepenthes, and I hope that you will have good luck. It is good news that the fluid is acid; you ought to collect a good lot and have the acid analysed. I hope that the work will give you as much pleasure as analogous work has me. (719/1. Hooker's work on Nepenthes is referred to in "Insectivorous Plants," page 97: see also his address at the Belfast meeting of the British Association, 1874.) I do not think any discovery gave me more pleasure than proving a true act of digestion in Drosera. LETTER 720. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 24th, 1873. I have been greatly interested by Mimosa albida, on which I have been working hard. Whilst your memory is pretty fresh, I want to ask a question. When this plant was most sensitive, and you irritated it, did the opposite leaflets shut up quite close, as occurs during sleep, when even a lancet could not be inserted between the leaflets? I can never cause the leaflets to come into contact, and some reasons make me doubt whether they ever do so except during sleep; and this makes me wish much to hear from you. I grieve to say that the plant looks more unhealthy, even, than it was at Kew. I have nursed it like the tenderest infant; but I was forced to cut off one leaf to try the bloom, and one was broken by the manner of packing. I have never syringed (with tepid water) more than one leaf per day; but if it dies, I shall feel like a murderer. I am pretty well convinced that I shall make out my case of movements as a protection against rain lodging on the leaves. As far as I have as yet made out, M. albida is a splendid case. I have had no time to examine more than one species of Eucalyptus. The seedlings of Lathyrus nissolia are very interesting to me; and there is something wonderful about them, unless seeds of two distinct leguminous species have got somehow mingled together. LETTER 721. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, December 4th, 1873. As Hooker is so busy, I should be very much obliged if you could give me the name of the enclosed poor specimen of Cassia. I want much to know its name, as its power of movement, when it goes to sleep, is very remarkable. Linnaeus, I find, was aware of this. It twists each separate leaflet almost completely round (721/1. See "Power of Movement in Plants," Figure 154, page 370.), so that the lower surface faces the sky, at the same time depressing them all. The terminal leaflets are pointed towards the base of the leaf. The whole leaf is also raised up about 12 deg. When I saw that it possessed such complex powers of movement, I thought it would utilise its power to protect the leaflets from rain. Accordingly I syringed the plant for two minutes, and it was really beautiful to see how each leaflet on the younger leaves twisted its short sub-petiole, so that the blade was immediately directed at an angle between 45 and 90 deg to the horizon. I could not resist the pleasure of just telling you why I want to know the name of the Cassia. I should add that it is a greenhouse plant. I suppose that there will not be any better flowers till next summer or autumn. LETTER 722. TO T. BELT. (722/1. Belt's account, discussed in this letter, is probably that published in his "Naturalist in Nicaragua" (1874), where he describes "the relation between the presence of honey-secreting glands on plants, and the protection to the latter secured by the attendance of ants attracted by the honey." (Op. cit., pages 222 et seq.)) Thursday [1874?]. Your account of the ants and their relations seems to me to possess extraordinary interest. I do not doubt that the excretion of sweet fluid by the glands is in your cases of great advantage to the plants by means of the ants, but I cannot avoid believing that primordially it is a simple excretion, as occasionally occurs from the surface of the leaves of lime trees. It is quite possible that the primordial excretion may have been beneficially increased to serve the plant. In the common laurel [Prunus laurocerasus] of our gardens the hive-bees visit incessantly the glands of the young leaves, on their under sides; and I should altogether doubt whether their visits or the occasional visits of ants was of any service to the laurel. The stipules of the common vetch secrete largely during sunshine, and hive-bees collect the sweet fluid. So I think it is with the common bean. I am writing this away from home, and I have come away to get some rest, having been a good deal overworked. I shall read your book with great interest when published, but will not trouble you to send the MS., as I really have no spare strength or time. I believe that your book, judging by the chapter sent, will be extremely valuable. LETTER 723. TO J.D. HOOKER. (723/1. The following letter refers to Darwin's prediction as to the manner in which Hedychium (Zinziberaceae) is fertilised. Sir J.D. Hooker seems to have made inquiries in India in consequence of which Darwin received specimens of the moth which there visits the flower, unfortunately so much broken as to be useless (see "Life and Letters," III., page 284).) Down, March 25th [1874]. I am glad to hear about the Hedychium, and how soon you have got an answer! I hope that the wings of the Sphinx will hereafter prove to be bedaubed with pollen, for the case will then prove a fine bit of prophecy from the structure of a flower to special and new means of fertilisation. By the way, I suppose you have noticed what a grand appearance the plant makes when the green capsules open, and display the orange and crimson seeds and interior, so as to attract birds, like the pale buff flowers to attract dusk-flying lepidoptera. I presume you do not want seeds of this plant, as I have plenty from artificial fertilisation. (723/2. In "Nature," June 22nd, 1876, page 173, Hermann Muller communicated F. Muller's observation on the fertilisation of a bright-red-flowered species of Hedychium, which is visited by Callidryas, chiefly the males of C. Philea. The pollen is carried by the tips of the butterfly's wing, to which it is temporarily fixed by the slimy layer produced by the degeneration of the anther-wall. LETTER 724. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, June 4th [1874]. I am greatly obliged to you about the Opuntia, and shall be glad if you can remember Catalpa. I wish some facts on the action of water, because I have been so surprised at a stream not acting on Dionoea and Drosera. (724/1. See Pfeffer, "Untersuchungen Bot. Inst. zu Tubingen," Bd. I., 1885, page 518. Pfeffer shows that in some cases--Drosera, for instance--water produces movement only when it contains fine particles in suspension. According to Pfeffer the stamens of Berberis, and the stigma of Mimulus, are both stimulated by gelatine, the action of which is, generally speaking, equivalent to that of water.) Water does not act on the stamens of Berberis, but it does on the stigma of Mimulus. It causes the flowers of the bedding-out Mesembryanthemum and Drosera to close, but it has not this effect on Gazania and the daisy, so I can make out no rule. I hope you are going on with Nepenthes; and if so, you will perhaps like to hear that I have just found out that Pinguicula can digest albumen, gelatine, etc. If a bit of glass or wood is placed on a leaf, the secretion is not increased; but if an insect or animal-matter is thus placed, the secretion is greatly increased and becomes feebly acid, which was not the case before. I have been astonished and much disturbed by finding that cabbage seeds excite a copious secretion, and am now endeavouring to discover what this means. (724/2. Clearly it had not occurred to Darwin that seeds may supply nitrogenous food as well as insects: see "Insectivorous Plants," page 390.) Probably in a few days' time I shall have to beg a little information from you, so I will write no more now. P.S. I heard from Asa Gray a week ago, and he tells me a beautiful fact: not only does the lid of Sarracenia secrete a sweet fluid, but there is a line or trail of sweet exudation down to the ground so as to tempt insects up. (724/3. A dried specimen of Sarracenia, stuffed with cotton wool, was sometimes brought from his study by Mr. Darwin, and made the subject of a little lecture to visitors of natural history tastes.) LETTER 725. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, June 23rd, 1874. I wrote to you about a week ago, thanking you for information on cabbage seeds, asking you the name of Luzula or Carex, and on some other points; and I hope before very long to receive an answer. You must now, if you can, forgive me for being very troublesome, for I am in that state in which I would sacrifice friend or foe. I have ascertained that bits of certain leaves, for instance spinach, excite much secretion in Pinguicula, and that the glands absorb matter from the leaves. Now this morning I have received a lot of leaves from my future daughter-in-law in North Wales, having a surprising number of captured insects on them, a good many leaves, and two seed-capsules. She informs me that the little leaves had excited secretion; and my son and I have ascertained this morning that the protoplasm in the glands beneath the little leaves has undoubtedly undergone aggregation. Therefore, absurd as it may sound, I am prepared to affirm that Pinguicula is not only insectivorous, but graminivorous, and granivorous! Now I want to beg you to look under the simple microscope at the enclosed leaves and seeds, and, if you possibly can, tell me their genera. The little narrow leaves are remarkable (725/1. Those of Erica tetralix.); they are fleshy, with the edges much curled from the axis of the plant, and bear a few long glandular hairs; these grow in little tufts. These are the commonest in Pinguicula, and seem to afford most nutritious matter. A second leaf is like a miniature sycamore. With respect to the seeds, I suppose that one is a Carex; the other looks like that of Rumex, but is enclosed in a globular capsule. The Pinguicula grew on marshy, low, mountainous land. I hope you will think this subject sufficiently interesting to make you willing to aid me as far as you can. Anyhow, forgive me for being so very troublesome. LETTER 726. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 30th [1874]. I am particularly obliged for your address. (726/1. Presidential address (Biological Section) at the Belfast meeting of the British Association, 1874.) It strikes me as quite excellent, and has interested me in the highest degree. Nor is this due to my having worked at the subject, for I feel sure that I should have been just as much struck, perhaps more so, if I had known nothing about it. You could not, in my opinion, have put the case better. There are several lights (besides the facts) in your essay new to me, and you have greatly honoured me. I heartily congratulate you on so splendid a piece of work. There is a misprint at page 7, Mitschke for Nitschke. There is a partial error at page 8, where you say that Drosera is nearly indifferent to organic substances. This is much too strong, though they do act less efficiently than organic with soluble nitrogenous matter; but the chief difference is in the widely different period of subsequent re-expansion. Thirdly, I did not suggest to Sanderson his electrical experiments, though, no doubt, my remarks led to his thinking of them. Now for your letter: you are very generous about Dionoea, but some of my experiments will require cutting off leaves, and therefore injuring plants. I could not write to Lady Dorothy [Nevill]. Rollisson says that they expect soon a lot from America. If Dionoea is not despatched, have marked on address, "to be forwarded by foot-messenger." Mrs. Barber's paper is very curious, and ought to be published (726/2. Mrs. Barber's paper on the pupa of Papilio Nireus assuming different tints corresponding to the objects to which it was attached, was communicated by Mr. Darwin to the "Trans. Entomolog. Soc." 1874.); but when you come here (and REMEMBER YOU OFFERED TO COME) we will consult where to send it. Let me hear when you recommence on Cephalotus or Sarracenia, as I think I am now on right track about Utricularia, after wasting several weeks in fruitless trials and observations. The negative work takes five times more time than the positive. LETTER 727. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 18th [1874]. I have had a splendid day's work, and must tell you about it. Lady Dorothy sent me a young plant of U[tricularia] montana (727/1. See "Life and Letters," III., page 327, and "Insectivorous Plants," page 431.), which I fancy is the species you told me of. The roots or rhizomes (for I know not which they are; I can see no scales or internodes or absorbent hairs) bear scores of bladders from 1/20 to 1/100 of an inch in diameter; and I traced these roots to the depth of 1 1/2 in. in the peat and sand. The bladders are like glass, and have the same essential structure as those of our species, with the exception that many exterior parts are aborted. Internally the structure is perfect, as is the minute valvular opening into the bladder, which is filled with water. I then felt sure that they captured subterranean insects, and after a time I found two with decayed remnants, with clear proof that something had been absorbed, which had generated protoplasm. When you are here I shall be very curious to know whether they are roots or rhizomes. Besides the bladders there are great tuber-like swellings on the rhizomes; one was an inch in length and half in breadth. I suppose these must have been described. I strongly suspect that they serve as reservoirs for water. (727/2. The existence of water-stores is quite in accordance with the epiphytic habit of the plant.) But I shall experimentise on this head. A thin slice is a beautiful object, and looks like coarsely reticulated glass. If you have an old plant which could be turned out of its pot (and can spare the time), it would be a great gain to me if you would tear off a bit of the roots near the bottom, and shake them well in water, and see whether they bear these minute glass-like bladders. I should also much like to know whether old plants bear the solid bladder-like bodies near the upper surface of the pot. These bodies are evidently enlargements of the roots or rhizomes. You must forgive this long letter, and make allowance for my delight at finding this new sub-group of insect-catchers. Sir E. Tennent speaks of an aquatic species of Utricularia in Ceylon, which has bladders on its roots, and rises annually to the surface, as he says, by this means. (727/3. Utricularia stellaris. Emerson Tennent's "Ceylon," Volume I., page 124, 1859.) We shall be delighted to see you here on the 26th; if you will let us know your train we will send to meet you. You will have to work like a slave while you are here. LETTER 728. TO J. JENNER WEIR. (728/1. In 1870 Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Darwin: "My brother has but two kinds of laburnum, viz., Cytisus purpureus, very erect, and Cytisus alpinus, very pendulous. He has several stocks of the latter grafted with the purple one; and this year, the grafts being two years old, I saw in one, fairly above the stock, about four inches, a raceme of purely yellow flowers with the usual dark markings, and above them a bunch of purely purple flowers; the branches of the graft in no way showed an intermediate character, but had the usual rigid growth of purpureus." Early in July 1875, when Darwin was correcting a new edition of "Variation under Domestication," he again corresponded with Mr. Weir on the subject.) Down, July 8th [1875]. I thank you cordially. The case interests me in a higher degree than anything which I have heard for a very long time. Is it your brother Harrison W., whom I know? I should like to hear where the garden is. There is one other very important point which I am most anxious to hear--viz., the nature of the leaves at the base of the yellow racemes, for leaves are always there produced with the yellow laburnums, and I suppose so in the case of C. purpureus. As the tree has produced yellow racemes several times, do you think you could ask your brother to cut off and send me by post in a box a small branch of the purple stock with the pods or leaves of the yellow sport? (728/2. "The purple stock" here means the supposed C. purpureus, on which a yellow-flowered branch was borne.) This would be an immense favour, for then I would cut the point of junction longitudinally and examine slice under the microscope, to be able to state no trace of bud of yellow kind having been inserted. I do not suspect anything of the kind, but it is sure to be said that your brother's gardener, either by accident or fraud, inserted a bud. Under this point of view it would be very good to gather from your brother how many times the yellow sport has appeared. The case appears to me so very important as to be worth any trouble. Very many thanks for all assistance so kindly given. I will of course send a copy of new edition of "Variation under Domestication" when published in the autumn. LETTER 729. TO J. JENNER WEIR. (729/1. On July 9th Mr. Weir wrote to say that a branch of the Cytisus had been despatched to Down. The present letter was doubtless written after Darwin had examined the specimen. In "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 417, note, he gives for a case recorded in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" in 1857 the explanation here offered (viz. that the graft was not C. purpureus but C. Adami), and adds, "I have ascertained that this occurred in another instance." This second instance is doubtless Mr. Weir's.) Down, July 10th, 1875. I do not know how to thank you enough; pray give also my thanks and kind remembrances to your brother. I am sure you will forgive my expressing my doubts freely, as I well know that you desire the truth more than anything else. I cannot avoid the belief that some nurseryman has sold C[ytisus] Adami to your brother in place of the true C. purpureus. The latter is a little bush only 3 feet high (Loudon), and when I read your account, it seemed to me a physical impossibility that a sporting branch of C. alpinus could grow to any size and be supported on the extremely delicate branches of C. purpureus. If I understand rightly your letter, you consider the tuft of small shoots on one side of the sporting C. alpinus from Weirleigh as C. purpureus; but these shoots are certainly those of C. Adami. I earnestly beg you to look at the specimens enclosed. The branch of the true C. purpureus is the largest which I could find. If C. Adami was sold to your brother as C. purpureus, everything is explained; for then the gardener has grafted C. Adami on C. alpinus, and the former has sported in the usual manner; but has not sported into C. purpureus, only into C. alpinus. C. Adami does not sport less frequently into C. purpureus than into C. alpinus. Are the purple flowers borne on moderately long racemes? If so, the plant is certainly C. Adami, for the true C. purpureus bears flowers close to the branches. I am very sorry to be so troublesome, but I am very anxious to hear again from you. C. purpureus bears "flowers axillary, solitary, stalked." P.S.--I think you said that the purple [tree] at Weirleigh does not seed, whereas the C. purpureus seeds freely, as you may see in enclosed. C. Adami never produces seeds or pods. LETTER 730. TO E. HACKEL. (730/1. The following extract refers to Darwin's book on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation.") November 13th, 1875. I am now busy in drawing up an account of ten years' experiments in the growth and fertility of plants raised from crossed and self-fertilised flowers. It is really wonderful what an effect pollen from a distinct seedling plant, which has been exposed to different conditions of life, has on the offspring in comparison with pollen from the same flower or from a distinct individual, but which has been long subjected to the same conditions. The subject bears on the very principle of life, which seems almost to require changes in the conditions. LETTER 731. TO G.J. ROMANES. (731/1. The following extract from a letter to Romanes refers to Francis Darwin's paper, "Experiments on the Nutrition of Drosera rotundifolia." "Linn. Soc. Journ." [1878], published 1880, page 17.) August 9th [1876]. The second point which delights me, seeing that half a score of botanists throughout Europe have published that the digestion of meat by plants is of no use to them (a mere pathological phenomenon, as one man says!), is that Frank has been feeding under exactly similar conditions a large number of plants of Drosera, and the effect is wonderful. On the fed side the leaves are much larger, differently coloured, and more numerous; flower-stalks taller and more numerous, and I believe far more seed capsules,--but these not yet counted. It is particularly interesting that the leaves fed on meat contain very many more starch granules (no doubt owing to more protoplasm being first formed); so that sections stained with iodine, of fed and unfed leaves, are to the naked eye of very different colours. There, I have boasted to my heart's content, and do you do the same, and tell me what you have been doing. LETTER 732. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 25th [1876]. If you can put the following request into any one's hands pray do so; but if not, ignore my request, as I know how busy you are. I want any and all plants of Hoya examined to see if any imperfect flowers like the one enclosed can be found, and if so to send them to me, per post, damp. But I especially want them as young as possible. They are very curious. I have examined some sent me from Abinger (732/1. Lord Farrer's house.), but they were a month or two too old, and every trace of pollen and anthers had disappeared or had never been developed. Yet a very fine pod with apparently good seed had been formed by one such flower. (732/2. The seeds did not germinate; see the account of Hoya carnosa in "Forms of Flowers," page 331.) LETTER 733. TO G.J. ROMANES. (733/1. Published in the "Life of Romanes," page 62.) Down, August 10th [1877]. When I went yesterday I had not received to-day's "Nature," and I thought that your lecture was finished. (733/2. Abstract of a lecture on "Evolution of Nerves and Nervo-Systems," delivered at the Royal Institution, May 25th, 1877. "Nature," July 19th, August 2nd, August 9th, 1877.) This final part is one of the grandest essays which I ever read. It was very foolish of me to demur to your lines of conveyance like the threads in muslin (733/3. "Nature," August 2nd, page 271.), knowing how you have considered the subject: but still I must confess I cannot feel quite easy. Everyone, I suppose, thinks on what he has himself seen, and with Drosera, a bit of meat put on any one gland on its disc causes all the surrounding tentacles to bend to this point, and here there can hardly be differentiated lines of conveyance. It seems to me that the tentacles probably bend to that point wherever a molecular wave strikes them, which passes through the cellular tissue with equal ease in all directions in this particular case. (733/4. Speaking generally, the transmission takes place more readily in the longitudinal direction than across the leaf: see "Insectivorous Plants," page 239.) But what a fine case that of the Aurelia is! (733/5. Aurelia aurita, one of the medusae. "Nature," pages 269-71.) LETTER 734. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. 6, Queen Anne Street [December 1876]. Tell Hooker I feel greatly aggrieved by him: I went to the Royal Society to see him for once in the chair of the Royal, to admire his dignity and enjoy it, and lo and behold, he was not there. My outing gave me much satisfaction, and I was particularly glad to see Mr. Bentham, and to see him looking so wonderfully well and young. I saw lots of people, and it has not done me a penny's worth of harm, though I could not get to sleep till nearly four o'clock. LETTER 735. TO D. OLIVER. Down, October, 13th [1876?]. You must be a clair-voyant or something of that kind to have sent me such useful plants. Twenty-five years ago I described in my father's garden two forms of Linum flavum (thinking it a case of mere variation); from that day to this I have several times looked, but never saw the second form till it arrived from Kew. Virtue is never its own reward: I took paper this summer to write to you to ask you to send me flowers, [so] that I might beg plants of this Linum, if you had the other form, and refrained, from not wishing to trouble you. But I am now sorry I did, for I have hardly any doubt that L. flavum never seeds in any garden that I have seen, because one form alone is cultivated by slips. (735/1. Id est, because, the plant being grown from slips, one form alone usually occurs in any one garden. It is also arguable that it is grown by slips because only one form is common, and therefore seedlings cannot be raised.) (736/1. The following five letters refer to Darwin's work on "bloom"--a subject on which he did not live to complete his researches:-- One of his earliest letters on this subject was addressed in August, 1873, to Sir Joseph Hooker (736/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 339.): "I want a little information from you, and if you do not yourself know, please to enquire of some of the wise men of Kew. "Why are the leaves and fruit of so many plants protected by a thin layer of waxy matter (like the common cabbage), or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed in water they appear as if encased in thin glass? It is really a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry, into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the under surface and not on the upper. "How can water injure the leaves, if indeed this is at all the case?" On this latter point Darwin wrote to the late Lord Farrer: "I am now become mad about drops of water injuring leaves. Please ask Mr. Payne (736/3. Lord Farrer's gardener.) whether he believes, FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses; if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hothouse orchids I was cautioned not to wet their leaves; but I never then thought on the subject." The next letter, though of later date than some which follow it, is printed here because it briefly sums his results and serves as guide to the letters dealing with the subject.) LETTER 736. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. (736/4. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 341.) Down, September 5th [1877]. One word to thank you. I declare, had it not been for your kindness, we should have broken down. As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with SOME sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt water, and, I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves. This latter is as yet the most doubtful and the most interesting point in relation to the movements of plants. (736/5. Modern research, especially that of Stahl on transpiration ("Bot. Zeitung," 1897, page 71) has shown that the question is more complex than it appeared in 1877. Stahl's point of view is that moisture remaining on a leaf checks the transpiration-current; and by thus diminishing the flow of mineral nutriment interferes with the process of assimilation. Stahl's idea is doubtless applicable to the whole problem of bloom on leaves. For other references to bloom see letters 685, 689 and 693.) LETTER 737. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 19th, 1873. The next time you walk round the garden ask Mr. Smith (737/1. Probably John Smith (1798-1888), for some years Curator, Royal Gardens, Kew.), or any of your best men, what they think about injury from watering during sunshine. One of your men--viz., Mr. Payne, at Abinger, who seems very acute--declares that you may water safely any plant out of doors in sunshine, and that you may do the same for plants under glass if the sashes are opened. This seems to me very odd, but he seems positive on the point, and acts on it in raising splendid grapes. Another good gardener maintains that it is only COLD water dripping often on the same point of a leaf that ever injures it. I am utterly perplexed, but interested on the point. Give me what you learn when you come to Down. I should like to hear what plants are believed to be most injured by being watered in sunshine, so that I might get such. I expect that I shall be utterly beaten, as on so many other points; but I intend to make a few experiments and observations. I have already convinced myself that drops of water do NOT act as burning lenses. LETTER 738. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 20th [1873]. I find that it is no use going on with my experiments on the evil effects of water on bloom-divested leaves. Either I erred in the early autumn or summer in some incomprehensible manner, or, as I suspect to be the case, water is only injurious to leaves when there is a good supply of actinic rays. I cannot believe that I am all in the wrong about the movements of the leaves to shoot off water. The upshot of all this is that I want to keep all the plants from Kew until the spring or early summer, as it is mere waste of time going on at present. LETTER 739. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, July 22nd [1877]. Many thanks for seeds of the Malva and information about Averrhoa, which I perceived was sensitive, as A. carambola is said to be; and about Mimosa sensitiva. The log-wood [Haematoxylon] has interested me much. The wax is very easily removed, especially from the older leaves, and I found after squirting on the leaves with water at 95 deg, all the older leaves became coated, after forty-eight hours, in an astonishing manner with a black Uredo, so that they looked as if sprinkled with soot and water. But not one of the younger leaves was affected. This has set me to work to see whether the "bloom" is not a protection against parasites. As soon as I have ascertained a little more about the case (and generally I am quite wrong at first) I will ask whether I could have a very small plant, which should never be syringed with water above 60 deg, and then I suspect the leaves would not be spotted, as were the older ones on the plant, when it arrived from Kew, but nothing like what they were after my squirting. In an old note of yours (which I have just found) you say that you have a sensitive Schrankia: could this be lent me? I have had lent me a young Coral-tree (Erythrina), which is very sickly, yet shows odd sleep movements. I suppose I could buy one, but Hooker told me first to ask you for anything. Lastly, have you any seaside plants with bloom? I find that drops of sea-water corrode sea-kale if bloom is removed; also the var. littorum of Triticum repens. (By the way, my plants of the latter, grown in pots here, are now throwing up long flexible green blades, and it is very odd to see, ON THE SAME CULM, the rigid grey bloom-covered blades and the green flexible ones.) Cabbages, ill-luck to them, do not seem to be hurt by salt water. Hooker formerly told me that Salsola kali, a var. of Salicornia, one species of Suaeda, Euphorbia peplis, Lathyrus maritimus, Eryngium maritimum, were all glaucous and seaside plants. It is very improbable that you have any of these or of foreigners with the same attributes. God forgive me: I hope that I have not bored you greatly. By all the rules of right the leaves of the logwood ought to move (as if partially going to sleep) when syringed with tepid water. The leaves of my little plant do not move at all, and it occurs to me as possible, though very improbable, that it would be different with a larger plant with perhaps larger leaves. Would you some day get a gardener to syringe violently, with water kept in a hothouse, a branch on one of your largest logwood plants and observe [whether?] leaves move together towards the apex of leaf? By the way, what astonishing nonsense Mr. Andrew Murray has been writing about leaves and carbonic acid! I like to see a man behaving consistently... What a lot I have scribbled to you! (FIGURE 13. Leaf of Trifolium resupinatum (from a drawing by Miss Pertz).) LETTER 740. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. [August, 1877.] There is no end to my requests. Can you spare me a good plant (or even two) of Oxalis sensitiva? The one which I have (formerly from Kew) has been so maltreated that I dare not trust my results any longer. Please give the enclosed to Mr. Lynch. (740/1. Mr. Lynch, now Curator of the Cambridge Botanic Garden, was at this time in the R. Bot. Garden, Kew. Mr. Lynch described the movements of Averrhoa bilimbi in the "Linn. Soc. Journ," Volume XVI., page 231. See also "The Power of Movement in Plants," page 330.) The spontaneous movements of the Averrhoa are very curious. You sent me seeds of Trifolium resupinatum, and I have raised plants, and some former observations which I did not dare to trust have proved accurate. It is a very little fact, but curious. The half of the lateral leaflets (marked by a cross) on the lower side have no bloom and are wetted, whereas the other half has bloom and is not wetted, so that the two sides look different to the naked eye. The cells of the eipdermis appear of a different shape and size on the two sides of the leaf [Figure 13]. When we have drawings and measurements of cells made, and are sure of our facts, I shall ask you whether you know of any case of the same leaf differing histologically on the two sides, for Hooker always says you are a wonderful man for knowing what has been made out. (740/2. The biological meaning of the curious structure of the leaves of Trifolium resupinatum remains a riddle. The stomata and (speaking from memory) the trichomes differ on the two halves of the lateral leaflets.) LETTER 741. TO L. ERRERA. (741/1. Professor L. Errera, of Brussels wrote, as a student, to Darwin, asking permission to send the MS. of an essay by his friend S. Gevaert and himself on cross and self-fertilisation, and which was afterwards published in the "Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg." XVII., 1878. The terms xenogamy, geitonogamy, and autogamy were first suggested by Kerner in 1876; their definition will be found at page 9 of Ogle's translation of Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests," 1878. In xenogamy the pollen comes from another PLANT; in geitonogamy from another FLOWER on the same PLANT; in autogamy from the androecium of the fertilised FLOWER. Allogamy embraces xenogamy and geitonogamy.) Down, October 4th, 1877. I have now read your MS. The whole has interested me greatly, and is very clearly written. I wish that I had used some such terms as autogamy, xenogamy, etc...I entirely agree with you on the a priori probability of geitonogamy being more advantageous than autogamy; and I cannot remember having ever expressed a belief that autogamy, as a general rule, was better than geitonogamy; but the cases recorded by me seem too strong not to make me suspect that there was some unknown advantage in autogamy. In one place I insert the caution "if this be really the case," which you quote. (741/2. See "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," pages 352, 386. The phrase referred to occurs in both passages; that on page 386 is as follows: "We have also seen reason to suspect that self-fertilisation is in some peculiar manner beneficial to certain plants; but if this be really the case, the benefit thus derived is far more than counterbalanced by a cross with a fresh stock or with a slightly different variety." Errera and Gevaert conclude (pages 79-80) that the balance of the available evidence is in favour of the belief that geitonogamy is intermediate, in effectiveness, between autogamy and xenogamy.) I shall be very glad to be proved to be altogether in error on this point. Accept my thanks for pointing out the bad erratum at page 301. I hope that you will experimentise on inconspicuous flowers (741/3. See Miss Bateson, "Annals of Botany," 1888, page 255, "On the Cross-Fertilisation of Inconspicuous Flowers:" Miss Bateson showed that Senecio vulgaris clearly profits by cross-fertilisation; Stellaria media and Capsella bursa-pastoris less certainly.); if I were not too old and too much occupied I would do so myself. Finally let me thank you for the kind manner in which you refer to my work, and with cordial good wishes for your success... LETTER 742. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, October 9th, 1877. One line to thank you much about Mertensia. The former plant has begun to make new leaves, to my great surprise, so that I shall be now well supplied. We have worked so well with the Averrhoa that unless the second species arrives in a very good state it would be superfluous to send it. I am heartily glad that you and Mrs. Dyer are going to have a holiday. I will look at you as a dead man for the next month, and nothing shall tempt me to trouble you. But before you enter your grave aid me if you can. I want seeds of three or four plants (not Leguminosae or Cruciferae) which produce large cotyledons. I know not in the least what plants have large cotyledons. Why I want to know is as follows: The cotyledons of Cassia go to sleep, and are sensitive to a touch; but what has surprised me much is that they are in constant movement up and down. So it is with the cotyledons of the cabbage, and therefore I am very curious to ascertain how far this is general. LETTER 743. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, October 11th [1877]. The fine lot of seeds arrived yesterday, and are all sown, and will be most useful. If you remember, pray thank Mr. Lynch for his aid. I had not thought of beech or sycamore, but they are now sown. Perhaps you may like to see a rough copy of the tracing of movements of one of the cotyledons of red cabbage, and you can throw it into the fire. A line joining the two cotyledons stood facing a north-east window, and the day was uniformly cloudy. A bristle was gummed to one cotyledon, and beyond it a triangular bit of card was fixed, and in front a vertical glass. A dot was made in the glass every quarter or half hour at the point where the end of the bristle and the apex of card coincided, and the dots were joined by straight lines. The observations were from 10 a.m. to 8.45 p.m. During this time the enclosed figure was described; but between 4 p.m. and 5.38 p.m. the cotyledon moved so that the prolonged line was beyond the limits of the glass, and the course is here shown by an imaginary dotted line. The cotyledon of Primula sinensis moved in closely analogous manner, as do those of a Cassia. Hence I expect to find such movements very general with cotyledons, and I am inclined to look at them as the foundation for all the other adaptive movements of leaves. They certainly are of the so-called sleep of plants. I hope I have not bothered you. Do not answer. I am all on fire at the work. I have had a short and very prosperous note from Asa Gray, who says Hooker is very prosperous, and both are tremendously hard at work. (743/1. "Hooker is coming over, and we are going in summer to the Rocky Mountains together, according to an old promise of mine." Asa Gray to G.F. Wright, May 24th, 1877 ("Letters of Asa Gray," II., page 666).) LETTER 744. TO H. MULLER. Down, January 1st [1878?]. I must write two or three lines to thank you cordially for your very handsome and very interesting review of my last book in "Kosmos," which I have this minute finished. (744/1. "Forms of Flowers," 1877. H. Muller's article is in "Kosmos," II., page 286.) It is wonderful how you have picked out everything important in it. I am especially glad that you have called attention to the parallelism between illegitimate offspring of heterostyled plants and hybrids. Your previous article in "Kosmos" seemed to me very important, but for some unknown reason the german was very difficult, and I was sadly overworked at the time, so that I could not understand a good deal of it. (744/2. "Kosmos," II., pages 11, 128. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 308.) But I have put it on one side, and when I have to prepare a new edition of my book I must make it out. It seems that you attribute such cases as that of the dioecious Rhamnus and your own of Valeriana to the existence of two forms with larger and smaller flowers. I cannot follow the steps by which such plants have been rendered dioecious, but when I read your article with more care I hope I shall understand. (744/3. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., pages 9 and 304. H. Muller's view is briefly that conspicuous and less conspicuous varieties occurred, and that the former were habitually visited first by insects; thus the less conspicuous form would play the part of females and their pollen would tend to become superfluous. See H. Muller in "Kosmos," II.) If you have succeeded in explaining this class of cases I shall heartily rejoice, for they utterly perplexed me, and I could not conjecture what their meaning was. It is a grievous evil to have no faculty for new languages. With the most sincere respect and hearty good wishes to you and all your family for the new year... P.S.--What interesting papers your wonderful brother has lately been writing! LETTER 745. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. (745/1. This letter refers to the purchase of instruments for the Jodrell Laboratory in the Royal Gardens, Kew. "The Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, commonly spoken of as the Devonshire Commission, in its fourth Report (1874), page 10, expressed the opinion that 'it is highly desirable that opportunities for the pursuit of investigations in Physiological Botany should be afforded at Kew to those persons who may be inclined to follow that branch of science.' Effect was given to this recommendation by the liberality of the late T.J. Phillips-Jodrell, M.A., who built and equipped the small laboratory, which has since borne his name, at his own expense. It was completed and immediately brought into use in 1876." The above is taken from the "Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information," R. Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1901, page 102, which also gives a list of work carried out in the laboratory between 1876 and 1900.) Down, March 14th, 1878. I have a very strong opinion that it would be the greatest possible pity if the Phys[iological] Lab., now that it has been built, were not supplied with as many good instruments as your funds can possibly afford. It is quite possible that some of them may become antiquated before they are much or even at all used. But this does not seem to me any argument at all against getting them, for the Laboratory cannot be used until well provided; and the mere fact of the instruments being ready may suggest to some one to use them. You at Kew, as guardians and promoters of botanical science, will then have done all in your power, and if your Lab. is not used the disgrace will lie at the feet of the public. But until bitter experience proves the contrary I will never believe that we are so backward. I should think the German laboratories would be very good guides as to what to get; but Timiriazeff of Moscow, who travelled over Europe to see all Bot. Labs., and who seemed so good a fellow, would, I should think, give the best list of the most indispensable instruments. Lately I thought of getting Frank or Horace to go to Cambridge for the use of the heliostat there; but our observations turned out of less importance than I thought, yet if there had been one at Kew we should probably have used it, and might have found out something curious. It is impossible for me to predict whether or not we should ever want this or that instrument, for we are guided in our work by what turns up. Thus I am now observing something about geotropism, and I had no idea a few weeks ago that this would have been necessary. In a short time we might earnestly wish for a centrifugal apparatus or a heliostat. In all such cases it would make a great difference if a man knew that he could use a particular instrument without great loss of time. I have now given my opinion, which is very decided, whether right or wrong, and Frank quite agrees with me. You can, of course, show this letter to Hooker. LETTER 746. TO F. LUDWIG. Down, May 29th, 1878. I thank you sincerely for the trouble which you have taken in sending me so long and interesting a letter, together with the specimens. Gradations are always very valuable, and you have been remarkably successful in discovering the stages by which the Plantago has become gyno-dioecious. (746/1. See F. Ludwig, "Zeitsch. f. d. Geo. Naturwiss." Bd. LII., 1879. Professor Ludwig's observations are quoted in the preface to "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page ix.) Your view of its origin, from being proterogynous, seems to me very probable, especially as the females are generally the later-flowering plants. If you can prove the reverse case with Thymus your view will manifestly be rendered still more probable. I have never felt satisfied with H. Muller's view, though he is so careful and admirable an observer. (746/2. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 308. Also letter 744.) It is more than seventeen years since I attended to Plantago, and when nothing had been published on the subject, and in consequence I omitted to attend to several points; and now, after so long an interval, I cannot pretend to say to which of your forms the English one belongs; I well remember that the anther of the females contained a good deal [of] pollen, though not one sound grain. P.S.--Delpino is Professor of Botany in Genoa, Italy (746/3. Now at Naples.); I have always found him a most obliging correspondent. LETTER 747. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, August 24th [1878]. Many thanks for seeds of Trifolium resupinatum, which are invaluable to us. I enclose seeds of a Cassia, from Fritz Muller, and they are well worth your cultivation; for he says they come from a unique, large and beautiful tree in the interior, and though looking out for years, he has never seen another specimen. One of the most splendid, largest and rarest butterflies in S. Brazil, he has never seen except near this one tree, and he has just discovered that its caterpillars feed on its leaves. I have just been looking at fine young pods beneath the ground of Arachis. (747/1. Arachis hypogoea, cultivated for its "ground nuts.") I suppose that the pods are not withdrawn when ripe from the ground; but should this be the case kindly inform me; if I do not hear I shall understand that [the] pods ripen and are left permanently beneath the ground. If you ever come across heliotropic or apheliotropic aerial roots on a plant not valuable (but which should be returned), I should like to observe them. Bignonia capreolata, with its strongly apheliotropic tendrils (which I had from Kew), is now interesting me greatly. Veitch tells me it is not on sale in any London nursery, as I applied to him for some additional plants. So much for business. I have received from the Geographical Soc. your lecture, and read it with great interest. (747/2. "On Plant-Distribution as a field for Geographical Research." "Geog. Soc. Proc." XXII., 1878, page 412.) But it ought not merely to be read; it requires study. The sole criticism which I have to make is that parts are too much condensed: but, good Lord, how rare a fault is this! You do not quote Saporta, I think; and some of his work on the Tertiary plants would have been useful to you. In a former note you spoke contemptuously of your lecture: all I can say is that I never heard any one speak more unjustly and shamefully of another than you have done of yourself! LETTER 748. TO H. MULLER. Down, September 20th, 1878. I am working away on some points in vegetable physiology, but though they interest me and my son, yet they have none of the fascination which the fertilisation of flowers possesses. Nothing in my life has ever interested me more than the fertilisation of such plants as Primula and Lythrum, or again Anacamptis (748/1. Orchis pyramidalis.) or Listera. LETTER 749. TO H. MULLER. Down, February 12th [1879]. I have just heard that some misfortune has befallen you, and that you have been treated shamefully. (749/1. Hermann Muller was accused by the Ultramontane party of introducing into his school-teaching crude hypotheses ("unreife Hypothesen"), which were assumed to have a harmful influence upon the religious sentiments of his pupils. Attempts were made to bring about Muller's dismissal, but the active hostility of his opponents, which he met in a dignified spirit, proved futile. ("Prof. Dr. Hermann Muller von Lippstadt. Ein Gedenkblatt," von Ernst Krause. "Kosmos," VII., page 393, 1883.)) I grieve deeply to hear this, and as soon as you can find a few minutes to spare, I earnestly beg you to let me hear what has happened. LETTER 750. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. (750/1. The following letters refer to two forms of wheat cultivated in Russia under the names Kubanka and Saxonka, which had been sent to Mr. Darwin by Dr. Asher from Samara, and were placed in the hands of Mr. Wilson that he might test the belief prevalent in Russia that Kubanka "grown repeatedly on inferior soil," assumes "the form of Saxonka." Mr. Wilson's paper of 1880 gives the results of his inquiry. He concludes (basing his views partly on analogous cases and partly on his study of the Russian wheats) that the supposed transformation is explicable in chief part by the greater fertility of the Saxonka wheat leading to extermination of the other form. According to Mr. Wilson, therefore, the Saxonka survivors are incorrectly assumed to be the result of the conversion of one form into the other.) Down, April 24th, 1878. I send you herewith some specimens which may perhaps interest you, as you have so carefully studied the varieties of wheat. Anyhow, they are of no use to me, as I have neither knowledge nor time sufficient. They were sent me by the Governor of the Province of Samara, in Russia, at the request of Dr. Asher (son of the great Berlin publisher) who farmed for some years in the province. The specimen marked Kubanka is a very valuable kind, but which keeps true only when cultivated in fresh steppe-land in Samara, and in Saratoff. After two years it degenerates into the variety Saxonica, or its synonym Ghirca. The latter alone is imported into this country. Dr. Asher says that it is universally known, and he has himself witnessed the fact, that if grain of the Kubanka is sown in the same steppe-land for more than two years it changes into Saxonica. He has seen a field with parts still Kubanka and the remainder Saxonica. On this account the Government, in letting steppe-land, contracts that after two years wheat must not be sown until an interval of eight years. The ears of the two kinds appear different, as you will see, but the chief difference is in the quality of the grains. Dr. Asher has witnessed sales of equal weights of Kubanka and Saxonica grain, and the price of the former was to that of the latter as 7 to 4. The peasants say that the change commences in the terminal grain of the ear. The most remarkable point, as Dr. Asher positively asserts, is that there are no intermediate varieties; but that a grain produces a plant yielding either true Kubanka or true Saxonica. He thinks that it would be interesting to sow here both kinds in good and bad wheat soil and observe the result. Should you think it worth while to make any such trial, and should you require further information, Dr. Asher, whose address I enclose, will be happy to give any in his power. LETTER 751. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Basset, Southampton, April 29th [1878]. Your kind note and specimens have been forwarded to me here, where I am staying at my son's house for a fortnight's complete rest, which I required from rather too hard work. For this reason I will not now examine the seeds, but will wait till returning home, when, with my son Francis' aid, I will look to them. I always felt, though without any good reason, rather sceptical about Prof. Buckman's experiment, and I afterwards heard that a most wicked and cruel trick had been played on him by some of the agricultural students at Cirencester, who had sown seeds unknown to him in his experimental beds. Whether he ever knew this I did not hear. I am exceedingly glad that you are willing to look into the Russian wheat case. It may turn out a mare's nest, but I have often incidentally observed curious facts when making what I call "a fool's experiment." LETTER 752. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Down, March 5th, 1879. I have just returned home after an absence of a week, and your letter was not forwarded to me; I mention this to account for my apparent discourtesy in not having sooner thanked you. You have worked out the subject with admirable care and clearness, and your drawings are beautiful. I suspected that there was some error in the Russian belief, but I did not think of the explanation which you have almost proved to be the true one. It is an extremely interesting instance of a more fertile variety beating out a less fertile one, and, in this case, one much more valuable to man. With respect to publication, I am at a loss to advise you, for I live a secluded life and do not see many periodicals, or hear what is done at the various societies. It seems to me that your paper should be published in some agricultural journal; for it is not simply scientific, and would therefore not be published by the Linnean or Royal Societies. Would the Royal Agricultural Society be a fitting place? Unfortunately I am not a member, and could not myself present it. Unless you think of some better journal, there is the "Agricultural Gazette": I have occasionally suggested articles for publication to the editor (though personally unknown to me) which he has always accepted. Permit me again to thank you for the thorough manner in which you have worked out this case; to kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing a new truth or fact. LETTER 753. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Down, February 13th, 1880. It was very kind of you to send me two numbers of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" with your two articles, which I have read with much interest. (753/1. "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1879, page 652; 1880, pages 108, 173.) You have quite convinced me, whatever Mr. Asher may say to the contrary. I want to ask you a question, on the bare chance of your being able to answer it, but if you cannot, please do not take the trouble to write. The lateral branches of the silver fir often grow out into knobs through the action of a fungus, Aecidium; and from these knobs shoots grow vertically (753/2. The well-known "Witches-Brooms," or "Hexen-Besen," produced by the fungus Aecidium elatinum.) instead of horizontally, like all the other twigs on the same branch. Now the roots of Cruciferae and probably other plants are said to become knobbed through the action of a fungus: now, do these knobs give rise to rootlets? and, if so, do they grow in a new or abnormal direction? (753/3. The parasite is probably Plasmodiophora: in this case no abnormal rootlets have been observed, as far as we know.) LETTER 754. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, June 18th, 1879. The plants arrived last night in first-rate order, and it was very very good of you to take so much trouble as to hunt them up yourself. They seem exactly what I wanted, and if I fail it will not be for want of perfect materials. But a confounded painter (I beg his pardon) comes here to-night, and for the next two days I shall be half dead with sitting to him; but after then I will begin to work at the plants and see what I can do, and very curious I am about the results. I have to thank you for two very interesting letters. I am delighted to hear, and with surprise, that you care about old Erasmus D. God only knows what I shall make of his life--it is such new kind of work to me. (754/1. "Erasmus Darwin." By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas: with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. London, 1879. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 218-20.) Thanks for case of sleeping Crotalaria--new to me. I quite agree to every word you say about Ball's lecture (754/2. "On the Origin of the Flora of the European Alps," "Geogr. Soc. Proc." Volume I., 1879, page 564. See Letter 395, Volume II.)--it is, as you say, like Sir W. Thomson's meteorite. (754/3. In 1871 Lord Kelvin (Presidential Address Brit. Assoc.) suggested that meteorites, "the moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world," might have introduced life to our planet.) It is really a pity; it is enough to make Geographical Distribution ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Frank will be interested about the Auriculas; I never attended to this plant, for the powder did [not] seem to me like true "bloom." (754/4. See Francis Darwin, on the relation between "bloom" on leaves and the distribution of the stomata. "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume XXII., page 114.) This subject, however, for the present only, has gone to the dogs with me. I am sorry to hear of such a struggle for existence at Kew; but I have often wondered how it is that you are all not killed outright. I can most fully sympathise with you in your admiration of your little girl. There is nothing so charming in this world, and we all in this house humbly adore our grandchild, and think his little pimple of a nose quite beautiful. LETTER 755. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, February 16th, 1880. I have had real pleasure in signing Dyer's certificate. (755/1. As a candidate for the Royal Society.) It was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchideae, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the least use to you about the nature of the parts. They are wonderful creatures, these orchids, and I sometimes think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember making out some little point in their method of fertilisation. (755/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 288.) With respect to terms, no doubt you will be able to improve them greatly, for I knew nothing about the terms as used in other groups of plants. Could you not invent some quite new term for gland, implying viscidity? or append some word to gland. I used for cirripedes "cement gland." Your present work must be frightfully difficult. I looked at a few dried flowers, and could make neither heads nor tails of them; and I well remember wondering what you would do with them when you came to the group in the "Genera Plantarum." I heartily wish you safe through your work,... LETTER 756. TO F.M. BALFOUR. Down, September 4th, 1880. I hope that you will not think me a great bore, but I have this minute finished reading your address at the British Association; and it has interested me so much that I cannot resist thanking you heartily for the pleasure derived from it, not to mention the honour which you have done me. (756/1. Presidential address delivered by Prof. F.M. Balfour before the Biological Section at the British Association meeting at Swansea (1880).) The recent progress of embryology is indeed splendid. I have been very stupid not to have hitherto read your book, but I have had of late no spare time; I have now ordered it, and your address will make it the more interesting to read, though I fear that my want of knowledge will make parts unintelligible to me. (756/2. "A Treatise on Comparative Embryology," 2 volumes. London, 1880.) In my recent work on plants I have been astonished to find to how many very different stimuli the same small part--viz., the tip of the radicle--is sensitive, and has the power of transmitting some influence to the adjoining part of the radicle, exciting it to bend to or from the source of irritation according to the needs of the plant (756/3. See Letter 757.); and all this takes place without any nervous system! I think that such facts should be kept in mind when speculating on the genesis of the nervous system. I always feel a malicious pleasure when a priori conclusions are knocked on the head: and therefore I felt somewhat like a devil when I read your remarks on Herbert Spencer (756/4. Prof. Balfour discussed Mr. Herbert Spencer's views on the genesis of the nervous system, and expressed the opinion that his hypothesis was not borne out by recent discoveries. "The discovery that nerves have been developed from processes of epithelial cells gives a very different conception of their genesis to that of Herbert Spencer, which makes them originate from the passage of nervous impulses through a track of mingled colloids..." (loc. cit., page 644.))...Our recent visit to Cambridge was a brilliant success to us all, and will ever be remembered by me with much pleasure. LETTER 757. TO JAMES PAGET. (757/1. During the closing years of his life, Darwin began to experimentise on the possibility of producing galls artificially. A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 3rd, 1880) shows the interest which he felt in the question:-- "I was delighted with Paget's essay (757/2. An address on "Elemental Pathology," delivered before the British Medical Association, August 1880, and published in the Journal of the Association.); I hear that he has occasionally attended to this subject from his youth...I am very glad he has called attention to galls: this has always seemed to me a profoundly interesting subject; and if I had been younger would take it up." His interest in this subject was connected with his ever-present wish to learn something of the causes of variation. He imagined to himself wonderful galls caused to appear on the ovaries of plants, and by these means he thought it possible that the seed might be influenced, and thus new varieties arise. (757/3. There would have been great difficulties about this line of research, for when the sexual organs of plants are deformed by parasites (in the way he hoped to effect by poisons) sterility almost always results. See Molliard's "Les Cecidies Florales," "Ann. Sci. Nat." 1895, Volume I., page 228.) He made a considerable number of experiments by injecting various reagents into the tissues of leaves, and with some slight indications of success. (757/4. The above passage is reprinted, with alterations, from "Life and Letters," III., page 346.) The following letter to the late Sir James Paget refers to the same subject.) Down, November 14th, 1880. I am very much obliged for your essay, which has interested me greatly. What indomitable activity you have! It is a surprising thought that the diseases of plants should illustrate human pathology. I have the German "Encyclopaedia," and a few weeks ago told my son Francis that the article on the diseases of plants would be well worth his study; but I did not know it was written by Dr. Frank, for whom I entertain a high respect as a first-rate observer and experimentiser, though for some unknown reason he has been a good deal snubbed in Germany. I can give you one good case of regrowth in plants, recently often observed by me, though only externally, as I do not know enough of histology to follow out details. It is the tip of the radicle of a germinating common bean. The case is remarkable in some respects, for the tip is sensitive to various stimuli, and transmits an order, causing the upper part of the radicle to bend. When the tip (for a length of about 1 mm.) is cut transversely off, the radicle is not acted on by gravitation or other irritants, such as contact, etc., etc., but a new tip is regenerated in from two to four days, and then the radicle is again acted on by gravitation, and will bend to the centre of the earth. The tip of the radicle is a kind of brain to the whole growing part of the radicle! (757/5. We are indebted to Mr. Archer-Hind for the translation of the following passage from Plato ("Timaeus," 90A): "The reason is every man's guardian genius (daimon), and has its habitation in our brain; it is this that raises man (who is a plant, not of earth but of heaven) to an erect posture, suspending the head and root of us from the heavens, which are the birthplace of our soul, and keeping all the body upright." On the perceptions of plants, see "Nature," November 14th, 1901--a lecture delivered at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association by Francis Darwin. See also Bonitz, "Index Aristotelicus," S.V. phuton.) My observation will be published in about a week's time, and I would have sent you the book, but I do not suppose that there is anything else in the book which would interest you. I am delighted that you have drawn attention to galls. They have always seemed to me profoundly interesting. Many years ago I began (but failed for want of time, strength, and health, as on infinitely many other occasions) to experimentise on plants, by injecting into their tissues some alkaloids and the poison of wasps, to see if I could make anything like galls. If I remember rightly, in a few cases the tissues were thickened and hardened. I began these experiments because if by different poisons I could have affected slightly and differently the tissues of the same plant, I thought there would be no insuperable difficulty in the fittest poisons being developed by insects so as to produce galls adapted for them. Every character, as far as I can see, is apt to vary. Judging from one of your sentences you will smile at this. To any one believing in my pangenesis (if such a man exists) there does not seem to me any extreme difficulty in understanding why plants have such little power of regeneration; for there is reason to think that my imaginary gemmules have small power of passing from cell to cell. (757/6. On regeneration after injury, see Massart, "La Cicatrisation chez les Vegetaux," in Volume 57 (1898) of the "Memoires Couronnes," published by the Royal Academy of Belgium. An account of the literature is given by the author.) Forgive me for scribbling at such unreasonable length; but you are to blame for having interested me so much. P.S.--Perhaps you may remember that some two years ago you asked me to lunch with you, and proposed that I should offer myself again. Whenever I next come to London, I will do so, and thus have the pleasure of seeing you. LETTER 758. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. (758/1. "The Power of Movement in Plants" was published early in November, 1880. Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, in writing to thank Darwin for a copy of the book, had (November 20th) compared a structure in the seedling Welwitschia with the "peg" of Cucurbita (see "Power of Movement," page 102). Dyer wrote: "One peculiar feature in the germinating embryo is a lateral hypocotyledonary process, which eventually serves as an absorbent organ, by which the nutriment of the endosperm is conveyed to the seedling. Such a structure was quite new to me, and Bower and I were disposed to see in it a representative of the foot in Selaginella, when I saw the account of Flahault's 'peg.'" Flahault, it should be explained, was the discoverer of the curious peg in Cucurbita. Prof. Bower wrote a paper ("On the Germination and Histology of the seedling of Welwitschia mirabilis" in the "Quart. Journ. Microscop. Sci." XXI., 1881, page 15.) Down, November 28th [1880]. Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think too highly of our work--not but what this is very pleasant. I am deeply interested about Welwitschia. When at work on the pegs or projections I could not imagine how they were first developed, before they could have been of mere mechanical use. Now it seems possible that a circle between radicle and hypocotyl may be permeable to fluids, and thus have given rise to projections so as to expose larger surface. Could you test Welwitschia with permanganate of potassium: if, like my pegs, the lower surface would be coloured brown like radicle, and upper surface left white like hypocotyl. If such an idea as yours, of an absorbing organ, had ever crossed my mind, I would have tried many hypocotyls in weak citrate of ammonia, to see if it penetrated on line of junction more easily than elsewhere. I daresay the projection in Abronia and Mirabilis may be an absorbent organ. It was very good fun bothering the seeds of Cucurbita by planting them edgeways, as would never naturally occur, and then the peg could not act properly. Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of natural history. Indeed, you are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us. I have not seen the pamphlet, and shall be very glad to keep it. Frank, when he comes home, will be much interested and pleased with your letter. Pray give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Dyer. This is a very untidy note, but I am very tired with dissecting worms all day. Read the last chapter of our book, and then you will know the whole contents. LETTER 759. TO H. VOCHTING. Down, December 16th, 1880. Absence from home has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your kind present of your several publications. I procured some time ago your "Organbilding" (759/1. "Organbildung im Pflanzenreich," 1878.) etc., but it was too late for me to profit by it for my book, as I was correcting the press. I read only parts, but my son Francis read the whole with care and told me much about it, which greatly interested me. I also read your article in the "Bot. Zeitung." My son began at once experimenting, to test your views, and this very night will read a paper before the Linnean Society on the roots of Rubus (759/2. Francis Darwin, "The Theory of the Growth of Cuttings" ("Linn. Soc. Journ." XVIII.). [I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that at page 417, owing to neglect of part of Vochting's facts, I made a criticism of his argument which cannot be upheld.--F.D.].), and I think that you will be pleased to find how well his conclusions agree with yours. He will of course send you a copy of his paper when it is printed. I have sent him your letter, which will please him if he agrees with me; for your letter has given me real pleasure, and I did not at all know what the many great physiologists of Germany, Switzerland, and Holland would think of it ["The Power of Movement," etc.]. I was quite sorry to read Sachs' views about root-forming matter, etc., for I have an unbounded admiration for Sachs. In this country we are dreadfully behind in Physiological Botany. LETTER 760. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 24th, 1881. It was extremely kind of you to write me so long and valuable a letter, the whole of which deserves careful consideration. I have been particularly pleased at what you say about the new terms used, because I have often been annoyed at the multitude of new terms lately invented in all branches of Biology in Germany; and I doubted much whether I was not quite as great a sinner as those whom I have blamed. When I read your remarks on the word "purpose" in your "Phytographie," I vowed that I would not use it again; but it is not easy to cure oneself of a vicious habit. It is also difficult for any one who tries to make out the use of a structure to avoid the word purpose. I see that I have probably gone beyond my depth in discussing plurifoliate and unifoliate leaves; but in such a case as that of Mimosa albida, where rudiments of additional leaflets are present, we must believe that they were well developed in the progenitor of the plant. So again, when the first true leaf differs widely in shape from the older leaves, and resembles the older leaves in allied species, is it not the most simple explanation that such leaves have retained their ancient character, as in the case of the embryos of so many animals? Your suggestion of examining the movements of vertical leaves with an equal number of stomata on both sides, with reference to the light, seems to me an excellent one, and I hope that my son Francis may follow it up. But I will not trouble you with any more remarks about our book. My son will write to you about the diagram. Let me add that I shall ever remember with pleasure your visit here last autumn. LETTER 761. TO J. LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Down, April 16th [1881]. Will you be so kind as to send and lend me the Desmodium gyrans by the bearer who brings this note. Shortly after you left I found my notice of the seeds in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," which please return hereafter, as I have no other copy. (761/1. "Note on the Achenia of Pumilio argyrolepis." "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1861, page 4.) I do not think that I made enough about the great power of absorption of water by the corolla-like calyx or pappus. It seems to me not unlikely that the pappus of other Compositae may be serviceable to the seeds, whilst lying on the ground, by absorbing the dew which would be especially apt to condense on the fine points and filaments of the pappus. Anyhow, this is a point which might be easily investigated. Seeds of Tussilago, or groundsel (761/2. It is not clear whether Tussilago or groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is meant; or whether he was not sure which of the two plants becomes slimy when wetted.), emit worm-like masses of mucus, and it would be curious to ascertain whether wetting the pappus alone would suffice to cause such secretion. (761/3. See Letter 707.) LETTER 762. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 18th, 1881. I am extremely glad of your success with the flashing light. (762/1. Romanes' paper on the effect of intermittent light on heliotropism was the "Proc. Royal Soc." Volume LIV., page 333.) If plants are acted on by light, like some of the lower animals, there is an additional point of interest, as it seems to me, in your results. Most botanists believe that light causes a plant to bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects nitrate of silver. I believe that it merely tells the plant to which side to bend, and I see indications of this belief prevailing even with Sachs. Now it might be expected that light would act on a plant in something the same manner as on the lower animals. As you are at work on this subject, I will call your attention to another point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who has lately published a great book on heliotropism) finds that an intermittent light, say of 20 minutes, produces the same effect as a continuous light of, say 60 m. (762/2. Wiesner's papers on heliotropism are in the "Denkschriften" of the Vienna Academy, Volumes 39 and 43.) So that Van Tieghem, in the first part of his book which has just appeared, remarks, the light during 40 m. out of the 60 m. produced no effect. I observed an analogous case described in my book. (762/3. "Power of Movement," page 459.) Wiesner and Van Tieghem seem to think that this is explained by calling the whole process "induction," borrowing a term used by some physico-chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is one) and implying an agency which does not produce any effect for some time, and continues its effect for some time after the cause has ceased. I believe that photographic paper is an instance. I must ask Leonard (762/4. Mr. Darwin's son.) whether an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner as on a plant. At present I must still believe in my explanation that it is the contrast between light and darkness which excites a plant. I have forgotten my main object in writing--viz., to say that I believe (and have so stated) that seedlings vary much in their sensitiveness to light; but I did not prove this, for there are many difficulties, whether the time of incipient curvature or the amount of curvature is taken as the criterion. Moreover they vary according to age, and perhaps from vigour of growth, and there seems inherent variability, as Strasburger (whom I quote) found with spores. If the curious anomaly observed by you is due to varying sensitiveness, ought not all the seedlings to bend if the flashes were at longer intervals of time? According to my notion of contrast between light and darkness being the stimulus, I should expect that if flashes were made sufficiently slow it would be a powerful stimulus, and that you would suddenly arrive at a period when the result would SUDDENLY become great. On the other hand, as far as my experience goes, what one expects rarely happens. LETTER 763. TO JULIUS WIESNER. Down, October 4th, 1881. I thank you sincerely for your very kind letter, and for the present of your new work. (763/1. "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanze," 1881. One of us has given some account of Wiesner's book in the presidential address to Section D of the British Association, 1891. Wiesner's divergence from Darwin's views is far-reaching, and includes the main thesis of the "Power of Movement." See "Life and Letters," III., page 336, for an interesting letter to Wiesner.) My son Francis, if he had been at home, would have likewise sent his thanks. I will immediately begin to read your book, and when I have finished it will write again. But I read german so very slowly that your book will take me a considerable time, for I cannot read for more than half an hour each day. I have, also, been working too hard lately, and with very little success, so that I am going to leave home for a time and try to forget science. I quite expect that you will find some gross errors in my work, for you are a very much more skilful and profound experimentalist than I am. Although I always am endeavouring to be cautious and to mistrust myself, yet I know well how apt I am to make blunders. Physiology, both animal and vegetable, is so difficult a subject, that it seems to me to progress chiefly by the elimination or correction of ever-recurring mistakes. I hope that you will not have upset my fundamental notion that various classes of movement result from the modification of a universally present movement of circumnutation. I am very glad that you will again discuss the view of the turgescence of the cells being the cause of the movement of parts. I adopted De Vries' views as seeming to me the most probable, but of late I have felt more doubts on this head. (763/2. See "Power of Movement," page 2. De Vries' work is published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1879, page 830.) LETTER 764. TO J.D. HOOKER. Glenrhydding House, Patterdale, Penrith, June 15th, 1881. It was real pleasure to me to see once again your well-known handwriting on the outside of your note. I do not know how long you have returned from Italy, but I am very sorry that you are so bothered already with work and visits. I cannot but think that you are too kind and civil to visitors, and too conscientious about your official work. But a man cannot cure his virtues, any more than his vices, after early youth; so you must bear your burthen. It is, however, a great misfortune for science that you have so very little spare time for the "Genera." I can well believe what an awful job the palms must be. Even their size must be very inconvenient. You and Bentham must hate the monocotyledons, for what work the Orchideae must have been, and Gramineae and Cyperaceae will be. I am rather despondent about myself, and my troubles are of an exactly opposite nature to yours, for idleness is downright misery to me, as I find here, as I cannot forget my discomfort for an hour. I have not the heart or strength at my age to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy; and I have no little jobs which I can do. So I must look forward to Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth. This place is magnificently beautiful, and I enjoy the scenery, though weary of it; and the weather has been very cold and almost always hazy. I am so glad that your tour has answered for Lady Hooker. We return home on the first week of July, and should be truly glad to aid Lady Hooker in any possible manner which she will suggest. I have written to my gardener to send you plants of Oxalis corniculata (and seeds if possible). I should think so common a weed was never asked for before,--and what a poor return for the hundreds of plants which I have received from Kew! I hope that I have not bothered you by writing so long a note, and I did not intend to do so. If Asa Gray has returned with you, please give him my kindest remembrances. LETTER 765. TO J.D. HOOKER. October 22nd, 1881. I am investigating the action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll, which makes me want the plants in my list. (765/1. "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll Bodies." "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIX., page 262, 1882.) I have incidentally observed one point in Euphorbia, which has astonished me--viz. that in the fine fibrous roots of Euphorbia, the alternate rows of cells in their roots must differ physiologically, though not in external appearance, as their contents after the action of carbonate of ammonia differ most conspicuously... Wiesner of Vienna has just published a book vivisecting me in the most courteous, but awful manner, about the "Power of Movement in Plants." (765/2. See Letter 763, note.) Thank heaven, he admits almost all my facts, after re-trying all my experiments; but gives widely different interpretation of the facts. I think he proves me wrong in several cases, but I am convinced that he is utterly erroneous and fanciful in other explanations. No man was ever vivisected in so sweet a manner before, as I am in this book. CHAPTER 2.XII. VIVISECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882. 2.XII.I. VIVISECTION, 1875-1882. LETTER 766. TO LORD PLAYFAIR. (766/1. A Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole and Ashley, in the spring of 1875, but was withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. Some account of the Anti-Vivisection agitation, the introduction of bills, and the appointment of a Royal Commission is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 201, where the more interesting of Darwin's letters on the question are published.) Down, May 26th, 1875. I hope that you will excuse my troubling you once again. I received some days ago a letter from Prof. Huxley, in Edinburgh, who says with respect to your Bill: "the professors here are all in arms about it, and as the papers have associated my name with the Bill, I shall have to repudiate it publicly, unless something can be done. But what in the world is to be done?" (766/2. The letter is published in full in Mr. L. Huxley's interesting chapter on the vivisection question in his father's "Life," I., page 438.) Dr. Burdon Sanderson is in nearly the same frame of mind about it. The newspapers take different views of the purport of the Bill, but it seems generally supposed that it would prevent demonstrations on animals rendered insensible, and this seems to me a monstrous provision. It would, moreover, probably defeat the end desired; for Dr. B. Sanderson, who demonstrates to his class on animals rendered insensible, told me that some of his students had declared to him that unless he had shown them what he had, they would have experimented on live animals for themselves. Certainly I do not believe that any one could thoroughly understand the action of the heart without having seen it in action. I do not doubt that you wish to aid the progress of Physiology, and at the same time save animals from all useless suffering; and in this case I believe that you could not do a greater service than to warn the Home Secretary with respect to the appointment of Royal Commissioners, that ordinary doctors know little or nothing about Physiology as a science, and are incompetent to judge of its high importance and of the probability of its hereafter conferring great benefits on mankind. LETTER 767. TO LORD PLAYFAIR. Down, May 28th. I must write one line to thank you for your very kind letter, and to say that, after despatching my last note, it suddenly occurred to me that I had been rude in calling one of the provisions of your Bill "monstrous" or "absurd"--I forget which. But when I wrote the expression it was addressed to the bigots who, I believed, had forced you to a compromise. I cannot understand what Dr. B. Sanderson could have been about not to have objected with respect to the clause of not demonstrating on animals rendered insensible. I am extremely sorry that you have had trouble and vexation on the subject. It is a most disagreeable and difficult one. I am not personally concerned, as I never tried an experiment on a living animal, nor am I a physiologist; but I know enough to see how ruinous it would be to stop all progress in so grand a science as Physiology. I commenced the agitation amongst the physiologists for this reason, and because I have long felt very keenly on the question of useless vivisection, and believed, though without any good evidence, that there was not always, even in this country, care enough taken. Pray forgive me this note, so much about myself... LETTER 768. TO G.J. ROMANES. (768/1. Published in "Life of Romanes," page 61, under 1876-77.) Down, June 4th [1876]. Your letter has made me as proud and conceited as ten peacocks. (768/2. This may perhaps refer to Darwin being elected the only honorary member of the Physiological Society, a fact that was announced in a letter from Romanes June 1st, 1876, published in the "Life" of Romanes, page 50. Dr. Sharpey was subsequently elected a second honorary member.) I am inclined to think that writing against the bigots about vivisection is as hopeless as stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has just come here, and who sputters with indignation on the subject, takes an opposite line, and perhaps he is right; anyhow, he had the best of an argument with me on the subject...It seems to me the physiologists are now in the position of a persecuted religious sect, and they must grin and bear the persecution, however cruel and unjust, as well as they can. LETTER 769. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON. (769/1. In November, 1881, an absolutely groundless charge was brought by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection against Dr. Ferrier for an infringement of the Vivisection Act. The experiment complained of was the removal of the brain of a monkey and the subsequent testing of the animal's powers of reacting to certain treatment. The fact that the operation had been performed six months before the case came into court would alone have been fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, it was not performed by Dr. Ferrier, but by another observer, who was licensed under the Act to keep the monkey alive after the operation, which was performed under anaesthetics. Thus the prosecution completely broke down, and the case was dismissed. (769/2. From the "British Medical Journal," November 19th, 1881. See also "Times," November 18th, 1881.) The sympathy with Dr. Ferrier in the purely scientific and medical world was very strong, and the British Medical Association undertook the defence. The prosecution did good in one respect, inasmuch as it led to the formation of the Science Defence Association, to which reference is made in some of Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Lauder Brunton. The Association still exists, and continues to do good work. Part of the following letter was published in the "British Medical Journal," December 3rd, 1881.) Down, November 19th, 1881. I saw in some paper that there would probably be a subscription to pay Dr. Ferrier's legal expenses in the late absurd and wicked prosecution. As I live so retired I might not hear of the subscription, and I should regret beyond measure not to have the pleasure and honour of showing my sympathy [with] and admiration of Dr. Ferrier's researches. I know that you are his friend, as I once met him at your house; so I earnestly beg you to let me hear if there is any means of subscribing, as I should much like to be an early subscriber. I am sure that you will forgive me for troubling you under these circumstances. P.S.--I finished reading a few days ago the several physiological and medical papers which you were so kind as to send me. (769/3. Some of Lauder Brunton's publications.) I was much interested by several of them, especially by that on night-sweating, and almost more by others on digestion. I have seldom been made to realise more vividly the wondrous complexity of our whole system. How any one of us keeps alive for a day is a marvel! LETTER 770. T. LAUDER BRUNTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 50, Welbeck Street, London, November 21st, 1881. I thank you most sincerely for your kind letter and your offer of assistance to Dr. Ferrier. There is at present no subscription list, as the British Medical Association have taken up the case, and ought to pay the expenses. Should these make such a call upon the funds of the Association as to interfere with its other objects, the whole or part of the expenses will be paid by those who have subscribed to a guarantee fund. To this fund there are already a number of subscribers, whose names are taken by Professor Gerald Yeo, one of the secretaries of the Physiological Society. They have not subscribed a definite sum, but have simply fixed a maximum which they will subscribe, if necessary, on the understanding that only so much as is required shall be asked from each subscriber in proportion to his subscription. It is proposed to send by-and-by a list of the most prominent members of this guarantee fund to the "Times" and other papers, and not only every scientific man, but every member of the medical profession, will rejoice to see your name in the list. Dr. Ferrier has been quite worn out by the worry of this prosecution, or, as it might well be called, persecution, and has gone down to Shanklin for a couple of days. He returns this afternoon, and I have sent on your letter to await his arrival, knowing as I do that it will be to him like cold water to a thirsty soul. LETTER 771. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON. Down, November 22nd, 1881. Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter... I write now to beg a favour. I do not in the least know what others have guaranteed in relation to Dr. Ferrier. (771/1. In a letter dated November 27th, 1881, Sir Lauder Brunton wrote in reply to Mr. Darwin's inquiry as to the amount of the subscriptions: "When I ascertain what they intend to give under the new conditions--viz., that the subscriptions are not to be applied to Ferrier's defence, but to the defence of others who may be attacked and to a diffusion of knowledge regarding the nature and purposes of vivisection, I will let you know...") Would twenty guineas be sufficient? If not, will you kindly take the trouble to have my name put down for thirty or forty guineas, as you may think best. If, on the other hand, no one else has guaranteed for as much as twenty guineas, will you put me down for ten or fifteen guineas, though I should like to give twenty best. You can understand that I do not wish to be conspicuous either by too little or too much; so I beg you to be so very kind as to act for me. I have a multitude of letters which I must answer, so excuse haste. LETTER 772. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON. (772/1. The following letter was written in reply to Sir T. Lauder Brunton's suggestion that Mr. Darwin should be proposed as President of the Science Defence Association.) 4, Bryanston Street, Portman Square, December 17th, 1881. I have been thinking a good deal about the suggestion which you made to me the other day, on the supposition that you could not get some man like the President of the College of Physicians to accept the office. My wife is strongly opposed to my accepting the office, as she feels sure that the anxiety thus caused would tell heavily on my health. But there is a much stronger objection suggested to me by one of my relations--namely, no man ought to allow himself to be placed at the head (though only nominally so) of an associated movement, unless he has the means of judging of the acts performed by the association, after hearing each point discussed. This occurred to me when you spoke to me, and I think that I said something to this effect. Anyhow, I have in several analogous cases acted on this principle. Take, for instance, any preliminary statement which the Association may publish. I might feel grave doubts about the wisdom or justice of some points, and this solely from my not having heard them discussed. I am therefore inclined to think that it would not be right in me to accept the nominal Presidency of your Association, and thus have to act blindly. As far as I can at present see, I fear that I must confine my assistance to subscribing as large a sum to the Association as any member gives. I am sorry to trouble you, but I have thought it best to tell you at once of the doubts which have arisen in my mind. LETTER 773. TO LAUDER BRUNTON. (773/1. Sir T. Lauder Brunton had written (February 12th) to Mr. Darwin explaining that two opinions were held as to the constitution of the proposed Science Defence Association: one that it should consist of a small number of representative men; the other that it should, if possible, embrace every medical practitioner in the country. Sir Lauder Brunton adds: "I should be very greatly obliged if you would kindly say what you think of the two schemes.") Down, February 14th, 1882. I am very much obliged for your information in regard to the Association, about which I feel a great interest. It seems to me highly desirable that the Association should include as many medical and scientific men as possible throughout the whole country, who could illumine those capable of illumination on the necessity of physiological research; but that the Association should be governed by a council of powerful men, not too many in number. Such a council, as representing a large body of medical men, would have more power in the eyes of vote-hunting politicians than a small body representing only themselves. From what I see of country practitioners, I think that their annual subscription ought to be very small. But would it not be possible to add to the rules some such statement as the following one: "That by a donation of... pounds, or of any larger sum, from those who feel a deep interest in the progress of medical science, the donor shall become a life member." I, for one, would gladly subscribe 50 or 100 pounds. If such a plan were approved by the leading medical men of London, two or three thousand pounds might at once be collected; and if any such sum could be announced as already subscribed, when the program of the Association is put forth, it would have, as I believe, a considerable influence on the country, and would attract the attention of country practitioners. The Anti-Corn Law League owed much of its enormous power to several wealthy men laying down 1,000 pounds; for the subscription of a good sum of money is the best proof of earnest conviction. You asked for my opinion on the above points, and I have given it freely, though well aware that from living so retired a life my judgment cannot be worth much. Have you read Mr. Gurney's articles in the "Fortnightly" and "Cornhill?" (773/2. "Fortnightly Review," XXX., page 778; "Cornhill Magazine," XLV., page 191. The articles are by the late Edmund Gurney, author of "The power of Sound," 1880.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely written; and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science. P.S.--That is a curious fact about babies. I remember hearing on good authority that very young babies when moved are apt to clutch hold of anything, and I thought of your explanation; but your case during sleep is a much more interesting one. Very many thanks for the book, which I much wanted to see; it shall be sent back to-day, as from you, to the Society. 2.XII.II. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882. LETTER 774. TO CANON FARRAR. (774/1. The lecture which forms the subject of this letter was one delivered by Canon Farrar at the Royal Institution, "On Some Defects in Public School Education.") Down, March 5th, 1867. I am very much obliged for your kind present of your lecture. We have read it aloud with the greatest interest, and I agree to every word. I admire your candour and wonderful freedom from prejudice; for I feel an inward conviction that if I had been a great classical scholar I should never have been able to have judged fairly on the subject. As it is, I am one of the root and branch men, and would leave classics to be learnt by those alone who have sufficient zeal and the high taste requisite for their appreciation. You have indeed done a great public service in speaking out so boldly. Scientific men might rail forever, and it would only be said that they railed at what they did not understand. I was at school at Shrewsbury under a great scholar, Dr. Butler; I learnt absolutely nothing, except by amusing myself by reading and experimenting in chemistry. Dr. Butler somehow found this out, and publicly sneered at me before the whole school for such gross waste of time; I remember he called me a Pococurante (774/2. Told in "Life and Letters," I., page 35.), which, not understanding, I thought was a dreadful name. I wish you had shown in your lecture how science could practically be taught in a great school; I have often heard it objected that this could not be done, and I never knew what to say in answer. I heartily hope that you may live to see your zeal and labour produce good fruit. LETTER 775. TO HERBERT SPENCER. Down, December 9th [1867]. I thank you very sincerely for your kind present of your "First Principles." (775/1. "This must have been the second edition." (Note by Mr. Spencer.)) I earnestly hope that before long I may have strength to study the work as it ought to be studied, for I am certain to find or re-find much that is deeply interesting. In many parts of your "Principles of Biology" I was fairly astonished at the prodigality of your original views. (775/2. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 55, 56.) Most of the chapters furnished suggestions for whole volumes of future researches. As I have heard that you have changed your residence, I am forced to address this to Messrs. Williams & Norgate; and for the same reason I gave some time ago the same address to Mr. Murray for a copy of my book on variation, etc., which is now finished, but delayed by the index-maker. LETTER 776. TO T.H. HUXLEY. (776/1. This letter refers to a movement set on foot at a meeting held at the Freemasons' Tavern, on November 16th, 1872, of which an account is given in the "Times" of November 23rd, 1872, at which Mark Pattison, Mr. Henry Sidgwick, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Professors Rolleston, Seeley, Huxley, etc., were present. The "Times" says that the meeting was held "by members of the Universities and others interested in the promotion of mature study and scientific research in England." One of the headings of the "Program of Discussion" was "The Abolition of Prize Fellowships.") Sevenoaks, October 22nd [1872]. I have been glad to sign and forward the paper, for I have very long thought it a sin that the immense funds of the Universities should be wasted in Fellowships, except a few for paying for education. But when I was at Cambridge it would have been an unjustifiable sneer to have spoken of the place as one for education, always excepting the men who went in for honours. You speak of another resolution "in the interest of the anti-letter-writing association"--but alas, this never arrived! I should like a society formed so that every one might receive pleasant letters and never answer them. We return home on Saturday, after three weeks of the most astounding dullness, doing nothing and thinking of nothing. I hope my Brain likes it--as for myself, it is dreadful doing nothing. (776/2. Darwin returned to Down from Sevenoaks on Saturday, October 26th, 1872, which fixes the date of the letter.) LETTER 777. TO LADY DERBY. Down, Saturday [1874?]. If you had called here after I had read the article you would have found a much perplexed man. (777/1. Probably Sir W. Crookes' "Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism" (reprinted from the "Quarterly Journal of Science"), London, 1874. Other papers by Crookes are in the "Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.") I cannot disbelieve Mr. Crooke's statement, nor can I believe in his result. It has removed some of my difficulty that the supposed power is not an anomaly, but is common in a lesser degree to various persons. It is also a consolation to reflect that gravity acts at any distance, in some wholly unknown manner, and so may nerve-force. Nothing is so difficult to decide as where to draw a just line between scepticism and credulity. It was a very long time before scientific men would believe in the fall of aerolites; and this was chiefly owing to so much bad evidence, as in the present case, being mixed up with the good. All sorts of objects were said to have been seen falling from the sky. I very much hope that a number of men, such as Professor Stokes, will be induced to witness Mr. Crooke's experiments. (778/1. The two following extracts may be given in further illustration of Darwin's guiding principle in weighing evidence. He wrote to Robert Chambers, April 30th, 1861: "Thanks also for extract out of newspaper about rooks and crows; I wish I dared trust it. I see in cutting the pages [of Chambers' book, "Ice and Water"]...that you fulminate against the scepticism of scientific men. You would not fulminate quite so much if you had had so many wild-goose chases after facts stated by men not trained to scientific accuracy. I often vow to myself that I will utterly disregard every statement made by any one who has not shown the world he can observe accurately." In a letter to Dr. Dohrn, of Naples, January 4th, 1870, Darwin wrote: "Forgive me for suggesting one caution; as Demosthenes said, 'Action, action, action,' was the soul of eloquence, so is caution almost the soul of science.") LETTER 778. TO J. BURDON SANDERSON. Down, July 16th, 1875. Some little time ago Mr. Simon (778/1. Now Sir John Simon) sent me the last Report, and your statements about contagion deeply interested me. By the way, if you see Mr. Simon, and can remember it, will you thank him for me; I was so busy at the time that I did not write. Having been in correspondence with Paget lately on another subject, I mentioned to him an analogy which has struck me much, now that we know that sheep-pox is fungoid; and this analogy pleased him. It is that of fairy rings, which are believed to spread from a centre, and when they intersect the intersecting portion dies out, as the mycelium cannot grow where it has grown during previous years. So, again, I have never seen a ring within a ring; this seems to me a parallel case to a man commonly having the smallpox only once. I imagine that in both cases the mycelium must consume all the matter on which it can subsist. LETTER 779. TO A. GAPITCHE. (779/1. The following letter was written to the author (under the pseudonym of Gapitche) of a pamphlet entitled "Quelques mots sur l'Eternite du Corps Humaine" (Nice, 1880). Mr. Gapitche's idea was that man might, by perfect adaptation to his surroundings, indefinitely prolong the duration of life. We owe Mr. Darwin's letter to the kindness of Herr Vetter, editor of the well-known journal "Kosmos.") Down, February 24th, 1880. I suppose that no one can prove that death is inevitable, but the evidence in favour of this belief is overwhelmingly strong from the evidence of all other living creatures. I do not believe that it is by any means invariably true that the higher organisms always live longer than the lower ones. Elephants, parrots, ravens, tortoises, and some fish live longer than man. As evolution depends on a long succession of generations, which implies death, it seems to me in the highest degree improbable that man should cease to follow the general law of evolution, and this would follow if he were to be immortal. This is all that I can say. LETTER 780. TO J. POPPER. (780/1. Mr. Popper had written about a proposed flying machine in which birds were to take a part.) Down, February 15th, 1881. I am sorry to say that I cannot give you the least aid, as I have never attended to any mechanical subjects. I should doubt whether it would be possible to train birds to fly in a certain direction in a body, though I am aware that they have been taught some tricks. Their mental powers are probably much below those of mammals. It is said, and I suppose truly, that an eagle will carry a lamb. This shows that a bird may have great power for a short distance. I cannot remember your essay with sufficient distinctness to make any remarks on it. When a man is old and works hard, one subject drives another out of his head. LETTER 781. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Worthing, September 9th, 1881. (781/1. Mr. Anthony Rich left his house at Worthing as a legacy to Mr. Huxley. See Huxley's "Life and Letters," II., pages 286, 287.) We have been paying Mr. Rich a little visit, and he has often spoken of you, and I think he enjoyed much your and Mrs. Huxley's visit here. But my object in writing now is to tell you something, which I am very doubtful whether it is worth while for you to hear, because it is uncertain. My brother Erasmus has left me half his fortune, which is very considerable. Therefore, I thought myself bound to tell Mr. Rich of this, stating the large amount, as far as the executors as yet know it roughly. I then added that my wife and self thought that, under these new circumstances, he was most fully justified in altering his will and leaving his property in some other way. I begged him to take a week to consider what I had told him, and then by letter to inform me of the result. But he would not, however, hardly allow me to finish what I had to say, and expressed a firm determination not to alter his will, adding that I had five sons to provide for. After a short pause he implied (but unfortunately he here became very confused and forgot a word, which on subsequent reflection I think was probably "reversionary")--he implied that there was a chance, whether good or bad I know not, of his becoming possessed of some other property, and he finished by saying distinctly, "I will bequeath this to Huxley." What the amount may be (I fear not large), and what the chance may be, God only knows; and one cannot cross-examine a man about his will. He did not bind me to secrecy, so I think I am justified in telling you what passed, but whether it is wise on my part to send so vague a story, I am not at all sure; but as a general rule it is best to tell everything. As I know that you hate writing letters, do not trouble yourself to answer this. P.S.--On further reflection I should like to hear that you receive this note safely. I have used up all my black-edged paper. LETTER 782. TO ANTHONY RICH. Down, February 4th, 1882. It is always a pleasure to me to receive a letter from you. I am very sorry to hear that you have been more troubled than usual with your old complaint. Any one who looked at you would think that you had passed through life with few evils, and yet you have had an unusual amount of suffering. As a turnkey remarked in one of Dickens' novels, "Life is a rum thing." (782/1. This we take to be an incorrect version of Mr. Roker's remark (in reference to Tom Martin, the Butcher), "What a rum thing Time is, ain't it, Neddy?" ("Pickwick," Chapter XLII.). A careful student finds that women are also apostrophised as "rum": see the remarks of the dirty-faced man ("Pickwick," Chapter XIV.).) As for myself, I have been better than usual until about a fortnight ago, when I had a cough, and this pulled me down and made me miserable to a strange degree; but my dear old wife insisted on my taking quinine, and, though I have very little faith in medicine, this, I think, has done me much good. Well, we are both so old that we must expect some troubles: I shall be seventy-three on Feb. 12th. I have been glad to hear about the pine-leaves, and you are the first man who has confirmed my account that they are drawn in by the base, with a very few exceptions. (782/2. "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms," 1881, page 71.) With respect to your Wandsworth case, I think that if I had heard of it before publishing, I would have said nothing about the ledges (782/3. "Ledges of Earth on Steep Hill-sides" (ibid., page 278).); for the Grisedale case (782/4. "The steep, grass-covered sides of a mountainous valley in Westmorland, called Grisedale, were marked in many places with innumerable, almost horizontal, little ledges...Their formation was in no way connected with the action of worms (and their absence is an inexplicable fact)...(ibid., page 282.), mentioned in my book and observed whilst I was correcting the proof-sheets, made me feel rather doubtful. Yet the Corniche case (782/5. Ibid., page 281.) shows that worms at least aid in making the ledges. Nevertheless, I wish I had said nothing about the confounded ledges. The success of this worm book has been almost laughable. I have, however, been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish and enthusiastic, but some containing good facts, which I have used in correcting yesterday the "sixth Thousand." Your friend George's work about the viscous state of the earth and tides and the moon has lately been attracting much attention (782/6. Published in the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society," 1879, 1880, 1881.), and all the great judges think highly of the work. He intends to try for the Plumian Professorship of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Cambridge, which is a good and honourable post of about 800 pounds a year. I think that he will get it (782/7. He was elected Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy in 1883.) when Challis is dead, and he is very near his end. He has all the great men--Sir W. Thomson, Adams, Stokes, etc.--on his side. He has lately been chief examiner for the Mathematical Tripos, which was tremendous work; and the day before yesterday he started for Southampton for a five-weeks' tour to Jamaica for complete rest, to see the Blue Mountains, and escape the rigour of the early spring. I believe that George will some day be a great scientific swell. The War Office has just offered Leonard a post in the Government Survey at Southampton, and very civilly told him to go down and inspect the place, and accept or not as he liked. So he went down, but has decided that it would not be worth his while to accept, as it would entail his giving up his expedition (on which he had been ordered) to Queensland, in Australia, to observe the Transit of Venus. (782/8. Major Leonard Darwin, late R.E., served in several scientific expeditions, including the Transits of Venus of 1874 and 1882.) Dear old William at Southampton has not been very well, but is now better. He has had too much work--a willing horse is always overworked--and all the arrangements for receiving the British Association there this summer have been thrown on his shoulders. But, good Heavens! what a deal I have written about my sons. I have had some hard work this autumn with the microscope; but this is over, and I have only to write out the papers for the Linnean Society. (782/9. i. "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of Certain plants." [Read March 16th, 1882.] "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume XIX., 1882, page 239. ii. "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-bodies." [Read March 6th, 1882.] Ibid., page 262.) We have had a good many visitors; but none who would have interested you, except perhaps Mrs. Ritchie, the daughter of Thackeray, who is a most amusing and pleasant person. I have not seen Huxley for some time, but my wife heard this morning from Mrs. Huxley, who wrote from her bed, with a bad account of herself and several of her children; but none, I hope, are at all dangerously ill. Farewell, my kind, good friend. Many thanks about the picture, which if I survive you, and this I do not expect, shall be hung in my study as a perpetual memento of you. (782/10. The concluding chapter of the "Life and Letters" gives some account of the gradual failure in health which was perceptible in the last year of Mr. Darwin's life. He died on April 19th, 1882, in his 74th year.) THE END. INDEX. INDEX. [The German a-, o-, u-diaeresis are treated as a, o, u, not as ae, oe, ue.] Aberrant genera, Darwin's work on. Abich, on Vesuvius. Abinger, excavations of Roman villa at. -plants from. Abinger Hall, Darwin visits. -Lord Farrer's recollections of Darwin at. Abiogenesis, Huxley's address on Biogenesis and. Abortion, Romanes on. Abrolhos, plants from the. Abromia. Abrus precatorius, dispersal of seeds. Abstract, Darwin's dislike of writing papers in. Abstract, the name applied by Darwin to the "Origin." Abutilon, F. Muller's experiments on. Abyssinia, flora of. "Academy," Darwin's opinion of the. Acanthaceae. Acceleration of development, Cope and Hyatt on retardation and. -reference in the "Origin" to. Accumulation, of deposits in relation to earth-movements. -of specific differences. -of sterility. -of varieties. Accuracy, difficult to attain. -the soul of Natural History. Aceras, fertilisation of. -monstrous flower. Acineta, Darwin unable to fertilise. Aconitum, peloria and reversion. Acropera, atrophy of ovules. -Darwin's mistake over. -fertilisation of. -relation to Gongora. -J. Scott's work on. Acropera Loddigesii, abnormal structure of ovary. -Darwin's account of flower. -artificial fertilisation. -relation to A. luteola. -J. Scott's observations. -two sexual conditions of. -A. luteola, Darwin's observations on. -fertilisation of. -flowers of. -structure of ovary. Adaptation, Darwin's difficulty in understanding. -hybrids and. -not the governing law in Geographical Distribution. -more clearly seen in animals than plants. -Natural Selection and. -in orchids. -resemblances due to. -in Woodpecker. Adenanthera pavonina, seed-dispersal by Parrots. Adenocarpus, a Mediterranean genus in the Cameroons. Adlumia. Adoxa, difference in flowers of same plant. Aecidium elatinum, Witches'-Broom fungus. Aegialitis Sanctae-helenae. Aegilops triticoides, hybrids. Affaiblissement, A. St. Hilaire on. Africa, connection with Ceylon. -connection with India. -continent of Lemuria and. -considered by Murchison oldest continent. -plants of equatorial mountains of. Africa (East,) coral reefs on coast. Africa (South), plants of. -relation of floras of Western Europe to. Africa (West), botanical relation to Java. Agassiz, Alex., "Three Cruises of the 'Blake.'" -his belief in evolution the result of F. Muller's writings. -account of Florida Coral-reefs. -letters to. -visits Down. Agassiz, Louis Jean Rodolphe (1807-73): entered a college at Bienne at the age of ten, and from 1822 to 1824 he was a student at the Academy of Lausanne. Agassiz afterwards spent some years as a student in the Universities of Zurich, Heidelberg, and Munich, where he gained a reputation as a skilled fencer. It was at Heidelberg that his studies took a definite turn towards Natural History. He took a Ph.D. degree at Erlangen in 1829. Agassiz published his first paper in "Isis" in 1828, and for many years devoted himself chiefly to Ichthyology. During a visit to Paris he became acquainted with Cuvier and Alexander von Humboldt; in 1833, through the liberality of the latter, he began the publication of his "Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles," and in 1840 he completed his "Etudes sur les Glaciers." In 1846 Agassiz went to Boston, where he lectured in the Lowell Institute, and in the following year became Professor of Geology and Zoology at Cambridge. During the last twenty-seven years of his life Agassiz lived in America, and exerted a great influence on the study of Natural History in the United States. In 1836 he received the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London, and in 1861 he was selected for the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. In 1873 Agassiz dictated an article to Mrs. Agassiz on "Evolution and Permanence of Type," in which he repeated his strong conviction against the views embodied in the "Origin of Species." See "Life, Letters, and Works of Louis Agassiz," by Jules Marcou, 2 volumes, New York, 1896; "Louis Agassiz: his Life and Correspondence," edited by Elizabeth Cary Agassiz, 2 volumes, London, 1885; "Smithsonian Report," 1873, page 198. -attack on "Origin." -Darwin's criticism of book on Brazil. -Darwin's opinion of. -views on creation of species. -on geographical distribution. -"Methods of Study" by. -misstatement of Darwin's views. -Walsh on. -"Etudes sur les Glaciers." -Darwin on glacier work of. -on glaciers in Ceara Mts. -glacier-ice-lake theory of Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. -on glacier moraines. -on rock-cavities formed by glacier-cascades. -on Darwin's theory. -on Geology of the Amazons. -doubts recent upheaval of Patagonia. -mentioned. Age of the world. Aggressive plants, introduction of. Agricultural Society, experiments on potatoes. Airy, H. letter to. Albemarle Island, Darwin's collection of plants from. -volcanoes of. Aldrovanda. Alerse ("Alerce"), occurrence in Chiloe. Algae, movement of male-cells to female organ. Alisma, F. Muller's observations on. -submerged flowers of. Alisma macrophylla, circumnutation of. Allbutt, Prof. Clifford, on sperm-cells. Allen, Grant, review by Romanes of his "Physiological Aesthetics." Allen, J.A., on colours of birds. -on mammals and birds of Florida. Allogamy, use of term. Almond, seedling peaches resembling. Alopecurus pratensis, fertilisation of. Alpine floras, Arctic and. -of Azores, Canaries and Madeira. -absence of, in southern islands. -Ball on origin of flora. -Darwin's work on. -of United States. -existence prior to Glacial period. -Ice-action in New Zealand, and. -Ball on origin of. Alpine insects. Alpine plants. -change due to transplanting. -slight change in isolated forms. -as evidence of continental land at close of Glacial period. Alps, Australian. -Murchison on structure of. -submergence. -Tyndall's book on. Alternate generations, in Hydrozoa. Amazonia, Insects of. Amazons, L. Agassiz on glacial phenomena in valley of. -L. Agassiz on geology of. -Bates on lepidoptera of. -sedimentation off mouth of. Amber, extinct plants preserved in. Amblyopsis, a blind cave-fish, effect of conditions on. Ameghino, Prof., discovery of Neomylodon Listai. America (North), are European birds blown to? -Falconer on elephants. -fauna and flora of Japan and. -flora of. -mammalian fauna. -introduction of European weeds. -subsidence during Glacial period. -western European plants and flora of. -contrast during Tertiary period between South and. -former greater distinction between fauna of South and. -glaciation of South and. -Rogers on coal-fields. America (South), Bollaert's "Antiquities" of. -Araucarian fossil wood from. -Carabi of. -elevation of coast. -fauna of. -floras of Australia and. -geology of. -Darwin's "Geological Observations" on. -deposition of sediment on coast. -European plants in. -frequency of earthquakes. -D. Forbes on geology of. -W. Jameson on geology of. -D'Orbigny on. -volcanic eruptions. -Wallace opposed to continent uniting New Zealand, Australia and. American War. Ammonia, Darwin's work on effect on roots of carbonate of. Ammonites, degeneration of. -reversion. -of S. America. Amsinckia. Amsinckia spectabilis, dimorphism of. Anacamptis (=Orchis pyramidalis), fertilisation of. Anacharis (=Elodea Canadensis), spread of. Analogy, difference between homology and. Anamorphism, Huxley on. Anatifera, illustrating difficulty in nomenclature. Anatomy of Vertebrata, Owen's attack on Darwin and Lyell in. "Ancient Sea Margins," by R. Chambers. Anderson-Henry, Isaac (1799?-1884): of Edinburgh, was educated as a lawyer, but devoted himself to horticulture, more particularly to experimental work on grafting and hybridisation. As President of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh he delivered two addresses on "Hybridisation or Crossing of Plants," of which a full abstract was published in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," April 13th, 1867, page 379, and December 21st, 1867, page 1296. See obit. notice in "Gardeners' Chronicle," September 27th, 1884, page 400. -letter to. Andes, Darwin on geology of. -high-road for European plants. -comparatively recent origin. Anemophilous plants, Delpino's work on. Angiosperms, origin of. Angraecum sesquipedale, Duke of Argyll on. Animal Intelligence, Romanes on. Animals, difference between plants and. -resemblance to plants. Annuals, adapted to short seasons. -Hildebrand on percentages of. Anoplotherium, occurrence in Eocene of S. America. Ansted, David Thomas, F.R.S. (1814-80): Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, Professor of Geology at King's College, London, author of several papers and books on geological subjects (see "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVII., page 43.) -letter to. Antarctic continent, Darwin on existence of Tertiary. -hypothetical. "Antarctic Flora," Sir J.D. Hooker's. Antarctic floras. -Darwin at work on. Antarctic islands, plants of. Antarctic Land. "Anti-Jacobin," quiz on Erasmus Darwin in. "Antiquity of Man," Sir Charles Lyell's. -cautious views on species. -Darwin's criticism of. -Extract on Natural Selection from. -Falconer on. -Owen's criticism on. Antirrhinum, peloric flowers. Ants, account in "Origin" of Slave-. -Forel's work on. -Moggridge on Harvesting-. -F. Muller's observations on neuter. -storing leaves for plant-culture. Apathus, living in nests of Bombus. Apes, comparison as regards advance in intellect between man and. -ears of anthropoid. Aphides, absence of wings in viviparous. Aphis, Huxley on. Apostasia, morphology of flowers. Appalachian chain, Rogers on cleavage of. Apteryx, Owen on. -wings of. Aquilegia, Hooker and Thomson on. -variation in. -peloria and reversion. Arachis hypogaea, Darwin on. Arachnidae. Araucaria, abundant in Secondary period. Araucarian wood, fossil in S. America. Arca, Morse on. Archaeopteryx. Archer-Hind, R.D., translation of passage from Plato by. Archetype, Owen's book on. -Owen's term. d'Archiac's "Histoire des Progres de la Geologie." -candidate for Royal Society Foreign list. Arctic animals, protective colours. Arctic climate, cause of present. Arctic expeditions, Darwin on. Arctic floras. -relation between Alpine and. -relation between Antarctic and. -Hooker's Essay on. -Darwin's admiration of Hooker's Essay. -migration of. Arctic regions, few plants common to Europe and N. America not ranging to. -range of plants. -northern limit of vegetation formerly lower. -ice piled up in. -previous existence of plants in. Arenaria verna, range. Argus pheasant, colour. -unadorned head. Argyll, Duke of, attack on Romanes in "Nature." -rejoinder by Romanes in "Nature." -Hooker on. -letter to. -"Reign of Law" by. Aristolochia, fertilisation of. Aristotle, reference to. Ark, Fitz-Roy on extinction of Mastodon owing to construction of. Armadillo. Army, measurement of soldiers of U.S.A. Artemia, Schmankewitsch's experiments on. Ascension Island, plants of. -earth-movements. -volcanic rocks. Ascidians, budding of. Asclepiadeae, fertilisation of. Ash, comparison of peat and coal. Asher, Dr., sends Russian wheat to Darwin. Ashley. Ashley Heath, Mackintosh on boulders of. Askenasy, E., on Darwinism. Aspicarpa. Ass, hybrids between mare and. Asterias. Astragalus hypoglottis, range of. Astronomical causes, crust-movements due to. Asturian plants in Ireland. Atavism, use of term by Duchesne. -Kollmann on. Athenaeum Club, Huxley's election. "Athenaeum," correspondence on Darwin's statements on rate of increase of elephants. -Darwin's opinion of. -abuse of Darwin. Atlantic islands, peculiar genera and their origin. Atlantis, America and. -Canary I. and. -Darwin's disbelief in. -Heer's map. -Wollaston's. Atolls, Darwin's wish for investigation by boring of coral. -Darwin on Murray's theory. -Darwin's work on. Atomogenesis, term suggested as substitute for pangenesis. Atriplex, buried seeds found in sandpit near Melrose. Attica, Gaudry on fossil animals. Auckland Island, flora. Audubon, J.J., on antics of birds during courtship. -"Ornithological Biography." Aurelia, Romanes on. Auricula, dimorphism of. -experiments on. Austen, Godwin, on changes of level on English coast. Australia, caves of. -character of fauna. -flora of. -Hooker on flora. -relation of flora to S. America. -relation of flora to S. Africa. -European plants in. -local plants in S.W. -naturalised plants. -plants on mountains. -fossil plants. -dichogamy of trees in. -as illustrating rate and progress of evolution. -Mastodon from. -products of, compared with those of Asia. -submergence. Australian savages and Natural Selection. Australian species, occurrence in Malay Archipelago and Philippines. Autobiographical recollections, Charles Darwin's. Autobiography, extract from Darwin's. Autogamy, Kerner's term. Automatism, Huxley's Essay. Avebury, Lord. -address at British Association meeting at York (1881). -on the Finns and Kjokken moddings. -letters to. -on the "Origin." -"Prehistoric Times." -on the Progress of Science. -on Seedlings. -story of Darwin told by. -Darwin regrets his entrance into politics. -on Ramsay's lake-theory. Averrhoa, Darwin's work on. Axell, Severin, book on fertilisation of plants. Axon, W.E., letter from Darwin to Mrs. E. Talbot published by. Aye Aye, Owen on the. Azara. Azores, organic relation with America. -birds. -European birds as chance wanderers to. -erratic blocks. -flora. -European plants in. -Miocene beds in. -relation to Madeira and Canaries. -Watson on the. -Orchids from. -mentioned. Babies, habit of clutching objects. Babington, Prof. Charles C., at the British Association (Manchester, 1861). -"British Flora." -Darwin sends seeds of Atriplex to. Baden-Powell, Prof. Baer. Bagehot, W., article in "Fortnightly Review" on Physics and Politics. Bahia Blanca, collection of plants from. Bailey, on Heterocentron roseum. Baillon, on pollen-tubes of Helianthemum. Baker's Flora of the Mauritius and Seychelles. Balancement, G. St. Hilaire's law of. Balanidae, Darwin's work on. Balanus, questions of nomenclature. Balfour, F.M. (1851-82): Professor of Animal Morphology at Cambridge. He was born 1851, and was killed, with his guide, on the Aiguille Blanche, near Courmayeur, in July 1882. (See "Life and Letters," III., page 250.) -letter to. -mentioned. Ball, J., on origin of Alpine flora. Ball, P., "The effects of Use and Disuse." Balsaminaceae, genera of. Banks' Cove, volcano of. Barber, C., on graft-hybrids of sugar-cane. Barber, Mrs., on Papilio nireus. Barberry, abundance in N. America. -dispersal of seeds by birds. -Lord Farrer and H. Muller on floral mechanism. -movement of stamens. Barbs, see Pigeons. Bardfield Oxlip (Primula elatior). Barnacles, Darwin's work on. -metamorphosis in. -F. Muller on. -nomenclature. -of Secondary Period. -advance in. -complemental males compared with plants. Barneoud, on irregular flowers. "Baronne Prevost," Rivers on the rose. Barrande, Joachim (died 1883): devoted himself to the investigation of the Palaeozoic fossils of Bohemia, his adopted country. His greatest work was the "Systeme Silurien de la Boheme," of which twenty-two volumes were published before his death. He was awarded the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society in 1855. Barrande propounded the doctrine of "colonies." He found that in the Silurian strata of Bohemia, containing a normal succession of fossils, exceptional bands occurred which yielded fossils characteristic of a higher zone. He named these bands "colonies," and explained their occurrence by supposing that the later fauna represented in these "precursory bands" had already appeared in a neighbouring region, and that by some means communication was opened at intervals between this region and that in which the normal Silurian series was being deposited. This apparent intercalation of younger among older zones has now been accounted for by infoldings and faulting of the strata. See J.E. Marr, "On the Pre- Devonian Rocks of Bohemia," "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVI., page 591 (1880); also "Defense des Colonies," by J. Barrande (Prag, 1861), and Geikie's "Text-book of Geology" (1893), page 773. -candidature for Royal medal. -candidate for Royal Society foreign list. -work on Colonies. -Lyell on work of. Barriers to plant distribution in America. Barrow, on Emberiza longicauda. -"Travels in S. Africa." Barrow, Sir J., connection with naval expeditions. Barrow, germination of seeds from a. Bartlett, Abraham Dee (1812-97): was resident superintendent of the Zoological Society's Gardens in Regent's Park from 1859 to 1897. He communicated several papers to the Zoological Society. His knowledge was always at the service of Mr. Darwin, who had a sincere respect for him. -letters to. Barton, on trees of N. America. Basalt, association with granite. -separation of trachyte and. Basques, H. Christy on the. -Hooker on Finns and. Bastian, "The Beginnings of Life." Bat, natural selection and increase in size of wings. Bates, Henry Walter (1825-92): was born at Leicester, and after an apprenticeship in a hosiery business he became a clerk in Allsopp's brewery. He did not remain long in this uncongenial position, for in 1848 he embarked for Para with Mr. Wallace, whose acquaintance he had made at Leicester some years previously. Mr. Wallace left Brazil after four years' sojourn, and Bates remained for seven more years. He suffered much ill- health and privation, but in spite of adverse circumstances he worked unceasingly: witness the fact that his collection of insects numbered 14,000 specimens. He became Assistant Secretary to the Royal Geographical Society in 1864, a post which he filled up to the time of his death in 1892. In Mr. Clodd's interesting memoir prefixed to his edition of the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, the editor pays a warm and well-weighed tribute to Mr. Bates's honourable and lovable personal character. See also "Life and Letters," II., page 380. -"A Naturalist on the Amazons." -Darwin's opinion of his work. -on insect fauna of Amazon Valley. -on lepidoptera of Amazons. -letter from Hooker to. -letters to. -letter to Hooker from. -Darwin reviews paper by. -on flower of Monochaetum. -on insects of Chili. -supplies Darwin with facts for sexual selection. Bateson, Miss A., on cross fertilisation in inconspicuous flowers. Bateson, W., on breeding lepidoptera in confinement. -Mendel's "Principles of Heredity." Batrachians, Kollmann on rudimentary digits. Bauer, F., drawings by. Bauhinia, sleep-movements of leaves. Beaches, S. American raised. "Beagle" (H.M.S.), circumstance of Darwin joining. -Darwin's views on species when on. -FitzRoy and voyage of. -return of. -voyage. Beans, holes bitten by bees in flowers. -extra-floral nectaries of. Bear, comparison with whale. -modification of. Beaton, Donald (1802-63): Biographical notices in the "Journal of Horticulture" and the "Cottage Gardener," XIII., page 153, and "Journ. Hort." 1863, pages 349 and 415, are referred to in Britten & Boulger's "Biographical Index of Botanists," 1893. Dr. Masters tells us that Beaton had a "first-rate reputation as a practical gardener, and was esteemed for his shrewdness and humour." -Darwin on work of. -on Pelargonium. Beatson, on land birds in S. Helena. Beaufort. Beaufort, Captain, asks Darwin for information as to collecting. Beaumont, Elie de (1798-1874): was a pupil in the Ecole Polytechnique and afterwards in the Ecole des Mines. In 1820 he accompanied M. Brochant de Villiers to England in order to study the principles of geological mapping, and to report on the English mines and metallurgical establishments. For several years M. de Beaumont was actively engaged in the preparation of the geological map of France, which was begun in 1825, and in 1835 he succeeded M. B. de Villiers in the Chair of Geology at the Ecole des Mines. In 1853 he was elected Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy, and in 1861 he became Vice-President of the Conseil General des Mines and a Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour. Elie de Beaumont is best known among geologists as the author of the "Systemes des Montagnes" and other publications, in which he put forward his theories on the origin of mountain ranges and on kindred subjects. ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXI.; "Proc." page xliii, 1875.) -on lines of elevation. -on elevation in Cordilleras. -elevation-crater theory. -Darwin's disbelief in views and work of. -on lava and dykes. -Lyell's refutation of his theory. -measurement of natural inclination of lava-streams. Beauty, criticism by J. Morley of Darwin's phraseology in regard to. -discussion on. -lepidoptera and display of. -Wallace on. -Darwin's discussion on origin. -in female animals. -in plumage of male and female birds. -of seeds and fruits. -Shaw on. -standards of. Bedford, flint implements found near. Beech, in Chonos I. -in T. del Fuego and Chili. -Miquel on distribution. Bee-Ophrys (Ophrys apifera), see Bee-Orchis. Bee-Orchis, Darwin's experiments on crossing. -fertilisation. -self-fertilisation. -intermediate forms between Ophrys arachnites and. Bees, combs. -Haughton on cells of. -and instinct. -referred to in "Descent of Man." -New Zealand clover and. -acquisition of power of building cells. -Darwin's observations on. -agents in fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers. -as pollen collectors. -difference between sexes. -H. Muller on. -and parthenogenesis. -regular lines of flight at Down. Beet, graft-hybrids. Beete-Jukes, alluded to in De la Beche's presidential address. Beetles, bivalves distributed by. -Forel's work on. -nest-inhabiting. -stag-. -stridulating organs. "Befruchtung der Blumen," H. Muller's, the outcome of Darwin's "Fertilisation of Orchids." Begonia, monstrous flowers. -B. frigida, Hooker on. Begoniaceae, genera of. Behring Straits, spreading of plants from. Belize, coral reefs near. Bell, on Owen's "Edinburgh Review" article. Bell, Sir C., "Anatomy of Expression." Belt, T., on conspicuously coloured animals distasteful to birds. -letter to. -"The Naturalist in Nicaragua." Ben Nevis, Ice-barrier under. Benson, Miss, on Chalazogamy in Amentiferae. Bentham, George (1800-83): son of Sir Samuel Bentham, and nephew of Jeremy, the celebrated authority on jurisprudence. Sir Samuel Bentham was at first in the Russian service, and afterwards in that of his own country, where he attained the rank of Inspector-General of Naval Works. George Bentham was attracted to botany during a "caravan tour" through France in 1816, when he set himself to work out the names of flowers with De Candolle's "Flore Francaise." During this period he entered as a student of the Faculte de Theologie at Tours. About 1820 he was turned to the study of philosophy, probably through an acquaintance with John Stuart Mill. He next became the manager of his father's estates near Montpellier, and it was here that he wrote his first serious work, an "Essai sur la Classification des Arts et Sciences." In 1826 the Benthams returned to England, where he made many friends, among whom was Dr. Arnott; and it was in his company that Bentham, in 1824, paid a long visit to the Pyrenees, the fruits of which was his first botanical work, "Catalogue des Plantes indigenes des Pyrenees, etc." 1826. About this time Bentham entered Lincoln's Inn with a view to being called to the Bar, but the greater part of his energies was given to helping his Uncle Jeremy, and to independent work in logic and jurisprudence. He published his "Outlines of a New System of Logic" (1827), but the merit of his work was not recognised until 1850. In 1829 Bentham finally gave up the Bar and took up his life's work as a botanist. In 1854 he presented his collections and books (valued at 6,000 pounds) to the Royal Gardens, Kew, and for the rest of his life resided in London, and worked daily at the Herbarium. His work there began with the "Flora of Hong Kong," which was followed by that of Australia published in 1867 in seven volumes octavo. At the same time the "Genera Plantarum" was being planned; it was begun, with Dr. Hooker as a collaborator, in 1862, and concluded in 1883. With this monumental work his labours ended; "his strength...suddenly gave way...his visits to Kew ended, and lingering on under increasing debility, he died of old age on September 10th last" (1883.) The amount of work that he accomplished was gigantic and of the most masterly character. In speaking of his descriptive work the writer (Sir J.D. Hooker) of the obituary notice in "Nature" (October 2nd, 1884), from which many of the above facts are taken, says that he had "no superior since the days of Linnaeus and Robert Brown, and he has left no equal except Asa Gray" ("Athenaeum," December 31st, 1850; "Contemporary Review," May, 1873; "George Bentham, F.R.S." By Sir J.D. Hooker, "Annals Bot." Volume XII., 1898). -mentioned. -address to Linnean Society. -Darwin's criticism on address. -letters to. -extract from letter to. -views on species and on "Origin." -on fertilisation mechanism in Goodeniaceae. -on hybridism. -runs too many forms together. -on Scott's Primula paper. Berberis, Pfeffer on stamens. Berkeley, Miles Joseph (1803-89): was educated at Rugby and Christ's College, Cambridge; he took orders in 1827. Berkeley is described by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer as "the virtual founder of British Mycology" and as the first to treat the subject of the pathology of plants in a systematic manner. In 1857 he published his "Introduction to Cryptogamic Botany." ("Annals of Botany," Volume XI., 1897, page ix; see also an obituary notice by Sir Joseph Hooker in the "Proc. Royal Society," Volume XLVII., page ix, 1890.) -address by. -experiments on saltwater and seed-dispersal. -letter to. -mentioned. -notice of Darwin's work by. Bermudas, American plants in. -coral-reefs. Berzelius, on flints. Bhootan, Rhododendron Boothii from. Bible, chronology of. Biffen, R., potato grafts. Bignonia, F. Muller's paper on. -B. capreolata, tendrils of. Binney, Edward William F.R.S. (1812-81): contributed numerous papers to the Royal, Palaeontographical, Geological, and other Societies, on Upper Carboniferous and Permian Rocks; his most important work deals with the internal structure of Coal-Measure plants. In a paper "On the Origin of Coal," published in the "Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society," Volume VIII., page 148, in 1848, Binney expressed the view that the sediments of the Coal Period were marine rather than estuarine, and were deposited on the floor of an ocean, which was characterised by a "uniformity and shallowness unknown" in any oceanic area of the present day. -on marshes of Coal period. -on coal and coal plants. Biogenesis, Huxley's address on abiogenesis and. Biology, Huxley's "Course of Practical Instruction" in. Biology of plants, Hooker's scheme for a Flora, with notes on. Birds, as agents of dispersal of plants. -blown to Madeira. -climate and effect on American. -coloration of. -comparison with mammals. -as isolated groups. -of Madeira. -modification in. -Andrew Murray on Wallace's theory of nests. -Wallace's theory of nests. -agents in dispersal of land-molluscs. -antics during courtship. -courtesy towards own image. -expression of fear by erection of feathers. -means of producing music. -spurs on female. -pairing. -polygamy. -proportion of sexes. -sexual selection and colour. -attracted by singing of bullfinch. -tameness in Brazilian species. -occurrence of unpaired. -Weir's observations on. Bird of paradise, and polygamy. Birmingham, British Association meeting (1849). Bivalves, means of dispersal of freshwater. Bizcacha, burrowing animal of Patagonia. Blackbird, variation in tufted. Blair, Rev. R.H., observations on the blind. Blake, paper on Elephants in "Geologist." Blanford, H.F., on an Indo-oceanic continent. Blanford, W.T., obituary notice of Neumayr by. Blind, expression of those born. Blomefield, L., see Jenyns, L. Bloom, Darwin's work on. -F. Darwin on connection between stomata and (see also Darwin, F.) -effect of rain on. -on leaf of Trifolium resupinatum. -protection against parasites. -on seashore plants. Blow-fly, Lowne on the. Blyth, Edward (1810-73): distinguished for his knowledge of Indian birds and mammals. He was for twenty years Curator of the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, a collection which was practically created by his exertions. Gould spoke of him as "the founder of the study" of Zoology in India. His published writings are voluminous, and include, in addition to those bearing his name, numerous articles in the "Field, Land and Water," etc., under the signature "Zoophilus" or "Z." He also communicated his knowledge to others with unsparing generosity, yet-- doubtless the chief part of his "extraordinary fund of information" died with him. Darwin had much correspondence with him, and always spoke of him with admiration for his powers of observation and for his judgment. The letters to Blyth have unfortunately not come into our hands. The indebtedness of Darwin to Blyth may be roughly gauged by the fact that the references under his name in the index to "Animals and Plants" occupy nearly a column. For further information about Blyth see Grote's introduction to the "Catalogue of Mammals and Birds of Burma, by the late E. Blyth" in the "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal," Part II., Extra number, August 1875; also an obituary notice published at the time of his death in the "Field." Mr. Grote's Memoir contains a list of Blyth's writings which occupies nearly seven pages of the "Journal." We are indebted to Professor Newton for calling our attention to the sources of this note. -reference to letter from. -visits Down. -on Gallinaceae. Blytt, Axel Gudbrand (1843-98): the son of the well-known systematist M.N. Blytt. He was attached to the Christiania Herbarium in 1865, and in 1880 became Professor of Botany in the University. His best-known work is the essay referred to above, but he was also known for purely systematic work in Botany as well as for meteorological and geological contributions to science. The above facts are taken from C. Holtermann's obituary notice in the "Berichte der Deutschen Bot. Gesell." Volume XVII., 1899. -essay on immigration of Norwegian flora during alternating rainy and dry periods. -letter to. Bog-Mammoth. Boiler, comparison with volcano. Boissier, on plants of S. Spain. Boissiera, crossing experiments on. Bolbophyllum, Darwin's account of. Bolivia, geology of. Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America." Bombus, diversity in generative organs. -Psithyrus in nests of. -Pollen-collecting apparatus of male. Bombycilla, protective colours. Bombyx, sexes in. Bonaparte, L., on Basque and Finnish language. Bonatea speciosa, F. Muller on. -structure of flower. Bonney's Edition of Darwin's "Coral Reefs." -"Charles Lyell and Modern Geology." Bonnier, G., on alpine plants. Boragineae, dimorphism in. Borneo, New Zealand and Australian plants in. -temperate plants in lowlands. -possible region for remains of early man. Bory's Flora of Bourbon. Bosquet, cirripede monograph sent by Darwin to. -gives Darwin note on fossil Chthamalus. Botanical collections (national) consolidation at Kew. Botanist, Darwin as. Botany, philosophical spirit in study of. Boulders, transport of erratic (see also Erratic blocks). -Darwin on Ashley Heath. -in Glen Roy. -on Moel Tryfan. Bourbon, Bory's Flora of. Bournemouth, Darwin's visit to. Bovey Tracey, Heer on fossil plants of. Bower, Prof. F.O., on Welwitschia. Bower-bird, Bartlett's experiments on. -colours discriminated by. Bowman, W., Letters to. -supplies Darwin with facts on Expression. Brachiopods, Morse on. -Silurian. Brackish-water plants. Bradshaw, H., translation of Hebrew letter by. Brain, Owen on. -evolution in man. -Wallace on Natural Selection and Evolution of. Branchipus, Schmankewitsch's experiments on. Branta, mentioned in reference to nomenclature of Barnacles. Brassica sinapistrum, germination at Down of old seeds. Braun, A., convert to Darwin's views. Bravais, on lines of old sea-level in Finmark. Brazil, L. Agassiz's book on. -Agassiz on glacial phenomena in. -F. Muller's residence in. -plants on mountains of. -basalt in association with granite. -Darwin on origin of lakes in. -dimorphism of plants in S. Bree, Dr., on Celts. -misrepresents Darwin. Breeders, views on Selection held by. Breeding, chapter in "Origin" on. Brehm, on birds. Breitenbach, Dr. Brewster, Sir D., on Glen Roy. Bridgeman. Brinton, Dr., attends Darwin. British Association, Meetings: Belfast (1874), Birmingham (1849), Cambridge (1862), Ipswich (1851), Leeds (1858), Liverpool (1870), Manchester (1861), Norwich (1868), Nottingham (1866), Oxford (1847), Oxford (1860), Southampton (1846), Swansea (1880), York (1881). Addresses: Berkeley, Fawcett, Hooker, Hooker on Insular Floras, (see also Hooker, Sir J.D.), Huxley on Abiogenesis, Lord Kelvin, Wallace on Birds' Nests. British Association, Committee for investigation of Coral Atoll by boring. British Medical Association, undertakes defence of Dr. Ferrier. British Museum, disposal of Botanical Collections. Brodie, Sir Benjamin. Brongniart, Ad., on Sigillaria. Bronn, H.G., Letter to. -on German translation of "Origin." -reference in his translation of "Origin" to tails of mice as difficulty opposed to Natural Selection. -on Natural Selection. -"Entwickelung." -"Morphologische Studien." -"Naturgeschische der drei Reiche." Brougham, Lord, on Structure of Bees' cells. -habit of writing everything important three times. Brown, H.T., and F. Escombe, on vitality of seeds. -on influence of varying amounts of CO2 on plants. Brown, R., accompanies Flinders on Australian voyage. -meets Darwin. -dilatoriness over King's collection. -illness. -on course of vessels in orchid flowers. -mentioned. -on pollen-tubes. -seldom indulged in theory. Brulle, Gaspard-Auguste (1809-73): held a post in the Natural History Museum, Paris, from 1833 to 1839; on leaving Paris he occupied the chair of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at Dijon. ("Note sur la Vie et les Travaux Entomologiques d'Auguste Brulle" by E. Desmarest. "Ann. Soc. Entom." Volume II., page 513.) -reference to work by. -his pupils' eagerness to hear Darwin's views. Brunonia, Hamilton on fertilisation mechanism. Brunton, Sir T. Lauder, letters to. -letter to Darwin from. Brydges and Anderson, collection of S. American plants. Bryophyllum calycinum, Duval-Jouve and F. Muller on movements of leaves. Bryozoa, specimens found during voyage of "Beagle." Buch, von, on craters of Albermarle I. -Darwin's disbelief in his views. -mentioned. -"Travels in Norway." Buckland, William (1784-1856): became a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1801; in 1808 he was elected Fellow and ordained priest. Buckland travelled on horseback over a large part of the south-west of England, guided by the geological maps of William Smith. In 1813 he was appointed to the Chair of Mineralogy at Oxford, and soon afterwards to a newly created Readership in Geology. In 1823 the "Reliquiae Diluvianae" was published, a work which aimed at supporting the records of revelation by scientific investigations. In 1824 Buckland was President of the Geological Society, and in the following year he left Oxford for the living of Stoke Charity, near Whitchurch, Hampshire. "The Bridgewater Treatise" appeared in 1836. In 1845 Buckland was appointed Dean of Westminster; he was again elected president of the Geological Society in 1840, and in 1848 he received the Wollaston medal. An entertaining account of Buckland is given in Mr. Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 35, with a reproduction of the portrait from Gordon's "Life of Buckland." -on Glen Roy. -mentioned. Buckle, Darwin reads book by. Buckley, Miss. Buckman, on N. American plants. Buckman, Prof., experiments at Cirencester. Bud, propagation by. -Hooker's use of term. -fertilisation in. Bud-variation. Buenos-Ayres, fossils sent by Darwin from. Bull-dog, as example of Design. Bullfinch, experiment on colouring. -attracted by German singing-bird. -Weir on pairing. Bunbury, Sir Charles James Fox, Bart. (1809-85): was born at Messina in 1809, and in 1829 entered Trinity College, Cambridge. At the end of 1837 he went with Sir George Napier to the Cape of Good Hope, and during a residence there of twelve months Bunbury devoted himself to botanical field-work, and afterwards (1848) published his "Journal of a Residence at the Cape of Good Hope." In 1844 Bunbury married the second daughter of Mr. Leonard Horner, Lady Lyell's sister. In addition to several papers dealing with systematic and geographical Botany Bunbury published numerous contributions on palaeobotanical subjects, a science with which his name will always be associated as one of those who materially assisted in raising the study of Fossil Plants to a higher scientific level. His papers on fossil plants were published in the "Journal of the Geological Society" between 1846 and 1861, and shortly before his death a collection of botanical observations made in South Africa and South America was issued in book form in a volume entitled "Botanical Fragments" (London, 1883). Bunbury was elected into the Royal Society in 1851, and from 1847 to 1853 he acted as Foreign Secretary to the Geological Society. "Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles J.F. Bunbury, Bart." edited by his wife Frances Joanna Bunbury, and privately printed. (Undated.) -Darwin's opinion of. -views on Evolution. -on Agassiz's statements on glaciation of Brazil. -on plants of Madeira. -illness. -mentioned. Bunsen, Copley medal awarded to. -mentioned. Burbidge, F.W., on Malaxis. Burleigh, Lord. Burnett. Busk, G., visit to the Continent with Falconer. -on caves of Gibraltar. Butler, A.G., identification of butterflies. Butler, Dr., Darwin at Shrewsbury School under. -mentioned. Butterflies, attracted by colours. -and mimicry. -tameness of. -colour and sexual selection. -description by Darwin of ticking. Butterfly-orchis, (see also Habenaria.) Cabbage, Darwin's work on. -effect of salt water on. -Pinguicula and seeds of. -sleep-movements of cotyledons. -waxy secretion on leaves. Caddis-flies, F. Muller on abortion of hairs on legs of. Caenonympha, breeding in confinement. Caird, on Torbitt's potato experiments. Calcutta, J. Scott's position in Botanic Garden. Callidryas philea, and Hedychium. Callithrix Sciureus, wrinkling of eyes during screaming. Calluna vulgaris, in Azores. Cambrian, piles of unconformable strata below. Cambridge, Darwin and Henslow. -Honorary LL.D. given to Darwin. -mentioned. -Darwin's recollections of. -Owen's address. -Philosophical Society meeting. -Darwin visits. -specimens of Darwin's plants in Botanical Museum. Camel, Cuvier's statement on teeth. -in N. America. Cameroons, commingling of temperate and tropical plants. -Hooker on plants of. -plants of. Campanula, fertilisation mechanism. -C. perfoliata, note by Scott on. Campanulaceae, crossing in. Campbell Island, flora. Campodea, Lord Avebury on. Canada, Sir William Dawson's work. Canaries, fertility of hybrids. -plumage. -wildness of hybrids. Canary Islands, flora. -Humboldt on. -insects of. -Madeira formerly connected with. -relation to Azores and Madeira. -d'Urville on. -African affinity of eastern. -elevation of. -Von Buch on. -Trunks of American trees washed on shores of. Candolle, Alphonse Louis Pierre Pyramus De (1806-93): was the son of Augustin Pyramus, and succeeded his father as Professor of Botany at Geneva in 1835. He resigned his Chair in 1850, and devoted himself to research for the rest of his life. At the time of his father's death, in 1841, seven volumes of the "Prodromus" had appeared: Alphonse completed the seventeenth volume in 1873. In 1855 appeared his "Geographie botanique raisonnee," "which was the most important work of his life," and if not a precursor, "yet one of the inevitable foundation-stones" of modern evolutionary principles. He also wrote "Histoire des Savants," 1873, and "Phytographie," 1880. He was lavish of assistance to workers in Botany, and was distinguished by a dignified and charming personality. (See Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer's obituary in "Nature," July 20th, 1893, page 269.) -on influence of climate. -on Cupuliferae. -on extinction of plants in cultivated land. -"Geographie botanique." -letters to. -on introduced plants. -on naturalised plants and variation. -review by Asa Gray of. -on relation of size of families to range of species. -on social plants. -mentioned. Candolle, C. de, on latent life in seeds. Canestrini, on proportion of sexes in Bombyx. Canna, fertilisation of. Cape of Good Hope (see also Africa). -Australian flora compared with that of. -flora. -variable heaths of. -Darwin's geological observations on metamorphism at. -European element in flora. -Meyer and Doege on plants of. Cape Tres Montes, the "Beagle's" southern limit. Caprification, F. Muller in "Kosmos" on. Capsella bursa-pastoris, cross-fertilisation of. Carabus, origin of. -in Chili. -A. Murray on. Carbon dioxide, percentage in atmosphere. Carboniferous period, glacial action. -subsidence during. Cardamine, quasi-bulbs on leaves. Carduelis elegans, length of beak. Carex. Carices, of Greenland. Carlisle, Sir A., on Megatherium. Carlyle, Mrs., remark on Owen. Carmichael, on Tristan d'Acunha. Carmichaelia. Carnarvonshire, Darwin on glaciers of. Caroline Islands, want of knowledge on flora. Carpenter, Dr., on influence of blood in crossing. Carrier-pigeon (see Pigeon), preference for certain colours in pairing. Carrot, flowers of. Carruthers, W., on potato experiments. Carter, H.J., on reproduction of lower animals and foreshadowing of Chemotaxis. Carus, Professor Victor: translated several of Mr. Darwin's books into German (see "Life and Letters, III., page 48). -letters to. Casarea, a snake peculiar to Round Island. Case, G., Darwin at school of. Cassia, Darwin's experiments on. -sleep-movements of leaves. -two kinds of stamens. -Todd on flowers of. Cassini, observations on pollen. -on ovaries of Compositae. Cassiope hypnoides. Castes, Galton on. Catalpa. Catasetum, fertilisation of. -Huxley's scepticism as to mechanism of. -morphology of flower. -aerial roots. -sexual forms of. -C. saccatum, flower of. -C. tridentatum, three sexual forms. Caterpillars, colour and protection. -experiments by Weir. Cats, Belgian society to encourage homing of. -habits of. Cattell, on crossing sweet peas. Cattleya, Darwin suggests experiments on. -self-fertilisation. Caucasus, wingless insects of. Cauquenes, baths of. Cave-fish, reference in the "Origin" to blind. Cave-rat. Caves, animals in Australian. Cavia, specimens collected by Darwin. Ceara Mountains, L. Agassiz on glaciers of. Cebus, expression when astonished. Cecidomyia, ancestor of. Cedars, Hooker on. Celebes, geographical distribution in. Cellaria. Celosia, experiment on. Celts, Bree on. Centipedes, luminosity of. Centradenia, two sets of stamens in. -position of pistil. Cephalanthera, flower. -single pollen-grains. -C. grandiflora, fertilisation mechanism. Cephalopods, Hyatt on embryology of. -Hyatt on fossil. Cephalotus. Cervus campestris, of La Plata. Cetacea, Lyell on. Ceylon, Malayan types in. -plants. -former connection with Africa. -dimorphic plants of. Chaffinch, courtship of. Chalazal fertilisation, Miss Benson on. -foreshadowed by Darwin. -Treub on. Chalk, occurrence of Angiosperms in. -as oceanic deposit. "Challenger" (H.M.S.), reports reviewed by Huxley. -account of sedimentation in. Challis, Prof. Chambers, Robert (1802-71): began as a bookseller in Edinburgh in 1816, and from very modest beginnings he gradually increased his business till it became the flourishing publishing firm of W. & R. Chambers. After writing several books on biographical, historical and other subjects, Chambers published anonymously the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" in 1844; in 1848 his work on "Ancient Sea Margins" appeared; and this was followed by the "Book of Days" and other volumes. ("Dict. Nat. Biog." 1887; see also Darwin's "Life and Letters," I., pages 355, 356, 362, 363.) -announced as author of "Vestiges of Creation." -on derivation of marine from land and fresh-water organisms. -Darwin visits. -on Glen Roy. -on land-glaciation of Scotland. -letters to. -letter to Milne-Home from. -on scepticism of scientific men. -mentioned. Chance, use of term. Chandler, S.E. (see Farmer, J.B.) Changed conditions, Schmankewitsch's experiments on effect of. Charles Island, Darwin's plants from. Charlock, germination of old seeds. Chatham Island, Darwin's collection of plants from. -Travers on. Checks, use of artificial. Chemotaxis, foreshadowed by Carter. Chiasognathus Grantii. Childhood, Charles Darwin's. Children, Darwin on. -experiment on emotions of. -colour-sense. -coloured compared with white. -comparison between those of educated and uneducated parents. -expression. -development of mind. -intelligence of monkeys and. Chili, elevation of coast. -geology of. -plants common to New Zealand and. -Carabus of. -Darwin on earthquakes and terraces in. Chillingham cattle, Darwin and Hindmarsh on. Chiloe, description of. -forests. -geology. -plants on mountains. -boulders. China, expedition to. Chinese, explanation of affinities with Mexicans. "Chips from a German Workshop," Max Muller's. Chloeon dimidiatum, Lord Avebury on. Chlorite, segregation of. Chlorophyll, Darwin's work on action of carbonate of ammonia on. Chonos Islands, Darwin's collections of plants from. -Darwin's account of. -geology of. -potato. Christy, H. Christy, Miller, on oxlip. Chrysosplenium oppositifolium. Chthamalus, in the chalk. Cicada, experiments on eggs. -Muller on rivalry of. -Walsh on. -C. septendecim, Sharp's account of. Cinchona, Hooker on different rates of growth in seedlings. Circumnutation, F. Muller's observations on. Cirripedes, see Barnacles. Cistus, hybridism of. Citrus, unequal cotyledons. -polyembryonic seeds. Civilisation, effect on savages. Claparede, convert to Darwin's views. -and Mdlle. Royer. Clapperton's "Scientific Meliorism," letter of Gaskell in. Clark, on classification of sponges. Clark, Sir James (1788-1870): was for some years a medical officer in the Navy; he afterwards practised in Rome till he moved to London in 1826. On the accession of Queen Victoria he was made Physician in Ordinary and received a baronetcy; he was elected into the Royal Society in 1832. ("Dict. Nat. Biog." 1857; article by Dr. Norman Moore.) -on Glen Roy. Clarke, W.B., "Wreck of the 'Favourite.'" Clarkia, two kinds of stamens. -C. elegans. Classification, Bentham on. -Cuvier on. -Dana on mammalian. -Darwin on. -Darwin and Huxley on. -genealogy and. -value of reproductive organs in. Clay-slate, metamorphism of. Cleavage and foliation. -Darwin on his work on. -history of work on. -parallelism of foliation and. -relation to stratification. -relation to rock-curves. -Rogers on. -Sedgwick on. -uniformity of foliation and. -result of chemical action. -metamorphic schists. -lines of incipient tearing form planes of. -Tyndall on Sorby's observations. Cleistogamic flowers, fertilisation. -of grass. -of Oxalis and Viola. -pollen of. -comparison with Termites. Clematis, Darwin's error in work on. -Darwin's experiments on. -irritability. Clematis glandulosa, identified at Down by power of feeling. Cleodora, specific differences in. Clethra, absence in Azores. -remnant of Tertiary Flora. Clianthus. Clift, William (1775-1849): Conservator of the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. -on fossil bones from Australia. -Owen assistant to. Climate, changes in. -effect on species. -effect on species of birds. -migration of organisms and change in. -relation to distribution and structure of plants. -extinct mammals as evidence of change in. -and sexual differentiation. -variation and. -Lyell on former. -mild Miocene. Climbing Plants, Darwin's work on. -circumnutation of. -F. Muller's work on. Clivia, Scott's work on. Clodd's memoir of Bates. Close species, absence of intermediate forms between. -definition of. -Asa Gray on. -in warm temperate lands of N. and S. hemispheres. -relation to flora of N. America. Clover, relation between bees and. Club, dinner at Linnean. -Philosophical. Coal, Darwin on origin of. -Lesquereux on the flora of. -marine marshes and plants of. -ash of. Coal period, higher percentage of CO2 during. Coast-lines, parallelism with lines of volcanoes. Cobbe, Miss, article in "Theological Review" on "Descent of Man." Cockburn Island, boulders from. Cochin hen, experiments on. Coelogyne, fertilisation mechanism. Coffea arabica, seeds with two embryos. Cohn, F., notice in "Cornhill" of his botanical work. Coldstream, Dr. Colenso, on Maori races of New Zealand. Coleoptera, apterous form of Madeira. -colonisation of ants' nests by. Colias edusa, wings of. Collecting, Darwin's early taste for. Collier, Hon. John: Royal Academician, son-in-law to Professor Huxley. -Art primer by. -letter to. -portrait of Darwin by. Collingwood, Dr., on mimetic forms. Colonies, Barrande's. Colonisation, conditions of. Coloration, Walsh on unity of. Colour, butterflies attracted by. -mimicry in butterflies by means of. -of dioecious flowers. -and fertilisation of flowers. -in grouse, and Natural Selection. -in birds. -in male birds, not simply due to Natural Selection. -Darwin's work on. -Darwin differs from Wallace in views on. -evolution of. -experiments on birds. -Hackel on lower animals and. -Krause on. -Magnus on. -protection and. -relation to sex. -in seeds and fruits. -and Sexual Selection. -sense of, in children. -Wallace on. Columba aenas, habits of. -C. livia, descent of pigeons from. Combretum. Combs, bees', (see also Bees). Comparative anatomy, Huxley's book on. Compensation, belief of botanists in. Compiler, Darwin's opinion of a. Compositae, Harvey on. -Masters' reference to. -monstrosities in. -morphological characters. -Schleiden on. -Darwin on crossing. -fertilisation mechanism. -Hildebrand on dispersal of seeds. -viscid threads of seeds. Comte, Huxley on. Concepcion Island, geology of. -Darwin's account of earthquake. Conchoderma, in reference to nomenclature. Concretions, origin of. Conditions of life, effect on animals and plants. -effect on elephants. -effect on reproductive system. -hybrids and. -importance in maintaining number of species. -species and changes in. -and sterility. -variability depends more on nature of organisms than on. Confervae and sexuality. Coniferae, abundant in humid temperate regions. Connecting links. -Gaudry on. Conscience, Morley on Darwin's treatment of. Conspectus crustaceorum, Dana's. Constancy, in abnormally developed organs. Contemporaneity, Darwin on. Continental elevation, volcanic eruptions and. Continental extension, Darwin on. -evidence in favour of. -Hooker on. -Lyell on. -and means of distribution. -New Zealand and. Continental forms, versus insular. Continents, inhabitants of islands and. -movements of. -Wallace on sinking imaginary. Controversy, Darwin's hatred and avoidance of. Convallaria majalis, in Virginia. Convolvulus, supposed dimorphism of. Cooling of crust, disagreement among physicists as to rate. Cope, Edward Drinker (1840-97): was for a short time Professor at Haverford College; he was a member of certain United States Geological Survey expeditions, and at the time of his death he held a Professorship in the University of Pennsylvania. He wrote several important memoirs on "Vertebrate Paleontology," and in 1887 published "The Origin of the Fittest." -style of. -and Hyatt, theories of. Copley medal, Darwin and the. -Falconer, and Darwin's. -Lindley considered for the. -awarded to Lyell. -awarded to Bunsen. -Darwin describes letter from Hooker as a. Coquimbo, Darwin visits. -upraised shells. Coral islands, and subsidence. -plants of. Coral reefs, Darwin's work on. -Bonney's edition of Darwin's book on. -A. Agassiz on. -Dana on. -fossil. -Murray on. -conditions of life of polyps. -solution by CO2 of. -subsidence of. Coral tree, (see Erythrina). Corallines, nature of. Cordiaceae, dimorphism in. Cordilleras, glaciers of. -high-road for plants. -plants of. -birds of. -comparison between Glen Roy and terraces of. -Darwin on earth-movements of. -Forbes on. -submarine lava-streams. -volcanic activity and elevation. Coronilla, Lord Farrer on. -C. emerus. -C. varia. Coryanthes, "beats everything in orchids." Corydalis, Hildebrand shows falsity of idea of self-fertilisation of. -C. cava, Hildebrand on self-sterility of. -C. claviculata, tendrils of. -C. tuberosa, possible case of reversion in floral structure. "Cottage Gardener," Darwin offers reward for Hyacinth grafts. Cotyledons, Darwin's experiments on. Counterbalance, Watson on divergent variation and. Cowslips, Primroses and. -Darwin's experiments on artificial fertilisation. -homomorphic seedlings. -loss of dimorphism. Craig Dhu, shelves of. Craters, in Galapagos Island. -of denudation, Lyell on. -of elevation. -Darwin on. Crawford, John (1783-1868): Orientalist, Ethnologist, etc. Mr. Crawford wrote a review on the "Origin," which, though hostile, was free from bigotry (see "Life and Letters," II., page 237).) Creation, acts of. -doctrine of. -of species as eggs. -Owen on. -Romanes on individual. Creation-by-variation, doctrine of. "Creed of Science," Graham's. Cresy, E., letters to. Cretaceous flora, Heer on Arctic. Crick, W.D., letter to. Crinum, crossing experiments on. -C. passiflora, fertility of. Crocker, W., work on hollyhocks. Croll, James (1821-90): was born at Little Whitefield, in Perthshire. After a short time passed in the village school, he was apprenticed as a wheelwright, but lack of strength compelled him to seek less arduous employment, and he became agent to an insurance company. In 1859 he was appointed keeper in the Andersonian University and Museum, Glasgow. His first contribution to science was published in the "Philosophical Magazine" for 1861, and this was followed in 1864 by the essay "On the Physical Cause of the Change of Climate during the Glacial Period." From 1867 to 1881 he held an appointment in the department of the Geological Survey in Edinburgh. In 1876 Croll was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. His last work, "The Philosophical Basis of Evolution," was published in the year of his death. ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 180, 1891.) -Darwin on his theory. -on icebergs as grinding agents. -letters to. -Lyell on his theory. -on sub-aerial denudation. -on time. Crookes, Sir W., on spiritualism. "Cross and Self-fertilisation," Darwin's book on. Cross-fertilisation, Darwin's experiments on self- and. -check to endless variability. -Darwin states that as a rule flowers described as adapted to self- fertilisation are really adapted to. -of inconspicuous flowers. -all plants require occasional. -small advantages when confined to same plant. Crosses, fertility and sterility of. Crossing, agreement between Darwin's and breeders' views. -counterbalance of. -Darwin's views on. -effects of. -experiments on. -Hooker's views. -in animals and plants. -influence of blood in. -intermediate character of results. -Natural Selection and disinclination towards. -offspring of. -of primroses and cowslips. -and sterility. -Westphalian pig and English boar. -botanists' work on. -importance of. -pains taken by Nature to ensure. -in Pisum. -in Primula. -in individuals of same species. -F. Muller compliments Darwin on his chapter on. -and separate sexes in trees. Crotalaria. Crotalus. Cruciferae, action of fungus on roots. Cruciferous flower, morphology. Cruger, Dr., on cleistogamic fertilisation of Epidendrum. -death of. -on fertilisation of figs. -on pollinia of Acropera. -on Melastomaceae. -on fertilisation of orchids. Crustacea, comparison of classification of mammals and. -Darwin on. -F. Muller on. -sex in. Crying, action of children in. -physiology of. -wrinkling of eyes in. Crystal Palace, Darwin's visit to. Crystals, separation in lava-magmas. Cucurbita, seeds and seedlings of. Cucurbitaceae, Dr. Wight on. Cudham Wood. Cultivated plants, Darwin's work on. Cultivation and self-sterility. Cuming, on Galapagos Islands. Cupuliferae, A. de Candolle on. Curculionidae, Schoenherr's catalogue. Currents, as means of dispersal. Cuvier, on camels' teeth. -on classification. -mentioned. Cybele, H.C. Watson's. Cycadaceae, supposed power to withstand excess of CO2. Cyclas cornea. Cyclops (H.M.S.) dredging by. Cynips, dimorphism in. -Walsh on. Cypripedium, fertilisation mechanism. -C. hirsutissimum. Cyrena, range and variability. Cytisus Adami, Darwin on. -note on. -C. alpinus. -C. laburnum, graft-hybrids between C. purpureus and. -J.J. Weir on. Cyttarogenesis, suggested substitute for pangenesis. Dallas, W.S., translator of F. Muller's "Fur Darwin." Dampiera, Hamilton on fertilisation mechanism. Dana, James Dwight (1813-95): published numerous works on Geology, Mineralogy, and Zoology. He was awarded the Copley Medal by the Royal Society in 1877, and elected a foreign member in 1884. -Darwin's opinion of. -health. -letters to. -mentioned. -on classification of mammalia. -Darwin's criticism of. -on Kilauea. -Lyell on his claims for Royal Society foreign list. -volume on geology in Wilkes' Reports. Dareste, C., letter to. Darwin, Annie: Charles Darwin's daughter. Darwin, Bernard: Charles Darwin's grandson, observations on, as a child. Darwin, Caroline (1800-99): Charles Darwin's sister. -Charles Darwin's early recollections of. -letter to. Darwin, Catherine (1810-66): Charles Darwin's sister. -death. -letter to. Darwin, Charles, boyhood. -went to Mr. Case's school. -went to Shrewsbury School. -abused as an atheist. -Collier's picture of. -complains of little time for reading. -contribution to Henslow's biography. -Copley medal awarded to. -engagement to Miss Emma Wedgwood. -Falconer's list of scientific labours of. -first meeting with Hooker. -friendship with Huxley. -on Gray's work on distribution. -growth of his evolutionary views. -health. -honorary degree at Cambridge. -intimacy with Hooker. -Judd's recollections of. -Lamarck and. -letters to "Nature." -marriage. -friendship with F. Muller. -prefatory note to Meldola's translation of Weismann. -recollections of Cambridge. -relation between J. Scott and. -review on Bates. -attends meeting of Royal Society. -slowness in giving up old beliefs. -tendency to restrict interest to Natural History. -and the "Vestiges." -visits London. -Wallace and. -and Weismann. -working hours. -book on S. American Geology. -pleasure in angling. -on making blunders. -slight knowledge of Botany. -visits Cambridge. -love of children. -on cleavage and foliation. -on origin of coal. -his theory of Coral reefs supported by Funafuti boring. -large correspondence. -on danger of trusting in science to principle of exclusion. -death of his child from scarlet fever. -on difficulty of writing good English. -feels need of stimulus in work. -subscribes to Dr. Ferrier's defence. -on flaws in his reasoning. -follows golden rule of putting adverse facts in strongest light. -"Geological Instructions." -geological work on Lochaber. -visit to Glen Roy. -bad handwriting. -idleness a misery. -on immortality and death. -on lavas. -letter to "Scotsman" on Glen Roy. -indebtedness to Lyell. -on Lyell as a geologist. -on Lyell's "Second Visit to the U.S.A." -work on Man and Sexual Selection. -on mountain-chains. -offer of help to F. Muller. -never afraid of his facts. -an honorary member of the Physiological Society. -pleasure in discussing Geology with Lyell. -reads paper before Linnean Society. -A. Rich leaves his fortune to. -on satisfaction of aiding fellow-workers in Science. -reminiscences of school-days. -visits Sedgwick. -sits to an artist. -on speculation. -style in writing. -gives testimonial in support of Hooker's candidature for Botanical Chair in Edinburgh. -theological abuse in the "Three Barriers." -visits to Abinger. -visit to Patterdale. -on vitality of seeds. -on volcanic phenomena. -on Welsh glaciers. -work on action of carbonate of ammonia on plants. Darwin, Mrs. Charles, impressions of Down. -letter to. -passage from Darwin's autobiography on. -mentioned. -illness. Darwin, Emma, see Mrs. Charles Darwin. Darwin, Erasmus Alvey (1804-81): elder brother of Charles Darwin. -death of. -letters to. -mentioned. -visit to. Darwin, Dr. Erasmus: Charles Darwin's grandfather. -Charles Darwin's preliminary notice to Krause's memoir of. -Charles Darwin and evolutionary views of. Darwin, Francis: Charles Darwin's son. -on bloom and stomata. -on Dipsacus. -on Huxley's speech at Cambridge. -on the Knight-Darwin law. -on lobing of leaves. -experiments on nutrition. -experiments on plant-movements. -lecture at Glasgow (British Association, 1901) on perceptions of plants. -suggestion for Romanes' experiments on intelligence. -on vivisection. -on Vochting's work. -on Wiesner's work. Darwin, George: Charles Darwin's son. -success at Cambridge. -criticism of Wallace. -elected Plumian Professor at Cambridge. -suggested experiments with magnetic needles and insects. -on Galton's work on heredity. -article in "Contemporary Review" on origin of language. Darwin, Henrietta (Mrs. Litchfield): Charles Darwin's daughter. -criticism of Huxley. Darwin, Horace: Charles Darwin's son. -remark as a boy on Natural Selection. -mentioned. Darwin, Leonard: Charles Darwin's son. Darwin, Robert W.: Charles Darwin's father. -letter to. Darwin, Susan: Charles Darwin's sister. -alluded to in early recollections of Charles Darwin. -illness. -sends Wedgwood ware to Hooker. Darwin, William Erasmus: Charles Darwin's eldest son. -on fertilisation of Epipactis palustris. -letter to. "Darwin and after Darwin," Romanes'. "Darwiniana," Asa Gray's. -extract from Huxley's. "Darwinsche Theorie," Wagner's book. "Darwinism," Wallace's. Darwinismus, at the British Association meeting at Norwich (1868). Daubeny, Prof. Charles Giles Bridle, F.R.S. (1795-1867): Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; elected Professor of Chemistry in the University 1822; in 1834 he became Professor of Botany, and in 1840 Professor of Rural Economy. -invites Darwin to attend British Association at Oxford. -mentioned. David, Prof. Edgeworth, and the Funafuti boring. Dawn of life, oldest fossils do not mark the. Dawson, Sir J. William, C.M.G., F.R.S. (1820-99), was born at Pictou, Nova Scotia, and studied at Edinburgh University in 1841-42. He was appointed Principal of the McGill University, Montreal, in 1855,--a post which he held thirty-eight years. See "Fifty Years of Work in Canada, Scientific and Educational," by Sir William Dawson, 1901. -antagonism to Darwinism. -criticism of "Origin" by. -criticism of Hooker's arctic paper. -Hooker on. Dayman, Captain, on soundings. De la Beche, Sir Henry Thomas (1796-1855): was appointed Director of the Ordnance Geological Survey in 1832; his private undertaking to make a geological survey of the mining districts of Devon and Cornwall led the Government to found the National Survey. He was also instrumental in forming the Museum of Practical Geology in Jermyn Street. Death, Darwin on immortality and. Decaisne. Decapods, Zoea stage of. Dedication of Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie" to Darwin. Dedoublement, theory of. Deep-sea soundings, Huxley's work on. Degeneration, in ammonites. -of culinary plants. -and parasitism. Degradation. Deification of Natural Selection. Deinosaurus, and free-will. Delboeuf's "La Psychologie," etc. Delpino, F., on Asclepiadeae and Apocyneae. -on crossing. -on dichogamy. -on fertilisation mechanism. -letter to. -praises Axell's book. -mentioned. Demosthenes, quoted by Darwin. Denudation, Dana on. -Darwin on marine. -comparison of subaerial and marine. -Ramsay and Jukes overestimate subaerial. Deodar, Hooker on the. Deposition and denudation as measure of time. Derby, Lady, letter to. Descent, Falconer on intermediate forms. -from single pair. -Owen's belief in doctrine of. -resemblance due to. Descent of Man. "Descent of Man," reference in, to effect of climate on species. -reviewed by John Morley. -transmission of characters dealt with in. -Darwin's work on. -Sir W. Turner supplies facts for. -Wallace on. Descent with modification, Wallace on. Desert animals, and protective colouring. Design, Darwin on. -examples of. -Lord Kelvin on. Deslongchamps, L., on fertilisation of closed flowers. Desmodium gyrans, Darwin's experiments on. -leaf movements. Development, acceleration and retardation in. -floral. -importance of, in classification. -rate of. -sudden changes during. Devonshire Commission, report on physiological investigation at Kew. Devonshire, flora of. Dewar, Prof., and Sir Wm. Thiselton-Dyer, on vitality of seeds in liquid hydrogen. Diaheliotropism, F. Muller's observations. Dialogue, title of paper by Asa Gray. Diatomaceae, beauty of. -conjugation in. Dicentra thalictriformis, morphology of tendrils. Dichaea, fertilisation mechanism. Dichogamy, Delpino on. -ignorance of botanists of, prior to publication of "Fertilisation of Orchids." Dick, Sir T. Lauder, Survey of Glen Roy by. Dickens, quotation from. Dickson, Dr. Dickson, W.K. Dicotyledons, Heer on oldest known. -sudden appearance. Didelphys. Digestion, beneficial effect on plants. Dillwyn, paper in "Gardeners' Chronicle." Diluvium, tails of. Dimorphism, in Cynips. -Darwin on. -difficult to explain. -and mimicry. -in parasitic plants. -Wallace on. -Walsh on. -Weismann on Sexual. -in Cicadas. -flowers illustrating. -Darwin knows no case in very irregular flowers. -in Melastomaceae. -in Linum. -in eight Natural Orders. -in Primula. -apparent cases due to mere variability. -explanation of. Dingo. Diodia. Dioeciousness, origin of. Dionoea, experiments on. response to stimuli. Curtis' observations on. Dipsacus, F. Darwin on. Dipterocarpus, survival during glacial period. Direct action, arguments against. -Darwin led to believe more in. -Darwin's desire not to underestimate. -Darwin's underestimates. -facts proving. -Falconer on. -and hybridity. -importance of. -of pollen. -variation and. Direction, sense of, in animals. Disease, Dobell on "Germs and Vestiges" of. Dispersal, (see also Distribution), of seeds. -of shells. Distribution, Forbes on. -Hooker on Arctic plants. -of land and sea in former times. -of plants. -factors governing. -of shells. -Thiselton-Dyer on plant-. -Wallace on. -Blytt's work on. Disuse, Darwin on. -effect of. -Owen on. Divergence, Hooker on. -principle of. Diversification, Darwin's doctrine of the good of. Dobell, H., letter to. Dogs, descent of. -experiment in painting. -expression. -habits. -rudimentary tail inherited in certain sheep-. Dohrn, Dr., visits Darwin. -serves in Franco-Prussian war. -extract from letter to. "Dolomit Riffe," Darwin on Mojsisovics'. Domestic animals, crossing in. -Darwin's work on. -Settegast on. -variability of. -treatment in "Variation of Animals and Plants." Domestication, effects of. -and loss of sterility. Domeyko, on Chili. Dominant forms. Don, D., on variation. -mentioned. Donders, F.C., on action of eyelids. -letters to. Dorkings, power of flight. Down, description of house and country. -Darwin's satisfaction with his house. -instances of vitality of seeds recorded from. -method of determining plants at. -Darwin on geology of. -observations on regular lines of flight of bees at. Down (lanugo), on human body. Dropmore. Drosera, F. Darwin's experiments. -"a disguised animal." -Darwin's observations on. -Darwin's pleasure on proving digestion in. -effect of inorganic substance on. -experiments on absorption of poison. -Pfeffer on. -J. Scott's paper on. -response to stimuli. -D. filiformis, experiments on. -D. rotundifolia, experiments on. Drosophyllum, vernation of. -Darwin's work on. -Drosophyllum lusitanicum, sent by Tait to Darwin. -used in Portugal to hang up as fly-paper. Druidical mounds, seeds from. Drummond, J., on fertilisation in Leschenaultia formosa. Duchesne, on atavism. Ducks, period of hatching. -skeletons. -hybrids between fowls and. Dufrenoy, Pierre Armand: published "Memoires pour servir a une Description Geologique de la France," as well as numerous papers in the "Annales des Mines, Comptes Rendus, Bulletin Soc. Geol. France," and elsewhere on mineralogical and geological subjects. -geological work of. Duncan, Rev. J., encourages J. Scott's love for plants. Dung, plants germinated from locust-. Dutrochet, on climbing plants. Duval-Jouve, on leaf-movement in Bryophyllum. Dyer, see Thiselton-Dyer. Dytiscus, as means of dispersal of bivalves. Ears, loss of voluntary movement. -in man and monkeys. -rudimentary muscles. -Wallis's work on. Earth, age of the. Earth-movements, cause of. -in England. -relation to sedimentation. -subordinate part played by heat in. Earthquakes, coincidence of shocks in S. America and elsewhere. -connection with elevation. -connection with state of weather. -Darwin on. -in England. -frequency of. -Hopkins on. -in Scotland. Earthworms, Darwin's book on. -geological action of. -influence of sea-water on. -F. Muller gives Darwin facts on. -Typhlops and true. Echidna, anomalous character of. Edentata, migration into N. America. Edgeworth, mentioned. Edinburgh, Darwin's student-days in. -Hooker's candidature for Chair of Botany. "Edinburgh Review," article on Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." -reference to Huxley's Royal Institution Lectures. -Owen's article. Education, effect of. -influence on children of parents'. Edwardsia, seeds possibly floated from Chili to New Zealand. -in Sandwich Is. and India. Egerton, Sir Philip de Malpas Grey- (1806-81): devoted himself to the study of fossil fishes, and published several memoirs on his collection, which was acquired by the British Museum. Eggs, creation of species as. -means of dispersal of molluscan. Ehrenberg, Ascension I. plants sent to. -on rock-building by infusoria. -Darwin's wish that he should examine underclays. Eichler, A.W., on morphology of cruciferous flower. -on course of vessels as guide to floral morphology. -reference to his Bluthendiagramme. Eildon Hills, need of examination of. Elateridae, luminous thorax of. Elective affinity. Electric organs of fishes, the result of external conditions. Electricity, and plant-movements. "Elements of Geology," Wallace's review of Lyell's. Elephants, Falconer's work on. -rate of increase of. -and variation. -found in gravel at Down. -manner of carrying tail. -shedding tears. Elephas Columbi, Falconer on. -Owen's conduct in regard to Falconer's work on. -E. primigenius, as index of climate. -woolly covering of. -E. texianus, Owen and nomenclature of. Elevation, in Chili. -lines of. -New Zealand and. -continental extension, subsidence and. -connection with earthquakes. -equable nature of movements of subsidence and. -evidence in Scandinavia and Pampas of equable. -Hopkins on. -large areas simultaneously affected by. -d'Orbigny on sudden. -rate of. -Rogers on parallelism of cleavage and axes of. -sedimentary deposits exceptionally preserved during. -subsidence and. -vulcanicity and. Elodea canadensis, successful American immigrant. Emberiza longicauda, long tail-feathers and Sexual Selection. Embryology, argument for. -succession of changes in animal-. -Darwin's explanation of. -of flowers. -of Peneus. -Balfour's work on comparative. Embryonic stages, obliteration of. Endlicher's "Genera Plantarum." Engelmann, on variability of introduced plants in N. America. England, former union with Continent. -men of science of Continent and. Entada scandens, dispersal of seeds. Entomologists, evolutionary views of. "Entstehung und Begriff der naturhistorischen Art," Nageli's Essay. -Darwin on. Environment, and colour protection. Eocene, Anoplotherium in S. America. -monkeys. -mammals. -co-existence with recent shells. Eozoon, illustrating difficulty of distinguishing organic and inorganic bodies. Ephemera dimidiatum, Lord Avebury on. Epidendreae, closely related to Malaxeae. Epidendrum, Cruger on fertilisation of. -self-fertilisation of. Epiontology, De Candolle's term. Epipactis, fertilisation mechanism. -F. Muller on. -pollinia of. -E. palustris, fertilisation mechanism. Epithecia, fertilisation mechanism. Equatorial refrigeration. Equus, Marsh's work on. -geographical distribution. -in N. and S. America. Erica tetralix, Darwin on. Erigeron canadense, successful immigrant from America. Erodium cicutarium, introduced from Spain to America. -range in U.S.A. Erratic blocks, in Azores. -in S. America. -Darwin on transport. -of Jura. -Mackintosh on. -on Moel Tryfan. Errera, Prof. L., letter to. -and S. Gevaert, on cross and self-fertilisation. Eruptions, parallelism of lines of, with coast-lines. Eryngium maritimum, bloom on. Erythrina, MacArthur on. -of New S. Wales. -sleep movements of. Erythroxylon, dimorphism of sub-genus of. Eschscholtzia, crossing and self-fertility. -Darwin's experiments on self-sterility. -F. Muller's experiments in crossing. Eschricht, on lanugo on human embryo. Escombe, F., on vitality of seeds. -see Brown, H.T. Esquimaux, Natural Selection and. "Essays and Reviews," attitude of laymen towards. Eternity, Gapitche on. Etheridge, Robert, F.R.S.: President of Geological Society in 1880-81. Etna, Sir Charles Lyell's work on. -map of. Eucalyptus, species setting seed. -mentioned. Euonymus europaeus, dispersal of seeds. Euphorbia, Darwin on roots of. -E. peplis, bloom on. Euphrasia, parasitism of. Europe, movement of. Eurybia argophylla, musk-tree of Tasmania, an arborescent Composite. Evergreen vegetation, connection with humid and equable climate. Evolution, Darwin's early views. -Fossil Cephalopods used by Hyatt as test of. -Huxley's lectures on. -of mental traits. -F. Muller's contributions to. -Nageli's Essay, "Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art." -Palaeontology as illustrating. -Romanes' lecture on. -Saporta's belief in. -unknown law of. -of Angiosperms. -of colour. -and death. -Heer opposed to. -of language. -Lyell's views (see also Lyell). -Turner on man and. -Wallace on. Ewart, Prof. C., on Telegony. Exacum, dimorphism of. Experiments, botanical. -Tegetmeier's on pigeons. -time expended on. Expression, queries on. -Bell on anatomy of. -Darwin at work on. "Expression of the Emotions," Wallace's review. External conditions, Natural Selection and. -See also Direct Action. Extinction, behaviour of species verging towards. -contingencies concerned in. -Hooker on. -races of man and. -Proboscidea verging towards. -St. Helena and examples of. Eyebrows, use of. Eyes, behaviour during meditation. -contraction in blind people of muscles of. -children's habit of rubbing with knuckles. -gorged with blood during screaming. -contraction of iris. -wrinkling of children's. Fabre, J.H.: is best known for his "Souvenirs Entomologiques," in No. VI. of which he gives a wonderfully vivid account of his hardy and primitive life as a boy, and of his early struggles after a life of culture. -letters to. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," translation of F. Muller's "Fur Darwin." -delay in publication. -sale. -unfavourable review in "Athenaeum." Fairy rings, Darwin compares with fungoid diseases in man and animals. Falconer, Hugh (1809-65): was a student at the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and went out to India in 1830 as Assistant-Surgeon on the Bengal Establishment. In 1832 he succeeded Dr. Royle as the Superintendent of the Botanic Gardens at Saharunpur; and in 1848, after spending some years in England, he was appointed Superintendent of the Calcutta Botanical Garden and Professor of Botany in the Medical College. Although Falconer held an important botanical post for many years, he is chiefly known as a Palaeozoologist. He seems, however, to have had a share in introducing Cinchona into India. His discovery, in company with Colonel Sir Proby T. Cautley, of Miocene Mammalia in the Siwalik Hills, was at the time perhaps the greatest "find" which had been made. The fossils of the Siwalik Hills formed the subject of Falconer's most important book, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis," which, however, remained unfinished at the time of his death. Falconer also devoted himself to the investigation of the cave-fauna of England, and contributed important papers on fossils found in Sicily, Malta, and elsewhere. Dr. Falconer was a Vice-President of the Royal Society and Foreign Secretary of the Geological Society. "Falconer did enough during his lifetime to render his name as a palaeontologist immortal in science; but the work which he published was only a fraction of what he accomplished...He was cautious to a fault; he always feared to commit himself to an opinion until he was sure he was right, and he died in the prime of his life and in the fulness of his power." (Biographical sketch contributed by Charles Murchison to his edition of Hugh Falconer's "Palaeontological Memoirs and Notes," London, 1868; "Proc. R. Soc." Volume XV., page xiv., 1867: "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXI., page xlv, 1865.) Hugh Falconer was among those who did not fully accept the views expressed in the "Origin of Species," but he could differ from Darwin without any bitterness. Two years before the book was published, Darwin wrote to Asa Gray: "The last time I saw my dear old friend Falconer he attacked me most vigorously, but quite kindly, and told me, 'You will do more harm than any ten naturalists will do good. I can see that you have already corrupted and half spoiled Hooker.'" ("Life and Letters," II., page 121.) The affectionate regard which Darwin felt for Falconer was shared by their common friend Hooker. The following extract of a letter from Hooker to Darwin (February 3rd, 1865) shows clearly the strong friendships which Falconer inspired: "Poor old Falconer! how my mind runs back to those happiest of all our days that I used to spend at Down twenty years ago--when I left your home with my heart in my mouth like a schoolboy. We last heard he was ill on Wednesday or Thursday, and sent daily to enquire, but the report was so good on Saturday that we sent no more, and on Monday night he died...What a mountainous mass of admirable and accurate information dies with our dear old friend! I shall miss him greatly, not only personally, but as a scientific man of unflinching and uncompromising integrity--and of great weight in Murchisonian and other counsels where ballast is sadly needed." -article in "Natural History Review." -Darwin's Copley medal and. -Darwin's criticism of his elephant work. -Darwin's regard for. -Forbes attacked by. -his opinion of Forbes. -goes to India. -Hooker's regard for. -letter to Darwin. -letter to Sharpey. -letters to. -letter to "Athenaeum." -Lyell and. -on Mastodon andium. -on Mastodon of Australia. -on elephants. -Owen and. -on phyllotaxis. -on Plagiaulax. -speech at Cambridge. -"Memoirs." Falkland Islands, Darwin visits. -Polyborus sp. in. -brightly coloured female hawk. -effect of subsidence. -streams of stones. Fanciers, use made of Selection by. Fantails, see Pigeons. Faraday, memorial to. Faramea, dimorphism. Farmer, Prof. J.B., and S.E. Chandler, on influence of excess of CO2 on anatomy of plants. Faroe Islands, Polygala vulgaris of. Farrer, Canon, lecture on defects in Public School Education. -letter to. Farrer, Lady. Farrer, Thomas Henry, Lord (1819-99): was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar, but gave up practice for the public service, where he became Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade. According to the "Times," October 13th, 1899, "for nearly forty years he was synonymous with the Board in the opinion of all who were brought into close relation with it." He was made a baronet in 1883; he retired from his post a few years later, and was raised to the peerage in 1893. His friendship with Mr. Darwin was of many years' standing, and opportunities of meeting were more frequent in the last ten years of Mr. Darwin's life, owing to Lord Farrer's marriage with Miss Wedgwood, a niece of Mrs. Darwin's, and the subsequent marriage of his son Horace with Miss Farrer. His keen love of science is attested by the letters given in the present volume. He published several excellent papers on the fertilisation of flowers in the "Ann. and Mag. of Natural History," and in "Nature," between 1868 and 1874. In Politics he was a Radical--a strong supporter of free trade: on this last subject, as well as on bimetallism, he was frequently engaged in public controversy. He loyally carried out many changes in the legislature which, as an individualist, he would in his private capacity have strenuously opposed. In the "Speaker," October 21st, 1899, Lord Welby heads his article on Lord Farrer with a few words of personal appreciation:-- "In Lord Farrer has passed away a most interesting personality. A great civil servant; in his later years a public man of courage and lofty ideal; in private life a staunch friend, abounding as a companion in humour and ripe knowledge. Age had not dimmed the geniality of his disposition, or an intellect lively and eager as that of a boy--lovable above all in the transparent simplicity of his character." -interest in Torbitt's potato experiment. -letters to. -on earthworms. -observations on fertilisation of Passiflora. -recollections of Darwin. -seeds sent to. Fawcett, Henry (1833-84): Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge, 1863, Postmaster-General 1880-84. See Leslie Stephen's well-known "Life." -defends Darwin's arguments. -letter to. -letter to Darwin. Fear, expression of. Felis, range. Fellowships, discussion on abolition of Prize-. Felspar, segregation of. Females, modification for protection. "Fenland, Past and Present," by Miller and Skertchley. Fergusson on Darwinism. Fernando Po, plants of. Ferns, Scott on spores. -Darwin's ignorance of. -variability "passes all bounds." Ferrier, Dr., groundless charge brought against, for infringement of Vivisection Act. Fertilisation, articles in "Gardeners' Chronicle." -of flowers. -H. Muller's work on. -and sterility. -Darwin fascinated by study of. -different mechanisms in same genus. -travelling of reproductive cells in. Fertilisation of orchids, Darwin's work on. -paper by Darwin in "Gardeners' Chronicle" on. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Asa Gray's review. -Hooker's review. -description of Acropera and Catasetum in. -H. Muller's "Befruchtung der Blumen," the outcome of Darwin's. Fertility, Natural Selection and. -and sterility. -Primula. -Scott on varieties and relative. Festuca. Figs, F. Muller on fertilisation of. Finmark, Bravais on sea-beaches of. Fir (Silver), Witches' brooms of. "First Principles," Spencer's. Fish, Pictet and Humbert on fossil. Fiske, J., letter to. Fissure-eruptions. Fitton, reference to his work. FitzRoy (Fitz-Roy), Captain, and the "Beagle" voyage. -writes preface to account of the voyage. -Darwin nearly rejected by. -letter to "Times." Flagellaria, as a climber. Flahault, on the peg in Cucurbita. Fleeming Jenkin, review of "Origin" by, see Jenkin. Flinders, M., voyage to Terra Australis by. Flint implements found near Bedford. Flints, abundance and derivation of, at Down. -Darwin on their upright position in gravel. Floating ice, Darwin on agency of. -J. Geikie underestimates its importance. -transporting power of. Flora, Darwin's idea of an Utopian. -Hooker's scheme for a. -Hooker's work on Tasmanian. "Flora antarctica," Hooker's. "Flora fossilis arctica," Heer's. Floras: N. American. Arctic. British. Colonial. European. French. Greenland. Holland. India. Japan. New Zealand. -distribution of. -of islands. -local. -tabulation of. Florida, A. Agassiz on Coral reefs. -Coral reefs. Flourens, experiments on pigeons. Flower, Sir William H., Letter to. -on muscles of the os coccyx. Flowering plants, possible origin on a Southern Continent. -sudden appearance of. Flowers, at Down. -Darwin's work on forms of. -monstrous. -morphological characters. -regular and irregular. -cross-fertilisation in inconspicuous. -ignorance of botanists on mechanism of. "Flowers and their unbidden Guests," Dr. Ogle's translation of Kerner's "Schutzmittel des Pollens." Flying machine, Darwin on Popper's proposed. Folding of strata. Foliation and cleavage, reference by A. Harker to work on. Foliation, aqueous deposition and. -Darwin considers his observations on cleavage less deserving of confidence than those on. -Darwin on. -parallelism with cleavage. -relation to rock-curvature. Food, as determining number of species. Foraminifera. Forbes, D., on the Cordilleras. -on elevation in Chili. -on nitrate of soda beds in S. America. Forbes, Edward, F.R.S. (1815-1854): filled the office of Palaeontologist to the Ordnance Geological Survey, and afterwards became President of the Geological Society; in 1854--the last year of his life--he was appointed to the chair of Natural History in the University of Edinburgh. Forbes published many papers on geological, zoological, and botanical subjects, one of his most remarkable contributions being the well-known essay "On the Connexion between the Distribution of the Existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles and the Geological Changes which have affected their area" ("Mem. Geol. Surv." Volume I., page 336, 1846). (See "Proc. Roy. Soc." Volume VII., page 263, 1856; "Quart. Journl. Geol. Soc." Volume XI., page xxvii, 1855, and "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XV., 1855. -on flora of Azores. -on Chambers as author of the "Vestiges." -on continental extension. -Darwin opposed to his views on continental extension. -Darwin's opinion of. -Article on distribution. -on continuity of land. -on plant-distribution. -introductory lecture as professor in Edinburgh. -on former lower extension of glaciers in Cordillera. -lecture by. -letter to Darwin from. -on Madagascar insects. -on post-Miocene land. -Polarity theory. -on British shells. -too speculative. -on subsidence. -visits Down. -mentioned. -royal medal awarded to. -essay on connection between distribution of existing fauna and flora of the British Isles and geological changes. Forbes, H.O., on Melastoma. Force and Matter, Huxley on. Forel, Auguste: the distinguished author of "Les Fourmis de la Suisse," Zurich, 1874, and of a long series of well-known papers. -on ants and beetles. -author of "Les Fourmis de la Suisse." -letter to. Forfarshire, Lyell on glaciers of. "Forms of Flowers," De Candolle's criticism of Darwin's. homomorphic and heteromorphic unions described in. Forsyth-Major, zoological expedition to Madagascar. "Fortnightly Review," Huxley's article on Positivism. Romanes on Evolution. Fossil Cephalopods, Hyatt on. Fossil corals. Fossil plants, small proportion of. of Australia. sudden appearance of Angiosperms indicated by. Fossil seeds, supposed vivification of. Fossils as evidence of variability. Fournier, E., De la Fecundation dans les Phanerogames. Fowls, difference in sexes. -purred female. Fox, tails of, used by Esquimaux as respirators. Fox, Rev. W. Darwin. Foxglove, use of hairs in flower. France, edition of "Origin" in. -opinion favourable to Darwin's views in. -birth-rate. Franco-Prussian war, opinion in England. -Science retarded by. Frank, Albert Bernhard (1839-1900): began his botanical career as Curator of the University Herbarium, Leipzig, where he afterwards became Privatdocent and finally "Ausserordentlicher Professor." In 1881 Frank was appointed Professor of Plant-Physiology in the Landwirthschaftliche Hochschule, Berlin. In 1899 he was appointed to the Imperial Gesundheits-Amt in Berlin, and raised to the rank of Regierungsrath. Frank is chiefly known for his work on "The Assimilation of Free Nitrogen, etc.," and for his work on "The Diseases of Plants" ("Die Krankheiten der Pflanzen," 1880). It was his brilliant researches on growth-curvature ("Beitrage zur Pflanzen-physiologie," 1868, and "Die Naturlichen wagerechte Richtung von Pflanzen-theilen," 1870) which excited Darwin's admiration. -Darwin's admiration for his work. Franklin, Sir J., search expedition. Fraser, G., letter to. "Fraser's Magazine," article by Hopkins. -article by Galton on twins. -Huxley on review in. Freemasons' Tavern, meeting held at. Freewill, a preordained necessity. Freke, Dr., paper by. Freshwater, Bee-orchis at. Freshwater fauna, ocean faunas compared with. -poverty of. -preservation of. Friendly Islands, rats regarded as game. Fringillidae, colour and sexual selection. Frogs, article on spawn of. -F. Muller on. -salt water and spawn of. -frozen in glaciers. Fruits, bright colours of. Fucus, variation in. Fuegia, plants of, (see also Tierra del Fuego). Fumaria (Corydalis) claviculata, Mohl on tendrils. Fumariaceae, cross- and self-fertilisation. -morphology of tendrils. Funafuti, Darwin's theory supported by results of boring in coral island of. Fungoid diseases, Darwin on. Fungus, effect on roots and shoots. "Fur Darwin," F. Muller's (see "Facts and Arguments for Darwin). -Darwin quotes. -Hooker's opinion of. -publication of. Furze, seeds and seedlings. Galapagos Islands, visited during the "Beagle" voyage. -birds of. -character of species of, the beginning of Darwin's evolutionary views. -distribution of animals. -distribution of plants. -flora of. -Hooker on plants of. -insects. -craters. -fissure eruptions in. -restricted fauna. -Sandwich Islands and. -subsidence in the. Galashiels, terraces near. Galaxias, distribution of. Gallinaceae, Blyth on. -colour of. Galls, artificial production of. -Cynips and. -hybrids and. -Walsh on willow-. Gallus bankiva, colour of wings. -colour and environment. -wings of. Galton, F., experiments on transfusion of blood. -letters to. -letter to Darwin from. -on twins. -on variation. -on heredity. -on human faculty and its development. -on prayer. -proposal to issue health certificates for marriage. Game-cock and Sexual Selection. Gamlingay, lilies-of-the-valley at. Ganoid fishes, preservation in fresh water. Gapitche, A., letter to. "Gardeners' Chronicle," Darwin's article on fertilisation. -Darwin's opinion of. -Darwin's experiment on immersion of seeds in salt water. -article on Orchids. -Harvey on Darwin. -Rivers' articles. -Wallace on nests. -Darwin's index. Gardner, G., "Travels in the Interior of Brazil." Gartner, on Aquilegia. -experiments on crossing and variation. -on Primula. -on Verbascum. -Darwin's high opinion of his "Bastarderzeugung." -Beaton's criticism of. -on self-fertilisation in flowers. -mentioned. Gaskell, G.A., Letter to. Gatke, on "Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory." Gaudry, Albert: Professor of Palaeontology in the Natural History Museum, Paris, Foreign Member of the Royal Society of London, author of "Animaux Foss. et Geol. de l'Attique." -letter to. -on Pikermi fossils. Gay, on lizards. Gazania. Gegenbauer, Karl: Professor of Anatomy at Heidelberg. -as convert to Darwinism. -views on regeneration. Geikie, Sir A., on age of the Earth. -edition of "Hutton's Theory of the Earth." -memoir of Sir A.C. Ramsay. Geikie, Prof. J., "Ice Age." -on intercrossing of erratics. -Letters to. -"Prehistoric Europe." -Presidential address, Edinburgh British Association meeting. Geitonogamy, Kerner suggests term. Gemmation and dimorphism. Gemmules, in reproductive organs. -and bud-variation. Genealogy and classification. Genera, aberrant. -range of large and small. -variation of. -Wallace on origin of. "Genera Plantarum," work on the. Generalisations, evil of. -easier than careful observation. -importance. "Generelle Morphologie," Darwin on Hackel's. "Genesis of Species," Mivart's Geographical distribution, L. Agassiz on. -Darwin on. -Darwin's high opinion of value of. -Darwin's interest in. -E. Forbes on. -Huxley on birds and. -proposed work by Hooker on. -relation of genera an important element in. -Humboldt the founder of. "Geographical Distribution of Animals," Darwin's criticism of Wallace's. "Geographical Distribution of Mammals," A. Murray's. Geographical regions, Darwin on. Geological Committee on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. "Geological Gossip," Ansted's. "Geological Instructions," Darwin's manual of. "Geological Observations in S. America," Darwin's. -Darwin on his. Geological record, imperfection of the. -Morse on the. Geological Society, award of medal to Darwin. -Darwin signs Hooker's certificate. -museum of. -Darwin attends Council meeting. Geological Survey, foundation of. -investigation of the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Geological Time, article in "N. British Review." Geologist, Darwin as. Geologists, evolutionary views of. Geology, arguments in favour of evolution from. -chapter in "Origin" on. -practical teaching of. -English work in. -Hooker talks of giving up. -Lyellian school. -progress of. Geotropism, Darwin on. German, Darwin's slight knowledge of. Germany, converts to evolution in. -opinion on the "Origin" in. -Englishmen rejoice over victory of. Germination of seeds, Darwin's experiments on effect of salt water. "Germs and Vestiges of Disease," Dobell's. Gesneria, Darwin on dimorphism of. Gestation of hounds. Gibraltar, elevation and subsidence of. Gilbert, Sir J.H.: of Rothamsted. -letter to. -on nitrogen in worms' casting. -and Sir J. Lawes, Rothamsted experiments. Glacial period, absence of phanerogams near polar regions in N. America during. -Bates on. -climatic changes since. -conditions during. -continental changes since. -Darwin's views on geographical changes as cause of. -destruction of organisms during. -destruction of Spanish plants in Ireland. -distribution of organisms affected by. -duration of. -effect on animals and plants. -and elephants. -S.E. England dry land during. -Greenland depopulated during. -introduction of Old World forms into New World subsequent to. -migration during. -mundane character of. -subsidence of Alps during. -Croll on. -existence of Alpine plants before. -Hooker on. -Glen Roy and. -Lyell on. -extinction of mammals during. -Wallace on. -movement of Europe since and during. Glaciers, Agassiz on. -Lyell on. -Tyndall's book on. -as agents in the formation of lakes. -Darwin on structure of. -Hooker on Yorkshire. -Moseley on motion of. -physics of. -Parallel Roads of Glen Roy formed by. -rock-cavities formed by cascades in. -in S. America. -in Wales. Gladstone, Herbert Spencer on criticisms by. Glass, Dr., on grafting sugar-canes. Glen Collarig, absence of terminal moraines. -terraces in. Glen Glaster, absence of terminal moraines. -barriers of detritus. -Milne on. -shelves of. Glen Gluoy, shelves of. Glen Roy, Parallel Roads of. -L. Agassiz on. -Darwin on. -Darwin's mistake over. -Darwin on ice-lake theory of Agassiz and Buckland. -glacier theory of. -history of work on. -Hooker on. -marine theory of. -Milne-Home's paper on. -investigated by Geological Survey. -coincidence of shelves with watersheds. -measurement of terraces. Glen Spean. Glen Turret, MacCulloch on. Gloriosa, Darwin's experiments on leaf-tendrils. Glossotherium Listai. Gloxinia, peloric forms of. Gnaphalium. Gneiss, Darwin on. God, Darwin on existence of personal. Godron, on Aegilops. Godron's "Flora of France." Goethe, Darwin's reference to. -Owen on. Goldfinch, difference in beaks of male and female. Gongora, and Acropera. -Darwin on. -G. fusca (see Acropera luteola). -G. galeata (see A. Loddigesii). Gondwana Land. Goodenia, Hamilton on fertilisation of. Goodeniaceae. Gordon, General, Huxley on Darwin and. Gosse, E., "Life of P.H. Gosse" by. Gosse, Philip Henry (1810-88): was an example of that almost extinct type-- a naturalist with a wide knowledge gained at first hand from nature as a whole. This width of culture was combined with a severe and narrow religious creed, and though, as Edmund Gosse points out, there was in his father's case no reconcilement of science and religion, since his "impressions of nature" had to give way absolutely to his "convictions of religion," yet he was not debarred by his views from a friendly intercourse with Darwin. He did much to spread a love of Natural History, more especially by his seaside books, and by his introduction of the aquarium-- the popularity of which (as Mr. Edmund Gosse shows) is reflected in the pages of "Punch," especially in John Leech's illustrations. Kingsley said of him (quoted by Edmund Gosse, page 344) "Since White's "History of Selborne" few or no writers on Natural History, save Mr. Gosse and poor Mr. Edward Forbes, have had the power of bringing out the human side of science, and giving to seemingly dry disquisitions...that living and personal interest, to bestow which is generally the special function of the poet." Among his books are the "Naturalist's Sojourn in Jamaica," 1851; "A Naturalist's Rambles on the Devonshire Coast," 1853; "Omphalos," 1857; "A Year at the Shore," 1865. He was also author of a long series of papers in scientific journals. -letter to. Gould, on sex in nightingales. Gower Street, Darwin's house in. Gradation in plants. Graft-hybrids, experiments on. -of Cytisus. -Hildebrand on. -of potatoes. -of sugar-canes. Grafting, Darwin on. -difficulty of. -in hyacinth bulbs. Graham's "Creed of Science." Gramineae, Darwin on crossing. Granite, explanation of association with basalt. Grasses, range of genera. -cleistogamous. -fertilisation of. -F. Muller on Brazilian. Gratiolet, on behaviour of eyes in rage. Gravity, comparison between variation and laws of. Gray, Asa (1810-88): was born in the township of Paris, Oneida Co., New York. He became interested in science when a student at the Fairfield Academy; he took his doctor's degree in 1831, but instead of pursuing medical work he accepted the post of Instructor in Chemistry, Mineralogy, and Botany in the High School of Utica. Gray afterwards became assistant to Professor Torrey in the New York Medical School, and in 1835 he was appointed Curator and Librarian of the New York Lyceum of Natural History. From 1842 to 1872 he occupied the Chair of Natural History in Harvard College, and the post of Director of the Cambridge Botanical Gardens; from 1872 till the time of his death he was relieved of the duties of teaching and of the active direction of the Gardens, but retained the Herbarium. Professor Gray was a Foreign Member of the Linnean and of the Royal Societies. The "Flora of North America" (of which the first parts appeared in 1838), "Manual of the Botany of the Northern United States, the Botany of Commodore Wilkes' South Pacific Exploring Expedition" are among the most important of Gray's systematic memoirs; in addition to these he wrote several botanical text-books and a great number of papers of first-class importance. In an obituary notice written by Sir Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray is described as "one of the first to accept and defend the doctrine of Natural Selection..., so that Darwin, whilst fully recognising the different standpoints from which he and Gray took their departures, and their divergence of opinion on important points, nevertheless regarded him as the naturalist who had most thoroughly gauged the "Origin of Species," and as a tower of strength to himself and his cause" ("Proc. R. Soc." Volume XLVI., page xv, 1890: "Letters of Asa Gray," edited by Jane Loring Gray, 2 volumes, Boston, U.S., 1893). -articles by. -as advocate of Darwin's views. -Darwin's opinion of. -on Hooker's Antarctic paper. -on large genera varying. -letters to Darwin from. -letters to. -on Darwin's views. -plants of the Northern States. -on variation. -book for children by. -on crossing. -visits Down. -on dimorphism. -on Agassiz. -extract from letter to G.F. Wright from. -on fertilisation of Cypripedium. -on Gymnadenia tridentata. -on Habenaria. -on Passiflora. -on relative ranges of U. States and European species. -on Sarracenia. -mentioned. Gray, Mrs. Gray, Dr. John Edward, F.R.S. (1800-75): became an assistant to the Natural History Department of the British Museum in 1824, and was appointed Keeper in 1840. Dr. Gray published a great mass of zoological work, and devoted himself "with unflagging energy to the development of the collections under his charge." ("Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XV., page 281, 1875.) -and British Museum. Greatest Happiness principle. Grebes, as seed-eaters. Greenland, absence of Arctic Leguminosae. -connection with Norway. -flora of. -introduction of plants by currents. -as line of communication of alpine plants. -migration of European birds to. Greg, W.R.: Author of "The Enigmas of Life," 1872. -Darwin on his "Enigmas of Life." -letter to. Grey, Sir G., on Australian Savages. Grinnell expedition, reference to the second. Grisebach, A. Grisebach, A.W. Grossulariaceae. Grouse, Natural Selection and colours of. -Owen describes as distinct creation. Grypotherium Darwini. -G. domesticum. Guiana, Bates on. Gulf-weed, Darwin on. Gully Dr. Gunther, Dr., visit to Down. Gurney, E., articles in "Fortnightly" and "Cornhill." -"Power of Sound." Gymnadenia, course of vessels in flower of. -Asa Gray on. -penetration by pollen of rostellum. Gynodioecism in Plantago. Haast, Sir Julius von, (1824-87): published several papers on the Geology of New Zealand, with special reference to glacial phenomena. ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXI., pages 130, 133, 1865; Volume XXIII., page 342, 1867.) -on glacial deposits. Habenaria, Azorean species (see also Peristylus viridis). -course of vessels in flower. -Lord Farrer on. -morphology of flower. -H. bifolia, flowers. -a subspecies of H. chlorantha. -H. chlorantha, considered by Bentham a var. of H. bifolia. -structure of ovary. Hackel, E., convert to Darwin's views. -"Generelle Morphologie." -Die Kalkschwamme. -"Freedom in Science and Teaching." -letters to. -on pangenesis. -proposed translation of his book. -on reviews of "Origin" in Germany. -on sponges. -substitutes a molecular hypothesis for pangenesis. -visits Down. -on absence of colour-protection in lower animals. -on change of species. -on Linope. -on medusae. Haematoxylon, bloom-experiments on. -sleep-movements. Halictus, Fabre's paper on. Halimeda, Darwin's description of. Halleria, woody nature of. Hallett, on varieties of wheat. Hamilton, on fertilisation of Dampiera. Hamilton, Sir W., on Law of Parsimony. Hancock, Albany (1806-73): author of many zoological and palaeontological papers. His best-known work, written in conjunction with Joshua Alder, and published by the Ray Society is on the British Nudibranchiate Mollusca. The Royal Medal was awarded to him in 1858. -on British shells. -and Royal medal. Hanley, Dr., Darwin's visit to. Harker, A., note on Darwin's work on cleavage and foliation. Hartman, Dr., on Cicada septendecim. "Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders," Moggridge's. Harvey, William Henry (1811-66): was the author of several botanical works, principally on Algae; he held the botanical Professorship at Trinity College, Dublin, and in 1857 succeeded Professor Allman in the Chair of Botany in Dublin University. (See "Life and Letters," II., pages 274-75.) -criticism of "Origin." -Darwin's opinion of his book. -letter to. -mentioned. -on variation in Fucus. Haughton, Samuel (1821-97): author of "Animal Mechanics, a Manual of Geology," and numerous papers on Physics, Mathematics, Geology, etc. In November 1862 Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "Do you know whether there are two Rev. Prof. Haughtons at Dublin? One of this name has made a splendid medical discovery of nicotine counteracting strychnine and tetanus? Can it be my dear friend? If so, he is at full liberty for the future to sneer [at] and abuse me to his heart's content." Unfortunately, Prof. Haughtons' discovery has not proved of more permanent value than his criticism on the "Origin of Species." -on Bees' cells. -on depth of ocean. -review by. -mentioned. Hawaiian Islands, Hillebrand's Flora. -plants. Hawks and owls as agents in seed-dispersal. -bright colours in female. Head, expression in movement of. Hearne, on black bear. Heat, action on rocks. Heathcote, Miss. Heaths, as examples of boreal plants in Azores. -and climate. Heberden, Dr., mentioned. Hector. Hedgehog, movements of spines. Hedychium, Darwin's prediction as to fertilisation of. -paraheliotropism. Hedyotis, dimorphism of. Hedysarum, Darwin's experiments on (see Desmodium gyrans). Heer, Oswald (1809-83): was born at Niederutzwyl, in the Canton of St. Gall, Switzerland, and for many years (1855-82) occupied the chair of Botany in the University of Zurich. While eminent as an entomologist Heer is chiefly known as a writer on Fossil Plants. He began to write on palaeobotanical subjects in 1841; among his most important publications, apart from the numerous papers contributed to scientific societies, the following may be mentioned: "Flora Tertiaria Helvetiae," 1855-59; the "Flora Fossilis Arctica," 7 volumes, 1869-83; "Die Urwelt der Schweiz," 1865; "Flora Fossilis Helvetiae," 1876-7. He was awarded the Wollaston medal of the Geological Society in 1874, and in 1878 he received a Royal medal. (Oswald Heer, "Bibliographie et Tables Iconographiques," par G. Malloizel, precede d'une Notice Biographique" par R. Zeiller; Stockholm.) -on continental extension. -on plants of Madeira. -on origin of species from monstrosities. -Darwin sends photograph to. -"Flora fossilis arctica." -letter to. Heeria (see also Heterocentron). -F. Muller on. Heifers, and sterility. Helianthemum, Baillon's observations on pollen. Heligoland, birds alight on sea near. Heliotropism, experiments on. -of roots. Hemsley, W.B., mentioned. Hennessey. Henry, I.A. (see Anderson-Henry) -letter to. Henslow, Prof. J.S., life of. -Darwin's affection for. -Darwin's Cambridge recollections of. -death of. -letters to. -mentioned. -on Mus messorius. -visits Down. -Darwin on his parish work. -work on crossing. Henslow, Miss, mentioned. Herbaceous orders, in relation to trees. Herbert, Dean, on heaths of S. Africa. -on Polygala. -on Cytisus Adami. -on self-fertility of Hippeastrum. -mentioned. "Hereditary Genius," Francis Galton's. Hereditary Improvement, Francis Galton on. Heredity, Darwin's criticism of Galton's theory. Hermaphroditism, in trees. -Weir on Lepidoptera and. -and nature of generative organs. Herminium monorchis. Heron, Sir R., on peacocks and colour. Herons, as fruit-feeders. Herschel, Sir J.F.W., edits "Manual of Scientific Enquiry." -on Natural Selection. -on the "Origin." -"Physical Geography." -on providential laws. -on heating of rocks. -on importance of generalising. -on study of languages. -versus Lyell on volcanic islands. -mentioned. Heteranthera, two kinds of stamens. -H. reniformis. Heterocentron, experiments on. -seeds of. -two kinds of stamens. -H. roseum, fertilisation mechanism of. Heterogeny, Owen on. Heteromorphic, use of term. Heterosmilax, de Candolle on. Heterostylism, Darwin's experiments on. -example in monocotyledons of. Hewitt, on pheasant-hybrids. -mentioned. Hibiscus. Hicks, H., on pre-Cambrian rocks. Hieracium, American species. -Nageli on. -variability of. Highness, lowness and. Hilaire, A. St., see St. Hilaire. Hildebrand, F., article in "Botanische Zeitung." -experiments on direct action of pollen. -"Die Lebensdauer der Pflanzen." -letter to. -crossing work by. -on Delpino's work. -on dispersal of seeds. -self-sterility in Corydalis cava. -"Geschlechter-Vertheilung bei den Pflanzen." -on orchids. -on ovules formed after pollination. -experiment on potatoes. -on Salvia. -mentioned. Hilgendorf, controversy with Sandberger. Hillebrand's Flora of the Hawaiian Islands. "Himalayan Journals," dedicated by Hooker to Darwin. "Himalayan Plants, Illustrations of." Himalayas, British plants in. -commingling of temperate and tropical plants. -tortoise of. -ice-action in. -mixed character of the vegetation. Hinde, Dr., examination of Funafuti coral-reef cores by. Hindmarsh, L., letter to. Hippeastrum, Herbert on self-sterility of. Hippopotamus, fossil in Madagascar. Historic spirit, J. Morley's criticism of Darwin's lack of. Hitcham, collection of Azorean plants made near. Hobhouse, Sir A., Darwin meets. Hochberg, K., letter to. Hofmann, A.W., receives royal medal. Holland, evolutionary opinions in. -flora of. Holland, Sir H., on pangenesis. -mentioned. -on influence of mind on circulation. Holly, effective work of insects in fertilisation of. Hollyhock, Darwin's crossing experiments. Holmsdale. Home, see Milne-Home. Homing experiments. Homo, Pithecus compared with. Homology, analogy and. -course of vessels in flowers as guide to. Homomorphic, use of term. Honeysuckle, oak-leaved variety. Hooker, Mrs., assists Sir J.D. Hooker. Hooker, Sir J.D., addresses at British Association meetings. -on Arctic plants. -Australian Flora by. -botanical appointment. -C.B. conferred upon. -on coal plants and conditions of growth. -criticism on Lyell's work. -on Darwin's MS. on geographical distribution. -Darwin's admiration for letters of. -Darwin assisted in his work by. -Darwin on good gained by "squabbles" with. -Darwin on success of. -enjoyment of correspondence with Darwin. -expedition to Syria. -extract from letter to. -Falconer and. -first meeting with Darwin. -on Insular Floras. -introductory essay to Flora of Tasmania. -lecture at Royal Institution. -letters to. -letters to Darwin from. -on new colonial flora. -on New Zealand flora. -on Natural Selection. -on naturalised plants. -on the "Origin." -and Owen. -on pangenesis. -on plants of Fernando Po and Abyssinia. -on preservation of tropical plants during cool period. -and reviews. -royal medal awarded to. -and J. Scott. -on species. -on Torbitt's potato experiments. -on use of terms centripetal and centrifugal. -on variation in large and small genera. -on Welwitschia. -on Cameroon plants. -Darwin on his address at Belfast. -Darwin writes testimonial for. -Darwin values scientific opinion of. -Darwin receives encouragement from. -Darwin's pleasure at visits from. -on Glacial period. -on Glacial deposits in India. -on glaciers in Yorkshire. -notice in "Gardeners' Chronicle" on. -photograph by Mrs. Cameron. -Primer of Botany by. -review of Darwin's "Fertilisation of Orchids." -scheme for Flora. -represents "whole great public" to Darwin. -use of structure in plants. -visits Down. -opinion of "Fur Darwin." -mentioned. Hooker, Sir William Jackson (1785-1865): was called to the Chair of Botany at Glasgow in 1820, where by his success as a teacher he raised the annual fees from 60 pounds to 700 pounds. In 1841 he became Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, which under his administration increased enormously in activity and importance. His private Herbarium, said to be "by far the richest ever accumulated in one man's lifetime," formed the nucleus of the present collection. He produced, as author or editor, about a hundred volumes devoted to Botany ("Dict. of Nat. Biog."). -Herbarium at Kew belonging to. -letters to. -mentioned. Hopkins, William, F.R.S. (1793-1866) entered Peterhouse, Cambridge, at the age of thirty, and in 1827 took his degree as seventh wrangler. For some years Hopkins was very successful as a mathematical tutor; about 1833 he began to take a keen interest in geological subjects, and especially concerned himself with the effects of elevating forces acting from below on the earth's crust. He was President of the Geological Society in 1851 and 1852 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXIII., page xxix, 1867). -Article in "Fraser's Magazine." -on elevation and earthquakes. -on mountain-building. -researches in physical geology. -mentioned. Horner, Leonard, F.R.S. (1785-1862): was born in Edinburgh, at the age of twenty-one he settled in London, and devoted himself more particularly to Geology and Mineralogy, returning a few years later to Edinburgh, where he took a prominent part in founding the School of Art and other educational institutions. In 1827 Mr. Horner was invited to occupy the post of Warden in the London University,a position which he resigned in 1831; he also held for some years an Inspectorship of Factories. As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Mr. Horner "took an active part in bringing about certain changes in the management of the Society, which resulted in limiting to fifteen the number of new members to be annually elected..." In 1846 Horner was elected President of the Geological Society; and in 1860 he again presided over the Society, to the interests of which he had long devoted himself. His contributions to the Society include papers on Stratigraphical Geology, Mineralogy, and other subjects.--"Memoirs of Leonard Horner," edited by his daughter, Katherine M. Lyell (privately printed, 1890). -letters to. -memoirs of. -address to Geological Society. -on coal. -on Darwin's "Geological Observations." -visits Down. -mentioned. Horner, Mrs. L. Horse, ancestry. -Arab-Turk and English race-. -hybrids between Quagga and. -in N. and S. America. -equality of sexes in race-. Horsfall, W., letter to. Hottonia, dimorphism of. Hounds, gestation of. Howard, L.O. Hoya carnosa, Darwin's work on. Humble-bees, as agents of fertilisation of orchids. Humboldt, Bates' description of tropical forests compared with that by. -conversation with. -on heath regions. -on migration and double creation. -"Personal Narrative." -on violet of Teneriffe. -Darwin's opinion of. -on elevation and volcanic activity. -mentioned. Humboldt and Webb, on Zones on Teneriffe. Hume, Darwin on Huxley's "Life" of. Humming-birds, agents of fertilisation. Hunger, expression by sheldrakes of. Husbands, resemblance between wives and. Hutton, Frederick Wollaston, F.R.S., formerly Curator of the Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand, author of "Darwinism and Lamarckism, Old and New," London, 1899. -letter to. -review of "Origin." Hutton, James, (1726-97): author of "Theory of the Earth." Huxley, L., reference to his "Life of T.H. Huxley." -information given by. Huxley, Prof. T.H., biographical note, Volume I. -Article in "Annals and Magazine" in reply to Falconer. -on Aphis. -on automatism. -catalogue of collections in Museum of Practical Geology. -comparative anatomy by. -on Comte. -on Cuvier's classification. -Darwin's value of his opinion. -election to the Athenaeum. -friendship with Darwin. -on growth of Darwin's views. -lectures at the Royal Institution. -lectures on evolution by. -lectures to working men. -legacy and gift to. -letters to. -"Life of Hume." -"Man's Place in Nature." -marriage. -misrepresented by Owen. -founds "Natural History Review." -obituary notice of Darwin. -on the "Origin of Species." -on Owen's archetype book. -president of the British Association meeting at Liverpool (1870). -on Priestley. -quoted by Lord Kelvin as an unbeliever in spontaneous generation. -reviews by. -review of "Vestiges of Creation" by. -on Sabine's address. -on saltus. -prefatory note to Hackel's "Freedom in Science and Teaching." -address to Geological Society (1869). -on classification of man. -on contemporaneity. -on Catasetum. -on deep-sea soundings. -legacy from A. Rich. -on Lyell's "Principles." -on use of term physiological species. -on vivisection. -and H.N. Martin, "Elementary Biology" by. -mentioned. Huxley, Mrs. T.H., queries on expression sent by Darwin to. -observations on child crying. -mentioned. Hyacinth, experiment on bulbs. Hyatt, Alpheus (1838-1902): was a student under Louis Agassiz, to whose Laboratory he returned after serving in the Civil War, and under whom he began the researches on Fossil Cephalopods for which he is so widely known. In 1867 he became one of the Curators of the Essex Institute of Salem, Mass. In 1870 he was made Custodian, and in 1881 Curator of the Boston Society of Natural History. He held professorial chairs in Boston University and in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and "was at one time or another officially connected with the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the United States Geological Survey." See Mr. S. Henshaw ("Science," XV., page 300, February 1902), where a sketch of Mr. Hyatt's estimable personal character is given. See also Prof. Dall in the "Popular Science Monthly," February 1902. -and Hilgendorf. -letters to. -letters to Darwin from. -on tetrabranchiata. Hyatt and Cope, theories of. Hybridism, chapter in "Origin" on. -Bentham's address on. -treatment by Darwin in "Variation of Animals and Plants." Hybrids, and adaptation. -Darwin's views on. -evidence in favour of pangenesis from. -experiments on. -fertility of. -intermediate character of. -primrose and cowslip. -article in "Quarterly Review" on. -sterility of. -Max Wichura on. -Bronn on. -F. Muller's work on. -and heterostyled plants. -rarity of natural. -J. Scott's work on. -tendency to reversion. Hydra, sexuality of. Hydropathy, Darwin and. Hydrozoa, alternation of generations in. Hymenoptera, affinities of. -H. Muller on. Hypericum perforatum, a social plant in U.S.A. Hyracotherium cuniculus, Owen on. Iberis, mucus in seeds of. Ice, as agent in dispersal of boulders. -agent in dispersal of plants. -Forbes on transport by. -agent in lake-formation. -cleavage in. -work of, a new factor in geology. Ice-action, on land and sea. Icebergs, as factor in explaining European plants in Azores. -Croll on action of. -Darwin on. -evidence in S. America of. -Hopkins on action of. Ice-cap, of Arctic regions. Iceland, importance of records of volcanic phenomena in. Ignorance, Darwin on immensity of man's. Ilkley, Darwin's visit to. Illegitimate offspring, need for repetition of Darwin's experiments on plants'. Imatophyllum. Immortality, Darwin on. Immutability of species. -Falconer disbelieves in. -Darwin on. Imperfection of the Geological Record, see Geological Record. Impotence in plants. -see also Self-sterility. India, British rule in. -flora of. -Hooker in. -varieties of domestic animals in. -H.F. Blanford on. -Darwin on origin of lakes in. -evidence of colder climate in. -J. Scott accepts post in. Infants, Mrs. E Talbot on development of mind in. -observations on ears of. Infusoria, possible occurrence in underclays of coal. Inglis, Sir R., Darwin at breakfast party. Inheritance, atavism and. -conservative tendency of long. -Hackel on. -hypothesis on. -Jager on. -and Natural Selection. -power of. -J.C. Prichard on. -and variability. -Darwin on. -Galton on. Insanity, concealment of. "Insect Life," Howard's. Insectivorous plants, Darwin's work on. Insects, alpine. -Lord Avebury on. -Bates on. -fossil. -luminous. -of Madeira. -F. Muller on metamorphosis of. -Sharp's book on. -study of habits more valuable than description of new species. -wingless. -Wollaston on. -antiquity of stridulating organs in. -colour and Sexual Selection. -H. Muller's work on adaptation to fertilisation of flowers. -metamorphosis of. -music as attraction to. -observation on fertilisation of flowers by. -Ramsay on. -Riley's work on. -tropical climate and colours of. Instinct, Darwin and. -in nest-making. -selection of varying. Insular floras. -Hooker's lecture on. Insular forms, in Galapagos, Canaries and Madeira. -beaten by continental forms. Intelligence, meaning of. -Romanes on Animal. -in worms. Intercrossing, in pigeons. -Darwin on effects of. -and sterility. Interglacial periods, Darwin on evidence for. Intermediate forms. -Bates' paper on. -S. American types as. -crossing and frequent absence of. -extinction of. -Falconer on existence of. -as fossils. -Asa Gray on. -Plagiaulax as evidence of. -Wollaston on rarity in insects. Introduced plants, Sonchus in New Zealand as example of. -in N. America and Australia. -variability of. -Darwin on. Introductory Essay to Tasmanian "Flora," Hooker's. Ipswich, British Association meeting (1851). Iquique, nitrate of soda beds at. Ireland, Spanish plants in. Iris, flowers of. -nectar secretion of. Islands, comparison between species of rising and sinking. -fauna of. -introduction of plants. -products of. -plants with irregular flowers on. -subsidence of coral. -survival of ancient forms in. -volcanic. -comparison of age of continents and. -former greater extension of. "Island Life," Darwin's criticism of Wallace's. Isle of Wight, occurrence of Bee-orchis in. Isnardia palustris, range of. Isolation, Bentham underestimates importance of. -Darwin's opinion of. -importance of. -Wagner exaggerates importance of. -Weismann on effects of. Itajahy, F. Muller's narrow escape from flood of. Italy, flora of. Ivy, difference in growth of flowering and creeping branches. Jaeger, G., letter to. -on pangenesis and inheritance. James', Sir H., discussion in "Athenaeum" on change of climate. -map of the world. James Island, Darwin's plants from. Jameson. Jamieson, W., on S. America. -Darwin converted to glacial theory of Glen Roy after publication of paper by. Janet, on Natural Selection. Japan, American types in. -flora of. -Gray's work on plants of. -progress of. Java, botanical relation to Africa. -Alpine plants of. -Wallace on. Jays, Crows and. -repeated pairing of. Jeffreys, Gwyn, shells sent by Darwin to. Jenkin, Fleeming, review by. Jenners, taste for natural history in the. Jenyns (Blomefield), Rev. Leonard: The following sketch of the life of Rev. Leonard Blomefield is taken from his "Chapters in my Life; Reprint with Additions" (privately printed), Bath, 1889. He was born, as he states with characteristic accuracy, at 10 p.m., May 25th, 1800; and died at Bath, September 1st, 1893. His father--a second cousin of Soame Jenyns, from whom he inherited Bottisham Hall, in Cambridgeshire--was a parson-squire of the old type, a keen sportsman, and a good man of business. Leonard Jenyns' mother was a daughter of the celebrated Dr. Heberden, in whose house in Pall Mall he was born. Leonard was educated at Eton and Cambridge, and became curate of Swaffham Bulbeck, a village close to his father's property; he was afterwards presented to the Vicarage of the parish, and held the living for nearly thirty years. The remainder of his life he spent at Bath. He was an excellent field-naturalist and a minute and careful observer. Among his writings may be mentioned the Fishes in "Zoology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle,'" 1842, a "Manual of British Vertebrate Animals," 1836, a "Memoir" of Professor Henslow,1862, to which Darwin contributed recollections of his old master, "Observations in Natural History," 1846 and "Observations in Meteorology," 1858, besides numerous papers in scientific journals. In his "Chapters" he describes himself as showing as a boy the silent and retiring nature, and also the love of "order, method, and precision," which characterised him through life; and he adds, "even to old age I have been often called a VERY PARTICULAR GENTLEMAN." In a hitherto unpublished passage in his autobiographical sketch, Darwin wrote, "At first I disliked him from his somewhat grim and sarcastic expression; and it is not often that a first impression is lost; but I was completely mistaken, and found him very kind- hearted, pleasant, and with a good stock of humour." Mr. Jenyns records that as a boy he was by a stranger taken for a son of his uncle, Dr. Heberden (the younger), whom he closely resembled. -letters to. -mentioned. Jodrell Laboratory, Darwin's interest in. -note on. Jordanhill, Smith of, on Gibraltar. "Journal of Researches," Darwin's. Judd, Prof. J.W., letter to. -recollections of Darwin. -on Darwin's "Volcanic Islands." -Darwin in praise of work of. Jukes, on imperfection of the Geological Record. -on changes of climate. -on formation of river-valleys. -over estimates sub-aerieal denudation. Jumps, variation by. Juncus, range of. -J. bufonius. -variation of. -germination of seed from mud carried by woodcock. Jura, Darwin on erratic blocks of. Jussieu, A. de. Kane's, E.K., "Arctic Explorations," use of foxtails by Esquimaux referred to in. Kelvin, Lord, Address at the British Association Meeting at Edinburgh (1871). -on geological time. -on age of the earth. -on origin of plant-life from meteorites. Kemp, W., sends seeds to Darwin. -on vitality of seeds. Kensington, proposed removal of British Museum (Bloomsbury) collections to. Kerguelen cabbage, Chambers versus Hooker on the. Kerguelen island, coal-beds of. -relation of flora to that of Fuegia. -similarity between plants of S. America and of. -importance of collecting fossil plants on. -moth from. -sea-shells of. -volcanic mountain on. Kerner, A. von Marilaun, on Tubocytisus. -"Pflanzenleben." -"Schutzmittel des Pollens." -on xenogamy and autogamy. -mentioned. Kerr, on frozen snow. Kerr, Prof. Graham. Kew, proposed consolidation of botanical collections at. -rarity of insects and shells in Royal Garden. -Darwin visits Garden. -Darwin obtains plants from. -Darwin sends seeds to. -Jodrell, Laboratory at. -struggle for existence at. -suggestion that J. Scott should work in Garden. Kilauea, lava in crater of. Kilfinnin, shelves in valley of. Kilima Njaro, plants of. King, Captain, collection of plants by. -"Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle.'" King, Sir George, reminiscences of J. Scott. -Darwin receives seeds from. King, Dr. Richard (1811?-1876): He was surgeon and naturalist to Sir George Back's expedition (1833-5) to the mouth of the Great Fish River in search of Captain Ross, of which he published an account. In 1850 he accompanied Captain Horatio Austin's search expedition in the "Resolute." -Arctic expedition. Kingfisher, sexual difference in. Kingsley, C., quoted in the "Origin." -story of a heathen Khan. -reference to E. Forbes and P.H. Gosse. Kini Balu, vegetation of. Kirby and Spence. Klebs, on use of mucus in seeds. Knight, A., on crossing. -hybrid experiments. -on sports. Knight's Law. Knight-Darwin Law, F. Darwin on. Knuth, on morphology of cruciferous flower. Koch's "Flora Germanica." Kolliker, visits Down. Kollmann, Dr., on atavism. Kolreuter, on Aquilegia. -on hybrids. -observations on pollen. -on self-fertilisation. -on varieties of tobacco. "Kosmos," F. Muller's article on Crotolaria. -F. Muller's paper on Phyllanthus in. Krause, E., letter to. -memoir of Erasmus Darwin. -memoir of H. Muller. Kroyer. Kubanka, form of Russian wheat. Kurr, on flowers of Canna. La Plata, H.M.S. "Beagle's" visit to. -Cervus of. -Mylodon of. -plants of. -extinct animals from. -slates and schists of. Labellum, nature of. Labiatae, large genera of. Laboratory, Darwin on the instruments for botanical. -founding of Jodrell. Laburnum, peloric flowers of. -Darwin on hybrid (see also Cytisus). Ladizabala, crossing experiments on. Lagerstraemia (Lagerstroemia), F. Muller on. Lakes, Darwin on Ramsay's theory of. -as agents in forming Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. -of Friesland. -Geological action of. -Ramsay on. Lamarck, Darwin on views of. -difference between views of Darwin and. -"Hist. Zoolog." of. -Hopkins on Darwin and. -Packard's book on. -quotation from. Lamellicorns, F. Muller on sexes in. -stridulating organs of. Lamont, James, F.G.S., F.R.G.S.: author of "Seasons with the Sea-horses; etc.; Yachting in the Arctic Seas, or Notes of Five Voyages of Sport and Discovery in the Neighbourhood of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya," London, 1876; and geological papers on Spitzbergen. -letters to. Lampyridae, luminous organs of. Land, fauna of sea compared with that of. -changes in level of sea the cause of those on. Land-birds, resting on the sea. Land-shells, dispersal of. -of glacial period. -modification of. Land-surfaces, preservation for long periods. Landois, reference to paper by. Language, observations bearing on origin of. -Sir J. Herschel on study of. Lankester, E. Ray, letter to. -drawing of earthworm used in Darwin's book. Lankester, E. (Senior), speech at Manchester British Association meeting (1861), on Darwin's theory. Lantana, in Ceylon. Lanugo, on human foetus. Lapland, richness of flora. Latania Lodigesii, peculiar to Round Island. Latent characters, tendency to appear temporarily in youth. Lathyrus aphaca. -L. grandiflorus, fertilisation of. -L. nissolia, evolution of. -explanation of grass-like leaves. -Darwin on. -L. maritimus, bloom on. -L. odoratus, fertilisation of. -intercrossing of varieties. Lauder-Dick, Sir Thomas, on Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Laurel, extra-floral nectaries of. Lava, Darwin and Scrope on separation of constituent minerals of. -Elie de Beaumont's measurements of inclination of. -fluidity of. -junction between dykes and. -and metamorphic schists. -Scrope on basaltic and trachytic. -subsidence due to outpouring of. Law, of balancement. -of growth. -of higgledy-piggledy. -of perfectibility by Nageli. -of sterility. -of succession. -of variation. Lawes, Sir J.B., and Sir J.H. Gilbert, Rothamsted experiments. Laxton, T., close on the trail of Mendelian principle. "Lay Sermons," Huxley's. Leaves, movements of. -used by worms in plugging burrows. Lebanon, glacial action on. -plants of. -Hooker on Cedars of. Lecky, Rt. Hon. W.E.H., Darwin's interest in book by. -quoted in "Descent of Man." Lecoq, "Geographie Botanique." -on self-sterility. -mentioned. Lectures, Darwin on Edinburgh University, (see also Hooker and Huxley). -Max Muller's, on Science of Language. Ledebour, allusion to book by. Leeds, address by Owen at. Leersia oryzoides, cleistogamic flowers of. Leggett, W.H., on Rhexia virginica. Legitimate unions, heteromorphic or. Leguminosae, absence in Greenland. -absent in New Zealand. -anomalous genera in. -crossing in. -scarcity in humid temporate regions. -seeds of. -example of inherited pelorism in. -Lord Farrer's observations on fertilisation of. -nectar-holders in flowers. -reason for absence of. Leibnitz, rejection of theory of gravity by. Lemuria, continent of. Lepadidae, Darwin's work on, (see also Barnacles). -fossil. Lepas, nomenclature of. Lepidodendron. Lepidoptera, Sexual Selection in. -breeding in confinement. -F. Muller on mimicry in. -protection afforded by wings. -want of colour-perception. -Weir on apterous. Lepidosiren, reason for preservation of. Leptotes. Leschenaultia, fertilisation mechanism. -self-fertilisation of. -L. biloba, fertilisation mechanism of. -L. formosa, fertilisation mechanism of. Lesquereux, Leo (1806-89): was born in Switzerland, but his most important works were published after he settled in the United States in 1848. Beginning with researches on Mosses and Peat, he afterwards devoted himself to the study of fossil plants. His best known contributions to Palaeobotany are a series of monographs on Cretaceous and Tertiary Floras (1878-83), and on the Coal-Flora of Pennsylvania and the United States generally, published by the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania between 1880 and 1884 (see L.F. Ward, Sketch of Palaeobotany, "U.S. Geol. Surv., 5th Ann. Rep." 1883-4; also "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XLVI., "Proc." page 53, 1890. -convert to evolution. -on Coal floras. Leuckart, Rudolf (1822-98): Professor of Zoology at Leipzig. -convert to Darwin's views. Lewes, G.H., (1817-78): author of a "History of Philosophy," etc. -letter to. Lewy, Naphtali, letter to Darwin from. Lias, cephalopods from the. Life, Bastian's book on the beginnings of. -mystery of, -origin of. -principle of. -bearing of vitality of seeds on problem of. Light, action on plants of flashing. Lima, Darwin visits. Limulus. Linaria, peloria as reversions. Lindley, John (1799-1865): was born at Catton, near Norwich. His first appointment was that of Assistant Librarian to Sir Joseph Banks. He was afterwards Assistant Secretary to the Horticultural Society, and during his tenure of that office he organised the first fruit and flower shows held in this country. In 1829 he was chosen to be the first Professor of Botany at University College, London, and a few years later he became Lecturer to the Apothecaries' Company. He is the author of a large number of botanical books, of which the best known is the "Vegetable Kingdom," 1846. He was one of the founders of the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and was its principal editor up to the time of his death. He was endowed with great powers of work and remarkable energy. He is said as a young man to have translated Richard's "Analyse du Fruit" in a single sitting of three nights and two days. (From the article on Lindley in the "Dictionary of National Biography," which is founded on the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1865, pages 1058, 1082.) -Hooker's eloge of. -and Royal Medal. -"Vegetable Kingdom" by. -on Acropera and Gongora. -Darwin on his classification of orchids. -letters to. -on Melastomaceae. -on orchids. -Hooker reviews Darwin's Orchid book in style of. -mentioned. Lingula, persistence of. -Silurian species. Link, on Alpine and Arctic plants. Linnaeus. Linnean Society, Bentham's address. -Collier's picture of Darwin in rooms of. -Darwin's paper on Linum. -Darwin advises Bates to give his views on species before. -Wallace's paper on the Malayan papilionidae. Linnet, a migratory bird. Linope, E. Hackel on. Linum, Darwin's work on. -dimorphism of. -interaction of pollen and stigma. -mucus in seeds of. Linum flavum. -L. grandiflorum, two forms of. -L. Lewisii, experiments on. -L. trigynum. -L. usitatissimum, circumnutation of. Lister, Lord, on spines of Hedgehog. Listera, fertilisation of. -L. cordata, fertilisation of. -L. ovata, fertilisation of. Litchfield, Mrs. (see Darwin, Henrietta). -criticism of Huxley. Littoral shells, glacial period and. Liverpool, British Association meeting at (1870). Livingstone, D., on the distribution of thorny plants. Lobelia, Darwin's experiments on. -fertilisation mechanism of. -fertility of. -L. fulgens, Scott's experiments on. Lochaber, Parallel Roads of (see also Glen Roy). -evidence of ice-action. Lochs, Laggan (Loggan), ice-action in. -Roy, Darwin disbelieves in existence of. -Spey, shelves of. -Treig, ice-action in. -Milne's account of. Locust grass, germination of. Locusts, blown out to sea. -plants from dung of. Logwood, leaf-movement of. -See Haematoxylon. Loiseleuria procumbens. London clay, supposed germination of seeds from. "London Review," Darwin's opinion of. -correspondence between Owen and editor in reference to "Origin." Longchamps, L. de, on crossing in Gramineae. Longevity, Darwin on animals' and man's. Lonsdale, William (1794-1871): obtained a commission in the 4th Regiment at the age of sixteen, and served at Salamanca and Waterloo. From 1829 to 1842 he held the office of Assistant-Secretary and Curator of the Geological Society. Mr. Lonsdale contributed important papers on the Devonian System, the Oolitic Rocks, and on palaeontological subjects. ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXVIII., page xxxv., 1872.) -mentioned. Lopezia, fertilisation of. Lophura viellottii, colour of. Loss, nature of. Love, evidence of existence low in scale. Loven, S.L.: published numerous papers on Cirripedes and other zoological subjects in the Stockholm "Ofversigt" and elsewhere between 1838 and 1882. -translation of paper on Cirripedes. -mentioned. Lowe, R.T., on Madeira. Lowell, Prof., on custom in Italy of shaking head in affirmation. Lowland plants, ascending mountains. Lowne, B.T., on anatomy of blowfly. Lowness and highness. Lubbock, Lady. Lubbock, Sir J., see Lord Avebury. Lucas, Dr. P., on tendency to vary independent of conditions. Ludwig, F., letter to. Lumbricus (see also Earthworms). Luminosity in animals. -result of external conditions. Lupinus, Darwin's experiments on. Luzula. Lychnis dioica, structure of flower. -sets seed without pollen. Lycopodium, variation in. Lyell, Sir Charles, Bart., F.R.S. (1797-1875): was born at Kinnordy, the family home in central Forfarshire. At the age of seventeen he entered at Exeter College, Oxford, and afterwards obtained a second class in the final Honours School in Classics. As an undergraduate Lyell attended Prof. Buckland's lectures on Geology. On leaving Oxford Lyell was entered at Lincoln's Inn; a weakness of the eyes soon compelled him to give up reading, and he travelled abroad, finding many opportunities for field work. He was called to the Bar in 1825, and in the same year published some papers on geological subjects. From 1823-26 Lyell filled the post of Secretary to the Geological Society, and in 1826 was elected into the Royal Society. In 1830 the first volume of the "Principles of Geology" was published; the second volume appeared two years later. Speaking of this greatest of Lyell's services to Geology, Huxley writes: "I have recently read afresh the first edition of the "Principles of Geology," and when I consider that this remarkable book had been nearly thirty years in everybody's hands [in 1859], and that it brings home to any reader of ordinary intelligence a great principle and a great fact-- the principle that the past must be explained by the present, unless good cause be shown to the contrary; and the fact that, so far as our knowledge of the past history of life on our globe goes, no such cause can be shown--I cannot but believe that Lyell, for others, as for myself, was the chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin" (Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 190). As Professor of Geology in King's College, London, Lyell delivered two courses of lectures in 1832- 33; in the latter year he received a Royal medal, and in 1858 he was the recipient of the Copley medal of the Royal Society. The "Elements of Geology" was published in 1833; this work is still used as a text-book, a new edition having been lately (1896) brought out by Prof. Judd; in 1845 and in 1849 appeared the "Travels in North America" and "A Second Visit to the United States of North America." The "Antiquity of Man" was published in 1863. Lyell was knighted in 1848, and in 1864 was raised to the rank of a Baronet. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin wrote in his Autobiography: "The Science of Geology is enormously indebted to Lyell, more so, as I believe, than to any other man who ever lived" ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 72). In a letter to Lyell-- November 23rd, 1859--Darwin wrote: "I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition [a new edition of the "Manual" published in 1865]; nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel" ("Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 229-30). See "Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart." edited by his sister-in-law, Mrs. Lyell, 2 Volumes, London, 1881. "Charles Lyell and Modern Geology," Prof. T.G. Bonney, London, 1895.) -"Antiquity of Man." -on Barrande. -cautious attitude towards "Origin of Species." -cautious judgment of. -on Cetacea. -Copley medal awarded to. -on continental extension. -controversy with Owen. -Darwin's pleasure in reading his "Geology." -on distribution. -Falconer and. -German opinion of. -on immutability. -interest in celts. -letters to. -letters to Darwin from. -map of Tertiary geography by. -on mutability. -on pangenesis. -"Principles of Geology." -on Ramsay's theory of lakes. -urges Darwin to publish his views with those of Wallace. -visits Down. -work in France. -address to Geological Society. -attacked by Owen in his "Anatomy of Vertebrata." -criticism of Murchison. -on craters of denudation. -Darwin's indebtedness to. -death of. -death of his father. -gives up opposition to Evolution. -on glaciers of Forfarshire. -on glacial period in S. hemisphere. -versus Herschel on volcanic islands. -on iceberg action. -memorial in Westminster Abbey. -on Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. -as founder of school of Geology. -second visit to the United States. -trip to Wales. -mentioned. Lyell, Lady, letter to. -translation of paper for Darwin. -visits Down. -mentioned. Lynch, R.I. Lythraceae, dimorphism in. Lythrum, cross-fertilisation of. -Darwin's work on. -trimorphism of. -L. hyssopifolium, range of. -L. salicaria, dimorphism of. -Darwin's work on. Macacas, Owen on. -M. Silenus, mane as a protection. Macalister, Prof. A. Macarthur, Sir W., on Erythrina. Macaw, beauty of plumage. McClennan, on primitive man. MacCulloch, on Glen Turret. -on metamorphic rocks. -on Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. M'Donnell, Darwin on work of. Macgillivray, reference to his "History of British Birds." Machetes pugnax, polygamy of. Mackintosh, Daniel (1815-91): was well-known in the South of England as a lecturer on scientific subjects. He contributed several papers to the Geological Society on Surface Sculpture, Denudation, Drift Deposits, etc. In 1869 he published a work "On the Scenery of England and Wales" (see "Geol. Mag." 1891, page 432. -on boulders of Ashley Heath. -letters to. -on Moel Tryfan. -on sources of erratic blocks in England. McNab, Prof., J. Scott and. -mentioned. Macrauchenia, skull of. Madagascar, existence of insects capable of fertilising Angraecum in. -fossil Hippopotamus of. -Owen on fauna of. -plants of. -former extension of. -as a geographical region. -Viola of. Madeira, birds of. -British plants compared with those of. -Canary Islands formerly connected with. -flora of. -insects of. -land-extension, of. -land-shells of. -Lowe on. -Tertiary plants of. -elevation of. Maer, the home of the Wedgwoods. Magellan Straits, H.M.S. "Beagle" in. Magnus, review by Krause of his work on colour. Magpies, pairing of. Mahon, Lord, compliment to Darwin. Mahonia, natural crossing of. Maillet, evolutionary views of. Maize, hybrids of, see also Zea. Malaxeae, and Epidendreae. Malaxis, course of vessels in flower. -fertilisation of. Malaxis paludosa, epiphytic on Sphagnum. Malay archipelago, Darwin on Wallace's book on. -translation by Meyer of Wallace's book. Malay region, glacial epoch and the. -Wallace on butterflies and pigeons of. Malpighiaceae, degraded flowers of. -Erythroxylon included in. Malta, Forbes on geology of. Malthus, Darwin derives help from reading. -Haughton sneers at. -misunderstood. Malva. Mammae, as rudimentary organs in man. Mammals, alteration in skulls of. -Australian cave-. -birds compared with. -Dana's classification. -distribution. -as indices of climatic changes. -as proof of union between England and Continent since Glacial period. -Waterhouse's "Natural History" of. -Glacial period and extinction of. -Origin and migration. Mammoth (Bog). Mammoth, Darwin's eagerness to collect bones of. -Falconer on the. Man, antiquity of (see "Antiquity of Man," and Lyell, Sir C.). -and apes. -brain of. -criticism of Lyell's chapter on. -Huxley's book on. -McClennan on primitive. -and Natural Selection. -origin of. -races of. -selection by Nature contrasted with selection by. -slow progress of. -Darwin on Wallace's paper on. -descent of. -ears of. -geological age of. -and geological classification. -hairyness of. -introduction of. -rank in classification. -Turner on evolution of. -Wallace on evolution of. Mankind, descent from single pair. -early history of. -progress of. Mantell, Owen's attack on. "Manual of Scientific Inquiry," Darwin's. Manx cats. Maranta, sleep-movements of. Marble, MacCulloch on metamorphism of. Marianne Islands, subsidence of. -want of knowledge of flora. Marion, "L'evolution du Regne vegetal," by Saporta and. Marlatt, C.L., on Cicada. Marquesas Islands, subsidence of. Marr, J.E., on the rocks of Bohemia. -mentioned. Marriage, Darwin on. -Galton's proposal to issue health-certificates for. Marshall, W., on Elodea. Marsupialia, compared with placentata. -Darwin on nature of. -evidence of antiquity. -abundance in Secondary period. Martens, see Martins. Martha (=Posoqueria), F. Muller's paper on. Martin, H.N., Darwin's opinion of "Elementary Biology" by Huxley and. Martins, experiments on immersion of seeds in sea by. Maruta cotula of N. America. Masdevallia, Darwin's work on. Massart, on regeneration after injury. Masters, M., letters to. -lecture at Royal Institution. -"Vegetable Teratology." Mastodon, Australian. -extinction of. -Falconer on. -in Timor. -migration into S. America. -skeleton found by Darwin. -M. andium, Falconer on intermediate character of. "Materialism of the Present day," Janet's. Matteucci on electric fishes. Matthew, P., on forest trees in Scotland. -quoted by Darwin as having enunciated principle of Natural Selection before "Origin." Maurienne, note on earthquake in province of. Mauritius, craters of. -elevation of. -extinction of snakes of. -oceanic character of. Maury's map, as illustrating continental extension. Maxillaria. Maypu River, Darwin visits. Mays, J.A., publishes lectures by Huxley. Medals: -(Copley), Darwin, Lyell. -(Royal). -(Wollaston), Darwin. Medical Department of Army, statistics from Director-General of. Meditation, expression of eyes in. Mediterranean Islands, flora of. Medusae, Romanes' work on. Meehan, T., letter to. Megalonyx. Megatherium, Darwin collects bones of. -Sir A. Carlisle on. Melastoma, Darwin on. Melastomaceae, Darwin on. -crossing in. -two kinds of stamens in. Meldola, Prof. Raphael F.R.S.: Professor of Chemistry in Finsbury Technical College (City and Guilds of London Institute), and a well- known entomologist; translated and edited Weismann's "Studies in the Theory of Descent," 1882-83. -address to Entomological Society. -letters to. -translation of Weismann's "Studies in Descent" by. -on Weismann and Darwin. -mentioned. Melipona. Meloe, Lord Avebury on. Melrose, seeds from sandpit near. Memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mendel, G., W. Bateson on his "Principles of Heredity." -Darwin ignorant of work of. -Laxton and. Mendoza, Darwin visits. "Mental Evolution in Animals," Romanes'. Mentha, of N. America. -M. borealis, variety in N. America. Menura superba, colour and nests of. Menzies and Cumming, visit Galapagos Islands. Mercurialis. Mertensia, Darwin's experiments on. Mesembryanthemum. Mesotherium, Falconer on. Metamorphic schists. Metamorphism, Darwin on. -heat and. -Sorby on. Metamorphosis, Lord Avebury on insects and. -F. Muller on. -Quatrefages on. Meteorites, Lord Kelvin suggests their agency in introduction of plants. "Methods of Study," Agassiz' book on. Mexicans, explanation of natural affinities of Chinese and. Meyen, on insectivorous plants. Meyer, Dr., translator of Wallace's "Malay Archipelago." Meyer and Doege, on plants of Cape of Good Hope. Mica, in foliated rocks. Mica-slate, clay-slate and. Mice, ears of. -experiments by Tait on. Microscope, Darwin on convenient form of. -indispensable in work on flowers. -use of compound without simple, injurious to progress of Natural History. Migration of animals and plants. -Darwin on plant-. -of elephants. -Glacial period and. -of plants. -in tropics. -of birds. Mikania, a leaf-climber. -M. scandens, gradation between Mutisia and. Mill, J.S., on Darwin's reasoning. -on greatest happiness principle. Miller, Hugh, "First Impressions of England and its People." Miller, S.H., "Fenland Past and Present" by Skertchley and. Miller, Prof. William Hallowes, F.R.S. (1801-80), held the Chair of Mineralogy at Cambridge from 1832 to 1880 (see "Obituary Notices of Fellows," "Proc. R. Soc." Volume XXXI., 1881). He is referred to in the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 221) as having verified Darwin's statement as to the structure of the comb made by Melipona domestica, a Mexican species of bee. The cells of Melipona occupy an intermediate position between the perfect cells of the hive-bee and the much simpler ones of the humble-bee; the comb consists "of cylindrical cells in which the young are hatched, and, in addition, some large cells of wax for holding honey. These latter cells are nearly spherical and of nearly equal sizes, and are aggregated into an irregular mass. But the important point to notice is that these cells are always made at that degree of nearness to each other that they would have intersected or broken into each other if the spheres had been completed; but this is never permitted, the bees building perfectly flat walls of wax between the spheres which thus tend to intersect." It occurred to Darwin that certain changes in the architecture of the Melipona comb would produce a structure "as perfect as the comb of the hive-bee." He made a calculation, therefore, to show how this structural improvement might be effected, and submitted the statement to Professor Miller. By a slight modification of the instincts possessed by Melipona domestica, this bee would be able to build with as much mathematical accuracy as the hive-bee; and by such modifications of instincts Darwin believed that "the hive-bee has acquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural powers" (loc. cit., page 222). -letters to. Million years, Darwin on meaning of a. Milne-Edwards, Darwin's cirripede work and. -Darwin's opinion of. -on retrograde development. Milne-Home, David (1805-90): was a country gentleman in Berwickshire who became interested in geology at an early age. He wrote on the Midlothian Coal-field, the Geology of Roxburghshire, the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and compiled the Reports presented by a Committee appointed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh to investigate the observation and registration of boulders in Scotland ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XLVII., 1891; "Proc." page 59). -believes in connection between state of weather and earthquakes. -on Glen Roy. -letters to. -letter from R. Chambers to. -on oscillation of sea. Milton, quotation from. Mimicry, Bates on. -and dimorphism. -Volucella as an example of. -Wallace on. -and colour. -F. Muller on Lepidoptera and. Mimosa, Darwin's experiments on. -M. albida, Darwin on. -M. sensitiva. Mimoseae, F. Muller's account of seeds of. Mimulus, Pfeffer on movement of stigma. Mind, development of. -evolution of. -influence on nutrition. Miocene land. Miquel, F.A.W., on Flora of Holland. -on distribution of the beech. -on flora of Japan. -mentioned. Mirabilis. Mirbel, G.F.B. de. Miscellaneous letters, botanical. -geological. Miscellaneous subjects, letters on. Mississippi, Lyell on pampas and deposits of the. Mitchella. Mivart, St. George F.R.S. (1827-1900): was educated at Harrow, King's College, London, and St. Mary's College, Oscott. He was called to the Bar in 1851; in 1862 he was appointed Lecturer in the Medical School of St. Mary's Hospital. In the "Genesis of Species," published in 1871, Mivart expressed his belief in the guiding action of Divine power as a factor in Evolution. -false reasoning of. -"Genesis of Species." Modification, Darwin's disbelief in sudden. -explanation of. -of insects. -of jays and crows. -of land and freshwater faunas. -selection and. -of species. -Walsh on specific. Moel Tryfan, Darwin on shells on. -Mackintosh on shells on. Moggridge, J. Traherne (1842-74): is described by a writer in "Nature" Volume XI., 1874, page 114, as "one of our most promising young naturalists." He published a work on "Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders," London, 1873, and wrote on the Flora of Mentone and on other subjects. (See "The Descent of Man" Volume I., Edition II., page 104, 1888.) -letters to. -note on. -experiments on ants and seeds. Mohl, von, on climbing plants. Mojsisovics, E. von: Vice-Director of the Imperial Geological Institute, Vienna. -letters to. -work on Palaeontology and Evolution. Molecular movement in foliated rocks. Moller, "Brasilische Pilzblumen." Molliard, on Les Cecidies florales. Mollusca, distribution by birds. -Huxley on. -means of dispersal of. -Morse on protective colours of. -Wallace on distribution of. Molothrus, occurrence in Brazil. Monacanthus viridis, female form of Catasetum tridentatum. Monkeys, distribution of birds affected by. -range of. -ears of. -mane as protection. -wrinkling of eyes during screaming. Monochaetum (Monochoetum), absence of nectar in. -experiments on. -flowers of. -neglected by bees. -seeds of. -M. ensiferum, two kinds of stamens. Monocotyledons, range of. -heterostylism in. Monotremes, birds compared with. -as remnant of ancient fauna. Monotropa uniflora, in New Granada. -in Himalayas. -in separate areas in U.S.A. Monotypic genera, variation of. Monstrosities, Harvey on. -Masters' work on. -no sharp distinction between slight variations and. -origin of species from. -variations and. Monte Video, Darwin visits. -Darwin on cleavage at. Moon, effect on earthquakes. Moraines, glacial. Moral sense, J. Morley on Darwin's treatment of. Morality, foundation of. More, Alexander Goodman (1830-95): botanist and zoologist, distinguished chiefly by his researches on the distribution of Irish plants and animals. He was born in London, and was educated at Rugby and Trinity College, Cambridge. He became Assistant in the Natural History Museum at Dublin in 1867, and Curator in 1881. He was forced by ill-health to resign his post in 1887, and died in 1895. He is best known for the Cybele Hibernica and for various papers published in the "Ibis." He was also the author of "Outlines of the Natural History of the Isle of Wight," of a "Supplement to the Flora Vectensis," and innumerable shorter papers. His "Life and Letters" has been edited by Mr. C.B. Moffat, with a preface by Miss Frances More (1898). There is a good obituary notice by Mr. R. Barrington in the "Irish Naturalist," May, 1895. -letters to. Morgan. Morley, J., letters to. Mormodes, labellum of. -M. ignea, flower of. Morphological, Hooker's criticism of term. -sense in which used by Nageli. Morphology, Darwin's explanation of. -Kollmann on batrachian. -of plants. Morse, Prof. E.S.: of Salem, Mass. -letters to. -on shell-mounds of Omori. Morton, Lord, his mare. Moscow, opinion on Darwin's work from. Moseley, Canon H., on glacier-motion. Moseley, Prof. Henry Nottidge F.R.S. (1844-91): was an undergraduate of Exeter College, Oxford, and afterwards studied medicine at University College, London. In 1872 he was appointed one of the naturalists on the scientific staff of the "Challenger," and in 1881 succeeded his friend and teacher, Professor Rolleston, as Linacre Professor of Human and Comparative Anatomy at Oxford. Moseley's "Notes by a Naturalist on the Challenger," London, 1879, was held in high estimation by Darwin, to whom it was dedicated. (See "Life and Letters," III., pages 237-38.) -letter to. -proposal to examine Kerguelen Coal beds. Moss-rose, sudden variation in. Mostyn, Lord, horse and quagga belonging to. Moths, hermaphroditism in hybrid. -survival of distinct races. -colours of. -and Sexual Selection. Mould, Darwin's opinion of his paper on. Mountain-building, Rogers on. Mountain-chains, Darwin on. -and earthquakes. -and elevation. -false views of geologists on. -Hopkins on. -volcanic rocks in. Movement, of land-areas. -of plants, Darwin on. -F. Muller on. -Wiesner on Darwin's book on. Mucus of seeds, significance of. Mukkul, Pass of. Mules, meaning of stripes of. -J.J. Weir's observations on. Muller, Ferd., on advance of European plants in Australia. Muller, (Fritz) Dr. Johann Friedrich Theodor (1822-97): was born in Thuringia, and left his native country at the age of thirty to take up his residence at Blumenau, Sta Catharina, South Brazil, where he was appointed teacher of mathematics at the Gymnasium of Desterro. He afterwards held a natural history post, from which he was dismissed by the Brazilian Government in 1891 on the ground of his refusal to take up his residence at Rio de Janeiro ("Nature," December 17th, 1891, page 156). Muller published a large number of papers on zoological and botanical subjects, and rendered admirable service to the cause of evolution by his unrivalled powers of observation and by the publication of a work entitled "Fur Darwin" (1865), which was translated by Dallas under the title "Facts and Arguments for Darwin" (London, 1869). The long series of letters between Darwin and Muller bear testimony to the friendship and esteem which Darwin felt for his co-worker in Brazil. In a letter to Dr. Hermann Muller (March 29th, 1867), Mr. Darwin wrote: "I sent you a few days ago a paper on climbing plants by your brother, and I then knew for the first time that Fritz Muller was your brother. I feel the greatest respect for him as one of the most able naturalists living, and he has aided me in many ways with extraordinary kindness." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37; "Nature," October 7th, 1897, Volume LVI., page 546. -book by. -convert to Darwin's views. -Darwin's opinion of his book. -friendship with Darwin. -Hooker on. -letters to. -on Lord Morton's mare. -on mutual specialisation of insects and plants. -on prawns. -reference to letter from. -on sponges. -on Cassia and caterpillars in S. Brazil. -on climbing plants. -on crossing plants. -Darwin offers to make good loss by flood. -Darwin's admiration of. -on Darwin's work on lepidoptera. -Darwin urges him to write Natural History book. -explanation of two kinds of stamens in flowers. -on fertilisation mechanisms. -letter to Darwin from. -narrow escape from flood. -article in "Kosmos" on Phyllanthus. -on Melastomaceae. -on orchids. -on stripes and spots in animals. -on Termites. -disinclined to publish. -mentioned. Muller, Hermann (1829-83): began his education in the village school of Muhlberg, and afterwards studied in Halle and Berlin. From an early age he was a keen naturalist, and began his scientific work as a collector in the field. In 1855 he became Science teacher at Lippstadt, where he continued to work during the last twenty-eight years of his life. Muller's greatest contribution to Botany "Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten," was the outcome to Charles Darwin's book on the "Fertilisation of Orchids." He was a frequent contributor to "Kosmos" on subjects bearing on the origin of species, the laws of variation, and kindred problems; like his brother, Fritz, Hermann Muller was a zealous supporter of evolutionary views, and contributed in no small degree to the spread of the new teaching. ("Prof. Dr. Hermann Muller von Lippstadt: Ein Gedenkblatt," by Ernst Krause, "Kosmos," Volume VII., page 393, 1883.) -extract from letter to. -Darwin's admiration for his book. -on fertilisation of flowers. -on clover and bees. -on Epipactis and Platanthera. -extract from Darwin's preface to his "Befruchtung der Blumen." -letters to. -on Melastoma. -persecuted by Ultramontane party. -review in "Kosmos" of "Forms of Flowers." -mentioned. Muller, Prof. Max, "Lectures on the Science of Language." -letter to. Muller, Rosa, observations on circumnutation. Mummy wheat. Mundane cold period, Darwin on supposed. Mundane genera, distribution of. Munro, Col., on Bermuda. Munro, on eyes of parrots. Murchison, Sir R.I., apotheosis of. -Darwin's conversations with. -letter to. -address to Geological Society. -on structure of Alps. -Lyell's criticism of. Murder, expression of man arrested for. Murdoch, G.B., letter to. Murray, A., address to Botanical Society of Edinburgh. -criticism of Wallace's theory of nests. -Darwin criticised by. -Darwin's criticism of work of. -on geological distribution of mammals. -on leaves and CO2. -review of "Origin" by. -mentioned. Murray, Sir J., Darwin on his theory of coral reefs. Murray, J., Darwin's agreement with. -"Journal of Researches" published by. -MS. of "Origin" sent to. -sale of "Origin." -publication of "Fur Darwin." Mus, range of. Musca vomitoria, Lowne on. Muscles, contraction in evacuation and in labour pains. -in man and apes. Museum (British), enquiry as to disposal of Natural History Collections by Trustees of. Music, birds and production of. -insects, and. -origin of taste for. Musk-duck, hatching of eggs. Musk-orchids, pollinia of. Musk ox, as index of climate. -found in gravel at Down. Mussels, seize hold of fishing hooks. Mutability of species, Lyell on. Mutation, use of term. Mutisia, a tendril-climber, compared with Mikania. Myanthus barbatus, hermaphrodite form of Catasetum tridentatum. Mylodon. Myosotis, in N. America. Myosurus, range of. Mytilus, as fossil in the Andes. Nageli, Carl Wilhelm von (1817-91): was born at Kilchberg, near Zurich. He graduated at Zurich with a dissertation on the Swiss species of Cirsium. At Jena he came under the influence of Schleiden, who taught him microscopic work. He married in 1845, and on his wedding journey in England, collected seaweeds for "Die neueren Algen-systeme." He was called as Professor to Freiburg im Breisgau in 1852; and to Munich in 1857, where he remained until his death on May 10th, 1891. In the "Zeitschrift fur wiss. Botanik," 1844-46, edited by Nageli and Schleiden, and of which only a single volume appeared, Nageli insists on the only sound basis for classification being "development as a whole." The "Entstehung und Begriff" (1865) was his first real evolutionary paper. He believed in a tendency of organisms to vary towards perfection. His idea was that the causes of variability are internal to the organism: see his work, "Ueber den Einfluss ausserer Verhaltnisse auf die Varietatenbildung. Among his other writings are the "Theorie der Bastardbildung," 1866, and "Die Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre," 1884. The chief idea of the latter book is the existence of Idioplasm, a part of protoplasm serving for hereditary transmission. (From Dr. D.H. Scott's article in "Nature," October 15th, 1891, page 580.) -Darwin on his work. -Essay on Natural Selection. -on Hieracium. -"Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhistoriscehn Art." -Weismann on work of. -on arrangement of leaves. -criticism of Darwin. -on innate principle of development. -on physiological nature of useful adaptations in plants. Napier, Rt. Hon. J.R., speech at British Association (1861) on Darwin's work. Naravelia. Narborough, Sir J., description of W. coast of S. America by. Nascent organs, rudimentary and. -wing of Apteryx as. Natural classification. "Natural Conditions of Existence," Semper's. Natural History, Darwin's taste for. -Darwin's contributions to. -accuracy the soul of. -Darwin urges F. Muller to write book on. Natural History Collections, enquiry as to disposal by British Museum Trustees of. "Natural History Review," Lord Avebury on Walsh's paper on dimorphism. -Bentham in the. -Darwin's opinion of. -Darwin reviews Bates in. -Falconer in the. -founding of. -Huxley and. "Natural Inheritance," Galton's. Natural preservation, as substitute for Natural Selection. "Natural Science," A.S. Woodward on Neomylodon in. Natural Selection, accumulation of varieties by. -and adaptation in orchids. -Allen on slowness of action. -Angraecum in relation to. -Ansted on. -applied to politics. -and artificial. -Bates' belief in. -Bronn on. -comparison with architecture. -with force and matter. -with laws of gravity. -conservative influence of. -Cope's and Hyatt's views on. -Darwin accused of making too much of a Deus of. -Darwin's anxiety not to overestimate effect of. -Darwin lays stress on importance of. -Darwin on use of term. -deification of. -and direct action. -Eocene or Secondary organisms would be beaten in competition with recent on theory of. -and external conditions. -Falconer on. -and fertility. -Asa Gray on. -Harvey misunderstands Darwin's meaning. -Haughton partially admits. -Hooker thinks Darwin probably rides too hard his hobby of. -Hooker on supposed falling off in belief in. -Hooker and Bates believe in. -Huxley's belief in. -Huxley gives in a lecture inadequate idea of. -Hyatt and Cope on. -importance of. -Lamont on. -Lyell on. -and monstrosities. -Nageli's Essay on. -no limit to perfection of co-adaptations produced by. -non-acceptance of. -objections to. -"plants are splendid for making one believe in." -possibility of race of bears being rendered aquatic through. -with the principle of divergence the keystone of "Origin." -production of thorns through. -tends to progression of organisation. -providential arrangement and superfluity of. -struggle between reversion, variability and. -Scott on. -slowness of action. -and sterility. -success of. -tails of mice a difficulty as regards. -Sir W. Thomson's misconception of. -uses of. -value of. -and variation. -variation of species sufficient for selection and accumulation of new specific characters by. -and useful characters. -Wallace on. -Watson on. -applied to man and brutes. -Australian savages and. -beauty and. -Darwin on action of. -Darwin's historical sketch in "Origin" of. -difficulties of. -Donders nearly preceded Darwin in views on. -evolution of man from point of view of. -Owen's attitude towards. -primogeniture destructive of. -Sexual Selection less powerful than. -Wallace attributes theory entirely to Darwin. -Wallace on brain and. Naturalisation, of European plants. -of plants in India. -of plants in islands. Naturalised plants, Bentham on. -comparison of variability of indigenous and. -De Candolle on. -variability of. -fewness of American species of, in Britain. "Naturalist in Nicaragua," Belt's. -Belt's account of honey-glands of plants in. "Naturalist on the Amazons," Bates'. -Darwin's opinion of. Naturalists, views on species held by. -few care for philosophical experiments Nature, Wallace on personification of. -use of term. "Nature not lying," principle of. "Nature," Darwin's opinion of. -letters or notes from Darwin in. -Galton in. -F. Muller in. -Thiselton-Dyer in. Naudin, C., on hybridism. -on Melastomaceae. Nauplius stages. Nautilus, of Silurian age. Necrophorus, Darwin's observations on. Nectar, in leguminous flowers. -Lord Farrer on secretion of, in Coronilla. Nectaries, Belt on extra-floral. Nectarines and peaches. -Rivers on production from seed. -variation in. Negative geological evidence, Darwin and Lyell on. Negro, resemblance between expression of Cebus and. Nelumbium, as example of transport. Neottia nidus-avis, fertilisation mechanism. -pollen-tubes of. Nepenthes, Hooker's work on. -Thiselton-Dyer on. Neptunia. Nervous system, genesis of. -influence on nutrition. Nests, Wallace's theory, of. -colour in relation to. -instinct in making. Neumann, on Catasetum. Neumayr, Melchior (1845-90): passed his early life at Stuttgart, and entered the University of Munich in 1863 with the object of studying law, but he soon gave up legal studies for Geology and Palaeontology. In 1873 he was recalled from Heidelberg, where he held a post as Privatdocent, to occupy the newly created Chair of Palaeontology in Vienna. Dr. Neumayr was a successful and popular writer, as well as "one of the best and most scientific palaeontologists"; he was an enthusiastic supporter of Darwin's views, and he devoted himself "to tracing through the life of former times the same law of evolution as Darwin inferred from that of the existing world." (See Obit. Notice, by Dr. W.T. Blanford, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XLVI., page 54, 1890.) -essay on descent theory. -services to geology. -"Die Stamme des Thierreichs." Nevill, Lady Dorothy. New Zealand, absence of leguminosae opposed to continental extension of. -British plants in. -clover never seeded before introduction of bees. -comparison between flora of Tasmania and. -elevation of mountains in. -flora of. -flora of Australia and. -Flora of Raoul Island and. -Hooker on flora of. -Darwin's opinion of Hooker's "Flora." -former connection of islands. -former extension of. -naturalised plants. -peopling of mountains by plants. -proportion of annuals. -species of plants common to America, Chili and. -stocked from Antarctic land. -colonising of. -glacial action in. -mountain-rat of. -trees of. Newton, Prof. A., note on Strickland by. -description of partridge as agent in dispersal of seeds. Newton's law of gravity. Niagara, Darwin on Lyell's work on. Nightingale, Gould on the. Noises, observations on children's. Nolana prostrata, Darwin's experiments on. Nomenclature, discussion on. "North British Review," Fleeming Jenkin's review in. -Tait in. Norton, Professor Charles Elliot: of Harvard, the son of the late Dr. Andrews Norton, Professor of Theology in the Harvard Divinity School. -visits Down. Norway, Von Buch's travels in. -Blytt on flora of. Norwich, Berkeley's address at British Association (1868) meeting at. -Hooker's address. Nottingham, British Association meeting (1866) at. -Hooker's lecture on insular floras at. Notylia, F. Muller on. Nucula, a persistent type. Nuneham, Darwin's recollection of trip to. Nutrition, influence of mind on. Nyctitropic movements, see Sleep-movements. Observation, spirit of astronomers in. -harder work than generalisation. -pleasure of. Observations, not to be trusted without repetition. Observer, a good theoriser makes a good. Oceanic islands, difference in floras and means of stocking. -connection between continents and. -former extension of. -Reade on. -volcanic nature of. Oceans, age and depth of. -permanence of. -as sinking areas. Ogle, W., on the sense of smell. -letter to. -translation of book by Kerner. Ogleby, reference to his nomenclature scheme. Oken, on Lepas. -Owen on. Old characters, reappearance of. Oldenburgia. Oldenlandia. Olfers. Oliver, D., Darwin indebted to for information. -letters to. -mentioned. Olyra, sleep-movements of. Omori, Morse on shell-mounds of. Oncidium, J. Scott's work on. -structure of labellum. -O. flexuosum, observations by Muller and Scott on. -self-sterility of. -O. sphacelatum, Scott on fertilisation of. Ophrys. -O. apifera, fertilisation-mechanism. -self-fertilisation of. -O. arachnites, fertilisation of. -habitat. -O. aranifera. -O. morio, fertilisation of. -O. muscifera, Lord Farrer's observations on. -O. scolopax. Opossums. Oppel, service to geology. -mentioned. Opuntia, Henslow describes new species from Galapagos. Orang-utang, Rolleston on brain of. -Wallace on. Orange trees, grafting of. d'Orbigny, on geology of S. America. -theory of formation of Pampas mud. -"Voyage dans l'Amerique meridionale. -mentioned. Orchids, adaptation in. -Darwin's work on. -Darwin's view that seedlings are parasitic on Cryptogams. -Falconer's estimate of Darwin's work on. -few species in humid temperate regions. -flourish in cool temperate regions. -illustrate diversity of means to same end. -monstrous. -quoted as argument against species arising from monstrosities. -utility and. -fertilisation mechanisms of. -Brazilian. -Darwin decides to publish his work in book-form. -Darwin sends copy of his book to F. Muller. -Darwin underrates power of producing seeds without insects. -French translation of Darwin's book. -germinative power of pollen. -Hildebrand's paper on. -Nectar not excreted in some English. -and nectar secretion. -formation of ovule after pollination. -Scott points out error in Darwin's work. -Scott on pollen-tubes of. -Scott on self-sterility. -self-fertilisation in. -setting of seed in unopened flower. -sterility of. -course of vessels in flowers. -wonderful contrivances intelligible. Orchis, flowers of. -nectaries of. -pollinia of. Orchis (Bee) (see also Ophrys apifera), Darwin's experiments on. -O. pyramidalis, fertilisation mechanism. -O. ustulata. Order of Nature. Ordination. Organ mountains, Darwin on plants of. -glacial action on. Organisms, simultaneous change in. -amount of change in fresh water and marine. Organs, transition of -use of. "Origin of the Fittest," Cope's. "Origin of Genera," Cope's work on. Origin of life. "Origin of Species," acceptance of doctrine of Evolution due to the. -Darwin's belief in the permanence of the framework of the. -Darwin's opinion of his book. -Dawson's review of. -direct action underestimated in the. -editions of the. -errors in. -Falconer's estimate of. -Huxley's Cambridge speech, and reference to the. -Huxley's lecture on coming of age of. -Huxley's review of. -Lesquereux's articles in "Silliman" against the. -publication of the Abstract of. -publication by Murray of. -sale of the. -Seemann on the. -translation of. -Wallace's criticism of. -Walsh on the. -Darwin on necessity for modifications in the. -review by Fleeming Jenkin. -review by A. Murray. -Owen's criticism of Darwin's Historical Sketch in 4th edition of. -Owen's review of. -study of natural history revolutionised by the. -valueless criticism on. Origin of species, Darwin's early views on. -Darwin's views on. -Falconer antagonistic to Darwin's views on. -Oxford discussion (British Association, 1860) on the. -spread of Darwin's views in America. Origin of species and genera, Wallace in the "Nineteenth Century" on. Original work, time taken up by, at expense of reading. Ormerod's Index to the Geological Society's Journal. Ornithorhynchus, aberrant nature of. -preservation of. Orthoptera, auditory organs of. Oscillariae, abundance in the ocean. Oscillataria. Oscillation of land, Darwin's views on. Os coccyx, as rudimentary organ. Ostrea. Ostrich, modification of wings. Outliers, plants as. "Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," Fiske's. Ovary, abnormal structure in orchid. Owen, Sir Richard (1804-92): was born at Lancaster, and educated at the local Grammar School, where one of his schoolfellows was William Whewell, afterwards Master of Trinity. He was subsequently apprenticed to a surgeon and apothecary, and became deeply interested in the study of anatomy. He continued his medical training in Edinburgh and at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London. In 1827 Owen became assistant to William Clift (whose daughter Owen married in 1835), Conservator to the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. It was here that he became acquainted with Cuvier, at whose invitation he visited Paris, and attended his lectures and those of Geoffroy St. Hilaire. The publication, in 1832, of the "Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus" placed the author "in the front rank of anatomical monographers." On Clift's retirement, Owen became sole Conservator to the Hunterian Museum, and was made first Hunterian Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology at the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1856 he accepted the post of Superintendent of the Natural History department of the British Museum, and shortly after his appointment he strongly urged the establishment of a National Museum of Natural History, a project which was eventually carried into effect in 1875. In 1884 he was gazetted K.C.B. Owen was a strong opponent of Darwin's views, and contributed a bitter and anonymous article on the "Origin of Species" to the "Edinburgh Review" of 1860. The position of Owen in the history of anatomical science has been dealt with by Huxley in an essay incorporated in the "Life of Richard Owen," by his grandson, the Rev. Richard Owen (2 volumes, London, 1894). Huxley pays a high tribute to Owen's industry and ability: "During more than half a century Owen's industry remained unabated; and whether we consider the quality or the quantity of the work done, or the wide range of his labours, I doubt if, in the long annals of anatomy, more is to be placed to the credit of any single worker." The record of his work is "enough, and more than enough, to justify the high place in the scientific world which Owen so long occupied. If I mistake not, the historian of comparative anatomy and palaeontology will always assign to Owen a place next to, and hardly lower than, that of Cuvier, who was practically the creator of those sciences in their modern shape, and whose works must always remain models of excellence in their kind." On the other hand, Owen's contributions to philosophical anatomy are on a much lower plane; hardly any of his speculations in this field have stood the test of investigation: "...I am not sure that any one but the historian of anatomical science is ever likely to recur to them, and considering Owen's great capacity, extensive learning, and tireless industry, that seems a singular result of years of strenuous labour." -address at Leeds (British Association, 1858) by. -admission of descent of species. -articles by. -on a badger of Pliocene age. -on the brain. -Mrs. Carlyle's impression of. -and Hooker. -conduct towards Huxley. -Darwin abused by. -on Darwin and Maillet. -and Darwinism. -on ephemeral influence of the "Origin." -Falconer and. -Huxley on. -on Huxley's election to the Athenaeum. -ignores Darwin's work. -influence of. -isolation among scientific men. -lecture on birds by. -letters to. -letter to the "Athenaeum." -"Life of." -on lowness of animals. -on Macacus. -on mammals of Old World. -on morphology of vertebrata. -review in the "Quarterly" of the "Origin." -"Palaeontology" by. -on parthenogenesis. -review in the "Edinburgh Review" by. -on simple and multiple organs. -on use and disuse. -and Bishop Wilberforce's review. -visits Down. -attack on Darwin in his "Anatomy of Vertebrata." -attitude towards Natural Selection. -mentioned. Owls and hawks, as agents in seed-dispersal. Oxalis, bulbils of. -cleistogamic flowers of. -dimorphism of. -pollen-tubes of. -seeds of. -trimorphism of. -O. acetosella, sensitive leaves of. -variation in length of pistil and stamens. -O. sensitiva, Darwin's work on. -O. corniculata, variation of. Oxford, meeting of the British Association at (1847). -Tuckwell's reminiscences of. Oxlips, Darwin's experiment on cowslips, primroses, and. -Darwin on hybrid character of. -scarcity of. Oxyspora paniculata, Wallich on. Pachira, inequality of cotyledons. -P. aquatica. Pacific Ocean, Darwin wishes Hooker to investigate floras of. -islands of the. -coral reefs of. Packard's "Lamarck the Founder of Evolution." Paget, Sir J., on regeneration. -address on elemental pathology. -illness of. -on influence of mind on nutrition. -"Lectures on Surgical Pathology." -letters to. -mentioned. Pairing, in birds. -vigour of birds and effect on time of. Palaeolithic flints, in gravels near Southampton. Palaeontology, rapid progress of. Palaeozoic period. Paley, idea of interference of Creator in construction of each species due to. "Pall Mall," article on "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science" in. -letter to editor of. Pallas, Darwin's conviction of truth of doctrine of. -doctrine of. -on hybrids and fertility. Palm, Malayan climbing. Palm, L.H., work on climbing plants by. Palma, crater of. Pampas, geology of the. -formation of. -Lyell on Mississippi beds and. -D'Orbigny's theory of formation of. -thistle of the. Pangenesis, adverse opinion on. -Bentham on. -Berkeley on. -bud-propagation and. -Darwin on. -Darwin's suggestion as to term. -difference between Galton's theory of heredity and. -evidence from hybridisation in favour of. -Hooker on. -Huxley's views on. -Jager on. -Lyell on. -and molecular hypothesis of Hackel. -Ranyard on. -Romanes on. -self-fertilisation and. -Wallace on. -the idea a relief to Darwin as connecting facts. -F. Muller and. -bearing on regeneration. -"will turn out true some day." -mentioned. Panmixia. Panniculus carnosus in man. Papilio Memnon, Wallace on. -P. nireus, Mrs. Barber on. -P. pammon, Wallace on. Papilionaceaous flowers, absence in New Zealand. -and hermaphroditism. Papilionidae, Wallace on Malayan. Paraheliotropism, Muller's observations on. -in Phyllanthus. Parallel Roads of Glen Roy (see Glen Roy). Parana, Darwin finds Mastodon at. Pararge, breeding in confinement. Parasites, and degeneration. -extermination of game by. -bloom as protection against. -and galls. Parietaria, explosive stamens of. Parrots, as agents in seed-dispersal. Parsimony, Hamilton's law of. Parthenogenesis, Darwin on. -Owen's Hunterian lecture on. -in Primula. -J. Scott's work on. Partridges, as agents of seed-dispersal. -rudimentary spurs on legs of. Parus caeruleus, protective colouring of. Passiflora, bloom experiments on. -Lord Farrer's work on. -position of flowers of. -Muller assists Lord Farrer in work on. -Scott's work on. -self-sterility of. -Sprengel on. -visited by humming-birds. -P. gracilis, dispersal of seeds. -P. princeps, adapted to humming birds. Patagonia, L. Agassiz on elevation of. -Darwin on geology of. -gigantic land-sloth of. -Admiral Sulivan on. Pathology, Paget's lectures on. Pattison, Mark. Pavo nigripennis. Payne, on effect of rain on plants. -observations by. Peaches, bud-variation in. -raised from seed. Peacock, evolution and Sexual Selection of. -experiments on cutting tail of male. -muscles of tail of. Pearson, H.H.W., on the botany of Ceylon patanas. Peas, course of vessels in ovary of sweet-. -crossing in. -fertilisation of. -waxy secretion in. Pecten, P. latissimus. Pelargonium, peloric. -Beaton on. -Darwin's experiments on. -flowers of. -P. multiflora alba, Darwin's experiments on crossing. Pelobius, Darwin on. Peloria, effect of pollen on regular flowers. -Darwin suggests experiments on. -Masters on. -in Pelargonium. -inheritance of. Peneus, F. Muller on. Pentateuch, N. Lewy on. Periodicals, Darwin's opinion of scientific. -foreign compared with English. Peripatus, Moseley's work on. Peristylus viridis, Lord Farrer's observations on. Permanence of ocean basins. Permian period, glacial action during. -freshwater beds in India. "Personal Narrative," Humboldt's. Peru, anarchy in. -Darwin on terraces in. -D. Forbes on geology of. Peuquenes Pass, Darwin visits. Pfeffer, Prof., on chemotaxis. -considers Wiesner wrong in some of his interpretations. -on Drosera. -"Periodische Bewegungen." Pfitzer, on classification of orchids. Pfluger. Phalaenopsis. Phanerogams, comparison with one class of animals rather than with one kingdom. Phaseoli, crossing in. Phaseolus vulgaris, sleep-movements of. Pheasants, display of colour by golden. -Hewitt on hybrids of. -hybrids between fowls and. -protective colouring. Phillips, J., defines species. -evolutionary views. -"Life on the Earth." -mentioned. Phillips-Jodrell, T.T., founder of Jodrell Laboratory at Kew. Philosophical Club. Philosophical experiments, few naturalists care for. Philosophising, means and laws of. Phlox, Darwin's observations on flowers of. -heterostylism of. -P. Drummondii. -P. subulata. Phyllanthus, F. Muller's paper in "Kosmos" on. -sleep-movements of. -P. Niruri, sleep-movements of. Phryma, de Candolle on. -occurrence in N. America. Phyllotaxis, Darwin and Falconer on. Physical conditions, effect of. "Physical Geography," Herschel's. Physicists, disagree as to rate of cooling of earth's crust. "Physiological Aesthetics," Grant Allen's. Physiological germs. Physiological selection, Romanes'. Physiological species, Huxley's term. Physiological units, Herbert Spencer's. Physiological variations. "Physiology," Huxley's "Elementary Lessons in." -Darwin on difficulty of. -Darwin's want of knowledge of. -Darwin's work on plant-. -England behind in vegetable. -small knowledge of ordinary doctors of. -and vivisection. Phytophagic varieties, Walsh on. Phytophthora, potatoes and. "Pickwick," quotation from. Pictet, on the succession of forms. -mentioned. Pictet and Humbert, on fossil fishes of Lebanon. Pieris, breeding in confinement. -colour the result of mimicry. -protective colouring. -P. napi. -Weismann on. Pigeons, breeding of. -drawings of. -experiments on crossing. -experiments bearing on direct action. -production of varieties. -reduction of wings. -and sterility. -Tegetmeier's work on. -Wallace on Malayan. -Darwin's work on. -experiments in painting. -Flourens' experiments on. -gay deceiver. -pairing for whole life. (Barbs.) (Carriers.) (Fantails.) (Laugher.) (Pouters.) (Rock.) (Runts.) (Tumblers.) Pigs, crossing of. "Pikermi," Gaudry's "Animaux fossiles de." Pinguicula, Darwin's observations on. Pistyll Rhiadr. Pisum, cross-fertilisation of. -P. sativum, visited by Bombus. Pithecoid man, Huxley's term. Pithecus, Owen on Homo and. Placentata. Plagiaulax, Falconer on. Planaria. Planorbis, Hyatt on genesis of species of. -P. multiformis, graduated forms of. Plantago, Ludwig's observations on. -Darwin on. Plants, change in animals compared with change in. -comparison between high and low as regards resistance to injurious conditions. -contractility of. -difference between animals and. -distribution of. -fossil. -of Madeira. -morphological characters. -resemblance to animals. -Saporta's work on fossil. -small proportion preserved as fossils. -splendid for helping belief in Natural Selection. -thorns in. -wide range as compared with animals. -Darwin's interest in movements of. -Darwin on physiology of. -disease in. -effect of stimuli on. Plas Edwards. Plasmodiophora, action on cruciferous roots. Platanthera, H. Muller on. Plato, comparison between plants and man in his "Timaeus." Platysma myoides, contraction during terror. -Darwin's error concerning. Playfair, Lord. Pleistocene Antarctic land, plants derived from. Pliocene, Falconer on mammal from the. Plovers, protective colouring of. Plumage, immature and adult. Plumbago, Darwin's experiments on. -said to be dimorphic. Podostemaceae, fertilisation of. Poisons, natives of Australia injured by vegetable. -absorption by roots of. -effect of injection into plants. Polar bear, modification of. Polar ice-cap, Darwin on the. Polarity, E. Forbes' theory of. Pollen, direct action of. -experiments on. -time of maturity in Eucalyptus and Mimosa. -mechanism for distribution in Martha. -Miyoshi's experiments on tubes of. Polyanthus, crossing in. Polyborus Novae Zelandiae, in Falkland Islands. Polydactylism, and inheritance. Polyembryony, in Coffea and Pachira. Polygala. -P. vulgaris, variation of. Polygamy, in birds. -in Machetes. Polygonum, germination of seeds found in sandpit. Polymorphism, Darwin and Hooker on. -Wallace on. Polytypic genera, variation of. Pontederia, heterostylism of. Pontodrilus, Lankester on. Poplar, Heer on fossil species. Popper, J., letter to. Poppig, on civilisation and savagery. Poppy (corn-), indigenous in Sicily. Porpoises, Flower on. -freshwater. -Murray on. Portillo Pass. Porto-Santo, land-snails of. -plants of. Positivism, Huxley's article in "Fortnightly Review" on. Posoqueria, F. Muller's paper on. Potatoes, crossing experiments. -cultivated and wild. -disease of. -experiments suggested. -graft-hybrids. -sterility and variability in. -Torbitt's experiments on. -Traill's experiments. -varieties of. -Darwin's work on varieties of. -Hildebrand's experiments on. Poulton, Prof., on Prichard as an evolutionist. -"Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection." Poultry, skulls of. -Tegetmeier's book on. -experiments on colour and sexual selection. Powell, Prof. Baden. "Power of Movement in Plants," Darwin's account of capacity of revolving in plants, in his book. -Continental opinion of. -Wiesner's criticism of. Prawns, F. Muller on metamorphosis of. Prayer, Galton's article on. Pre-Cambrian rocks, Hicks on. Predominant forms. "Prehistoric Europe," J. Geikie's. "Prehistoric Times," Lord Avebury's. Preordination, speculation as to. Prepotency of pollen. Prescott, reference to work by. Preservation, suggested as an alternative term for Natural Selection. Pressure, effect on liquefaction by heat. Preston, S. Tolver, letter to. Prestwich, Prof. J., letter to. -on Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. -on superficial deposits of S. England. -work on Tertiaries. -mentioned. Prevost, C., as candidate for Royal Society Foreign List. -mentioned. Price, J., extract from letter from Darwin to. Prichard, James Cowles (1786-1848): He came on both sides from Quaker families, but, according to the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," he ultimately joined the Church of England. He was a M.D. of Edinburgh, and by diploma of Oxford. He was for a year at Trinity College, Cambridge, and afterwards at St. John's and New College, Oxford, but did not graduate at either University. He practised medicine, and was Physician to the Infirmary at Bristol. Three years before his death he was made a Commissioner in Lunacy. He not only wrote much on Ethnology, but also made sound contributions to the science of language and on medical subjects. His treatise on insanity was remarkable for his advanced views on "moral insanity." -on immutability. -quotations from his "Physical History of Mankind." Priestley, "Green matter" of. -Huxley's essay on. Primogeniture, antagonistic to Natural Selection. Primrose (see also Primula), Darwin's experiments on cowslip and. -dimorphism of. -J. Scott on. Primula, Darwin's work on. -difficulty of experimenting with. -dimorphism of. -dimorphism lost by variation. -entrance of pollen-tubes at chalaza. -varying fertility of. -fertilisation of. -homomorphic unions and. -ovules of. -J. Scott's work on. -stamens of. -P. elatior. -P. longiflora, non-dimorphism of. -Treviranus on. -P. mollis. -P. scotica. -P. sinensis. -fertility of. -legitimate and illegitimate unions. -movement of cotyledons. Principle of divergence. "Principles of Biology," Spencer's. "Principles of Geology," Lyell's. -Darwin on. -Wallace's review of. Pringlea antiscorbutica (Kerguelen cabbage). Priority, Falconer and Owen on. Proboscidean group, extinction of. Progress, in forms of life and organisation. Progression, tendency in organisms towards. Progressive development. Pronuba, the Yucca moth, Riley on. Proteaceae, former extension of. Protean genera, list of N. American. Protection, colour in butterflies and. -thorns as. -Wallace on. -colour and. -colour of birds and. -colour of caterpillars and. -colour of shells and. -Darwin's views on Sexual Selection and. -evolution of colour and. -mimicry and. -monkeys' manes as. -Wallace on colour and. -Wallace on wings of lepidoptera and. Protective resemblance, Wallace on. Proterogyny, in Plantago. Prothero, G.W. Protococcus. Protozoa. Providential arrangement. Prunus laurocerasus, extra-floral nectaries visited by ants. Psithyrus. Psychology, Delboeuf on. -Romanes' work on comparative. Ptarmigan, protective colouring of. Pterophorus periscelidactylus. Publishing, over-readiness of most men in. Pumilio argyrolepis, Darwin on seeds of. Purbeck, Plagiaulax from the. Purpose, Darwin on use of term. Pyrola, fertilisation mechanism in. Quagga, hybrid between horse and. Quails, seed-dispersal by migratory. "Quarterly Journal of Science," article on Darwin and his teaching in. -review by Wallace of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law." "Quarterly Review," Mivart's article. -Bishop Wilberforce's review of "Origin" in. -article on zebras, horses, and hybrids. Quartz, segregation in foliated rocks. Quatrefages, Jean Louis Armand de, de Breau (1810-92): was a scion of an ancient family originally settled at Breau, in the Cevennes. His work was largely anthropological, and in his writings and lectures he always combated evolutionary ideas. Nevertheless he had a strong personal respect for Darwin, and was active in obtaining his election at the Institut. For details of his life and work see "A la Memoire de J.L.A. de Quatrefages de Breau," 4o, Paris (privately printed); also "L'Anthropologie," III., 1892, page 2. -letters to. -translation of paper by. -on proportion of sexes in Bombyx. Quenstedt, work on the Lias by. Queries on expression. Rabbits, Angora, skeletons of. -Darwin's work on. Race, nature's regard for. Racehorse, selection by man. -Wallace on fleetness of. -equality of sexes in. Races of man. -causes of difference in. -Wallace on. Rafflesia, parasites allied to. Rain, effect on leaves. -movements of leaves as means of shooting off. Ramsay, Sir A.C., on origin of lakes. -Geological Society hesitates to publish his paper on Lakes. -on ice-action. -on insects in tropics. -memoir by Geikie of. -on denudation and earth-movements. -overestimates subaerial denudation. -on Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. -on Permian glaciers. -proposal that he should investigate glacial deposits in S. America. -mentioned. Range, De Candolle on large families and their. -coleoptera and restricted. -of genera. -of shells. -size of genera in relation to species and their. -of species. Ranunculaceae, evidence of highness in. Ranunculus auricomus. Ranyard, A.C., letter to "Nature" on pangenesis. Raoul Island, Hooker on. Raphael's Madonna, referred to by Darwin. Raspberry, germination of seeds from a barrow. -waxy secretion of. Rattlesnake, Wright on uses of rattle of. Raven, said to pair for whole life. Ray Society, work of. Raymond, Du Bois, work on plants. Reade, T.M., letters to. -on age of the world. "Reader," sold to the Anthropological Society. Reading, Darwin complains of lack of time for. -little time given by scientific workers to. Reciprocal crosses, half-sterility of. Rede Lecture, by Phillips (1860). Reduction, cessation of selection as cause of. -organs of flight and. -wings of ostrich and. References, Darwin on importance of giving. -Wallace on. Regeneration, power of. -reference in "Variation of Animals and Plants" to. "Reign of Law," the Duke of Argyll's. -reviewed by Wallace. Reindeer, of Spitzbergen. -horns of. Religion and science. Representative species. -in floras of Japan and N. America. -in Galapagos Islands. Reproduction, difference in amount of energy expended by male and female in. Reproductive organs, St.-Hilaire's view of affaiblissement and development of. -in relation to theoretical questions. Research, Huxley and. -justification of. Reseda lutea, sterile with own pollen. -R. odorata, experiment on cross-and self-fertilisation. Resemblance, mimetic. Resignation, expression in. Restiaceae, former extension of. Restricted distribution. Retardation, Cope on. Retrogression. Reversion, in ammonites. -Darwin on. -and degeneration of characters. -factors causing. -hybridism and. -Lord Morton's mare and. -stripes of mules due to. -struggle between Natural Selection and. -and crossing. -peloria and. Review of the "Descent of Man," by J. Morley. Reviews, Darwin on an author writing his own. -on the "Origin of Species," by Asa Gray. -Haughton. -Hopkins. -Hutton. -Huxley. -F. Jenkin. -Owen. -Wilberforce. Rhamnus. Rhexia, flowers of. -R. virginica, W.H. Leggett on anthers. Rhinoceros. Rhinochetus. Rhizocephala, retrograde development in. Rhododendron Boothii. Rhopalocera, breeding in confinement. Rhynchoea, colour of. Rich, Anthony (1804?-1891): Educated at Caius College, Cambridge, of which he was afterwards an Honorary Fellow. Author of "Illustrated Companion to the Latin Dictionary and Greek Lexicon," 1849, said to be a useful book on classical antiquities. Mr. Darwin made his acquaintance in a curious way--namely, by Mr. Rich writing to inform him that he intended to leave him his fortune, in token of his admiration for his work. Mr. Rich was the survivor, but left his property to Mr. Darwin's children, with the exception of his house at Worthing, bequeathed to Mr. Huxley. -legacy to Huxley. -letter to. -leaves his fortune to Darwin. Rich, Mrs., mentioned. Richardson, R., on tablet to commemorate Darwin's lodgings at 11, Lothian Street, Edinburgh. Richardson, Darwin on merits of. Rigaud, on formation of coal. Riley, Charles Valentine (1843-95): was born in England: at the age of seventeen he ran away from home and settled in Illinois, where at first he supported himself as a labourer; but he soon took to science, and his first contributions to Entomology appeared in 1863. He became entomological editor of the "Prairie Farmer" (Chicago), and came under the influence of B.D. Walsh. In 1868 Riley became State Entomologist of Missouri, and in 1878 Entomologist to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a post he resigned in 1894 owing to ill-health; his death was the result of a bicycle accident. (Taken principally from the "Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington," Volume III., 1893-6, page 293.) -letters to. -mentioned. Rio Janeiro, absence of erratic boulders near. -Agassiz on drift-formation near. Rio Negro. Rio Plata. Ritchie, Mrs., visit to Down. Rivers, The late Mr. Thomas: of Sawbridgeworth, was an eminent horticulturist and writer on horticulture. -letters to. Robin, attracted by colour of Triphaena (Triphoea). Robinia, insect visitors of. Rocks, bending when heated. -condition in interior of earth. -fluidity of. -metamorphism of (see also Metamorphism). Rocky Mountains, wingless insects of the. Rogers, W.B. and H.D., on cleavage. -on coalfields of N. America. -on parallelism of axis-planes of elevation and cleavage. Rolleston, George (1829-81): obtained a first-class in Classics at Oxford in 1850; he was elected Fellow of Pembroke College in 1851, and in the same year he entered St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Towards the close of the Crimean War, Rolleston was appointed one of the Physicians to the British civil hospital at Smyrna. In 1860 he was elected the first Linacre Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, a post which he held until his death. "He was perhaps the last of a school of English natural historians or biologists in the widest sense of the term." In 1862 he gave the results of his work on the classification of brains in a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution, and in 1870 published his best known book, "Forms of Animal Life (Dict. Nat. Biography). -address in "Nature" by. -on the orang-utang. -adhesion to Darwin's views. -letter to. -letter to Darwin from. -mentioned. Rollisson. Roman villa at Abinger. Romanes, G.J. (1848-94): was one of Mr. Darwin's most devoted disciples. The letters published in Mrs. Romanes' interesting "Life and Letters" of her husband (1896) make clear the warm feelings of regard and respect which Darwin entertained for his correspondent. -Darwin on controversy between Duke of Argyll and. -on graft-hybrids. -letters to. -letter to Darwin from. -letter to "Nature" in reply to the Duke of Argyll. -on physiological selection. -review of Roux's book. -on heliotropism. -lecture on animal intelligence by. -lecture on evolution of nerves. -letter to "Times" from. -"Life and Letters" of. -on minds of animals. Roots, heliotropism of. -sensitive tip of. Roses, N. American species. -bud-variation. -raising from seed. -resemblance of seedling moss-rose to Scotch. -varieties of. Ross, Sir J. Rosse, Lord. Round Island, fauna and flora of. Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism." Royal Commission on Vivisection. Royal Institution, lectures at. Royal medals. Royal Society, council meeting of. Royer, Mdlle., translatress of the "Origin." Royle, John Forbes (1800-58): was originally a surgeon in the H.E.I.C. Medical Service, and was for some years Curator at Saharunpur. From 1837- 56 he was Professor of Materia Medica at King's College, London. He wrote principally on economic and Indian botany. One of his chief works was "Illustrations of the Botany and other branches of the Natural History of the Himalayan Mountains and of the Flora of Cashmere." (London, 1839.) -letters to. -mentioned. Rubiaceae, dimorphism in. -fertilisation in. Rubus, N. American species. -variation in. -F. Darwin on roots of. Rubus and Hieracium, comparison of variability of N. American and European species. Rucker. Rudimentary organs. -in frogs. -nascent and. -variation of. -in man. -use in classification. Rudinger, Dr., on regeneration. Rue, flowers of. Ruffs, polygamy of. Rumex, germination of old seeds. Russia, forms of wheat cultivated in. Rutaceae, A. St.-Hilaire on difference in ovary of same plants of. Sabine, General Sir E. Sabine (1788-1883): President of the Royal Society 1861-71. (See "Life and Letters," III., page 28.) -address to Royal Society. -award of Copley medal to Darwin during presidency of. -recognition by Government. -mentioned. Sabrina, elevation of. Sagitta. St. Dabeoc's heath, in Azores. St. Helena, Darwin suggests possibility of finding lost plants in earth from. -extinction in. -Hooker on flora of. -land-birds of. -plants of. -trees of. -Darwin on craters of. -geology of. -subsidence in. -White on hemiptera of. St.-Hilaire, A.F.C.P. de, on affaiblissement. -erect and suspended ovules in same ovary. -"Lecons de Botanique." -Life of. St.-Hilaire, J.G., on monstrosities. -author of "Life of A.F.C.P. de St.-Hilaire." St. Jago, Darwin on craters of. -elevation of. St. Paul's rocks, plants of. -geological structure. Saintpaulia, dimorphic flowers. St. Ventanao, conglomerates of. Salicaceae. Salicornia, bloom on. Salix, varieties of. Salsola Kali, bloom on. Salt water, effect on plants. Salter, on vitality of seeds after immersion in the sea. Saltus, Darwin's views on. Salvages, flora of the. Salvia, Hildebrand's paper on. Samara, Russian wheat sent to Darwin from. Samoyedes, power of finding their way in fog. Sandberger, controversy with Hilgendorf. Sanderson, Sir J.B., electrical experiments on plants. -letters to. -on vivisection. Sandwich Islands, absence of Alpine floras. -flora of. -Geranium of. -Dana on valleys and craters. -Galapagos and. Sanicula, occurrence of species in Azores. -range of. Santa Cruz. Santorin, crater of. -linear vent in. -Lyell's account of. Saporta, Marquis de, (1823-95): devoted himself to the study of fossil plants, and by his untiring energy and broad scientific treatment of the subject he will always rank as one of the pioneers of Vegetable Palaeontology. In addition to many important monographs on Tertiary and Jurassic floras, he published several books and papers in which Darwin's views are applied to the investigation of the records of plant-life furnished by rocks of all ages. ("Le Marquis G. de Saporta, sa Vie et ses Travaux," by R. Zeiller. "Bull. Soc. Geol. France," Volume XXIV., page 197, 1896.) -letters to. -on rapid development of higher plants. Sargassum, Forbes on. Sarracenia. Savages, civilisation of. -comparison between animals and. -decrease of. -Selection among. Saxifrages, destruction in Ireland of Spanish. -formation of hairs in. Saxonika, form of Russian wheat. Scaevola, fertilisation mechanism of. -S. microcarpa, fertilisation mechanism of. Scalesia. Scandinavia, Hooker on potency of flora. -Blytt on distribution of plants of. -elevation of. Scarlet fever, Darwin's dread of. "Scenery of Scotland," Sir A. Geikie's. Scepticism, Darwin on. Schimper, review by Hooker of "Paleontologie Vegetale" by. Schlagintweit. Schleiden, convert to Darwin's views. Schmankewitsch, experiments on Artemia by. Schobl, J., on ears of mice. Schoenherr, C.J. Schomburgk, Sir R., on Catasetum, Monacanthus, and Myanthus. School, Darwin at Mr. Case's. -of Mines. Schrankia, a sensitive species of. Schultze, Max. Science, and superstition. -progresses at railroad speed. Science Defence Association, Darwin asked to be president of. Scientific men, attributes of. -domestic ties and work of. -article in "Reader" on. Scientific periodicals, Darwin's opinion of. Scotland, forest trees of. -comparison between flora of T. del Fuego and that of. -elevation of. -frequency of earthquakes in. -land-glaciation of. -tails of diluvium in. "Scotsman," Forbes' lecture published in. -Darwin's letter on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy in the. Scott, D.H., obituary notice of Nageli by. Scott, John (1838-80): Short obituary notices of Scott appeared in the "Journal of Botany," 1880, page 224, and in the "Transactions of the Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh" Volume XIV., November 11th, 1880, page 160; but the materials for a biographical sketch are unfortunately scanty. He was the son of a farmer, and was born at Denholm (the birthplace the poet Leiden, to whom a monument has been erected in the public square of the village), in Roxburghshire. At four years of age he was left an orphan, and was brought up in his aunt's household. He early showed a love of plants, and this was encouraged by his cousin, the Rev. James Duncan. Scott told Darwin that he chose a gardening life as the best way of following science; and this is the more remarkable inasmuch as he was apprenticed at fourteen years of age. He afterwards (apparently in 1859) entered the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh, and became head of the propagating department under Mr. McNab. His earliest publication, as far as we are aware, is a paper on Fern-spores, read before the Bot. Soc., Edinburgh, on June 12th, 1862. In the same year he was at work on orchids, and this led to his connection with Darwin, to whom he wrote in November 1862. In 1864 he got an appointment at the Calcutta Botanic Garden, a position he owed to Sir J.D. Hooker, who was doubtless influenced by Darwin's high opinion of Scott. It was on his way to India that Scott had, we believe, his only personal interview with Darwin. We are indebted to Sir George King for the interesting notes given below, which enable us to form an estimate of Scott's personality. He was evidently of a proud and sensitive nature, and that his manner was pleasing and dignified appears from Darwin's brief mention of the interview. He must have been almost morbidly modest, for Darwin wrote to Hooker (January 24th, 1864): "Remember my URGENT wish to be able to send the poor fellow a word of praise from any one. I have had hard work to get him to allow me to send the [Primula] paper to the Linn. Soc., even after it was written out!" And this was after the obviously genuine appreciation of the paper given in Darwin's letters. Sir George King writes:-- "He had taught himself a little Latin and a good deal of French, and he had read a good deal of English literature. He was certainly one of the most remarkable self-taught men I ever met, and I often regret that I did not see more of him...Scott's manner was shy and modest almost to being apologetic; and the condition of nervous tension in which he seemed to live was indicated by frequent nervous gestures with his hands and by the restless twisting of his long beard in which he continuously indulged. He was grave and reserved; but when he became interested in any matter he talked freely, although always deliberately, and he was always ready to deafen his opinions with much spirit. He had, moreover, a considerable sense of humour. What struck me most about Scott was the great acuteness of his powers of observing natural phenomena, and especially of such as had any bearing on variation, natural selection or hybridity. While most attentive to the ordinary duties of the chief of a large garden, Scott always continued to find leisure for private study, and especially for the conduct of experiments in hybridization. For the latter his position in the Calcutta garden afforded him many facilities. After obtaining a post in the Calcutta Botanic Gardens, Scott continued to work and to correspond with Darwin, but his work was hardly on a level with the promise of his earlier years. According to the "Journal of Botany," he was attacked by an affection of the spleen at Darjeeling, where he had been sent to report on the coffee disease. He returned to Edinburgh in the spring of 1880, and died in the June of that year. At the time of his death many experiments were in hand, but his records of these were too imperfect to admit of their being taken up and continued after his death. In temper Scott was most gentle and loveable, and to his friends he was loyal almost to a fault. He was quite without ambition to 'get on' in the world; he had no low or mean motives; and than John Scott, Natural Science probably had no more earnest and single-minded devotee." -correspondence with. -criticism on the "Origin" by. -letters to. -on Natural Selection. -on a red cowslip. -confirms Darwin's work, also points out error. -Darwin assists financially. -Darwin's opinion of. -Darwin offers to present books to. -Darwin writes to Hooker about Indian appointment for. -Darwin's proposal that he should work at Down as his assistant. -Darwin suggests that he should work at Kew. -on dispersal of seed of Adenanthera by parrots. -on fertilisation of Acropera. -a good observer and experimentalist. -a lover of Natural History. -observations on acclimatisation of seeds. -on Oncidium flexuosum. -letter to Darwin from. -offered associateship of Linnean Society. -on Imatophyllum. -on self-sterility in Passiflora. -on Primula. -on sexes in Zea. -mentioned. Scrope, P., on volcanic rocks. Scrophularineae. Scudder, on fossil insects. Sea, Dana underestimates power of. -changes in level of land due to those of. -marks left on land by action of. Seakale, bloom on. Seashore plants, use of bloom on. Sea-sickness, Darwin suffers from. "Seasons with the Sea Horses," Lamont's. Secondary period, abundance of Araucarias and Marsupials during. -equality of elevation in British rocks of. -insects prior to. Sections of earth's crust, need for accurate. Sedgwick, Prof. A., extract from letter to Owen from. -letter to Darwin from. -on the "Vestiges of Creation." -and the Philosophical Society's meeting at Cambridge. -and the "Spectator." -Darwin's visit to. -Feelings towards Darwin. -on the structure of large mineral masses. -proposes Forbes for Royal medal. -quotation from letter to Darwin from. -suggested as candidate for Royal medal. -mentioned. Sedgwick, A., address at the British Association (1899). Sedimentary strata, conversion into schists. Sedimentation, connection with elevation and subsidence. -near coast-lines. Seedlings, sensitiveness to light. Seeds, collected by girls in Prof. Henslow's parish. -dispersal of. -effect of immersion on. -of furze. -Asa Gray on Darwin's salt-water experiments. -germination after 21 1/2 hours in owl's stomach. -moss-roses raised from. -peaches from. -variation in. -bright colours of fruits and. -difficulty of finding in samples of earth. -dormant state of. -germination from pond mud. -Hildebrand on dispersal of. -mucus emitted by. -stored by ants. -supposed vivification of fossil. -vitality of. Seeley, Prof. Seemann, on commingling of temperate and tropical plants in mountains of Panama. -on the "Origin" in Germany. -mentioned. Segregation of minerals in foliated rocks. Selaginella, foot of, compared with organ in Welwitschia seedling. Selection, a misleading term. -artificial. -as means of improving breeds. -importance of. -influence of speedy. -utilised by pigeon-fanciers. -Sexual (see Sexual Selection). -sterility and. -unconscious. -and variation. -voluntary. -and inheritance. Self-fertilisation, abundance of seeds from. -Darwin's experiments on cross- and. -evil results of. -comparison between seeds from cross- and. -in Goodeniaceae. -in Orchids. Self-interest, Preston on. Self-sterility, in Eschscholtzia. -in plants. -connection with unnatural conditions. Selliera, Hamilton on fertilisation-mechanism. Semper, Karl (1832-93): Professor of Zoology at Wurzburg. He is known for his book of travels in the Philippine and Pelew Islands, for his work in comparative embryology, and for the work mentioned in the above letter. See an obituary notice in "Nature," July 20th, 1893, page 271. -letter to. Senecio. -S. vulgaris, profits by cross-fertilisation. Sensitive plants, Darwin's work on. Sensitiveness, diversified kinds in allied plants. Separate creations, Darwin on. Sequoia. Seringe, on Aconitum flowers. Sertularia. Sethia, dimorphism of. Settegast, H., letter to. Severn, Darwin on floods of. Seward, A.C., "Fossil Plants as Tests of Climate." Sexes, colour, and difference in. -proportion at birth. -proportion in animals. Sexual likeness, secondary. Sexual organs, as collectors of generative elements. -appendages in insects complemental to. Sexual reproduction, Galton on. -bearing of F. Muller's work on essence of. Sexual Selection, Bates on. -Darwin on. -article in "Kosmos" on. -colour and. -man and. -in moths and butterflies. -subordinate to Natural Selection. -Wallace on colour and. -Wallace on difficulties of. Sexuality, Bentham on. -in lower forms. -origin of. Shanghai, tooth of Mastodon from. Sharp, David, on Bombus. -on Volucella. -"Insects." Sharpe, Daniel (1806-56): left school at the age of sixteen, and became a clerk in the service of a Portuguese merchant. At the age of twenty-four he went for a year to Portugal, and afterwards spent a considerable amount of time in that country. The results of his geological work, carried out in the intervals of business, were published in the Journal of the Geological Society of London ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume V., page 142; Volume VI., page 135). Although actively engaged in business all his life, Sharpe communicated several papers to the Geological Society, his researches into the origin of slaty cleavage being among the ablest and most important of his contributions to geology ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page 74; Volume V., page 111). A full account of Sharpe's work is given in an abituary notice published in the "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII., page xlv. -on elevation. -Darwin meets. -letters to. -on cleavage and foliation. Sharpey, W., letter from Falconer to. -Honorary member of Physiological Society. Shaw, J., letter to. Sheep, varieties of. Sheldrake, dancing on sand to make sea-worms come out. Shells, Forbes and Hancock on British. -distorted by cleavage. -means of dispersal. -protective colour of. Sherborn, C.D., "Catalogue of Mammalia" by A.S. Woodward and. Shetland, comparison between flora of T. del Fuego and that of. Shrewsbury, school. Siberia, Rhinoceros and steppes of central. Sicily, elephants of. -flora of. Sidgwick, Prof. H. Siebold, von. Sigillaria, an aquatic plant. Silene, Gartner's crossing-experiments on. Silurian, comparison between recent organisms and. -life of. -Lingula from the. -corals. -volcanic strata. Simon, Sir John: he was for many years medical officer of the Privy Council, and in that capacity issued a well-known series of Reports. -reports by. Simple forms, existence of. -survival of. Simpson, Sir J., on regeneration in womb. Siphocampylus. Sitaris, Lord Avebury on Meloe and. Siwalik hills. Skertchley, S.B.J., on palaeolithic flints in boulder-clay of E. Anglia. -letter to. Skin, influence of mind on eruptions of. Slate, cleavage of schists and. Slave-ants, account in the "Origin" of. Sleep, plants' so-called. Sleep-movements, in plants. -of cotyledons. Slime of seeds. Sloths. Smell, Ogle's work on sense of. Smerinthus populi-ocellatus, Weir on hybrid. Smilaceae, reference to genera of. Smilax, De Candolle on flower of. Smith, Goldwin. Smith, J., note on. Snails of Porto Santo. Snipe, protective colour of. Snow, red. -geological action of frozen. Snowdon, elevation in recent times. Social instincts, actions as result of. Social plants, De Candolle on. -in the U.S.A. "Sociology," H. Spencer's. Soda, nitrate beds. Soil, in relation to plant distribution. Solanaceae. Solanum rostratum, Todd on stamens of. Solenhofen, bird-creature from. Sollas, Prof., director of the Funafuti boring expedition. -account of the boring operations by. Sonchus, introduced into New Zealand. Song, importance in animal kingdom. Sophocles, Prof., on expression of affirmation by Turks. Sorby, on metamorphism. Sound, and music. Southampton, British Association meeting (1846). -Darwin on gravel deposits at. -Darwin's visits to. Spanish chesnut, variation in leaf divergence. Spanish plants in Ireland. -in La Plata. Spawn, dispersal of frogs'. Spean, terraces in valley of. Special ordination. Specialisation. Species, antiquity of plant-. -belief in evolution of. -changing into one another. -creation of. -Darwin recognises difficulties in and objections to his views on. -definition of. -descriptive work influenced by Darwin's views on. -facts from Hooker bearing on. -food as important factor in keeping up number of. -frequency of. -Asa Gray on. -Hooker on. -intermediate forms absent in close. -little tendency during migration to form new. -modification of. -and monstrosities. -mutability of. -Nageli's views on. -origin of (see Origin of Species). -permanence of. -Prichard on meaning of term. -range of. -representative. -separate creation of. -spreading of. -sterility between allied. -and sterility. -time necessary to change. -time of creation of new. -variation of. -Wallace on origin of. -Walsh on modification of. -Weismann on. -Gaudry on affiliation of. -Hackel on change of. -isolation of. -value of careful discrimination of. "Species not transmutable," Bree's book on. Specific character, Falconer on persistence of. Speculation, Darwin on. Spencer, H., Darwin on the advantage of his expression "survival of the fittest." -letter to. -on electric organs. -on genesis of nervous system. -on survival of the fittest. -Romanes on his theory of nerve-genesis. -Wallace's admiration for. -Darwin on his work. -extract from letter to. -mentioned. Spermacoce. Spey, terraces of. Sphagnum, parasitism of orchids on. Spiders, mental powers of. -Moggridge on. Spiranthes, fertilisation of. Spiritualism, Darwin on. Sptizbergen, Lamont's book on. -reindeer of. Sponges, Clark on classification of. -Hackel's work on. -F. Muller on. Spontaneous generation. -Darwin's disbelief in. -Huxley's disbelief in. Sports. Sprengel, (C.C.) Christian Konrad (1750-1816): was for a time Rector of Spandau, near Berlin; but his enthusiasm for Botany led to neglect of parochial duties, and to dismissal from his living. His well-known work, "Das Entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur," was published in 1793. An account of Sprengel was published in "Flora," 1819, by one of his old pupils. See also "Life and Letters," I., page 90, and an article in "Natural Science," Volume II., 1893, by J.C. Willis. -on Passion-flowers. Stag-beetle, forms of. Stahl, Prof., on Desmodium. -on transpiration. Stainton. Stanhope, Lord. Stanhopea, fertilisation of. Stapelia, fertilisation of. Starling, paired three times in one day. State-entomologist, appointment of in America, not likely to occur in England. Statistics, of births and deaths. -Asa Gray's N. American plant-. Steinheim, Lias rocks of. Stellaria media, cross-fertilisation of. Stephens, Miss Catherine: was born in 1794, and died, as the Countess of Essex, in 1882. Sterile, use of term. Sterility, accumulation through Natural Selection. -arguments relating to. -artificial production of. -between allied species aided by Natural Selection. -connection with sexual differentiation. -and crossing. -domestication and loss of. -experiments on. -of hybrids. -in human beings. -Huxley on. -increase of races and. -laws governing. -Natural Selection and. -in pigeons. -in plants (see also self-sterility). -reciprocal crosses and unequal. -selection and. -variations in amount of. -varieties and. Stirling, and Huxley. Stokes, Sir G. Strasburger, on fertilisation of grasses. Stratification, and cleavage. Strephium, vertical position of leaves. Strezlecki. Strickland, H., letters to. -on zoological nomenclature. Stripes, loss and significance of. Structural dissimilarity, and sterility. Structure, external conditions in relation to. Struggle for existence. -and crossing. -factors concerned in. -and hybrids. -J. Scott on. Strychnos, F. Muller on. Student, Darwin as an Edinburgh. Studer, Bernhard: Several of Studer's papers were translated and published in the "Edinburgh New Phil. Journ." See Volume XLII., 1847; Volume XLIV., 1848, etc. -on cleavage and foliation. "Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie," Weismann's. "Studies in the Theory of Descent," Meldola's translation of Weismann's book. "Study of Sociology," H. Spencer's. Stur, Dionys (1827-93): Director of the Austrian Geological Survey from 1885 to 1892; author of many important memoirs on palaeobotanical subjects. Style, Darwin on. -Darwin on Huxley's. -effect of controversy on. Suaeda, bloom on. Submergence. Subsidence, evidence of. -coral reefs and. -and elevation. -equable nature of. -large areas simultaneously affected by. -in oceans. -and sedimentation. -volcanic action. Subterranean animal, existence in Patagonia of supposed. Subularia, fertilisation of. Succession of types. Sudden appearance of organisms, due to absence of fossils in pre- Cambrian rocks. Sudden jumps, modification by. -Darwin's disbelief in. Suess, "Antlitz der Erde." Suffolk Crag, comparison with recent strata. Sugar-cane, Barber on hybrids of. -new varieties of. Sulivan, Admiral, on Patagonia. Superficial deposits, geological nature of. Supernumerary members. -amputation followed by regeneration of. "Survival of the fittest," Darwin on use of the expression. -Wallace on the expression. -sharpness of thorns the result of. -colour of birds and. Swainson, on wide range of genera. Switzerland, Tyndall on valleys of. Sydney. Symonds, William Samuel (1818-87): a member of an old West-country family, was an undergraduate of Christ's College, Cambridge, and in 1845 became Rector of Pendock, Worcestershire. He published in 1858 a book entitled "Stones of the Valley;" in 1859 "Old Bones, or Notes for Young Naturalists;" and in 1872 his best-known work, "Records of the Rocks." Mr. Symonds passed the later years of his life at Sunningdale, the house of his son-in-law, Sir Joseph Hooker. (See "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XLIV., page xliii.) -on imperfection of geological record. Tacsonia, Darwin on flowers of. -fertilisation by humming-birds. -Scott's work on. Tahiti, coral reefs of. -Darwin on. Tails of diluvium, in Scotland. Tait, Prof. P.G., article in "North British Review." -on age of world. Tait, L., letters to. Tait, W.C., letter to. -on rudimentary tails in dogs and Manx cats. -sends Drosophyllum to Darwin. Talbot, Mrs. E., letter to. Tandon, Moquin, "Elements de Teratologie Vegetale." Tankerville, Lord. Tasmania, comparison between floras of New Zealand and. -Hooker's Flora of. -trees of. Taylor, W., "Life and Correspondence" of. Tears, and muscular contraction. Tees, Hooker on glacial moraines in valley of. Tegetmeier, W.B., assistance rendered to Darwin by. -letters to. Telegraph-plant (see also Desmodium). "Telliamed" (de Maillet), evolutionary views of. Tendrils, morphology of. Teneriffe, flora of. -violet of Peak of. -Webb and Humboldt on zones of. Tennent, Sir J.E., on elephants' tears. -on Utricularia. Tentacles, aggregation of protoplasm in cells of plant-. Teodoresco, on effect of excess of CO2 on vegetation. Teratology, Masters on vegetable. -Moquin Tandon on. Terebratula. Termites compared with cleistogamic flowers. -F. Muller's paper on. Terraces, Darwin on Patagonian. Tertiary, Antarctic continent, Darwin on existence of. -Mastodon from Shanghai. -flora in Madeira. Tertiary period, action of sea and earth-movement. -island floras of the. -Saporta's work on plants. -succession of types during the. -Prestwich's work on. Testimonials, Darwin on. Tetrabranchiata, Hyatt on the. Thayer's "Letters of Chauncey Wright." Theologians, Huxley on. Theological articles, by Asa Gray. Theology, Darwin's opinion on. Theorising, observing and. Theory, Darwin's advice to Scott to be sparing in use of. Thibet, Hooker prohibited crossing into. Thierzucht, Settegast's. Thiselton-Dyer, Lady. Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W., assists Darwin in bloom-experiments. -Darwin signs his certificate for Royal Society. -lecture on plant distribution as field for geographical research. -letter to "Nature" from. -notes on letter from Darwin to Bentham. -on partial submergence of Australia. -letters to. -extract from letter to. -on Darwin. Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W., and Prof. Dewar, on immersion of seeds in liquid hydrogen. Thlaspi alpestre, range of. Thompson, Prof. D'Arcy, prefatory note by Darwin to his translation of H. Muller's book. Thompson, W., natural-historian of Ireland. Thomson, Sir W., see Kelvin, Lord. Thomson, Sir Wyville, on Natural Selection. -mentioned. Thomson, review of Jordan's "Diagnoses d'especes" by. Thorns, forms of. "Three Barriers," theological hash of old abuse of Darwin. Thury on sex. Thwaites, Dr. G.H.K. (1811-82): held for some years the post of Director of the Botanic Gardens at Peradenyia, Ceylon; and in 1864 published an important work on the flora of the island, entitled "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae." -on Ceylon plants. -letters to. -on the "Origin." Thymus. Tieghem, Prof. van, on course of vessels in orchid flowers. -on effect of flashing light on plants. Tierra del Fuego, flora of. -comparison with Glen Roy. -evidence of glaciers in. -micaschists of. Time, and evolutionary changes. -geological. -meaning of millions of years. -Niagara as measure of geological. -rate of deposition as measure of. -Wallace on geological. "Times," article by Huxley in. -letter by Fitz-Roy in. Timiriazeff, Prof. Timor, Mastodon from. Toad, power of Indian species to resist sea-water. Tobacco, Kolreuter on varieties of. Todd, on Solanum rostratum. "Toledoth Adam," title of book on evolution by N. Lewy. Torbitt, J., experiments on potatoes, and letter to. Torquay, Darwin's visit to. Tortoises, conversion of turtles into land-. Tortugas, A. Agassiz on reefs of. Toryism, defence of. Toucans, colour of beaks in breeding season. Trachyte, separation of basalt and. Tragopan. Traill, experiments on grafting. Transfusion experiments, by Galton. Translations of Darwin's books. Transplanting, effect on Alpine plants. Transport, occasional means of. Travels, Bates' book of. -Humboldt's. -Wallace's. Travers, H.H., on Chatham Islands. Trecul, on Drosera. Trees, herbaceous orders and. -occurrence in islands. -older forms more likely to develop into. -Asa Gray on. -conditions in New Zealand favourable to development of. -crossing in. -separate sexes in. Treub, M., on Chalazogamy. Treviranus, Prof., on Primula longiflora. Trifolium resupinatum, Darwin's observations on bloom on leaflets. Trigonecephalus. Trilobites, change of genera and species of. Trimen, on painting butterflies. Trimorphism, in plants. Trinidad, Catasetum of. -Cruger on caprification in. Triphaena (Triphoea) pronuba, robin attracted by colour of. Tristan d'Acunha, Carmichael on. -vegetation of. Triticum repens var. littorum, bloom-experiments on. Trollope, A., quotation by Darwin from. Tropaeolum, Darwin's experiments on. -peloric variety of. -waxy secretion on leaves. Tropical climate, in relation to colouring of insects. Tropical plants, possible existence during cooler period. -retreat of. Tropics, climatic changes in. -description of forests in. -similarity of orders in. Tubocytisus, Kerner on. Tuckwell, on the Oxford British Association meeting (1860). Tucotuco. Tuke, D.H., on influence of mind on body. -letter to. Tulips. Turkey, colour of wings, and courtship. -muscles of tail of. Turner, Sir W., Darwin receives assistance from. -on Darwin's methods of correspondence. -letters to. Turratella. Turtles, conversion into land-tortoises. Tussilago, Darwin on seeds of groundsel and. Twins, Galton's article on. Tylor, article in "Journal of the Royal Institution" by. -on "Early History of Mankind." Tyndall, lack of caution. -lecture by. -on the Alps. -review in the "Athenaeum" of. -on valleys due to glaciers. -work of. -dogmatism of. -on glaciers. -on Sorby's work on cleavage. -mentioned. Typhlops. Typical forms, difficult to select. -vagueness of phrase. Typotherium, Falconer on. Tyrol, Mojsisovics on the Dolomites of the. Umbelliferae, morphological characters of. -difference in seeds from the same flower. Undulation of light, comparison between Darwin's views and the theory of. Ungulates, development in N. America during Tertiary period. United States, flora of. -spread of Darwin's views in. Unity of coloration, Walsh on. Uredo, on Haematoxylon. Ursus arctos, Lamont on. -U. maritimus, Lamont on. Urticaceae. Uruguay. D'Urville, on Canary Islands. Use and disuse. -in plants. Uses, Natural Selection and. Uspallata. Utilitarianism, Darwin on. Utility and inheritance. Utopian "Flora," Darwin's idea of. Utricularia, Darwin's work on. -U. stellaris, Sir E. Tennent on. Vaginulus, Darwin finds new species of. Valeriana, two forms of. Valleys, action of ice in formation of. -Dana on Australian. -Darwin on origin of. Valparaiso. Van Diemen's Land, flora of, in relation to New Zealand. Vanda. Vandeae, structure of ovary. Vanessa, two sexual forms of. -breeding in confinement. -colour of. Vanilla. Variability, backward tendency of. -Bentham on. -causes of. -De Candolle on. -dependent more on nature of organism than on environment. -Huxley and Scott on. -importance of subject of cause of. -Natural Selection and. -in oaks. -greater in bisexual than in unisexual plants. -of ferns "passes all bounds." -greater in male than female. -in ovaries of flowers. -tendency of genera at different periods towards. Variation. -an innate principle. -Bates on. -in blackbirds. -causes of. -centrifugal nature of. -checked by Natural Selection. -climate and. -Darwin attaches importance to useless. -Darwin on favourable. -divergence of. -and external conditions. -in elephants. -in Fucus. -of large genera. -laws of. -of monotypic and polytypic genera. -and monstrosities. -and Natural Selection. -ordination and. -in peaches. -in plants. -produced by crossing. -rate of action of. -of small genera. -sterility advantageous to. -Weismann on. -galls as cause of. -and loss of dimorphism in Primula and Auricula. -Sexual Selection and minute. -transmission to sexes. -Verlot on. -Wallace on. "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," completion of. -delay in publication. -Lyell on. -translation of. -Wallace's opinion of. -Darwin at work on. Varieties, accumulation of. -distinction between species and. -fertility of. -in insects. -in large genera. -of molluscs. -production of. -species the product of long series of. -use of. -Wallace on. -elimination by crossing. -zoologists neglect study of. Vaucher, "Plantes d'Europe." "Vegetable Teratology," Masters'. Vegetative reproduction, Darwin on. Veitch, J. Velleia, fertilisation mechanism of. Verbascum, crossing and varieties in. -Scott's work on. Verbenaceae. Verlot, on variation in flowers. Veronica, Antarctic species of. Vessels, course of, as guide to morphology of flowers. "Vestiges of Creation," Huxley's review of. -the "Origin of Species" and. -Vetch, extra-floral nectaries of. Vetter, editor of "Kosmos." Viburnum lantanoides, in Japan and east U.S.A. Victoria Street Society for Protection of Animals against Vivisection, charge brought against Dr. Ferrier by. Villa Franca, Baron de, on varieties of sugar-cane. Villarsia. Vine, graft-hybrids of. -varieties of. -morphology of tendrils. Viola, ancestral form of. -cleistogamic flowers of. -pollen-tubes of. -Madagascan. -Pyrenean. -on Peak of Teneriffe. -V. canina, fertilisation of. -V. nana. -V. odorata, floral biology of. Virchow, Huxley's criticism of. -publication by Hackel of Darwin's criticism of. Viscum. Vitality of seeds, in salt-water experiments. Viti group of islands, effect of subsidence. Vivisection. Vochting, H., "Bewegung der Bluthen und Fruchte." -letter to. -"Organbildung im Pflanzenreich." "Volcanic Geology," Dana's. Volcanic islands, polymorphic species in. -Darwin's geological observations on. -Darwin's opinion of his book on. -Lyell and Herschel on. -relation to continents. Volcanic phenomena, cause of. -Darwin on. -and elevation. -as mere accidents in swelling up of dome of plutonic rocks. -and subsidence. Volcanic rocks. Volcano, in interior of Asia. Volcanoes, in S. America. -compared with boilers. -maritime position of. -of St. Jago, Mauritius, and St. Helena. -simultaneous activity of. -and subsidence. Volucella, as example of mimicry. Vries, H. de, on plant-movements. Vulcanicity. Wagner, M., attacks Darwin. -essay by. -mentioned. "Wahl der Lebens-Weise." Wahlenberg, on variation of species in U.S.A. Wales, Darwin's visit to. -comparison of valleys of Lochaber and. -Darwin on glaciers of. -elevation of land in Scotland and. -Murchison sees no trace of glaciers in. -Ramsay on denudation of S. Wallace, A.R., on beauty. -criticises the expression, "Natural Selection." -Darwin on cleverness of. -letters to. -letters to Darwin from. -on Mastodon from Timor. -notes by. -on pangenesis. -review of Bastian's "Beginnings of Life." -on sterility. -on success of Natural Selection. -attributes Natural Selection to Darwin. -on colour and birds' nests. -Darwin's criticism of his "Geographical Distribution of Animals." -differs from Darwin. -on evolution of man. -"Island Life." -on wings of lepidoptera. -review of Darwin's book on Expression. -review of Lyell's "Principles of Geology." -on Round Island. -same ideas hit on by Darwin and. -supplies information to Darwin on Sexual Selection. -on variation. -at work on narrative of travels. Wallace, Dr., on sexes in Bombyx. -on caterpillars. Wallich, on Oxyspora paniculata. Wallis, H.M., on ears. -letters to. Walpole. Walsh, Benjamin Dann: was born at Frome, in England, in 1808, and died in America in 1869, from the result of a railway accident. He entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, and obtained a fellowship there after being fifth classic in 1831. He was therefore a contemporary of Darwin's at the University, though not a "schoolmate," as the "American Entomologist" puts it. He was the author of "A Historical Account of the University of Cambridge and its Colleges," London, 2nd edition, 1837; also of a translation of part of "Aristophanes," 1837: from the dedication of this book it seems that he was at St. Paul's School, London. He settled in America in 1838, but only began serious Entomology about 1858. He never returned to England. In a letter to Mr. Darwin, November 7th, 1864, he gives a curious account of the solitary laborious life he led for many years. "When I left England in 1838," he writes, "I was possessed with an absurd notion that I would live a perfectly natural life, independent of the whole world--in me ipso totus teres atque rotundus. So I bought several hundred acres of wild land in the wilderness, twenty miles from any settlement that you would call even a village, and with only a single neighbor. There I gradually opened a farm, working myself like a horse, raising great quantities of hogs and bullocks...I did all kinds of jobs for myself, from mending a pair of boots to hooping a barrel." After nearly dying of malaria, he sold his land at a great loss, and found that after twelve years' work he was just 1000 dollars poorer than when he began. He then went into the lumber business at Rock Island, Illinois. After seven years he invested most of his savings in building "ten two-storey brick houses for rent." He states that the repairs of the houses occupied about one-fourth of his time, and the remainder he was able to devote to entomology. He afterwards edited the "Practical Entomologist." In regard to this work he wrote (February 25th, 1867):--"Editing the 'Practical Entomologist' does undoubtedly take up a good deal of my time, but I also pick up a good deal of information of real scientific value from its correspondents. Besides, this great American nation has hitherto had a supreme contempt for Natural History, because they have hitherto believed that it has nothing to do with the dollars and cents. After hammering away at them for a year or two, I have at last succeeded in touching the 'pocket nerve' in Uncle Sam's body, and he is gradually being galvanised into the conviction that science has the power to make him richer." It is difficult to realise that even forty years ago the position of science in Illinois was what Mr. Walsh describes it to be: "You cannot have the remotest conception of the ideas of even our best- educated Americans as to the pursuit of science. I never yet met with a single one who could be brought to understand how or why a man should pursue science for its own pure and holy sake." Mr. L.O. Howard ("Insect Life," Volume VII., 1895, page 59) says that Harris received from the State of Massachusetts only 175 dollars for his classical report on injurious insects which appeared in 1841 and was reprinted in 1842 and 1852. It would seem that in these times Massachusetts was in much the same state of darkness as Illinois. In the winter of 1868-9 Walsh was, however, appointed State Entomologist of Illinois. He made but one report before his death. He was a man of liberal ideas, hating oppression and wrong in all its forms. On one occasion his life was threatened for an attempt to purify the town council. As an instance of "hereditary genius" it may be mentioned that his brother was a well-known writer on natural history and sporting subjects, under the pseudonym "Stonehenge." The facts here given are chiefly taken from the "American Entomologist" (St. Louis, Mo.), Volume II., page 65. -as entomologist. -letters to. -letter to Darwin from. -death of. -and C.V. Riley. Warming, E., "Lehrbuch der okologischen Pflanzengeographie." Washingtonia. Wasps, power of building cells. Water, effect on leaves (see also Rain). Water-weed, Marshall on. Waterhouse, George Robert (1810-88): held the post of Keeper of the Department of Geology in the British Museum from 1851 to 1880. -review by Darwin of his book on Mammalia. -on skeletons of rabbits. -on wide range of genera. -mentioned. Waterloo, Darwin's recollections of. Waterton. Watson, H.C., alluded to. -on the Azores. -on British agrarian plants. -on northward range of plants common to Britain and America. -objection to Darwin's views. -on Natural Selection. -mentioned. Waves, depth of action of. Wax, secretion on leaves (see also Bloom). Wealden period. Weale, J.P.M., sends locust dung from Natal to Darwin. Webb, on flora of Teneriffe. Wedgwood, Elizabeth. Wedgwood, Emma (Mrs. Darwin), letter to. Wedgwood, Hensleigh: brother-in-law to Charles Darwin. -Darwin visits. -influenced by Lyell's book on America. -on Tyndall. Wedgwood, Josiah, letter to. Weeds, adaptation to cultivated ground. -English versus American. -Asa Gray on pertinacity of. Weeping, physiology of. Weir, H.W., on Cytisus. Weir, Mr. John Jenner (1822-94): came of a family of Scotch descent; in 1839 he entered the service of the Custom House, and during the final eleven years of his service, i.e. from 1874 to 1885, held the position of Accountant and Controller-General. He was a born naturalist, and his "aptitude for exact observation was of the highest order" (Mr. M'Lachlan in the "Entomologist's Monthly Magazine," May 1894). He is chiefly known as an entomologist, but he had also extensive knowledge of Ornithology, Horticulture, and of the breeds of various domestic animals and cage-birds. His personal qualities made him many friends, and he was especially kind to beginners in the numerous subjects on which he was an authority ("Science Gossip," May 1894). -experiments on caterpillars. -letters to. -extract from letter to Darwin from. -on birds. -invited to Down. -value of his letters to Darwin. -mentioned. Weismann, A., Darwin asked to point out how far his work follows same lines as that of. -on dimorphism. -"Einfluss der Isolirung." -letters to. -Meldola's translation of "Studies in Descent." -"Studies in Theory of Descent." -faith in Sexual Selection. Wellingtonia. Wells, Dr., essay on dew. -quoted by Darwin as having enunciated principle of Natural Selection before publication of "Origin." Welwitschia, Hooker's work on. -Darwin on. -a "vegetable Ornithorhynchus." Welwitschia mirabilis, seedlings of. Wenlock, coral limestone of. West Indies, plants of. -coral reefs. -elevation and subsidence of. -orchids of. Westminster Abbey, memorial to Lyell. "Westminster Review," Huxley's review of the "Origin" in. -Wallace's article. Westwood, J.O. (1805-93): Professor of Entomology at Oxford. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1855. He was educated at a Friends' School at Sheffield, and subsequently articled to a solicitor in London; he was for a short time a partner in the firm, but he never really practised, and devoted himself to science. He is the author of between 350 and 400 papers, chiefly on entomological and archaeological subjects, besides some twenty books. To naturalists he is known by his writings on insects, but he was also "one of the greatest living authorities on Anglo-Saxon and mediaeval manuscripts" ("Dictionary of National Biography"). -on range of genera. -and Royal medal. -mentioned. Whales, Flower on. Wheat, mummy. -fertilisation of. -forms of Russian. Whewell, W. Whiston. Whitaker, W., on escarpments. White, F.B., letter to. -on hemiptera of St. Helena. White, Gilbert, Darwin writes an account of Down in the manner of. White, on regeneration. Whiteman, R.G., letter to. Whitney, on origin of language. Wichura, Max, on hybrid willows. -on hybridisation. Widow-bird, experiments on. Wiegmann. Wiesner, Prof. J., disagrees with Darwin's views on plant movement. "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen." -on heliotropism. -letter to. Wigand, A., "Der Darwinismus..." -Jager's work contra. Wight, Dr., on Cucurbitaceae. Wilberforce, Bishop, review in the "Quarterly." Wildness of game. Wilkes' exploring expedition, Dana's volume in reports of. Williamson, Prof. W.C. Willis, J.C., reference to his "Flowering Plants and Ferns." Willows, Walsh on galls of. -Wichura on hybrid. Wilson, A.S., letters to. -on Russian wheat. Wind-fertilised trees and plants, abundant in humid and temperate regions. Wingless birds, transport of. Wings of ostrich. Wire-bird, of St. Helena. Witches' brooms. Wives, resemblance to husbands. Wollaston, Thomas Vernon (1821-78): Wollaston was an under-graduate at Jesus College, Cambridge, and in late life published several books on the coleopterous insects of Madeira, the Canaries, the Cape Verde Islands, and other regions. He is referred to in the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI page 109) as having discovered "the remarkable fact that 200 beetles, out of the 550 species (but more are now known) inhabiting Madeira, are so far deficient in wings that they cannot fly; and that, of the twenty-nine endemic genera, no less than twenty-three have all their species in this condition!" See Obituary Notice in "Nature," Volume XVII., page 210, 1878, and "Trans. Entom. Soc." 1877, page xxxviii.) "Catalogue" (Probably the "Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of the Canaries in the British Museum," 1864.) -catalogue of insects of Canary Islands. -Darwin and Royal medal. -in agreement with Falconer in opposition to Darwin's views on species. -"Insecta Maderensia." -on rarity of intermediate varieties in insects. -review on the "Origin" by. -on varieties. -mentioned. Wolverhampton, abrupt termination of boulders near. Wood, fossil. Wood, T.W., drawings by. Woodcock, germination of seeds carried by. -protective colouring of. Woodd, C.H.L., letter to. Woodpecker, adaptation in. -and direct action. -form of tail of. Woodward, A.S., on Neomylodon. -and C.D. Sherborn, "Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata." Woodward, Samuel Pickworth (1821-65): held an appointment in the British Museum Library for a short time, and then became Sub-Curator to the Geological Society (1839). In 1845 he was appointed Professor of Geology and Natural History in the recently founded Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester; he afterwards obtained a post as first-class assistant in the Department of Geology and Mineralogy in the British Museum. Woodward's chief work, "The Manual of Mollusca," was published in 1851-56. ("A Memoir of Dr. S.P. Woodward," "Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society," Volume III., page 279, 1882. By H.B. Woodward.) -letters to. World, age of the. Worms, Darwin's work on. -destruction by rain of. -intelligence of. Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia." "Wreck of the 'Favourite'," Clarke's. Wright, C., on bees' cells. -letters to. -review by. Wright, G.F., extract from letter from Asa Gray, to. Wydler, on morphology of cruciferous flower. Wyman, Jeffries (1814-74): graduated at Harvard in 1833, and afterwards entered the Medical College at Boston, receiving the M.D. degree in 1837. In 1847 Wyman was appointed Hervey Professor of Anatomy at Harvard, which position he held up to the time of his death. His contributions to zoological science numbered over a hundred papers. (See "Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sciences," Volume II., 1874-75, pages 496-505.) -letter from. -on spontaneous generation. -mentioned. Xenogamy, term suggested by Kerner. Xenoneura antiquorum, Devonian insect. Xerophytic characters, not confined to dry-climate plants. Yangma Valley, Hooker's account of dam in. Yeo, Prof. Gerald. Yew, origin of Irish. York, British Association meeting (1881), (1844). -Dallas in charge of museum. Yorkshire, Hooker on glaciers in. Yucca, fertilisation by moths. Zacharias, Otto, letter to. Zante, colour of Polygala flowers in. Zea, Gartner's work on. -hermaphrodite and female flowers on a male panicle. -varieties received from Asa Gray. Zeiller, R., "Le Marquis G. de Saporta, sa Vie..." Zinziberaceae. Zittel, Karl A. von, "Handbuch der Palaeontologie." Zoea stage, in life-history of decapods. Zoological Gardens, dangerous to suggest subsidising. Zoological nomenclature. Zoologist, Darwin as. "Zoonomia," Erasmus Darwin's. Zygaena (Burnet-moth), mentioned by Darwin in his early recollections. 
1909	----	DARWIN AND MODERN SCIENCE ESSAYS IN COMMEMORATION OF THE CENTENARY OF THE BIRTH OF CHARLES DARWIN AND OF THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PUBLICATION OF "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" By A.C. Seward "My success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been--the love of science--unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject--industry in observing and collecting facts--and a fair share of invention as well as of common sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some important points." Autobiography (1881); "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. 1. page 107. PREFACE At the suggestion of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, the Syndics of the University Press decided in March, 1908, to arrange for the publication of a series of Essays in commemoration of the Centenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species". The preliminary arrangements were made by a committee consisting of the following representatives of the Council of the Philosophical Society and of the Press Syndicate: Dr H.K. Anderson, Prof. Bateson, Mr Francis Darwin, Dr Hobson, Dr Marr, Prof. Sedgwick, Mr David Sharp, Mr Shipley, Prof. Sorley, Prof. Seward. In the course of the preparation of the volume, the original scheme and list of authors have been modified: a few of those invited to contribute essays were, for various reasons, unable to do so, and some alterations have been made in the titles of articles. For the selection of authors and for the choice of subjects, the committee are mainly responsible, but for such share of the work in the preparation of the volume as usually falls to the lot of an editor I accept full responsibility. Authors were asked to address themselves primarily to the educated layman rather than to the expert. It was hoped that the publication of the essays would serve the double purpose of illustrating the far-reaching influence of Darwin's work on the progress of knowledge and the present attitude of original investigators and thinkers towards the views embodied in Darwin's works. In regard to the interpretation of a passage in "The Origin of Species" quoted by Hugo de Vries, it seemed advisable to add an editorial footnote; but, with this exception, I have not felt it necessary to record any opinion on views stated in the essays. In reading the essays in proof I have availed myself freely of the willing assistance of several Cambridge friends, among whom I wish more especially to thank Mr Francis Darwin for the active interest he has taken in the preparation of the volume. Mrs J.A. Thomson kindly undertook the translation of the essays by Prof. Weismann and Prof. Schwalbe; Mrs James Ward was good enough to assist me by translating Prof. Bougle's article on Sociology, and to Mr McCabe I am indebted for the translation of the essay by Prof. Haeckel. For the translation of the botanical articles by Prof. Goebel, Prof. Klebs and Prof. Strasburger, I am responsible; in the revision of the translation of Prof. Strasburger's essay Madame Errera of Brussels rendered valuable help. Mr Wright, the Secretary of the Press Syndicate, and Mr Waller, the Assistant Secretary, have cordially cooperated with me in my editorial work; nor can I omit to thank the readers of the University Press for keeping watchful eyes on my shortcomings in the correction of proofs. The two portraits of Darwin are reproduced by permission of Messrs Maull and Fox and Messrs Elliott and Fry. The photogravure of the study at Down is reproduced from an etching by Mr Axel Haig, lent by Mr Francis Darwin; the coloured plate illustrating Prof. Weismann's essay was originally published by him in his "Vortrage uber Descendenztheorie" which afterwards appeared (1904) in English under the title "The Evolution Theory". Copies of this plate were supplied by Messrs Fischer of Jena. The Syndics of the University Press have agreed, in the event of this volume being a financial success, to hand over the profits to a University fund for the endowment of biological research. It is clearly impossible to express adequately in a single volume of Essays the influence of Darwin's contributions to knowledge on the subsequent progress of scientific inquiry. As Huxley said in 1885: "Whatever be the ultimate verdict of posterity upon this or that opinion which Mr Darwin has propounded; whatever adumbrations or anticipations of his doctrines may be found in the writings of his predecessors; the broad fact remains that, since the publication and by reason of the publication of "The Origin of Species" the fundamental conceptions and the aims of the students of living Nature have been completely changed... But the impulse thus given to scientific thought rapidly spread beyond the ordinarily recognised limits of Biology. Psychology, Ethics, Cosmology were stirred to their foundations, and 'The Origin of Species' proved itself to be the fixed point which the general doctrine needed in order to move the world." In the contributions to this Memorial Volume, some of the authors have more especially concerned themselves with the results achieved by Darwin's own work, while others pass in review the progress of research on lines which, though unknown or but little followed in his day, are the direct outcome of his work. The divergence of views among biologists in regard to the origin of species and as to the most promising directions in which to seek for truth is illustrated by the different opinions of contributors. Whether Darwin's views on the modus operandi of evolutionary forces receive further confirmation in the future, or whether they are materially modified, in no way affects the truth of the statement that, by employing his life "in adding a little to Natural Science," he revolutionised the world of thought. Darwin wrote in 1872 to Alfred Russel Wallace: "How grand is the onward rush of science: it is enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed, and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up." In the onward rush, it is easy for students convinced of the correctness of their own views and equally convinced of the falsity of those of their fellow-workers to forget the lessons of Darwin's life. In his autobiographical sketch, he tells us, "I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved...as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it." Writing to Mr J. Scott, he says, "It is a golden rule, which I try to follow, to put every fact which is opposed to one's preconceived opinion in the strongest light. Absolute accuracy is the hardest merit to attain, and the highest merit. Any deviation is ruin." He acted strictly in accordance with his determination expressed in a letter to Lyell in 1844, "I shall keep out of controversy, and just give my own facts." As was said of another son of Cambridge, Sir George Stokes, "He would no more have thought of disputing about priority, or the authorship of an idea, than of writing a report for a company promoter." Darwin's life affords a striking confirmation of the truth of Hazlitt's aphorism, "Where the pursuit of truth has been the habitual study of any man's life, the love of truth will be his ruling passion." Great as was the intellect of Darwin, his character, as Huxley wrote, was even nobler than his intellect. A.C. SEWARD. Botany School, Cambridge, March 20, 1909. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO THE EDITOR from SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, O.M. II. DARWIN'S PREDECESSORS: J. ARTHUR THOMSON, Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen. III. THE SELECTION THEORY: AUGUST WEISMANN, Professor of Zoology in the University of Freiburg (Baden). IV. VARIATION: HUGO DE VRIES, Professor of Botany in the University of Amsterdam. V. HEREDITY AND VARIATION IN MODERN LIGHTS: W. BATESON, Professor of Biology in the University of Cambridge. VI. THE MINUTE STRUCTURE OF CELLS IN RELATION TO HEREDITY: EDUARD STRASBURGER, Professor of Botany in the University of Bonn. VII. "THE DESCENT OF MAN": G. SCHWALBE, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Strassburg. VIII. CHARLES DARWIN AS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST: ERNST HAECKEL, Professor of Zoology in the University of Jena. IX. SOME PRIMITIVE THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN: J.G. FRAZER, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. X. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN ON THE STUDY OF ANIMAL EMBRYOLOGY: A. SEDGWICK, Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the University of Cambridge. XI. THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL RECORD. I. ANIMALS: W.B. SCOTT, Professor of Geology in the University of Princeton. XII. THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL RECORD. II. PLANTS: D.H. SCOTT, President of the Linnean Society of London. XIII. THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON THE FORMS OF PLANTS: GEORG KLEBS, Professor of Botany in the University of Heidelberg. XIV. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON ANIMALS: JACQUES LOEB, Professor of Physiology in the University of California. XV. THE VALUE OF COLOUR IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE: E.B. POULTON, Hope Professor of Zoology in the University of Oxford. XVI. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS: SIR WILLIAM THISELTON-DYER. XVII. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMALS: HANS GADOW, Strickland Curator and Lecturer on Zoology in the University of Cambridge. XVIII. DARWIN AND GEOLOGY: J.W. JUDD. XIX. DARWIN'S WORK ON THE MOVEMENTS OF PLANTS: FRANCIS DARWIN. XX. THE BIOLOGY OF FLOWERS: K. GOEBEL, Professor of Botany in the University of Munich. XXI. MENTAL FACTORS IN EVOLUTION: C. LLOYD MORGAN, Professor of Psychology at University College, Bristol. XXII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CONCEPTION OF EVOLUTION ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY: H. HOFFDING, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Copenhagen. XXIII. DARWINISM AND SOCIOLOGY: C. BOUGLE, Professor of Social Philosophy in the University of Toulouse, and Deputy-Professor at the Sorbonne, Paris. XXIV. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN UPON RELIGIOUS THOUGHT: REV. P.N. WAGGETT. XXV. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWINISM ON THE STUDY OF RELIGIONS: JANE ELLEN HARRISON, Staff-Lecturer and sometime Fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge. XXVI. EVOLUTION AND THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE: P. GILES, Reader in Comparative Philology in the University of Cambridge. XXVII. DARWINISM AND HISTORY: J.B. BURY, Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. XXVIII. THE GENESIS OF DOUBLE STARS: SIR GEORGE DARWIN, Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy in the University of Cambridge. XXIX. THE EVOLUTION OF MATTER: W.C.D. WHETHAM, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. INDEX. DATES OF THE PUBLICATION Of CHARLES DARWIN'S BOOKS AND OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN HIS LIFE 1809: Charles Darwin born at Shrewsbury, February 12. 1817: "At 8 1/2 years old I went to Mr Case's school." (A day-school at Shrewsbury kept by the Rev G. Case, Minister of the Unitarian Chapel.) 1818: "I was at school at Shrewsbury under a great scholar, Dr Butler; I learnt absolutely nothing, except by amusing myself by reading and experimenting in Chemistry." 1825: "As I was doing no good at school, my father wisely took me away at a rather earlier age than usual, and sent me (Oct. 1825) to Edinburgh University with my brother, where I stayed for two years." 1828: Began residence at Christ's College, Cambridge. "I went to Cambridge early in the year 1828, and soon became acquainted with Professor Henslow...Nothing could be more simple, cordial and unpretending than the encouragement which he afforded to all young naturalists." "During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school." "In order to pass the B.A. Examination, it was...necessary to get up Paley's 'Evidences of Christianity,' and his 'Moral Philosophy'... The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which...was of the least use to me in the education of my mind." 1831: Passed the examination for the B.A. degree in January and kept the following terms. "I gained a good place among the oi polloi or crowd of men who do not go in for honours." "I am very busy,...and see a great deal of Henslow, whom I do not know whether I love or respect most." Dec. 27. "Sailed from England on our circumnavigation," in H.M.S. "Beagle", a barque of 235 tons carrying 6 guns, under Capt. FitzRoy. "There is indeed a tide in the affairs of men." 1836: Oct. 4. "Reached Shrewsbury after absence of 5 years and 2 days." "You cannot imagine how gloriously delightful my first visit was at home; it was worth the banishment." Dec. 13. Went to live at Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Street). "The only evil I found in Cambridge was its being too pleasant." 1837: "On my return home (in the 'Beagle') in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species... In July (1837) I opened my first note-book for facts in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years... Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter), origin of all my views." "On March 7, 1837 I took lodgings in (36) Great Marlborough Street in London, and remained there for nearly two years, until I was married." 1838: "In October, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement 'Malthus on Population,' and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it." 1839: Married at Maer (Staffordshire) to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, daughter of Josiah Wedgwood. "I marvel at my good fortune that she, so infinitely my superior in every single moral quality, consented to be my wife. She has been my wise adviser and cheerful comforter throughout life, which without her would have been during a very long period a miserable one from ill-health. She has earned the love of every soul near her" (Autobiography). Dec. 31. "Entered 12 Upper Gower street" (now 110 Gower street, London). "There never was so good a house for me, and I devoutly trust you (his future wife) will approve of it equally. The little garden is worth its weight in gold." Published "Journal and Researches", being Vol. III. of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle'"... Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle'", Part II., "Mammalia", by G.R. Waterhouse, with a "Notice of their habits and ranges", by Charles Darwin. 1840: Contributed Geological Introduction to Part I. ("Fossil Mammalia") of the "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle'" by Richard Owen. 1842: "In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my (species) theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still (1876) possess." (The first draft of "The Origin of Species", edited by Mr Francis Darwin, will be published this year (1909) by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press.) Sept. 14. Settled at the village of Down in Kent. "I think I was never in a more perfectly quiet country." Publication of "The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs"; being Part I. of the "Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle". 1844: Publication of "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle'"; being Part II. of the "Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle'". "I think much more highly of my book on Volcanic Islands since Mr Judd, by far the best judge on the subject in England, has, as I hear, learnt much from it." (Autobiography, 1876.) 1845: Publication of the "Journal of Researches" as a separate book. 1846: Publication of "Geological Observations on South America"; being Part III. of the "Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle'". 1851: Publication of a "Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae" and of a "Monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia". "I fear the study of the Cirripedia will ever remain 'wholly unapplied,' and yet I feel that such study is better than castle-building." 1854: Publication of Monographs of the Balanidae and Verrucidae. "I worked steadily on this subject for...eight years, and ultimately published two thick volumes, describing all the known living species, and two thin quartos on the extinct species... My work was of considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the "Origin of Species" the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time." "From September 1854 I devoted my whole time to arranging my huge pile of notes, to observing, and to experimenting in relation to the transmutation of species." 1856: "Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in my 'Origin of Species'." 1858: Joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection," communicated to the Linnean Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker. "I was at first very unwilling to consent (to the communication of his MS. to the Society) as I thought Mr Wallace might consider my doing so unjustifiable, for I did not then know how generous and noble was his disposition." "July 20 to Aug. 12 at Sandown (Isle of Wight) began abstract of Species book." 1859: Nov. 24. Publication of "The Origin of Species" (1250 copies). "Oh, good heavens, the relief to my head and body to banish the whole subject from my mind!... But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see many difficulties of gigantic stature." 1860: Publication of the second edition of the "Origin" (3000 copies). Publication of a "Naturalist's Voyage". 1861: Publication of the third edition of the "Origin" (2000 copies). "I am going to write a little book... on Orchids, and to-day I hate them worse than everything." 1862: Publication of the book "On the various contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised by Insects". 1865: Read paper before the Linnean Society "On the Movements and Habits of Climbing plants". (Published as a book in 1875.) 1866: Publication of the fourth edition of the "Origin" (1250 copies). 1868: "I have sent the MS. of my big book, and horridly, disgustingly big it will be, to the printers." Publication of the "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication". "About my book, I will give you (Sir Joseph Hooker) a bit of advice. Skip the whole of Vol. I, except the last chapter, (and that need only be skimmed), and skip largely in the 2nd volume; and then you will say it is a very good book." "Towards the end of the work I give my well-abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value; but if anyone should hereafter be led to make observations by which some such hypothesis could be established, I shall have done good service, as an astonishing number of isolated facts can be thus connected together and rendered intelligible." 1869: Publication of the fifth edition of the "Origin". 1871: Publication of "The Descent of Man". "Although in the 'Origin of Species' the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honourable man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that by the work 'light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history'." 1872: Publication of the sixth edition of the "Origin". Publication of "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". 1874: Publication of the second edition of "The Descent of Man". "The new edition of the "Descent" has turned out an awful job. It took me ten days merely to glance over letters and reviews with criticisms and new facts. It is a devil of a job." Publication of the second edition of "The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs". 1875: Publication of "Insectivorous Plants". "I begin to think that every one who publishes a book is a fool." Publication of the second edition of "Variation in Animals and Plants". Publication of "The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants" as a separate book. 1876: Wrote Autobiographical Sketch ("Life and Letters", Vol. I., Chap II.). Publication of "The Effects of Cross and Self fertilisation". "I now (1881) believe, however,...that I ought to have insisted more strongly than I did on the many adaptations for self-fertilisation." Publication of the second edition of "Observations on Volcanic Islands". 1877: Publication of "The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same species". "I do not suppose that I shall publish any more books... I cannot endure being idle, but heaven knows whether I am capable of any more good work." Publication of the second edition of the Orchid book. 1878: Publication of the second edition of "The Effects of Cross and Self fertilisation". 1879: Publication of an English translation of Ernst Krause's "Erasmus Darwin", with a notice by Charles Darwin. "I am EXTREMELY glad that you approve of the little 'Life' of our Grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether." (To Mr Francis Galton, Nov. 14, 1879.) 1880: Publication of "The Power of Movement in Plants". "It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings." Publication of the second edition of "The Different Forms of Flowers". 1881: Wrote a continuation of the Autobiography. Publication of "The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms". "It is the completion of a short paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and has revived old geological thoughts... As far as I can judge it will be a curious little book." 1882: Charles Darwin died at Down, April 19, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, April 26, in the north aisle of the Nave a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton. "As for myself, I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to Science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures." The quotations in the above Epitome are taken from the Autobiography and published Letters:-- "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", including an Autobiographical Chapter. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin, 3 Vols., London, 1887. "Charles Darwin": His life told in an Autobiographical Chapter, and in a selected series of his published Letters. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin, London, 1902. "More Letters of Charles Darwin". A record of his work in a series of hitherto unpublished Letters. Edited by Francis Darwin and A.C. Seward, 2 Vols., London, 1903. I. INTRODUCTORY LETTER From Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, O.M., G.C.S.I., C.B., M.D., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., ETC. The Camp, near Sunningdale, January 15, 1909. Dear Professor Seward, The publication of a Series of Essays in Commemoration of the century of the birth of Charles Darwin and of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species" is assuredly welcome and is a subject of congratulation to all students of Science. These Essays on the progress of Science and Philosophy as affected by Darwin's labours have been written by men known for their ability to discuss the problems which he so successfully worked to solve. They cannot but prove to be of enduring value, whether for the information of the general reader or as guides to investigators occupied with problems similar to those which engaged the attention of Darwin. The essayists have been fortunate in having for reference the five published volumes of Charles Darwin's Life and Correspondence. For there is set forth in his own words the inception in his mind of the problems, geological, zoological and botanical, hypothetical and theoretical, which he set himself to solve and the steps by which he proceeded to investigate them with the view of correlating the phenomena of life with the evolution of living things. In his letters he expressed himself in language so lucid and so little burthened with technical terms that they may be regarded as models for those who were asked to address themselves primarily to the educated reader rather than to the expert. I may add that by no one can the perusal of the Essays be more vividly appreciated than by the writer of these lines. It was my privilege for forty years to possess the intimate friendship of Charles Darwin and to be his companion during many of his working hours in Study, Laboratory, and Garden. I was the recipient of letters from him, relating mainly to the progress of his researches, the copies of which (the originals are now in the possession of his family) cover upwards of a thousand pages of foolscap, each page containing, on an average, three hundred words. That the editorship of these Essays has been entrusted to a Cambridge Professor of Botany must be gratifying to all concerned in their production and in their perusal, recalling as it does the fact that Charles Darwin's instructor in scientific methods was his lifelong friend the late Rev. J.S. Henslow at that time Professor of Botany in the University. It was owing to his recommendation that his pupil was appointed Naturalist to H.M.S. "Beagle", a service which Darwin himself regarded as marking the dawn of his scientific career. Very sincerely yours, J.D. HOOKER. II. DARWIN'S PREDECESSORS. By J. Arthur Thomson. Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen. In seeking to discover Darwin's relation to his predecessors it is useful to distinguish the various services which he rendered to the theory of organic evolution. (I) As everyone knows, the general idea of the Doctrine of Descent is that the plants and animals of the present-day are the lineal descendants of ancestors on the whole somewhat simpler, that these again are descended from yet simpler forms, and so on backwards towards the literal "Protozoa" and "Protophyta" about which we unfortunately know nothing. Now no one supposes that Darwin originated this idea, which in rudiment at least is as old as Aristotle. What Darwin did was to make it current intellectual coin. He gave it a form that commended itself to the scientific and public intelligence of the day, and he won wide-spread conviction by showing with consummate skill that it was an effective formula to work with, a key which no lock refused. In a scholarly, critical, and pre-eminently fair-minded way, admitting difficulties and removing them, foreseeing objections and forestalling them, he showed that the doctrine of descent supplied a modal interpretation of how our present-day fauna and flora have come to be. (II) In the second place, Darwin applied the evolution-idea to particular problems, such as the descent of man, and showed what a powerful organon it is, introducing order into masses of uncorrelated facts, interpreting enigmas both of structure and function, both bodily and mental, and, best of all, stimulating and guiding further investigation. But here again it cannot be claimed that Darwin was original. The problem of the descent or ascent of man, and other particular cases of evolution, had attracted not a few naturalists before Darwin's day, though no one (except Herbert Spencer in the psychological domain (1855)) had come near him in precision and thoroughness of inquiry. (III) In the third place, Darwin contributed largely to a knowledge of the factors in the evolution-process, especially by his analysis of what occurs in the case of domestic animals and cultivated plants, and by his elaboration of the theory of Natural Selection, which Alfred Russel Wallace independently stated at the same time, and of which there had been a few previous suggestions of a more or less vague description. It was here that Darwin's originality was greatest, for he revealed to naturalists the many different forms--often very subtle--which natural selection takes, and with the insight of a disciplined scientific imagination he realised what a mighty engine of progress it has been and is. (IV) As an epoch-marking contribution, not only to Aetiology but to Natural History in the widest sense, we rank the picture which Darwin gave to the world of the web of life, that is to say, of the inter-relations and linkages in Nature. For the Biology of the individual--if that be not a contradiction in terms--no idea is more fundamental than that of the correlation of organs, but Darwin's most characteristic contribution was not less fundamental,--it was the idea of the correlation of organisms. This, again, was not novel; we find it in the works of naturalist like Christian Conrad Sprengel, Gilbert White, and Alexander von Humboldt, but the realisation of its full import was distinctively Darwinian. AS REGARDS THE GENERAL IDEA OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION. While it is true, as Prof. H.F. Osborn puts it, that "'Before and after Darwin' will always be the ante et post urbem conditam of biological history," it is also true that the general idea of organic evolution is very ancient. In his admirable sketch "From the Greeks to Darwin" ("Columbia University Biological Series", Vol. I. New York and London, 1894. We must acknowledge our great indebtness to this fine piece of work.), Prof. Osborn has shown that several of the ancient philosophers looked upon Nature as a gradual development and as still in process of change. In the suggestions of Empedocles, to take the best instance, there were "four sparks of truth,--first, that the development of life was a gradual process; second, that plants were evolved before animals; third, that imperfect forms were gradually replaced (not succeeded) by perfect forms; fourth, that the natural cause of the production of perfect forms was the extinction of the imperfect." (Op. cit. page 41.) But the fundamental idea of one stage giving origin to another was absent. As the blue Aegean teemed with treasures of beauty and threw many upon its shores, so did Nature produce like a fertile artist what had to be rejected as well as what was able to survive, but the idea of one species emerging out of another was not yet conceived. Aristotle's views of Nature (See G.J. Romanes, "Aristotle as a Naturalist", "Contemporary Review", Vol. LIX. page 275, 1891; G. Pouchet "La Biologie Aristotelique", Paris, 1885; E. Zeller, "A History of Greek Philosophy", London, 1881, and "Ueber die griechischen Vorganger Darwin's", "Abhandl. Berlin Akad." 1878, pages 111-124.) seem to have been more definitely evolutionist than those of his predecessors, in this sense, at least, that he recognised not only an ascending scale, but a genetic series from polyp to man and an age-long movement towards perfection. "It is due to the resistance of matter to form that Nature can only rise by degrees from lower to higher types." "Nature produces those things which, being continually moved by a certain principle contained in themselves, arrive at a certain end." To discern the outcrop of evolution-doctrine in the long interval between Aristotle and Bacon seems to be very difficult, and some of the instances that have been cited strike one as forced. Epicurus and Lucretius, often called poets of evolution, both pictured animals as arising directly out of the earth, very much as Milton's lion long afterwards pawed its way out. Even when we come to Bruno who wrote that "to the sound of the harp of the Universal Apollo (the World Spirit), the lower organisms are called by stages to higher, and the lower stages are connected by intermediate forms with the higher," there is great room, as Prof. Osborn points out (op. cit. page 81.), for difference of opinion as to how far he was an evolutionist in our sense of the term. The awakening of natural science in the sixteenth century brought the possibility of a concrete evolution theory nearer, and in the early seventeenth century we find evidences of a new spirit--in the embryology of Harvey and the classifications of Ray. Besides sober naturalists there were speculative dreamers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who had at least got beyond static formulae, but, as Professor Osborn points out (op. cit. page 87.), "it is a very striking fact, that the basis of our modern methods of studying the Evolution problem was established not by the early naturalists nor by the speculative writers, but by the Philosophers." He refers to Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, Hume, Kant, Lessing, Herder, and Schelling. "They alone were upon the main track of modern thought. It is evident that they were groping in the dark for a working theory of the Evolution of life, and it is remarkable that they clearly perceived from the outset that the point to which observation should be directed was not the past but the present mutability of species, and further, that this mutability was simply the variation of individuals on an extended scale." Bacon seems to have been one of the first to think definitely about the mutability of species, and he was far ahead of his age in his suggestion of what we now call a Station of Experimental Evolution. Leibnitz discusses in so many words how the species of animals may be changed and how intermediate species may once have linked those that now seem discontinuous. "All natural orders of beings present but a single chain"... "All advances by degrees in Nature, and nothing by leaps." Similar evolutionist statements are to be found in the works of the other "philosophers," to whom Prof. Osborn refers, who were, indeed, more scientific than the naturalists of their day. It must be borne in mind that the general idea of organic evolution--that the present is the child of the past--is in great part just the idea of human history projected upon the natural world, differentiated by the qualification that the continuous "Becoming" has been wrought out by forces inherent in the organisms themselves and in their environment. A reference to Kant (See Brock, "Die Stellung Kant's zur Deszendenztheorie," "Biol. Centralbl." VIII. 1889, pages 641-648. Fritz Schultze, "Kant und Darwin", Jena, 1875.) should come in historical order after Buffon, with whose writings he was acquainted, but he seems, along with Herder and Schelling, to be best regarded as the culmination of the evolutionist philosophers--of those at least who interested themselves in scientific problems. In a famous passage he speaks of "the agreement of so many kinds of animals in a certain common plan of structure"... an "analogy of forms" which "strengthens the supposition that they have an actual blood-relationship, due to derivation from a common parent." He speaks of "the great Family of creatures, for as a Family we must conceive it, if the above-mentioned continuous and connected relationship has a real foundation." Prof. Osborn alludes to the scientific caution which led Kant, biology being what it was, to refuse to entertain the hope "that a Newton may one day arise even to make the production of a blade of grass comprehensible, according to natural laws ordained by no intention." As Prof. Haeckel finely observes, Darwin rose up as Kant's Newton. (Mr Alfred Russel Wallace writes: "We claim for Darwin that he is the Newton of natural history, and that, just so surely as that the discovery and demonstration by Newton of the law of gravitation established order in place of chaos and laid a sure foundation for all future study of the starry heavens, so surely has Darwin, by his discovery of the law of natural selection and his demonstration of the great principle of the preservation of useful variations in the struggle for life, not only thrown a flood of light on the process of development of the whole organic world, but also established a firm foundation for all future study of nature." ("Darwinism", London, 1889, page 9). See also Prof. Karl Pearson's "Grammar of Science" (2nd edition), London, 1900, page 32. See Osborn, op. cit. Page 100.)) The scientific renaissance brought a wealth of fresh impressions and some freedom from the tyranny of tradition, and the twofold stimulus stirred the speculative activity of a great variety of men from old Claude Duret of Moulins, of whose weird transformism (1609) Dr Henry de Varigny ("Experimental Evolution". London, 1892. Chap. 1. page 14.) gives us a glimpse, to Lorenz Oken (1799-1851) whose writings are such mixtures of sense and nonsense that some regard him as a far-seeing prophet and others as a fatuous follower of intellectual will-o'-the-wisps. Similarly, for De Maillet, Maupertuis, Diderot, Bonnet, and others, we must agree with Professor Osborn that they were not actually in the main Evolution movement. Some have been included in the roll of honour on very slender evidence, Robinet for instance, whose evolutionism seems to us extremely dubious. (See J. Arthur Thomson, "The Science of Life". London, 1899. Chap. XVI. "Evolution of Evolution Theory".) The first naturalist to give a broad and concrete expression to the evolutionist doctrine of descent was Buffon (1707-1788), but it is interesting to recall the fact that his contemporary Linnaeus (1707-1778), protagonist of the counter-doctrine of the fixity of species (See Carus Sterne (Ernest Krause), "Die allgemeine Weltanschauung in ihrer historischen Entwickelung". Stuttgart, 1889. Chapter entitled "Bestandigkeit oder Veranderlichkeit der Naturwesen".), went the length of admitting (in 1762) that new species might arise by intercrossing. Buffon's position among the pioneers of the evolution-doctrine is weakened by his habit of vacillating between his own conclusions and the orthodoxy of the Sorbonne, but there is no doubt that he had a firm grasp of the general idea of "l'enchainement des etres." Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), probably influenced by Buffon, was another firm evolutionist, and the outline of his argument in the "Zoonomia" ("Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life", 2 vols. London, 1794; Osborn op. cit. page 145.) might serve in part at least to-day. "When we revolve in our minds the metamorphoses of animals, as from the tadpole to the frog; secondly, the changes produced by artificial cultivation, as in the breeds of horses, dogs, and sheep; thirdly, the changes produced by conditions of climate and of season, as in the sheep of warm climates being covered with hair instead of wool, and the hares and partridges of northern climates becoming white in winter: when, further, we observe the changes of structure produced by habit, as seen especially in men of different occupations; or the changes produced by artificial mutilation and prenatal influences, as in the crossing of species and production of monsters; fourth, when we observe the essential unity of plan in all warm-blooded animals,--we are led to conclude that they have been alike produced from a similar living filament"... "From thus meditating upon the minute portion of time in which many of the above changes have been produced, would it be too bold to imagine, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of years before the commencement of the history of mankind, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament?"... "This idea of the gradual generation of all things seems to have been as familiar to the ancient philosophers as to the modern ones, and to have given rise to the beautiful hieroglyphic figure of the proton oon, or first great egg, produced by night, that is, whose origin is involved in obscurity, and animated by Eros, that is, by Divine Love; from whence proceeded all things which exist." Lamarck (1744-1829) seems to have become an evolutionist independently of Erasmus Darwin's influence, though the parallelism between them is striking. He probably owed something to Buffon, but he developed his theory along a different line. Whatever view be held in regard to that theory there is no doubt that Lamarck was a thorough-going evolutionist. Professor Haeckel speaks of the "Philosophie Zoologique" as "the first connected and thoroughly logical exposition of the theory of descent." (See Alpheus S. Packard, "Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution, His Life and Work, with Translations of his writings on Organic Evolution". London, 1901.) Besides the three old masters, as we may call them, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, there were other quite convinced pre-Darwinian evolutionists. The historian of the theory of descent must take account of Treviranus whose "Biology or Philosophy of Animate Nature" is full of evolutionary suggestions; of Etienne Geoffroy St Hilaire, who in 1830, before the French Academy of Sciences, fought with Cuvier, the fellow-worker of his youth, an intellectual duel on the question of descent; of Goethe, one of the founders of morphology and the greatest poet of Evolution--who, in his eighty-first year, heard the tidings of Geoffroy St Hilaire's defeat with an interest which transcended the political anxieties of the time; and of many others who had gained with more or less confidence and clearness a new outlook on Nature. It will be remembered that Darwin refers to thirty-four more or less evolutionist authors in his Historical Sketch, and the list might be added to. Especially when we come near to 1858 do the numbers increase, and one of the most remarkable, as also most independent champions of the evolution-idea before that date was Herbert Spencer, who not only marshalled the arguments in a very forcible way in 1852, but applied the formula in detail in his "Principles of Psychology" in 1855. (See Edward Clodd, "Pioneers of Evolution", London, page 161, 1897.) It is right and proper that we should shake ourselves free from all creationist appreciations of Darwin, and that we should recognise the services of pre-Darwinian evolutionists who helped to make the time ripe, yet one cannot help feeling that the citation of them is apt to suggest two fallacies. It may suggest that Darwin simply entered into the labours of his predecessors, whereas, as a matter of fact, he knew very little about them till after he had been for years at work. To write, as Samuel Butler did, "Buffon planted, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck watered, but it was Mr Darwin who said 'That fruit is ripe,' and shook it into his lap"... seems to us a quite misleading version of the facts of the case. The second fallacy which the historical citation is a little apt to suggest is that the filiation of ideas is a simple problem. On the contrary, the history of an idea, like the pedigree of an organism, is often very intricate, and the evolution of the evolution-idea is bound up with the whole progress of the world. Thus in order to interpret Darwin's clear formulation of the idea of organic evolution and his convincing presentation of it, we have to do more than go back to his immediate predecessors, such as Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck; we have to inquire into the acceptance of evolutionary conceptions in regard to other orders of facts, such as the earth and the solar system (See Chapter IX. "The Genetic View of Nature" in J.T. Merz's "History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century", Vol. 2, Edinburgh and London, 1903.); we have to realise how the growing success of scientific interpretation along other lines gave confidence to those who refused to admit that there was any domain from which science could be excluded as a trespasser; we have to take account of the development of philosophical thought, and even of theological and religious movements; we should also, if we are wise enough, consider social changes. In short, we must abandon the idea that we can understand the history of any science as such, without reference to contemporary evolution in other departments of activity. While there were many evolutionists before Darwin, few of them were expert naturalists and few were known outside a small circle; what was of much more importance was that the genetic view of nature was insinuating itself in regard to other than biological orders of facts, here a little and there a little, and that the scientific spirit had ripened since the days when Cuvier laughed Lamarck out of court. How was it that Darwin succeeded where others had failed? Because, in the first place, he had clear visions--"pensees de la jeunesse, executees par l'age mur"--which a University curriculum had not made impossible, which the "Beagle" voyage made vivid, which an unrivalled British doggedness made real--visions of the web of life, of the fountain of change within the organism, of the struggle for existence and its winnowing, and of the spreading genealogical tree. Because, in the second place, he put so much grit into the verification of his visions, putting them to the proof in an argument which is of its kind--direct demonstration being out of the question--quite unequalled. Because, in the third place, he broke down the opposition which the most scientific had felt to the seductive modal formula of evolution by bringing forward a more plausible theory of the process than had been previously suggested. Nor can one forget, since questions of this magnitude are human and not merely academic, that he wrote so that all men could understand. AS REGARDS THE FACTORS OF EVOLUTION. It is admitted by all who are acquainted with the history of biology that the general idea of organic evolution as expressed in the Doctrine of Descent was quite familiar to Darwin's grandfather, and to others before and after him, as we have briefly indicated. It must also be admitted that some of these pioneers of evolutionism did more than apply the evolution-idea as a modal formula of becoming, they began to inquire into the factors in the process. Thus there were pre-Darwinian theories of evolution, and to these we must now briefly refer. (See Prof. W.A. Locy's "Biology and its Makers". New York, 1908. Part II. "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution".) In all biological thinking we have to work with the categories Organism--Function--Environment, and theories of evolution may be classified in relation to these. To some it has always seemed that the fundamental fact is the living organism,--a creative agent, a striving will, a changeful Proteus, selecting its environment, adjusting itself to it, self-differentiating and self-adaptive. The necessity of recognising the importance of the organism is admitted by all Darwinians who start with inborn variations, but it is open to question whether the whole truth of what we might call the Goethian position is exhausted in the postulate of inherent variability. To others it has always seemed that the emphasis should be laid on Function,--on use and disuse, on doing and not doing. Practice makes perfect; c'est a force de forger qu'on devient forgeron. This is one of the fundamental ideas of Lamarckism; to some extent it met with Darwin's approval; and it finds many supporters to-day. One of the ablest of these--Mr Francis Darwin--has recently given strong reasons for combining a modernised Lamarckism with what we usually regard as sound Darwinism. (Presidential Address to the British Association meeting at Dublin in 1908.) To others it has always seemed that the emphasis should be laid on the Environment, which wakes the organism to action, prompts it to change, makes dints upon it, moulds it, prunes it, and finally, perhaps, kills it. It is again impossible to doubt that there is truth in this view, for even if environmentally induced "modifications" be not transmissible, environmentally induced "variations" are; and even if the direct influence of the environment be less important than many enthusiastic supporters of this view--may we call them Buffonians--think, there remains the indirect influence which Darwinians in part rely on,--the eliminative process. Even if the extreme view be held that the only form of discriminate elimination that counts is inter-organismal competition, this might be included under the rubric of the animate environment. In many passages Buffon (See in particular Samuel Butler, "Evolution Old and New", London, 1879; J.L. de Lanessan, "Buffon et Darwin", "Revue Scientifique", XLIII. pages 385-391, 425-432, 1889.) definitely suggested that environmental influences--especially of climate and food--were directly productive of changes in organisms, but he did not discuss the question of the transmissibility of the modifications so induced, and it is difficult to gather from his inconsistent writings what extent of transformation he really believed in. Prof. Osborn says of Buffon: "The struggle for existence, the elimination of the least-perfected species, the contest between the fecundity of certain species and their constant destruction, are all clearly expressed in various passages." He quotes two of these (op. cit. page 136.): "Le cours ordinaire de la nature vivante, est en general toujours constant, toujours le meme; son mouvement, toujours regulier, roule sur deux points inebranlables: l'un, la fecondite sans bornes donnee a toutes les especes; l'autre, les obstacles sans nombre qui reduisent cette fecondite a une mesure determinee et ne laissent en tout temps qu'a peu pres la meme quantite d'individus de chaque espece"... "Les especes les moins parfaites, les plus delicates, les plus pesantes, les moins agissantes, les moins armees, etc., ont deja disparu ou disparaitront." Erasmus Darwin (See Ernst Krause and Charles Darwin, "Erasmus Darwin", London, 1879.) had a firm grip of the "idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the Animal world," and he had his theory of the process. No sentence is more characteristic than this: "All animals undergo transformations which are in part produced by their own exertions, in response to pleasures and pains, and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity." This is Lamarckism before Lamarck, as his grandson pointed out. His central idea is that wants stimulate efforts and that these result in improvements, which subsequent generations make better still. He realised something of the struggle for existence and even pointed out that this advantageously checks the rapid multiplication. "As Dr Krause points out, Darwin just misses the connection between this struggle and the Survival of the Fittest." (Osborn op. cit. page 142.) Lamarck (1744-1829) (See E. Perrier "La Philosophie Zoologique avant Darwin", Paris, 1884; A. de Quatrefages, "Darwin et ses Precurseurs Francais", Paris, 1870; Packard op. cit.; also Claus, "Lamarck als Begrunder der Descendenzlehre", Wien, 1888; Haeckel, "Natural History of Creation", English translation London, 1879; Lang "Zur Charakteristik der Forschungswege von Lamarck und Darwin", Jena, 1889.) seems to have thought out his theory of evolution without any knowledge of Erasmus Darwin's which it closely resembled. The central idea of his theory was the cumulative inheritance of functional modifications. "Changes in environment bring about changes in the habits of animals. Changes in their wants necessarily bring about parallel changes in their habits. If new wants become constant or very lasting, they form new habits, the new habits involve the use of new parts, or a different use of old parts, which results finally in the production of new organs and the modification of old ones." He differed from Buffon in not attaching importance, as far as animals are concerned, to the direct influence of the environment, "for environment can effect no direct change whatever upon the organisation of animals," but in regard to plants he agreed with Buffon that external conditions directly moulded them. Treviranus (1776-1837) (See Huxley's article "Evolution in Biology", "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (9th edit.), 1878, pages 744-751, and Sully's article, "Evolution in Philosophy", ibid. pages 751-772.), whom Huxley ranked beside Lamarck, was on the whole Buffonian, attaching chief importance to the influence of a changeful environment both in modifying and in eliminating, but he was also Goethian, for instance in his idea that species like individuals pass through periods of growth, full bloom, and decline. "Thus, it is not only the great catastrophes of Nature which have caused extinction, but the completion of cycles of existence, out of which new cycles have begun." A characteristic sentence is quoted by Prof. Osborn: "In every living being there exists a capability of an endless variety of form-assumption; each possesses the power to adapt its organisation to the changes of the outer world, and it is this power, put into action by the change of the universe, that has raised the simple zoophytes of the primitive world to continually higher stages of organisation, and has introduced a countless variety of species into animate Nature." Goethe (1749-1832) (See Haeckel, "Die Naturanschauung von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck", Jena, 1882.), who knew Buffon's work but not Lamarck's, is peculiarly interesting as one of the first to use the evolution-idea as a guiding hypothesis, e.g. in the interpretation of vestigial structures in man, and to realise that organisms express an attempt to make a compromise between specific inertia and individual change. He gave the finest expression that science has yet known--if it has known it--of the kernel-idea of what is called "bathmism," the idea of an "inherent growth-force"--and at the same time he held that "the way of life powerfully reacts upon all form" and that the orderly growth of form "yields to change from externally acting causes." Besides Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, and Goethe, there were other "pioneers of evolution," whose views have been often discussed and appraised. Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), whose work Goethe so much admired, was on the whole Buffonian, emphasising the direct action of the changeful milieu. "Species vary with their environment, and existing species have descended by modification from earlier and somewhat simpler species." He had a glimpse of the selection idea, and believed in mutations or sudden leaps--induced in the embryonic condition by external influences. The complete history of evolution-theories will include many instances of guesses at truth which were afterwards substantiated, thus the geographer von Buch (1773-1853) detected the importance of the Isolation factor on which Wagner, Romanes, Gulick and others have laid great stress, but we must content ourselves with recalling one other pioneer, the author of the "Vestiges of Creation" (1844), a work which passed through ten editions in nine years and certainly helped to harrow the soil for Darwin's sowing. As Darwin said, "it did excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page xvii.) Its author, Robert Chambers (1802-1871) was in part a Buffonian--maintaining that environment moulded organisms adaptively, and in part a Goethian--believing in an inherent progressive impulse which lifted organisms from one grade of organisation to another. AS REGARDS NATURAL SELECTION. The only thinker to whom Darwin was directly indebted, so far as the theory of Natural Selection is concerned, was Malthus, and we may once more quote the well-known passage in the Autobiography: "In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement 'Malthus on Population', and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species." ("The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. 1. page 83. London, 1887.) Although Malthus gives no adumbration of the idea of Natural Selection in his exposition of the eliminative processes which go on in mankind, the suggestive value of his essay is undeniable, as is strikingly borne out by the fact that it gave to Alfred Russel Wallace also "the long-sought clue to the effective agent in the evolution of organic species." (A.R. Wallace, "My Life, A Record of Events and Opinions", London, 1905, Vol. 1. page 232.) One day in Ternate when he was resting between fits of fever, something brought to his recollection the work of Malthus which he had read twelve years before. "I thought of his clear exposition of 'the positive checks to increase'--disease, accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of more civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each species, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year to year, as otherwise the world would long ago have been densely crowded with those that breed most quickly. Vaguely thinking over the enormous and constant destruction which this implied, it occurred to me to ask the question, Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted live. From the effects of disease the most healthy escaped; from enemies the strongest, the swiftest, or the most cunning; from famine the best hunters or those with the best digestion; and so on. Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily IMPROVE THE RACE, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain--that is, THE FITTEST WOULD SURVIVE." (Ibid. Vol. 1. page 361.) We need not apologise for this long quotation, it is a tribute to Darwin's magnanimous colleague, the Nestor of the evolutionist camp,--and it probably indicates the line of thought which Darwin himself followed. It is interesting also to recall the fact that in 1852, when Herbert Spencer wrote his famous "Leader" article on "The Development Hypothesis" in which he argued powerfully for the thesis that the whole animate world is the result of an age-long process of natural transformation, he wrote for "The Westminster Review" another important essay, "A Theory of Population deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility", towards the close of which he came within an ace of recognising that the struggle for existence was a factor in organic evolution. At a time when pressure of population was practically interesting men's minds, Darwin, Wallace, and Spencer were being independently led from a social problem to a biological theory. There could be no better illustration, as Prof. Patrick Geddes has pointed out, of the Comtian thesis that science is a "social phenomenon." Therefore, as far more important than any further ferreting out of vague hints of Natural Selection in books which Darwin never read, we would indicate by a quotation the view that the central idea in Darwinism is correlated with contemporary social evolution. "The substitution of Darwin for Paley as the chief interpreter of the order of nature is currently regarded as the displacement of an anthropomorphic view by a purely scientific one: a little reflection, however, will show that what has actually happened has been merely the replacement of the anthropomorphism of the eighteenth century by that of the nineteenth. For the place vacated by Paley's theological and metaphysical explanation has simply been occupied by that suggested to Darwin and Wallace by Malthus in terms of the prevalent severity of industrial competition, and those phenomena of the struggle for existence which the light of contemporary economic theory has enabled us to discern, have thus come to be temporarily exalted into a complete explanation of organic progress." (P. Geddes, article "Biology", "Chambers's Encyclopaedia".) It goes without saying that the idea suggested by Malthus was developed by Darwin into a biological theory which was then painstakingly verified by being used as an interpretative formula, and that the validity of a theory so established is not affected by what suggested it, but the practical question which this line of thought raises in the mind is this: if Biology did thus borrow with such splendid results from social theory, why should we not more deliberately repeat the experiment? Darwin was characteristically frank and generous in admitting that the principle of Natural Selection had been independently recognised by Dr W.C. Wells in 1813 and by Mr Patrick Matthew in 1831, but he had no knowledge of these anticipations when he published the first edition of "The Origin of Species". Wells, whose "Essay on Dew" is still remembered, read in 1813 before the Royal Society a short paper entitled "An account of a White Female, part of whose skin resembles that of a Negro" (published in 1818). In this communication, as Darwin said, "he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated animals by selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this latter case 'by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted for the country which they inhabit.'" ("Origin of Species" (6th edition) page xv.) Thus Wells had the clear idea of survival dependent upon a favourable variation, but he makes no more use of the idea and applies it only to man. There is not in the paper the least hint that the author ever thought of generalising the remarkable sentence quoted above. Of Mr Patrick Matthew, who buried his treasure in an appendix to a work on "Naval Timber and Arboriculture", Darwin said that "he clearly saw the full force of the principle of natural selection." In 1860 Darwin wrote--very characteristically--about this to Lyell: "Mr Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on "Naval Timber and Arboriculture", published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some passages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation. Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on Naval Timber." ("Life and Letters" II. page 301.) De Quatrefages and De Varigny have maintained that the botanist Naudin stated the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1852. He explains very clearly the process of artificial selection, and says that in the garden we are following Nature's method. "We do not think that Nature has made her species in a different fashion from that in which we proceed ourselves in order to make our variations." But, as Darwin said, "he does not show how selection acts under nature." Similarly it must be noted in regard to several pre-Darwinian pictures of the struggle for existence (such as Herder's, who wrote in 1790 "All is in struggle... each one for himself" and so on), that a recognition of this is only the first step in Darwinism. Profs. E. Perrier and H.F. Osborn have called attention to a remarkable anticipation of the selection-idea which is to be found in the speculations of Etienne Geoffroy St Hilaire (1825-1828) on the evolution of modern Crocodilians from the ancient Teleosaurs. Changing environment induced changes in the respiratory system and far-reaching consequences followed. The atmosphere, acting upon the pulmonary cells, brings about "modifications which are favourable or destructive ('funestes'); these are inherited, and they influence all the rest of the organisation of the animal because if these modifications lead to injurious effects, the animals which exhibit them perish and are replaced by others of a somewhat different form, a form changed so as to be adapted to (a la convenance) the new environment." Prof. E.B. Poulton ("Science Progress", New Series, Vol. I. 1897. "A Remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution". See also Chap. VI. in "Essays on Evolution", Oxford, 1908.) has shown that the anthropologist James Cowles Prichard (1786-1848) must be included, even in spite of himself, among the precursors of Darwin. In some passages of the second edition of his "Researches into the Physical History of Mankind" (1826), he certainly talks evolution and anticipates Prof. Weismann in denying the transmission of acquired characters. He is, however, sadly self-contradictory and his evolutionism weakens in subsequent editions--the only ones that Darwin saw. Prof. Poulton finds in Prichard's work a recognition of the operation of Natural Selection. "After enquiring how it is that 'these varieties are developed and preserved in connection with particular climates and differences of local situation,' he gives the following very significant answer: 'One cause which tends to maintain this relation is obvious. Individuals and families, and even whole colonies, perish and disappear in climates for which they are, by peculiarity of constitution, not adapted. Of this fact proofs have been already mentioned.'" Mr Francis Darwin and Prof. A.C. Seward discuss Prichard's "anticipations" in "More Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. I. page 43, and come to the conclusion that the evolutionary passages are entirely neutralised by others of an opposite trend. There is the same difficulty with Buffon. Hints of the idea of Natural Selection have been detected elsewhere. James Watt (See Prof. Patrick Geddes's article "Variation and Selection", "Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th edition) 1888.), for instance, has been reported as one of the anticipators (1851). But we need not prolong the inquiry further, since Darwin did not know of any anticipations until after he had published the immortal work of 1859, and since none of those who got hold of the idea made any use of it. What Darwin did was to follow the clue which Malthus gave him, to realise, first by genius and afterwards by patience, how the complex and subtle struggle for existence works out a natural selection of those organisms which vary in the direction of fitter adaptation to the conditions of their life. So much success attended his application of the Selection-formula that for a time he regarded Natural Selection as almost the sole factor in evolution, variations being pre-supposed; gradually, however, he came to recognise that there was some validity in the factors which had been emphasized by Lamarck and by Buffon, and in his well-known summing up in the sixth edition of the "Origin" he says of the transformation of species: "This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is, in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously." To sum up: the idea of organic evolution, older than Aristotle, slowly developed from the stage of suggestion to the stage of verification, and the first convincing verification was Darwin's; from being an a priori anticipation it has become an interpretation of nature, and Darwin is still the chief interpreter; from being a modal interpretation it has advanced to the rank of a causal theory, the most convincing part of which men will never cease to call Darwinism. III. THE SELECTION THEORY, By August Weismann. Professor of Zoology in the University of Freiburg (Baden). I. THE IDEA OF SELECTION. Many and diverse were the discoveries made by Charles Darwin in the course of a long and strenuous life, but none of them has had so far-reaching an influence on the science and thought of his time as the theory of selection. I do not believe that the theory of evolution would have made its way so easily and so quickly after Darwin took up the cudgels in favour of it, if he had not been able to support it by a principle which was capable of solving, in a simple manner, the greatest riddle that living nature presents to us,--I mean the purposiveness of every living form relative to the conditions of its life and its marvellously exact adaptation to these. Everyone knows that Darwin was not alone in discovering the principle of selection, and that the same idea occurred simultaneously and independently to Alfred Russel Wallace. At the memorable meeting of the Linnean Society on 1st July, 1858, two papers were read (communicated by Lyell and Hooker) both setting forth the same idea of selection. One was written by Charles Darwin in Kent, the other by Alfred Wallace in Ternate, in the Malay Archipelago. It was a splendid proof of the magnanimity of these two investigators, that they thus, in all friendliness and without envy, united in laying their ideas before a scientific tribunal: their names will always shine side by side as two of the brightest stars in the scientific sky. But it is with Charles Darwin that I am here chiefly concerned, since this paper is intended to aid in the commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of his birth. The idea of selection set forth by the two naturalists was at the time absolutely new, but it was also so simple that Huxley could say of it later, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that." As Darwin was led to the general doctrine of descent, not through the labours of his predecessors in the early years of the century, but by his own observations, so it was in regard to the principle of selection. He was struck by the innumerable cases of adaptation, as, for instance, that of the woodpeckers and tree-frogs to climbing, or the hooks and feather-like appendages of seeds, which aid in the distribution of plants, and he said to himself that an explanation of adaptations was the first thing to be sought for in attempting to formulate a theory of evolution. But since adaptations point to CHANGES which have been undergone by the ancestral forms of existing species, it is necessary, first of all, to inquire how far species in general are VARIABLE. Thus Darwin's attention was directed in the first place to the phenomenon of variability, and the use man has made of this, from very early times, in the breeding of his domesticated animals and cultivated plants. He inquired carefully how breeders set to work, when they wished to modify the structure and appearance of a species to their own ends, and it was soon clear to him that SELECTION FOR BREEDING PURPOSES played the chief part. But how was it possible that such processes should occur in free nature? Who is here the breeder, making the selection, choosing out one individual to bring forth offspring and rejecting others? That was the problem that for a long time remained a riddle to him. Darwin himself relates how illumination suddenly came to him. He had been reading, for his own pleasure, Malthus' book on Population, and, as he had long known from numerous observations, that every species gives rise to many more descendants than ever attain to maturity, and that, therefore, the greater number of the descendants of a species perish without reproducing, the idea came to him that the decision as to which member of a species was to perish, and which was to attain to maturity and reproduction might not be a matter of chance, but might be determined by the constitution of the individuals themselves, according as they were more or less fitted for survival. With this idea the foundation of the theory of selection was laid. In ARTIFICIAL SELECTION the breeder chooses out for pairing only such individuals as possess the character desired by him in a somewhat higher degree than the rest of the race. Some of the descendants inherit this character, often in a still higher degree, and if this method be pursued throughout several generations, the race is transformed in respect of that particular character. NATURAL SELECTION depends on the same three factors as ARTIFICIAL SELECTION: on VARIABILITY, INHERITANCE, and SELECTION FOR BREEDING, but this last is here carried out not by a breeder but by what Darwin called the "struggle for existence." This last factor is one of the special features of the Darwinian conception of nature. That there are carnivorous animals which take heavy toll in every generation of the progeny of the animals on which they prey, and that there are herbivores which decimate the plants in every generation had long been known, but it is only since Darwin's time that sufficient attention has been paid to the facts that, in addition to this regular destruction, there exists between the members of a species a keen competition for space and food, which limits multiplication, and that numerous individuals of each species perish because of unfavourable climatic conditions. The "struggle for existence," which Darwin regarded as taking the place of the human breeder in free nature, is not a direct struggle between carnivores and their prey, but is the assumed competition for survival between individuals OF THE SAME species, of which, on an average, only those survive to reproduce which have the greatest power of resistance, while the others, less favourably constituted, perish early. This struggle is so keen, that, within a limited area, where the conditions of life have long remained unchanged, of every species, whatever be the degree of fertility, only two, ON AN AVERAGE, of the descendants of each pair survive; the others succumb either to enemies, or to disadvantages of climate, or to accident. A high degree of fertility is thus not an indication of the special success of a species, but of the numerous dangers that have attended its evolution. Of the six young brought forth by a pair of elephants in the course of their lives only two survive in a given area; similarly, of the millions of eggs which two thread-worms leave behind them only two survive. It is thus possible to estimate the dangers which threaten a species by its ratio of elimination, or, since this cannot be done directly, by its fertility. Although a great number of the descendants of each generation fall victims to accident, among those that remain it is still the greater or lesser fitness of the organism that determines the "selection for breeding purposes," and it would be incomprehensible if, in this competition, it were not ultimately, that is, on an average, the best equipped which survive, in the sense of living long enough to reproduce. Thus the principle of natural selection is THE SELECTION OF THE BEST FOR REPRODUCTION, whether the "best" refers to the whole constitution, to one or more parts of the organism, or to one or more stages of development. Every organ, every part, every character of an animal, fertility and intelligence included, must be improved in this manner, and be gradually brought up in the course of generations to its highest attainable state of perfection. And not only may improvement of parts be brought about in this way, but new parts and organs may arise, since, through the slow and minute steps of individual or "fluctuating" variations, a part may be added here or dropped out there, and thus something new is produced. The principle of selection solved the riddle as to how what was purposive could conceivably be brought about without the intervention of a directing power, the riddle which animate nature presents to our intelligence at every turn, and in face of which the mind of a Kant could find no way out, for he regarded a solution of it as not to be hoped for. For, even if we were to assume an evolutionary force that is continually transforming the most primitive and the simplest forms of life into ever higher forms, and the homogeneity of primitive times into the infinite variety of the present, we should still be unable to infer from this alone how each of the numberless forms adapted to particular conditions of life should have appeared PRECISELY AT THE RIGHT MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH to which their adaptations were appropriate, and precisely at the proper place in which all the conditions of life to which they were adapted occurred: the humming-birds at the same time as the flowers; the trichina at the same time as the pig; the bark-coloured moth at the same time as the oak, and the wasp-like moth at the same time as the wasp which protects it. Without processes of selection we should be obliged to assume a "pre-established harmony" after the famous Leibnitzian model, by means of which the clock of the evolution of organisms is so regulated as to strike in exact synchronism with that of the history of the earth! All forms of life are strictly adapted to the conditions of their life, and can persist under these conditions alone. There must therefore be an intrinsic connection between the conditions and the structural adaptations of the organism, and, SINCE THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY THE ANIMAL ITSELF, THE ADAPTATIONS MUST BE CALLED FORTH BY THE CONDITIONS. The selection theory teaches us how this is conceivable, since it enables us to understand that there is a continual production of what is non-purposive as well as of what is purposive, but the purposive alone survives, while the non-purposive perishes in the very act of arising. This is the old wisdom taught long ago by Empedocles. II. THE LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE. Lamarck, as is well known, formulated a definite theory of evolution at the beginning of the nineteenth century, exactly fifty years before the Darwin-Wallace principle of selection was given to the world. This brilliant investigator also endeavoured to support his theory by demonstrating forces which might have brought about the transformations of the organic world in the course of the ages. In addition to other factors, he laid special emphasis on the increased or diminished use of the parts of the body, assuming that the strengthening or weakening which takes place from this cause during the individual life, could be handed on to the offspring, and thus intensified and raised to the rank of a specific character. Darwin also regarded this LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE, as it is now generally called, as a factor in evolution, but he was not fully convinced of the transmissibility of acquired characters. As I have here to deal only with the theory of selection, I need not discuss the Lamarckian hypothesis, but I must express my opinion that there is room for much doubt as to the cooperation of this principle in evolution. Not only is it difficult to imagine how the transmission of functional modifications could take place, but, up to the present time, notwithstanding the endeavours of many excellent investigators, not a single actual proof of such inheritance has been brought forward. Semon's experiments on plants are, according to the botanist Pfeffer, not to be relied on, and even the recent, beautiful experiments made by Dr Kammerer on salamanders, cannot, as I hope to show elsewhere, be regarded as proof, if only because they do not deal at all with functional modifications, that is, with modifications brought about by use, and it is to these ALONE that the Lamarckian principle refers. III. OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF SELECTION. (a) Saltatory evolution. The Darwinian doctrine of evolution depends essentially on THE CUMULATIVE AUGMENTATION of minute variations in the direction of utility. But can such minute variations, which are undoubtedly continually appearing among the individuals of the same species, possess any selection-value; can they determine which individuals are to survive, and which are to succumb; can they be increased by natural selection till they attain to the highest development of a purposive variation? To many this seems so improbable that they have urged a theory of evolution by leaps from species to species. Kolliker, in 1872, compared the evolution of species with the processes which we can observe in the individual life in cases of alternation of generations. But a polyp only gives rise to a medusa because it has itself arisen from one, and there can be no question of a medusa ever having arisen suddenly and de novo from a polyp-bud, if only because both forms are adapted in their structure as a whole, and in every detail to the conditions of their life. A sudden origin, in a natural way, of numerous adaptations is inconceivable. Even the degeneration of a medusoid from a free-swimming animal to a mere brood-sac (gonophore) is not sudden and saltatory, but occurs by imperceptible modifications throughout hundreds of years, as we can learn from the numerous stages of the process of degeneration persisting at the same time in different species. If, then, the degeneration to a simple brood-sac takes place only by very slow transitions, each stage of which may last for centuries, how could the much more complex ASCENDING evolution possibly have taken place by sudden leaps? I regard this argument as capable of further extension, for wherever in nature we come upon degeneration, it is taking place by minute steps and with a slowness that makes it not directly perceptible, and I believe that this in itself justifies us in concluding that THE SAME MUST BE TRUE OF ASCENDING evolution. But in the latter case the goal can seldom be distinctly recognised while in cases of degeneration the starting-point of the process can often be inferred, because several nearly related species may represent different stages. In recent years Bateson in particular has championed the idea of saltatory, or so-called discontinuous evolution, and has collected a number of cases in which more or less marked variations have suddenly appeared. These are taken for the most part from among domesticated animals which have been bred and crossed for a long time, and it is hardly to be wondered at that their much mixed and much influenced germ-plasm should, under certain conditions, give rise to remarkable phenomena, often indeed producing forms which are strongly suggestive of monstrosities, and which would undoubtedly not survive in free nature, unprotected by man. I should regard such cases as due to an intensified germinal selection--though this is to anticipate a little--and from this point of view it cannot be denied that they have a special interest. But they seem to me to have no significance as far as the transformation of species is concerned, if only because of the extreme rarity of their occurrence. There are, however, many variations which have appeared in a sudden and saltatory manner, and some of these Darwin pointed out and discussed in detail: the copper beech, the weeping trees, the oak with "fern-like leaves," certain garden-flowers, etc. But none of them have persisted in free nature, or evolved into permanent types. On the other hand, wherever enduring types have arisen, we find traces of a gradual origin by successive stages, even if, at first sight, their origin may appear to have been sudden. This is the case with SEASONAL DIMORPHISM, the first known cases of which exhibited marked differences between the two generations, the winter and the summer brood. Take for instance the much discussed and studied form Vanessa (Araschnia) levana-prorsa. Here the differences between the two forms are so great and so apparently disconnected, that one might almost believe it to be a sudden mutation, were it not that old transition-stages can be called forth by particular temperatures, and we know other butterflies, as for instance our Garden Whites, in which the differences between the two generations are not nearly so marked; indeed, they are so little apparent that they are scarcely likely to be noticed except by experts. Thus here again there are small initial steps, some of which, indeed, must be regarded as adaptations, such as the green-sprinkled or lightly tinted under-surface which gives them a deceptive resemblance to parsley or to Cardamine leaves. Even if saltatory variations do occur, we cannot assume that these HAVE EVER LED TO FORMS WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF SURVIVAL UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF WILD LIFE. Experience has shown that in plants which have suddenly varied the power of persistence is diminished. Korschinksky attributes to them weaknesses of organisation in general; "they bloom late, ripen few of their seeds, and show great sensitiveness to cold." These are not the characters which make for success in the struggle for existence. We must briefly refer here to the views--much discussed in the last decade--of H. de Vries, who believes that the roots of transformation must be sought for in SALTATORY VARIATIONS ARISING FROM INTERNAL CAUSES, and distinguishes such MUTATIONS, as he has called them, from ordinary individual variations, in that they breed true, that is, with strict inbreeding they are handed on pure to the next generation. I have elsewhere endeavoured to point out the weaknesses of this theory ("Vortrage uber Descendenztheorie", Jena, 1904, II. 269. English Translation London, 1904, II. page 317.), and I am the less inclined to return to it here that it now appears (See Poulton, "Essays on Evolution", Oxford, 1908, pages xix-xxii.) that the far-reaching conclusions drawn by de Vries from his observations on the Evening Primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, rest upon a very insecure foundation. The plant from which de Vries saw numerous "species"--his "mutations"--arise was not, as he assumed, a WILD SPECIES that had been introduced to Europe from America, but was probably a hybrid form which was first discovered in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, and which does not appear to exist anywhere in America as a wild species. This gives a severe shock to the "Mutation theory," for the other ACTUALLY WILD species with which de Vries experimented showed no "mutations" but yielded only negative results. Thus we come to the conclusion that Darwin ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), pages 176 et seq.) was right in regarding transformations as taking place by minute steps, which, if useful, are augmented in the course of innumerable generations, because their possessors more frequently survive in the struggle for existence. (b) SELECTION-VALUE OF THE INITIAL STEPS. Is it possible that the significant deviations which we know as "individual variations" can form the beginning of a process of selection? Can they decide which is to perish and which to survive? To use a phrase of Romanes, can they have SELECTION-VALUE? Darwin himself answered this question, and brought together many excellent examples to show that differences, apparently insignificant because very small, might be of decisive importance for the life of the possessor. But it is by no means enough to bring forward cases of this kind, for the question is not merely whether finished adaptations have selection-value, but whether the first beginnings of these, and whether the small, I might almost say minimal increments, which have led up from these beginnings to the perfect adaptation, have also had selection-value. To this question even one who, like myself, has been for many years a convinced adherent of the theory of selection, can only reply: WE MUST ASSUME SO, BUT WE CANNOT PROVE IT IN ANY CASE. It is not upon demonstrative evidence that we rely when we champion the doctrine of selection as a scientific truth; we base our argument on quite other grounds. Undoubtedly there are many apparently insignificant features, which can nevertheless be shown to be adaptations--for instance, the thickness of the basin-shaped shell of the limpets that live among the breakers on the shore. There can be no doubt that the thickness of these shells, combined with their flat form, protects the animals from the force of the waves breaking upon them,--but how have they become so thick? What proportion of thickness was sufficient to decide that of two variants of a limpet one should survive, the other be eliminated? We can say nothing more than that we infer from the present state of the shell, that it must have varied in regard to differences in shell-thickness, and that these differences must have had selection-value,--no proof therefore, but an assumption which we must show to be convincing. For a long time the marvellously complex RADIATE and LATTICE-WORK skeletons of Radiolarians were regarded as a mere outflow of "Nature's infinite wealth of form," as an instance of a purely morphological character with no biological significance. But recent investigations have shown that these, too, have an adaptive significance (Hacker). The same thing has been shown by Schutt in regard to the lowly unicellular plants, the Peridineae, which abound alike on the surface of the ocean and in its depths. It has been shown that the long skeletal processes which grow out from these organisms have significance not merely as a supporting skeleton, but also as an extension of the superficial area, which increases the contact with the water-particles, and prevents the floating organisms from sinking. It has been established that the processes are considerably shorter in the colder layers of the ocean, and that they may be twelve times as long (Chun, "Reise der Valdivia", Leipzig, 1904.) in the warmer layers, thus corresponding to the greater or smaller amount of friction which takes place in the denser and less dense layers of the water. The Peridineae of the warmer ocean layers have thus become long-rayed, those of the colder layers short-rayed, not through the direct effect of friction on the protoplasm, but through processes of selection, which favoured the longer rays in warm water, since they kept the organism afloat, while those with short rays sank and were eliminated. If we put the question as to selection-value in this case, and ask how great the variations in the length of processes must be in order to possess selection-value; what can we answer except that these variations must have been minimal, and yet sufficient to prevent too rapid sinking and consequent elimination? Yet this very case would give the ideal opportunity for a mathematical calculation of the minimal selection-value, although of course it is not feasible from lack of data to carry out the actual calculation. But even in organisms of more than microscopic size there must frequently be minute, even microscopic differences which set going the process of selection, and regulate its progress to the highest possible perfection. Many tropical trees possess thick, leathery leaves, as a protection against the force of the tropical rain drops. The DIRECT influence of the rain cannot be the cause of this power of resistance, for the leaves, while they were still thin, would simply have been torn to pieces. Their toughness must therefore be referred to selection, which would favour the trees with slightly thicker leaves, though we cannot calculate with any exactness how great the first stages of increase in thickness must have been. Our hypothesis receives further support from the fact that, in many such trees, the leaves are drawn out into a beak-like prolongation (Stahl and Haberlandt) which facilitates the rapid falling off of the rain water, and also from the fact that the leaves, while they are still young, hang limply down in bunches which offer the least possible resistance to the rain. Thus there are here three adaptations which can only be interpreted as due to selection. The initial stages of these adaptations must undoubtedly have had selection-value. But even in regard to this case we are reasoning in a circle, not giving "proofs," and no one who does not wish to believe in the selection-value of the initial stages can be forced to do so. Among the many pieces of presumptive evidence a particularly weighty one seems to me to be THE SMALLNESS OF THE STEPS OF PROGRESS which we can observe in certain cases, as for instance in leaf-imitation among butterflies, and in mimicry generally. The resemblance to a leaf, for instance of a particular Kallima, seems to us so close as to be deceptive, and yet we find in another individual, or it may be in many others, a spot added which increases the resemblance, and which could not have become fixed unless the increased deceptiveness so produced had frequently led to the overlooking of its much persecuted possessor. But if we take the selection-value of the initial stages for granted, we are confronted with the further question which I myself formulated many years ago: How does it happen THAT THE NECESSARY BEGINNINGS OF A USEFUL VARIATION ARE ALWAYS PRESENT? How could insects which live upon or among green leaves become all green, while those that live on bark become brown? How have the desert animals become yellow and the Arctic animals white? Why were the necessary variations always present? How could the green locust lay brown eggs, or the privet caterpillar develop white and lilac-coloured lines on its green skin? It is of no use answering to this that the question is wrongly formulated (Plate, "Selektionsprinzip u. Probleme der Artbildung" (3rd edition), Leipzig, 1908.) and that it is the converse that is true; that the process of selection takes place in accordance with the variations that present themselves. This proposition is undeniably true, but so also is another, which apparently negatives it: the variation required has in the majority of cases actually presented itself. Selection cannot solve this contradiction; it does not call forth the useful variation, but simply works upon it. The ultimate reason why one and the same insect should occur in green and in brown, as often happens in caterpillars and locusts, lies in the fact that variations towards brown presented themselves, and so also did variations towards green: THE KERNEL OF THE RIDDLE LIES IN THE VARYING, and for the present we can only say, that small variations in different directions present themselves in every species. Otherwise so many different kinds of variations could not have arisen. I have endeavoured to explain this remarkable fact by means of the intimate processes that must take place within the germ-plasm, and I shall return to the problem when dealing with "germinal selection." We have, however, to make still greater demands on variation, for it is not enough that the necessary variation should occur in isolated individuals, because in that case there would be small prospect of its being preserved, notwithstanding its utility. Darwin at first believed, that even single variations might lead to transformation of the species, but later he became convinced that this was impossible, at least without the cooperation of other factors, such as isolation and sexual selection. In the case of the GREEN CATERPILLARS WITH BRIGHT LONGITUDINAL STRIPES, numerous individuals exhibiting this useful variation must have been produced to start with. In all higher, that is, multicellular organisms, the germ-substance is the source of all transmissible variations, and this germ-plasm is not a simple substance but is made up of many primary constituents. The question can therefore be more precisely stated thus: How does it come about that in so many cases the useful variations present themselves in numbers just where they are required, the white oblique lines in the leaf-caterpillar on the under surface of the body, the accompanying coloured stripes just above them? And, further, how has it come about that in grass caterpillars, not oblique but longitudinal stripes, which are more effective for concealment among grass and plants, have been evolved? And finally, how is it that the same Hawk-moth caterpillars, which to-day show oblique stripes, possessed longitudinal stripes in Tertiary times? We can read this fact from the history of their development, and I have before attempted to show the biological significance of this change of colour. ("Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" II., "Die Enstehung der Zeichnung bei den Schmetterlings-raupen," Leipzig, 1876.) For the present I need only draw the conclusion that one and the same caterpillar may exhibit the initial stages of both, and that it depends on the manner in which these marking elements are INTENSIFIED and COMBINED by natural selection whether whitish longitudinal or oblique stripes should result. In this case then the "useful variations" were actually "always there," and we see that in the same group of Lepidoptera, e.g. species of Sphingidae, evolution has occurred in both directions according to whether the form lived among grass or on broad leaves with oblique lateral veins, and we can observe even now that the species with oblique stripes have longitudinal stripes when young, that is to say, while the stripes have no biological significance. The white places in the skin which gave rise, probably first as small spots, to this protective marking could be combined in one way or another according to the requirements of the species. They must therefore either have possessed selection-value from the first, or, if this was not the case at their earliest occurrence, there must have been SOME OTHER FACTORS which raised them to the point of selection-value. I shall return to this in discussing germinal selection. But the case may be followed still farther, and leads us to the same alternative on a still more secure basis. Many years ago I observed in caterpillars of Smerinthus populi (the poplar hawk-moth), which also possess white oblique stripes, that certain individuals showed RED SPOTS above these stripes; these spots occurred only on certain segments, and never flowed together to form continuous stripes. In another species (Smerinthus tiliae) similar blood-red spots unite to form a line-like coloured seam in the last stage of larval life, while in S. ocellata rust-red spots appear in individual caterpillars, but more rarely than in S. Populi, and they show no tendency to flow together. Thus we have here the origin of a new character, arising from small beginnings, at least in S. tiliae, in which species the coloured stripes are a normal specific character. In the other species, S. populi and S. ocellata, we find the beginnings of the same variation, in one more rarely than in the other, and we can imagine that, in the course of time, in these two species, coloured lines over the oblique stripes will arise. In any case these spots are the elements of variation, out of which coloured lines MAY be evolved, if they are combined in this direction through the agency of natural selection. In S. populi the spots are often small, but sometimes it seems as though several had united to form large spots. Whether a process of selection in this direction will arise in S. populi and S. ocellata, or whether it is now going on cannot be determined, since we cannot tell in advance what biological value the marking might have for these two species. It is conceivable that the spots may have no selection-value as far as these species are concerned, and may therefore disappear again in the course of phylogeny, or, on the other hand, that they may be changed in another direction, for instance towards imitation of the rust-red fungoid patches on poplar and willow leaves. In any case we may regard the smallest spots as the initial stages of variation, the larger as a cumulative summation of these. Therefore either these initial stages must already possess selection-value, or, as I said before: THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER REASON FOR THEIR CUMULATIVE SUMMATION. I should like to give one more example, in which we can infer, though we cannot directly observe, the initial stages. All the Holothurians or sea-cucumbers have in the skin calcareous bodies of different forms, usually thick and irregular, which make the skin tough and resistant. In a small group of them--the species of Synapta--the calcareous bodies occur in the form of delicate anchors of microscopic size. Up till 1897 these anchors, like many other delicate microscopic structures, were regarded as curiosities, as natural marvels. But a Swedish observer, Oestergren, has recently shown that they have a biological significance: they serve the footless Synapta as auxiliary organs of locomotion, since, when the body swells up in the act of creeping, they press firmly with their tips, which are embedded in the skin, against the substratum on which the animal creeps, and thus prevent slipping backwards. In other Holothurians this slipping is made impossible by the fixing of the tube-feet. The anchors act automatically, sinking their tips towards the ground when the corresponding part of the body thickens, and returning to the original position at an angle of 45 degrees to the upper surface when the part becomes thin again. The arms of the anchor do not lie in the same plane as the shaft, and thus the curve of the arms forms the outermost part of the anchor, and offers no further resistance to the gliding of the animal. Every detail of the anchor, the curved portion, the little teeth at the head, the arms, etc., can be interpreted in the most beautiful way, above all the form of the anchor itself, for the two arms prevent it from swaying round to the side. The position of the anchors, too, is definite and significant; they lie obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the animal, and therefore they act alike whether the animal is creeping backwards or forwards. Moreover, the tips would pierce through the skin if the anchors lay in the longitudinal direction. Synapta burrows in the sand; it first pushes in the thin anterior end, and thickens this again, thus enlarging the hole, then the anterior tentacles displace more sand, the body is worked in a little farther, and the process begins anew. In the first act the anchors are passive, but they begin to take an active share in the forward movement when the body is contracted again. Frequently the animal retains only the posterior end buried in the sand, and then the anchors keep it in position, and make rapid withdrawal possible. Thus we have in these apparently random forms of the calcareous bodies, complex adaptations in which every little detail as to direction, curve, and pointing is exactly determined. That they have selection-value in their present perfected form is beyond all doubt, since the animals are enabled by means of them to bore rapidly into the ground and so to escape from enemies. We do not know what the initial stages were, but we cannot doubt that the little improvements, which occurred as variations of the originally simple slimy bodies of the Holothurians, were preserved because they already possessed selection-value for the Synaptidae. For such minute microscopic structures whose form is so delicately adapted to the role they have to play in the life of the animal, cannot have arisen suddenly and as a whole, and every new variation of the anchor, that is, in the direction of the development of the two arms, and every curving of the shaft which prevented the tips from projecting at the wrong time, in short, every little adaptation in the modelling of the anchor must have possessed selection-value. And that such minute changes of form fall within the sphere of fluctuating variations, that is to say, THAT THEY OCCUR is beyond all doubt. In many of the Synaptidae the anchors are replaced by calcareous rods bent in the form of an S, which are said to act in the same way. Others, such as those of the genus Ankyroderma, have anchors which project considerably beyond the skin, and, according to Oestergren, serve "to catch plant-particles and other substances" and so mask the animal. Thus we see that in the Synaptidae the thick and irregular calcareous bodies of the Holothurians have been modified and transformed in various ways in adaptation to the footlessness of these animals, and to the peculiar conditions of their life, and we must conclude that the earlier stages of these changes presented themselves to the processes of selection in the form of microscopic variations. For it is as impossible to think of any origin other than through selection in this case as in the case of the toughness, and the "drip-tips" of tropical leaves. And as these last could not have been produced directly by the beating of the heavy rain-drops upon them, so the calcareous anchors of Synapta cannot have been produced directly by the friction of the sand and mud at the bottom of the sea, and, since they are parts whose function is PASSIVE the Lamarckian factor of use and disuse does not come into question. The conclusion is unavoidable, that the microscopically small variations of the calcareous bodies in the ancestral forms have been intensified and accumulated in a particular direction, till they have led to the formation of the anchor. Whether this has taken place by the action of natural selection alone, or whether the laws of variation and the intimate processes within the germ-plasm have cooperated will become clear in the discussion of germinal selection. This whole process of adaptation has obviously taken place within the time that has elapsed since this group of sea-cucumbers lost their tube-feet, those characteristic organs of locomotion which occur in no group except the Echinoderms, and yet have totally disappeared in the Synaptidae. And after all what would animals that live in sand and mud do with tube-feet? (c) COADAPTATION. Darwin pointed out that one of the essential differences between artificial and natural selection lies in the fact that the former can modify only a few characters, usually only one at a time, while Nature preserves in the struggle for existence all the variations of a species, at the same time and in a purely mechanical way, if they possess selection-value. Herbert Spencer, though himself an adherent of the theory of selection, declared in the beginning of the nineties that in his opinion the range of this principle was greatly over-estimated, if the great changes which have taken place in so many organisms in the course of ages are to be interpreted as due to this process of selection alone, since no transformation of any importance can be evolved by itself; it is always accompanied by a host of secondary changes. He gives the familiar example of the Giant Stag of the Irish peat, the enormous antlers of which required not only a much stronger skull cap, but also greater strength of the sinews, muscles, nerves and bones of the whole anterior half of the animal, if their mass was not to weigh down the animal altogether. It is inconceivable, he says, that so many processes of selection should take place SIMULTANEOUSLY, and we are therefore forced to fall back on the Lamarckian factor of the use and disuse of functional parts. And how, he asks, could natural selection follow two opposite directions of evolution in different parts of the body at the same time, as for instance in the case of the kangaroo, in which the forelegs must have become shorter, while the hind legs and the tail were becoming longer and stronger? Spencer's main object was to substantiate the validity of the Lamarckian principle, the cooperation of which with selection had been doubted by many. And it does seem as though this principle, if it operates in nature at all, offers a ready and simple explanation of all such secondary variations. Not only muscles, but nerves, bones, sinews, in short all tissues which function actively, increase in strength in proportion as they are used, and conversely they decrease when the claims on them diminish. All the parts, therefore, which depend on the part that varied first, as for instance the enlarged antlers of the Irish Elk, must have been increased or decreased in strength, in exact proportion to the claims made upon them,--just as is actually the case. But beautiful as this explanation would be, I regard it as untenable, because it assumes the TRANSMISSIBILITY OF FUNCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS (so-called "acquired" characters), and this is not only undemonstrable, but is scarcely theoretically conceivable, for the secondary variations which accompany or follow the first as correlative variations, occur also in cases in which the animals concerned are sterile and THEREFORE CANNOT TRANSMIT ANYTHING TO THEIR DESCENDANTS. This is true of WORKER BEES, and particularly of ANTS, and I shall here give a brief survey of the present state of the problem as it appears to me. Much has been written on both sides of this question since the published controversy on the subject in the nineties between Herbert Spencer and myself. I should like to return to the matter in detail, if the space at my disposal permitted, because it seems to me that the arguments I advanced at that time are equally cogent to-day, notwithstanding all the objections that have since been urged against them. Moreover, the matter is by no means one of subordinate interest; it is the very kernel of the whole question of the reality and value of the principle of selection. For if selection alone does not suffice to explain "HARMONIOUS ADAPTATION" as I have called Spencer's COADAPTATION, and if we require to call in the aid of the Lamarckian factor it would be questionable whether selection could explain any adaptations whatever. In this particular case--of worker bees--the Lamarckian factor may be excluded altogether, for it can be demonstrated that here at any rate the effects of use and disuse cannot be transmitted. But if it be asked why we are unwilling to admit the cooperation of the Darwinian factor of selection and the Lamarckian factor, since this would afford us an easy and satisfactory explanation of the phenomena, I answer: BECAUSE THE LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE IS FALLACIOUS, AND BECAUSE BY ACCEPTING IT WE CLOSE THE WAY TOWARDS DEEPER INSIGHT. It is not a spirit of combativeness or a desire for self-vindication that induces me to take the field once more against the Lamarckian principle, it is the conviction that the progress of our knowledge is being obstructed by the acceptance of this fallacious principle, since the facile explanation it apparently affords prevents our seeking after a truer explanation and a deeper analysis. The workers in the various species of ants are sterile, that is to say, they take no regular part in the reproduction of the species, although individuals among them may occasionally lay eggs. In addition to this they have lost the wings, and the receptaculum seminis, and their compound eyes have degenerated to a few facets. How could this last change have come about through disuse, since the eyes of workers are exposed to light in the same way as are those of the sexual insects and thus in this particular case are not liable to "disuse" at all? The same is true of the receptaculum seminis, which can only have been disused as far as its glandular portion and its stalk are concerned, and also of the wings, the nerves tracheae and epidermal cells of which could not cease to function until the whole wing had degenerated, for the chitinous skeleton of the wing does not function at all in the active sense. But, on the other hand, the workers in all species have undergone modifications in a positive direction, as, for instance, the greater development of brain. In many species large workers have evolved,--the so-called SOLDIERS, with enormous jaws and teeth, which defend the colony,--and in others there are SMALL workers which have taken over other special functions, such as the rearing of the young Aphides. This kind of division of the workers into two castes occurs among several tropical species of ants, but it is also present in the Italian species, Colobopsis truncata. Beautifully as the size of the jaws could be explained as due to the increased use made of them by the "soldiers," or the enlarged brain as due to the mental activities of the workers, the fact of the infertility of these forms is an insurmountable obstacle to accepting such an explanation. Neither jaws nor brain can have been evolved on the Lamarckian principle. The problem of coadaptation is no easier in the case of the ant than in the case of the Giant Stag. Darwin himself gave a pretty illustration to show how imposing the difference between the two kinds of workers in one species would seem if we translated it into human terms. In regard to the Driver ants (Anomma) we must picture to ourselves a piece of work, "for instance the building of a house, being carried on by two kinds of workers, of which one group was five feet four inches high, the other sixteen feet high." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 232.) Although the ant is a small animal as compared with man or with the Irish Elk, the "soldier" with its relatively enormous jaws is hardly less heavily burdened than the Elk with its antlers, and in the ant's case, too, a strengthening of the skeleton, of the muscles, the nerves of the head, and of the legs must have taken place parallel with the enlargement of the jaws. HARMONIOUS ADAPTATION (coadaptation) has here been active in a high degree, and yet these "soldiers" are sterile! There thus remains nothing for it but to refer all their adaptations, positive and negative alike, to processes of selection which have taken place in the rudiments of the workers within the egg and sperm-cells of their parents. There is no way out of the difficulty except the one Darwin pointed out. He himself did not find the solution of the riddle at once. At first he believed that the case of the workers among social insects presented "the most serious special difficulty" in the way of his theory of natural selection; and it was only after it had become clear to him, that it was not the sterile insects themselves but their parents that were selected, according as they produced more or less well adapted workers, that he was able to refer to this very case of the conditions among ants "IN ORDER TO SHOW THE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION" ("Origin of Species", page 233; see also edition 1, page 242.). He explains his view by a simple but interesting illustration. Gardeners have produced, by means of long continued artificial selection, a variety of Stock, which bears entirely double, and therefore infertile flowers (Ibid. page 230.). Nevertheless the variety continues to be reproduced from seed, because in addition to the double and infertile flowers, the seeds always produce a certain number of single, fertile blossoms, and these are used to reproduce the double variety. These single and fertile plants correspond "to the males and females of an ant-colony, the infertile plants, which are regularly produced in large numbers, to the neuter workers of the colony." This illustration is entirely apt, the only difference between the two cases consisting in the fact that the variation in the flower is not a useful, but a disadvantageous one, which can only be preserved by artificial selection on the part of the gardener, while the transformations that have taken place parallel with the sterility of the ants are useful, since they procure for the colony an advantage in the struggle for existence, and they are therefore preserved by natural selection. Even the sterility itself in this case is not disadvantageous, since the fertility of the true females has at the same time considerably increased. We may therefore regard the sterile forms of ants, which have gradually been adapted in several directions to varying functions, AS A CERTAIN PROOF that selection really takes place in the germ-cells of the fathers and mothers of the workers, and that SPECIAL COMPLEXES OF PRIMORDIA (IDS) are present in the workers and in the males and females, and these complexes contain the primordia of the individual parts (DETERMINANTS). But since all living entities vary, the determinants must also vary, now in a favourable, now in an unfavourable direction. If a female produces eggs, which contain favourably varying determinants in the worker-ids, then these eggs will give rise to workers modified in the favourable direction, and if this happens with many females, the colony concerned will contain a better kind of worker than other colonies. I digress here in order to give an account of the intimate processes, which, according to my view, take place within the germ-plasm, and which I have called "GERMINAL SELECTION." These processes are of importance since they form the roots of variation, which in its turn is the root of natural selection. I cannot here do more than give a brief outline of the theory in order to show how the Darwin-Wallace theory of selection has gained support from it. With others, I regard the minimal amount of substance which is contained within the nucleus of the germ-cells, in the form of rods, bands, or granules, as the GERM-SUBSTANCE or GERM-PLASM, and I call the individual granules IDS. There is always a multiplicity of such ids present in the nucleus, either occurring individually, or united in the form of rods or bands (chromosomes). Each id contains the primary constituents of a WHOLE individual, so that several ids are concerned in the development of a new individual. In every being of complex structure thousands of primary constituents must go to make up a single id; these I call DETERMINANTS, and I mean by this name very small individual particles, far below the limits of microscopic visibility, vital units which feed, grow, and multiply by division. These determinants control the parts of the developing embryo,--in what manner need not here concern us. The determinants differ among themselves, those of a muscle are differently constituted from those of a nerve-cell or a glandular cell, etc., and every determinant is in its turn made up of minute vital units, which I call BIOPHORS, or the bearers of life. According to my view, these determinants not only assimilate, like every other living unit, but they VARY in the course of their growth, as every living unit does; they may vary qualitatively if the elements of which they are composed vary, they may grow and divide more or less rapidly, and their variations give rise to CORRESPONDING variations of the organ, cell, or cell-group which they determine. That they are undergoing ceaseless fluctuations in regard to size and quality seems to me the inevitable consequence of their unequal nutrition; for although the germ-cell as a whole usually receives sufficient nutriment, minute fluctuations in the amount carried to different parts within the germ-plasm cannot fail to occur. Now, if a determinant, for instance of a sensory cell, receives for a considerable time more abundant nutriment than before, it will grow more rapidly--become bigger, and divide more quickly, and, later, when the id concerned develops into an embryo, this sensory cell will become stronger than in the parents, possibly even twice as strong. This is an instance of a HEREDITARY INDIVIDUAL VARIATION, arising from the germ. The nutritive stream which, according to our hypothesis, favours the determinant N by chance, that is, for reasons unknown to us, may remain strong for a considerable time, or may decrease again; but even in the latter case it is conceivable that the ascending movement of the determinant may continue, because the strengthened determinant now ACTIVELY nourishes itself more abundantly,--that is to say, it attracts the nutriment to itself, and to a certain extent withdraws it from its fellow-determinants. In this way, it may--as it seems to me--get into PERMANENT UPWARD MOVEMENT, AND ATTAIN A DEGREE OF STRENGTH FROM WHICH THERE IS NO FALLING BACK. Then positive or negative selection sets in, favouring the variations which are advantageous, setting aside those which are disadvantageous. In a similar manner a DOWNWARD variation of the determinants may take place, if its progress be started by a diminished flow of nutriment. The determinants which are weakened by this diminished flow will have less affinity for attracting nutriment because of their diminished strength, and they will assimilate more feebly and grow more slowly, unless chance streams of nutriment help them to recover themselves. But, as will presently be shown, a change of direction cannot take place at EVERY stage of the degenerative process. If a certain critical stage of downward progress be passed, even favourable conditions of food-supply will no longer suffice permanently to change the direction of the variation. Only two cases are conceivable; if the determinant corresponds to a USEFUL organ, only its removal can bring back the germ-plasm to its former level; therefore personal selection removes the id in question, with its determinants, from the germ-plasm, by causing the elimination of the individual in the struggle for existence. But there is another conceivable case; the determinants concerned may be those of an organ which has become USELESS, and they will then continue unobstructed, but with exceeding slowness, along the downward path, until the organ becomes vestigial, and finally disappears altogether. The fluctuations of the determinants hither and thither may thus be transformed into a lasting ascending or descending movement; and THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT OF THESE GERMINAL PROCESSES. This is not a fantastic assumption; we can read it in the fact of the degeneration of disused parts. USELESS ORGANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHICH ARE NOT HELPED TO ASCEND AGAIN BY PERSONAL SELECTION, AND THEREFORE IN THEIR CASE ALONE CAN WE FORM ANY IDEA OF HOW THE PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS BEHAVE, WHEN THEY ARE SUBJECT SOLELY TO INTRA-GERMINAL FORCES. The whole determinant system of an id, as I conceive it, is in a state of continual fluctuation upwards and downwards. In most cases the fluctuations will counteract one another, because the passive streams of nutriment soon change, but in many cases the limit from which a return is possible will be passed, and then the determinants concerned will continue to vary in the same direction, till they attain positive or negative selection-value. At this stage personal selection intervenes and sets aside the variation if it is disadvantageous, or favours--that is to say, preserves--it if it is advantageous. Only THE DETERMINANT OF A USELESS ORGAN IS UNINFLUENCED BY PERSONAL SELECTION, and, as experience shows, it sinks downwards; that is, the organ that corresponds to it degenerates very slowly but uninterruptedly till, after what must obviously be an immense stretch of time, it disappears from the germ-plasm altogether. Thus we find in the fact of the degeneration of disused parts the proof that not all the fluctuations of a determinant return to equilibrium again, but that, when the movement has attained to a certain strength, it continues IN THE SAME DIRECTION. We have entire certainty in regard to this as far as the downward progress is concerned, and we must assume it also in regard to ascending variations, as the phenomena of artificial selection certainly justify us in doing. If the Japanese breeders were able to lengthen the tail feathers of the cock to six feet, it can only have been because the determinants of the tail-feathers in the germ-plasm had already struck out a path of ascending variation, and this movement was taken advantage of by the breeder, who continually selected for reproduction the individuals in which the ascending variation was most marked. For all breeding depends upon the unconscious selection of germinal variations. Of course these germinal processes cannot be proved mathematically, since we cannot actually see the play of forces of the passive fluctuations and their causes. We cannot say how great these fluctuations are, and how quickly or slowly, how regularly or irregularly they change. Nor do we know how far a determinant must be strengthened by the passive flow of the nutritive stream if it is to be beyond the danger of unfavourable variations, or how far it must be weakened passively before it loses the power of recovering itself by its own strength. It is no more possible to bring forward actual proofs in this case than it was in regard to the selection-value of the initial stages of an adaptation. But if we consider that all heritable variations must have their roots in the germ-plasm, and further, that when personal selection does not intervene, that is to say, in the case of parts which have become useless, a degeneration of the part, and therefore also of its determinant must inevitably take place; then we must conclude that processes such as I have assumed are running their course within the germ-plasm, and we can do this with as much certainty as we were able to infer, from the phenomena of adaptation, the selection-value of their initial stages. The fact of the degeneration of disused parts seems to me to afford irrefutable proof that the fluctuations within the germ-plasm ARE THE REAL ROOT OF ALL HEREDITARY VARIATION, and the preliminary condition for the occurrence of the Darwin-Wallace factor of selection. Germinal selection supplies the stones out of which personal selection builds her temples and palaces: ADAPTATIONS. The importance for the theory of the process of degeneration of disused parts cannot be over-estimated, especially when it occurs in sterile animal forms, where we are free from the doubt as to the alleged LAMARCKIAN FACTOR which is apt to confuse our ideas in regard to other cases. If we regard the variation of the many determinants concerned in the transformation of the female into the sterile worker as having come about through the gradual transformation of the ids into worker-ids, we shall see that the germ-plasm of the sexual ants must contain three kinds of ids, male, female, and worker ids, or if the workers have diverged into soldiers and nest-builders, then four kinds. We understand that the worker-ids arose because their determinants struck out a useful path of variation, whether upward or downward, and that they continued in this path until the highest attainable degree of utility of the parts determined was reached. But in addition to the organs of positive or negative selection-value, there were some which were indifferent as far as the success and especially the functional capacity of the workers was concerned: wings, ovarian tubes, receptaculum seminis, a number of the facets of the eye, perhaps even the whole eye. As to the ovarian tubes it is possible that their degeneration was an advantage for the workers, in saving energy, and if so selection would favour the degeneration; but how could the presence of eyes diminish the usefulness of the workers to the colony? or the minute receptaculum seminis, or even the wings? These parts have therefore degenerated BECAUSE THEY WERE OF NO FURTHER VALUE TO THE INSECT. But if selection did not influence the setting aside of these parts because they were neither of advantage nor of disadvantage to the species, then the Darwinian factor of selection is here confronted with a puzzle which it cannot solve alone, but which at once becomes clear when germinal selection is added. For the determinants of organs that have no further value for the organism, must, as we have already explained, embark on a gradual course of retrograde development. In ants the degeneration has gone so far that there are no wing-rudiments present in ANY species, as is the case with so many butterflies, flies, and locusts, but in the larvae the imaginal discs of the wings are still laid down. With regard to the ovaries, degeneration has reached different levels in different species of ants, as has been shown by the researches of my former pupil, Elizabeth Bickford. In many species there are twelve ovarian tubes, and they decrease from that number to one; indeed, in one species no ovarian tube at all is present. So much at least is certain from what has been said, that in this case EVERYTHING depends on the fluctuations of the elements of the germ-plasm. Germinal selection, here as elsewhere, presents the variations of the determinants, and personal selection favours or rejects these, or,--if it be a question of organs which have become useless,--it does not come into play at all, and allows the descending variation free course. It is obvious that even the problem of COADAPTATION IN STERILE ANIMALS can thus be satisfactorily explained. If the determinants are oscillating upwards and downwards in continual fluctuation, and varying more pronouncedly now in one direction now in the other, useful variations of every determinant will continually present themselves anew, and may, in the course of generations, be combined with one another in various ways. But there is one character of the determinants that greatly facilitates this complex process of selection, that, after a certain limit has been reached, they go on varying in the same direction. From this it follows that development along a path once struck out may proceed without the continual intervention of personal selection. This factor only operates, so to speak, at the beginning, when it selects the determinants which are varying in the right direction, and again at the end, when it is necessary to put a check upon further variation. In addition to this, enormously long periods have been available for all these adaptations, as the very gradual transition stages between females and workers in many species plainly show, and thus this process of transformation loses the marvellous and mysterious character that seemed at the first glance to invest it, and takes rank, without any straining, among the other processes of selection. It seems to me that, from the facts that sterile animal forms can adapt themselves to new vital functions, their superfluous parts degenerate, and the parts more used adapt themselves in an ascending direction, those less used in a descending direction, we must draw the conclusion that harmonious adaptation here comes about WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF THE LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE. This conclusion once established, however, we have no reason to refer the thousands of cases of harmonious adaptation, which occur in exactly the same way among other animals or plants, to a principle, the ACTIVE INTERVENTION OF WHICH IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF SPECIES IS NOWHERE PROVED. WE DO NOT REQUIRE IT TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS, AND THEREFORE WE MUST NOT ASSUME IT. The fact of coadaptation, which was supposed to furnish the strongest argument against the principle of selection, in reality yields the clearest evidence in favour of it. We MUST assume it, BECAUSE NO OTHER POSSIBILITY OF EXPLANATION IS OPEN TO US, AND BECAUSE THESE ADAPTATIONS ACTUALLY EXIST, THAT IS TO SAY, HAVE REALLY TAKEN PLACE. With this conviction I attempted, as far back as 1894, when the idea of germinal selection had not yet occurred to me, to make "harmonious adaptation" (coadaptation) more easily intelligible in some way or other, and so I was led to the idea, which was subsequently expounded in detail by Baldwin, and Lloyd Morgan, and also by Osborn, and Gulick as ORGANIC SELECTION. It seemed to me that it was not necessary that all the germinal variations required for secondary variations should have occurred SIMULTANEOUSLY, since, for instance, in the case of the stag, the bones, muscles, sinews, and nerves would be incited by the increasing heaviness of the antlers to greater activity in THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE, and so would be strengthened. The antlers can only have increased in size by very slow degrees, so that the muscles and bones may have been able to keep pace with their growth in the individual life, until the requisite germinal variations presented themselves. In this way a disharmony between the increasing weight of the antlers and the parts which support and move them would be avoided, since time would be given for the appropriate germinal variations to occur, and so to set agoing the HEREDITARY variation of the muscles, sinews, and bones. ("The Effect of External Influences upon Development", Romanes Lecture, Oxford, 1894.) I still regard this idea as correct, but I attribute less importance to "organic selection" than I did at that time, in so far that I do not believe that it ALONE could effect complex harmonious adaptations. Germinal selection now seems to me to play the chief part in bringing about such adaptations. Something the same is true of the principle I have called "Panmixia". As I became more and more convinced, in the course of years, that the LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE ought not to be called in to explain the dwindling of disused parts, I believed that this process might be simply explained as due to the cessation of the conservative effect of natural selection. I said to myself that, from the moment in which a part ceases to be of use, natural selection withdraws its hand from it, and then it must inevitably fall from the height of its adaptiveness, because inferior variants would have as good a chance of persisting as better ones, since all grades of fitness of the part in question would be mingled with one another indiscriminately. This is undoubtedly true, as Romanes pointed out ten years before I did, and this mingling of the bad with the good probably does bring about a deterioration of the part concerned. But it cannot account for the steady diminution, which always occurs when a part is in process of becoming rudimentary, and which goes on until it ultimately disappears altogether. The process of dwindling cannot therefore be explained as due to panmixia alone; we can only find a sufficient explanation in germinal selection. IV. DERIVATIVES OF THE THEORY OF SELECTION. The impetus in all directions given by Darwin through his theory of selection has been an immeasurable one, and its influence is still felt. It falls within the province of the historian of science to enumerate all the ideas which, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, grew out of Darwin's theories, in the endeavour to penetrate more deeply into the problem of the evolution of the organic world. Within the narrow limits to which this paper is restricted, I cannot attempt to discuss any of these. V. ARGUMENTS FOR THE REALITY OF THE PROCESSES OF SELECTION. (a) SEXUAL SELECTION. Sexual selection goes hand in hand with natural selection. From the very first I have regarded sexual selection as affording an extremely important and interesting corroboration of natural selection, but, singularly enough, it is precisely against this theory that an adverse judgment has been pronounced in so many quarters, and it is only quite recently, and probably in proportion as the wealth of facts in proof of it penetrates into a wider circle, that we seem to be approaching a more general recognition of this side of the problem of adaptation. Thus Darwin's words in his preface to the second edition (1874) of his book, "The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection", are being justified: "My conviction as to the operation of natural selection remains unshaken," and further, "If naturalists were to become more familiar with the idea of sexual selection, it would, I think, be accepted to a much greater extent, and already it is fully and favourably accepted by many competent judges." Darwin was able to speak thus because he was already acquainted with an immense mass of facts, which, taken together, yield overwhelming evidence of the validity of the principle of sexual selection. NATURAL SELECTION chooses out for reproduction the individuals that are best equipped for the struggle for existence, and it does so at every stage of development; it thus improves the species in all its stages and forms. SEXUAL SELECTION operates only on individuals that are already capable of reproduction, and does so only in relation to the attainment of reproduction. It arises from the rivalry of one sex, usually the male, for the possession of the other, usually the female. Its influence can therefore only DIRECTLY affect one sex, in that it equips it better for attaining possession of the other. But the effect may extend indirectly to the female sex, and thus the whole species may be modified, without, however, becoming any more capable of resistance in the struggle for existence, for sexual selection only gives rise to adaptations which are likely to give their possessor the victory over rivals in the struggle for possession of the female, and which are therefore peculiar to the wooing sex: the manifold "secondary sexual characters." The diversity of these characters is so great that I cannot here attempt to give anything approaching a complete treatment of them, but I should like to give a sufficient number of examples to make the principle itself, in its various modes of expression, quite clear. One of the chief preliminary postulates of sexual selection is the unequal number of individuals in the two sexes, for if every male immediately finds his mate there can be no competition for the possession of the female. Darwin has shown that, for the most part, the inequality between the sexes is due simply to the fact that there are more males than females, and therefore the males must take some pains to secure a mate. But the inequality does not always depend on the numerical preponderance of the males, it is often due to polygamy; for, if one male claims several females, the number of females in proportion to the rest of the males will be reduced. Since it is almost always the males that are the wooers, we must expect to find the occurrence of secondary sexual characters chiefly among them, and to find it especially frequent in polygamous species. And this is actually the case. If we were to try to guess--without knowing the facts--what means the male animals make use of to overcome their rivals in the struggle for the possession of the female, we might name many kinds of means, but it would be difficult to suggest any which is not actually employed in some animal group or other. I begin with the mere difference in strength, through which the male of many animals is so sharply distinguished from the female, as, for instance, the lion, walrus, "sea-elephant," and others. Among these the males fight violently for the possession of the female, who falls to the victor in the combat. In this simple case no one can doubt the operation of selection, and there is just as little room for doubt as to the selection-value of the initial stages of the variation. Differences in bodily strength are apparent even among human beings, although in their case the struggle for the possession of the female is no longer decided by bodily strength alone. Combats between male animals are often violent and obstinate, and the employment of the natural weapons of the species in this way has led to perfecting of these, e.g. the tusks of the boar, the antlers of the stag, and the enormous, antler-like jaws of the stag-beetle. Here again it is impossible to doubt that variations in these organs presented themselves, and that these were considerable enough to be decisive in combat, and so to lead to the improvement of the weapon. Among many animals, however, the females at first withdraw from the males; they are coy, and have to be sought out, and sometimes held by force. This tracking and grasping of the females by the males has given rise to many different characters in the latter, as, for instance, the larger eyes of the male bee, and especially of the males of the Ephemerids (May-flies), some species of which show, in addition to the usual compound eyes, large, so-called turban-eyes, so that the whole head is covered with seeing surfaces. In these species the females are very greatly in the minority (1-100), and it is easy to understand that a keen competition for them must take place, and that, when the insects of both sexes are floating freely in the air, an unusually wide range of vision will carry with it a decided advantage. Here again the actual adaptations are in accordance with the preliminary postulates of the theory. We do not know the stages through which the eye has passed to its present perfected state, but, since the number of simple eyes (facets) has become very much greater in the male than in the female, we may assume that their increase is due to a gradual duplication of the determinants of the ommatidium in the germ-plasm, as I have already indicated in regard to sense-organs in general. In this case, again, the selection-value of the initial stages hardly admits of doubt; better vision DIRECTLY secures reproduction. In many cases THE ORGAN OF SMELL shows a similar improvement. Many lower Crustaceans (Daphnidae) have better developed organs of smell in the male sex. The difference is often slight and amounts only to one or two olfactory filaments, but certain species show a difference of nearly a hundred of these filaments (Leptodora). The same thing occurs among insects. We must briefly consider the clasping or grasping organs which have developed in the males among many lower Crustaceans, but here natural selection plays its part along with sexual selection, for the union of the sexes is an indispensable condition for the maintenance of the species, and as Darwin himself pointed out, in many cases the two forms of selection merge into each other. This fact has always seemed to me to be a proof of natural selection, for, in regard to sexual selection, it is quite obvious that the victory of the best-equipped could have brought about the improvement only of the organs concerned, the factors in the struggle, such as the eye and the olfactory organ. We come now to the EXCITANTS; that is, to the group of sexual characters whose origin through processes of selection has been most frequently called in question. We may cite the LOVE-CALLS produced by many male insects, such as crickets and cicadas. These could only have arisen in animal groups in which the female did not rapidly flee from the male, but was inclined to accept his wooing from the first. Thus, notes like the chirping of the male cricket serve to entice the females. At first they were merely the signal which showed the presence of a male in the neighbourhood, and the female was gradually enticed nearer and nearer by the continued chirping. The male that could make himself heard to the greatest distance would obtain the largest following, and would transmit the beginnings, and, later, the improvement of his voice to the greatest number of descendants. But sexual excitement in the female became associated with the hearing of the love-call, and then the sound-producing organ of the male began to improve, until it attained to the emission of the long-drawn-out soft notes of the mole-cricket or the maenad-like cry of the cicadas. I cannot here follow the process of development in detail, but will call attention to the fact that the original purpose of the voice, the announcing of the male's presence, became subsidiary, and the exciting of the female became the chief goal to be aimed at. The loudest singers awakened the strongest excitement, and the improvement resulted as a matter of course. I conceive of the origin of bird-song in a somewhat similar manner, first as a means of enticing, then of exciting the female. One more kind of secondary sexual character must here be mentioned: the odour which emanates from so many animals at the breeding season. It is possible that this odour also served at first merely to give notice of the presence of individuals of the other sex, but it soon became an excitant, and as the individuals which caused the greatest degree of excitement were preferred, it reached as high a pitch of perfection as was possible to it. I shall confine myself here to the comparatively recently discovered fragrance of butterflies. Since Fritz Muller found out that certain Brazilian butterflies gave off fragrance "like a flower," we have become acquainted with many such cases, and we now know that in all lands, not only many diurnal Lepidoptera but nocturnal ones also give off a delicate odour, which is agreeable even to man. The ethereal oil to which this fragrance is due is secreted by the skin-cells, usually of the wing, as I showed soon after the discovery of the SCENT-SCALES. This is the case in the males; the females have no SPECIAL scent-scales recognisable as such by their form, but they must, nevertheless, give off an extremely delicate fragrance, although our imperfect organ of smell cannot perceive it, for the males become aware of the presence of a female, even at night, from a long distance off, and gather round her. We may therefore conclude, that both sexes have long given forth a very delicate perfume, which announced their presence to others of the same species, and that in many species (NOT IN ALL) these small beginnings became, in the males, particularly strong scent-scales of characteristic form (lute, brush, or lyre-shaped). At first these scales were scattered over the surface of the wing, but gradually they concentrated themselves, and formed broad, velvety bands, or strong, prominent brushes, and they attained their highest pitch of evolution when they became enclosed within pits or folds of the skin, which could be opened to let the delicious fragrance stream forth suddenly towards the female. Thus in this case also we see that characters, the original use of which was to bring the sexes together, and so to maintain the species, have been evolved in the males into means for exciting the female. And we can hardly doubt, that the females are most readily enticed to yield to the butterfly that sends out the strongest fragrance,--that is to say, that excites them to the highest degree. It is a pity that our organs of smell are not fine enough to examine the fragrance of male Lepidoptera in general, and to compare it with other perfumes which attract these insects. (See Poulton, "Essays on Evolution", 1908, pages 316, 317.) As far as we can perceive them they resemble the fragrance of flowers, but there are Lepidoptera whose scent suggests musk. A smell of musk is also given off by several plants: it is a sexual excitant in the musk-deer, the musk-sheep, and the crocodile. As far as we know, then, it is perfumes similar to those of flowers that the male Lepidoptera give off in order to entice their mates, and this is a further indication that animals, like plants, can to a large extent meet the claims made upon them by life, and produce the adaptations which are most purposive,--a further proof, too, of my proposition that the useful variations, so to speak, are ALWAYS THERE. The flowers developed the perfumes which entice their visitors, and the male Lepidoptera developed the perfumes which entice and excite their mates. There are many pretty little problems to be solved in this connection, for there are insects, such as some flies, that are attracted by smells which are unpleasant to us, like those from decaying flesh and carrion. But there are also certain flowers, some orchids for instance, which give forth no very agreeable odour, but one which is to us repulsive and disgusting; and we should therefore expect that the males of such insects would give off a smell unpleasant to us, but there is no case known to me in which this has been demonstrated. In cases such as we have discussed, it is obvious that there is no possible explanation except through selection. This brings us to the last kind of secondary sexual characters, and the one in regard to which doubt has been most frequently expressed,--decorative colours and decorative forms, the brilliant plumage of the male pheasant, the humming-birds, and the bird of Paradise, as well as the bright colours of many species of butterfly, from the beautiful blue of our little Lycaenidae to the magnificent azure of the large Morphinae of Brazil. In a great many cases, though not by any means in all, the male butterflies are "more beautiful" than the females, and in the Tropics in particular they shine and glow in the most superb colours. I really see no reason why we should doubt the power of sexual selection, and I myself stand wholly on Darwin's side. Even though we certainly cannot assume that the females exercise a conscious choice of the "handsomest" mate, and deliberate like the judges in a court of justice over the perfections of their wooers, we have no reason to doubt that distinctive forms (decorative feathers) and colours have a particularly exciting effect upon the female, just as certain odours have among animals of so many different groups, including the butterflies. The doubts which existed for a considerable time, as a result of fallacious experiments, as to whether the colours of flowers really had any influence in attracting butterflies have now been set at rest through a series of more careful investigations; we now know that the colours of flowers are there on account of the butterflies, as Sprengel first showed, and that the blossoms of Phanerogams are selected in relation to them, as Darwin pointed out. Certainly it is not possible to bring forward any convincing proof of the origin of decorative colours through sexual selection, but there are many weighty arguments in favour of it, and these form a body of presumptive evidence so strong that it almost amounts to certainty. In the first place, there is the analogy with other secondary sexual characters. If the song of birds and the chirping of the cricket have been evolved through sexual selection, if the penetrating odours of male animals,--the crocodile, the musk-deer, the beaver, the carnivores, and, finally, the flower-like fragrances of the butterflies have been evolved to their present pitch in this way, why should decorative colours have arisen in some other way? Why should the eye be less sensitive to SPECIFICALLY MALE colours and other VISIBLE signs ENTICING TO THE FEMALE, than the olfactory sense to specifically male odours, or the sense of hearing to specifically male sounds? Moreover, the decorative feathers of birds are almost always spread out and displayed before the female during courtship. I have elsewhere ("The Evolution Theory", London, 1904, I. page 219.) pointed out that decorative colouring and sweet-scentedness may replace one another in Lepidoptera as well as in flowers, for just as some modestly coloured flowers (mignonette and violet) have often a strong perfume, while strikingly coloured ones are sometimes quite devoid of fragrance, so we find that the most beautiful and gaily-coloured of our native Lepidoptera, the species of Vanessa, have no scent-scales, while these are often markedly developed in grey nocturnal Lepidoptera. Both attractions may, however, be combined in butterflies, just as in flowers. Of course, we cannot explain why both means of attraction should exist in one genus, and only one of them in another, since we do not know the minutest details of the conditions of life of the genera concerned. But from the sporadic distribution of scent-scales in Lepidoptera, and from their occurrence or absence in nearly related species, we may conclude that fragrance is a relatively MODERN acquirement, more recent than brilliant colouring. One thing in particular that stamps decorative colouring as a product of selection is ITS GRADUAL INTENSIFICATION by the addition of new spots, which we can quite well observe, because in many cases the colours have been first acquired by the males, and later transmitted to the females by inheritance. The scent-scales are never thus transmitted, probably for the same reason that the decorative colours of many birds are often not transmitted to the females: because with these they would be exposed to too great elimination by enemies. Wallace was the first to point out that in species with concealed nests the beautiful feathers of the male occurred in the female also, as in the parrots, for instance, but this is not the case in species which brood on an exposed nest. In the parrots one can often observe that the general brilliant colouring of the male is found in the female, but that certain spots of colour are absent, and these have probably been acquired comparatively recently by the male and have not yet been transmitted to the female. Isolation of the group of individuals which is in process of varying is undoubtedly of great value in sexual selection, for even a solitary conspicuous variation will become dominant much sooner in a small isolated colony, than among a large number of members of a species. Anyone who agrees with me in deriving variations from germinal selection will regard that process as an essential aid towards explaining the selection of distinctive courtship-characters, such as coloured spots, decorative feathers, horny outgrowths in birds and reptiles, combs, feather-tufts, and the like, since the beginnings of these would be presented with relative frequency in the struggle between the determinants within the germ-plasm. The process of transmission of decorative feathers to the female results, as Darwin pointed out and illustrated by interesting examples, in the COLOUR-TRANSFORMATION OF A WHOLE SPECIES, and this process, as the phyletically older colouring of young birds shows, must, in the course of thousands of years, have repeated itself several times in a line of descent. If we survey the wealth of phenomena presented to us by secondary sexual characters, we can hardly fail to be convinced of the truth of the principle of sexual selection. And certainly no one who has accepted natural selection should reject sexual selection, for, not only do the two processes rest upon the same basis, but they merge into one another, so that it is often impossible to say how much of a particular character depends on one and how much on the other form of selection. (b) NATURAL SELECTION. An actual proof of the theory of sexual selection is out of the question, if only because we cannot tell when a variation attains to selection-value. It is certain that a delicate sense of smell is of value to the male moth in his search for the female, but whether the possession of one additional olfactory hair, or of ten, or of twenty additional hairs leads to the success of its possessor we are unable to tell. And we are groping even more in the dark when we discuss the excitement caused in the female by agreeable perfumes, or by striking and beautiful colours. That these do make an impression is beyond doubt; but we can only assume that slight intensifications of them give any advantage, and we MUST assume this SINCE OTHERWISE SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS REMAIN INEXPLICABLE. The same thing is true in regard to natural selection. It is not possible to bring forward any actual proof of the selection-value of the initial stages, and the stages in the increase of variations, as has been already shown. But the selection-value of a finished adaptation can in many cases be statistically determined. Cesnola and Poulton have made valuable experiments in this direction. The former attached forty-five individuals of the green, and sixty-five of the brown variety of the praying mantis (Mantis religiosa), by a silk thread to plants, and watched them for seventeen days. The insects which were on a surface of a colour similar to their own remained uneaten, while twenty-five green insects on brown parts of plants had all disappeared in eleven days. The experiments of Poulton and Sanders ("Report of the British Association" (Bristol, 1898), London, 1899, pages 906-909.) were made with 600 pupae of Vanessa urticae, the "tortoise-shell butterfly." The pupae were artificially attached to nettles, tree-trunks, fences, walls, and to the ground, some at Oxford, some at St Helens in the Isle of Wight. In the course of a month 93 per cent of the pupae at Oxford were killed, chiefly by small birds, while at St Helens 68 per cent perished. The experiments showed very clearly that the colour and character of the surface on which the pupa rests--and thus its own conspicuousness--are of the greatest importance. At Oxford only the four pupae which were fastened to nettles emerged; all the rest--on bark, stones and the like--perished. At St Helens the elimination was as follows: on fences where the pupae were conspicuous, 92 per cent; on bark, 66 per cent; on walls, 54 per cent; and among nettles, 57 per cent. These interesting experiments confirm our views as to protective coloration, and show further, THAT THE RATIO OF ELIMINATION IN THE SPECIES IS A VERY HIGH ONE, AND THAT THEREFORE SELECTION MUST BE VERY KEEN. We may say that the process of selection follows as a logical necessity from the fulfilment of the three preliminary postulates of the theory: variability, heredity, and the struggle for existence, with its enormous ratio of elimination in all species. To this we must add a fourth factor, the INTENSIFICATION of variations which Darwin established as a fact, and which we are now able to account for theoretically on the basis of germinal selection. It may be objected that there is considerable uncertainty about this LOGICAL proof, because of our inability to demonstrate the selection-value of the initial stages and the individual stages of increase. We have therefore to fall back on PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. This is to be found in THE INTERPRETATIVE VALUE OF THE THEORY. Let us consider this point in greater detail. In the first place, it is necessary to emphasise what is often overlooked, namely, that the theory not only explains the TRANSFORMATIONS of species, it also explains THEIR REMAINING THE SAME; in addition to the principle of varying, it contains within itself that of PERSISTING. It is part of the essence of selection, that it not only causes a part to VARY till it has reached its highest pitch of adaptation, but that it MAINTAINS IT AT THIS PITCH. THIS CONSERVING INFLUENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION is of great importance, and was early recognised by Darwin; it follows naturally from the principle of the survival of the fittest. We understand from this how it is that a species which has become fully adapted to certain conditions of life ceases to vary, but remains "constant," as long as the conditions of life FOR IT remain unchanged, whether this be for thousands of years, or for whole geological epochs. But the most convincing proof of the power of the principle of selection lies in the innumerable multitude of phenomena which cannot be explained in any other way. To this category belong all structures which are only PASSIVELY of advantage to the organism, because none of these can have arisen by the alleged LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE. These have been so often discussed that we need do no more than indicate them here. Until quite recently the sympathetic coloration of animals--for instance, the whiteness of Arctic animals--was referred, at least in part, to the DIRECT influence of external factors, but the facts can best be explained by referring them to the processes of selection, for then it is unnecessary to make the gratuitous assumption that many species are sensitive to the stimulus of cold and that others are not. The great majority of Arctic land-animals, mammals and birds, are white, and this proves that they were all able to present the variation which was most useful for them. The sable is brown, but it lives in trees, where the brown colouring protects and conceals it more effectively. The musk-sheep (Ovibos moschatus) is also brown, and contrasts sharply with the ice and snow, but it is protected from beasts of prey by its gregarious habit, and therefore it is of advantage to be visible from as great a distance as possible. That so many species have been able to give rise to white varieties does not depend on a special sensitiveness of the skin to the influence of cold, but to the fact that Mammals and Birds have a general tendency to vary towards white. Even with us, many birds--starlings, blackbirds, swallows, etc.--occasionally produce white individuals, but the white variety does not persist, because it readily falls a victim to the carnivores. This is true of white fawns, foxes, deer, etc. The whiteness, therefore, arises from internal causes, and only persists when it is useful. A great many animals living in a GREEN ENVIRONMENT have become clothed in green, especially insects, caterpillars, and Mantidae, both persecuted and persecutors. That it is not the direct effect of the environment which calls forth the green colour is shown by the many kinds of caterpillar which rest on leaves and feed on them, but are nevertheless brown. These feed by night and betake themselves through the day to the trunk of the tree, and hide in the furrows of the bark. We cannot, however, conclude from this that they were UNABLE to vary towards green, for there are Arctic animals which are white only in winter and brown in summer (Alpine hare, and the ptarmigan of the Alps), and there are also green leaf-insects which remain green only while they are young and difficult to see on the leaf, but which become brown again in the last stage of larval life, when they have outgrown the leaf. They then conceal themselves by day, sometimes only among withered leaves on the ground, sometimes in the earth itself. It is interesting that in one genus, Chaerocampa, one species is brown in the last stage of larval life, another becomes brown earlier, and in many species the last stage is not wholly brown, a part remaining green. Whether this is a case of a double adaptation, or whether the green is being gradually crowded out by the brown, the fact remains that the same species, even the same individual, can exhibit both variations. The case is the same with many of the leaf-like Orthoptera, as, for instance, the praying mantis (Mantis religiosa) which we have already mentioned. But the best proofs are furnished by those often-cited cases in which the insect bears a deceptive resemblance to another object. We now know many such cases, such as the numerous imitations of green or withered leaves, which are brought about in the most diverse ways, sometimes by mere variations in the form of the insect and in its colour, sometimes by an elaborate marking, like that which occurs in the Indian leaf-butterflies, Kallima inachis. In the single butterfly-genus Anaea, in the woods of South America, there are about a hundred species which are all gaily coloured on the upper surface, and on the reverse side exhibit the most delicate imitation of the colouring and pattern of a leaf, generally without any indication of the leaf-ribs, but extremely deceptive nevertheless. Anyone who has seen only one such butterfly may doubt whether many of the insignificant details of the marking can really be of advantage to the insect. Such details are for instance the apparent holes and splits in the apparently dry or half-rotten leaf, which are usually due to the fact that the scales are absent on a circular or oval patch so that the colourless wing-membrane lies bare, and one can look through the spot as through a window. Whether the bird which is seeking or pursuing the butterflies takes these holes for dewdrops, or for the work of a devouring insect, does not affect the question; the mirror-like spot undoubtedly increases the general deceptiveness, for the same thing occurs in many leaf-butterflies, though not in all, and in some cases it is replaced in quite a peculiar manner. In one species of Anaea (A. divina), the resting butterfly looks exactly like a leaf out of the outer edge of which a large semicircular piece has been eaten, possibly by a caterpillar; but if we look more closely it is obvious that there is no part of the wing absent, and that the semicircular piece is of a clear, pale yellow colour, while the rest of the wing is of a strongly contrasted dark brown. But the deceptive resemblance may be caused in quite a different manner. I have often speculated as to what advantage the brilliant white C could give to the otherwise dusky-coloured "Comma butterfly" (Grapta C. album). Poulton's recent observations ("Proc. Ent. Soc"., London, May 6, 1903.) have shown that this represents the imitation of a crack such as is often seen in dry leaves, and is very conspicuous because the light shines through it. The utility obviously lies in presenting to the bird the very familiar picture of a broken leaf with a clear shining slit, and we may conclude, from the imitation of such small details, that the birds are very sharp observers and that the smallest deviation from the usual arrests their attention and incites them to closer investigation. It is obvious that such detailed--we might almost say such subtle--deceptive resemblances could only have come about in the course of long ages through the acquirement from time to time of something new which heightened the already existing resemblance. In face of facts like these there can be no question of chance, and no one has succeeded so far in finding any other explanation to replace that by selection. For the rest, the apparent leaves are by no means perfect copies of a leaf; many of them only represent the torn or broken piece, or the half or two-thirds of a leaf, but then the leaves themselves frequently do not present themselves to the eye as a whole, but partially concealed among other leaves. Even those butterflies which, like the species of Kallima and Anaea, represent the whole of a leaf with stalk, ribs, apex, and the whole breadth, are not actual copies which would satisfy a botanist; there is often much wanting. In Kallima the lateral ribs of the leaf are never all included in the markings; there are only two or three on the left side and at most four or five on the right, and in many individuals these are rather obscure, while in others they are comparatively distinct. This furnishes us with fresh evidence in favour of their origin through processes of selection, for a botanically perfect picture could not arise in this way; there could only be a fixing of such details as heightened the deceptive resemblance. Our postulate of origin through selection also enables us to understand why the leaf-imitation is on the lower surface of the wing in the diurnal Lepidoptera, and on the upper surface in the nocturnal forms, corresponding to the attitude of the wings in the resting position of the two groups. The strongest of all proofs of the theory, however, is afforded by cases of true "mimicry," those adaptations discovered by Bates in 1861, consisting in the imitation of one species by another, which becomes more and more like its model. The model is always a species that enjoys some special protection from enemies, whether because it is unpleasant to taste, or because it is in some way dangerous. It is chiefly among insects and especially among butterflies that we find the greatest number of such cases. Several of these have been minutely studied, and every detail has been investigated, so that it is difficult to understand how there can still be disbelief in regard to them. If the many and exact observations which have been carefully collected and critically discussed, for instance by Poulton ("Essays on Evolution", 1889-1907, Oxford, 1908, passim, e.g. page 269.) were thoroughly studied, the arguments which are still frequently urged against mimicry would be found untenable; we can hardly hope to find more convincing proof of the actuality of the processes of selection than these cases put into our hands. The preliminary postulates of the theory of mimicry have been disputed, for instance, that diurnal butterflies are persecuted and eaten by birds, but observations specially directed towards this point in India, Africa, America and Europe have placed it beyond all doubt. If it were necessary I could myself furnish an account of my own observations on this point. In the same way it has been established by experiment and observation in the field that in all the great regions of distribution there are butterflies which are rejected by birds and lizards, their chief enemies, on account of their unpleasant smell or taste. These butterflies are usually gaily and conspicuously coloured and thus--as Wallace first interpreted it--are furnished with an easily recognisable sign: a sign of unpalatableness or WARNING COLOURS. If they were not thus recognisable easily and from a distance, they would frequently be pecked at by birds, and then rejected because of their unpleasant taste; but as it is, the insect-eaters recognise them at once as unpalatable booty and ignore them. Such IMMUNE (The expression does not refer to all the enemies of this butterfly; against ichneumon-flies, for instance, their unpleasant smell usually gives no protection.) species, wherever they occur, are imitated by other palatable species, which thus acquire a certain degree of protection. It is true that this explanation of the bright, conspicuous colours is only a hypothesis, but its foundations,--unpalatableness, and the liability of other butterflies to be eaten,--are certain, and its consequences--the existence of mimetic palatable forms--confirm it in the most convincing manner. Of the many cases now known I select one, which is especially remarkable, and which has been thoroughly investigated, Papilio dardanus (merope), a large, beautiful, diurnal butterfly which ranges from Abyssinia throughout the whole of Africa to the south coast of Cape Colony. The males of this form are everywhere ALMOST the same in colour and in form of wings, save for a few variations in the sparse black markings on the pale yellow ground. But the females occur in several quite different forms and colourings, and one of these only, the Abyssinian form, is like the male, while the other three or four are MIMETIC, that is to say, they copy a butterfly of quite a different family the Danaids, which are among the IMMUNE forms. In each region the females have thus copied two or three different immune species. There is much that is interesting to be said in regard to these species, but it would be out of keeping with the general tenor of this paper to give details of this very complicated case of polymorphism in P. dardanus. Anyone who is interested in the matter will find a full and exact statement of the case in as far as we know it, in Poulton's "Essays on Evolution" (pages 373-375). (Professor Poulton has corrected some wrong descriptions which I had unfortunately overlooked in the Plates of my book "Vortrage uber Descendenztheorie", and which refer to Papilio dardanus (merope). These mistakes are of no importance as far as and understanding of the mimicry-theory is concerned, but I hope shortly to be able to correct them in a later edition.) I need only add that three different mimetic female forms have been reared from the eggs of a single female in South Africa. The resemblance of these forms to their immune models goes so far that even the details of the LOCAL forms of the models are copied by the mimetic species. It remains to be said that in Madagascar a butterfly, Papilio meriones, occurs, of which both sexes are very similar in form and markings to the non-mimetic male of P. dardanus, so that it probably represents the ancestor of this latter species. In face of such facts as these every attempt at another explanation must fail. Similarly all the other details of the case fulfil the preliminary postulates of selection, and leave no room for any other interpretation. That the males do not take on the protective colouring is easily explained, because they are in general more numerous, and the females are more important for the preservation of the species, and must also live longer in order to deposit their eggs. We find the same state of things in many other species, and in one case (Elymnias undularis) in which the male is also mimetically coloured, it copies quite a differently coloured immune species from the model followed by the female. This is quite intelligible when we consider that if there were TOO MANY false immune types, the birds would soon discover that there were palatable individuals among those with unpalatable warning colours. Hence the imitation of different immune species by Papilio dardanus! I regret that lack of space prevents my bringing forward more examples of mimicry and discussing them fully. But from the case of Papilio dardanus alone there is much to be learnt which is of the highest importance for our understanding of transformations. It shows us chiefly what I once called, somewhat strongly perhaps, THE OMNIPOTENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION in answer to an opponent who had spoken of its "inadequacy." We here see that one and the same species is capable of producing four or five different patterns of colouring and marking; thus the colouring and marking are not, as has often been supposed, a necessary outcome of the specific nature of the species, but a true adaptation, which cannot arise as a direct effect of climatic conditions, but solely through what I may call the sorting out of the variations produced by the species, according to their utility. That caterpillars may be either green or brown is already something more than could have been expected according to the old conception of species, but that one and the same butterfly should be now pale yellow, with black; now red with black and pure white; now deep black with large, pure white spots; and again black with a large ochreous-yellow spot, and many small white and yellow spots; that in one sub-species it may be tailed like the ancestral form, and in another tailless like its Danaid model,--all this shows a far-reaching capacity for variation and adaptation that wide never have expected if we did not see the facts before us. How it is possible that the primary colour-variations should thus be intensified and combined remains a puzzle even now; we are reminded of the modern three-colour printing,--perhaps similar combinations of the primary colours take place in this case; in any case the direction of these primary variations is determined by the artist whom we know as natural selection, for there is no other conceivable way in which the model could affect the butterfly that is becoming more and more like it. The same climate surrounds all four forms of female; they are subject to the same conditions of nutrition. Moreover, Papilio dardanus is by no means the only species of butterfly which exhibits different kinds of colour-pattern on its wings. Many species of the Asiatic genus Elymnias have on the upper surface a very good imitation of an immune Euploeine (Danainae), often with a steel-blue ground-colour, while the under surface is well concealed when the butterfly is at rest,--thus there are two kinds of protective coloration each with a different meaning! The same thing may be observed in many non-mimetic butterflies, for instance in all our species of Vanessa, in which the under side shows a grey-brown or brownish-black protective coloration, but we do not yet know with certainty what may be the biological significance of the gaily coloured upper surface. In general it may be said that mimetic butterflies are comparatively rare species, but there are exceptions, for instance Limenitis archippus in North America, of which the immune model (Danaida plexippus) also occurs in enormous numbers. In another mimicry-category the imitators are often more numerous than the models, namely in the case of the imitation of DANGEROUS INSECTS by harmless species. Bees and wasps are dreaded for their sting, and they are copied by harmless flies of the genera Eristalis and Syrphus, and these mimics often occur in swarms about flowering plants without damage to themselves or to their models; they are feared and are therefore left unmolested. In regard also to the FAITHFULNESS OF THE COPY the facts are quite in harmony with the theory, according to which the resemblance must have arisen and increased BY DEGREES. We can recognise this in many cases, for even now the mimetic species show very VARYING DEGREES OF RESEMBLANCE to their immune model. If we compare, for instance, the many different imitators of Danaida chrysippus we find that, with their brownish-yellow ground-colour, and the position and size, and more or less sharp limitation of their clear marginal spots, they have reached very different degrees of nearness to their model. Or compare the female of Elymnias undularis with its model Danaida genutia; there is a general resemblance, but the marking of the Danaida is very roughly imitated in Elymnias. Another fact that bears out the theory of mimicry is, that even when the resemblance in colour-pattern is very great, the WING-VENATION, which is so constant, and so important in determining the systematic position of butterflies, is never affected by the variation. The pursuers of the butterfly have no time to trouble about entomological intricacies. I must not pass over a discovery of Poulton's which is of great theoretical importance--that mimetic butterflies may reach the same effect by very different means. ("Journ. Linn. Soc. London (Zool.)", Vol. XXVI. 1898, pages 598-602.) Thus the glass-like transparency of the wing of a certain Ithomiine (Methona) and its Pierine mimic (Dismorphia orise) depends on a diminution in the size of the scales; in the Danaine genus Ituna it is due to the fewness of the scales, and in a third imitator, a moth (Castnia linus var. heliconoides) the glass-like appearance of the wing is due neither to diminution nor to absence of scales, but to their absolute colourlessness and transparency, and to the fact that they stand upright. In another moth mimic (Anthomyza) the arrangement of the transparent scales is normal. Thus it is not some unknown external influence that has brought about the transparency of the wing in these five forms, as has sometimes been supposed. Nor is it a hypothetical INTERNAL evolutionary tendency, for all three vary in a different manner. The cause of this agreement can only lie in selection, which preserves and intensifies in each species the favourable variations that present themselves. The great faithfulness of the copy is astonishing in these cases, for it is not THE WHOLE wing which is transparent; certain markings are black in colour, and these contrast sharply with the glass-like ground. It is obvious that the pursuers of these butterflies must be very sharp-sighted, for otherwise the agreement between the species could never have been pushed so far. The less the enemies see and observe, the more defective must the imitation be, and if they had been blind, no visible resemblance between the species which required protection could ever have arisen. A seemingly irreconcilable contradiction to the mimicry theory is presented in the following cases, which were known to Bates, who, however, never succeeded in bringing them into line with the principle of mimicry. In South America there are, as we have already said, many mimics of the immune Ithomiinae (or as Bates called them Heliconidae). Among these there occur not merely species which are edible, and thus require the protection of a disguise, but others which are rejected on account of their unpalatableness. How could the Ithomiine dress have developed in their case, and of what use is it, since the species would in any case be immune? In Eastern Brazil, for instance, there are four butterflies, which bear a most confusing resemblance to one another in colour, marking, and form of wing, and all four are unpalatable to birds. They belong to four different genera and three sub-families, and we have to inquire: Whence came this resemblance and what end does it serve? For a long time no satisfactory answer could be found, but Fritz Muller (In "Kosmos", 1879, page 100.), seventeen years after Bates, offered a solution to the riddle, when he pointed out that young birds could not have an instinctive knowledge of the unpalatableness of the Ithomiines, but must learn by experience which species were edible and which inedible. Thus each young bird must have tasted at least one individual of each inedible species and discovered its unpalatability, before it learnt to avoid, and thus to spare the species. But if the four species resemble each other very closely the bird will regard them all as of the same kind, and avoid them all. Thus there developed a process of selection which resulted in the survival of the Ithomiine-like individuals, and in so great an increase of resemblance between the four species, that they are difficult to distinguish one from another even in a collection. The advantage for the four species, living side by side as they do e.g. in Bahia, lies in the fact that only one individual from the MIMICRY-RING ("inedible association") need be tasted by a young bird, instead of at least four individuals, as would otherwise be the case. As the number of young birds is great, this makes a considerable difference in the ratio of elimination. These interesting mimicry-rings (trusts), which have much significance for the theory, have been the subject of numerous and careful investigations, and at least their essential features are now fully established. Muller took for granted, without making any investigations, that young birds only learn by experience to distinguish between different kinds of victims. But Lloyd Morgan's ("Habit and Instinct", London, 1896.) experiments with young birds proved that this is really the case, and at the same time furnished an additional argument against the LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE. In addition to the mimicry-rings first observed in South America, others have been described from Tropical India by Moore, and by Poulton and Dixey from Africa, and we may expect to learn many more interesting facts in this connection. Here again the preliminary postulates of the theory are satisfied. And how much more that would lead to the same conclusion might be added! As in the case of mimicry many species have come to resemble one another through processes of selection, so we know whole classes of phenomena in which plants and animals have become adapted to one another, and have thus been modified to a considerable degree. I refer particularly to the relation between flowers and insects; but as there is an article on "The Biology of Flowers" in this volume, I need not discuss the subject, but will confine myself to pointing out the significance of these remarkable cases for the theory of selection. Darwin has shown that the originally inconspicuous blossoms of the phanerogams were transformed into flowers through the visits of insects, and that, conversely, several large orders of insects have been gradually modified by their association with flowers, especially as regards the parts of their body actively concerned. Bees and butterflies in particular have become what they are through their relation to flowers. In this case again all that is apparently contradictory to the theory can, on closer investigation, be beautifully interpreted in corroboration of it. Selection can give rise only to what is of use to the organism actually concerned, never to what is of use to some other organism, and we must therefore expect to find that in flowers only characters of use to THEMSELVES have arisen, never characters which are of use to insects only, and conversely that in the insects characters useful to them and not merely to the plants would have originated. For a long time it seemed as if an exception to this rule existed in the case of the fertilisation of the yucca blossoms by a little moth, Pronuba yuccasella. This little moth has a sickle-shaped appendage to its mouth-parts which occurs in no other Lepidopteron, and which is used for pushing the yellow pollen into the opening of the pistil, thus fertilising the flower. Thus it appears as if a new structure, which is useful only to the plant, has arisen in the insect. But the difficulty is solved as soon as we learn that the moth lays its eggs in the fruit-buds of the Yucca, and that the larvae, when they emerge, feed on the developing seeds. In effecting the fertilisation of the flower the moth is at the same time making provision for its own offspring, since it is only after fertilisation that the seeds begin to develop. There is thus nothing to prevent our referring this structural adaptation in Pronuba yuccasella to processes of selection, which have gradually transformed the maxillary palps of the female into the sickle-shaped instrument for collecting the pollen, and which have at the same time developed in the insect the instinct to press the pollen into the pistil. In this domain, then, the theory of selection finds nothing but corroboration, and it would be impossible to substitute for it any other explanation, which, now that the facts are so well known, could be regarded as a serious rival to it. That selection is a factor, and a very powerful factor in the evolution of organisms, can no longer be doubted. Even although we cannot bring forward formal proofs of it IN DETAIL, cannot calculate definitely the size of the variations which present themselves, and their selection-value, cannot, in short, reduce the whole process to a mathematical formula, yet we must assume selection, because it is the only possible explanation applicable to whole classes of phenomena, and because, on the other hand, it is made up of factors which we know can be proved actually to exist, and which, IF they exist, must of logical necessity cooperate in the manner required by the theory. WE MUST ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THE PHENOMENA OF EVOLUTION AND ADAPTATION MUST HAVE A NATURAL BASIS, AND BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THEM. (This has been discussed in many of my earlier works. See for instance "The All-Sufficiency of Natural Selection, a reply to Herbert Spencer", London, 1893.) Many people are willing to admit that selection explains adaptations, but they maintain that only a part of the phenomena are thus explained, because everything does not depend upon adaptation. They regard adaptation as, so to speak, a special effort on the part of Nature, which she keeps in readiness to meet particularly difficult claims of the external world on organisms. But if we look at the matter more carefully we shall find that adaptations are by no means exceptional, but that they are present everywhere in such enormous numbers, that it would be difficult in regard to any structure whatever, to prove that adaptation had NOT played a part in its evolution. How often has the senseless objection been urged against selection that it can create nothing, it can only reject. It is true that it cannot create either the living substance or the variations of it; both must be given. But in rejecting one thing it preserves another, intensifies it, combines it, and in this way CREATES what is new. EVERYTHING in organisms depends on adaptation; that is to say, everything must be admitted through the narrow door of selection, otherwise it can take no part in the building up of the whole. But, it is asked, what of the direct effect of external conditions, temperature, nutrition, climate and the like? Undoubtedly these can give rise to variations, but they too must pass through the door of selection, and if they cannot do this they are rejected, eliminated from the constitution of the species. It may, perhaps, be objected that such external influences are often of a compelling power, and that every animal MUST submit to them, and that thus selection has no choice and can neither select nor reject. There may be such cases; let us assume for instance that the effect of the cold of the Arctic regions was to make all the mammals become black; the result would be that they would all be eliminated by selection, and that no mammals would be able to live there at all. But in most cases a certain percentage of animals resists these strong influences, and thus selection secures a foothold on which to work, eliminating the unfavourable variation, and establishing a useful colouring, consistent with what is required for the maintenance of the species. Everything depends upon adaptation! We have spoken much of adaptation in colouring, in connection with the examples brought into prominence by Darwin, because these are conspicuous, easily verified, and at the same time convincing for the theory of selection. But is it only desert and polar animals whose colouring is determined through adaptation? Or the leaf-butterflies, and the mimetic species, or the terrifying markings, and "warning-colours" and a thousand other kinds of sympathetic colouring? It is, indeed, never the colouring alone which makes up the adaptation; the structure of the animal plays a part, often a very essential part, in the protective disguise, and thus MANY variations may cooperate towards ONE common end. And it is to be noted that it is by no means only external parts that are changed; internal parts are ALWAYS modified at the same time--for instance, the delicate elements of the nervous system on which depend the INSTINCT of the insect to hold its wings, when at rest, in a perfectly definite position, which, in the leaf-butterfly, has the effect of bringing the two pieces on which the marking occurs on the anterior and posterior wing into the same direction, and thus displaying as a whole the fine curve of the midrib on the seeming leaf. But the wing-holding instinct is not regulated in the same way in all leaf-butterflies; even our indigenous species of Vanessa, with their protective ground-colouring, have quite a distinctive way of holding their wings so that the greater part of the anterior wing is covered by the posterior when the butterfly is at rest. But the protective colouring appears on the posterior wing and on the tip of the anterior, TO PRECISELY THE DISTANCE TO WHICH IT IS LEFT UNCOVERED. This occurs, as Standfuss has shown, in different degree in our two most nearly allied species, the uncovered portion being smaller in V. urticae than in V. polychloros. In this case, as in most leaf-butterflies, the holding of the wing was probably the primary character; only after that was thoroughly established did the protective marking develop. In any case, the instinctive manner of holding the wings is associated with the protective colouring, and must remain as it is if the latter is to be effective. How greatly instincts may change, that is to say, may be adapted, is shown by the case of the Noctuid "shark" moth, Xylina vetusta. This form bears a most deceptive resemblance to a piece of rotten wood, and the appearance is greatly increased by the modification of the innate impulse to flight common to so many animals, which has here been transformed into an almost contrary instinct. This moth does not fly away from danger, but "feigns death," that is, it draws antennae, legs and wings close to the body, and remains perfectly motionless. It may be touched, picked up, and thrown down again, and still it does not move. This remarkable instinct must surely have developed simultaneously with the wood-colouring; at all events, both cooperating variations are now present, and prove that both the external and the most minute internal structure have undergone a process of adaptation. The case is the same with all structural variations of animal parts, which are not absolutely insignificant. When the insects acquired wings they must also have acquired the mechanism with which to move them--the musculature, and the nervous apparatus necessary for its automatic regulation. All instincts depend upon compound reflex mechanisms and are just as indispensable as the parts they have to set in motion, and all may have arisen through processes of selection if the reasons which I have elsewhere given for this view are correct. ("The Evolution Theory", London, 1904, page 144.) Thus there is no lack of adaptations within the organism, and particularly in its most important and complicated parts, so that we may say that there is no actively functional organ that has not undergone a process of adaptation relative to its function and the requirements of the organism. Not only is every gland structurally adapted, down to the very minutest histological details, to its function, but the function is equally minutely adapted to the needs of the body. Every cell in the mucous lining of the intestine is exactly regulated in its relation to the different nutritive substances, and behaves in quite a different way towards the fats, and towards nitrogenous substances, or peptones. I have elsewhere called attention to the many adaptations of the whale to the surrounding medium, and have pointed out--what has long been known, but is not universally admitted, even now--that in it a great number of important organs have been transformed in adaptation to the peculiar conditions of aquatic life, although the ancestors of the whale must have lived, like other hair-covered mammals, on land. I cited a number of these transformations--the fish-like form of the body, the hairlessness of the skin, the transformation of the fore-limbs to fins, the disappearance of the hind-limbs and the development of a tail fin, the layer of blubber under the skin, which affords the protection from cold necessary to a warm-blooded animal, the disappearance of the ear-muscles and the auditory passages, the displacement of the external nares to the forehead for the greater security of the breathing-hole during the brief appearance at the surface, and certain remarkable changes in the respiratory and circulatory organs which enable the animal to remain for a long time under water. I might have added many more, for the list of adaptations in the whale to aquatic life is by no means exhausted; they are found in the histological structure and in the minutest combinations in the nervous system. For it is obvious that a tail-fin must be used in quite a different way from a tail, which serves as a fly-brush in hoofed animals, or as an aid to springing in the kangaroo or as a climbing organ; it will require quite different reflex-mechanisms and nerve-combinations in the motor centres. I used this example in order to show how unnecessary it is to assume a special internal evolutionary power for the phylogenesis of species, for this whole order of whales is, so to speak, MADE UP OF ADAPTATIONS; it deviates in many essential respects from the usual mammalian type, and all the deviations are adaptations to aquatic life. But if precisely the most essential features of the organisation thus depend upon adaptation, what is left for a phyletic force to do, since it is these essential features of the structure it would have to determine? There are few people now who believe in a phyletic evolutionary power, which is not made up of the forces known to us--adaptation and heredity--but the conviction that EVERY part of an organism depends upon adaptation has not yet gained a firm footing. Nevertheless, I must continue to regard this conception as the correct one, as I have long done. I may be permitted one more example. The feather of a bird is a marvellous structure, and no one will deny that as a whole it depends upon adaptation. But what part of it DOES NOT depend upon adaptation? The hollow quill, the shaft with its hard, thin, light cortex, and the spongy substance within it, its square section compared with the round section of the quill, the flat barbs, their short, hooked barbules which, in the flight-feathers, hook into one another with just sufficient firmness to resist the pressure of the air at each wing-beat, the lightness and firmness of the whole apparatus, the elasticity of the vane, and so on. And yet all this belongs to an organ which is only passively functional, and therefore can have nothing to do with the LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE. Nor can the feather have arisen through some magical effect of temperature, moisture, electricity, or specific nutrition, and thus selection is again our only anchor of safety. But--it will be objected--the substance of which the feather consists, this peculiar kind of horny substance, did not first arise through selection in the course of the evolution of the birds, for it formed the covering of the scales of their reptilian ancestors. It is quite true that a similar substance covered the scales of the Reptiles, but why should it not have arisen among them through selection? Or in what other way could it have arisen, since scales are also passively useful parts? It is true that if we are only to call adaptation what has been acquired by the species we happen to be considering, there would remain a great deal that could not be referred to selection; but we are postulating an evolution which has stretched back through aeons, and in the course of which innumerable adaptations took place, which had not merely ephemeral persistence in a genus, a family or a class, but which was continued into whole Phyla of animals, with continual fresh adaptations to the special conditions of each species, family, or class, yet with persistence of the fundamental elements. Thus the feather, once acquired, persisted in all birds, and the vertebral column, once gained by adaptation in the lowest forms, has persisted in all the Vertebrates, from Amphioxus upwards, although with constant readaptation to the conditions of each particular group. Thus everything we can see in animals is adaptation, whether of to-day, or of yesterday, or of ages long gone by; every kind of cell, whether glandular, muscular, nervous, epidermic, or skeletal, is adapted to absolutely definite and specific functions, and every organ which is composed of these different kinds of cells contains them in the proper proportions, and in the particular arrangement which best serves the function of the organ; it is thus adapted to its function. All parts of the organism are tuned to one another, that is, THEY ARE ADAPTED TO ONE ANOTHER, and in the same way THE ORGANISM AS A WHOLE IS ADAPTED TO THE CONDITIONS OF ITS LIFE, AND IT IS SO AT EVERY STAGE OF ITS EVOLUTION. But all adaptations CAN be referred to selection; the only point that remains doubtful is whether they all MUST be referred to it. However that may be, whether the LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE is a factor that has cooperated with selection in evolution, or whether it is altogether fallacious, the fact remains, that selection is the cause of a great part of the phyletic evolution of organisms on our earth. Those who agree with me in rejecting the LAMARCKIAN PRINCIPLE will regard selection as the only GUIDING factor in evolution, which creates what is new out of the transmissible variations, by ordering and arranging these, selecting them in relation to their number and size, as the architect does his building-stones so that a particular style must result. ("Variation under Domestication", 1875 II. pages 426, 427.) But the building-stones themselves, the variations, have their basis in the influences which cause variation in those vital units which are handed on from one generation to another, whether, taken together they form the WHOLE organism, as in Bacteria and other low forms of life, or only a germ-substance, as in unicellular and multicellular organisms. (The Author and Editor are indebted to Professor Poulton for kindly assisting in the revision of the proof of this Essay.) IV. VARIATION. By HUGO DE VRIES. Professor of Botany in the University of Amsterdam. I. DIFFERENT KINDS OF VARIABILITY. Before Darwin, little was known concerning the phenomena of variability. The fact, that hardly two leaves on a tree were exactly the same, could not escape observation: small deviations of the same kind were met with everywhere, among individuals as well as among the organs of the same plant. Larger aberrations, spoken of as monstrosities, were for a long time regarded as lying outside the range of ordinary phenomena. A special branch of inquiry, that of Teratology, was devoted to them, but it constituted a science by itself, sometimes connected with morphology, but having scarcely any bearing on the processes of evolution and heredity. Darwin was the first to take a broad survey of the whole range of variations in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. His theory of Natural Selection is based on the fact of variability. In order that this foundation should be as strong as possible he collected all the facts, scattered in the literature of his time, and tried to arrange them in a scientific way. He succeeded in showing that variations may be grouped along a line of almost continuous gradations, beginning with simple differences in size and ending with monstrosities. He was struck by the fact that, as a rule, the smaller the deviations, the more frequently they appear, very abrupt breaks in characters being of rare occurrence. Among these numerous degrees of variability Darwin was always on the look out for those which might, with the greatest probability, be considered as affording material for natural selection to act upon in the development of new species. Neither of the extremes complied with his conceptions. He often pointed out, that there are a good many small fluctuations, which in this respect must be absolutely useless. On the other hand, he strongly combated the belief, that great changes would be necessary to explain the origin of species. Some authors had propounded the idea that highly adapted organs, e.g. the wings of a bird, could not have been developed in any other way than by a comparatively sudden modification of a well defined and important kind. Such a conception would allow of great breaks or discontinuity in the evolution of highly differentiated animals and plants, shortening the time for the evolution of the whole organic kingdom and getting over numerous difficulties inherent in the theory of slow and gradual progress. It would, moreover, account for the genetic relation of the larger groups of both animals and plants. It would, in a word, undoubtedly afford an easy means of simplifying the problem of descent with modification. Darwin, however, considered such hypotheses as hardly belonging to the domain of science; they belong, he said, to the realm of miracles. That species have a capacity for change is admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need to invoke modifications other than those represented by ordinary variability. It is well known that in artificial selection this tendency to vary has given rise to numerous distinct races, and there is no reason for denying that it can do the same in nature, by the aid of natural selection. On both lines an advance may be expected with equal probability. His main argument, however, is that the most striking and most highly adapted modifications may be acquired by successive variations. Each of these may be slight, and they may affect different organs, gradually adapting them to the same purpose. The direction of the adaptations will be determined by the needs in the struggle for life, and natural selection will simply exclude all such changes as occur on opposite or deviating lines. In this way, it is not variability itself which is called upon to explain beautiful adaptations, but it is quite sufficient to suppose that natural selection has operated during long periods in the same way. Eventually, all the acquired characters, being transmitted together, would appear to us, as if they had all been simultaneously developed. Correlations must play a large part in such special evolutions: when one part is modified, so will be other parts. The distribution of nourishment will come in as one of the causes, the reactions of different organs to the same external influences as another. But no doubt the more effective cause is that of the internal correlations, which, however, are still but dimly understood. Darwin repeatedly laid great stress on this view, although a definite proof of its correctness could not be given in his time. Such proof requires the direct observation of a mutation, and it should be stated here that even the first observations made in this direction have clearly confirmed Darwin's ideas. The new evening primroses which have sprung in my garden from the old form of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and which have evidently been derived from it, in each case, by a single mutation, do not differ from their parent species in one character only, but in almost all their organs and qualities. Oenothera gigas, for example, has stouter stems and denser foliage; the leaves are larger and broader; its thick flower-buds produce gigantic flowers, but only small fruits with large seeds. Correlative changes of this kind are seen in all my new forms, and they lend support to the view that in the gradual development of highly adapted structures, analogous correlations may have played a large part. They easily explain large deviations from an original type, without requiring the assumption of too many steps. Monstrosities, as their name implies, are widely different in character from natural species; they cannot, therefore, be adduced as evidence in the investigation of the origin of species. There is no doubt that they may have much in common as regards their manner of origin, and that the origin of species, once understood, may lead to a better understanding of the monstrosities. But the reverse is not true, at least not as regards the main lines of development. Here, it is clear, monstrosities cannot have played a part of any significance. Reversions, or atavistic changes, would seem to give a better support to the theory of descent through modifications. These have been of paramount importance on many lines of evolution of the animal as well as of the vegetable kingdom. It is often assumed that monocotyledons are descended from some lower group of dicotyledons, probably allied to that which includes the buttercup family. On this view the monocotyledons must be assumed to have lost the cambium and all its influence on secondary growth, the differentiation of the flower into calyx and corolla, the second cotyledon or seed-leaf and several other characters. Losses of characters such as these may have been the result of abrupt changes, but this does not prove that the characters themselves have been produced with equal suddenness. On the contrary, Darwin shows very convincingly that a modification may well be developed by a series of steps, and afterwards suddenly disappear. Many monstrosities, such as those represented by twisted stems, furnish direct proofs in support of this view, since they are produced by the loss of one character and this loss implies secondary changes in a large number of other organs and qualities. Darwin criticises in detail the hypothesis of great and abrupt changes and comes to the conclusion that it does not give even a shadow of an explanation of the origin of species. It is as improbable as it is unnecessary. Sports and spontaneous variations must now be considered. It is well known that they have produced a large number of fine horticultural varieties. The cut-leaved maple and many other trees and shrubs with split leaves are known to have been produced at a single step; this is true in the case of the single-leaf strawberry plant and of the laciniate variety of the greater celandine: many white flowers, white or yellow berries and numerous other forms had a similar origin. But changes such as these do not come under the head of adaptations, as they consist for the most part in the loss of some quality or organ belonging to the species from which they were derived. Darwin thinks it impossible to attribute to this cause the innumerable structures, which are so well adapted to the habits of life of each species. At the present time we should say that such adaptations require progressive modifications, which are additions to the stock of qualities already possessed by the ancestors, and cannot, therefore, be explained on the ground of a supposed analogy with sports, which are for the most part of a retrogressive nature. Excluding all these more or less sudden changes, there remains a long series of gradations of variability, but all of these are not assumed by Darwin to be equally fit for the production of new species. In the first place, he disregards all mere temporary variations, such as size, albinism, etc.; further, he points out that very many species have almost certainly been produced by steps, not greater, and probably not very much smaller, than those separating closely related varieties. For varieties are only small species. Next comes the question of polymorphic species: their occurrence seems to have been a source of much doubt and difficulty in Darwin's mind, although at present it forms one of the main supports of the prevailing explanation of the origin of new species. Darwin simply states that this kind of variability seems to be of a peculiar nature; since polymorphic species are now in a stable condition their occurrence gives no clue as to the mode of origin of new species. Polymorphic species are the expression of the result of previous variability acting on a large scale; but they now simply consist of more or less numerous elementary species, which, as far as we know, do not at present exhibit a larger degree of variability than any other more uniform species. The vernal whitlow-grass (Draba verna) and the wild pansy are the best known examples; both have spread over almost the whole of Europe and are split up into hundreds of elementary forms. These sub-species show no signs of any extraordinary degree of variability, when cultivated under conditions necessary for the exclusion of inter-crossing. Hooker has shown, in the case of some ferns distributed over still wider areas, that the extinction of some of the intermediate forms in such groups would suffice to justify the elevation of the remaining types to the rank of distinct species. Polymorphic species may now be regarded as the link which unites ordinary variability with the historical production of species. But it does not appear that they had this significance for Darwin; and, in fact, they exhibit no phenomena which could explain the processes by which one species has been derived from another. By thus narrowing the limits of the species-producing variability Darwin was led to regard small deviations as the source from which natural selection derives material upon which to act. But even these are not all of the same type, and Darwin was well aware of the fact. It should here be pointed out that in order to be selected, a change must first have been produced. This proposition, which now seems self-evident, has, however, been a source of much difference of opinion among Darwin's followers. The opinion that natural selection produces changes in useful directions has prevailed for a long time. In other words, it was assumed that natural selection, by the simple means of singling out, could induce small and useful changes to increase and to reach any desired degree of deviation from the original type. In my opinion this view was never actually held by Darwin. It is in contradiction with the acknowledged aim of all his work,--the explanation of the origin of species by means of natural forces and phenomena only. Natural selection acts as a sieve; it does not single out the best variations, but it simply destroys the larger number of those which are, from some cause or another, unfit for their present environment. In this way it keeps the strains up to the required standard, and, in special circumstances, may even improve them. Returning to the variations which afford the material for the sieving-action of natural selection, we may distinguish two main kinds. It is true that the distinction between these was not clear at the time of Darwin, and that he was unable to draw a sharp line between them. Nevertheless, in many cases, he was able to separate them, and he often discussed the question which of the two would be the real source of the differentiation of species. Certain variations constantly occur, especially such as are connected with size, weight, colour, etc. They are usually too small for natural selection to act upon, having hardly any influence in the struggle for life: others are more rare, occurring only from time to time, perhaps once or twice in a century, perhaps even only once in a thousand years. Moreover, these are of another type, not simply affecting size, number or weight, but bringing about something new, which may be useful or not. Whenever the variation is useful natural selection will take hold of it and preserve it; in other cases the variation may either persist or disappear. In his criticism of miscellaneous objections brought forward against the theory of natural selection after the publication of the first edition of "The Origin of Species", Darwin stated his view on this point very clearly:--"The doctrine of natural selection or the survival of the fittest, which implies that when variations or individual differences of a beneficial nature happen to arise, these will be preserved." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 169, 1882.) In this sentence the words "HAPPEN TO ARISE" appear to me of prominent significance. They are evidently due to the same general conception which prevailed in Darwin's Pangenesis hypothesis. (Cf. de Vries, "Intracellulare Pangenesis", page 73, Jena, 1889, and "Die Mutationstheorie", I. page 63. Leipzig, 1901.) A distinction is indicated between ordinary fluctuations which are always present, and such variations as "happen to arise" from time to time. ((I think it right to point out that the interpretation of this passage from the "Origin" by Professor de Vries is not accepted as correct either by Mr Francis Darwin or by myself. We do not believe that Darwin intended to draw any distinction between TWO TYPES of variation; the words "when variations or individual differences of a beneficial nature happen to arise" are not in our opinion meant to imply a distinction between ordinary fluctuations and variations which "happen to arise," but we believe that "or" is here used in the sense of ALIAS. With the permission of Professor de Vries, the following extract is quoted from a letter in which he replied to the objection raised to his reading of the passage in question: "As to your remarks on the passage on page 6, I agree that it is now impossible to see clearly how far Darwin went in his distinction of the different kinds of variability. Distinctions were only dimly guessed at by him. But in our endeavour to arrive at a true conception of his view I think that the chapter on Pangenesis should be our leading guide, and that we should try to interpret the more difficult passages by that chapter. A careful and often repeated study of the Pangenesis hypothesis has convinced me that Darwin, when he wrote that chapter, was well aware that ordinary variability has nothing to do with evolution, but that other kinds of variation were necessary. In some chapters he comes nearer to a clear distinction than in others. To my mind the expression 'happen to arise' is the sharpest indication of his inclining in this direction. I am quite convinced that numerous expressions in his book become much clearer when looked at in this way." The statement in this passage that "Darwin was well aware that ordinary variability has nothing to do with evolution, but that other kinds of variation were necessary" is contradicted by many passages in the "Origin". A.C.S.)) The latter afford the material for natural selection to act upon on the broad lines of organic development, but the first do not. Fortuitous variations are the species-producing kind, which the theory requires; continuous fluctuations constitute, in this respect, a useless type. Of late, the study of variability has returned to the recognition of this distinction. Darwin's variations, which from time to time happen to arise, are MUTATIONS, the opposite type being commonly designed fluctuations. A large mass of facts, collected during the last few decades, has confirmed this view, which in Darwin's time could only be expressed with much reserve, and everyone knows that Darwin was always very careful in statements of this kind. From the same chapter I may here cite the following paragraph: "Thus as I am inclined to believe, morphological differences,... such as the arrangement of the leaves, the divisions of the flower or of the ovarium, the position of the ovules, etc.--first appeared in many cases as fluctuating variations, which sooner or later became constant through the nature of the organism and of the surrounding conditions... but NOT THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION (The italics are mine (H. de V.).); for as these morphological characters do not affect the welfare of the species, any slight deviation in them could not have been governed or accumulated through this latter agency." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 176.) We thus see that in Darwin's opinion, all small variations had not the same importance. In favourable circumstances some could become constant, but others could not. Since the appearance of the first edition of "The Origin of Species" fluctuating variability has been thoroughly studied by Quetelet. He discovered the law, which governs all phenomena of organic life falling under this head. It is a very simple law, and states that individual variations follow the laws of probability. He proved it, in the first place, for the size of the human body, using the measurements published for Belgian recruits; he then extended it to various other measurements of parts of the body, and finally concluded that it must be of universal validity for all organic beings. It must hold true for all characters in man, physical as well as intellectual and moral qualities; it must hold true for the plant kingdom as well as for the animal kingdom; in short, it must include the whole living world. Quetelet's law may be most easily studied in those cases where the variability relates to measure, number and weight, and a vast number of facts have since confirmed its exactness and its validity for all kinds of organisms, organs and qualities. But if we examine it more closely, we find that it includes just those minute variations, which, as Darwin repeatedly pointed out, have often no significance for the origin of species. In the phenomena, described by Quetelet's law nothing "happens to arise"; all is governed by the common law, which states that small deviations from the mean type are frequent, but that larger aberrations are rare, the rarer as they are larger. Any degree of variation will be found to occur, if only the number of individuals studied is large enough: it is even possible to calculate before hand, how many specimens must be compared in order to find a previously fixed degree of deviation. The variations, which from time to time happen to appear, are evidently not governed by this law. They cannot, as yet, be produced at will: no sowings of thousands or even of millions of plants will induce them, although by such means the chance of their occurring will obviously be increased. But they are known to occur, and to occur suddenly and abruptly. They have been observed especially in horticulture, where they are ranged in the large and ill-defined group called sports. Korschinsky has collected all the evidence which horticultural literature affords on this point. (S. Korschinsky, "Heterogenesis und Evolution", "Flora", Vol. LXXXIX. pages 240-363, 1901.) Several cases of the first appearance of a horticultural novelty have been recorded: this has always happened in the same way; it appeared suddenly and unexpectedly without any definite relation to previously existing variability. Dwarf types are one of the commonest and most favourite varieties of flowering plants; they are not originated by a repeated selection of the smallest specimens, but appear at once, without intermediates and without any previous indication. In many instances they are only about half the height of the original type, thus constituting obvious novelties. So it is in other cases described by Korschinsky: these sports or mutations are now recognised to be the main source of varieties of horticultural plants. As already stated, I do not pretend that the production of horticultural novelties is the prototype of the origin of new species in nature. I assume that they are, as a rule, derived from the parent species by the loss of some organ or quality, whereas the main lines of the evolution of the animal and vegetable kingdom are of course determined by progressive changes. Darwin himself has often pointed out this difference. But the saltatory origin of horticultural novelties is as yet the simplest parallel for natural mutations, since it relates to forms and phenomena, best known to the general student of evolution. The point which I wish to insist upon is this. The difference between small and ever present fluctuations and rare and more sudden variations was clear to Darwin, although the facts known at his time were too meagre to enable a sharp line to be drawn between these two great classes of variability. Since Darwin's time evidence, which proves the correctness of his view, has accumulated with increasing rapidity. Fluctuations constitute one type; they are never absent and follow the law of chance, but they do not afford the material from which to build new species. Mutations, on the other hand, only happen to occur from time to time. They do not necessarily produce greater changes than fluctuations, but such as may become, or rather are from their very nature, constant. It is this constancy which is the mark of specific characters, and on this basis every new specific character may be assumed to have arisen by mutation. Some authors have tried to show that the theory of mutation is opposed to Darwin's views. But this is erroneous. On the contrary, it is in fullest harmony with the great principle laid down by Darwin. In order to be acted upon by that complex of environmental forces, which Darwin has called natural selection, the changes must obviously first be there. The manner in which they are produced is of secondary importance and has hardly any bearing on the theory of descent with modification. ("Life and Letters" II. 125.) A critical survey of all the facts of variability of plants in nature as well as under cultivation has led me to the conviction, that Darwin was right in stating that those rare beneficial variations, which from time to time happen to arise,--the now so-called mutations--are the real source of progress in the whole realm of the organic world. II. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CAUSES OF VARIABILITY. All phenomena of animal and plant life are governed by two sets of causes; one of these is external, the other internal. As a rule the internal causes determine the nature of a phenomenon--what an organism can do and what it cannot do. The external causes, on the other hand, decide when a certain variation will occur, and to what extent its features may be developed. As a very clear and wholly typical instance I cite the cocks-combs (Celosia). This race is distinguished from allied forms by its faculty of producing the well-known broad and much twisted combs. Every single individual possesses this power, but all individuals do not exhibit it in its most complete form. In some cases this faculty may not be exhibited at the top of the main stem, although developed in lateral branches: in others it begins too late for full development. Much depends upon nourishment and cultivation, but almost always the horticulturist has to single out the best individuals and to reject those which do not come up to the standard. The internal causes are of a historical nature. The external ones may be defined as nourishment and environment. In some cases nutrition is the main factor, as, for instance, in fluctuating variability, but in natural selection environment usually plays the larger part. The internal or historical causes are constant during the life-time of a species, using the term species in its most limited sense, as designating the so-called elementary species or the units out of which the ordinary species are built up. These historical causes are simply the specific characters, since in the origin of a species one or more of these must have been changed, thus producing the characters of the new type. These changes must, of course, also be due partly to internal and partly to external causes. In contrast to these changes of the internal causes, the ordinary variability which is exhibited during the life-time of a species is called fluctuating variability. The name mutations or mutating variability is then given to the changes in the specific characters. It is desirable to consider these two main divisions of variability separately. In the case of fluctuations the internal causes, as well as the external ones, are often apparent. The specific characters may be designated as the mean about which the observed forms vary. Almost every character may be developed to a greater or a less degree, but the variations of the single characters producing a small deviation from the mean are usually the commonest. The limits of these fluctuations may be called wide or narrow, according to the way we look at them, but in numerous cases the extreme on the favoured side hardly surpasses double the value of that on the other side. The degree of this development, for every individual and for every organ, is dependent mainly on nutrition. Better nourishment or an increased supply of food produces a higher development; only it is not always easy to determine which direction is the fuller and which is the poorer one. The differences among individuals grown from different seeds are described as examples of individual variability, but those which may be observed on the same plant, or on cuttings, bulbs or roots derived from one individual are referred to as cases of partial variability. Partial variability, therefore, determines the differences among the flowers, fruits, leaves or branches of one individual: in the main, it follows the same laws as individual variability, but the position of a branch on a plant also determines its strength, and the part it may take in the nourishment of the whole. Composite flowers and umbels therefore have, as a rule, fewer rays on weak branches than on the strong main ones. The number of carpels in the fruits of poppies becomes very small on the weak lateral branches, which are produced towards the autumn, as well as on crowded, and therefore on weakened individuals. Double flowers follow the same rule, and numerous other instances could easily be adduced. Mutating variability occurs along three main lines. Either a character may disappear, or, as we now say, become latent; or a latent character may reappear, reproducing thereby a character which was once prominent in more or less remote ancestors. The third and most interesting case is that of the production of quite new characters which never existed in the ancestors. Upon this progressive mutability the main development of the animal and vegetable kingdom evidently depends. In contrast to this, the two other cases are called retrogressive and degressive mutability. In nature retrogressive mutability plays a large part; in agriculture and in horticulture it gives rise to numerous varieties, which have in the past been preserved, either on account of their usefulness or beauty, or simply as fancy-types. In fact the possession of numbers of varieties may be considered as the main character of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. In the case of retrogressive and degressive mutability the internal cause is at once apparent, for it is this which causes the disappearance or reappearance of some character. With progressive mutations the case is not so simple, since the new character must first be produced and then displayed. These two processes are theoretically different, but they may occur together or after long intervals. The production of the new character I call premutation, and the displaying mutation. Both of course must have their external as well as their internal causes, as I have repeatedly pointed out in my work on the Mutation Theory. ("Die Mutationstheorie", 2 vols., Leipzig, 1901.) It is probable that nutrition plays as important a part among the external causes of mutability as it does among those of fluctuating variability. Observations in support of this view, however, are too scanty to allow of a definite judgment. Darwin assumed an accumulative influence of external causes in the case of the production of new varieties or species. The accumulation might be limited to the life-time of a single individual, or embrace that of two or more generations. In the end a degree of instability in the equilibrium of one or more characters might be attained, great enough for a character to give way under a small shock produced by changed conditions of life. The character would then be thrown over from the old state of equilibrium into a new one. Characters which happen to be in this state of unstable equilibrium are called mutable. They may be either latent or active, being in the former case derived from old active ones or produced as new ones (by the process, designated premutation). They may be inherited in this mutable condition during a long series of generations. I have shown that in the case of the evening primrose of Lamarck this state of mutability must have existed for at least half a century, for this species was introduced from Texas into England about the year 1860, and since then all the strains derived from its first distribution over the several countries of Europe show the same phenomena in producing new forms. The production of the dwarf evening primrose, or Oenothera nanella, is assumed to be due to one of the factors, which determines the tall stature of the parent form, becoming latent; this would, therefore, afford an example of retrogressive mutation. Most of the other types of my new mutants, on the other hand, seem to be due to progressive mutability. The external causes of this curious period of mutability are as yet wholly unknown and can hardly be guessed at, since the origin of the Oenothera Lamarckiana is veiled in mystery. The seeds, introduced into England about 1860, were said to have come from Texas, but whether from wild or from cultivated plants we do not know. Nor has the species been recorded as having been observed in the wild condition. This, however, is nothing peculiar. The European types of Oenothera biennis and O. muricata are in the same condition. The first is said to have been introduced from Virginia, and the second from Canada, but both probably from plants cultivated in the gardens of these countries. Whether the same elementary species are still growing on those spots is unknown, mainly because the different sub-species of the species mentioned have not been systematically studied and distinguished. The origin of new species, which is in part the effect of mutability, is, however, due mainly to natural selection. Mutability provides the new characters and new elementary species. Natural selection, on the other hand, decides what is to live and what to die. Mutability seems to be free, and not restricted to previously determined lines. Selection, however, may take place along the same main lines in the course of long geological epochs, thus directing the development of large branches of the animal and vegetable kingdom. In natural selection it is evident that nutrition and environment are the main factors. But it is probable that, while nutrition may be one of the main causes of mutability, environment may play the chief part in the decisions ascribed to natural selection. Relations to neighbouring plants and to injurious or useful animals, have been considered the most important determining factors ever since the time when Darwin pointed out their prevailing influence. From this discussion of the main causes of variability we may derive the proposition that the study of every phenomenon in the field of heredity, of variability, and of the origin of new species will have to be considered from two standpoints; on one hand we have the internal causes, on the other the external ones. Sometimes the first are more easily detected, in other cases the latter are more accessible to investigation. But the complete elucidation of any phenomenon of life must always combine the study of the influence of internal with that of external causes. III. POLYMORPHIC VARIABILITY IN CEREALS. One of the propositions of Darwin's theory of the struggle for life maintains that the largest amount of life can be supported on any area, by great diversification or divergence in the structure and constitution of its inhabitants. Every meadow and every forest affords a proof of this thesis. The numerical proportion of the different species of the flora is always changing according to external influences. Thus, in a given meadow, some species will flower abundantly in one year and then almost disappear, until, after a series of years, circumstances allow them again to multiply rapidly. Other species, which have taken their places, will then become rare. It follows from this principle, that notwithstanding the constantly changing conditions, a suitable selection from the constituents of a meadow will ensure a continued high production. But, although the principle is quite clear, artificial selection has, as yet, done very little towards reaching a really high standard. The same holds good for cereals. In ordinary circumstances a field will give a greater yield, if the crop grown consists of a number of sufficiently differing types. Hence it happens that almost all older varieties of wheat are mixtures of more or less diverging forms. In the same variety the numerical composition will vary from year to year, and in oats this may, in bad years, go so far as to destroy more than half of the harvest, the wind-oats (Avena fatua), which scatter their grain to the winds as soon as it ripens, increasing so rapidly that they assume the dominant place. A severe winter, a cold spring and other extreme conditions of life will destroy one form more completely than another, and it is evident that great changes in the numerical composition of the mixture may thus be brought about. This mixed condition of the common varieties of cereals was well known to Darwin. For him it constituted one of the many types of variability. It is of that peculiar nature to which, in describing other groups, he applies the term polymorphy. It does not imply that the single constituents of the varieties are at present really changing their characters. On the other hand, it does not exclude the possibility of such changes. It simply states that observation shows the existence of different forms; how these have originated is a question which it does not deal with. In his well-known discussion of the variability of cereals, Darwin is mainly concerned with the question, whether under cultivation they have undergone great changes or only small ones. The decision ultimately depends on the question, how many forms have originally been taken into cultivation. Assuming five or six initial species, the variability must be assumed to have been very large, but on the assumption that there were between ten and fifteen types, the necessary range of variability is obviously much smaller. But in regard to this point, we are of course entirely without historical data. Few of the varieties of wheat show conspicuous differences, although their number is great. If we compare the differentiating characters of the smaller types of cereals with those of ordinary wild species, even within the same genus or family, they are obviously much less marked. All these small characters, however, are strictly inherited, and this fact makes it very probable that the less obvious constituents of the mixtures in ordinary fields must be constant and pure as long as they do not intercross. Natural crossing is in most cereals a phenomenon of rare occurrence, common enough to admit of the production of all possible hybrid combinations, but requiring the lapse of a long series of years to reach its full effect. Darwin laid great stress on this high amount of variability in the plants of the same variety, and illustrated it by the experience of Colonel Le Couteur ("On the Varieties, Properties, and Classification of Wheat", Jersey, 1837.) on his farm on the isle of Jersey, who cultivated upwards of 150 varieties of wheat, which he claimed were as pure as those of any other agriculturalist. But Professor La Gasca of Madrid, who visited him, drew attention to aberrant ears, and pointed out, that some of them might be better yielders than the majority of plants in the crop, whilst others might be poor types. Thence he concluded that the isolation of the better ones might be a means of increasing his crops. Le Couteur seems to have considered the constancy of such smaller types after isolation as absolutely probable, since he did not even discuss the possibility of their being variable or of their yielding a changeable or mixed progeny. This curious fact proves that he considered the types, discovered in his fields by La Gasca to be of the same kind as his other varieties, which until that time he had relied upon as being pure and uniform. Thus we see, that for him, the variability of cereals was what we now call polymorphy. He looked through his fields for useful aberrations, and collected twenty-three new types of wheat. He was, moreover, clear about one point, which, on being rediscovered after half a century, has become the starting-point for the new Swedish principle of selecting agricultural plants. It was the principle of single-ear sowing, instead of mixing the grains of all the selected ears together. By sowing each ear on a separate plot he intended not only to multiply them, but also to compare their value. This comparison ultimately led him to the choice of some few valuable sorts, one of which, the "Bellevue de Talavera," still holds its place among the prominent sorts of wheat cultivated in France. This variety seems to be really a uniform type, a quality very useful under favourable conditions of cultivation, but which seems to have destroyed its capacity for further improvement by selection. The principle of single-ear sowing, with a view to obtain pure and uniform strains without further selection, has, until a few years ago, been almost entirely lost sight of. Only a very few agriculturists have applied it: among these are Patrick Shirreff ("Die Verbesserung der Getreide-Arten", translated by R. Hesse, Halle, 1880.) in Scotland and Willet M. Hays ("Wheat, varieties, breeding, cultivation", Univ. Minnesota, Agricultural Experimental Station, Bull. no. 62, 1899.) in Minnesota. Patrick Shirreff observed the fact, that in large fields of cereals, single plants may from time to time be found with larger ears, which justify the expectation of a far greater yield. In the course of about twenty-five years he isolated in this way two varieties of wheat and two of oats. He simply multiplied them as fast as possible, without any selection, and put them on the market. Hays was struck by the fact that the yield of wheat in Minnesota was far beneath that in the neighbouring States. The local varieties were Fife and Blue Stem. They gave him, on inspection, some better specimens, "phenomenal yielders" as he called them. These were simply isolated and propagated, and, after comparison with the parent-variety and with some other selected strains of less value, were judged to be of sufficient importance to be tested by cultivation all over the State of Minnesota. They have since almost supplanted the original types, at least in most parts of the State, with the result that the total yield of wheat in Minnesota is said to have been increased by about a million dollars yearly. Definite progress in the method of single-ear sowing has, however, been made only recently. It had been foreshadowed by Patrick Shirreff, who after the production of the four varieties already mentioned, tried to carry out his work on a larger scale, by including numerous minor deviations from the main type. He found by doing so that the chances of obtaining a better form were sufficiently increased to justify the trial. But it was Nilsson who discovered the almost inexhaustible polymorphy of cereals and other agricultural crops and made it the starting-point for a new and entirely trustworthy method of the highest utility. By this means he has produced during the last fifteen years a number of new and valuable races, which have already supplanted the old types on numerous farms in Sweden and which are now being introduced on a large scale into Germany and other European countries. It is now twenty years since the station at Svalof was founded. During the first period of its work, embracing about five years, selection was practised on the principle which was then generally used in Germany. In order to improve a race a sample of the best ears was carefully selected from the best fields of the variety. These ears were considered as representatives of the type under cultivation, and it was assumed that by sowing their grains on a small plot a family could be obtained, which could afterwards be improved by a continuous selection. Differences between the collected ears were either not observed or disregarded. At Svalof this method of selection was practised on a far larger scale than on any German farm, and the result was, broadly speaking, the same. This may be stated in the following words: improvement in a few cases, failure in all the others. Some few varieties could be improved and yielded excellent new types, some of which have since been introduced into Swedish agriculture and are now prominent races in the southern and middle parts of the country. But the station had definite aims, and among them was the improvement of the Chevalier barley. This, in Middle Sweden, is a fine brewer's barley, but liable to failure during unfavourable summers on account of its slender stems. It was selected with a view of giving it stiffer stems, but in spite of all the care and work bestowed upon it no satisfactory result was obtained. This experience, combined with a number of analogous failures, could not fail to throw doubt upon the whole method. It was evident that good results were only exceptions, and that in most cases the principle was not one that could be relied upon. The exceptions might be due to unknown causes, and not to the validity of the method; it became therefore of much more interest to search for the causes than to continue the work along these lines. In the year 1892 a number of different varieties of cereals were cultivated on a large scale and a selection was again made from them. About two hundred samples of ears were chosen, each apparently constituting a different type. Their seeds were sown on separate plots and manured and treated as much as possible in the same manner. The plots were small and arranged in rows so as to facilitate the comparison of allied types. During the whole period of growth and during the ripening of the ears the plots were carefully studied and compared: they were harvested separately; ears and kernels were counted and weighed, and notes were made concerning layering, rust and other cereal pests. The result of this experiment was, in the main, no distinct improvement. Nilsson was especially struck by the fact that the plots, which should represent distinct types, were far from uniform. Many of them were as multiform as the fields from which the parent-ears were taken. Others showed variability in a less degree, but in almost all of them it was clear that a pure race had not been obtained. The experiment was a fair one, inasmuch as it demonstrated the polymorphic variability of cereals beyond all doubt and in a degree hitherto unsuspected; but from the standpoint of the selectionist it was a failure. Fortunately there were, however, one or two exceptions. A few lots showed a perfect uniformity in regard to all the stalks and ears: these were small families. This fact suggested the idea that each might have been derived from a single ear. During the selection in the previous summer, Nilsson had tried to find as many ears as possible of each new type which he recognised in his fields. But the variability of his crops was so great, that he was rarely able to include more than two or three ears in the same group, and, in a few cases, he found only one representative of the supposed type. It might, therefore, be possible that those small uniform plots were the direct progeny of ears, the grains of which had not been mixed with those from other ears before sowing. Exact records had, of course, been kept of the chosen samples, and the number of ears had been noted in each case. It was, therefore, possible to answer the question and it was found that those plots alone were uniform on which the kernels of one single ear only had been sown. Nilsson concluded that the mixture of two or more ears in a single sowing might be the cause of the lack of uniformity in the progeny. Apparently similar ears might be different in their progeny. Once discovered, this fact was elevated to the rank of a leading principle and tested on as large a scale as possible. The fields were again carefully investigated and every single ear, which showed a distinct divergence from the main type in one character or another, was selected. A thousand samples were chosen, but this time each sample consisted of one ear only. Next year, the result corresponded to the expectation. Uniformity prevailed almost everywhere; only a few lots showed a discrepancy, which might be ascribed to the accidental selection of hybrid ears. It was now clear that the progeny of single ears was, as a rule, pure, whereas that of mixed ears was impure. The single-ear selection or single-ear sowing, which had fallen into discredit in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, was rediscovered. It proved to be the only trustworthy principle of selection. Once isolated, such single-parent races are constant from seed and remain true to their type. No further selection is needed; they have simply to be multiplied and their real value tested. Patrick Shirreff, in his early experiments, Le Couteur, Hays and others had observed the rare occurrence of exceptionally good yielders and the value of their isolation to the agriculturist. The possibility of error in the choice of such striking specimens and the necessity of judging their value by their progeny were also known to these investigators, but they had not the slightest idea of all the possibilities suggested by their principle. Nilsson, who is a botanist as well as an agriculturist, discovered that, besides these exceptionably good yielders, every variety of a cereal consists of hundreds of different types, which find the best conditions for success when grown together, but which, after isolation, prove to be constant. Their preference for mixed growth is so definite, that once isolated, their claims on manure and treatment are found to be much higher than those of the original mixed variety. Moreover, the greatest care is necessary to enable them to retain their purity, and as soon as they are left to themselves they begin to deteriorate through accidental crosses and admixtures and rapidly return to the mixed condition. Reverting now to Darwin's discussion of the variability of cereals, we may conclude that subsequent investigation has proved it to be exactly of the kind which he describes. The only difference is that in reality it reaches a degree, quite unexpected by Darwin and his contemporaries. But it is polymorphic variability in the strictest sense of the word. How the single constituents of a variety originate we do not see. We may assume, and there can hardly be a doubt about the truth of the assumption, that a new character, once produced, will slowly but surely be combined through accidental crosses with a large number of previously existing types, and so will tend to double the number of the constituents of the variety. But whether it first appears suddenly or whether it is only slowly evolved we cannot determine. It would, of course, be impossible to observe either process in such a mixture. Only cultures of pure races, of single-parent races as we have called them, can afford an opportunity for this kind of observation. In the fields of Svalof new and unexpected qualities have recently been seen, from time to time, to appear suddenly. These characters are as distinct as the older ones and appear to be constant from the moment of their origin. Darwin has repeatedly insisted that man does not cause variability. He simply selects the variations given to him by the hand of nature. He may repeat this process in order to accumulate different new characters in the same family, thus producing varieties of a higher order. This process of accumulation would, if continued for a longer time, lead to the augmentation of the slight differences characteristic of varieties into the greater differences characteristic of species and genera. It is in this way that horticultural and agricultural experience contribute to the problem of the conversion of varieties into species, and to the explanation of the admirable adaptations of each organism to its complex conditions of life. In the long run new forms, distinguished from their allies by quite a number of new characters, would, by the extermination of the older intermediates, become distinct species. Thus we see that the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection is quite independent of the question, how the variations to be selected arise. They may arise slowly, from simple fluctuations, or suddenly, by mutations; in both cases natural selection will take hold of them, will multiply them if they are beneficial, and in the course of time accumulate them, so as to produce that great diversity of organic life, which we so highly admire. Darwin has left the decision of this difficult and obviously subordinate point to his followers. But in his Pangenesis hypothesis he has given us the clue for a close study and ultimate elucidation of the subject under discussion. V. HEREDITY AND VARIATION IN MODERN LIGHTS. By W. Bateson, M.A., F.R.S. Professor of Biology in the University of Cambridge. Darwin's work has the property of greatness in that it may be admired from more aspects than one. For some the perception of the principle of Natural Selection stands out as his most wonderful achievement to which all the rest is subordinate. Others, among whom I would range myself, look up to him rather as the first who plainly distinguished, collected, and comprehensively studied that new class of evidence from which hereafter a true understanding of the process of Evolution may be developed. We each prefer our own standpoint of admiration; but I think that it will be in their wider aspect that his labours will most command the veneration of posterity. A treatise written to advance knowledge may be read in two moods. The reader may keep his mind passive, willing merely to receive the impress of the writer's thought; or he may read with his attention strained and alert, asking at every instant how the new knowledge can be used in a further advance, watching continually for fresh footholds by which to climb higher still. Of Shelley it has been said that he was a poet for poets: so Darwin was a naturalist for naturalists. It is when his writings are used in the critical and more exacting spirit with which we test the outfit for our own enterprise that we learn their full value and strength. Whether we glance back and compare his performance with the efforts of his predecessors, or look forward along the course which modern research is disclosing, we shall honour most in him not the rounded merit of finite accomplishment, but the creative power by which he inaugurated a line of discovery endless in variety and extension. Let us attempt thus to see his work in true perspective between the past from which it grew, and the present which is its consequence. Darwin attacked the problem of Evolution by reference to facts of three classes: Variation; Heredity; Natural Selection. His work was not as the laity suppose, a sudden and unheralded revelation, but the first fruit of a long and hitherto barren controversy. The occurrence of variation from type, and the hereditary transmission of such variation had of course been long familiar to practical men, and inferences as to the possible bearing of those phenomena on the nature of specific difference had been from time to time drawn by naturalists. Maupertuis, for example, wrote "Ce qui nous reste a examiner, c'est comment d'un seul individu, il a pu naitre tant d'especes si differentes." And again "La Nature contient le fonds de toutes ces varietes: mais le hasard ou l'art les mettent en oeuvre. C'est ainsi que ceux dont l'industrie s'applique a satisfaire le gout des curieux, sont, pour ainsi dire, creatures d'especes nouvelles." ("Venus Physique, contenant deux Dissertations, l'une sur l'origine des Hommes et des Animaux: Et l'autre sur l'origine des Noirs" La Haye, 1746, pages 124 and 129. For an introduction to the writings of Maupertuis I am indebted to an article by Professor Lovejoy in "Popular Sci. Monthly", 1902.) Such passages, of which many (though few so emphatic) can be found in eighteenth century writers, indicate a true perception of the mode of Evolution. The speculations hinted at by Buffon (For the fullest account of the views of these pioneers of Evolution, see the works of Samuel Butler, especially "Evolution, Old and New" (2nd edition) 1882. Butler's claims on behalf of Buffon have met with some acceptance; but after reading what Butler has said, and a considerable part of Buffon's own works, the word "hinted" seems to me a sufficiently correct description of the part he played. It is interesting to note that in the chapter on the Ass, which contains some of his evolutionary passages, there is a reference to "plusieurs idees tres-elevees sur la generation" contained in the Letters of Maupertuis.), developed by Erasmus Darwin, and independently proclaimed above all by Lamarck, gave to the doctrine of descent a wide renown. The uniformitarian teaching which Lyell deduced from geological observation had gained acceptance. The facts of geographical distribution (See especially W. Lawrence, "Lectures on Physiology", London, 1823, pages 213 f.) had been shown to be obviously inconsistent with the Mosaic legend. Prichard, and Lawrence, following the example of Blumenbach, had successfully demonstrated that the races of Man could be regarded as different forms of one species, contrary to the opinion up till then received. These treatises all begin, it is true, with a profound obeisance to the sons of Noah, but that performed, they continue on strictly modern lines. The question of the mutability of species was thus prominently raised. Those who rate Lamarck no higher than did Huxley in his contemptuous phrase "buccinator tantum," will scarcely deny that the sound of the trumpet had carried far, or that its note was clear. If then there were few who had already turned to evolution with positive conviction, all scientific men must at least have known that such views had been promulgated; and many must, as Huxley says, have taken up his own position of "critical expectancy." (See the chapter contributed to the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" II. page 195. I do not clearly understand the sense in which Darwin wrote (Autobiography, ibid. I. page 87): "It has sometimes been said that the success of the "Origin" proved 'that the subject was in the air,' or 'that men's minds were prepared for it.' I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species." This experience may perhaps have been an accident due to Darwin's isolation. The literature of the period abounds with indications of "critical expectancy." A most interesting expression of that feeling is given in the charming account of the "Early Days of Darwinism" by Alfred Newton, "Macmillan's Magazine", LVII. 1888, page 241. He tells how in 1858 when spending a dreary summer in Iceland, he and his friend, the ornithologist John Wolley, in default of active occupation, spent their days in discussion. "Both of us taking a keen interest in Natural History, it was but reasonable that a question, which in those days was always coming up wherever two or more naturalists were gathered together, should be continually recurring. That question was, 'What is a species?' and connected therewith was the other question, 'How did a species begin?'... Now we were of course fairly well acquainted with what had been published on these subjects." He then enumerates some of these publications, mentioning among others T. Vernon Wollaston's "Variation of Species"--a work which has in my opinion never been adequately appreciated. He proceeds: "Of course we never arrived at anything like a solution of these problems, general or special, but we felt very strongly that a solution ought to be found, and that quickly, if the study of Botany and Zoology was to make any great advance." He then describes how on his return home he received the famous number of the "Linnean Journal" on a certain evening. "I sat up late that night to read it; and never shall I forget the impression it made upon me. Herein was contained a perfectly simple solution of all the difficulties which had been troubling me for months past... I went to bed satisfied that a solution had been found.") Why, then, was it, that Darwin succeeded where the rest had failed? The cause of that success was two-fold. First, and obviously, in the principle of Natural Selection he had a suggestion which would work. It might not go the whole way, but it was true as far as it went. Evolution could thus in great measure be fairly represented as a consequence of demonstrable processes. Darwin seldom endangers the mechanism he devised by putting on it strains much greater than it can bear. He at least was under no illusion as to the omnipotence of Selection; and he introduces none of the forced pleading which in recent years has threatened to discredit that principle. For example, in the latest text of the "Origin" ("Origin", (6th edition (1882), page 421.)) we find him saying: "But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position--namely, at the close of the Introduction--the following words: 'I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.'" But apart from the invention of this reasonable hypothesis, which may well, as Huxley estimated, "be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations," Darwin made a more significant and imperishable contribution. Not for a few generations, but through all ages he should be remembered as the first who showed clearly that the problems of Heredity and Variation are soluble by observation, and laid down the course by which we must proceed to their solution. (Whatever be our estimate of the importance of Natural Selection, in this we all agree. Samuel Butler, the most brilliant, and by far the most interesting of Darwin's opponents--whose works are at length emerging from oblivion--in his Preface (1882) to the 2nd edition of "Evolution, Old and New", repeats his earlier expression of homage to one whom he had come to regard as an enemy: "To the end of time, if the question be asked, 'Who taught people to believe in Evolution?' the answer must be that it was Mr. Darwin. This is true, and it is hard to see what palm of higher praise can be awarded to any philosopher.") The moment of inspiration did not come with the reading of Malthus, but with the opening of the "first note-book on Transmutation of Species." ("Life and Letters", I. pages 276 and 83.) Evolution is a process of Variation and Heredity. The older writers, though they had some vague idea that it must be so, did not study Variation and Heredity. Darwin did, and so begat not a theory, but a science. The extent to which this is true, the scientific world is only beginning to realise. So little was the fact appreciated in Darwin's own time that the success of his writings was followed by an almost total cessation of work in that special field. Of the causes which led to this remarkable consequence I have spoken elsewhere. They proceeded from circumstances peculiar to the time; but whatever the causes there is no doubt that this statement of the result is historically exact, and those who make it their business to collect facts elucidating the physiology of Heredity and Variation are well aware that they will find little to reward their quest in the leading scientific Journals of the Darwinian epoch. In those thirty years the original stock of evidence current and in circulation even underwent a process of attrition. As in the story of the Eastern sage who first wrote the collected learning of the universe for his sons in a thousand volumes, and by successive compression and burning reduced them to one, and from this by further burning distilled the single ejaculation of the Faith, "There is no god but God and Mohamed is the Prophet of God," which was all his maturer wisdom deemed essential:--so in the books of that period do we find the corpus of genetic knowledge dwindle to a few prerogative instances, and these at last to the brief formula of an unquestioned creed. And yet in all else that concerns biological science this period was, in very truth, our Golden Age, when the natural history of the earth was explored as never before; morphology and embryology were exhaustively ransacked; the physiology of plants and animals began to rival chemistry and physics in precision of method and in the rapidity of its advances; and the foundations of pathology were laid. In contrast with this immense activity elsewhere the neglect which befel the special physiology of Descent, or Genetics as we now call it, is astonishing. This may of course be interpreted as meaning that the favoured studies seemed to promise a quicker return for effort, but it would be more true to say that those who chose these other pursuits did so without making any such comparison; for the idea that the physiology of Heredity and Variation was a coherent science, offering possibilities of extraordinary discovery, was not present to their minds at all. In a word, the existence of such a science was well nigh forgotten. It is true that in ancillary periodicals, as for example those that treat of entomology or horticulture, or in the writings of the already isolated systematists (This isolation of the systematists is the one most melancholy sequela of Darwinism. It seems an irony that we should read in the peroration to the "Origin" that when the Darwinian view is accepted "Systematists will be able to pursue their labours as at present; but they will not be incessantly haunted by the shadowy doubt whether this or that form be a true species. This, I feel sure, and I speak after experience, will be no slight relief. The endless disputes whether or not some fifty species of British brambles are good species will cease." "Origin", 6th edition (1882), page 425. True they have ceased to attract the attention of those who lead opinion, but anyone who will turn to the literature of systematics will find that they have not ceased in any other sense. Should there not be something disquieting in the fact that among the workers who come most into contact with specific differences, are to be found the only men who have failed to be persuaded of the unreality of those differences?), observations with this special bearing were from time to time related, but the class of fact on which Darwin built his conceptions of Heredity and Variation was not seen in the highways of biology. It formed no part of the official curriculum of biological students, and found no place among the subjects which their teachers were investigating. During this period nevertheless one distinct advance was made, that with which Weismann's name is prominently connected. In Darwin's genetic scheme the hereditary transmission of parental experience and its consequences played a considerable role. Exactly how great that role was supposed to be, he with his habitual caution refrained from specifying, for the sufficient reason that he did not know. Nevertheless much of the process of Evolution, especially that by which organs have become degenerate and rudimentary, was certainly attributed by Darwin to such inheritance, though since belief in the inheritance of acquired characters fell into disrepute, the fact has been a good deal overlooked. The "Origin" without "use and disuse" would be a materially different book. A certain vacillation is discernible in Darwin's utterances on this question, and the fact gave to the astute Butler an opportunity for his most telling attack. The discussion which best illustrates the genetic views of the period arose in regard to the production of the rudimentary condition of the wings of many beetles in the Madeira group of islands, and by comparing passages from the "Origin" (6th edition pages 109 and 401. See Butler, "Essays on Life, Art, and Science", page 265, reprinted 1908, and "Evolution, Old and New", chapter XXII. (2nd edition), 1882.) Butler convicts Darwin of saying first that this condition was in the main the result of Selection, with disuse aiding, and in another place that the main cause of degeneration was disuse, but that Selection had aided. To Darwin however I think the point would have seemed one of dialectics merely. To him the one paramount purpose was to show that somehow an Evolution by means of Variation and Heredity might have brought about the facts observed, and whether they had come to pass in the one way or the other was a matter of subordinate concern. To us moderns the question at issue has a diminished significance. For over all such debates a change has been brought by Weismann's challenge for evidence that use and disuse have any transmitted effects at all. Hitherto the transmission of many acquired characteristics had seemed to most naturalists so obvious as not to call for demonstration. (W. Lawrence was one of the few who consistently maintained the contrary opinion. Prichard, who previously had expressed himself in the same sense, does not, I believe repeat these views in his later writings, and there are signs that he came to believe in the transmission of acquired habits. See Lawrence, "Lect. Physiol." 1823, pages 436-437, 447 Prichard, Edin. Inaug. Disp. 1808 (not seen by me), quoted ibid. and "Nat. Hist. Man", 1843, pages 34 f.) Weismann's demand for facts in support of the main proposition revealed at once that none having real cogency could be produced. The time-honoured examples were easily shown to be capable of different explanations. A few certainly remain which cannot be so summarily dismissed, but--though it is manifestly impossible here to do justice to such a subject--I think no one will dispute that these residual and doubtful phenomena, whatever be their true nature, are not of a kind to help us much in the interpretation of any of those complex cases of adaptation which on the hypothesis of unguided Natural Selection are especially difficult to understand. Use and disuse were invoked expressly to help us over these hard places; but whatever changes can be induced in offspring by direct treatment of the parents, they are not of a kind to encourage hope of real assistance from that quarter. It is not to be denied that through the collapse of this second line of argument the Selection hypothesis has had to take an increased and perilous burden. Various ways of meeting the difficulty have been proposed, but these mostly resolve themselves into improbable attempts to expand or magnify the powers of Natural Selection. Weismann's interpellation, though negative in purpose, has had a lasting and beneficial effect, for through his thorough demolition of the old loose and distracting notions of inherited experience, the ground has been cleared for the construction of a true knowledge of heredity based on experimental fact. In another way he made a contribution of a more positive character, for his elaborate speculations as to the genetic meaning of cytological appearances have led to a minute investigation of the visible phenomena occurring in those divisions by which germ-cells arise. Though the particular views he advocated have very largely proved incompatible with the observed facts of heredity, yet we must acknowledge that it was chiefly through the stimulus of Weismann's ideas that those advances in cytology were made; and though the doctrine of the continuity of germ-plasm cannot be maintained in the form originally propounded, it is in the main true and illuminating. (It is interesting to see how nearly Butler was led by natural penetration, and from absolutely opposite conclusions, back to this underlying truth: "So that each ovum when impregnate should be considered not as descended from its ancestors, but as being a continuation of the personality of every ovum in the chain of its ancestry, which every ovum IT ACTUALLY IS quite as truly as the octogenarian IS the same identity with the ovum from which he has been developed. This process cannot stop short of the primordial cell, which again will probably turn out to be but a brief resting-place. We therefore prove each one of us to BE ACTUALLY the primordial cell which never died nor dies, but has differentiated itself into the life of the world, all living beings whatever, being one with it and members one of another," "Life and Habit", 1878, page 86.) Nevertheless in the present state of knowledge we are still as a rule quite unable to connect cytological appearances with any genetic consequence and save in one respect (obviously of extreme importance--to be spoken of later) the two sets of phenomena might, for all we can see, be entirely distinct. I cannot avoid attaching importance to this want of connection between the nuclear phenomena and the features of bodily organisation. All attempts to investigate Heredity by cytological means lie under the disadvantage that it is the nuclear changes which can alone be effectively observed. Important as they must surely be, I have never been persuaded that the rest of the cell counts for nothing. What we know of the behaviour and variability of chromosomes seems in my opinion quite incompatible with the belief that they alone govern form, and are the sole agents responsible in heredity. (This view is no doubt contrary to the received opinion. I am however interested to see it lately maintained by Driesch ("Science and Philosophy of the Organism", London, 1907, page 233), and from the recent observations of Godlewski it has received distinct experimental support.) If, then, progress was to be made in Genetics, work of a different kind was required. To learn the laws of Heredity and Variation there is no other way than that which Darwin himself followed, the direct examination of the phenomena. A beginning could be made by collecting fortuitous observations of this class, which have often thrown a suggestive light, but such evidence can be at best but superficial and some more penetrating instrument of research is required. This can only be provided by actual experiments in breeding. The truth of these general considerations was becoming gradually clear to many of us when in 1900 Mendel's work was rediscovered. Segregation, a phenomenon of the utmost novelty, was thus revealed. From that moment not only in the problem of the origin of species, but in all the great problems of biology a new era began. So unexpected was the discovery that many naturalists were convinced it was untrue, and at once proclaimed Mendel's conclusions as either altogether mistaken, or if true, of very limited application. Many fantastic notions about the workings of Heredity had been asserted as general principles before: this was probably only another fancy of the same class. Nevertheless those who had a preliminary acquaintance with the facts of Variation were not wholly unprepared for some such revelation. The essential deduction from the discovery of segregation was that the characters of living things are dependent on the presence of definite elements or factors, which are treated as units in the processes of Heredity. These factors can thus be recombined in various ways. They act sometimes separately, and sometimes they interact in conjunction with each other, producing their various effects. All this indicates a definiteness and specific order in heredity, and therefore in variation. This order cannot by the nature of the case be dependent on Natural Selection for its existence, but must be a consequence of the fundamental chemical and physical nature of living things. The study of Variation had from the first shown that an orderliness of this kind was present. The bodies and the properties of living things are cosmic, not chaotic. No matter how low in the scale we go, never do we find the slightest hint of a diminution in that all-pervading orderliness, nor can we conceive an organism existing for a moment in any other state. Moreover not only does this order prevail in normal forms, but again and again it is to be seen in newly-sprung varieties, which by general consent cannot have been subjected to a prolonged Selection. The discovery of Mendelian elements admirably coincided with and at once gave a rationale of these facts. Genetic Variation is then primarily the consequence of additions to, or omissions from, the stock of elements which the species contains. The further investigation of the species-problem must thus proceed by the analytical method which breeding experiments provide. In the nine years which have elapsed since Mendel's clue became generally known, progress has been rapid. We now understand the process by which a polymorphic race maintains its polymorphism. When a family consists of dissimilar members, given the numerical proportions in which these members are occurring, we can represent their composition symbolically and state what types can be transmitted by the various members. The difficulty of the "swamping effects of intercrossing" is practically at an end. Even the famous puzzle of sex-limited inheritance is solved, at all events in its more regular manifestations, and we know now how it is brought about that the normal sisters of a colour-blind man can transmit the colour-blindness while his normal brothers cannot transmit it. We are still only on the fringe of the inquiry. It can be seen extending and ramifying in many directions. To enumerate these here would be impossible. A whole new range of possibilities is being brought into view by study of the interrelations between the simple factors. By following up the evidence as to segregation, indications have been obtained which can only be interpreted as meaning that when many factors are being simultaneously redistributed among the germ-cells, certain of them exert what must be described as a repulsion upon other factors. We cannot surmise whither this discovery may lead. In the new light all the old problems wear a fresh aspect. Upon the question of the nature of Sex, for example, the bearing of Mendelian evidence is close. Elsewhere I have shown that from several sets of parallel experiments the conclusion is almost forced upon us that, in the types investigated, of the two sexes the female is to be regarded as heterozygous in sex, containing one unpaired dominant element, while the male is similarly homozygous in the absence of that element. (In other words, the ova are each EITHER female, OR male (i.e. non-female), but the sperms are all non-female.) It is not a little remarkable that on this point--which is the only one where observations of the nuclear processes of gameto-genesis have yet been brought into relation with the visible characteristics of the organisms themselves--there should be diametrical opposition between the results of breeding experiments and those derived from cytology. Those who have followed the researches of the American school will be aware that, after it had been found in certain insects that the spermatozoa were of two kinds according as they contained or did not contain the accessory chromosome, E.B. Wilson succeeded in proving that the sperms possessing this accessory body were destined to form FEMALES on fertilisation, while sperms without it form males, the eggs being apparently indifferent. Perhaps the most striking of all this series of observations is that lately made by T.H. Morgan (Morgan, "Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med." V. 1908, and von Baehr, "Zool. Anz." XXXII. page 507, 1908.), since confirmed by von Baehr, that in a Phylloxeran two kinds of spermatids are formed, respectively with and without an accessory (in this case, DOUBLE) chromosome. Of these, only those possessing the accessory body become functional spermatozoa, the others degenerating. We have thus an elucidation of the puzzling fact that in these forms fertilisation results in the formation of FEMALES only. How the males are formed--for of course males are eventually produced by the parthenogenetic females--we do not know. If the accessory body is really to be regarded as bearing the factor for femaleness, then in Mendelian terms female is DD and male is DR. The eggs are indifferent and the spermatozoa are each male, OR female. But according to the evidence derived from a study of the sex-limited descent of certain features in other animals the conclusion seems equally clear that in them female must be regarded as DR and male as RR. The eggs are thus each either male or female and the spermatozoa are indifferent. How this contradictory evidence is to be reconciled we do not yet know. The breeding work concerns fowls, canaries, and the Currant moth (Abraxas grossulariata). The accessory chromosome has been now observed in most of the great divisions of insects (As Wilson has proved, the unpaired body is not a universal feature even in those orders in which it has been observed. Nearly allied types may differ. In some it is altogether unpaired. In others it is paired with a body of much smaller size, and by selection of various types all gradations can be demonstrated ranging to the condition in which the members of the pair are indistinguishable from each other.), except, as it happens, Lepidoptera. At first sight it seems difficult to suppose that a feature apparently so fundamental as sex should be differently constituted in different animals, but that seems at present the least improbable inference. I mention these two groups of facts as illustrating the nature and methods of modern genetic work. We must proceed by minute and specific analytical investigation. Wherever we look we find traces of the operation of precise and specific rules. In the light of present knowledge it is evident that before we can attack the Species-problem with any hope of success there are vast arrears to be made up. He would be a bold man who would now assert that there was no sense in which the term Species might not have a strict and concrete meaning in contradistinction to the term Variety. We have been taught to regard the difference between species and variety as one of degree. I think it unlikely that this conclusion will bear the test of further research. To Darwin the question, What is a variation? presented no difficulties. Any difference between parent and offspring was a variation. Now we have to be more precise. First we must, as de Vries has shown, distinguish real, genetic, variation from FLUCTUATIONAL variations, due to environmental and other accidents, which cannot be transmitted. Having excluded these sources of error the variations observed must be expressed in terms of the factors to which they are due before their significance can be understood. For example, numbers of the variations seen under domestication, and not a few witnessed in nature, are simply the consequence of some ingredient being in an unknown way omitted from the composition of the varying individual. The variation may on the contrary be due to the addition of some new element, but to prove that it is so is by no means an easy matter. Casual observation is useless, for though these latter variations will always be dominants, yet many dominant characteristics may arise from another cause, namely the meeting of complementary factors, and special study of each case in two generations at least is needed before these two phenomena can be distinguished. When such considerations are fully appreciated it will be realised that medleys of most dissimilar occurrences are all confused together under the term Variation. One of the first objects of genetic analysis is to disentangle this mass of confusion. To those who have made no study of heredity it sometimes appears that the question of the effect of conditions in causing variation is one which we should immediately investigate, but a little thought will show that before any critical inquiry into such possibilities can be attempted, a knowledge of the working of heredity under conditions as far as possible uniform must be obtained. At the time when Darwin was writing, if a plant brought into cultivation gave off an albino variety, such an event was without hesitation ascribed to the change of life. Now we see that albino GAMETES, germs, that is to say, which are destitute of the pigment-forming factor, may have been originally produced by individuals standing an indefinite number of generations back in the ancestry of the actual albino, and it is indeed almost certain that the variation to which the appearance of the albino is due cannot have taken place in a generation later than that of the grandparents. It is true that when a new DOMINANT appears we should feel greater confidence that we were witnessing the original variation, but such events are of extreme rarity, and no such case has come under the notice of an experimenter in modern times, as far as I am aware. That they must have appeared is clear enough. Nothing corresponding to the Brown-breasted Game fowl is known wild, yet that colour is a most definite dominant, and at some moment since Gallus bankiva was domesticated, the element on which that special colour depends must have at least once been formed in the germ-cell of a fowl; but we need harder evidence than any which has yet been produced before we can declare that this novelty came through over-feeding, or change of climate, or any other disturbance consequent on domestication. When we reflect on the intricacies of genetic problems as we must now conceive them there come moments when we feel almost thankful that the Mendelian principles were unknown to Darwin. The time called for a bold pronouncement, and he made it, to our lasting profit and delight. With fuller knowledge we pass once more into a period of cautious expectation and reserve. In every arduous enterprise it is pleasanter to look back at difficulties overcome than forward to those which still seem insurmountable, but in the next stage there is nothing to be gained by disguising the fact that the attributes of living things are not what we used to suppose. If they are more complex in the sense that the properties they display are throughout so regular (I have in view, for example, the marvellous and specific phenomena of regeneration, and those discovered by the students of "Entwicklungsmechanik". The circumstances of its occurrence here preclude any suggestion that this regularity has been brought about by the workings of Selection. The attempts thus to represent the phenomena have resulted in mere parodies of scientific reasoning.) that the Selection of minute random variations is an unacceptable account of the origin of their diversity, yet by virtue of that very regularity the problem is limited in scope and thus simplified. To begin with, we must relegate Selection to its proper place. Selection permits the viable to continue and decides that the non-viable shall perish; just as the temperature of our atmosphere decides that no liquid carbon shall be found on the face of the earth: but we do not suppose that the form of the diamond has been gradually achieved by a process of Selection. So again, as the course of descent branches in the successive generations, Selection determines along which branch Evolution shall proceed, but it does not decide what novelties that branch shall bring forth. "La Nature contient le fonds de toutes ces varietes, mais le hazard ou l'art les mettent en oeuvre," as Maupertuis most truly said. Not till knowledge of the genetic properties of organisms has attained to far greater completeness can evolutionary speculations have more than a suggestive value. By genetic experiment, cytology and physiological chemistry aiding, we may hope to acquire such knowledge. In 1872 Nathusius wrote ("Vortrage uber Viehzucht und Rassenerkenntniss", page 120, Berlin, 1872.): "Das Gesetz der Vererbung ist noch nicht erkannt; der Apfel ist noch nicht vom Baum der Erkenntniss gefallen, welcher, der Sage nach, Newton auf den rechten Weg zur Ergrundung der Gravitationsgesetze fuhrte." We cannot pretend that the words are not still true, but in Mendelian analysis the seeds of that apple-tree at last are sown. If we were asked what discovery would do most to forward our inquiry, what one bit of knowledge would more than any other illuminate the problem, I think we may give the answer without hesitation. The greatest advance that we can foresee will be made when it is found possible to connect the geometrical phenomena of development with the chemical. The geometrical symmetry of living things is the key to a knowledge of their regularity, and the forces which cause it. In the symmetry of the dividing cell the basis of that resemblance we call Heredity is contained. To imitate the morphological phenomena of life we have to devise a system which can divide. It must be able to divide, and to segment as--grossly--a vibrating plate or rod does, or as an icicle can do as it becomes ribbed in a continuous stream of water; but with this distinction, that the distribution of chemical differences and properties must simultaneously be decided and disposed in orderly relation to the pattern of the segmentation. Even if a model which would do this could be constructed it might prove to be a useful beginning. This may be looking too far ahead. If we had to choose some one piece of more proximate knowledge which we would more especially like to acquire, I suppose we should ask for the secret of interracial sterility. Nothing has yet been discovered to remove the grave difficulty, by which Huxley in particular was so much oppressed, that among the many varieties produced under domestication--which we all regard as analogous to the species seen in nature--no clear case of interracial sterility has been demonstrated. The phenomenon is probably the only one to which the domesticated products seem to afford no parallel. No solution of the difficulty can be offered which has positive value, but it is perhaps worth considering the facts in the light of modern ideas. It should be observed that we are not discussing incompatibility of two species to produce offspring (a totally distinct phenomenon), but the sterility of the offspring which many of them do produce. When two species, both perfectly fertile severally, produce on crossing a sterile progeny, there is a presumption that the sterility is due to the development in the hybrid of some substance which can only be formed by the meeting of two complementary factors. That some such account is correct in essence may be inferred from the well-known observation that if the hybrid is not totally sterile but only partially so, and thus is able to form some good germ-cells which develop into new individuals, the sterility of these daughter-individuals is sensibly reduced or may be entirely absent. The fertility once re-established, the sterility does not return in the later progeny, a fact strongly suggestive of segregation. Now if the sterility of the cross-bred be really the consequence of the meeting of two complementary factors, we see that the phenomenon could only be produced among the divergent offspring of one species by the acquisition of at least TWO new factors; for if the acquisition of a single factor caused sterility the line would then end. Moreover each factor must be separately acquired by distinct individuals, for if both were present together, the possessors would by hypothesis be sterile. And in order to imitate the case of species each of these factors must be acquired by distinct breeds. The factors need not, and probably would not, produce any other perceptible effects; they might, like the colour-factors present in white flowers, make no difference in the form or other characters. Not till the cross was actually made between the two complementary individuals would either factor come into play, and the effects even then might be unobserved until an attempt was made to breed from the cross-bred. Next, if the factors responsible for sterility were acquired, they would in all probability be peculiar to certain individuals and would not readily be distributed to the whole breed. Any member of the breed also into which BOTH the factors were introduced would drop out of the pedigree by virtue of its sterility. Hence the evidence that the various domesticated breeds say of dogs or fowls can when mated together produce fertile offspring, is beside the mark. The real question is, Do they ever produce sterile offspring? I think the evidence is clearly that sometimes they do, oftener perhaps than is commonly supposed. These suggestions are quite amenable to experimental tests. The most obvious way to begin is to get a pair of parents which are known to have had any sterile offspring, and to find the proportions in which these steriles were produced. If, as I anticipate, these proportions are found to be definite, the rest is simple. In passing, certain other considerations may be referred to. First, that there are observations favouring the view that the production of totally sterile cross-breds is seldom a universal property of two species, and that it may be a matter of individuals, which is just what on the view here proposed would be expected. Moreover, as we all know now, though incompatibility may be dependent to some extent on the degree to which the species are dissimilar, no such principle can be demonstrated to determine sterility or fertility in general. For example, though all our Finches can breed together, the hybrids are all sterile. Of Ducks some species can breed together without producing the slightest sterility; others have totally sterile offspring, and so on. The hybrids between several genera of Orchids are perfectly fertile on the female side, and some on the male side also, but the hybrids produced between the Turnip (Brassica napus) and the Swede (Brassica campestris), which, according to our estimates of affinity should be nearly allied forms, are totally sterile. (See Sutton, A.W., "Journ. Linn. Soc." XXXVIII. page 341, 1908.) Lastly, it may be recalled that in sterility we are almost certainly considering a meristic phenomenon. FAILURE TO DIVIDE is, we may feel fairly sure, the immediate "cause" of the sterility. Now, though we know very little about the heredity of meristic differences, all that we do know points to the conclusion that the less-divided is dominant to the more-divided, and we are thus justified in supposing that there are factors which can arrest or prevent cell-division. My conjecture therefore is that in the case of sterility of cross-breds we see the effect produced by a complementary pair of such factors. This and many similar problems are now open to our analysis. The question is sometimes asked, Do the new lights on Variation and Heredity make the process of Evolution easier to understand? On the whole the answer may be given that they do. There is some appearance of loss of simplicity, but the gain is real. As was said above, the time is not ripe for the discussion of the origin of species. With faith in Evolution unshaken--if indeed the word faith can be used in application to that which is certain--we look on the manner and causation of adapted differentiation as still wholly mysterious. As Samuel Butler so truly said: "To me it seems that the 'Origin of Variation,' whatever it is, is the only true 'Origin of Species'" ("Life and Habit", London, page 263, 1878.), and of that Origin not one of us knows anything. But given Variation--and it is given: assuming further that the variations are not guided into paths of adaptation--and both to the Darwinian and to the modern school this hypothesis appears to be sound if unproven--an evolution of species proceeding by definite steps is more, rather than less, easy to imagine than an evolution proceeding by the accumulation of indefinite and insensible steps. Those who have lost themselves in contemplating the miracles of Adaptation (whether real or spurious) have not unnaturally fixed their hopes rather on the indefinite than on the definite changes. The reasons are obvious. By suggesting that the steps through which an adaptative mechanism arose were indefinite and insensible, all further trouble is spared. While it could be said that species arise by an insensible and imperceptible process of variation, there was clearly no use in tiring ourselves by trying to perceive that process. This labour-saving counsel found great favour. All that had to be done to develop evolution-theory was to discover the good in everything, a task which, in the complete absence of any control or test whereby to check the truth of the discovery, is not very onerous. The doctrine "que tout est au mieux" was therefore preached with fresh vigour, and examples of that illuminating principle were discovered with a facility that Pangloss himself might have envied, till at last even the spectators wearied of such dazzling performances. But in all seriousness, why should indefinite and unlimited variation have been regarded as a more probable account of the origin of Adaptation? Only, I think, because the obstacle was shifted one plane back, and so looked rather less prominent. The abundance of Adaptation, we all grant, is an immense, almost an unsurpassable difficulty in all non-Lamarckian views of Evolution; but if the steps by which that adaptation arose were fortuitous, to imagine them insensible is assuredly no help. In one most important respect indeed, as has often been observed, it is a multiplication of troubles. For the smaller the steps, the less could Natural Selection act upon them. Definite variations--and of the occurrence of definite variations in abundance we have now the most convincing proof--have at least the obvious merit that they can make and often do make a real difference in the chances of life. There is another aspect of the Adaptation problem to which I can only allude very briefly. May not our present ideas of the universality and precision of Adaptation be greatly exaggerated? The fit of organism to its environment is not after all so very close--a proposition unwelcome perhaps, but one which could be illustrated by very copious evidence. Natural Selection is stern, but she has her tolerant moods. We have now most certain and irrefragable proof that much definiteness exists in living things apart from Selection, and also much that may very well have been preserved and so in a sense constituted by Selection. Here the matter is likely to rest. There is a passage in the sixth edition of the "Origin" which has I think been overlooked. On page 70 Darwin says "The tuft of hair on the breast of the wild turkey-cock cannot be of any use, and it is doubtful whether it can be ornamental in the eyes of the female bird." This tuft of hair is a most definite and unusual structure, and I am afraid that the remark that it "cannot be of any use" may have been made inadvertently; but it may have been intended, for in the first edition the usual qualification was given and must therefore have been deliberately excised. Anyhow I should like to think that Darwin did throw over that tuft of hair, and that he felt relief when he had done so. Whether however we have his great authority for such a course or not, I feel quite sure that we shall be rightly interpreting the facts of nature if we cease to expect to find purposefulness wherever we meet with definite structures or patterns. Such things are, as often as not, I suspect rather of the nature of tool-marks, mere incidents of manufacture, benefiting their possessor not more than the wire-marks in a sheet of paper, or the ribbing on the bottom of an oriental plate renders those objects more attractive in our eyes. If Variation may be in any way definite, the question once more arises, may it not be definite in direction? The belief that it is has had many supporters, from Lamarck onwards, who held that it was guided by need, and others who, like Nageli, while laying no emphasis on need, yet were convinced that there was guidance of some kind. The latter view under the name of "Orthogenesis," devised I believe by Eimer, at the present day commends itself to some naturalists. The objection to such a suggestion is of course that no fragment of real evidence can be produced in its support. On the other hand, with the experimental proof that variation consists largely in the unpacking and repacking of an original complexity, it is not so certain as we might like to think that the order of these events is not pre-determined. For instance the original "pack" may have been made in such a way that at the nth division of the germ-cells of a Sweet Pea a colour-factor might be dropped, and that at the n plus n prime division the hooded variety be given off, and so on. I see no ground whatever for holding such a view, but in fairness the possibility should not be forgotten, and in the light of modern research it scarcely looks so absurdly improbable as before. No one can survey the work of recent years without perceiving that evolutionary orthodoxy developed too fast, and that a great deal has got to come down; but this satisfaction at least remains, that in the experimental methods which Mendel inaugurated, we have means of reaching certainty in regard to the physiology of Heredity and Variation upon which a more lasting structure may be built. VI. THE MINUTE STRUCTURE OF CELLS IN RELATION TO HEREDITY. By Eduard Strasburger. Professor of Botany in the University of Bonn. Since 1875 an unexpected insight has been gained into the internal structure of cells. Those who are familiar with the results of investigations in this branch of Science are convinced that any modern theory of heredity must rest on a basis of cytology and cannot be at variance with cytological facts. Many histological discoveries, both such as have been proved correct and others which may be accepted as probably well founded, have acquired a fundamental importance from the point of view of the problems of heredity. My aim is to describe the present position of our knowledge of Cytology. The account must be confined to essentials and cannot deal with far-reaching and controversial questions. In cases where difference of opinion exists, I adopt my own view for which I hold myself responsible. I hope to succeed in making myself intelligible even without the aid of illustrations: in order to convey to the uninitiated an adequate idea of the phenomena connected with the life of a cell, a greater number of figures would be required than could be included within the scope of this article. So long as the most eminent investigators (As for example the illustrious Wilhelm Hofmeister in his "Lehre von der Pflanzenzelle" (1867).) believed that the nucleus of a cell was destroyed in the course of each division and that the nuclei of the daughter-cells were produced de novo, theories of heredity were able to dispense with the nucleus. If they sought, as did Charles Darwin, who showed a correct grasp of the problem in the enunciation of his Pangenesis hypothesis, for histological connecting links, their hypotheses, or at least the best of them, had reference to the cell as a whole. It was known to Darwin that the cell multiplied by division and was derived from a similar pre-existing cell. Towards 1870 it was first demonstrated that cell-nuclei do not arise de novo, but are invariably the result of division of pre-existing nuclei. Better methods of investigation rendered possible a deeper insight into the phenomena accompanying cell and nuclear divisions and at the same time disclosed the existence of remarkable structures. The work of O. Butschli, O. Hertwig, W. Flemming H. Fol and of the author of this article (For further reference to literature, see my article on "Die Ontogenie der Zelle seit 1875", in the "Progressus Rei Botanicae", Vol. I. page 1, Jena, 1907.), have furnished conclusive evidence in favour of these facts. It was found that when the reticular framework of a nucleus prepares to divide, it separates into single segments. These then become thicker and denser, taking up with avidity certain stains, which are used as aids to investigation, and finally form longer or shorter, variously bent, rodlets of uniform thickness. In these organs which, on account of their special property of absorbing certain stains, were styled Chromosomes (By W. Waldeyer in 1888.), there may usually be recognised a separation into thicker and thinner discs; the former are often termed Chromomeres. (Discovered by W. Pfitzner in 1880.) In the course of division of the nucleus, the single rows of chromomeres in the chromosomes are doubled and this produces a band-like flattening and leads to the longitudinal splitting by which each chromosome is divided into two exactly equal halves. The nuclear membrane then disappears and fibrillar cell-plasma or cytoplasm invades the nuclear area. In animal cells these fibrillae in the cytoplasm centre on definite bodies (Their existence and their multiplication by fission were demonstrated by E. van Beneden and Th. Boveri in 1887.), which it is customary to speak of as Centrosomes. Radiating lines in the adjacent cell-plasma suggest that these bodies constitute centres of force. The cells of the higher plants do not possess such individualised centres; they have probably disappeared in the course of phylogenetic development: in spite of this, however, in the nuclear division-figures the fibrillae of the cell-plasma are seen to radiate from two opposite poles. In both animal and plant cells a fibrillar bipolar spindle is formed, the fibrillae of which grasp the longitudinally divided chromosomes from two opposite sides and arrange them on the equatorial plane of the spindle as the so-called nuclear or equatorial plate. Each half-chromosome is connected with one of the spindle poles only and is then drawn towards that pole. (These important facts, suspected by W. Flemming in 1882, were demonstrated by E. Heuser, L. Guignard, E. van Beneden, M. Nussbaum, and C. Rabl.) The formation of the daughter-nuclei is then effected. The changes which the daughter-chromosomes undergo in the process of producing the daughter-nuclei repeat in the reverse order the changes which they went through in the course of their progressive differentiation from the mother-nucleus. The division of the cell-body is completed midway between the two daughter-nuclei. In animal cells, which possess no chemically differentiated membrane, separation is effected by simple constriction, while in the case of plant cells provided with a definite wall, the process begins with the formation of a cytoplasmic separating layer. The phenomena observed in the course of the division of the nucleus show beyond doubt that an exact halving of its substance is of the greatest importance. (First shown by W. Roux in 1883.) Compared with the method of division of the nucleus, that of the cytoplasm appears to be very simple. This led to the conception that the cell-nucleus must be the chief if not the sole carrier of hereditary characters in the organism. It is for this reason that the detailed investigation of fertilisation phenomena immediately followed researches into the nucleus. The fundamental discovery of the union of two nuclei in the sexual act was then made (By O. Hertwig in 1875.) and this afforded a new support for the correct conception of the nuclear functions. The minute study of the behaviour of the other constituents of sexual cells during fertilisation led to the result, that the nucleus alone is concerned with handing on hereditary characters (This was done by O. Hertwig and the author of this essay simultaneously in 1884.) from one generation to another. Especially important, from the point of view of this conclusion, is the study of fertilisation in Angiosperms (Flowering plants); in these plants the male sexual cells lose their cell-body in the pollen-tube and the nucleus only--the sperm-nucleus--reaches the egg. The cytoplasm of the male sexual cell is therefore not necessary to ensure a transference of hereditary characters from parents to offspring. I lay stress on the case of the Angiosperms because researches recently repeated with the help of the latest methods failed to obtain different results. As regards the descendants of angiospermous plants, the same laws of heredity hold good as for other sexually differentiated organisms; we may, therefore, extend to the latter what the Angiosperms so clearly teach us. The next advance in the hitherto rapid progress in our knowledge of nuclear division was delayed, because it was not at once recognised that there are two absolutely different methods of nuclear division. All such nuclear divisions were united under the head of indirect or mitotic divisions; these were also spoken of as karyo-kineses, and were distinguished from the direct or amitotic divisions which are characterised by a simple constriction of the nuclear body. So long as the two kinds of indirect nuclear division were not clearly distinguished, their correct interpretation was impossible. This was accomplished after long and laborious research, which has recently been carried out and with results which should, perhaps, be regarded as provisional. Soon after the new study of the nucleus began, investigators were struck by the fact that the course of nuclear division in the mother-cells, or more correctly in the grandmother-cells, of spores, pollen-grains, and embryo-sacs of the more highly organised plants and in the spermatozoids and eggs of the higher animals, exhibits similar phenomena, distinct from those which occur in the somatic cells. In the nuclei of all those cells which we may group together as gonotokonts (At the suggestion of J.P. Lotsy in 1904.) (i.e. cells concerned in reproduction) there are fewer chromosomes than in the adjacent body-cells (somatic cells). It was noticed also that there is a peculiarity characteristic of the gonotokonts, namely the occurrence of two nuclear divisions rapidly succeeding one another. It was afterwards recognised that in the first stage of nuclear division in the gonotokonts the chromosomes unite in pairs: it is these chromosome-pairs, and not the two longitudinal halves of single chromosomes, which form the nuclear plate in the equatorial plane of the nuclear spindle. It has been proposed to call these pairs gemini. (J.E.S. Moore and A.L. Embleton, "Proc. Roy. Soc." London, Vol. LXXVII. page 555, 1906; V. Gregoire, 1907.) In the course of this division the spindle-fibrillae attach themselves to the gemini, i.e. to entire chromosomes and direct them to the points where the new daughter-nuclei are formed, that is to those positions towards which the longitudinal halves of the chromosomes travel in ordinary nuclear divisions. It is clear that in this way the number of chromosomes which the daughter-nuclei contain, as the result of the first stage in division in the gonotokonts, will be reduced by one half, while in ordinary divisions the number of chromosomes always remains the same. The first stage in the division of the nucleus in the gonotokonts has therefore been termed the reduction division. (In 1887 W. Flemming termed this the heterotypic form of nuclear division.) This stage in division determines the conditions for the second division which rapidly ensues. Each of the paired chromosomes of the mother-nucleus has already, as in an ordinary nuclear division, completed the longitudinal fission, but in this case it is not succeeded by the immediate separation of the longitudinal halves and their allotment to different nuclei. Each chromosome, therefore, takes its two longitudinal halves into the same daughter-nucleus. Thus, in each daughter-nucleus the longitudinal halves of the chromosomes are present ready for the next stage in the division; they only require to be arranged in the nuclear plate and then distributed among the granddaughter-nuclei. This method of division, which takes place with chromosomes already split, and which have only to provide for the distribution of their longitudinal halves to the next nuclear generation, has been called homotypic nuclear division. (The name was proposed by W. Flemming in 1887; the nature of this type of division was, however, not explained until later.) Reduction division and homotypic nuclear division are included together under the term allotypic nuclear division and are distinguished from the ordinary or typical nuclear division. The name Meiosis (By J. Bretland Farmer and J.E.S. Moore in 1905.) has also been proposed for these two allotypic nuclear divisions. The typical divisions are often spoken of as somatic. Observers who were actively engaged in this branch of recent histological research soon noticed that the chromosomes of a given organism are differentiated in definite numbers from the nuclear network in the course of division. This is especially striking in the gonotokonts, but it applies also to the somatic tissues. In the latter, one usually finds twice as many chromosomes as in the gonotokonts. Thus the conclusion was gradually reached that the doubling of chromosomes, which necessarily accompanies fertilisation, is maintained in the product of fertilisation, to be again reduced to one half in the gonotokonts at the stage of reduction-division. This enabled us to form a conception as to the essence of true alternation of generations, in which generations containing single and double chromosomes alternate with one another. The single-chromosome generation, which I will call the HAPLOID, must have been the primitive generation in all organisms; it might also persist as the only generation. Every sexual differentiation in organisms, which occurred in the course of phylogenetic development, was followed by fertilisation and therefore by the creation of a diploid or double-chromosome product. So long as the germination of the product of fertilisation, the zygote, began with a reducing process, a special DIPLOID generation was not represented. This, however, appeared later as a product of the further evolution of the zygote, and the reduction division was correspondingly postponed. In animals, as in plants, the diploid generation attained the higher development and gradually assumed the dominant position. The haploid generation suffered a proportional reduction, until it finally ceased to have an independent existence and became restricted to the role of producing the sexual products within the body of the diploid generation. Those who do not possess the necessary special knowledge are unable to realise what remains of the first haploid generation in a phanerogamic plant or in a vertebrate animal. In Angiosperms this is actually represented only by the short developmental stages which extend from the pollen mother-cells to the sperm-nucleus of the pollen-tube, and from the embryo-sac mother-cell to the egg and the endosperm tissue. The embryo-sac remains enclosed in the diploid ovule, and within this from the fertilised egg is formed the embryo which introduces the new diploid generation. On the full development of the diploid embryo of the next generation, the diploid ovule of the preceding diploid generation is separated from the latter as a ripe seed. The uninitiated sees in the more highly organised plants only a succession of diploid generations. Similarly all the higher animals appear to us as independent organisms with diploid nuclei only. The haploid generation is confined in them to the cells produced as the result of the reduction division of the gonotokonts; the development of these is completed with the homotypic stage of division which succeeds the reduction division and produces the sexual products. The constancy of the numbers in which the chromosomes separate themselves from the nuclear network during division gave rise to the conception that, in a certain degree, chromosomes possess individuality. Indeed the most careful investigations (Particularly those of V. Gregoire and his pupils.) have shown that the segments of the nuclear network, which separate from one another and condense so as to produce chromosomes for a new division, correspond to the segments produced from the chromosomes of the preceding division. The behaviour of such nuclei as possess chromosomes of unequal size affords confirmatory evidence of the permanence of individual chromosomes in corresponding sections of an apparently uniform nuclear network. Moreover at each stage in division chromosomes with the same differences in size reappear. Other cases are known in which thicker portions occur in the substance of the resting nucleus, and these agree in number with the chromosomes. In this network, therefore, the individual chromosomes must have retained their original position. But the chromosomes cannot be regarded as the ultimate hereditary units in the nuclei, as their number is too small. Moreover, related species not infrequently show a difference in the number of their chromosomes, whereas the number of hereditary units must approximately agree. We thus picture to ourselves the carriers of hereditary characters as enclosed in the chromosomes; the transmitted fixed number of chromosomes is for us only the visible expression of the conception that the number of hereditary units which the chromosomes carry must be also constant. The ultimate hereditary units may, like the chromosomes themselves, retain a definite position in the resting nucleus. Further, it may be assumed that during the separation of the chromosomes from one another and during their assumption of the rod-like form, the hereditary units become aggregated in the chromomeres and that these are characterised by a constant order of succession. The hereditary units then grow, divide into two and are uniformly distributed by the fission of the chromosomes between their longitudinal halves. As the contraction and rod-like separation of the chromosomes serve to isnure the transmission of all hereditary units in the products of division of a nucleus, so, on the other hand, the reticular distension of each chromosome in the so-called resting nucleus may effect a separation of the carriers of hereditary units from each other and facilitate the specific activity of each of them. In the stages preliminary to their division, the chromosomes become denser and take up a substance which increases their staining capacity; this is called chromatin. This substance collects in the chromomeres and may form the nutritive material for the carriers of hereditary units which we now believe to be enclosed in them. The chromatin cannot itself be the hereditary substance, as it afterwards leaves the chromosomes, and the amount of it is subject to considerable variation in the nucleus, according to its stage of development. Conjointly with the materials which take part in the formation of the nuclear spindle and other processes in the cell, the chromatin accumulates in the resting nucleus to form the nucleoli. Naturally connected with the conclusion that the nuclei are the carriers of hereditary characters in the organism, is the question whether enucleate organisms can also exist. Phylogenetic considerations give an affirmative answer to this question. The differentiation into nucleus and cytoplasm represents a division of labour in the protoplast. A study of organisms which belong to the lowest class of the organic world teaches us how this was accomplished. Instead of well-defined nuclei, scattered granules have been described in the protoplasm of several of these organisms (Bacteria, Cyanophyceae, Protozoa.), characterised by the same reactions as nuclear material, provided also with a nuclear network, but without a limiting membrane. (This is the result of the work of R. Hertwig and of the most recently published investigations.) Thus the carriers of hereditary characters may originally have been distributed in the common protoplasm, afterwards coming together and eventually assuming a definite form as special organs of the cell. It may be also assumed that in the protoplasm and in the primitive types of nucleus, the carriers of the same hereditary unit were represented in considerable quantity; they became gradually differentiated to an extent commensurate with newly acquired characters. It was also necessary that, in proportion as this happened, the mechanism of nuclear division must be refined. At first processes resembling a simple constriction would suffice to provide for the distribution of all hereditary units to each of the products of division, but eventually in both organic kingdoms nuclear division, which alone insured the qualitative identity of the products of division, became a more marked feature in the course of cell-multiplication. Where direct nuclear division occurs by constriction in the higher organisms, it does not result in the halving of hereditary units. So far as my observations go, direct nuclear division occurs in the more highly organised plants only in cells which have lost their specific functions. Such cells are no longer capable of specific reproduction. An interesting case in this connection is afforded by the internodal cells of the Characeae, which possess only vegetative functions. These cells grow vigorously and their cytoplasm increases, their growth being accompanied by a correspondingly direct multiplication of the nuclei. They serve chiefly to nourish the plant, but, unlike the other cells, they are incapable of producing any offspring. This is a very instructive case, because it clearly shows that the nuclei are not only carriers of hereditary characters, but that they also play a definite part in the metabolism of the protoplasts. Attention was drawn to the fact that during the reducing division of nuclei which contain chromosomes of unequal size, gemini are constantly produced by the pairing of chromosomes of the same size. This led to the conclusion that the pairing chromosomes are homologous, and that one comes from the father, the other from the mother. (First stated by T.H. Montgomery in 1901 and by W.S. Sutton in 1902.) This evidently applies also to the pairing of chromosomes in those reduction-divisions in which differences in size do not enable us to distinguish the individual chromosomes. In this case also each pair would be formed by two homologous chromosomes, the one of paternal, the other of maternal origin. When the separation of these chromosomes and their distribution to both daughter-nuclei occur a chromosome of each kind is provided for each of these nuclei. It would seem that the components of each pair might pass to either pole of the nuclear spindle, so that the paternal and maternal chromosomes would be distributed in varying proportion between the daughter-nuclei; and it is not impossible that one daughter-nucleus might occasionally contain paternal chromosomes only and its sister-nucleus exclusively maternal chromosomes. The fact that in nuclei containing chromosomes of various sizes, the chromosomes which pair together in reduction-division are always of equal size, constitutes a further and more important proof of their qualitative difference. This is supported also by ingenious experiments which led to an unequal distribution of chromosomes in the products of division of a sea-urchin's egg, with the result that a difference was induced in their further development. (Demonstrated by Th. Boveri in 1902.) The recently discovered fact that in diploid nuclei the chromosomes are arranged in pairs affords additional evidence in favour of the unequal value of the chromosomes. This is still more striking in the case of chromosomes of different sizes. It has been shown that in the first division-figure in the nucleus of the fertilised egg the chromosomes of corresponding size form pairs. They appear with this arrangement in all subsequent nuclear divisions in the diploid generation. The longitudinal fissions of the chromosomes provide for the unaltered preservation of this condition. In the reduction nucleus of the gonotokonts the homologous chromosomes being near together need not seek out one another; they are ready to form gemini. The next stage is their separation to the haploid daughter-nuclei, which have resulted from the reduction process. Peculiar phenomena in the reduction nucleus accompany the formation of gemini in both organic kingdoms. (This has been shown more particularly by the work of L. Guignard, M. Mottier, J.B. Farmer, C.B. Wilson, V. Hacker and more recently by V. Gregoire and his pupil C.A. Allen, by the researches conducted in the Bonn Botanical Institute, and by A. and K.E. Schreiner.) Probably for the purpose of entering into most intimate relation, the pairs are stretched to long threads in which the chromomeres come to lie opposite one another. (C.A. Allen, A. and K.E. Schreiner, and Strasburger.) It seems probable that these are homologous chromomeres, and that the pairs afterwards unite for a short time, so that an exchange of hereditary units is rendered possible. (H. de Vries and Strasburger.) This cannot be actually seen, but certain facts of heredity point to the conclusion that this occurs. It follows from these phenomena that any exchange which may be effected must be one of homologous carriers of hereditary units only. These units continue to form exchangeable segments after they have undergone unequal changes; they then constitute allelotropic pairs. We may thus calculate what sum of possible combinations the exchange of homologous hereditary units between the pairing chromosomes provides for before the reduction division and the subsequent distribution of paternal and maternal chromosomes in the haploid daughter-nuclei. These nuclei then transmit their characters to the sexual cells, the conjugation of which in fertilization again produces the most varied combinations. (A. Weismann gave the impulse to these ideas in his theory on "Amphimixis".) In this way all the cooperations which the carriers of hereditary characters are capable of in a species are produced; this must give it an appreciable advantage in the struggle for life. The admirers of Charles Darwin must deeply regret that he did not live to see the results achieved by the new Cytology. What service would they have been to him in the presentation of his hypothesis of Pangenesis; what an outlook into the future would they have given to his active mind! The Darwinian hypothesis of Pangenesis rests on the conception that all inheritable properties are represented in the cells by small invisible particles or gemmules and that these gemmules increase by division. Cytology began to develop on new lines some years after the publication in 1868 of Charles Darwin's "Provisional hypothesis of Pangenesis" ("Animals and Plants under Domestication", London, 1868, Chapter XXVII.), and when he died in 1882 it was still in its infancy. Darwin would have soon suggested the substitution of the nuclei for his gemmules. At least the great majority of present-day investigators in the domain of cytology have been led to the conclusion that the nucleus is the carrier of hereditary characters, and they also believe that hereditary characters are represented in the nucleus as distinct units. Such would be Darwin's gemmules, which in conformity with the name of his hypothesis may be called pangens (So called by H. de Vries in 1889.): these pangens multiply by division. All recently adopted views may be thus linked on to this part of Darwin's hypothesis. It is otherwise with Darwin's conception to which Pangenesis owes its name, namely the view that all cells continually give off gemmules, which migrate to other places in the organism, where they unite to form reproductive cells. When Darwin foresaw this possibility, the continuity of the germinal substance was still unknown (Demonstrated by Nussbaum in 1880, by Sachs in 1882, and by Weismann in 1885.), a fact which excludes a transference of gemmules. But even Charles Darwin's genius was confined within finite boundaries by the state of science in his day. It is not my province to deal with other theories of development which followed from Darwin's Pangenesis, or to discuss their histological probabilities. We can, however, affirm that Charles Darwin's idea that invisible gemmules are the carriers of hereditary characters and that they multiply by division has been removed from the position of a provisional hypothesis to that of a well-founded theory. It is supported by histology, and the results of experimental work in heredity, which are now assuming extraordinary prominence, are in close agreement with it. VII. "THE DESCENT OF MAN". By G. Schwalbe. Professor of Anatomy in the University of Strassburg. The problem of the origin of the human race, of the descent of man, is ranked by Huxley in his epoch-making book "Man's Place in Nature", as the deepest with which biology has to concern itself, "the question of questions,"--the problem which underlies all others. In the same brilliant and lucid exposition, which appeared in 1863, soon after the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", Huxley stated his own views in regard to this great problem. He tells us how the idea of a natural descent of man gradually grew up in his mind, it was especially the assertions of Owen in regard to the total difference between the human and the simian brain that called forth strong dissent from the great anatomist Huxley, and he easily succeeded in showing that Owen's supposed differences had no real existence; he even established, on the basis of his own anatomical investigations, the proposition that the anatomical differences between the Marmoset and the Chimpanzee are much greater than those between the Chimpanzee and Man. But why do we thus introduce the study of Darwin's "Descent of Man", which is to occupy us here, by insisting on the fact that Huxley had taken the field in defence of the descent of man in 1863, while Darwin's book on the subject did not appear till 1871? It is in order that we may clearly understand how it happened that from this time onwards Darwin and Huxley followed the same great aim in the most intimate association. Huxley and Darwin working at the same Problema maximum! Huxley fiery, impetuous, eager for battle, contemptuous of the resistance of a dull world, or energetically triumphing over it. Darwin calm, weighing every problem slowly, letting it mature thoroughly,--not a fighter, yet having the greater and more lasting influence by virtue of his immense mass of critically sifted proofs. Darwin's friend, Huxley, was the first to do him justice, to understand his nature, and to find in it the reason why the detailed and carefully considered book on the descent of man made its appearance so late. Huxley, always generous, never thought of claiming priority for himself. In enthusiastic language he tells how Darwin's immortal work, "The Origin of Species", first shed light for him on the problem of the descent of man; the recognition of a vera causa in the transformation of species illuminated his thoughts as with a flash. He was now content to leave what perplexed him, what he could not yet solve, as he says himself, "in the mighty hands of Darwin." Happy in the bustle of strife against old and deep-rooted prejudices, against intolerance and superstition, he wielded his sharp weapons on Darwin's behalf; wearing Darwin's armour he joyously overthrew adversary after adversary. Darwin spoke of Huxley as his "general agent." ("Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley", Vol. I. page 171, London, 1900.) Huxley says of himself "I am Darwin's bulldog." (Ibid. page 363.) Thus Huxley openly acknowledged that it was Darwin's "Origin of Species" that first set the problem of the descent of man in its true light, that made the question of the origin of the human race a pressing one. That this was the logical consequence of his book Darwin himself had long felt. He had been reproached with intentionally shirking the application of his theory to Man. Let us hear what he says on this point in his autobiography: "As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in the 'Origin of Species' the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order THAT NO HONOURABLE MAN SHOULD ACCUSE ME OF CONCEALING MY VIEWS (No italics in original.), to add that by the work 'light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history.' It would have been useless and injurious to the success of the book to have paraded, without giving any evidence, my conviction with respect to his origin." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. 1. page 93.) In a letter written in January, 1860, to the Rev. L. Blomefield, Darwin expresses himself in similar terms. "With respect to man, I am very far from wishing to obtrude my belief; but I thought it dishonest to quite conceal my opinion." (Ibid. Vol. II. page 263.) The brief allusion in the "Origin of Species" is so far from prominent and so incidental that it was excusable to assume that Darwin had not touched upon the descent of man in this work. It was solely the desire to have his mass of evidence sufficiently complete, solely Darwin's great characteristic of never publishing till he had carefully weighed all aspects of his subject for years, solely, in short, his most fastidious scientific conscience that restrained him from challenging the world in 1859 with a book in which the theory of the descent of man was fully set forth. Three years, frequently interrupted by ill-health, were needed for the actual writing of the book ("Life and Letters", Vol. I. page 94.): the first edition, which appeared in 1871, was followed in 1874 by a much improved second edition, the preparation of which he very reluctantly undertook. (Ibid. Vol. III. page 175.) This, briefly, is the history of the work, which, with the "Origin of Species", marks an epoch in the history of biological sciences--the work with which the cautious, peace-loving investigator ventured forth from his contemplative life into the arena of strife and unrest, and laid himself open to all the annoyances that deep-rooted belief and prejudice, and the prevailing tendency of scientific thought at the time could devise. Darwin did not take this step lightly. Of great interest in this connection is a letter written to Wallace on Dec. 22, 1857 (Ibid. Vol. II. page 109.), in which he says "You ask whether I shall discuss 'man.' I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist." But his conscientiousness compelled him to state briefly his opinion on the subject in the "Origin of Species" in 1859. Nevertheless he did not escape reproaches for having been so reticent. This is unmistakably apparent from a letter to Fritz Muller dated February 22 (1869?), in which he says: "I am thinking of writing a little essay on the Origin of Mankind, as I have been taunted with concealing my opinions." (Ibid. Vol. III. page 112.) It might be thought that Darwin behaved thus hesitatingly, and was so slow in deciding on the full publication of his collected material in regard to the descent of man, because he had religious difficulties to overcome. But this was not the case, as we can see from his admirable confession of faith, the publication of which we owe to his son Francis. (Ibid. Vol. I. pages 304-317.) Whoever wishes really to understand the lofty character of this great man should read these immortal lines in which he unfolds to us in simple and straightforward words the development of his conception of the universe. He describes how, though he was still quite orthodox during his voyage round the world on board the "Beagle", he came gradually to see, shortly afterwards (1836-1839) that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the Sacred Books of the Hindoos; the miracles by which Christianity is supported, the discrepancies between the accounts in the different Gospels, gradually led him to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. "Thus," he writes ("Life and Letters", Vol. 1. page 309.), "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress." But Darwin was too modest to presume to go beyond the limits laid down by science. He wanted nothing more than to be able to go, freely and unhampered by belief in authority or in the Bible, as far as human knowledge could lead him. We learn this from the concluding words of his chapter on religion: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." (Loc. cit. page 313.) Darwin was always very unwilling to give publicity to his views in regard to religion. In a letter to Asa Gray on May 22, 1860 (Ibid. Vol. II. page 310.), he declares that it is always painful to him to have to enter into discussion of religious problems. He had, he said, no intention of writing atheistically. Finally, let us cite one characteristic sentence from a letter from Darwin to C. Ridley (Ibid. Vol. III. page. 236. ("C. Ridley," Mr Francis Darwin points out to me, should be H.N. Ridley. A.C.S.)) (Nov. 28, 1878.) A clergyman, Dr Pusey, had asserted that Darwin had written the "Origin of Species" with some relation to theology. Darwin writes emphatically, "Many years ago, when I was collecting facts for the 'Origin', my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr Pusey himself, and as to the eternity of matter I never troubled myself about such insoluble questions." The expression "many years ago" refers to the time of his voyage round the world, as has already been pointed out. Darwin means by this utterance that the views which had gradually developed in his mind in regard to the origin of species were quite compatible with the faith of the Church. If we consider all these utterances of Darwin in regard to religion and to his outlook on life (Weltanschauung), we shall see at least so much, that religious reflection could in no way have influenced him in regard to the writing and publishing of his book on "The Descent of Man". Darwin had early won for himself freedom of thought, and to this freedom he remained true to the end of his life, uninfluenced by the customs and opinions of the world around him. Darwin was thus inwardly fortified and armed against the host of calumnies, accusations, and attacks called forth by the publication of the "Origin of Species", and to an even greater extent by the appearance of the "Descent of Man". But in his defence he could rely on the aid of a band of distinguished auxiliaries of the rarest ability. His faithful confederate, Huxley, was joined by the botanist Hooker, and, after longer resistance, by the famous geologist Lyell, whose "conversion" afforded Darwin peculiar satisfaction. All three took the field with enthusiasm in defence of the natural descent of man. From Wallace, on the other hand, though he shared with him the idea of natural selection, Darwin got no support in this matter. Wallace expressed himself in a strange manner. He admitted everything in regard to the morphological descent of man, but maintained, in a mystic way, that something else, something of a spiritual nature must have been added to what man inherited from his animal ancestors. Darwin, whose esteem for Wallace was extraordinarily high, could not understand how he could give utterance to such a mystical view in regard to man; the idea seemed to him so "incredibly strange" that he thought some one else must have added these sentences to Wallace's paper. Even now there are thinkers who, like Wallace, shrink from applying to man the ultimate consequences of the theory of descent. The idea that man is derived from ape-like forms is to them unpleasant and humiliating. So far I have been depicting the development of Darwin's work on the descent of man. In what follows I shall endeavour to give a condensed survey of the contents of the book. It must at once be said that the contents of Darwin's work fall into two parts, dealing with entirely different subjects. "The Descent of Man" includes a very detailed investigation in regard to secondary sexual characters in the animal series, and on this investigation Darwin founded a new theory, that of sexual selection. With astonishing patience he gathered together an immense mass of material, and showed, in regard to Arthropods and Vertebrates, the wide distribution of secondary characters, which develop almost exclusively in the male, and which enable him, on the one hand, to get the better of his rivals in the struggle for the female by the greater perfection of his weapons, and on the other hand, to offer greater allurements to the female through the higher development of decorative characters, of song, or of scent-producing glands. The best equipped males will thus crowd out the less well-equipped in the matter of reproduction, and thus the relevant characters will be increased and perfected through sexual selection. It is, of course, a necessary assumption that these secondary sexual characters may be transmitted to the female, although perhaps in rudimentary form. As we have said, this theory of sexual selection takes up a great deal of space in Darwin's book, and it need only be considered here in so far as Darwin applied it to the descent of man. To this latter problem the whole of Part I is devoted, while Part III contains a discussion of sexual selection in relation to man, and a general summary. Part II treats of sexual selection in general, and may be disregarded in our present study. Moreover, many interesting details must necessarily be passed over in what follows, for want of space. The first part of the "Descent of Man" begins with an enumeration of the proofs of the animal descent of man taken from the structure of the human body. Darwin chiefly emphasises the fact that the human body consists of the same organs and of the same tissues as those of the other mammals; he shows also that man is subject to the same diseases and tormented by the same parasites as the apes. He further dwells on the general agreement exhibited by young, embryonic forms, and he illustrates this by two figures placed one above the other, one representing a human embryo, after Eaker, the other a dog embryo, after Bischoff. ("Descent of Man" (Popular Edition, 1901), fig. 1, page 14.) Darwin finds further proofs of the animal origin of man in the reduced structures, in themselves extremely variable, which are either absolutely useless to their possessors, or of so little use that they could never have developed under existing conditions. Of such vestiges he enumerates: the defective development of the panniculus carnosus (muscle of the skin) so widely distributed among mammals, the ear-muscles, the occasional persistence of the animal ear-point in man, the rudimentary nictitating membrane (plica semilunaris) in the human eye, the slight development of the organ of smell, the general hairiness of the human body, the frequently defective development or entire absence of the third molar (the wisdom tooth), the vermiform appendix, the occasional reappearance of a bony canal (foramen supracondyloideum) at the lower end of the humerus, the rudimentary tail of man (the so-called taillessness), and so on. Of these rudimentary structures the occasional occurrence of the animal ear-point in man is most fully discussed. Darwin's attention was called to this interesting structure by the sculptor Woolner. He figures such a case observed in man, and also the head of an alleged orang-foetus, the photograph of which he received from Nitsche. Darwin's interpretation of Woolner's case as having arisen through a folding over of the free edge of a pointed ear has been fully borne out by my investigations on the external ear. (G. Schwalbe, "Das Darwin'sche Spitzohr beim menschlichen Embryo", "Anatom. Anzeiger", 1889, pages 176-189, and other papers.) In particular, it was established by these investigations that the human foetus, about the middle of its embryonic life, possesses a pointed ear somewhat similar to that of the monkey genus Macacus. One of Darwin's statements in regard to the head of the orang-foetus must be corrected. A LARGE ear with a point is shown in the photograph ("Descent of Man", fig.3, page 24.), but it can easily be demonstrated--and Deniker has already pointed this out--that the figure is not that of an orang-foetus at all, for that form has much smaller ears with no point; nor can it be a gibbon-foetus, as Deniker supposes, for the gibbon ear is also without a point. I myself regard it as that of a Macacus-embryo. But this mistake, which is due to Nitsche, in no way affects the fact recognised by Darwin, that ear-forms showing the point characteristic of the animal ear occur in man with extraordinary frequency. Finally, there is a discussion of those rudimentary structures which occur only in ONE sex, such as the rudimentary mammary glands in the male, the vesicula prostatica, which corresponds to the uterus of the female, and others. All these facts tell in favour of the common descent of man and all other vertebrates. The conclusion of this section is characteristic: "IT IS ONLY OUR NATURAL PREJUDICE, AND THAT ARROGANCE WHICH MADE OUR FOREFATHERS DECLARE THAT THEY WERE DESCENDED FROM DEMI-GODS, WHICH LEADS US TO DEMUR TO THIS CONCLUSION. BUT THE TIME WILL BEFORE LONG COME, WHEN IT WILL BE THOUGHT WONDERFUL THAT NATURALISTS, WHO WERE WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE COMPARATIVE STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAN, AND OTHER MAMMALS, SHOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT EACH WAS THE WORK OF A SEPARATE ACT OF CREATION." (Ibid. page 36.) In the second chapter there is a more detailed discussion, again based upon an extraordinary wealth of facts, of the problem as to the manner in which, and the causes through which, man evolved from a lower form. Precisely the same causes are here suggested for the origin of man, as for the origin of species in general. Variability, which is a necessary assumption in regard to all transformations, occurs in man to a high degree. Moreover, the rapid multiplication of the human race creates conditions which necessitate an energetic struggle for existence, and thus afford scope for the intervention of natural selection. Of the exercise of ARTIFICIAL selection in the human race, there is nothing to be said, unless we cite such cases as the grenadiers of Frederick William I, or the population of ancient Sparta. In the passages already referred to and in those which follow, the transmission of acquired characters, upon which Darwin does not dwell, is taken for granted. In man, direct effects of changed conditions can be demonstrated (for instance in regard to bodily size), and there are also proofs of the influence exerted on his physical constitution by increased use or disuse. Reference is here made to the fact, established by Forbes, that the Quechua-Indians of the high plateaus of Peru show a striking development of lungs and thorax, as a result of living constantly at high altitudes. Such special forms of variation as arrests of development (microcephalism) and reversion to lower forms are next discussed. Darwin himself felt ("Descent of Man", page 54.) that these subjects are so nearly related to the cases mentioned in the first chapter, that many of them might as well have been dealt with there. It seems to me that it would have been better so, for the citation of additional instances of reversion at this place rather disturbs the logical sequence of his ideas as to the conditions which have brought about the evolution of man from lower forms. The instances of reversion here discussed are microcephalism, which Darwin wrongly interpreted as atavistic, supernumerary mammae, supernumerary digits, bicornuate uterus, the development of abnormal muscles, and so on. Brief mention is also made of correlative variations observed in man. Darwin next discusses the question as to the manner in which man attained to the erect position from the state of a climbing quadruped. Here again he puts the influence of Natural Selection in the first rank. The immediate progenitors of man had to maintain a struggle for existence in which success was to the more intelligent, and to those with social instincts. The hand of these climbing ancestors, which had little skill and served mainly for locomotion, could only undergo further development when some early member of the Primate series came to live more on the ground and less among trees. A bipedal existence thus became possible, and with it the liberation of the hand from locomotion, and the one-sided development of the human foot. The upright position brought about correlated variations in the bodily structure; with the free use of the hand it became possible to manufacture weapons and to use them; and this again resulted in a degeneration of the powerful canine teeth and the jaws, which were then no longer necessary for defence. Above all, however, the intelligence immediately increased, and with it skull and brain. The nakedness of man, and the absence of a tail (rudimentariness of the tail vertebrae) are next discussed. Darwin is inclined to attribute the nakedness of man, not to the action of natural selection on ancestors who originally inhabited a tropical land, but to sexual selection, which, for aesthetic reasons, brought about the loss of the hairy covering in man, or primarily in woman. An interesting discussion of the loss of the tail, which, however, man shares with the anthropoid apes, some other monkeys and lemurs, forms the conclusion of the almost superabundant material which Darwin worked up in the second chapter. His object was to show that some of the most distinctive human characters are in all probability directly or indirectly due to natural selection. With characteristic modesty he adds ("Descent of Man", page 92.): "Hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." At the end of the chapter he touches upon the objection as to man's helpless and defenceless condition. Against this he urges his intelligence and social instincts. The two following chapters contain a detailed discussion of the objections drawn from the supposed great differences between the mental powers of men and animals. Darwin at once admits that the differences are enormous, but not that any fundamental difference between the two can be found. Very characteristic of him is the following passage: "In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless an enquiry as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man." (Ibid. page 100.) After some brief observations on instinct and intelligence, Darwin brings forward evidence to show that the greater number of the emotional states, such as pleasure and pain, happiness and misery, love and hate are common to man and the higher animals. He goes on to give various examples showing that wonder and curiosity, imitation, attention, memory and imagination (dreams of animals), can also be observed in the higher mammals, especially in apes. In regard even to reason there are no sharply defined limits. A certain faculty of deliberation is characteristic of some animals, and the more thoroughly we know an animal the more intelligence we are inclined to credit it with. Examples are brought forward of the intelligent and deliberate actions of apes, dogs and elephants. But although no sharply defined differences exist between man and animals, there is, nevertheless, a series of other mental powers which are characteristics usually regarded as absolutely peculiar to man. Some of these characteristics are examined in detail, and it is shown that the arguments drawn from them are not conclusive. Man alone is said to be capable of progressive improvement; but against this must be placed as something analogous in animals, the fact that they learn cunning and caution through long continued persecution. Even the use of tools is not in itself peculiar to man (monkeys use sticks, stones and twigs), but man alone fashions and uses implements DESIGNED FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE. In this connection the remarks taken from Lubbock in regard to the origin and gradual development of the earliest flint implements will be read with interest; these are similar to the observations on modern eoliths, and their bearing on the development of the stone-industry. It is interesting to learn from a letter to Hooker ("Life and Letters", Vol. II. page 161, June 22, 1859.), that Darwin himself at first doubted whether the stone implements discovered by Boucher de Perthes were really of the nature of tools. With the relentless candour as to himself which characterised him, he writes four years later in a letter to Lyell in regard to this view of Boucher de Perthes' discoveries: "I know something about his errors, and looked at his book many years ago, and am ashamed to think that I concluded the whole was rubbish! Yet he has done for man something like what Agassiz did for glaciers." (Ibid. Vol. III. page 15, March 17, 1863.) To return to Darwin's further comparisons between the higher mental powers of man and animals. He takes much of the force from the argument that man alone is capable of abstraction and self-consciousness by his own observations on dogs. One of the main differences between man and animals, speech, receives detailed treatment. He points out that various animals (birds, monkeys, dogs) have a large number of different sounds for different emotions, that, further, man produces in common with animals a whole series of inarticulate cries combined with gestures, and that dogs learn to understand whole sentences of human speech. In regard to human language, Darwin expresses a view contrary to that held by Max Muller ("Descent of Man", page 132.): "I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries, aided by signs and gestures." The development of actual language presupposes a higher degree of intelligence than is found in any kind of ape. Darwin remarks on this point (Ibid. pages 136, 137.): "The fact of the higher apes not using their vocal organs for speech no doubt depends on their intelligence not having been sufficiently advanced." The sense of beauty, too, has been alleged to be peculiar to man. In refutation of this assertion Darwin points to the decorative colours of birds, which are used for display. And to the last objection, that man alone has religion, that he alone has a belief in God, it is answered "that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea." (Ibid. page 143.) The result of the investigations recorded in this chapter is to show that, great as the difference in mental powers between man and the higher animals may be, it is undoubtedly only a difference "of degree and not of kind." ("Descent of Man", page 193.) In the fourth chapter Darwin deals with the MORAL SENSE or CONSCIENCE, which is the most important of all differences between man and animals. It is a result of social instincts, which lead to sympathy for other members of the same society, to non-egoistic actions for the good of others. Darwin shows that social tendencies are found among many animals, and that among these love and kin-sympathy exist, and he gives examples of animals (especially dogs) which may exhibit characters that we should call moral in man (e.g. disinterested self-sacrifice for the sake of others). The early ape-like progenitors of the human race were undoubtedly social. With the increase of intelligence the moral sense develops farther; with the acquisition of speech public opinion arises, and finally, moral sense becomes habit. The rest of Darwin's detailed discussions on moral philosophy may be passed over. The fifth chapter may be very briefly summarised. In it Darwin shows that the intellectual and moral faculties are perfected through natural selection. He inquires how it can come about that a tribe at a low level of evolution attains to a higher, although the best and bravest among them often pay for their fidelity and courage with their lives without leaving any descendants. In this case it is the sentiment of glory, praise and blame, the admiration of others, which bring about the increase of the better members of the tribe. Property, fixed dwellings, and the association of families into a community are also indispensable requirements for civilisation. In the longer second section of the fifth chapter Darwin acts mainly as recorder. On the basis of numerous investigations, especially those of Greg, Wallace, and Galton, he inquires how far the influence of natural selection can be demonstrated in regard to civilised nations. In the final section, which deals with the proofs that all civilised nations were once barbarians, Darwin again uses the results gained by other investigators, such as Lubbock and Tylor. There are two sets of facts which prove the proposition in question. In the first place, we find traces of a former lower state in the customs and beliefs of all civilised nations, and in the second place, there are proofs to show that savage races are independently able to raise themselves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and that they have thus raised themselves. In the sixth chapter of the work, Morphology comes into the foreground once more. Darwin first goes back, however, to the argument based on the great difference between the mental powers of the highest animals and those of man. That this is only quantitative, not qualitative, he has already shown. Very instructive in this connection is the reference to the enormous difference in mental powers in another class. No one would draw from the fact that the cochineal insect (Coccus) and the ant exhibit enormous differences in their mental powers, the conclusion that the ant should therefore be regarded as something quite distinct, and withdrawn from the class of insects altogether. Darwin next attempts to establish the SPECIFIC genealogical tree of man, and carefully weighs the differences and resemblances between the different families of the Primates. The erect position of man is an adaptive character, just as are the various characters referable to aquatic life in the seals, which, notwithstanding these, are ranked as a mere family of the Carnivores. The following utterance is very characteristic of Darwin ("Descent of Man", page 231.): "If man had not been his own classifier, he would never have thought of founding a separate order for his own reception." In numerous characters not mentioned in systematic works, in the features of the face, in the form of the nose, in the structure of the external ear, man resembles the apes. The arrangement of the hair in man has also much in common with the apes; as also the occurrence of hair on the forehead of the human embryo, the beard, the convergence of the hair of the upper and under arm towards the elbow, which occurs not only in the anthropoid apes, but also in some American monkeys. Darwin here adopts Wallace's explanation of the origin of the ascending direction of the hair in the forearm of the orang,--that it has arisen through the habit of holding the hands over the head in rain. But this explanation cannot be maintained when we consider that this disposition of the hair is widely distributed among the most different mammals, being found in the dog, in the sloth, and in many of the lower monkeys. After further careful analysis of the anatomical characters Darwin reaches the conclusion that the New World monkeys (Platyrrhine) may be excluded from the genealogical tree altogether, but that man is an offshoot from the Old World monkeys (Catarrhine) whose progenitors existed as far back as the Miocene period. Among these Old World monkeys the forms to which man shows the greatest resemblance are the anthropoid apes, which, like him, possess neither tail nor ischial callosities. The platyrrhine and catarrhine monkeys have their primitive ancestor among extinct forms of the Lemuridae. Darwin also touches on the question of the original home of the human race and supposes that it may have been in Africa, because it is there that man's nearest relatives, the gorilla and the chimpanzee, are found. But he regards speculation on this point as useless. It is remarkable that, in this connection, Darwin regards the loss of the hair-covering in man as having some relation to a warm climate, while elsewhere he is inclined to make sexual selection responsible for it. Darwin recognises the great gap between man and his nearest relatives, but similar gaps exist at other parts of the mammalian genealogical tree: the allied forms have become extinct. After the extermination of the lower races of mankind, on the one hand, and of the anthropoid apes on the other, which will undoubtedly take place, the gulf will be greater than ever, since the baboons will then bound it on the one side, and the white races on the other. Little weight need be attached to the lack of fossil remains to fill up this gap, since the discovery of these depends upon chance. The last part of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of the earlier stages in the genealogy of man. Here Darwin accepts in the main the genealogical tree, which had meantime been published by Haeckel, who traces the pedigree back through Monotremes, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fishes, to Amphioxus. Then follows an attempt to reconstruct, from the atavistic characters, a picture of our primitive ancestor who was undoubtedly an arboreal animal. The occurrence of rudiments of parts in one sex which only come to full development in the other is next discussed. This state of things Darwin regards as derived from an original hermaphroditism. In regard to the mammary glands of the male he does not accept the theory that they are vestigial, but considers them rather as not fully developed. The last chapter of Part I deals with the question whether the different races of man are to be regarded as different species, or as sub-species of a race of monophyletic origin. The striking differences between the races are first emphasised, and the question of the fertility or infertility of hybrids is discussed. That fertility is the more usual is shown by the excessive fertility of the hybrid population of Brazil. This, and the great variability of the distinguishing characters of the different races, as well as the fact that all grades of transition stages are found between these, while considerable general agreement exists, tell in favour of the unity of the races and lead to the conclusion that they all had a common primitive ancestor. Darwin therefore classifies all the different races as sub-species of ONE AND THE SAME SPECIES. Then follows an interesting inquiry into the reasons for the extinction of human races. He recognises as the ultimate reason the injurious effects of a change of the conditions of life, which may bring about an increase in infantile mortality, and a diminished fertility. It is precisely the reproductive system, among animals also, which is most susceptible to changes in the environment. The final section of this chapter deals with the formation of the races of mankind. Darwin discusses the question how far the direct effect of different conditions of life, or the inherited effects of increased use or disuse may have brought about the characteristic differences between the different races. Even in regard to the origin of the colour of the skin he rejects the transmitted effects of an original difference of climate as an explanation. In so doing he is following his tendency to exclude Lamarckian explanations as far as possible. But here he makes gratuitous difficulties from which, since natural selection fails, there is no escape except by bringing in the principle of sexual selection, to which, he regarded it as possible, skin-colouring, arrangement of hair, and form of features might be traced. But with his characteristic conscientiousness he guards himself thus: "I do not intend to assert that sexual selection will account for all the differences between the races." ("Descent of Man", page 308.) I may be permitted a remark as to Darwin's attitude towards Lamarck. While, at an earlier stage, when he was engaged in the preliminary labours for his immortal work, "The Origin of Species", Darwin expresses himself very forcibly against the views of Lamarck, speaking of Lamarckian "nonsense," ("Life and Letters", Vol. II. page 23.), and of Lamarck's "absurd, though clever work" (Loc. cit. page 39.) and expressly declaring, "I attribute very little to the direct action of climate, etc." (Loc. cit. (1856), page 82.) yet in later life he became more and more convinced of the influence of external conditions. In 1876, that is, two years after the appearance of the second edition of "The Descent of Man", he writes with his usual candid honesty: "In my opinion the greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc. independently of natural selection." (Ibid. Vol. III. page 159.) It is certain from this change of opinion that, if he had been able to make up his mind to issue a third edition of "The Descent of Man", he would have ascribed a much greater influence to the effect of external conditions in explaining the different characters of the races of man than he did in the second edition. He would also undoubtedly have attributed less influence to sexual selection as a factor in the origin of the different bodily characteristics, if indeed he would not have excluded it altogether. In Part III of the "Descent" two additional chapters are devoted to the discussion of sexual selection in relation to man. These may be very briefly referred to. Darwin here seeks to show that sexual selection has been operative on man and his primitive progenitor. Space fails me to follow out his interesting arguments. I can only mention that he is inclined to trace back hairlessness, the development of the beard in man, and the characteristic colour of the different human races to sexual selection. Since bareness of the skin could be no advantage, but rather a disadvantage, this character cannot have been brought about by natural selection. Darwin also rejected a direct influence of climate as a cause of the origin of the skin-colour. I have already expressed the opinion, based on the development of his views as shown in his letters, that in a third edition Darwin would probably have laid more stress on the influence of external environment. He himself feels that there are gaps in his proofs here, and says in self-criticism: "The views here advanced, on the part which sexual selection has played in the history of man, want scientific precision." ("Descent of Man", page 924.) I need here only point out that it is impossible to explain the graduated stages of skin-colour by sexual selection, since it would have produced races sharply defined by their colour and not united to other races by transition stages, and this, it is well known, is not the case. Moreover, the fact established by me ("Die Hautfarbe des Menschen", "Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien", Vol. XXXIV. pages 331-352.), that in all races the ventral side of the trunk is paler than the dorsal side, and the inner surface of the extremities paler than the outer side, cannot be explained by sexual selection in the Darwinian sense. With this I conclude my brief survey of the rich contents of Darwin's book. I may be permitted to conclude by quoting the magnificent final words of "The Descent of Man": "We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man, with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system--with all these exalted powers--Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." (Ibid. page 947.) What has been the fate of Darwin's doctrines since his great achievement? How have they been received and followed up by the scientific and lay world? And what do the successors of the mighty hero and genius think now in regard to the origin of the human race? At the present time we are incomparably more favourably placed than Darwin was for answering this question of all questions. We have at our command an incomparably greater wealth of material than he had at his disposal. And we are more fortunate than he in this respect, that we now know transition-forms which help to fill up the gap, still great, between the lowest human races and the highest apes. Let us consider for a little the more essential additions to our knowledge since the publication of "The Descent of Man". Since that time our knowledge of animal embryos has increased enormously. While Darwin was obliged to content himself with comparing a human embryo with that of a dog, there are now available the youngest embryos of monkeys of all possible groups (Orang, Gibbon, Semnopithecus, Macacus), thanks to Selenka's most successful tour in the East Indies in search of such material. We can now compare corresponding stages of the lower monkeys and of the Anthropoid apes with human embryos, and convince ourselves of their great resemblance to one another, thus strengthening enormously the armour prepared by Darwin in defence of his view on man's nearest relatives. It may be said that Selenka's material fils up the blanks in Darwin's array of proofs in the most satisfactory manner. The deepening of our knowledge of comparative anatomy also gives us much surer foundations than those on which Darwin was obliged to build. Just of late there have been many workers in the domain of the anatomy of apes and lemurs, and their investigations extend to the most different organs. Our knowledge of fossil apes and lemurs has also become much wider and more exact since Darwin's time: the fossil lemurs have been especially worked up by Cope, Forsyth Major, Ameghino, and others. Darwin knew very little about fossil monkeys. He mentions two or three anthropoid apes as occurring in the Miocene of Europe ("Descent of Man", page 240.), but only names Dryopithecus, the largest form from the Miocene of France. It was erroneously supposed that this form was related to Hylobates. We now know not only a form that actually stands near to the gibbon (Pliopithecus), and remains of other anthropoids (Pliohylobates and the fossil chimpanzee, Palaeopithecus), but also several lower catarrhine monkeys, of which Mesopithecus, a form nearly related to the modern Sacred Monkeys (a species of Semnopithecus) and found in strata of the Miocene period in Greece, is the most important. Quite recently, too, Ameghino's investigations have made us acquainted with fossil monkeys from South America (Anthropops, Homunculus), which, according to their discoverer, are to be regarded as in the line of human descent. What Darwin missed most of all--intermediate forms between apes and man--has been recently furnished. (E. Dubois, as is well known, discovered in 1893, near Trinil in Java, in the alluvial deposits of the river Bengawan, an important form represented by a skull-cap, some molars, and a femur. His opinion--much disputed as it has been--that in this form, which he named Pithecanthropus, he has found a long-desired transition-form is shared by the present writer. And although the geological age of these fossils, which, according to Dubois, belong to the uppermost Tertiary series, the Pliocene, has recently been fixed at a later date (the older Diluvium)), the MORPHOLOGICAL VALUE of these interesting remains, that is, the intermediate position of Pithecanthropus, still holds good. Volz says with justice ("Das geologische Alter der Pithecanthropus-Schichten bei Trinil, Ost-Java". "Neues Jahrb. f.Mineralogie". Festband, 1907.), that even if Pithecanthropus is not THE missing link, it is undoubtedly _A_ missing link. As on the one hand there has been found in Pithecanthropus a form which, though intermediate between apes and man, is nevertheless more closely allied to the apes, so on the other hand, much progress has been made since Darwin's day in the discovery and description of the older human remains. Since the famous roof of a skull and the bones of the extremities belonging to it were found in 1856 in the Neandertal near Dusseldorf, the most varied judgments have been expressed in regard to the significance of the remains and of the skull in particular. In Darwin's "Descent of Man" there is only a passing allusion to them ("Descent of Man", page 82.) in connection with the discussion of the skull-capacity, although the investigations of Schaaffhausen, King, and Huxley were then known. I believe I have shown, in a series of papers, that the skull in question belongs to a form different from any of the races of man now living, and, with King and Cope, I regard it as at least a different species from living man, and have therefore designated it Homo primigenius. The form unquestionably belongs to the older Diluvium, and in the later Diluvium human forms already appear, which agree in all essential points with existing human races. As far back as 1886 the value of the Neandertal skull was greatly enhanced by Fraipont's discovery of two skulls and skeletons from Spy in Belgium. These are excellently described by their discoverer ("La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Canstatt en Belgique". "Arch. de Biologie", VII. 1887.), and are regarded as belonging to the same group of forms as the Neandertal remains. In 1899 and the following years came the discovery by Gorjanovic-Kramberger of different skeletal parts of at least ten individuals in a cave near Krapina in Croatia. (Gorjanovic-Kramberger "Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien", 1906.) It is in particular the form of the lower jaw which is different from that of all recent races of man, and which clearly indicates the lowly position of Homo primigenius, while, on the other hand, the long-known skull from Gibraltar, which I ("Studien zur Vorgeschichte des Menschen", 1906, pages 154 ff.) have referred to Homo primigenius, and which has lately been examined in detail by Sollas ("On the cranial and facial characters of the Neandertal Race". "Trans. R. Soc." London, vol. 199, 1908, page 281.), has made us acquainted with the surprising shape of the eye-orbit, of the nose, and of the whole upper part of the face. Isolated lower jaws found at La Naulette in Belgium, and at Malarnaud in France, increase our material which is now as abundant as could be desired. The most recent discovery of all is that of a skull dug up in August of this year (1908) by Klaatsch and Hauser in the lower grotto of the Le Moustier in Southern France, but this skull has not yet been fully described. Thus Homo primigenius must also be regarded as occupying a position in the gap existing between the highest apes and the lowest human races, Pithecanthropus, standing in the lower part of it, and Homo primigenius in the higher, near man. In order to prevent misunderstanding, I should like here to emphasise that in arranging this structural series--anthropoid apes, Pithecanthropus, Homo primigenius, Homo sapiens--I have no intention of establishing it as a direct genealogical series. I shall have something to say in regard to the genetic relations of these forms, one to another, when discussing the different theories of descent current at the present day. ((Since this essay was written Schoetensack has discovered near Heidelberg and briefly described an exceedingly interesting lower jaw from rocks between the Pliocene and Diluvial beds. This exhibits interesting differences from the forms of lower jaw of Homo primigenius. (Schoetensack "Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis". Leipzig, 1908.) G.S.)) In quite a different domain from that of morphological relationship, namely in the physiological study of the blood, results have recently been gained which are of the highest importance to the doctrine of descent. Uhlenhuth, Nuttall, and others have established the fact that the blood-serum of a rabbit which has previously had human blood injected into it, forms a precipitate with human blood. This biological reaction was tried with a great variety of mammalian species, and it was found that those far removed from man gave no precipitate under these conditions. But as in other cases among mammals all nearly related forms yield an almost equally marked precipitate, so the serum of a rabbit treated with human blood and then added to the blood of an anthropoid ape gives ALMOST as marked a precipitate as in human blood; the reaction to the blood of the lower Eastern monkeys is weaker, that to the Western monkeys weaker still; indeed in this last case there is only a slight clouding after a considerable time and no actual precipitate. The blood of the Lemuridae (Nuttall) gives no reaction or an extremely weak one, that of the other mammals none whatever. We have in this not only a proof of the literal blood-relationship between man and apes, but the degree of relationship with the different main groups of apes can be determined beyond possibility of mistake. Finally, it must be briefly mentioned that in regard to remains of human handicraft also, the material at our disposal has greatly increased of late years, that, as a result of this, the opinions of archaeologists have undergone many changes, and that, in particular, their views in regard to the age of the human race have been greatly influenced. There is a tendency at the present time to refer the origin of man back to Tertiary times. It is true that no remains of Tertiary man have been found, but flints have been discovered which, according to the opinion of most investigators, bear traces either of use, or of very primitive workmanship. Since Rutot's time, following Mortillet's example, investigators have called these "eoliths," and they have been traced back by Verworn to the Miocene of the Auvergne, and by Rutot even to the upper Oligocene. Although these eoliths are even nowadays the subject of many different views, the preoccupation with them has kept the problem of the age of the human race continually before us. Geology, too, has made great progress since the days of Darwin and Lyell, and has endeavoured with satisfactory results to arrange the human remains of the Diluvial period in chronological order (Penck). I do not intend to enter upon the question of the primitive home of the human race; since the space at my disposal will not allow of my touching even very briefly upon all the departments of science which are concerned in the problem of the descent of man. How Darwin would have rejoiced over each of the discoveries here briefly outlined! What use he would have made of the new and precious material, which would have prevented the discouragement from which he suffered when preparing the second edition of "The Descent of Man"! But it was not granted to him to see this progress towards filling up the gaps in his edifice of which he was so painfully conscious. He did, however, have the satisfaction of seeing his ideas steadily gaining ground, notwithstanding much hostility and deep-rooted prejudice. Even in the years between the appearance of "The Origin of Species" and of the first edition of the "Descent", the idea of a natural descent of man, which was only briefly indicated in the work of 1859, had been eagerly welcomed in some quarters. It has been already pointed out how brilliantly Huxley contributed to the defence and diffusion of Darwin's doctrines, and how in "Man's Place in Nature" he has given us a classic work as a foundation for the doctrine of the descent of man. As Huxley was Darwin's champion in England, so in Germany Carl Vogt, in particular, made himself master of the Darwinian ideas. But above all it was Haeckel who, in energy, eagerness for battle, and knowledge may be placed side by side with Huxley, who took over the leadership in the controversy over the new conception of the universe. As far back as 1866, in his "Generelle Morphologie", he had inquired minutely into the question of the descent of man, and not content with urging merely the general theory of descent from lower animal forms, he drew up for the first time genealogical trees showing the close relationships of the different animal groups; the last of these illustrated the relationships of Mammals, and among them of all groups of the Primates, including man. It was Haeckel's genealogical trees that formed the basis of the special discussion of the relationships of man, in the sixth chapter of Darwin's "Descent of Man". In the last section of this essay I shall return to Haeckel's conception of the special descent of man, the main features of which he still upholds, and rightly so. Haeckel has contributed more than any one else to the spread of the Darwinian doctrine. I can only allow myself a few words as to the spread of the theory of the natural descent of man in other countries. The Parisian anthropological school, founded and guided by the genius of Broca, took up the idea of the descent of man, and made many notable contributions to it (Broca, Manouvrier, Mahoudeau, Deniker and others). In England itself Darwin's work did not die. Huxley took care of that, for he, with his lofty and unprejudiced mind, dominated and inspired English biology until his death on June 29, 1895. He had the satisfaction shortly before his death of learning of Dubois' discovery, which he illustrated by a humorous sketch. ("Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley", Vol. II. page 394.) But there are still many followers in Darwin's footsteps in England. Keane has worked at the special genealogical tree of the Primates; Keith has inquired which of the anthropoid apes has the greatest number of characters in common with man; Morris concerns himself with the evolution of man in general, especially with his acquisition of the erect position. The recent discoveries of Pithecanthropus and Homo primigenius are being vigorously discussed; but the present writer is not in a position to form an opinion of the extent to which the idea of descent has penetrated throughout England generally. In Italy independent work in the domain of the descent of man is being produced, especially by Morselli; with him are associated, in the investigation of related problems, Sergi and Giuffrida-Ruggeri. From the ranks of American investigators we may single out in particular the eminent geologist Cope, who championed with much decision the idea of the specific difference of Homo neandertalensis (primigenius) and maintained a more direct descent of man from the fossil Lemuridae. In South America too, in Argentina, new life is stirring in this department of science. Ameghino in Buenos Ayres has awakened the fossil primates of the Pampas formation to new life; he even believes that in Tetraprothomo, represented by a femur, he has discovered a direct ancestor of man. Lehmann-Nitsche is working at the other side of the gulf between apes and men, and he describes a remarkable first cervical vertebra (atlas) from Monte Hermoso as belonging to a form which may bear the same relation to Homo sapiens in South America as Homo primigenius does in the Old World. After a minute investigation he establishes a human species Homo neogaeus, while Ameghino ascribes this atlas vertebra to his Tetraprothomo. Thus throughout the whole scientific world there is arising a new life, an eager endeavour to get nearer to Huxley's problema maximum, to penetrate more deeply into the origin of the human race. There are to-day very few experts in anatomy and zoology who deny the animal descent of man in general. Religious considerations, old prejudices, the reluctance to accept man, who so far surpasses mentally all other creatures, as descended from "soulless" animals, prevent a few investigators from giving full adherence to the doctrine. But there are very few of these who still postulate a special act of creation for man. Although the majority of experts in anatomy and zoology accept unconditionally the descent of man from lower forms, there is much diversity of opinion among them in regard to the special line of descent. In trying to establish any special hypothesis of descent, whether by the graphic method of drawing up genealogical trees or otherwise, let us always bear in mind Darwin's words ("Descent of Man", page 229.) and use them as a critical guiding line: "As we have no record of the lines of descent, the pedigree can be discovered only by observing the degrees of resemblance between the beings which are to be classed." Darwin carries this further by stating "that resemblances in several unimportant structures, in useless and rudimentary organs, or not now functionally active, or in an embryological condition, are by far the most serviceable for classification." (Loc. cit.) It has also to be remembered that NUMEROUS separate points of agreement are of much greater importance than the amount of similarity or dissimilarity in a few points. The hypotheses as to descent current at the present day may be divided into two main groups. The first group seeks for the roots of the human race not among any of the families of the apes--the anatomically nearest forms--nor among their very similar but less specialised ancestral forms, the fossil representatives of which we can know only in part, but, setting the monkeys on one side, it seeks for them lower down among the fossil Eocene Pseudo-lemuridae or Lemuridae (Cope), or even among the primitive pentadactylous Eocene forms, which may either have led directly to the evolution of man (Adloff), or have given rise to an ancestral form common to apes and men (Klaatsch (Klaatsch in his last publications speaks in the main only of an ancestral form common to men and anthropoid apes.), Giuffrida-Ruggeri). The common ancestral form, from which man and apes are thus supposed to have arisen independently, may explain the numerous resemblances which actually exist between them. That is to say, all the characters upon which the great structural resemblance between apes and man depends must have been present in their common ancestor. Let us take an example of such a common character. The bony external ear-passage is in general as highly developed in the lower Eastern monkeys and the anthropoid apes as in man. This character must, therefore, have already been present in the common primitive form. In that case it is not easy to understand why the Western monkeys have not also inherited the character, instead of possessing only a tympanic ring. But it becomes more intelligible if we assume that forms with a primitive tympanic ring were the original type, and that from these were evolved, on the one hand, the existing New World monkeys with persistent tympanic ring, and on the other an ancestral form common to the lower Old World monkeys, the anthropoid apes and man. For man shares with these the character in question, and it is also one of the "unimportant" characters required by Darwin. Thus we have two divergent lines arising from the ancestral form, the Western monkeys (Platyrrhine) on the one hand, and an ancestral form common to the lower Eastern monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and man, on the other. But considerations similar to those which showed it to be impossible that man should have developed from an ancestor common to him and the monkeys, yet outside of and parallel with these, may be urged also against the likelihood of a parallel evolution of the lower Eastern monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and man. The anthropoid apes have in common with man many characters which are not present in the lower Old World monkeys. These characters must therefore have been present in the ancestral form common to the three groups. But here, again, it is difficult to understand why the lower Eastern monkeys should not also have inherited these characters. As this is not the case, there remains no alternative but to assume divergent evolution from an indifferent form. The lower Eastern monkeys are carrying on the evolution in one direction--I might almost say towards a blind alley--while anthropoids and men have struck out a progressive path, at first in common, which explains the many points of resemblance between them, without regarding man as derived directly from the anthropoids. Their many striking points of agreement indicate a common descent, and cannot be explained as phenomena of convergence. I believe I have shown in the above sketch that a theory which derives man directly from lower forms without regarding apes as transition-types leads ad absurdum. The close structural relationship between man and monkeys can only be understood if both are brought into the same line of evolution. To trace man's line of descent directly back to the old Eocene mammals, alongside of, but with no relation to these very similar forms, is to abandon the method of exact comparison, which, as Darwin rightly recognised, alone justifies us in drawing up genealogical trees on the basis of resemblances and differences. The farther down we go the more does the ground slip from beneath our feet. Even the Lemuridae show very numerous divergent conditions, much more so the Eocene mammals (Creodonta, Condylarthra), the chief resemblance of which to man consists in the possession of pentadactylous hands and feet! Thus the farther course of the line of descent disappears in the darkness of the ancestry of the mammals. With just as much reason we might pass by the Vertebrates altogether, and go back to the lower Invertebrates, but in that case it would be much easier to say that man has arisen independently, and has evolved, without relation to any animals, from the lowest primitive form to his present isolated and dominant position. But this would be to deny all value to classification, which must after all be the ultimate basis of a genealogical tree. We can, as Darwin rightly observed, only infer the line of descent from the degree of resemblance between single forms. If we regard man as directly derived from primitive forms very far back, we have no way of explaining the many points of agreement between him and the monkeys in general, and the anthropoid apes in particular. These must remain an inexplicable marvel. I have thus, I trust, shown that the first class of special theories of descent, which assumes that man has developed, parallel with the monkeys, but without relation to them, from very low primitive forms cannot be upheld, because it fails to take into account the close structural affinity of man and monkeys. I cannot but regard this hypothesis as lamentably retrograde, for it makes impossible any application of the facts that have been discovered in the course of the anatomical and embryological study of man and monkeys, and indeed prejudges investigations of that class as pointless. The whole method is perverted; an unjustifiable theory of descent is first formulated with the aid of the imagination, and then we are asked to declare that all structural relations between man and monkeys, and between the different groups of the latter, are valueless,--the fact being that they are the only true basis on which a genealogical tree can be constructed. So much for this most modern method of classification, which has probably found adherents because it would deliver us from the relationship to apes which many people so much dislike. In contrast to it we have the second class of special hypotheses of descent, which keeps strictly to the nearest structural relationships. This is the only basis that justifies the drawing up of a special hypothesis of descent. If this fundamental proposition be recognised, it will be admitted that the doctrine of special descent upheld by Haeckel, and set forth in Darwin's "Descent of Man", is still valid to-day. In the genealogical tree, man's place is quite close to the anthropoid apes; these again have as their nearest relatives the lower Old World monkeys, and their progenitors must be sought among the less differentiated Platyrrhine monkeys, whose most important characters have been handed on to the present day New World monkeys. How the different genera are to be arranged within the general scheme indicated depends in the main on the classificatory value attributed to individual characters. This is particularly true in regard to Pithecanthropus, which I consider as the root of a branch which has sprung from the anthropoid ape root and has led up to man; the latter I have designated the family of the Hominidae. For the rest, there are, as we have said, various possible ways of constructing the narrower genealogy within the limits of this branch including men and apes, and these methods will probably continue to change with the accumulation of new facts. Haeckel himself has modified his genealogical tree of the Primates in certain details since the publication of his "Generelle Morphologie" in 1866, but its general basis remains the same. (Haeckel's latest genealogical tree is to be found in his most recent work, "Unsere Ahnenreihe". Jena, 1908.) All the special genealogical trees drawn up on the lines laid down by Haeckel and Darwin--and that of Dubois may be specially mentioned--are based, in general, on the close relationship of monkeys and men, although they may vary in detail. Various hypotheses have been formulated on these lines, with special reference to the evolution of man. "Pithecanthropus" is regarded by some authorities as the direct ancestor of man, by others as a side-track failure in the attempt at the evolution of man. The problem of the monophyletic or polyphyletic origin of the human race has also been much discussed. Sergi (Sergi G. "Europa", 1908.) inclines towards the assumption of a polyphyletic origin of the three main races of man, the African primitive form of which has given rise also to the gorilla and chimpanzee, the Asiatic to the Orang, the Gibbon, and Pithecanthropus. Kollmann regards existing human races as derived from small primitive races (pigmies), and considers that Homo primigenius must have arisen in a secondary and degenerative manner. But this is not the place, nor have I the space to criticise the various special theories of descent. One, however, must receive particular notice. According to Ameghino, the South American monkeys (Pitheculites) from the oldest Tertiary of the Pampas are the forms from which have arisen the existing American monkeys on the one hand, and on the other, the extinct South American Homunculidae, which are also small forms. From these last, anthropoid apes and man have, he believes, been evolved. Among the progenitors of man, Ameghino reckons the form discovered by him (Tetraprothomo), from which a South American primitive man, Homo pampaeus, might be directly evolved, while on the other hand all the lower Old World monkeys may have arisen from older fossil South American forms (Clenialitidae), the distribution of which may be explained by the bridge formerly existing between South America and Africa, as may be the derivation of all existing human races from Homo pampaeus. (See Ameghino's latest paper, "Notas preliminares sobre el Tetraprothomo argentinus", etc. "Anales del Museo nacional de Buenos Aires", XVI. pages 107-242, 1907.) The fossil forms discovered by Ameghino deserve the most minute investigation, as does also the fossil man from South America of which Lehmann-Nitsche ("Nouvelles recherches sur la formation pampeenne et l'homme fossile de la Republique Argentine". "Rivista del Museo de la Plata", T. XIV. pages 193-488.) has made a thorough study. It is obvious that, notwithstanding the necessity for fitting man's line of descent into the genealogical tree of the Primates, especially the apes, opinions in regard to it differ greatly in detail. This could not be otherwise, since the different Primate forms, especially the fossil forms, are still far from being exhaustively known. But one thing remains certain,--the idea of the close relationship between man and monkeys set forth in Darwin's "Descent of Man". Only those who deny the many points of agreement, the sole basis of classification, and thus of a natural genealogical tree, can look upon the position of Darwin and Haeckel as antiquated, or as standing on an insufficient foundation. For such a genealogical tree is nothing more than a summarised representation of what is known in regard to the degree of resemblance between the different forms. Darwin's work in regard to the descent of man has not been surpassed; the more we immerse ourselves in the study of the structural relationships between apes and man, the more is our path illumined by the clear light radiating from him, and through his calm and deliberate investigation, based on a mass of material in the accumulation of which he has never had an equal. Darwin's fame will be bound up for all time with the unprejudiced investigation of the question of all questions, the descent of the human race. VIII. CHARLES DARWIN AS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST. By Ernst Haeckel. Professor of Zoology in the University of Jena. The great advance that anthropology has made in the second half of the nineteenth century is due in the first place, to Darwin's discovery of the origin of man. No other problem in the whole field of research is so momentous as that of "Man's place in nature," which was justly described by Huxley (1863) as the most fundamental of all questions. Yet the scientific solution of this problem was impossible until the theory of descent had been established. It is now a hundred years since the great French biologist Jean Lamarck published his "Philosophie Zoologique". By a remarkable coincidence the year in which that work was issued, 1809, was the year of the birth of his most distinguished successor, Charles Darwin. Lamarck had already recognised that the descent of man from a series of other Vertebrates--that is, from a series of Ape-like Primates--was essentially involved in the general theory of transformation which he had erected on a broad inductive basis; and he had sufficient penetration to detect the agencies that had been at work in the evolution of the erect bimanous man from the arboreal and quadrumanous ape. He had, however, few empirical arguments to advance in support of his hypothesis, and it could not be established until the further development of the biological sciences--the founding of comparative embryology by Baer (1828) and of the cell-theory by Schleiden and Schwann (1838), the advance of physiology under Johannes Muller (1833), and the enormous progress of palaeontology and comparative anatomy between 1820 and 1860--provided this necessary foundation. Darwin was the first to coordinate the ample results of these lines of research. With no less comprehensiveness than discrimination he consolidated them as a basis of a modified theory of descent, and associated with them his own theory of natural selection, which we take to be distinctive of "Darwinism" in the stricter sense. The illuminating truth of these cumulative arguments was so great in every branch of biology that, in spite of the most vehement opposition, the battle was won within a single decade, and Darwin secured the general admiration and recognition that had been denied to his forerunner, Lamarck, up to the hour of his death (1829). Before, however, we consider the momentous influence that Darwinism has had in anthropology, we shall find it useful to glance at its history in the course of the last half century, and notice the various theories that have contributed to its advance. The first attempt to give extensive expression to the reform of biology by Darwin's work will be found in my "Generelle Morphologie" (1866) ("Generelle Morphologie der Organismen", 2 vols., Berlin, 1866.) which was followed by a more popular treatment of the subject in my "Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte" (1868) (English translation; "The History of Creation", London, 1876.), a compilation from the earlier work. In the first volume of the "Generelle Morphologie" I endeavoured to show the great importance of evolution in settling the fundamental questions of biological philosophy, especially in regard to comparative anatomy. In the second volume I dealt broadly with the principle of evolution, distinguishing ontogeny and phylogeny as its two coordinate main branches, and associating the two in the Biogenetic Law. The Law may be formulated thus: "Ontogeny (embryology or the development of the individual) is a concise and compressed recapitulation of phylogeny (the palaeontological or genealogical series) conditioned by laws of heredity and adaptation." The "Systematic introduction to general evolution," with which the second volume of the "Generelle Morphologie" opens, was the first attempt to draw up a natural system of organisms (in harmony with the principles of Lamarck and Darwin) in the form of a hypothetical pedigree, and was provisionally set forth in eight genealogical tables. In the nineteenth chapter of the "Generelle Morphologie"--a part of which has been republished, without any alteration, after a lapse of forty years--I made a critical study of Lamarck's theory of descent and of Darwin's theory of selection, and endeavoured to bring the complex phenomena of heredity and adaptation under definite laws for the first time. Heredity I divided into conservative and progressive: adaptation into indirect (or potential) and direct (or actual). I then found it possible to give some explanation of the correlation of the two physiological functions in the struggle for life (selection), and to indicate the important laws of divergence (or differentiation) and complexity (or division of labour), which are the direct and inevitable outcome of selection. Finally, I marked off dysteleology as the science of the aimless (vestigial, abortive, atrophied, and useless) organs and parts of the body. In all this I worked from a strictly monistic standpoint, and sought to explain all biological phenomena on the mechanical and naturalistic lines that had long been recognised in the study of inorganic nature. Then (1866), as now, being convinced of the unity of nature, the fundamental identity of the agencies at work in the inorganic and the organic worlds, I discarded vitalism, teleology, and all hypotheses of a mystic character. It was clear from the first that it was essential, in the monistic conception of evolution, to distinguish between the laws of conservative and progressive heredity. Conservative heredity maintains from generation to generation the enduring characters of the species. Each organism transmits to its descendants a part of the morphological and physiological qualities that it has received from its parents and ancestors. On the other hand, progressive heredity brings new characters to the species--characters that were not found in preceding generations. Each organism may transmit to its offspring a part of the morphological and physiological features that it has itself acquired, by adaptation, in the course of its individual career, through the use or disuse of particular organs, the influence of environment, climate, nutrition, etc. At that time I gave the name of "progressive heredity" to this inheritance of acquired characters, as a short and convenient expression, but have since changed the term to "transformative heredity" (as distinguished from conservative). This term is preferable, as inherited regressive modifications (degeneration, retrograde metamorphisis, etc.) come under the same head. Transformative heredity--or the transmission of acquired characters--is one of the most important principles in evolutionary science. Unless we admit it most of the facts of comparative anatomy and physiology are inexplicable. That was the conviction of Darwin no less than of Lamarck, of Spencer as well as Virchow, of Huxley as well as Gegenbaur, indeed of the great majority of speculative biologists. This fundamental principle was for the first time called in question and assailed in 1885 by August Weismann of Freiburg, the eminent zoologist to whom the theory of evolution owes a great deal of valuable support, and who has attained distinction by his extension of the theory of selection. In explanation of the phenomena of heredity he introduced a new theory, the "theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm." According to him the living substance in all organisms consists of two quite distinct kinds of plasm, somatic and germinal. The permanent germ-plasm, or the active substance of the two germ-cells (egg-cell and sperm-cell), passes unchanged through a series of generations, and is not affected by environmental influences. The environment modifies only the soma-plasm, the organs and tissues of the body. The modifications that these parts undergo through the influence of the environment or their own activity (use and habit), do not affect the germ-plasm, and cannot therefore be transmitted. This theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm has been expounded by Weismann during the last twenty-four years in a number of able volumes, and is regarded by many biologists, such as Mr Francis Galton, Sir E. Ray Lankester, and Professor J. Arthur Thomson (who has recently made a thoroughgoing defence of it in his important work "Heredity" (London, 1908.)), as the most striking advance in evolutionary science. On the other hand, the theory has been rejected by Herbert Spencer, Sir W. Turner, Gegenbaur, Kolliker, Hertwig, and many others. For my part I have, with all respect for the distinguished Darwinian, contested the theory from the first, because its whole foundation seems to me erroneous, and its deductions do not seem to be in accord with the main facts of comparative morphology and physiology. Weismann's theory in its entirety is a finely conceived molecular hypothesis, but it is devoid of empirical basis. The notion of the absolute and permanent independence of the germ-plasm, as distinguished from the soma-plasm, is purely speculative; as is also the theory of germinal selection. The determinants, ids, and idants, are purely hypothetical elements. The experiments that have been devised to demonstrate their existence really prove nothing. It seems to me quite improper to describe this hypothetical structure as "Neodarwinism." Darwin was just as convinced as Lamarck of the transmission of acquired characters and its great importance in the scheme of evolution. I had the good fortune to visit Darwin at Down three times and discuss with him the main principles of his system, and on each occasion we were fully agreed as to the incalculable importance of what I call transformative inheritance. It is only proper to point out that Weismann's theory of the germ-plasm is in express contradiction to the fundamental principles of Darwin and Lamarck. Nor is it more acceptable in what one may call its "ultradarwinism"--the idea that the theory of selection explains everything in the evolution of the organic world. This belief in the "omnipotence of natural selection" was not shared by Darwin himself. Assuredly, I regard it as of the utmost value, as the process of natural selection through the struggle for life affords an explanation of the mechanical origin of the adapted organisation. It solves the great problem: how could the finely adapted structure of the animal or plant body be formed unless it was built on a preconceived plan? It thus enables us to dispense with the teleology of the metaphysician and the dualist, and to set aside the old mythological and poetic legends of creation. The idea had occurred in vague form to the great Empedocles 2000 years before the time of Darwin, but it was reserved for modern research to give it ample expression. Nevertheless, natural selection does not of itself give the solution of all our evolutionary problems. It has to be taken in conjunction with the transformism of Lamarck, with which it is in complete harmony. The monumental greatness of Charles Darwin, who surpasses every other student of science in the nineteenth century by the loftiness of his monistic conception of nature and the progressive influence of his ideas, is perhaps best seen in the fact that not one of his many successors has succeeded in modifying his theory of descent in any essential point or in discovering an entirely new standpoint in the interpretation of the organic world. Neither Nageli nor Weismann, neither De Vries nor Roux, has done this. Nageli, in his "Mechanisch-Physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre" (Munich, 1884.), which is to a great extent in agreement with Weismann, constructed a theory of the idioplasm, that represents it (like the germ-plasm) as developing continuously in a definite direction from internal causes. But his internal "principle of progress" is at the bottom just as teleological as the vital force of the Vitalists, and the micellar structure of the idioplasm is just as hypothetical as the "dominant" structure of the germ-plasm. In 1889 Moritz Wagner sought to explain the origin of species by migration and isolation, and on that basis constructed a special "migration-theory." This, however, is not out of harmony with the theory of selection. It merely elevates one single factor in the theory to a predominant position. Isolation is only a special case of selection, as I had pointed out in the fifteenth chapter of my "Natural history of creation". The "mutation-theory" of De Vries ("Die Mutationstheorie", Leipzig, 1903.), that would explain the origin of species by sudden and saltatory variations rather than by gradual modification, is regarded by many botanists as a great step in advance, but it is generally rejected by zoologists. It affords no explanation of the facts of adaptation, and has no causal value. Much more important than these theories is that of Wilhelm Roux ("Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus", Leipzig, 1881.) of "the struggle of parts within the organism, a supplementation of the theory of mechanical adaptation." He explains the functional autoformation of the purposive structure by a combination of Darwin's principle of selection with Lamarck's idea of transformative heredity, and applies the two in conjunction to the facts of histology. He lays stress on the significance of functional adaptation, which I had described in 1866, under the head of cumulative adaptation, as the most important factor in evolution. Pointing out its influence in the cell-life of the tissues, he puts "cellular selection" above "personal selection," and shows how the finest conceivable adaptations in the structure of the tissue may be brought about quite mechanically, without preconceived plan. This "mechanical teleology" is a valuable extension of Darwin's monistic principle of selection to the whole field of cellular physiology and histology, and is wholly destructive of dualistic vitalism. The most important advance that evolution has made since Darwin and the most valuable amplification of his theory of selection is, in my opinion, the work of Richard Semon: "Die Mneme als erhaltendes Prinzip im Wechsel des organischen Geschehens" (Leipzig, 1904.). He offers a psychological explanation of the facts of heredity by reducing them to a process of (unconscious) memory. The physiologist Ewald Hering had shown in 1870 that memory must be regarded as a general function of organic matter, and that we are quite unable to explain the chief vital phenomena, especially those of reproduction and inheritance, unless we admit this unconscious memory. In my essay "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule" (Berlin, 1876.) I elaborated this far-reaching idea, and applied the physical principle of transmitted motion to the plastidules, or active molecules of plasm. I concluded that "heredity is the memory of the plastidules, and variability their power of comprehension." This "provisional attempt to give a mechanical explanation of the elementary processes of evolution" I afterwards extended by showing that sensitiveness is (as Carl Nageli, Ernst Mach, and Albrecht Rau express it) a general quality of matter. This form of panpsychism finds its simplest expression in the "trinity of substance." To the two fundamental attributes that Spinoza ascribed to substance--Extension (matter as occupying space) and Cogitation (energy, force)--we now add the third fundamental quality of Psychoma (sensitiveness, soul). I further elaborated this trinitarian conception of substance in the nineteenth chapter of my "Die Lebenswunder" (1904) ("Wonders of Life", London, 1904.), and it seems to me well calculated to afford a monistic solution of many of the antitheses of philosophy. This important Mneme-theory of Semon and the luminous physiological experiments and observations associated with it not only throw considerable light on transformative inheritance, but provide a sound physiological foundation for the biogenetic law. I had endeavoured to show in 1874, in the first chapter of my "Anthropogenie" (English translation; "The Evolution of Man", 2 volumes, London, 1879 and 1905.), that this fundamental law of organic evolution holds good generally, and that there is everywhere a direct causal connection between ontogeny and phylogeny. "Phylogenesis is the mechanical cause of ontogenesis"; in other words, "The evolution of the stem or race is--in accordance with the laws of heredity and adaptation--the real cause of all the changes that appear, in a condensed form, in the development of the individual organism from the ovum, in either the embryo or the larva." It is now fifty years since Charles Darwin pointed out, in the thirteenth chapter of his epoch-making "Origin of Species", the fundamental importance of embryology in connection with his theory of descent: "The leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principle of variations in the many descendants from some one ancient progenitor, having appeared at a not very early period of life, and having been inherited at a corresponding period." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 396.) He then shows that the striking resemblance of the embryos and larvae of closely related animals, which in the mature stage belong to widely different species and genera, can only be explained by their descent from a common progenitor. Fritz Muller made a closer study of these important phenomena in the instructive instance of the Crustacean larva, as given in his able work "Fur Darwin" (1864). (English translation; "Facts and Arguments for Darwin", London, 1869.) I then, in 1872, extended the range so as to include all animals (with the exception of the unicellular Protozoa) and showed, by means of the theory of the Gastraea, that all multicellular, tissue-forming animals--all the Metazoa--develop in essentially the same way from the primary germ-layers. I conceived the embryonic form, in which the whole structure consists of only two layers of cells, and is known as the gastrula, to be the ontogenetic recapitulation, maintained by tenacious heredity, of a primitive common progenitor of all the Metazoa, the Gastraea. At a later date (1895) Monticelli discovered that this conjectural ancestral form is still preserved in certain primitive Coelenterata--Pemmatodiscus, Kunstleria, and the nearly-related Orthonectida. The general application of the biogenetic law to all classes of animals and plants has been proved in my "Systematische Phylogenie". (3 volumes, Berlin, 1894-96.) It has, however, been frequently challenged, both by botanists and zoologists, chiefly owing to the fact that many have failed to distinguish its two essential elements, palingenesis and cenogenesis. As early as 1874 I had emphasised, in the first chapter of my "Evolution of Man", the importance of discriminating carefully between these two sets of phenomena: "In the evolutionary appreciation of the facts of embryology we must take particular care to distinguish sharply and clearly between the primary, palingenetic evolutionary processes and the secondary, cenogenetic processes. The palingenetic phenomena, or embryonic RECAPITULATIONS, are due to heredity, to the transmission of characters from one generation to another. They enable us to draw direct inferences in regard to corresponding structures in the development of the species (e.g. the chorda or the branchial arches in all vertebrate embryos). The cenogenetic phenomena, on the other hand, or the embryonic VARIATIONS, cannot be traced to inheritance from a mature ancestor, but are due to the adaptation of the embryo or the larva to certain conditions of its individual development (e.g. the amnion, the allantois, and the vitelline arteries in the embryos of the higher vertebrates). These cenogenetic phenomena are later additions; we must not infer from them that there were corresponding processes in the ancestral history, and hence they are apt to mislead." The fundamental importance of these facts of comparative anatomy, atavism, and the rudimentary organs, was pointed out by Darwin in the first part of his classic work, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" (1871). ("Descent of Man" (Popular Edition), page 927.) In the "General summary and conclusion" (chapter XXI.) he was able to say, with perfect justice: "He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog--the construction of his skull, limbs, and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the parts may be put--the occasional reappearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which are common to the Quadrumana--and a crowd of analogous facts--all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor." These few lines of Darwin's have a greater scientific value than hundreds of those so-called "anthropological treatises," which give detailed descriptions of single organs, or mathematical tables with series of numbers and what are claimed to be "exact analyses," but are devoid of synoptic conclusions and a philosophical spirit. Charles Darwin is not generally recognised as a great anthropologist, nor does the school of modern anthropologists regard him as a leading authority. In Germany, especially, the great majority of the members of the anthropological societies took up an attitude of hostility to him from the very beginning of the controversy in 1860. "The Descent of Man" was not merely rejected, but even the discussion of it was forbidden on the ground that it was "unscientific." The centre of this inveterate hostility for thirty years--especially after 1877--was Rudolph Virchow of Berlin, the leading investigator in pathological anatomy, who did so much for the reform of medicine by his establishment of cellular pathology in 1858. As a prominent representative of "exact" or "descriptive" anthropology, and lacking a broad equipment in comparative anatomy and ontogeny, he was unable to accept the theory of descent. In earlier years, and especially during his splendid period of activity at Wurzburg (1848-1856), he had been a consistent free-thinker, and had in a number of able articles (collected in his "Gesammelte Abhandlungen") ("Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur wissenschaftlichen Medizin", Berlin, 1856.) upheld the unity of human nature, the inseparability of body and spirit. In later years at Berlin, where he was more occupied with political work and sociology (especially after 1866), he abandoned the positive monistic position for one of agnosticism and scepticism, and made concessions to the dualistic dogma of a spiritual world apart from the material frame. In the course of a Scientific Congress at Munich in 1877 the conflict of these antithetic views of nature came into sharp relief. At this memorable Congress I had undertaken to deliver the first address (September 18th) on the subject of "Modern evolution in relation to the whole of science." I maintained that Darwin's theory not only solved the great problem of the origin of species, but that its implications, especially in regard to the nature of man, threw considerable light on the whole of science, and on anthropology in particular. The discovery of the real origin of man by evolution from a long series of mammal ancestors threw light on his place in nature in every aspect, as Huxley had already shown in his excellent lectures of 1863. Just as all the organs and tissues of the human body had originated from those of the nearest related mammals, certain ape-like forms, so we were bound to conclude that his mental qualities also had been derived from those of his extinct primate ancestor. This monistic view of the origin and nature of man, which is now admitted by nearly all who have the requisite acquaintance with biology, and approach the subject without prejudice, encountered a sharp opposition at that time. The opposition found its strongest expression in an address that Virchow delivered at Munich four days afterwards (September 22nd), on "The freedom of science in the modern State." He spoke of the theory of evolution as an unproved hypothesis, and declared that it ought not to be taught in the schools, because it was dangerous to the State. "We must not," he said, "teach that man has descended from the ape or any other animal." When Darwin, usually so lenient in his judgment, read the English translation of Virchow's speech, he expressed his disapproval in strong terms. But the great authority that Virchow had--an authority well founded in pathology and sociology--and his prestige as President of the German Anthropological Society, had the effect of preventing any member of the Society from raising serious opposition to him for thirty years. Numbers of journals and treatises repeated his dogmatic statement: "It is quite certain that man has descended neither from the ape nor from any other animal." In this he persisted till his death in 1902. Since that time the whole position of German anthropology has changed. The question is no longer whether man was created by a distinct supernatural act or evolved from other mammals, but to which line of the animal hierarchy we must look for the actual series of ancestors. The interested reader will find an account of this "battle of Munich" (1877) in my three Berlin lectures (April, 1905) ("Der Kampf um die Entwickelungs-Gedanken". (English translation; "Last Words on Evolution", London, 1906.)) The main points in our genealogical tree were clearly recognised by Darwin in the sixth chapter of the "Descent of Man". Lowly organised fishes, like the lancelet (Amphioxus), are descended from lower invertebrates resembling the larvae of an existing Tunicate (Appendicularia). From these primitive fishes were evolved higher fishes of the ganoid type and others of the type of Lepidosiren (Dipneusta). It is a very small step from these to the Amphibia: "In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded." ("Descent of Man" (Popular Edition), page 255.) In these few lines Darwin clearly indicated the way in which we were to conceive our ancestral series within the vertebrates. It is fully confirmed by all the arguments of comparative anatomy and embryology, of palaeontology and physiology; and all the research of the subsequent forty years has gone to establish it. The deep interest in geology which Darwin maintained throughout his life and his complete knowledge of palaeontology enabled him to grasp the fundamental importance of the palaeontological record more clearly than anthropologists and zoologists usually do. There has been much debate in subsequent decades whether Darwin himself maintained that man was descended from the ape, and many writers have sought to deny it. But the lines I have quoted verbatim from the conclusion of the sixth chapter of the "Descent of Man" (1871) leave no doubt that he was as firmly convinced of it as was his great precursor Jean Lamarck in 1809. Moreover, Darwin adds, with particular explicitness, in the "general summary and conclusion" (chapter XXI.) of that standard work ("Descent of Man", page 930.): "By considering the embryological structure of man--the homologies which he presents with the lower animals,--the rudiments which he retains,--and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall in imagination the former condition of our early progenitors; and can approximately place them in their proper place in the zoological series. We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World. This creature, if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have been classed amongst the Quadrumana, as surely as the still more ancient progenitor of the Old and New World monkeys." These clear and definite lines leave no doubt that Darwin--so critical and cautious in regard to important conclusions--was quite as firmly convinced of the descent of man from the apes (the Catarrhinae, in particular) as Lamarck was in 1809 and Huxley in 1863. It is to be noted particularly that, in these and other observations on the subject, Darwin decidedly assumes the monophyletic origin of the mammals, including man. It is my own conviction that this is of the greatest importance. A number of difficult questions in regard to the development of man, in respect of anatomy, physiology, psychology, and embryology, are easily settled if we do not merely extend our progonotaxis to our nearest relatives, the anthropoid apes and the tailed monkeys from which these have descended, but go further back and find an ancestor in the group of the Lemuridae, and still further back to the Marsupials and Monotremata. The essential identity of all the Mammals in point of anatomical structure and embryonic development--in spite of their astonishing differences in external appearance and habits of life--is so palpably significant that modern zoologists are agreed in the hypothesis that they have all sprung from a common root, and that this root may be sought in the earlier Palaeozoic Amphibia. The fundamental importance of this comparative morphology of the Mammals, as a sound basis of scientific anthropology, was recognised just before the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Lamarck first emphasised (1794) the division of the animal kingdom into Vertebrates and Invertebrates. Even thirteen years earlier (1781), when Goethe made a close study of the mammal skeleton in the Anatomical Institute at Jena, he was intensely interested to find that the composition of the skull was the same in man as in the other mammals. His discovery of the os intermaxillare in man (1784), which was contradicted by most of the anatomists of the time, and his ingenious "vertebral theory of the skull," were the splendid fruit of his morphological studies. They remind us how Germany's greatest philosopher and poet was for many years ardently absorbed in the comparative anatomy of man and the mammals, and how he divined that their wonderful identity in structure was no mere superficial resemblance, but pointed to a deep internal connection. In my "Generelle Morphologie" (1866), in which I published the first attempts to construct phylogenetic trees, I have given a number of remarkable theses of Goethe, which may be called "phyletic prophecies." They justify us in regarding him as a precursor of Darwin. In the ensuing forty years I have made many conscientious efforts to penetrate further along that line of anthropological research that was opened up by Goethe, Lamarck, and Darwin. I have brought together the many valuable results that have constantly been reached in comparative anatomy, physiology, ontogeny, and palaeontology, and maintained the effort to reform the classification of animals and plants in an evolutionary sense. The first rough drafts of pedigrees that were published in the "Generelle Morphologie" have been improved time after time in the ten editions of my "Naturaliche Schopfungsgeschichte" (1868-1902). (English translation; "The History of Creation", London, 1876.) A sounder basis for my phyletic hypotheses, derived from a discriminating combination of the three great records--morphology, ontogeny, and palaeontology--was provided in the three volumes of my "Systematische Phylogenie" (Berlin, 1894-96.) (1894 Protists and Plants, 1895 Vertebrates, 1896 Invertebrates). In my "Anthropogenie" (Leipzig, 1874, 5th edition 1905. English translation; "The Evolution of Man", London, 1905.) I endeavoured to employ all the known facts of comparative ontogeny (embryology) for the purpose of completing my scheme of human phylogeny (evolution). I attempted to sketch the historical development of each organ of the body, beginning with the most elementary structures in the germ-layers of the Gastraea. At the same time I drew up a corrected statement of the most important steps in the line of our ancestral series. At the fourth International Congress of Zoology at Cambridge (August 26th, 1898) I delivered an address on "Our present knowledge of the Descent of Man." It was translated into English, enriched with many valuable notes and additions, by my friend and pupil in earlier days Dr Hans Gadow (Cambridge), and published under the title: "The Last Link; our present knowledge of the Descent of Man". (London, 1898.) The determination of the chief animal forms that occur in the line of our ancestry is there restricted to thirty types, and these are distributed in six main groups. The first half of this "Progonotaxis hominis," which has no support from fossil evidence, comprises three groups: (i) Protista (unicellular organisms, 1-5: (ii) Invertebrate Metazoa (Coelenteria 6-8, Vermalia 9-11): (iii) Monorrhine Vertebrates (Acrania 12-13, Cyclostoma 14-15). The second half, which is based on fossil records, also comprises three groups: (iv) Palaeozoic cold-blooded Craniota (Fishes 16-18, Amphibia 19, Reptiles 20: (v) Mesozoic Mammals (Monotrema 21, Marsupialia 22, Mallotheria 23): (vi) Cenozoic Primates (Lemuridae 24-25, Tailed Apes 26-27, Anthropomorpha 28-30). An improved and enlarged edition of this hypothetic "Progonotaxis hominis" was published in 1908, in my essay "Unsere Ahnenreihe". ("Festschrift zur 350-jahrigen Jubelfeier der Thuringer Universitat Jena". Jena, 1908.) If I have succeeded in furthering, in some degree, by these anthropological works, the solution of the great problem of Man's place in nature, and particularly in helping to trace the definite stages in our ancestral series, I owe the success, not merely to the vast progress that biology has made in the last half century, but largely to the luminous example of the great investigators who have applied themselves to the problem, with so much assiduity and genius, for a century and a quarter--I mean Goethe and Lamarck, Gegenbaur and Huxley, but, above all, Charles Darwin. It was the great genius of Darwin that first brought together the scattered material of biology and shaped it into that symmetrical temple of scientific knowledge, the theory of descent. It was Darwin who put the crown on the edifice by his theory of natural selection. Not until this broad inductive law was firmly established was it possible to vindicate the special conclusion, the descent of man from a series of other Vertebrates. By his illuminating discovery Darwin did more for anthropology than thousands of those writers, who are more specifically titled anthropologists, have done by their technical treatises. We may, indeed, say that it is not merely as an exact observer and ingenious experimenter, but as a distinguished anthropologist and far-seeing thinker, that Darwin takes his place among the greatest men of science of the nineteenth century. To appreciate fully the immortal merit of Darwin in connection with anthropology, we must remember that not only did his chief work, "The Origin of Species", which opened up a new era in natural history in 1859, sustain the most virulent and widespread opposition for a lengthy period, but even thirty years later, when its principles were generally recognised and adopted, the application of them to man was energetically contested by many high scientific authorities. Even Alfred Russel Wallace, who discovered the principle of natural selection independently in 1858, did not concede that it was applicable to the higher mental and moral qualities of man. Dr Wallace still holds a spiritualist and dualist view of the nature of man, contending that he is composed of a material frame (descended from the apes) and an immortal immaterial soul (infused by a higher power). This dual conception, moreover, is still predominant in the wide circles of modern theology and metaphysics, and has the general and influential adherence of the more conservative classes of society. In strict contradiction to this mystical dualism, which is generally connected with teleology and vitalism, Darwin always maintained the complete unity of human nature, and showed convincingly that the psychological side of man was developed, in the same way as the body, from the less advanced soul of the anthropoid ape, and, at a still more remote period, from the cerebral functions of the older vertebrates. The eighth chapter of the "Origin of Species", which is devoted to instinct, contains weighty evidence that the instincts of animals are subject, like all other vital processes, to the general laws of historic development. The special instincts of particular species were formed by adaptation, and the modifications thus acquired were handed on to posterity by heredity; in their formation and preservation natural selection plays the same part as in the transformation of every other physiological function. The higher moral qualities of civilised man have been derived from the lower mental functions of the uncultivated barbarians and savages, and these in turn from the social instincts of the mammals. This natural and monistic psychology of Darwin's was afterwards more fully developed by his friend George Romanes in his excellent works "Mental Evolution in Animals" and "Mental Evolution in Man". (London, 1885; 1888.) Many valuable and most interesting contributions to this monistic psychology of man were made by Darwin in his fine work on "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex", and again in his supplementary work, "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". To understand the historical development of Darwin's anthropology one must read his life and the introduction to "The Descent of Man". From the moment that he was convinced of the truth of the principle of descent--that is to say, from his thirtieth year, in 1838--he recognised clearly that man could not be excluded from its range. He recognised as a logical necessity the important conclusion that "man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form." For many years he gathered notes and arguments in support of this thesis, and for the purpose of showing the probable line of man's ancestry. But in the first edition of "The Origin of Species" (1859) he restricted himself to the single line, that by this work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." In the fifty years that have elapsed since that time the science of the origin and nature of man has made astonishing progress, and we are now fairly agreed in a monistic conception of nature that regards the whole universe, including man, as a wonderful unity, governed by unalterable and eternal laws. In my philosophical book "Die Weltratsel" (1899) ("The Riddle of the Universe", London, 1900.) and in the supplementary volume "Die Lebenswunder" (1904) "The Wonders of Life", London, (1904.), I have endeavoured to show that this pure monism is securely established, and that the admission of the all-powerful rule of the same principle of evolution throughout the universe compels us to formulate a single supreme law--the all-embracing "Law of Substance," or the united laws of the constancy of matter and the conservation of energy. We should never have reached this supreme general conception if Charles Darwin--a "monistic philosopher" in the true sense of the word--had not prepared the way by his theory of descent by natural selection, and crowned the great work of his life by the association of this theory with a naturalistic anthropology. IX. SOME PRIMITIVE THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN. By J.G. FRAZER. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. On a bright day in late autumn a good many years ago I had ascended the hill of Panopeus in Phocis to examine the ancient Greek fortifications which crest its brow. It was the first of November, but the weather was very hot; and when my work among the ruins was done, I was glad to rest under the shade of a clump of fine holly-oaks, to inhale the sweet refreshing perfume of the wild thyme which scented all the air, and to enjoy the distant prospects, rich in natural beauty, rich too in memories of the legendary and historic past. To the south the finely-cut peak of Helicon peered over the low intervening hills. In the west loomed the mighty mass of Parnassus, its middle slopes darkened by pine-woods like shadows of clouds brooding on the mountain-side; while at its skirts nestled the ivy-mantled walls of Daulis overhanging the deep glen, whose romantic beauty accords so well with the loves and sorrows of Procne and Philomela, which Greek tradition associated with the spot. Northwards, across the broad plain to which the hill of Panopeus descends, steep and bare, the eye rested on the gap in the hills through which the Cephissus winds his tortuous way to flow under grey willows, at the foot of barren stony hills, till his turbid waters lose themselves, no longer in the vast reedy swamps of the now vanished Copaic Lake, but in the darkness of a cavern in the limestone rock. Eastward, clinging to the slopes of the bleak range of which the hill of Panopeus forms part, were the ruins of Chaeronea, the birthplace of Plutarch; and out there in the plain was fought the disastrous battle which laid Greece at the feet of Macedonia. There, too, in a later age East and West met in deadly conflict, when the Roman armies under Sulla defeated the Asiatic hosts of Mithridates. Such was the landscape spread out before me on one of those farewell autumn days of almost pathetic splendour, when the departing summer seems to linger fondly, as if loth to resign to winter the enchanted mountains of Greece. Next day the scene had changed: summer was gone. A grey November mist hung low on the hills which only yesterday had shone resplendent in the sun, and under its melancholy curtain the dead flat of the Chaeronean plain, a wide treeless expanse shut in by desolate slopes, wore an aspect of chilly sadness befitting the battlefield where a nation's freedom was lost. But crowded as the prospect from Panopeus is with memories of the past, the place itself, now so still and deserted, was once the scene of an event even more ancient and memorable, if Greek story-tellers can be trusted. For here, they say, the sage Prometheus created our first parents by fashioning them, like a potter, out of clay. (Pausanias X. 4.4. Compare Apollodorus, "Bibliotheca", I. 7. 1; Ovid, "Metamorph." I. 82 sq.; Juvenal, "Sat". XIV. 35. According to another version of the tale, this creation of mankind took place not at Panopeus, but at Iconium in Lycaonia. After the original race of mankind had been destroyed in the great flood of Deucalion, the Greek Noah, Zeus commanded Prometheus and Athena to create men afresh by moulding images out of clay, breathing the winds into them, and making them live. See "Etymologicum Magnum", s.v. "'Ikonion", pages 470 sq. It is said that Prometheus fashioned the animals as well as men, giving to each kind of beast its proper nature. See Philemon, quoted by Stobaeus, "Florilegium" II. 27. The creation of man by Prometheus is figured on ancient works of art. See J. Toutain, "Etudes de Mythologie et d'Histoire des Religions Antiques" (Paris, 1909), page 190. According to Hesiod ("Works and Days", 60 sqq.) it was Hephaestus who at the bidding of Zeus moulded the first woman out of moist earth.) The very spot where he did so can still be seen. It is a forlorn little glen or rather hollow behind the hill of Panopeus, below the ruined but still stately walls and towers which crown the grey rocks of the summit. The glen, when I visited it that hot day after the long drought of summer, was quite dry; no water trickled down its bushy sides, but in the bottom I found a reddish crumbling earth, a relic perhaps of the clay out of which the potter Prometheus moulded the Greek Adam and Eve. In a volume dedicated to the honour of one who has done more than any other in modern times to shape the ideas of mankind as to their origin it may not be out of place to recall this crude Greek notion of the creation of the human race, and to compare or contrast it with other rudimentary speculations of primitive peoples on the same subject, if only for the sake of marking the interval which divides the childhood from the maturity of science. The simple notion that the first man and woman were modelled out of clay by a god or other superhuman being is found in the traditions of many peoples. This is the Hebrew belief recorded in Genesis: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis ii.7.) To the Hebrews this derivation of our species suggested itself all the more naturally because in their language the word for "ground" (adamah) is in form the feminine of the word for man (adam). (S.R. Driver and W.H.Bennett, in their commentaries on Genesis ii. 7.) From various allusions in Babylonian literature it would seem that the Babylonians also conceived man to have been moulded out of clay. (H. Zimmern, in E. Schrader's "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament" 3 (Berlin, 1902), page 506.) According to Berosus, the Babylonian priest whose account of creation has been preserved in a Greek version, the god Bel cut off his own head, and the other gods caught the flowing blood, mixed it with earth, and fashioned men out of the bloody paste; and that, they said, is why men are so wise, because their mortal clay is tempered with divine blood. (Eusebius, "Chronicon", ed. A. Schoene, Vol. I. (Berlin, 1875), col. 16.) In Egyptian mythology Khnoumou, the Father of the gods, is said to have moulded men out of clay. (G. Maspero, "Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l'Orient Classique", I. (Paris, 1895), page 128.) We cannot doubt that such crude conceptions of the origin of our race were handed down to the civilised peoples of antiquity by their savage or barbarous forefathers. Certainly stories of the same sort are known to be current among savages and barbarians. Thus the Australian blacks in the neighbourhood of Melbourne said that Pund-jel, the creator, cut three large sheets of bark with his big knife. On one of these he placed some clay and worked it up with his knife into a proper consistence. He then laid a portion of the clay on one of the other pieces of bark and shaped it into a human form; first he made the feet, then the legs, then the trunk, the arms, and the head. Thus he made a clay man on each of the two pieces of bark; and being well pleased with them he danced round them for joy. Next he took stringy bark from the Eucalyptus tree, made hair of it, and stuck it on the heads of his clay men. Then he looked at them again, was pleased with his work, and again danced round them for joy. He then lay down on them, blew his breath hard into their mouths, their noses, and their navels; and presently they stirred, spoke, and rose up as full-grown men. (R. Brough Smyth, "The Aborigines of Victoria" (Melbourne, 1878), I. 424. This and many of the following legends of creation have been already cited by me in a note on Pausanias X. 4. 4 ("Pausanias's Description of Greece, translated with a Commentary" (London, 1898), Vol V. pages 220 sq.).) The Maoris of New Zealand say that Tiki made man after his own image. He took red clay, kneaded it, like the Babylonian Bel, with his own blood, fashioned it in human form, and gave the image breath. As he had made man in his own likeness he called him Tiki-ahua or Tiki's likeness. (R. Taylor "Te Ika A Maui, or New Zealand and its Inhabitants", Second Edition (London, 1870), page 117. Compare E. Shortland, "Maori Religion and Mythology" (London, 1882), pages 21 sq.) A very generally received tradition in Tahiti was that the first human pair was made by Taaroa, the chief god. They say that after he had formed the world he created man out of red earth, which was also the food of mankind until bread-fruit was produced. Further, some say that one day Taaroa called for the man by name, and when he came he made him fall asleep. As he slept, the creator took out one of his bones (ivi) and made a woman of it, whom he gave to the man to be his wife, and the pair became the progenitors of mankind. This narrative was taken down from the lips of the natives in the early years of the mission to Tahiti. The missionary who records it observes: "This always appeared to me a mere recital of the Mosaic account of creation, which they had heard from some European, and I never placed any reliance on it, although they have repeatedly told me it was a tradition among them before any foreigner arrived. Some have also stated that the woman's name was Ivi, which would be by them pronounced as if written "Eve". "Ivi" is an aboriginal word, and not only signifies a bone, but also a widow, and a victim slain in war. Notwithstanding the assertion of the natives, I am disposed to think that "Ivi", or Eve, is the only aboriginal part of the story, as far as it respects the mother of the human race. (W. Ellis, "Polynesian Researches", Second Edition (London, 1832), I. 110 sq. "Ivi" or "iwi" is the regular word for "bone" in the various Polynesian languages. See E. Tregear, "The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary" (Wellington, New Zealand, 1891), page 109.) However, the same tradition has been recorded in other parts of Polynesia besides Tahiti. Thus the natives of Fakaofo or Bowditch Island say that the first man was produced out of a stone. After a time he bethought him of making a woman. So he gathered earth and moulded the figure of a woman out of it, and having done so he took a rib out of his left side and thrust it into the earthen figure, which thereupon started up a live woman. He called her Ivi (Eevee) or "rib" and took her to wife, and the whole human race sprang from this pair. (G. Turner, "Samoa" (London, 1884), pages 267 sq.) The Maoris also are reported to believe that the first woman was made out of the first man's ribs. (J.L. Nicholas, "Narrative of a Voyage to New Zealand" (London, 1817), I. 59, who writes "and to add still more to this strange coincidence, the general term for bone is 'Hevee'.") This wide diffusion of the story in Polynesia raises a doubt whether it is merely, as Ellis thought, a repetition of the Biblical narrative learned from Europeans. In Nui, or Netherland Island, it was the god Aulialia who made earthen models of a man and woman, raised them up, and made them live. He called the man Tepapa and the woman Tetata. (G. Turner, "Samoa", pages 300 sq.) In the Pelew Islands they say that a brother and sister made men out of clay kneaded with the blood of various animals, and that the characters of these first men and of their descendants were determined by the characters of the animals whose blood had been kneaded with the primordial clay; for instance, men who have rat's blood in them are thieves, men who have serpent's blood in them are sneaks, and men who have cock's blood in them are brave. (J. Kubary, "Die Religion der Pelauer", in A. Bastian's "Allerlei aus Volks- und Menschenkunde" (Berlin, 1888), I. 3, 56.) According to a Melanesian legend, told in Mota, one of the Banks Islands, the hero Qat moulded men of clay, the red clay from the marshy river-side at Vanua Lava. At first he made men and pigs just alike, but his brothers remonstrated with him, so he beat down the pigs to go on all fours and made men walk upright. Qat fashioned the first woman out of supple twigs, and when she smiled he knew she was a living woman. (R.H. Codrington, "The Melanesians" (Oxford, 1891), page 158.) A somewhat different version of the Melanesian story is told at Lakona, in Santa Maria. There they say that Qat and another spirit ("vui") called Marawa both made men. Qat made them out of the wood of dracaena-trees. Six days he worked at them, carving their limbs and fitting them together. Then he allowed them six days to come to life. Three days he hid them away, and three days more he worked to make them live. He set them up and danced to them and beat his drum, and little by little they stirred, till at last they could stand all by themselves. Then Qat divided them into pairs and called each pair husband and wife. Marawa also made men out of a tree, but it was a different tree, the tavisoviso. He likewise worked at them six days, beat his drum, and made them live, just as Qat did. But when he saw them move, he dug a pit and buried them in it for six days, and then, when he scraped away the earth to see what they were doing, he found them all rotten and stinking. That was the origin of death. (R.H. Codrington op. cit., pages 157 sq.) The inhabitants of Noo-Hoo-roa, in the Kei Islands say that their ancestors were fashioned out of clay by the supreme god, Dooadlera, who breathed life into the clay figures. (C.M. Pleyte, "Ethnographische Beschrijving der Kei-Eilanden", "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap", Tweede Serie X. (1893), page 564.) The aborigines of Minahassa, in the north of Celebes, say that two beings called Wailan Wangko and Wangi were alone on an island, on which grew a cocoa-nut tree. Said Wailan Wangko to Wangi, "Remain on earth while I climb up the tree." Said Wangi to Wailan Wangko, "Good." But then a thought occurred to Wangi and he climbed up the tree to ask Wailan Wangko why he, Wangi, should remain down there all alone. Said Wailan Wangko to Wangi, "Return and take earth and make two images, a man and a woman." Wangi did so, and both images were men who could move but could not speak. So Wangi climbed up the tree to ask Wailan Wangko, "How now? The two images are made, but they cannot speak." Said Wailan Wangko to Wangi, "Take this ginger and go and blow it on the skulls and the ears of these two images, that they may be able to speak; call the man Adam and the woman Ewa." (N. Graafland "De Minahassa" (Rotterdam, 1869), I. pages 96 sq.) In this narrative the names of the man and woman betray European influence, but the rest of the story may be aboriginal. The Dyaks of Sakarran in British Borneo say that the first man was made by two large birds. At first they tried to make men out of trees, but in vain. Then they hewed them out of rocks, but the figures could not speak. Then they moulded a man out of damp earth and infused into his veins the red gum of the kumpang-tree. After that they called to him and he answered; they cut him and blood flowed from his wounds. (Horsburgh, quoted by H. Ling Roth, "The Natives of Sarawak and of British North Borneo" (London, 1896), I. pages 299 sq. Compare The Lord Bishop of Labuan, "On the Wild Tribes of the North-West Coast of Borneo," "Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London", New Series, II. (1863), page 27.) The Kumis of South-Eastern India related to Captain Lewin, the Deputy Commissioner of Hill Tracts, the following tradition of the creation of man. "God made the world and the trees and the creeping things first, and after that he set to work to make one man and one woman, forming their bodies of clay; but each night, on the completion of his work, there came a great snake, which, while God was sleeping, devoured the two images. This happened twice or thrice, and God was at his wit's end, for he had to work all day, and could not finish the pair in less than twelve hours; besides, if he did not sleep, he would be no good," said Captain Lewin's informant. "If he were not obliged to sleep, there would be no death, nor would mankind be afflicted with illness. It is when he rests that the snake carries us off to this day. Well, he was at his wit's end, so at last he got up early one morning and first made a dog and put life into it, and that night, when he had finished the images, he set the dog to watch them, and when the snake came, the dog barked and frightened it away. This is the reason at this day that when a man is dying the dogs begin to howl; but I suppose God sleeps heavily now-a-days, or the snake is bolder, for men die all the same." (Capt. T.H. Lewin, "Wild Races of South-Eastern India" (London, 1870), pages 224-26.) The Khasis of Assam tell a similar tale. (A. Bastian, "Volkerstamme am Brahmaputra und verwandtschaftliche Nachbarn" (Berlin, 1883), page 8; Major P.R.T. Gurdon, "The Khasis" (London, 1907), page 106.) The Ewe-speaking tribes of Togo-land, in West Africa, think that God still makes men out of clay. When a little of the water with which he moistens the clay remains over, he pours it on the ground and out of that he makes the bad and disobedient people. When he wishes to make a good man he makes him out of good clay; but when he wishes to make a bad man, he employs only bad clay for the purpose. In the beginning God fashioned a man and set him on the earth; after that he fashioned a woman. The two looked at each other and began to laugh, whereupon God sent them into the world. (J. Spieth, "Die Ewe-Stamme, Material zur Kunde des Ewe-Volkes in Deutsch-Togo" (Berlin, 1906), pages 828, 840.) The Innuit or Esquimaux of Point Barrow, in Alaska, tell of a time when there was no man in the land, till a spirit named "a se lu", who resided at Point Barrow, made a clay man, set him up on the shore to dry, breathed into him and gave him life. ("Report of the International Expedition to Point Barrow" (Washington, 1885), page 47.) Other Esquimaux of Alaska relate how the Raven made the first woman out of clay to be a companion to the first man; he fastened water-grass to the back of the head to be hair, flapped his wings over the clay figure, and it arose, a beautiful young woman. (E.W. Nelson, "The Eskimo about Bering Strait", "Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology", Part I. (Washington, 1899), page 454.) The Acagchemem Indians of California said that a powerful being called Chinigchinich created man out of clay which he found on the banks of a lake; male and female created he them, and the Indians of the present day are their descendants. (Friar Geronimo Boscana, "Chinigchinich", appended to (A. Robinson's) "Life in California" (New York, 1846), page 247.) A priest of the Natchez Indians in Louisiana told Du Pratz "that God had kneaded some clay, such as that which potters use and had made it into a little man; and that after examining it, and finding it well formed, he blew up his work, and forthwith that little man had life, grew, acted, walked, and found himself a man perfectly well shaped." As to the mode in which the first woman was created, the priest had no information, but thought she was probably made in the same way as the first man; so Du Pratz corrected his imperfect notions by reference to Scripture. (M. Le Page Du Pratz, "The History of Louisiana" (London, 1774), page 330.) The Michoacans of Mexico said that the great god Tucapacha first made man and woman out of clay, but that when the couple went to bathe in a river they absorbed so much water that the clay of which they were composed all fell to pieces. Then the creator went to work again and moulded them afresh out of ashes, and after that he essayed a third time and made them of metal. This last attempt succeeded. The metal man and woman bathed in the river without falling to pieces, and by their union they became the progenitors of mankind. (A. de Herrera, "General History of the vast Continent and Islands of America", translated into English by Capt. J. Stevens (London, 1725, 1726), III. 254; Brasseur de Bourbourg, "Histoire des Nations Civilisees du Mexique et de l'Amerique-Centrale" (Paris, 1857--1859), III. 80 sq; compare id. I. 54 sq.) According to a legend of the Peruvian Indians, which was told to a Spanish priest in Cuzco about half a century after the conquest, it was in Tiahuanaco that man was first created, or at least was created afresh after the deluge. "There (in Tiahuanaco)," so runs the legend, "the Creator began to raise up the people and nations that are in that region, making one of each nation of clay, and painting the dresses that each one was to wear; those that were to wear their hair, with hair, and those that were to be shorn, with hair cut. And to each nation was given the language, that was to be spoken, and the songs to be sung, and the seeds and food that they were to sow. When the Creator had finished painting and making the said nations and figures of clay, he gave life and soul to each one, as well men as women, and ordered that they should pass under the earth. Thence each nation came up in the places to which he ordered them to go." (E.J. Payne, "History of the New World called America", I. (Oxford, 1892), page 462.) These examples suffice to prove that the theory of the creation of man out of dust or clay has been current among savages in many parts of the world. But it is by no means the only explanation which the savage philosopher has given of the beginnings of human life on earth. Struck by the resemblances which may be traced between himself and the beasts, he has often supposed, like Darwin himself, that mankind has been developed out of lower forms of animal life. For the simple savage has none of that high notion of the transcendant dignity of man which makes so many superior persons shrink with horror from the suggestion that they are distant cousins of the brutes. He on the contrary is not too proud to own his humble relations; indeed his difficulty often is to perceive the distinction between him and them. Questioned by a missionary, a Bushman of more than average intelligence "could not state any difference between a man and a brute--he did not know but a buffalo might shoot with bows and arrows as well as man, if it had them." (Reverend John Campbell, "Travels in South Africa" (London, 1822, II. page 34.) When the Russians first landed on one of the Alaskan islands, the natives took them for cuttle-fish "on account of the buttons on their clothes." (I. Petroff, "Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska", page 145.) The Giliaks of the Amoor think that the outward form and size of an animal are only apparent; in substance every beast is a real man, just like a Giliak himself, only endowed with an intelligence and strength, which often surpass those of mere ordinary human beings. (L. Sternberg, "Die Religion der Giljaken", "Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft", VIII. (1905), page 248.) The Borororos, an Indian tribe of Brazil, will have it that they are parrots of a gorgeous red plumage which live in their native forests. Accordingly they treat the birds as their fellow-tribesmen, keeping them in captivity, refusing to eat their flesh, and mourning for them when they die. (K. von den Steinen, "Unter den Naturvolkern Zentral-Brasiliens" (Berlin, 1894), pages 352 sq., 512.)) This sense of the close relationship of man to the lower creation is the essence of totemism, that curious system of superstition which unites by a mystic bond a group of human kinsfolk to a species of animals or plants. Where that system exists in full force, the members of a totem clan identify themselves with their totem animals in a way and to an extent which we find it hard even to imagine. For example, men of the Cassowary clan in Mabuiag think that cassowaries are men or nearly so. "Cassowary, he all same as relation, he belong same family," is the account they give of their relationship with the long-legged bird. Conversely they hold that they themselves are cassowaries for all practical purposes. They pride themselves on having long thin legs like a cassowary. This reflection affords them peculiar satisfaction when they go out to fight, or to run away, as the case may be; for at such times a Cassowary man will say to himself, "My leg is long and thin, I can run and not feel tired; my legs will go quickly and the grass will not entangle them." Members of the Cassowary clan are reputed to be pugnacious, because the cassowary is a bird of very uncertain temper and can kick with extreme violence. (A.C. Haddon, "The Ethnography of the Western Tribe of Torres Straits", "Journal of the Anthropological Institute", XIX. (1890), page 393; "Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits", V. (Cambridge, 1904), pages 166, 184.) So among the Ojibways men of the Bear clan are reputed to be surly and pugnacious like bears, and men of the Crane clan to have clear ringing voices like cranes. (W.W. Warren, "History of the Ojibways", "Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society", V. (Saint Paul, Minn. 1885), pages 47, 49.) Hence the savage will often speak of his totem animal as his father or his brother, and will neither kill it himself nor allow others to do so, if he can help it. For example, if somebody were to kill a bird in the presence of a native Australian who had the bird for his totem, the black might say, "What for you kill that fellow? that my father!" or "That brother belonging to me you have killed; why did you do it?" (E. Palmer, "Notes on some Australian Tribes", "Journal of the Anthropological Institute", XIII. (1884), page 300.) Bechuanas of the Porcupine clan are greatly afflicted if anybody hurts or kills a porcupine in their presence. They say, "They have killed our brother, our master, one of ourselves, him whom we sing of"; and so saying they piously gather the quills of their murdered brother, spit on them, and rub their eyebrows with them. They think they would die if they touched its flesh. In like manner Bechuanas of the Crocodile clan call the crocodile one of themselves, their master, their brother; and they mark the ears of their cattle with a long slit like a crocodile's mouth by way of a family crest. Similarly Bechuanas of the Lion clan would not, like the members of other clans, partake of lion's flesh; for how, say they, could they eat their grandfather? If they are forced in self-defence to kill a lion, they do so with great regret and rub their eyes carefully with its skin, fearing to lose their sight if they neglected this precaution. (T. Arbousset et F. Daumas, "Relation d'un Voyage d'Exploration au Nord-Est de la Colonie du Cap de Bonne-Esperance" (Paris, 1842), pages 349 sq., 422-24.) A Mandingo porter has been known to offer the whole of his month's pay to save the life of a python, because the python was his totem and he therefore regarded the reptile as his relation; he thought that if he allowed the creature to be killed, the whole of his own family would perish, probably through the vengeance to be taken by the reptile kinsfolk of the murdered serpent. (M. le Docteur Tautain, "Notes sur les Croyances et Pratiques Religieuses des Banmanas", "Revue d'Ethnographie", III. (1885), pages 396 sq.; A. Rancon, "Dans la Haute-Gambie, Voyage d'Exploration Scientifique" (Paris, 1894), page 445.) Sometimes, indeed, the savage goes further and identifies the revered animal not merely with a kinsman but with himself; he imagines that one of his own more or less numerous souls, or at all events that a vital part of himself, is in the beast, so that if it is killed he must die. Thus, the Balong tribe of the Cameroons, in West Africa, think that every man has several souls, of which one is lodged in an elephant, a wild boar, a leopard, or what not. When any one comes home, feels ill, and says, "I shall soon die," and is as good as his word, his friends are of opinion that one of his souls has been shot by a hunter in a wild boar or a leopard, for example, and that that is the real cause of his death. (J. Keller, "Ueber das Land und Volk der Balong", "Deutsches Kolonialblatt", 1 October, 1895, page 484.) A Catholic missionary, sleeping in the hut of a chief of the Fan negroes, awoke in the middle of the night to see a huge black serpent of the most dangerous sort in the act of darting at him. He was about to shoot it when the chief stopped him, saying, "In killing that serpent, it is me that you would have killed. Fear nothing, the serpent is my elangela." (Father Trilles, "Chez les Fang, leurs Moeurs, leur Langue, leur Religion", "Les Missions Catholiques", XXX. (1898), page 322.) At Calabar there used to be some years ago a huge old crocodile which was well known to contain the spirit of a chief who resided in the flesh at Duke Town. Sporting Vice-Consuls, with a reckless disregard of human life, from time to time made determined attempts to injure the animal, and once a peculiarly active officer succeeded in hitting it. The chief was immediately laid up with a wound in his leg. He SAID that a dog had bitten him, but few people perhaps were deceived by so flimsy a pretext. (Miss Mary H. Kingsley, "Travels in West Africa" (London, 1897), pages 538 sq. As to the external or bush souls of human beings, which in this part of Africa are supposed to be lodged in the bodies of animals, see Miss Mary H. Kingsley op. cit. pages 459-461; R. Henshaw, "Notes on the Efik belief in 'bush soul'", "Man", VI.(1906), pages 121 sq.; J. Parkinson, "Notes on the Asaba people (Ibos) of the Niger", "Journal of the Anthropological Institute", XXXVI. (1906), pages 314 sq.) Once when Mr Partridge's canoe-men were about to catch fish near an Assiga town in Southern Nigeria, the natives of the town objected, saying, "Our souls live in those fish, and if you kill them we shall die." (Charles Partridge, "Cross River Natives" (London, 1905), pages 225 sq.) On another occasion, in the same region, an Englishman shot a hippopotamus near a native village. The same night a woman died in the village, and her friends demanded and obtained from the marksman five pounds as compensation for the murder of the woman, whose soul or second self had been in that hippopotamus. (C.H. Robinson, "Hausaland" (London, 1896), pages 36 sq.) Similarly at Ndolo, in the Congo region, we hear of a chief whose life was bound up with a hippopotamus, but he prudently suffered no one to fire at the animal. ("Notes Analytiques sur les Collections Ethnographiques du Musee du Congo", I. (Brussels, 1902-06), page 150.) Amongst people who thus fail to perceive any sharp line of distinction between beasts and men it is not surprising to meet with the belief that human beings are directly descended from animals. Such a belief is often found among totemic tribes who imagine that their ancestors sprang from their totemic animals or plants; but it is by no means confined to them. Thus, to take instances, some of the Californian Indians, in whose mythology the coyote or prairie-wolf is a leading personage, think that they are descended from coyotes. At first they walked on all fours; then they began to have some members of the human body, one finger, one toe, one eye, one ear, and so on; then they got two fingers, two toes, two eyes, two ears, and so forth; till at last, progressing from period to period, they became perfect human beings. The loss of their tails, which they still deplore, was produced by the habit of sitting upright. (H.R. Schoolcraft, "Indian Tribes of the United States", IV. (Philadelphia, 1856), pages 224 sq.; compare id. V. page 217. The descent of some, not all, Indians from coyotes is mentioned also by Friar Boscana, in (A. Robinson's) "Life in California" (New York, 1846), page 299.) Similarly Darwin thought that "the tail has disappeared in man and the anthropomorphous apes, owing to the terminal portion having been injured by friction during a long lapse of time; the basal and embedded portion having been reduced and modified, so as to become suitable to the erect or semi-erect position." (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Second Edition (London, 1879), page 60.) The Turtle clam of the Iroquois think that they are descended from real mud turtles which used to live in a pool. One hot summer the pool dried up, and the mud turtles set out to find another. A very fat turtle, waddling after the rest in the heat, was much incommoded by the weight of his shell, till by a great effort he heaved it off altogether. After that he gradually developed into a man and became the progenitor of the Turtle clan. (E.A. Smith, "Myths of the Iroquois", "Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology" (Washington, 1883), page 77.) The Crawfish band of the Choctaws are in like manner descended from real crawfish, which used to live under ground, only coming up occasionally through the mud to the surface. Once a party of Choctaws smoked them out, taught them the Choctaw language, taught them to walk on two legs, made them cut off their toe nails and pluck the hair from their bodies, after which they adopted them into the tribe. But the rest of their kindred, the crawfish, are crawfish under ground to this day. (Geo. Catlin, "North American Indians" 4 (London, 1844), II. page 128.) The Osage Indians universally believed that they were descended from a male snail and a female beaver. A flood swept the snail down to the Missouri and left him high and dry on the bank, where the sun ripened him into a man. He met and married a beaver maid, and from the pair the tribe of the Osages is descended. For a long time these Indians retained a pious reverence for their animal ancestors and refrained from hunting beavers, because in killing a beaver they killed a brother of the Osages. But when white men came among them and offered high prices for beaver skins, the Osages yielded to the temptation and took the lives of their furry brethren. (Lewis and Clarke, "Travels to the Source of the Missouri River" (London, 1815), I. 12 (Vol. I. pages 44 sq. of the London reprint, 1905).) The Carp clan of the Ootawak Indians are descended from the eggs of a carp which had been deposited by the fish on the banks of a stream and warmed by the sun. ("Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses", Nouvelle Edition, VI. (Paris, 1781), page 171.) The Crane clan of the Ojibways are sprung originally from a pair of cranes, which after long wanderings settled on the rapids at the outlet of Lake Superior, where they were changed by the Great Spirit into a man and woman. (L.H. Morgan, "Ancient Society" (London, 1877), page 180.) The members of two Omaha clans were originally buffaloes and lived, oddly enough, under water, which they splashed about, making it muddy. And at death all the members of these clans went back to their ancestors the buffaloes. So when one of them lay adying, his friends used to wrap him up in a buffalo skin with the hair outside and say to him, "You came hither from the animals and you are going back thither. Do not face this way again. When you go, continue walking. (J. Owen Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology", "Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology" (Washington, 1884), pages 229, 233.) The Haida Indians of Queen Charlotte Islands believe that long ago the raven, who is the chief figure in the mythology of North-West America, took a cockle from the beach and married it; the cockle gave birth to a female child, whom the raven took to wife, and from their union the Indians were produced. (G.M. Dawson, "Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands" (Montreal, 1880), pages 149B sq. ("Geological Survey of Canada"); F. Poole, "Queen Charlotte Islands", page 136.) The Delaware Indians called the rattle-snake their grandfather and would on no account destroy one of these reptiles, believing that were they to do so the whole race of rattle-snakes would rise up and bite them. Under the influence of the white man, however, their respect for their grandfather the rattle-snake gradually died away, till at last they killed him without compunction or ceremony whenever they met him. The writer who records the old custom observes that he had often reflected on the curious connection which appears to subsist in the mind of an Indian between man and the brute creation; "all animated nature," says he, "in whatever degree, is in their eyes a great whole, from which they have not yet ventured to separate themselves." (Rev. John Heckewelder, "An Account of the History, Manners, and Customs, of the Indian Nations, who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighbouring States", "Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society", I. (Philadelphia, 1819), pages 245, 247, 248.) Some of the Indians of Peru boasted of being descended from the puma or American lion; hence they adored the lion as a god and appeared at festivals like Hercules dressed in the skins of lions with the heads of the beasts fixed over their own. Others claimed to be sprung from condors and attired themselves in great black and white wings, like that enormous bird. (Garcilasso de la Vega, "First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas", Vol. I. page 323, Vol. II. page 156 (Markham's translation).) The Wanika of East Africa look upon the hyaena as one of their ancestors or as associated in some way with their origin and destiny. The death of a hyaena is mourned by the whole people, and the greatest funeral ceremonies which they perform are performed for this brute. The wake held over a chief is as nothing compared to the wake held over a hyaena; one tribe only mourns the death of its chief, but all the tribes unite to celebrate the obsequies of a hyaena. (Charles New, "Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern Africa" (London, 1873) page 122.) Some Malagasy families claim to be descended from the babacoote (Lichanotus brevicaudatus), a large lemur of grave appearance and staid demeanour, which lives in the depth of the forest. When they find one of these creatures dead, his human descendants bury it solemnly, digging a grave for it, wrapping it in a shroud, and weeping and lamenting over its carcase. A doctor who had shot a babacoote was accused by the inhabitants of a Betsimisaraka village of having killed "one of their grandfathers in the forest," and to appease their indignation he had to promise not to skin the animal in the village but in a solitary place where nobody could see him. (Father Abinal, "Croyances fabuleuses des Malgaches", "Les Missions Catholiques", XII. (1880), page 526; G.H. Smith, "Some Betsimisaraka superstitions", "The Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine", No. 10 (Antananarivo, 1886), page 239; H.W. Little, "Madagascar, its History and People" (London, 1884), pages 321 sq; A. van Gennep, "Tabou et Totemisme a Madagascar" (Paris, 1904), pages 214 sqq.) Many of the Betsimisaraka believe that the curious nocturnal animal called the aye-aye (Cheiromys madagascariensis) "is the embodiment of their forefathers, and hence will not touch it, much less do it an injury. It is said that when one is discovered dead in the forest, these people make a tomb for it and bury it with all the forms of a funeral. They think that if they attempt to entrap it, they will surely die in consequence." (G.A. Shaw, "The Aye-aye", "Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine", Vol. II. (Antananarivo, 1896), pages 201, 203 (Reprint of the Second four Numbers). Compare A. van Gennep, "Tabou et Totemisme a Madagascar", pages 223 sq.) Some Malagasy tribes believe themselves descended from crocodiles and accordingly they deem the formidable reptiles their brothers. If one of these scaly brothers so far forgets the ties of kinship as to devour a man, the chief of the tribe, or in his absence an old man familiar with the tribal customs, repairs at the head of the people to the edge of the water, and summons the family of the culprit to deliver him up to the arm of justice. A hook is then baited and cast into the river or lake. Next day the guilty brother or one of his family is dragged ashore, formally tried, sentenced to death, and executed. The claims of justice being thus satisfied, the dead animal is lamented and buried like a kinsman; a mound is raised over his grave and a stone marks the place of his head. (Father Abinal, "Croyances fabuleuses des Malgaches", "Les Missions Catholiques", XII. (1880), page 527; A. van Gennep, "Tabou et Totemisme a Madagascar", pages 281 sq.) Amongst the Tshi-speaking tribes of the Gold Coast in West Africa the Horse-mackerel family traces its descent from a real horse-mackerel whom an ancestor of theirs once took to wife. She lived with him happily in human shape on shore till one day a second wife, whom the man had married, cruelly taunted her with being nothing but a fish. That hurt her so much that bidding her husband farewell she returned to her old home in the sea, with her youngest child in her arms, and never came back again. But ever since the Horse-mackerel people have refrained from eating horse-mackerels, because the lost wife and mother was a fish of that sort. (A.B. Ellis, "The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of West Africa" (London, 1887), pages 208-11. A similar tale is told by another fish family who abstain from eating the fish (appei) from which they take their name (A.B. Ellis op. cit. pages 211 sq.).) Some of the Land Dyaks of Borneo tell a similar tale to explain a similar custom. "There is a fish which is taken in their rivers called a puttin, which they would on no account touch, under the idea that if they did they would be eating their relations. The tradition respecting it is, that a solitary old man went out fishing and caught a puttin, which he dragged out of the water and laid down in his boat. On turning round, he found it had changed into a very pretty little girl. Conceiving the idea she would make, what he had long wished for, a charming wife for his son, he took her home and educated her until she was fit to be married. She consented to be the son's wife cautioning her husband to use her well. Some time after their marriage, however, being out of temper, he struck her, when she screamed, and rushed away into the water; but not without leaving behind her a beautiful daughter, who became afterwards the mother of the race." (The Lord Bishop of Labuan, "On the Wild Tribes of the North-West Coast of Borneo", "Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London", New Series II. (London, 1863), pages 26 sq. Such stories conform to a well-known type which may be called the Swan-Maiden type of story, or Beauty and the Beast, or Cupid and Psyche. The occurrence of stories of this type among totemic peoples, such as the Tshi-speaking negroes of the Gold Coast, who tell them to explain their totemic taboos, suggests that all such tales may have originated in totemism. I shall deal with this question elsewhere.) Members of a clan in Mandailing, on the west coast of Sumatra, assert that they are descended from a tiger, and at the present day, when a tiger is shot, the women of the clan are bound to offer betel to the dead beast. When members of this clan come upon the tracks of a tiger, they must, as a mark of homage, enclose them with three little sticks. Further, it is believed that the tiger will not attack or lacerate his kinsmen, the members of the clan. (H. Ris, "De Onderafdeeling Klein Mandailing Oeloe en Pahantan en hare Bevolking met uitzondering van de Oeloes", "Bijdragen tot de Tall- Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlansch-Indie, XLVI." (1896), page 473.) The Battas of Central Sumatra are divided into a number of clans which have for their totems white buffaloes, goats, wild turtle-doves, dogs, cats, apes, tigers, and so forth; and one of the explanations which they give of their totems is that these creatures were their ancestors, and that their own souls after death can transmigrate into the animals. (J.B. Neumann, "Het Pane en Bila-stroomgebied op het eiland Sumatra", "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap", Tweede Serie, III. Afdeeling, Meer uitgebreide Artikelen, No. 2 (Amsterdam, 1886), pages 311 sq.; id. ib. Tweede Serie, IV. Afdeeling, Meer uitgebreide Artikelen, No. 1 (Amsterdam, 1887), pages 8 sq.) In Amboyna and the neighbouring islands the inhabitants of some villages aver that they are descended from trees, such as the Capellenia moluccana, which had been fertilised by the Pandion Haliaetus. Others claim to be sprung from pigs, octopuses, crocodiles, sharks, and eels. People will not burn the wood of the trees from which they trace their descent, nor eat the flesh of the animals which they regard as their ancestors. Sicknesses of all sorts are believed to result from disregarding these taboos. (J.G.F. Riedel, "De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua" (The Hague, 1886), pages 32, 61; G.W.W.C. Baron van Hoevell, "Ambon en meer bepaaldelijk de Oeliasers" (Dordrecht, 1875), page 152.) Similarly in Ceram persons who think they are descended from crocodiles, serpents, iguanas, and sharks will not eat the flesh of these animals. (J.G.F. Riedel op. cit. page 122.) Many other peoples of the Molucca Islands entertain similar beliefs and observe similar taboos. (J.G.F. Riedel "De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua" (The Hague, 1886), pages 253, 334, 341, 348, 412, 414, 432.) Again, in Ponape, one of the Caroline Islands, "The different families suppose themselves to stand in a certain relation to animals, and especially to fishes, and believe in their descent from them. They actually name these animals 'mothers'; the creatures are sacred to the family and may not be injured. Great dances, accompanied with the offering of prayers, are performed in their honour. Any person who killed such an animal would expose himself to contempt and punishment, certainly also to the vengeance of the insulted deity." Blindness is commonly supposed to be the consequence of such a sacrilege. (Dr Hahl, "Mittheilungen uber Sitten und rechtliche Verhaltnisse auf Ponape", "Ethnologisches Notizblatt", Vol. II. Heft 2 (Berlin, 1901), page 10.) Some of the aborigines of Western Australia believe that their ancestors were swans, ducks, or various other species of water-fowl before they were transformed into men. (Captain G. Grey, "A Vocabulary of the Dialects of South Western Australia", Second Edition (London, 1840), pages 29, 37, 61, 63, 66, 71.) The Dieri tribe of Central Australia, who are divided into totemic clans, explain their origin by the following legend. They say that in the beginning the earth opened in the midst of Perigundi Lake, and the totems (murdus or madas) came trooping out one after the other. Out came the crow, and the shell parakeet, and the emu, and all the rest. Being as yet imperfectly formed and without members or organs of sense, they laid themselves down on the sandhills which surrounded the lake then just as they do now. It was a bright day and the totems lay basking in the sunshine, till at last, refreshed and invigorated by it, they stood up as human beings and dispersed in all directions. That is why people of the same totem are now scattered all over the country. You may still see the island in the lake out of which the totems came trooping long ago. (A.W. Howitt, "Native Tribes of South-East Australia" (London, 1904), pages 476, 779 sq.) Another Dieri legend relates how Paralina, one of the Mura-Muras or mythical predecessors of the Dieri, perfected mankind. He was out hunting kangaroos, when he saw four incomplete beings cowering together. So he went up to them, smoothed their bodies, stretched out their limbs, slit up their fingers and toes, formed their mouths, noses, and eyes, stuck ears on them, and blew into their ears in order that they might hear. Having perfected their organs and so produced mankind out of these rudimentary beings, he went about making men everywhere. (A.W. Howitt op. cit., pages 476, 780 sq.) Yet another Dieri tradition sets forth how the Mura-Mura produced the race of man out of a species of small black lizards, which may still be met with under dry bark. To do this he divided the feet of the lizards into fingers and toes, and, applying his forefinger to the middle of their faces, created a nose; likewise he gave them human eyes, mouths and ears. He next set one of them upright, but it fell down again because of its tail; so he cut off its tail and the lizard then walked on its hind legs. That is the origin of mankind. (S. Gason, "The Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie tribe of Australian Aborigines", "Native Tribes of South Australia" (Adelaide, 1879), page 260. This writer fell into the mistake of regarding the Mura-Mura (Mooramoora) as a Good-Spirit instead of as one of the mythical but more or less human predecessors of the Dieri in the country. See A.W. Howitt, "Native Tribes of South-East Australia", pages 475 sqq.) The Arunta tribe of Central Australia similarly tell how in the beginning mankind was developed out of various rudimentary forms of animal life. They say that in those days two beings called Ungambikula, that is, "out of nothing," or "self-existing," dwelt in the western sky. From their lofty abode they could see, far away to the east, a number of inapertwa creatures, that is, rudimentary human beings or incomplete men, whom it was their mission to make into real men and women. For at that time there were no real men and women; the rudimentary creatures (inapertwa) were of various shapes and dwelt in groups along the shore of the salt water which covered the country. These embryos, as we may call them, had no distinct limbs or organs of sight, hearing, and smell; they did not eat food, and they presented the appearance of human beings all doubled up into a rounded mass, in which only the outline of the different parts of the body could be vaguely perceived. Coming down from their home in the western sky, armed with great stone knives, the Ungambikula took hold of the embryos, one after the other. First of all they released the arms from the bodies, then making four clefts at the end of each arm they fashioned hands and fingers; afterwards legs, feet, and toes were added in the same way. The figure could now stand; a nose was then moulded and the nostrils bored with the fingers. A cut with the knife made the mouth, which was pulled open several times to render it flexible. A slit on each side of the face separated the upper and lower eye-lids, disclosing the eyes, which already existed behind them; and a few strokes more completed the body. Thus out of the rudimentary creatures were formed men and women. These rudimentary creatures or embryos, we are told, "were in reality stages in the transformation of various animals and plants into human beings, and thus they were naturally, when made into human beings, intimately associated with the particular animal or plant, as the case may be, of which they were the transformations--in other words, each individual of necessity belonged to a totem, the name of which was of course that of the animal or plant of which he or she was a transformation." However, it is not said that all the totemic clans of the Arunta were thus developed; no such tradition, for example, is told to explain the origin of the important Witchetty Grub clan. The clans which are positively known, or at least said, to have originated out of embryos in the way described are the Plum Tree, the Grass Seed, the Large Lizard, the Small Lizard, the Alexandra Parakeet, and the Small Rat clans. When the Ungambikula had thus fashioned people of these totems, they circumcised them all, except the Plum Tree men, by means of a fire-stick. After that, having done the work of creation or evolution, the Ungambikula turned themselves into little lizards which bear a name meaning "snappers-up of flies." (Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, "Native Tribes of Central Australia" (London, 1899), pages 388 sq.; compare id., "Northern Tribes of Central Australia" (London, 1904), page 150.) This Arunta tradition of the origin of man, as Messrs Spencer and Gillen, who have recorded it, justly observe, "is of considerable interest; it is in the first place evidently a crude attempt to describe the origin of human beings out of non-human creatures who were of various forms; some of them were representatives of animals, others of plants, but in all cases they are to be regarded as intermediate stages in the transition of an animal or plant ancestor into a human individual who bore its name as that of his or her totem." (Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, "Native Tribes of Central Australia", pages 391 sq.) In a sense these speculations of the Arunta on their own origin may be said to combine the theory of creation with the theory of evolution; for while they represent men as developed out of much simpler forms of life, they at the same time assume that this development was effected by the agency of two powerful beings, whom so far we may call creators. It is well known that at a far higher stage of culture a crude form of the evolutionary hypothesis was propounded by the Greek philosopher Empedocles. He imagined that shapeless lumps of earth and water, thrown up by the subterranean fires, developed into monstrous animals, bulls with the heads of men, men with the heads of bulls, and so forth; till at last, these hybrid forms being gradually eliminated, the various existing species of animals and men were evolved. (E. Zeller, "Die Philosophie der Griechen", I.4 (Leipsic, 1876), pages 718 sq.; H. Ritter et L. Preller, "Historia Philosophiae Graecae et Romanae ex fontium locis contexta" 5, pages 102 sq. H. Diels, "Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" 2, I. (Berlin, 1906), pages 190 sqq. Compare Lucretius "De rerum natura", V. 837 sqq.) The theory of the civilised Greek of Sicily may be set beside the similar theory of the savage Arunta of Central Australia. Both represent gropings of the human mind in the dark abyss of the past; both were in a measure grotesque anticipations of the modern theory of evolution. In this essay I have made no attempt to illustrate all the many various and divergent views which primitive man has taken of his own origin. I have confined myself to collecting examples of two radically different views, which may be distinguished as the theory of creation and the theory of evolution. According to the one, man was fashioned in his existing shape by a god or other powerful being; according to the other he was evolved by a natural process out of lower forms of animal life. Roughly speaking, these two theories still divide the civilised world between them. The partisans of each can appeal in support of their view to a large consensus of opinion; and if truth were to be decided by weighing the one consensus against the other, with "Genesis" in the one scale and "The Origin of Species" in the other, it might perhaps be found, when the scales were finally trimmed, that the balance hung very even between creation and evolution. X. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN ON THE STUDY OF ANIMAL EMBRYOLOGY. By A. Sedgwick, M.A., F.R.S. Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the University of Cambridge. The publication of "The Origin of Species" ushered in a new era in the study of Embryology. Whereas, before the year 1859 the facts of anatomy and development were loosely held together by the theory of types, which owed its origin to the great anatomists of the preceding generation, to Cuvier, L. Agassiz, J. Muller, and R. Owen, they were now combined together into one organic whole by the theory of descent and by the hypothesis of recapitulation which was deduced from that theory. The view (First clearly enunciated by Fritz Muller in his well-known work, "Fur Darwin", Leipzig, 1864; (English Edition, "Facts for Darwin", 1869).) that a knowledge of embryonic and larval histories would lay bare the secrets of race-history and enable the course of evolution to be traced, and so lead to the discovery of the natural system of classification, gave a powerful stimulus to morphological study in general and to embryological investigation in particular. In Darwin's words: "Embryology rises greatly in interest, when we look at the embryo as a picture, more or less obscured, of the progenitor, either in its adult or larval state, of all the members of the same great class." ("Origin" (6th edition), page 396.) In the period under consideration the output of embryological work has been enormous. No group of the animal kingdom has escaped exhaustive examination and no effort has been spared to obtain the embryos of isolated and out of the way forms, the development of which might have an important bearing upon questions of phylogeny and classification. Marine zoological stations have been established, expeditions have been sent to distant countries, and the methods of investigation have been greatly improved. The result of this activity has been that the main features of the developmental history of all the most important animals are now known and the curiosity as to developmental processes, so greatly excited by the promulgation of the Darwinian theory, has to a considerable extent been satisfied. To what extent have the results of this vast activity fulfilled the expectations of the workers who have achieved them? The Darwin centenary is a fitting moment at which to take stock of our position. In this inquiry we shall leave out of consideration the immense and intensely interesting additions to our knowledge of Natural History. These may be said to constitute a capital fund upon which philosophers, poets and men of science will draw for many generations. The interest of Natural History existed long before Darwinian evolution was thought of and will endure without any reference to philosophic speculations. She is a mistress in whose face are beauties and in whose arms are delights elsewhere unattainable. She is and always has been pursued for her own sake without any reference to philosophy, science, or utility. Darwin's own views of the bearing of the facts of embryology upon questions of wide scientific interest are perfectly clear. He writes ("Origin" (6th edition), page 395.): "On the other hand it is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state. In the great class of the Crustacea, forms wonderfully distinct from each other, namely, suctorial parasites, cirripedes, entomostraca, and even the malacostraca, appear at first as larvae under the nauplius-form; and as these larvae live and feed in the open sea, and are not adapted for any peculiar habits of life, and from other reasons assigned by Fritz Muller, it is probable that at some very remote period an independent adult animal, resembling the Nauplius, existed, and subsequently produced, along several divergent lines of descent, the above-named great Crustacean groups. So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor, which was furnished in its adult state with branchiae, a swim-bladder, four fin-like limbs, and a long tail, all fitted for an aquatic life. "As all the organic beings, extinct and recent, which have ever lived, can be arranged within a few great classes; and as all within each class have, according to our theory, been connected together by fine gradations, the best, and, if our collections were nearly perfect, the only possible arrangement, would be genealogical; descent being the hidden bond of connexion which naturalists have been seeking under the term of the Natural System. On this view we can understand how it is that, in the eyes of most naturalists, the structure of the embryo is even more important for classification than that of the adult. In two or more groups of animals, however much they may differ from each other in structure and habits in their adult condition, if they pass through closely similar embryonic stages, we may feel assured that they all are descended from one parent-form, and are therefore closely related. Thus, community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent; but dissimilarity in embryonic development does not prove discommunity of descent, for in one of two groups the developmental stages may have been suppressed, or may have been so greatly modified through adaptation to new habits of life, as to be no longer recognisable. Even in groups, in which the adults have been modified to an extreme degree, community of origin is often revealed by the structure of the larvae; we have seen, for instance, that cirripedes, though externally so like shell-fish, are at once known by their larvae to belong to the great class of crustaceans. As the embryo often shows us more or less plainly the structure of the less modified and ancient progenitor of the group, we can see why ancient and extinct forms so often resemble in their adult state the embryos of existing species of the same class. Agassiz believes this to be a universal law of nature; and we may hope hereafter to see the law proved true. It can, however, be proved true only in those cases in which the ancient state of the progenitor of the group has not been wholly obliterated, either by successive variations having supervened at a very early period of growth, or by such variations having been inherited at an earlier stage than that at which they first appeared. It should also be borne in mind, that the law may be true, but yet, owing to the geological record not extending far enough back in time, may remain for a long period, or for ever, incapable of demonstration. The law will not strictly hold good in those cases in which an ancient form became adapted in its larval state to some special line of life, and transmitted the same larval state to a whole group of descendants; for such larvae will not resemble any still more ancient form in its adult state." As this passage shows, Darwin held that embryology was of interest because of the light it seems to throw upon ancestral history (phylogeny) and because of the help it would give in enabling us to arrive at a natural system of classification. With regard to the latter point, he quotes with approval the opinion that "the structure of the embryo is even more important for classification than that of the adult." What justification is there for this view? The phase of life chosen for the ordinary anatomical and physiological studies, namely, the adult phase, is merely one of the large number of stages of structure through which the organism passes. By far the greater number of these are included in what is specially called the developmental or (if we include larvae with embryos) embryonic period, for the developmental changes are more numerous and take place with greater rapidity at the beginning of life than in its later periods. As each of these stages is equal in value, for our present purpose, to the adult phase, it clearly follows that if there is anything in the view that the anatomical study of organisms is of importance in determining their mutual relations, the study of the organism in its various embryonic (and larval) stages must have a greater importance than the study of the single and arbitrarily selected stage of life called the adult. But a deeper reason than this has been assigned for the importance of embryology in classification. It has been asserted, and is implied by Darwin in the passage quoted, that the ancestral history is repeated in a condensed form in the embryonic, and that a study of the latter enables us to form a picture of the stages of structure through which the organism has passed in its evolution. It enables us on this view to reconstruct the pedigrees of animals and so to form a genealogical tree which shall be the true expression of their natural relations. The real question which we have to consider is to what extent the embryological studies of the last 50 years have confirmed or rendered probable this "theory of recapitulation." In the first place it must be noted that the recapitulation theory is itself a deduction from the theory of evolution. The facts of embryology, particularly of vertebrate embryology, and of larval history receive, it is argued, an explanation on the view that the successive stages of development are, on the whole, records of adult stages of structure which the species has passed through in its evolution. Whether this statement will bear a critical verbal examination I will not now pause to inquire, for it is more important to determine whether any independent facts can be alleged in favour of the theory. If it could be shown, as was stated to be the case by L. Agassiz, that ancient and extinct forms of life present features of structure now only found in embryos, we should have a body of facts of the greatest importance in the present discussion. But as Huxley (See Huxley's "Scientific Memoirs", London, 1898, Vol. I. page 303: "There is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in the development of the life of the individual at present, and those which have appeared at different epochs in the past." See also his Address to the Geological Society of London (1862) 'On the Palaeontological Evidence of Evolution', ibid. Vol. II. page 512.) has shown and as the whole course of palaeontological and embryological investigation has demonstrated, no such statement can be made. The extinct forms of life are very similar to those now existing and there is nothing specially embryonic about them. So that the facts, as we know them, lend no support to theory. But there is another class of facts which have been alleged in favour of the theory, viz. the facts which have been included in the generalisation known as the Law of v. Baer. The law asserts that embryos of different species of animals of the same group are more alike than the adults and that, the younger the embryo, the greater are the resemblances. If this law could be established it would undoubtedly be a strong argument in favour of the "recapitulation" explanation of the facts of embryology. But its truth has been seriously disputed. If it were true we should expect to find that the embryos of closely similar species would be indistinguishable from one another, but this is notoriously not the case. It is more difficult to meet the assertion when it is made in the form given above, for here we are dealing with matters of opinion. For instance, no one would deny that the embryo of a dogfish is different from the embryo of a rabbit, but there is room for difference of opinion when it is asserted that the difference is less than the difference between an adult dogfish and an adult rabbit. It would be perfectly true to say that the differences between the embryos concern other organs more than do the differences between the adults, but who is prepared to affirm that the presence of a cephalic coelom and of cranial segments, of external gills, of six gill slits, of the kidney tubes opening into the muscle-plate coelom, of an enormous yolk-sac, of a neurenteric canal, and the absence of any trace of an amnion, of an allantois and of a primitive streak are not morphological facts of as high an import as those implied by the differences between the adults? The generalisation undoubtedly had its origin in the fact that there is what may be called a family resemblance between embryos and larvae, but this resemblance, which is by no means exact, is largely superficial and does not extend to anatomical detail. It is useless to say, as Weismann has stated ("The Evolution Theory", by A. Weismann, English Translation, Vol. II. page 176, London, 1904.), that "it cannot be disputed that the rudiments [vestiges his translator means] of gill-arches and gill-clefts, which are peculiar to one stage of human ontogeny, give us every ground for concluding that we possessed fish-like ancestors." The question at issue is: did the pharyngeal arches and clefts of mammalian embryos ever discharge a branchial function in an adult ancestor of the mammalia? We cannot therefore, without begging the question at issue in the grossest manner, apply to them the terms "gill-arches" and "gill-clefts". That they are homologous with the "gill-arches" and "gill-clefts" of fishes is true; but there is no evidence to show that they ever discharged a branchial function. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it is beside the point to say that it "cannot be disputed" that they are evidence of a piscine ancestry. It must, therefore, be admitted that one outcome of the progress of embryological and palaeontological research for the last 50 years is negative. The recapitulation theory originated as a deduction from the evolution theory and as a deduction it still remains. Let us before leaving the subject apply another test. If the evolution theory and the recapitulation theory are both true, how is it that living birds are not only without teeth but have no rudiments of teeth at any stage of their existence? How is it that the missing digits in birds and mammals, the missing or reduced limb of snakes and whales, the reduced mandibulo-hyoid cleft of elasmobranch fishes are not present or relatively more highly developed in the embryo than in the adult? How is it that when a marked variation, such as an extra digit, or a reduced limb, or an extra segment, makes its appearance, it is not confined to the adult but can be seen all through the development? All the clear evidence we can get tends to show that marked variations, whether of reduction or increase, of organs are manifest during the whole of the development of the organ and do not merely affect the adult. And on reflection we see that it could hardly be otherwise. All such evidence is distinctly at variance with the theory of recapitulation, at least as applied to embryos. In the case of larvae of course the case will be different, for in them the organs are functional, and reduction in the adult will not be accompanied by reduction in the larva unless a change in the conditions of life of the larva enables it to occur. If after 50 years of research and close examination of the facts of embryology the recapitulation theory is still without satisfactory proof, it seems desirable to take a wider sweep and to inquire whether the facts of embryology cannot be included in a larger category. As has been pointed out by Huxley, development and life are co-extensive, and it is impossible to point to any period in the life of an organism when the developmental changes cease. It is true that these changes take place more rapidly at the commencement of life, but they are never wholly absent, and those which occur in the later or so-called adult stages of life do not differ in their essence, however much they may differ in their degree, from those which occur during the embryonic and larval periods. This consideration at once brings the changes of the embryonic period into the same category as those of the adult and suggests that an explanation which will account for the one will account for the other. What then is the problem we are dealing with? Surely it is this: Why does an organism as soon as it is established at the fertilisation of the ovum enter upon a cycle of transformations which never cease until death puts an end to them? In other words what is the meaning of that cycle of changes which all organisms present in a greater or less degree and which constitute the very essence of life? It is impossible to give an answer to this question so long as we remain within the precincts of Biology--and it is not my present purpose to penetrate beyond those precincts into the realms of philosophy. We have to do with an ultimate biological fact, with a fundamental property of living matter, which governs and includes all its other properties. How may this property be stated? Thus: it is a property of living matter to react in a remarkable way to external forces without undergoing destruction. The life-cycle, of which the embryonic and larval periods are a part, consists of the orderly interaction between the organism and its environment. The action of the environment produces certain morphological changes in the organism. These changes enable the organism to come into relation with new external forces, to move into what is practically a new environment, which in its turn produces further structural changes in the organism. These in their turn enable, indeed necessitate, the organism to move again into a new environment, and so the process continues until the structural changes are of such a nature that the organism is unable to adapt itself to the environment in which it finds itself. The essential condition of success in this process is that the organism should always shift into the environment to which its new structure is suited--any failure in this leading to the impairment of the organism. In most cases the shifting of the environment is a very gradual process (whether consisting in the very slight and gradual alteration in the relation of the embryo as a whole to the egg-shell or uterine wall, or in the relations of its parts to each other, or in the successive phases of adult life), and the morphological changes in connection with each step of it are but slight. But in some cases jumps are made such as we find in the phenomena known as hatching, birth, and metamorphosis. This property of reacting to the environment without undergoing destruction is, as has been stated, a fundamental property of organisms. It is impossible to conceive of any matter, to which the term living could be applied, being without it. And with this property of reacting to the environment goes the further property of undergoing a change which alters the relation of the organism to the old environment and places it in a new environment. If this reasoning is correct, it necessarily follows that this property must have been possessed by living matter at its first appearance on the earth. In other words living matter must always have presented a life-cycle, and the question arises what kind of modification has that cycle undergone? Has it increased or diminished in duration and complexity since organisms first appeared on the earth? The current view is that the cycle was at first very short and that it has increased in length by the evolutionary creation of new adult phases, that these new phases are in addition to those already existing and that each of them as it appears takes over from the preceding adult phase the functional condition of the reproductive organs. According to the same view the old adult phases are not obliterated but persist in a more or less modified form as larval stages. It is further supposed that as the life-history lengthens at one end by the addition of new adult phases, it is shortened at the other by the abbreviation of embryonic development and by the absorption of some of the early larval stages into the embryonic period; but on the whole the lengthening process has exceeded that of shortening, so that the whole life-history has, with the progress of evolution, become longer and more complicated. Now there can be no doubt that the life-history of organisms has been shortened in the way above suggested, for cases are known in which this can practically be seen to occur at the present day. But the process of lengthening by the creation of new stages at the other end of the life-cycle is more difficult to conceive and moreover there is no evidence for its having occurred. This, indeed, may have occurred, as is suggested below, but the evidence we have seems to indicate that evolutionary modification has proceeded by ALTERING and not by SUPERSEDING: that is to say that each stage in the life-history, as we see it to-day, has proceeded from a corresponding stage in a former era by the modification of that stage and not by the creation of a new one. Let me, at the risk of repetition, explain my meaning more fully by taking a concrete illustration. The mandibulo-hyoid cleft (spiracle) of the elasmobranch fishes, the lateral digits of the pig's foot, the hind-limbs of whales, the enlarged digit of the ostrich's foot are supposed to be organs which have been recently modified. This modification is not confined to the final adult stage of the life-history but characterises them throughout the whole of their development. A stage with a reduced spiracle does not proceed in development from a preceding stage in which the spiracle shows no reduction: it is reduced at its first appearance. The same statement may be made of organs which have entirely disappeared in the adult, such as bird's teeth and snake's fore-limbs: the adult stage in which they have disappeared is not preceded by embryonic stages in which the teeth and limbs or rudiments of them are present. In fact the evidence indicates that adult variations of any part are accompanied by precedent variations in the same direction in the embryo. The evidence seems to show, not that a stage is added on at the end of the life-history, but only that some of the stages in the life-history are modified. Indeed, on the wider view of development taken in this essay, a view which makes it coincident with life, one would not expect often to find, even if new stages are added in the course of evolution, that they are added at the end of the series when the organism has passed through its reproductive period. It is possible of course that new stages have been intercalated in the course of the life-history, though it is difficult to see how this has occurred. It is much more likely, if we may judge from available evidence, that every stage has had its counterpart in the ancestral form from which it has been derived by descent with modification. Just as the adult phase of the living form differs, owing to evolutionary modification, from the adult phase of the ancestor from which it has proceeded, so each larval phase will differ for the same reason from the corresponding larval phase in the life-history of the ancestor. Inasmuch as the organism is variable at every stage of its independent existence and is exposed to the action of natural selection there is no reason why it should escape modification at any stage. If there is any truth in these considerations it would seem to follow that at the dawn of life the life-cycle must have been, either in posse or in esse, at least as long as it is at the present time, and that the peculiarity of passing through a series of stages in which new characters are successively evolved is a primordial quality of living matter. Before leaving this part of the subject, it is necessary to touch upon another aspect of it. What are these variations in structure which succeed one another in the life-history of an organism? I am conscious that I am here on the threshold of a chamber which contains the clue to some of our difficulties, and that I cannot enter it. Looked at from one point of view they belong to the class of genetic variations, which depend upon the structure or constitution of the protoplasm; but instead of appearing in different zygotes (A zygote is a fertilised ovum, i.e. a new organism resulting from the fusion of an ovum and a spermatozoon.), they are present in the same zygote though at different times in its life-history. They are of the same order as the mutational variations of the modern biologist upon which the appearance of a new character depends. What is a genetic or mutational variation? It is a genetic character which was not present in either of the parents. But these "growth variations" were present in the parents, and in this they differ from mutational variations. But what are genetic characters? They are characters which must appear if any development occurs. They are usually contrasted with "acquired characters," using the expression "acquired character" in the Lamarckian sense. But strictly speaking they ARE acquired characters, for the zygote at first has none of the characters which it subsequently acquires, but only the power of acquiring them in response to the action of the environment. But the characters so acquired are not what we technically understand and what Lamarck meant by "acquired characters." They are genetic characters, as defined above. What then are Lamarck's "acquired characters"? They are variations in genetic characters caused in a particular way. There are, in fact, two kinds of variation in genetic characters depending on the mode of causation. Firstly, there are those variations consequent upon a variation in the constitution of the protoplasm of a particular zygote, and independent of the environment in which the organism develops, save in so far as this simply calls them forth: these are the so-called genetic or mutational variations. Secondly, there are those variations which occur in zygotes of similar germinal constitution and which are caused solely by differences in the environment to which the individuals are respectively exposed: these are the "acquired characters" of Lamarck and of authors generally. In consequence of this double sense in which the term "acquired characters" may be used, great confusion may and does occur. If the protoplasm be compared to a machine, and the external conditions to the hand that works the machine, then it may be said that, as the machine can only work in one way, it can only produce one kind of result (genetic character), but the particular form or quality (Lamarckian "acquired character") of the result will depend upon the hand that works the machine (environment), just as the quality of the sound produced by a fiddle depends entirely upon the hand which plays upon it. It would be improper to apply the term "mutation" to those genetic characters which are not new characters or new variants of old characters, but such genetic characters are of the same nature as those characters to which the term mutation has been applied. It may be noticed in passing that it is very questionable if the modern biologist has acted in the real interests of science in applying the term mutation in the sense in which he has applied it. The genetic characters of organisms come from one of two sources: either they are old characters and are due to the action of what we call inheritance or they are new and are due to what we call variation. If the term mutation is applied to the actual alteration of the machinery of the protoplasm, no objection can be felt to its use; but if it be applied, as it is, to the product of the action of the altered machine, viz. to the new genetic character, it leads to confusion. Inheritance is the persistence of the structure of the machine; characters are the products of the working of the machine; variation in genetic characters is due to the alteration (mutation) in the arrangement of the machinery, while variation in acquired characters (Lamarckian) is due to differences in the mode of working the machinery. The machinery when it starts (in the new zygote) has the power of grinding out certain results, which we call the characters of the organism. These appear at successive intervals of time, and the orderly manifestation of them is what we call the life-history of the organism. This brings us back to the question with which we started this discussion, viz. what is the relation of these variations in structure, which successively appear in an organism and constitute its life-history, to the mutational variations which appear in different organisms of the same brood or species. The question is brought home to us when we ask what is a bud-sport, such as a nectarine appearing on a peach-tree? From one point of view, it is simply a mutation appearing in asexual reproduction; from another it is one of these successional characters ("growth variations") which constitute the life-history of the zygote, for it appears in the same zygote which first produces a peach. Here our analogy of a machine which only works in one way seems to fail us, for these bud-sports do not appear in all parts of the organism, only in certain buds or parts of it, so that one part of the zygotic machine would appear to work differently to another. To discuss this question further would take us too far from our subject. Suffice it to say that we cannot answer it, any more than we can this further question of burning interest at the present day, viz. to what extent and in what manner is the machine itself altered by the particular way in which it is worked. In connection with this question we can only submit one consideration: the zygotic machine can, by its nature, only work once, so that any alteration in it can only be ascertained by studying the replicas of it which are produced in the reproductive organs. It is a peculiarity that the result which we call the ripening of the generative organs nearly always appears among the final products of the action of the zygotic machine. It is remarkable that this should be the case. What is the reason of it? The late appearance of functional reproductive organs is almost a universal law, and the explanation of it is suggested by expressing the law in another way, viz. that the machine is almost always so constituted that it ceases to work efficiently soon after the reproductive organs have sufficiently discharged their function. Why this should occur we cannot explain: it is an ultimate fact of nature, and cannot be included in any wider category. The period during which the reproductive organs can act may be short as in ephemerids or long as in man and trees, and there is no reason to suppose that their action damages the vital machinery, though sometimes, as in the case of annual plants (Metschnikoff), it may incidentally do so; but, long or short, the cessation of their actions is always a prelude to the end. When they and their action are impaired, the organism ceases to react with precision to the environment, and the organism as a whole undergoes retrogressive changes. It has been pointed out above that there is reason to believe that at the dawn of life the life-cycle was, EITHER IN ESSE OR IN POSSE, at least as long as it is at the present time. The qualification implied by the words in italics is necessary, for it is clearly possible that the external conditions then existing were not suitable for the production of all the stages of the potential life-history, and that what we call organic evolution has consisted in a gradual evolution of new environments to which the organism's innate capacity of change has enabled it to adapt itself. We have warrant for this possibility in the case of the Axolotl and in other similar cases of neoteny. And these cases further bring home to us the fact, to which I have already referred, that the full development of the functional reproductive organs is nearly always associated with the final stages of the life-history. On this view of the succession of characters in the life-history of organisms, how shall we explain the undoubted fact that the development of buds hardly ever presents any phenomena corresponding to the embryonic and larval changes? The reason is clearly this, that budding usually occurs after the embryonic stage is past; when the characters of embryonic life have been worked out by the machine. When it takes place at an early stage in embryonic life, as it does in cases of so-called embryonic fission, the product shows, either partly or entirely, phenomena similar to those of embryonic development. The only case known to me in which budding by the adult is accompanied by morphological features similar to those displayed by embryos is furnished by the budding of the medusiform spore-sacs of hydrozoon polyps. But this case is exceptional, for here we have to do with an attempt, which fails, to form a free-swimming organism, the medusa; and the vestiges which appear in the buds are the umbrella-cavity, marginal tentacles, circular canal, etc., of the medusa arrested in development. But the question still remains, are there no cases in which, as implied by the recapitulation theory, variations in any organ are confined to the period in which the organ is functional and do not affect it in the embryonic stages? The teeth of the whalebone whales may be cited as a case in which this is said to occur; but here the teeth are only imperfectly developed in the embryo and are soon absorbed. They have been affected by the change which has produced their disappearance in the adult, but not to complete extinction. Nor are they now likely to be extinguished, for having become exclusively embryonic they are largely protected from the action of natural selection. This consideration brings up a most important aspect of the question, so far as disappearing organs are concerned. Every organ is laid down at a certain period in the embryo and undergoes a certain course of growth until it obtains full functional development. When for any cause reduction begins, it is affected at all stages of its growth, unless it has functional importance in the larva, and in some cases its life is shortened at one or both ends. In cases, as in that of the whale's teeth, in which it entirely disappears in the adult, the latter part of its life is cut off; in others, the beginning of its life may be deferred. This happens, for instance, with the spiracle of many Elasmobranchs, which makes its appearance after the hyobranchial cleft, not before it as it should do, being anterior to it in position, and as it does in the Amniota in which it shows no reduction in size as compared with the other pharyngeal clefts. In those Elasmobranchs in which it is absent in the adult but present in the embryo (e.g. Carcharias) its life is shortened at both ends. Many more instances of organs, of which the beginning and end have been cut off, might be mentioned; e.g. the muscle-plate coelom of Aves, the primitive streak and the neurenteric canal of amniote blastoderms. In yet other cases in which the reduced organ is almost on the verge of disappearance, it may appear for a moment and disappear more than once in the course of development. As an instance of this striking phenomenon I may mention the neurenteric canal of avine embryos, and the anterior neuropore of Ascidians. Lastly the reduced organ may disappear in the developing stages before it does so in the adult. As an instance of this may be mentioned the mandibular palp of those Crustacea with zoaea larvae. This structure disappears in the larva only to reappear in a reduced form in later stages. In all these cases we are dealing with an organ which, we imagine, attained a fuller functional development at some previous stage in race-history, but in most of them we have no proof that it did so. It may be, and the possibility must not be lost sight of, that these organs never were anything else than functionless and that though they have been got rid of in the adult by elimination in the course of time, they have been able to persist in embryonic stages which are protected from the full action of natural selection. There is no reason to suppose that living matter at its first appearance differed from non-living matter in possessing only properties conducive to its well-being and prolonged existence. No one thinks that the properties of the various forms of inorganic matter are all strictly related to external conditions. Of what use to the diamond is its high specific gravity and high refrangibility, and to gold of its yellow colour and great weight? These substances continue to exist in virtue of other properties than these. It is impossible to suppose that the properties of living matter at its first appearance were all useful to it, for even now after aeons of elimination we find that it possesses many useless organs and that many of its relations to the external world are capable of considerable improvement. In writing this essay I have purposely refrained from taking a definite position with regard to the problems touched. My desire has been to write a chapter showing the influence of Darwin's work so far as Embryology is concerned, and the various points which come up for consideration in discussing his views. Darwin was the last man who would have claimed finality for any of his doctrines, but he might fairly have claimed to have set going a process of intellectual fermentation which is still very far from completion. XI. THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL RECORD. By W.B. Scott. Professor of Geology in the University of Princeton, U.S.A. I. ANIMALS. To no branch of science did the publication of "The Origin of Species" prove to be a more vivifying and transforming influence than to Palaeontology. This science had suffered, and to some extent, still suffers from its rather anomalous position between geology and biology, each of which makes claim to its territory, and it was held in strict bondage to the Linnean and Cuvierian dogma that species were immutable entities. There is, however, reason to maintain that this strict bondage to a dogma now abandoned, was not without its good side, and served the purpose of keeping the infant science in leading-strings until it was able to walk alone, and preventing a flood of premature generalisations and speculations. As Zittel has said: "Two directions were from the first apparent in palaeontological research--a stratigraphical and a biological. Stratigraphers wished from palaeontology mainly confirmation regarding the true order or relative age of zones of rock-deposits in the field. Biologists had, theoretically at least, the more genuine interest in fossil organisms as individual forms of life." (Zittel, "History of Geology and Palaeontology", page 363, London, 1901.) The geological or stratigraphical direction of the science was given by the work of William Smith, "the father of historical geology," in the closing decade of the eighteenth century. Smith was the first to make a systematic use of fossils in determining the order of succession of the rocks which make up the accessible crust of the earth, and this use has continued, without essential change, to the present day. It is true that the theory of evolution has greatly modified our conceptions concerning the introduction of new species and the manner in which palaeontological data are to be interpreted in terms of stratigraphy, but, broadly speaking, the method remains fundamentally the same as that introduced by Smith. The biological direction of palaeontology was due to Cuvier and his associates, who first showed that fossils were not merely varieties of existing organisms, but belonged to extinct species and genera, an altogether revolutionary conception, which startled the scientific world. Cuvier made careful studies, especially of fossil vertebrates, from the standpoint of zoology and was thus the founder of palaeontology as a biological science. His great work on "Ossements Fossiles" (Paris, 1821) has never been surpassed as a masterpiece of the comparative method of anatomical investigation, and has furnished to the palaeontologist the indispensable implements of research. On the other hand, Cuvier's theoretical views regarding the history of the earth and its successive faunas and floras are such as no one believes to-day. He held that the earth had been repeatedly devastated by great cataclysms, which destroyed every living thing, necessitating an entirely new creation, thus regarding the geological periods as sharply demarcated and strictly contemporaneous for the whole earth, and each species of animal and plant as confined to a single period. Cuvier's immense authority and his commanding personality dominated scientific thought for more than a generation and marked out the line which the development of palaeontology was to follow. The work was enthusiastically taken up by many very able men in the various European countries and in the United States, but, controlled as it was by the belief in the fixity of species, it remained almost entirely descriptive and consisted in the description and classification of the different groups of fossil organisms. As already intimated, this narrowness of view had its compensations, for it deferred generalisations until some adequate foundations for these had been laid. Dominant as it was, Cuvier's authority was slowly undermined by the progress of knowledge and the way was prepared for the introduction of more rational conceptions. The theory of "Catastrophism" was attacked by several geologists, most effectively by Sir Charles Lyell, who greatly amplified the principles enunciated by Hutton and Playfair in the preceding century, and inaugurated a new era in geology. Lyell's uniformitarian views of the earth's history and of the agencies which had wrought its changes, had undoubted effect in educating men's minds for the acceptance of essentially similar views regarding the organic world. In palaeontology too the doctrine of the immutability of species, though vehemently maintained and reasserted, was gradually weakening. In reviewing long series of fossils, relations were observed which pointed to genetic connections and yet were interpreted as purely ideal. Agassiz, for example, who never accepted the evolutionary theory, drew attention to facts which could be satisfactorily interpreted only in terms of that theory. Among the fossils he indicated "progressive," "synthetic," "prophetic," and "embryonic" types, and pointed out the parallelism which obtains between the geological succession of ancient animals and the ontogenetic development of recent forms. In Darwin's words: "This view accords admirably well with our theory." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 310.) Of similar import were Owen's views on "generalised types" and "archetypes." The appearance of "The Origin of Species" in 1859 revolutionised all the biological sciences. From the very nature of the case, Darwin was compelled to give careful consideration to the palaeontological evidence; indeed, it was the palaeontology and modern distribution of animals in South America which first led him to reflect upon the great problem. In his own words: "I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southward over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", I. page 82.) In the famous tenth and eleventh chapters of the "Origin", the palaeontological evidence is examined at length and the imperfection of the geological record is strongly emphasised. The conclusion is reached, that, in view of this extreme imperfection, palaeontology could not reasonably be expected to yield complete and convincing proof of the evolutionary theory. "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines." ("Origin of Species", page 289.) Yet, aside from these inevitable difficulties, he concludes, that "the other great leading facts in palaeontology agree admirably with the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection." (Ibid. page 313.) Darwin's theory gave an entirely new significance and importance to palaeontology. Cuvier's conception of the science had been a limited, though a lofty one. "How glorious it would be if we could arrange the organised products of the universe in their chronological order!... The chronological succession of organised forms, the exact determination of those types which appeared first, the simultaneous origin of certain species and their gradual decay, would perhaps teach us as much about the mysteries of organisation as we can possibly learn through experiments with living organisms." (Zittel op. cit. page 140.) This, however, was rather the expression of a hope for the distant future than an account of what was attainable, and in practice the science remained almost purely descriptive, until Darwin gave it a new standpoint, new problems and an altogether fresh interest and charm. The revolution thus accomplished is comparable only to that produced by the Copernican astronomy. From the first it was obvious that one of the most searching tests of the evolutionary theory would be given by the advance of palaeontological discovery. However imperfect the geological record might be, its ascertained facts would necessarily be consistent, under any reasonable interpretation, with the demands of a true theory; otherwise the theory would eventually be overwhelmed by the mass of irreconcilable data. A very great stimulus was thus given to geological investigation and to the exploration of new lands. In the last forty years, the examination of North and South America, of Africa and Asia has brought to light many chapters in the history of life, which are astonishingly full and complete. The flood of new material continues to accumulate at such a rate that it is impossible to keep abreast of it, and the very wealth of the collections is a source of difficulty and embarrassment. In modern palaeontology phylogenetic questions and problems occupy a foremost place and, as a result of the labours of many eminent investigators in many lands, it may be said that this science has proved to be one of the most solid supports of Darwin's theory. True, there are very many unsolved problems, and the discouraged worker is often tempted to believe that the fossils raise more questions than they answer. Yet, on the other hand, the whole trend of the evidence is so strongly in favour of the evolutionary doctrine, that no other interpretation seems at all rational. To present any adequate account of the palaeontological record from the evolutionary standpoint, would require a large volume and a singularly unequal, broken and disjointed history it would be. Here the record is scanty, interrupted, even unintelligible, while there it is crowded with embarrassing wealth of material, but too often these full chapters are separated by such stretches of unrecorded time, that it is difficult to connect them. It will be more profitable to present a few illustrative examples than to attempt an outline of the whole history. At the outset, the reader should be cautioned not to expect too much, for the task of determining phylogenies fairly bristles with difficulties and encounters many unanswered questions. Even when the evidence seems to be as copious and as complete as could be wished, different observers will put different interpretations upon it, as in the notorious case of the Steinheim shells. (In the Miocene beds of Steinheim, Wurtemberg, occur countless fresh-water shells, which show numerous lines of modification, but these have been very differently interpreted by different writers.) The ludicrous discrepances which often appear between the phylogenetic "trees" of various writers have cast an undue discredit upon the science and have led many zoologists to ignore palaeontology altogether as unworthy of serious attention. One principal cause of these discrepant and often contradictory results is our ignorance concerning the exact modes of developmental change. What one writer postulates as almost axiomatic, another will reject as impossible and absurd. Few will be found to agree as to how far a given resemblance is offset by a given unlikeness, and so long as the question is one of weighing evidence and balancing probabilities, complete harmony is not to be looked for. These formidable difficulties confront us even in attempting to work out from abundant material a brief chapter in the phylogenetic history of some small and clearly limited group, and they become disproportionately greater, when we extend our view over vast periods of time and undertake to determine the mutual relationships of classes and types. If the evidence were complete and available, we should hardly be able to unravel its infinite complexity, or to find a clue through the mazes of the labyrinth. "Our ideas of the course of descent must of necessity be diagrammatic." (D.H. Scott, "Studies in Fossil Botany", page 524. London, 1900.) Some of the most complete and convincing examples of descent with modification are to be found among the mammals, and nowhere more abundantly than in North America, where the series of continental formations, running through the whole Tertiary period, is remarkably full. Most of these formations contain a marvellous wealth of mammalian remains and in an unusual state of preservation. The oldest Eocene (Paleocene) has yielded a mammalian fauna which is still of prevailingly Mesozoic character, and contains but few forms which can be regarded as ancestral to those of later times. The succeeding fauna of the lower Eocene proper (Wasatch stage) is radically different and, while a few forms continue over from the Paleocene, the majority are evidently recent immigrants from some region not yet identified. From the Wasatch onward, the development of many phyla may be traced in almost unbroken continuity, though from time to time the record is somewhat obscured by migrations from the Old World and South America. As a rule, however, it is easy to distinguish between the immigrant and the indigenous elements of the fauna. From their gregarious habits and individual abundance, the history of many hoofed animals is preserved with especial clearness. So well known as to have become a commonplace, is the phylogeny of the horses, which, contrary to all that would have been expected, ran the greater part of its course in North America. So far as it has yet been traced, the line begins in the lower Eocene with the genus Eohippus, a little creature not much larger than a cat, which has a short neck, relatively short limbs, and in particular, short feet, with four functional digits and a splint-like rudiment in the fore-foot, three functional digits and a rudiment in the hind-foot. The forearm bones (ulna and radius) are complete and separate, as are also the bones of the lower leg (fibula and tibia). The skull has a short face, with the orbit, or eye-socket, incompletely enclosed with bone, and the brain-case is slender and of small capacity. The teeth are short-crowned, the incisors without "mark," or enamel pit, on the cutting edge; the premolars are all smaller and simpler than the molars. The pattern of the upper molars is so entirely different from that seen in the modern horses that, without the intermediate connecting steps, no one would have ventured to derive the later from the earlier plan. This pattern is quadritubercular, with four principal, conical cusps arranged in two transverse pairs, forming a square, and two minute cuspules between each transverse pair, a tooth which is much more pig-like than horse-like. In the lower molars the cusps have already united to form two crescents, one behind the other, forming a pattern which is extremely common in the early representatives of many different families, both of the Perissodactyla and the Artiodactyla. In spite of the manifold differences in all parts of the skeleton between Eohippus and the recent horses, the former has stamped upon it an equine character which is unmistakable, though it can hardly be expressed in words. Each one of the different Eocene and Oligocene horizons has its characteristic genus of horses, showing a slow, steady progress in a definite direction, all parts of the structure participating in the advance. It is not necessary to follow each of these successive steps of change, but it should be emphasised that the changes are gradual and uninterrupted. The genus Mesohippus, of the middle Oligocene, may be selected as a kind of half-way stage in the long progression. Comparing Mesohippus with Eohippus, we observe that the former is much larger, some species attaining the size of a sheep, and has a relatively longer neck, longer limbs and much more elongate feet, which are tridactyl, and the middle toe is so enlarged that it bears most of the weight, while the lateral digits are very much more slender. The fore-arm bones have begun to co-ossify and the ulna is greatly reduced, while the fibula, though still complete, is hardly more than a thread of bone. The skull has a longer face and a nearly enclosed orbit, and the brain-case is fuller and more capacious, the internal cast of which shows that the brain was richly convoluted. The teeth are still very short-crowned, but the upper incisors plainly show the beginning of the "mark"; the premolars have assumed the molar form, and the upper molars, though plainly derived from those of Eohippus, have made a long stride toward the horse pattern, in that the separate cusps have united to form a continuous outer wall and two transverse crests. In the lower Miocene the interesting genus Desmatippus shows a further advance in the development of the teeth, which are beginning to assume the long-crowned shape, delaying the formation of roots; a thin layer of cement covers the crowns, and the transverse crests of the upper grinding teeth display an incipient degree of their modern complexity. This tooth-pattern is strictly intermediate between the recent type and the ancient type seen in Mesohippus and its predecessors. The upper Miocene genera, Protohippus and Hipparion are, to all intents and purposes, modern in character, but their smaller size, tridactyl feet and somewhat shorter-crowned teeth are reminiscences of their ancestry. From time to time, when a land-connection between North America and Eurasia was established, some of the successive equine genera migrated to the Old World, but they do not seem to have gained a permanent footing there until the end of the Miocene or beginning of the Pliocene, eventually diversifying into the horses, asses, and zebras of Africa, Asia and Europe. At about the same period, the family extended its range to South America and there gave rise to a number of species and genera, some of them extremely peculiar. For some unknown reason, all the horse tribe had become extinct in the western hemisphere before the European discovery, but not until after the native race of man had peopled the continents. In addition to the main stem of equine descent, briefly considered in the foregoing paragraphs, several side-branches were given off at successive levels of the stem. Most of these branches were short-lived, but some of them flourished for a considerable period and ramified into many species. Apparently related to the horses and derived from the same root-stock is the family of the Palaeotheres, confined to the Eocene and Oligocene of Europe, dying out without descendants. In the earlier attempts to work out the history of the horses, as in the famous essay of Kowalevsky ("Sur l'Anchitherium aurelianense Cuv. et sur l'histoire paleontologique des Chevaux", "Mem. de l'Acad. Imp. des Sc. de St Petersbourg", XX. no. 5, 1873.), the Palaeotheres were placed in the direct line, because the number of adequately known Eocene mammals was then so small, that Cuvier's types were forced into various incongruous positions, to serve as ancestors for unrelated series. The American family of the Titanotheres may also be distantly related to the horses, but passed through an entirely different course of development. From the lower Eocene to the lower sub-stage of the middle Oligocene the series is complete, beginning with small and rather lightly built animals. Gradually the stature and massiveness increase, a transverse pair of nasal horns make their appearance and, as these increase in size, the canine tusks and incisors diminish correspondingly. Already in the oldest known genus the number of digits had been reduced to four in the fore-foot and three in the hind, but there the reduction stops, for the increasing body-weight made necessary the development of broad and heavy feet. The final members of the series comprise only large, almost elephantine animals, with immensely developed and very various nasal horns, huge and massive heads, and altogether a grotesque appearance. The growth of the brain did not at all keep pace with the increase of the head and body, and the ludicrously small brain may will have been one of the factors which determined the startlingly sudden disappearance and extinction of the group. Less completely known, but of unusual interest, is the genealogy of the rhinoceros family, which probably, though not certainly, was likewise of American origin. The group in North America at least, comprised three divisions, or sub-families, of very different proportions, appearance and habits, representing three divergent lines from the same stem. Though the relationship between the three lines seems hardly open to question, yet the form ancestral to all of them has not yet been identified. This is because of our still very incomplete knowledge of several perissodactyl genera of the Eocene, any one of which may eventually prove to be the ancestor sought for. The first sub-family is the entirely extinct group of Hyracodonts, which may be traced in successive modifications through the upper Eocene, lower and middle Oligocene, then disappearing altogether. As yet, the hyracodonts have been found only in North America, and the last genus of the series, Hyracodon, was a cursorial animal. Very briefly stated, the modifications consist in a gradual increase in size, with greater slenderness of proportions, accompanied by elongation of the neck, limbs, and feet, which become tridactyl and very narrow. The grinding teeth have assumed the rhinoceros-like pattern and the premolars resemble the molars in form; on the other hand, the front teeth, incisors and canines, have become very small and are useless as weapons. As the animal had no horns, it was quite defenceless and must have found its safety in its swift running, for Hyracodon displays many superficial resemblances to the contemporary Oligocene horses, and was evidently adapted for speed. It may well have been the competition of the horses which led to the extinction of these cursorial rhinoceroses. The second sub-family, that of the Amynodonts, followed a totally different course of development, becoming short-legged and short-footed, massive animals, the proportions of which suggest aquatic habits; they retained four digits in the front foot. The animal was well provided with weapons in the large canine tusks, but was without horns. Some members of this group extended their range to the Old World, but they all died out in the middle Oligocene, leaving no successors. The sub-family of the true rhinoceroses cannot yet be certainly traced farther back than to the base of the middle Oligocene, though some fragmentary remains found in the lower Oligocene are probably also referable to it. The most ancient and most primitive member of this series yet discovered, the genus Trigonias, is unmistakably a rhinoceros, yet much less massive, having more the proportions of a tapir; it had four toes in the front foot, three in the hind, and had a full complement of teeth, except for the lower canines, though the upper canines are about to disappear, and the peculiar modification of the incisors, characteristic of the true rhinoceroses, is already apparent; the skull is hornless. Representatives of this sub-family continue through the Oligocene and Miocene of North America, becoming rare and localised in the Pliocene and then disappearing altogether. In the Old World, on the other hand, where the line appeared almost as early as it did in America, this group underwent a great expansion and ramification, giving rise not only to the Asiatic and African forms, but also to several extinct series. Turning now to the Artiodactyla, we find still another group of mammals, that of the camels and llamas, which has long vanished from North America, yet took its rise and ran the greater part of its course in that continent. From the lower Eocene onward the history of this series is substantially complete, though much remains to be learned concerning the earlier members of the family. The story is very like that of the horses, to which in many respects it runs curiously parallel. Beginning with very small, five-toed animals, we observe in the successive genera a gradual transformation in all parts of the skeleton, an elongation of the neck, limbs and feet, a reduction of the digits from five to two, and eventually the coalescence of the remaining two digits into a "cannon-bone." The grinding teeth, by equally gradual steps, take on the ruminant pattern. In the upper Miocene the line divides into the two branches of the camels and llamas, the former migrating to Eurasia and the latter to South America, though representatives of both lines persisted in North America until a very late period. Interesting side-branches of this line have also been found, one of which ended in the upper Miocene in animals which had almost the proportions of the giraffes and must have resembled them in appearance. The American Tertiary has yielded several other groups of ruminant-like animals, some of which form beautifully complete evolutionary series, but space forbids more than this passing mention of them. It was in Europe that the Artiodactyla had their principal development, and the upper Eocene, Oligocene and Miocene are crowded with such an overwhelming number and variety of forms that it is hardly possible to marshal them in orderly array and determine their mutual relationships. Yet in this chaotic exuberance of life, certain important facts stand out clearly, among these none is of greater interest and importance than the genealogy of the true Ruminants, or Pecora, which may be traced from the upper Eocene onward. The steps of modification and change are very similar to those through which the camel phylum passed in North America, but it is instructive to note that, despite their many resemblances, the two series can be connected only in their far distant beginnings. The pecoran stock became vastly more expanded and diversified than did the camel line and was evidently more plastic and adaptable, spreading eventually over all the continents except Australia, and forming to-day one of the dominant types of mammals, while the camels are on the decline and not far from extinction. The Pecora successively ramified into the deer, antelopes, sheep, goats and oxen, and did not reach North America till the Miocene, when they were already far advanced in specialisation. To this invasion of the Pecora, or true ruminants, it seems probable that the decline and eventual disappearance of the camels is to be ascribed. Recent discoveries in Egypt have thrown much light upon a problem which long baffled the palaeontologist, namely, the origin of the elephants. (C.W. Andrews, "On the Evolution of the Proboscidea", "Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc." London, Vol. 196, 1904, page 99.) Early representatives of this order, Mastodons, had appeared almost simultaneously (in the geological sense of that word) in the upper Miocene of Europe and North America, but in neither continent was any more ancient type known which could plausibly be regarded as ancestral to them. Evidently, these problematical animals had reached the northern continents by migrating from some other region, but no one could say where that region lay. The Eocene and Oligocene beds of the Fayoum show us that the region sought for is Africa, and that the elephants form just such a series of gradual modifications as we have found among other hoofed animals. The later steps of the transformation, by which the mastodons lost their lower tusks, and their relatively small and simple grinding teeth acquired the great size and highly complex structure of the true elephants, may be followed in the uppermost Miocene and Pliocene fossils of India and southern Europe. Egypt has also of late furnished some very welcome material which contributes to the solution of another unsolved problem which had quite eluded research, the origin of the whales. The toothed-whales may be traced back in several more or less parallel lines as far as the lower Miocene, but their predecessors in the Oligocene are still so incompletely known that safe conclusions can hardly be drawn from them. In the middle Eocene of Egypt, however, has been found a small, whale-like animal (Protocetus), which shows what the ancestral toothed-whale was like, and at the same time seems to connect these thoroughly marine mammals with land-animals. Though already entirely adapted to an aquatic mode of life, the teeth, skull and backbone of Protocetus display so many differences from those of the later whales and so many approximations to those of primitive, carnivorous land-mammals, as, in a large degree, to bridge over the gap between the two groups. Thus one of the most puzzling of palaeontological questions is in a fair way to receive a satisfactory answer. The origin of the whalebone-whales and their relations to the toothed-whales cannot yet be determined, since the necessary fossils have not been discovered. Among the carnivorous mammals, phylogenetic series are not so clear and distinct as among the hoofed animals, chiefly because the carnivores are individually much less abundant, and well-preserved skeletons are among the prizes of the collector. Nevertheless, much has already been learned concerning the mutual relations of the carnivorous families, and several phylogenetic series, notably that of the dogs, are quite complete. It has been made extremely probable that the primitive dogs of the Eocene represent the central stock, from which nearly or quite all the other families branched off, though the origin and descent of the cats have not yet been determined. It should be clearly understood that the foregoing account of mammalian descent is merely a selection of a few representative cases and might be almost indefinitely extended. Nothing has been said, for example, of the wonderful museum of ancient mammalian life which is entombed in the rocks of South America, especially of Patagonia, and which opens a world so entirely different from that of the northern continents, yet exemplifying the same laws of "descent with modification." Very beautiful phylogenetic series have already been established among these most interesting and marvellously preserved fossils, but lack of space forbids a consideration of them. The origin of the mammalia, as a class, offers a problem of which palaeontology can as yet present no definitive solution. Many morphologists regard the early amphibia as the ancestral group from which the mammals were derived, while most palaeontologists believe that the mammals are descended from the reptiles. The most ancient known mammals, those from the upper Triassic of Europe and North America, are so extremely rare and so very imperfectly known, that they give little help in determining the descent of the class, but, on the other hand, certain reptilian orders of the Permian period, especially well represented in South Africa, display so many and such close approximations to mammalian structure, as strongly to suggest a genetic relationship. It is difficult to believe that all those likenesses should have been independently acquired and are without phylogenetic significance. Birds are comparatively rare as fossils and we should therefore look in vain among them for any such long and closely knit series as the mammals display in abundance. Nevertheless, a few extremely fortunate discoveries have made it practically certain that birds are descended from reptiles, of which they represent a highly specialised branch. The most ancient representative of this class is the extraordinary genus Archaeopteryx from the upper Jurassic of Bavaria, which, though an unmistakable bird, retains so many reptilian structures and characteristics as to make its derivation plain. Not to linger over anatomical minutiae, it may suffice to mention the absence of a horny beak, which is replaced by numerous true teeth, and the long lizard-like tail, which is made up of numerous distinct vertebrae, each with a pair of quill-like feathers attached to it. Birds with teeth are also found in the Cretaceous, though in most other respects the birds of that period had attained a substantially modern structure. Concerning the interrelations of the various orders and families of birds, palaeontology has as yet little to tell us. The life of the Mesozoic era was characterised by an astonishing number and variety of reptiles, which were adapted to every mode of life, and dominated the air, the sea and the land, and many of which were of colossal proportions. Owing to the conditions of preservation which obtained during the Mesozoic period, the history of the reptiles is a broken and interrupted one, so that we can make out many short series, rather than any one of considerable length. While the relations of several reptilian orders can be satisfactorily determined, others still baffle us entirely, making their first known appearance in a fully differentiated state. We can trace the descent of the sea-dragons, the Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs, from terrestrial ancestors, but the most ancient turtles yet discovered show us no closer approximation to any other order than do the recent turtles; and the oldest known Pterosaurs, the flying dragons of the Jurassic, are already fully differentiated. There is, however, no ground for discouragement in this, for the progress of discovery has been so rapid of late years, and our knowledge of Mesozoic life has increased with such leaps and bounds, that there is every reason to expect a solution of many of the outstanding problems in the near future. Passing over the lower vertebrates, for lack of space to give them any adequate consideration, we may briefly take up the record of invertebrate life. From the overwhelming mass of material it is difficult to make a representative selection and even more difficult to state the facts intelligibly without the use of unduly technical language and without the aid of illustrations. Several groups of the Mollusca, or shell-fish, yield very full and convincing evidence of their descent from earlier and simpler forms, and of these none is of greater interest than the Ammonites, an extinct order of the cephalopoda. The nearest living ally of the ammonites is the pearly nautilus, the other existing cephalopods, such as the squids, cuttle-fish, octopus, etc., are much more distantly related. Like the nautilus, the ammonites all possess a coiled and chambered shell, but their especial characteristic is the complexity of the "sutures." By sutures is meant the edges of the transverse partitions, or septa, where these join the shell-wall, and their complexity in the fully developed genera is extraordinary, forming patterns like the most elaborate oak-leaf embroidery, while in the nautiloids the sutures form simple curves. In the rocks of the Mesozoic era, wherever conditions of preservation are favourable, these beautiful shells are stored in countless multitudes, of an incredible variety of form, size and ornamentation, as is shown by the fact that nearly 5000 species have already been described. The ammonites are particularly well adapted for phylogenetic studies, because, by removing the successive whorls of the coiled shell, the individual development may be followed back in inverse order, to the microscopic "protoconch," or embryonic shell, which lies concealed in the middle of the coil. Thus the valuable aid of embryology is obtained in determining relationships. The descent of the ammonites, taken as a group, is simple and clear; they arose as a branch of the nautiloids in the lower Devonian, the shells known as goniatites having zigzag, angulated sutures. Late in the succeeding Carboniferous period appear shells with a truly ammonoid complexity of sutures, and in the Permian their number and variety cause them to form a striking element of the marine faunas. It is in the Mesozoic era, however, that these shells attain their full development; increasing enormously in the Triassic, they culminate in the Jurassic in the number of families, genera and species, in the complexity of the sutures, and in the variety of shell-ornamentation. A slow decline begins in the Cretaceous, ending in the complete extinction of the whole group at the end of that period. As a final phase in the history of the ammonites, there appear many so-called "abnormal" genera, in which the shell is irregularly coiled, or more or less uncoiled, in some forms becoming actually straight. It is interesting to observe that some of these genera are not natural groups, but are "polyphyletic," i.e. are each derived from several distinct ancestral genera, which have undergone a similar kind of degeneration. In the huge assembly of ammonites it is not yet possible to arrange all the forms in a truly natural classification, which shall express the various interrelations of the genera, yet several beautiful series have already been determined. In these series the individual development of the later general shows transitory stages which are permanent in antecedent genera. To give a mere catalogue of names without figures would not make these series more intelligible. The Brachiopoda, or "lamp-shells," are a phylum of which comparatively few survive to the present day; their shells have a superficial likeness to those of the bivalved Mollusca, but are not homologous with the latter, and the phylum is really very distinct from the molluscs. While greatly reduced now, these animals were incredibly abundant throughout the Palaeozoic era, great masses of limestone being often composed almost exclusively of their shells, and their variety is in keeping with their individual abundance. As in the case of the ammonites, the problem is to arrange this great multitude of forms in an orderly array that shall express the ramifications of the group according to a genetic system. For many brachiopods, both recent and fossil, the individual development, or ontogeny, has been worked out and has proved to be of great assistance in the problems of classification and phylogeny. Already very encouraging progress has been made in the solution of these problems. All brachiopods form first a tiny, embryonic shell, called the protegulum, which is believed to represent the ancestral form of the whole group, and in the more advanced genera the developmental stages clearly indicate the ancestral genera of the series, the succession of adult forms in time corresponding to the order of the ontogenetic stages. The transformation of the delicate calcareous supports of the arms, often exquisitely preserved, are extremely interesting. Many of the Palaeozoic genera had these supports coiled like a pair of spiral springs, and it has been shown that these genera were derived from types in which the supports were simply shelly loops. The long extinct class of crustacea known as the Trilobites are likewise very favourable subjects for phylogenetic studies. So far as the known record can inform us, the trilobites are exclusively Palaeozoic in distribution, but their course must have begun long before that era, as is shown by the number of distinct types among the genera of the lower Cambrian. The group reached the acme of abundance and relative importance in the Cambrian and Ordovician; then followed a long, slow decline, ending in complete and final disappearance before the end of the Permian. The newly-hatched and tiny trilobite larva, known as the protaspis, is very near to the primitive larval form of all the crustacea. By the aid of the correlated ontogenetic stages and the succession of the adult forms in the rocks, many phylogenetic series have been established and a basis for the natural arrangement of the whole class has been laid. Very instructive series may also be observed among the Echinoderms and, what is very rare, we are able in this sub-kingdom to demonstrate the derivation of one class from another. Indeed, there is much reason to believe that the extinct class Cystidea of the Cambrian is the ancestral group, from which all the other Echinoderms, star-fishes, brittle-stars, sea-urchins, feather-stars, etc., are descended. The foregoing sketch of the palaeontological record is, of necessity, extremely meagre, and does not represent even an outline of the evidence, but merely a few illustrative examples, selected almost at random from an immense body of material. However, it will perhaps suffice to show that the geological record is not so hopelessly incomplete as Darwin believed it to be. Since "The Origin of Species" was written, our knowledge of that record has been enormously extended and we now possess, no complete volumes, it is true, but some remarkably full and illuminating chapters. The main significance of the whole lies in the fact, that JUST IN PROPORTION TO THE COMPLETENESS OF THE RECORD IS THE UNEQUIVOCAL CHARACTER OF ITS TESTIMONY TO THE TRUTH OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. The test of a true, as distinguished from a false, theory is the manner in which newly discovered and unanticipated facts arrange themselves under it. No more striking illustration of this can be found than in the contrasted fates of Cuvier's theory and of that of Darwin. Even before Cuvier's death his views had been undermined and the progress of discovery soon laid them in irreparable ruin, while the activity of half-a-century in many different lines of inquiry has established the theory of evolution upon a foundation of ever growing solidity. It is Darwin's imperishable glory that he prescribed the lines along which all the biological sciences were to advance to conquests not dreamed of when he wrote. XII. THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL RECORD. By D.H. Scott, F.R.S. President of the Linnean Society. II. PLANTS. There are several points of view from which the subject of the present essay may be regarded. We may consider the fossil record of plants in its bearing: I. on the truth of the doctrine of Evolution; II. on Phylogeny, or the course of Evolution; III. on the theory of Natural Selection. The remarks which follow, illustrating certain aspects only of an extensive subject, may conveniently be grouped under these three headings. I. THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION. When "The Origin of Species" was written, it was necessary to show that the Geological Record was favourable to, or at least consistent with, the Theory of Descent. The point is argued, closely and fully, in Chapter X. "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record," and Chapter XI. "On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings"; there is, however, little about plants in these chapters. At the present time the truth of Evolution is no longer seriously disputed, though there are writers, like Reinke, who insist, and rightly so, that the doctrine is still only a belief, rather than an established fact of science. (J. Reinke, "Kritische Abstammungslehre", "Wiesner-Festschrift", page 11, Vienna, 1908.) Evidently, then, however little the Theory of Descent may be questioned in our own day, it is desirable to assure ourselves how the case stands, and in particular how far the evidence from fossil plants has grown stronger with time. As regards direct evidence for the derivation of one species from another, there has probably been little advance since Darwin wrote, at least so we must infer from the emphasis laid on the discontinuity of successive fossil species by great systematic authorities like Grand'Eury and Zeiller in their most recent writings. We must either adopt the mutationist views of those authors (referred to in the last section of this essay) or must still rely on Darwin's explanation of the absence of numerous intermediate varieties. The attempts which have been made to trace, in the Tertiary rocks, the evolution of recent species, cannot, owing to the imperfect character of the evidence, be regarded as wholly satisfactory. When we come to groups of a somewhat higher order we have an interesting history of the evolution of a recent family in the work, not yet completed, of Kidston and Gwynne-Vaughan on the fossil Osmundaceae. ("Trans. Royal Soc. Edinburgh", Vol. 45, Part III. 1907, Vol. 46, Part II. 1908, Vol. 46, Part III. 1909.) The authors are able, mainly on anatomical evidence, to trace back this now limited group of Ferns, through the Tertiary and Mesozoic to the Permian, and to show, with great probability, how their structure has been derived from that of early Palaeozoic types. The history of the Ginkgoaceae, now represented only by the isolated maidenhair tree, scarcely known in a wild state, offers another striking example of a family which can be traced with certainty to the older Mesozoic and perhaps further back still. (See Seward and Gowan, "The Maidenhair Tree (Gingko biloba)", "Annals of Botany", Vol. XIV. 1900, page 109; also A. Sprecher "Le Ginkgo biloba", L., Geneva, 1907.) On the wider question of the derivation of the great groups of plants, a very considerable advance has been made, and, so far as the higher plants are concerned, we are now able to form a far better conception than before of the probable course of evolution. This is a matter of phylogeny, and the facts will be considered under that head; our immediate point is that the new knowledge of the relations between the classes of plants in question materially strengthens the case for the theory of descent. The discoveries of the last few years throw light especially on the relation of the Angiosperms to the Gymnosperms, on that of the Seed-plants generally to the Ferns, and on the interrelations between the various classes of the higher Cryptogams. That the fossil record has not done still more for Evolution is due to the fact that it begins too late--a point on which Darwin laid stress ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 286.) and which has more recently been elaborated by Poulton. ("Essays on Evolution", pages 46 et seq., Oxford, 1908.) An immense proportion of the whole evolutionary history lies behind the lowest fossiliferous rocks, and the case is worse for plants than for animals, as the record for the former begins, for all practical purposes, much higher up in the rocks. It may be well here to call attention to a question, often overlooked, which has lately been revived by Reinke. (Reinke, loc. cit. page 13.) As all admit, we know nothing of the origin of life; consequently, for all we can tell, it is as probable that life began, on this planet, with many living things, as with one. If the first organic beings were many, they may have been heterogeneous, or at least exposed to different conditions, from their origin; in either case there would have been a number of distinct series from the beginning, and if so we should not be justified in assuming that all organisms are related to one another. There may conceivably be several of the original lines of descent still surviving, or represented among extinct forms--to reverse the remark of a distinguished botanist, there may be several Vegetable Kingdoms! However improbable this may sound, the possibility is one to be borne in mind. That all VASCULAR plants really belong to one stock seems certain, and here the palaeontological record has materially strengthened the case for a monophyletic history. The Bryophyta are not likely to be absolutely distinct, for their sexual organs, and the stomata of the Mosses strongly suggest community of descent with the higher plants; if this be so it no doubt establishes a certain presumption in favour of a common origin for plants generally, for the gap between "Mosses and Ferns" has been regarded as the widest in the Vegetable Kingdom. The direct evidence of consanguinity is however much weaker when we come to the Algae, and it is conceivable (even if improbable) that the higher plants may have had a distinct ancestry (now wholly lost) from the beginning. The question had been raised in Darwin's time, and he referred to it in these words: "No doubt it is possible, as Mr G.H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants." ("Origin of Species", page 425.) This question, though it deserves attention, does not immediately affect the subject of the palaeontological record of plants, for there can be no reasonable doubt as to the interrelationship of those groups on which the record at present throws light. The past history of plants by no means shows a regular progression from the simple to the complex, but often the contrary. This apparent anomaly is due to two causes. 1. The palaeobotanical record is essentially the story of the successive ascendancy of a series of dominant families, each of which attained its maximum, in organisation as well as in extent, and then sank into comparative obscurity, giving place to other families, which under new conditions were better able to take a leading place. As each family ran its downward course, either its members underwent an actual reduction in structure as they became relegated to herbaceous or perhaps aquatic life (this may have happened with the Horsetails and with Isoetes if derived from Lepidodendreae), or the higher branches of the family were crowded out altogether and only the "poor relations" were able to maintain their position by evading the competition of the ascendant races; this is also illustrated by the history of the Lycopod phylum. In either case there would result a lowering of the type of organisation within the group. 2. The course of real progress is often from the complex to the simple. If, as we shall find some grounds for believing, the Angiosperms came from a type with a flower resembling in its complexity that of Mesozoic "Cycads," almost the whole evolution of the flower in the highest plants has been a process of reduction. The stamen, in particular, has undoubtedly become extremely simplified during evolution; in the most primitive known seed-plants it was a highly compound leaf or pinna; its reduction has gone on in the Conifers and modern Cycads, as well as in the Angiosperms, though in different ways and to a varying extent. The seed offers another striking example; the Palaeozoic seeds (if we leave the seed-like organs of certain Lycopods out of consideration) were always, so far as we know, highly complex structures, with an elaborate vascular system, a pollen-chamber, and often a much-differentiated testa. In the present day such seeds exist only in a few Gymnosperms which retain their ancient characters--in all the higher Spermophytes the structure is very much simplified, and this holds good even in the Coniferae, where there is no countervailing complication of ovary and stigma. Reduction, in fact, is not always, or even generally, the same thing as degeneration. Simplification of parts is one of the most usual means of advance for the organism as a whole. A large proportion of the higher plants are microphyllous in comparison with the highly megaphyllous fern-like forms from which they appear to have been derived. Darwin treated the general question of advance in organisation with much caution, saying: "The geological record... does not extend far enough back, to show with unmistakeable clearness that within the known history of the world organisation has largely advanced." ("Origin of Species", page 308.) Further on (Ibid. page 309.) he gives two standards by which advance may be measured: "We ought not solely to compare the highest members of a class at any two periods... but we ought to compare all the members, high and low, at the two periods." Judged by either standard the Horsetails and Club Mosses of the Carboniferous were higher than those of our own day, and the same is true of the Mesozoic Cycads. There is a general advance in the succession of classes, but not within each class. Darwin's argument that "the inhabitants of the world at each successive period in its history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, in so far, higher in the scale" ("Origin of Species", page 315.) is unanswerable, but we must remember that "higher in the scale" only means "better adapted to the existing conditions." Darwin points out (Ibid. page 279.) that species have remained unchanged for long periods, probably longer than the periods of modification, and only underwent change when the conditions of their life were altered. Higher organisation, judged by the test of success, is thus purely relative to the changing conditions, a fact of which we have a striking illustration in the sudden incoming of the Angiosperms with all their wonderful floral adaptations to fertilisation by the higher families of Insects. II. PHYLOGENY. The question of phylogeny is really inseparable from that of the truth of the doctrine of evolution, for we cannot have historical evidence that evolution has actually taken place without at the same time having evidence of the course it has followed. As already pointed out, the progress hitherto made has been rather in the way of joining up the great classes of plants than in tracing the descent of particular species or genera of the recent flora. There appears to be a difference in this respect from the Animal record, which tells us so much about the descent of living species, such as the elephant or the horse. The reason for this difference is no doubt to be found in the fact that the later part of the palaeontological record is the most satisfactory in the case of animals and the least so in the case of plants. The Tertiary plant-remains, in the great majority of instances, are impressions of leaves, the conclusions to be drawn from which are highly precarious; until the whole subject of Angiospermous palaeobotany has been reinvestigated, it would be rash to venture on any statements as to the descent of the families of Dicotyledons or Monocotyledons. Our attention will be concentrated on the following questions, all relating to the phylogeny of main groups of plants: i. The Origin of the Angiosperms. ii. The Origin of the Seed-plants. iii. The Origin of the different classes of the Higher Cryptogamia. i. THE ORIGIN OF THE ANGIOSPERMS. The first of these questions has long been the great crux of botanical phylogeny, and until quite recently no light had been thrown upon the difficulty. The Angiosperms are the Flowering Plants, par excellence, and form, beyond comparison, the dominant sub-kingdom in the flora of our own age, including, apart from a few Conifers and Ferns, all the most familiar plants of our fields and gardens, and practically all plants of service to man. All recent work has tended to separate the Angiosperms more widely from the other seed-plants now living, the Gymnosperms. Vast as is the range of organisation presented by the great modern sub-kingdom, embracing forms adapted to every environment, there is yet a marked uniformity in certain points of structure, as in the development of the embryo-sac and its contents, the pollination through the intervention of a stigma, the strange phenomenon of double fertilisation (One sperm fertilising the egg, while the other unites with the embryo-sac nucleus, itself the product of a nuclear fusion, to give rise to a nutritive tissue, the endosperm.), the structure of the stamens, and the arrangement of the parts of the flower. All these points are common to Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons, and separate the Angiosperms collectively from all other plants. In geological history the Angiosperms first appear in the Lower Cretaceous, and by Upper Cretaceous times had already swamped all other vegetation and seized the dominant position which they still hold. Thus they are isolated structurally from the rest of the Vegetable Kingdom, while historically they suddenly appear, almost in full force, and apparently without intermediaries with other groups. To quote Darwin's vigorous words: "The rapid development, as far as we can judge, of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." ("More Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. II. page 20, letter to J.D. Hooker, 1879.) A couple of years later he made a bold suggestion (which he only called an "idle thought") to meet this difficulty. He says: "I have been so astonished at the apparently sudden coming in of the higher phanerogams, that I have sometimes fancied that development might have slowly gone on for an immense period in some isolated continent or large island, perhaps near the South Pole." (Ibid, page 26, letter to Hooker, 1881.) This idea of an Angiospermous invasion from some lost southern land has sometimes been revived since, but has not, so far as the writer is aware, been supported by evidence. Light on the problem has come from a different direction. The immense development of plants with the habit of Cycads, during the Mesozoic Period up to the Lower Cretaceous, has long been known. The existing Order Cycadaceae is a small family, with 9 genera and perhaps 100 species, occurring in the tropical and sub-tropical zones of both the Old and New World, but nowhere forming a dominant feature in the vegetation. Some few attain the stature of small trees, while in the majority the stem is short, though often living to a great age. The large pinnate or rarely bipinnate leaves give the Cycads a superficial resemblance in habit to Palms. Recent Cycads are dioecious; throughout the family the male fructification is in the form of a cone, each scale of the cone representing a stamen, and bearing on its lower surface numerous pollen-sacs, grouped in sori like the sporangia of Ferns. In all the genera, except Cycas itself, the female fructifications are likewise cones, each carpel bearing two ovules on its margin. In Cycas, however, no female cone is produced, but the leaf-like carpels, bearing from two to six ovules each, are borne directly on the main stem of the plant in rosettes alternating with those of the ordinary leaves--the most primitive arrangement known in any living seed-plant. The whole Order is relatively primitive, as shown most strikingly in its cryptogamic mode of fertilisation, by means of spermatozoids, which it shares with the maidenhair tree alone, among recent seed-plants. In all the older Mesozoic rocks, from the Trias to the Lower Cretaceous, plants of the Cycad class (Cycadophyta, to use Nathorst's comprehensive name) are extraordinarily abundant in all parts of the world; in fact they were almost as prominent in the flora of those ages as the Dicotyledons are in that of our own day. In habit and to a great extent in anatomy, the Mesozoic Cycadophyta for the most part much resemble the recent Cycadaceae. But, strange to say, it is only in the rarest cases that the fructification has proved to be of the simple type characteristic of the recent family; the vast majority of the abundant fertile specimens yielded by the Mesozoic rocks possess a type of reproductive apparatus far more elaborate than anything known in Cycadaceae or other Gymnosperms. The predominant Mesozoic family, characterised by this advanced reproductive organisation, is known as the Bennettiteae; in habit these plants resembled the more stunted Cycads of the recent flora, but differed from them in the presence of numerous lateral fructifications, like large buds, borne on the stem among the crowded bases of the leaves. The organisation of these fructifications was first worked out on European specimens by Carruthers, Solms-Laubach, Lignier and others, but these observers had only more or less ripe fruits to deal with; the complete structure of the flower has only been elucidated within the last few years by the researches of Wieland on the magnificent American material, derived from the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous beds of Maryland, Dakota and Wyoming. (G.R. Wieland, "American Fossil Cycads", Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1906.) The word "flower" is used deliberately, for reasons which will be apparent from the following brief description, based on Wieland's observations. The fructification is attached to the stem by a thick stalk, which, in its upper part, bears a large number of spirally arranged bracts, forming collectively a kind of perianth and completely enclosing the essential organs of reproduction. The latter consist of a whorl of stamens, of extremely elaborate structure, surrounding a central cone or receptacle bearing numerous ovules. The stamens resemble the fertile fronds of a fern; they are of a compound, pinnate form, and bear very large numbers of pollen-sacs, each of which is itself a compound structure consisting of a number of compartments in which the pollen was formed. In their lower part the stamens are fused together by their stalks, like the "monadelphous" stamens of a mallow. The numerous ovules borne on the central receptacle are stalked, and are intermixed with sterile scales; the latter are expanded at their outer ends, which are united to form a kind of pericarp or ovary-wall, only interrupted by the protruding micropyles of the ovules. There is thus an approach to the closed pistil of an Angiosperm, but it is evident that the ovules received the pollen directly. The whole fructification is of large size; in the case of Cycadeoidea dacotensis, one of the species investigated by Wieland, the total length, in the bud condition, is about 12 cm., half of which belongs to the peduncle. The general arrangement of the organs is manifestly the same as in a typical Angiospermous flower, with a central pistil, a surrounding whorl of stamens and an enveloping perianth; there is, as we have seen, some approach to the closed ovary of an Angiosperm; another point, first discovered nearly 20 years ago by Solms-Laubach in his investigation of a British species, is that the seed was practically "exalbuminous," its cavity being filled by the large, dicotyledonous embryo, whereas in all known Gymnosperms a large part of the sac is occupied by a nutritive tissue, the prothallus or endosperm; here also we have a condition only met with elsewhere among the higher Flowering Plants. Taking all the characters into account, the indications of affinity between the Mesozoic Cycadophyta and the Angiosperms appear extremely significant, as was recognised by Wieland when he first discovered the hermaphrodite nature of the Bennettitean flower. The Angiosperm with which he specially compared the fossil type was the Tulip tree (Liriodendron) and certainly there is a remarkable analogy with the Magnoliaceous flowers, and with those of related orders such as Ranunculaceae and the Water-lilies. It cannot, of course, be maintained that the Bennettiteae, or any other Mesozoic Cycadophyta at present known, were on the direct line of descent of the Angiosperms, for there are some important points of difference, as, for example, in the great complexity of the stamens, and in the fact that the ovary-wall or pericarp was not formed by the carpels themselves, but by the accompanying sterile scale-leaves. Botanists, since the discovery of the bisexual flowers of the Bennettiteae, have expressed different views as to the nearness of their relation to the higher Flowering Plants, but the points of agreement are so many that it is difficult to resist the conviction that a real relation exists, and that the ancestry of the Angiosperms, so long shrouded in complete obscurity, is to be sought among the great plexus of Cycad-like plants which dominated the flora of the world in Mesozoic times. (On this subject see, in addition to Wieland's great work above cited, F.W. Oliver, "Pteridosperms and Angiosperms", "New Phytologist", Vol. V. 1906; D.H. Scott, "The Flowering Plants of the Mesozoic Age in the Light of Recent Discoveries", "Journal R. Microscop. Soc." 1907, and especially E.A.N. Arber and J. Parkin, "On the Origin of Angiosperms", "Journal Linn. Soc." (Bot.) Vol. XXXVIII. page 29, 1907.) The great complexity of the Bennettitean flower, the earliest known fructification to which the word "flower" can be applied without forcing the sense, renders it probable, as Wieland and others have pointed out, that the evolution of the flower in Angiosperms has consisted essentially in a process of reduction, and that the simplest forms of flower are not to be regarded as the most primitive. The older morphologists generally took the view that such simple flowers were to be explained as reductions from a more perfect type, and this opinion, though abandoned by many later writers, appears likely to be true when we consider the elaboration of floral structure attained among the Mesozoic Cycadophyta, which preceded the Angiosperms in evolution. If, as now seems probable, the Angiosperms were derived from ancestors allied to the Cycads, it would naturally follow that the Dicotyledons were first evolved, for their structure has most in common with that of the Cycadophyta. We should then have to regard the Monocotyledons as a side-line, diverging probably at a very early stage from the main dicotyledonous stock, a view which many botanists have maintained, of late, on other grounds. (See especially Ethel Sargant, "The Reconstruction of a Race of Primitive Angiosperms", "Annals of Botany", Vol. XXII. page 121, 1908.) So far, however, as the palaeontological record shows, the Monocotyledons were little if at all later in their appearance than the Dicotyledons, though always subordinate in numbers. The typical and beautifully preserved Palm-wood from Cretaceous rocks is striking evidence of the early evolution of a characteristic monocotyledonous family. It must be admitted that the whole question of the evolution of Monocotyledons remains to be solved. Accepting, provisionally, the theory of the cycadophytic origin of Angiosperms, it is interesting to see to what further conclusions we are led. The Bennettiteae, at any rate, were still at the gymnospermous level as regards their pollination, for the exposed micropyles of the ovules were in a position to receive the pollen directly, without the intervention of a stigma. It is thus indicated that the Angiosperms sprang from a gymnospermous source, and that the two great phyla of Seed-plants have not been distinct from the first, though no doubt the great majority of known Gymnosperms, especially the Coniferae, represent branch-lines of their own. The stamens of the Bennettiteae are arranged precisely as in an angiospermous flower, but in form and structure they are like the fertile fronds of a Fern, in fact the compound pollen-sacs, or synangia as they are technically called, almost exactly agree with the spore-sacs of a particular family of Ferns--the Marattiaceae, a limited group, now mainly tropical, which was probably more prominent in the later Palaeozoic times than at present. The scaly hairs, or ramenta, which clothe every part of the plant, are also like those of Ferns. It is not likely that the characters in which the Bennettiteae resemble the Ferns came to them directly from ancestors belonging to that class; an extensive group of Seed-plants, the Pteridospermeae, existed in Palaeozoic times and bear evident marks of affinity with the Fern phylum. The fern-like characters so remarkably persistent in the highly organised Cycadophyta of the Mesozoic were in all likelihood derived through the Pteridosperms, plants which show an unmistakable approach to the cycadophytic type. The family Bennettiteae thus presents an extraordinary association of characters, exhibiting, side by side, features which belong to the Angiosperms, the Gymnosperms and the Ferns. ii. ORIGIN OF SEED-PLANTS. The general relation of the gymnospermous Seed-plants to the Higher Cryptogamia was cleared up, independently of fossil evidence, by the brilliant researches of Hofmeister, dating from the middle of the past century. (W. Hofmeister, "On the Germination, Development and Fructification of the Higher Cryptogamia", Ray Society, London, 1862. The original German treatise appeared in 1851.) He showed that "the embryo-sac of the Coniferae may be looked upon as a spore remaining enclosed in its sporangium; the prothallium which it forms does not come to the light." (Ibid. page 438.) He thus determined the homologies on the female side. Recognising, as some previous observers had already done, that the microspores of those Cryptogams in which two kinds of spore are developed, are equivalent to the pollen-grains of the higher plants, he further pointed out that fertilisation "in the Rhizocarpeae and Selaginellae takes place by free spermatozoa, and in the Coniferae by a pollen-tube, in the interior of which spermatozoa are probably formed"--a remarkable instance of prescience, for though spermatozoids have not been found in the Conifers proper, they were demonstrated in the allied groups Cycadaceae and Ginkgo, in 1896, by the Japanese botanists Ikeno and Hirase. A new link was thus established between the Gymnosperms and the Cryptogams. It remained uncertain, however, from which line of Cryptogams the gymnospermous Seed-plants had sprung. The great point of morphological comparison was the presence of two kinds of spore, and this was known to occur in the recent Lycopods and Water-ferns (Rhizocarpeae) and was also found in fossil representatives of the third phylum, that of the Horsetails. As a matter of fact all the three great Cryptogamic classes have found champions to maintain their claim to the ancestry of the Seed-plants, and in every case fossil evidence was called in. For a long time the Lycopods were the favourites, while the Ferns found the least support. The writer remembers, however, in the year 1881, hearing the late Prof. Sachs maintain, in a lecture to his class, that the descent of the Cycads could be traced, not merely from Ferns, but from a definite family of Ferns, the Marattiaceae, a view which, though in a somewhat crude form, anticipated more modern ideas. Williamson appears to have been the first to recognise the presence, in the Carboniferous flora, of plants combining the characters of Ferns and Cycads. (See especially his "Organisation of the Fossil Plants of the Coal-Measures", Part XIII. "Phil. Trans. Royal Soc." 1887 B. page 299.) This conclusion was first reached in the case of the genera Heterangium and Lyginodendron, plants, which with a wholly fern-like habit, were found to unite an anatomical structure holding the balance between that of Ferns and Cycads, Heterangium inclining more to the former and Lyginodendron to the latter. Later researches placed Williamson's original suggestion on a firmer basis, and clearly proved the intermediate nature of these genera, and of a number of others, so far as their vegetative organs were concerned. This stage in our knowledge was marked by the institution of the class Cycadofilices by Potonie in 1897. Nothing, however, was known of the organs of reproduction of the Cycadofilices, until F.W. Oliver, in 1903, identified a fossil seed, Lagenostoma Lomaxi, as belonging to Lyginodendron, the identification depending, in the first instance, on the recognition of an identical form of gland, of very characteristic structure, on the vegetative organs of Lyginodendron and on the cupule enveloping the seed. This evidence was supported by the discovery of a close anatomical agreement in other respects, as well as by constant association between the seed and the plant. (F.W. Oliver and D.H. Scott, "On the Structure of the Palaeozoic Seed, Lagenostoma Lomaxi, etc." "Phil. Trans. Royal Soc." Vol. 197 B. 1904.) The structure of the seed of Lyginodendron, proved to be of the same general type as that of the Cycads, as shown especially by the presence of a pollen-chamber or special cavity for the reception of the pollen-grains, an organ only known in the Cycads and Ginkgo among recent plants. Within a few months after the discovery of the seed of Lyginodendron, Kidston found the large, nut-like seed of a Neuropteris, another fern-like Carboniferous plant, in actual connection with the pinnules of the frond, and since then seeds have been observed on the frond in species of Aneimites and Pecopteris, and a vast body of evidence, direct or indirect, has accumulated, showing that a large proportion of the Palaeozoic plants formerly classed as Ferns were in reality reproduced by seeds of the same type as those of recent Cycadaceae. (A summary of the evidence will be found in the writer's article "On the present position of Palaeozoic Botany", "Progressus Rei Botanicae", 1907, page 139, and "Studies in Fossil Botany", Vol. II. (2nd edition) London, 1909.) At the same time, the anatomical structure, where it is open to investigation, confirms the suggestion given by the habit, and shows that these early seed-bearing plants had a real affinity with Ferns. This conclusion received strong corroboration when Kidston, in 1905, discovered the male organs of Lyginodendron, and showed that they were identical with a fructification of the genus Crossotheca, hitherto regarded as belonging to Marattiaceous Ferns. (Kidston, "On the Microsporangia of the Pteridospermeae, etc." "Phil. Trans. Royal Soc." Vol. 198, B. 1906.) The general conclusion which follows from the various observations alluded to, is that in Palaeozoic times there was a great body of plants (including, as it appears, a large majority of the fossils previously regarded as Ferns) which had attained the rank of Spermophyta, bearing seeds of a Cycadean type on fronds scarcely differing from the vegetative foliage, and in other respects, namely anatomy, habit and the structure of the pollen-bearing organs, retaining many of the characters of Ferns. From this extensive class of plants, to which the name Pteridospermeae has been given, it can scarcely be doubted that the abundant Cycadophyta, of the succeeding Mesozoic period, were derived. This conclusion is of far-reaching significance, for we have already found reason to think that the Angiosperms themselves sprang, in later times, from the Cycadophytic stock; it thus appears that the Fern-phylum, taken in a broad sense, ultimately represents the source from which the main line of descent of the Phanerogams took its rise. It must further be borne in mind that in the Palaeozoic period there existed another group of seed-bearing plants, the Cordaiteae, far more advanced than the Pteridospermeae, and in many respects approaching the Coniferae, which themselves begin to appear in the latest Palaeozoic rocks. The Cordaiteae, while wholly different in habit from the contemporary fern-like Seed-plants, show unmistakable signs of a common origin with them. Not only is there a whole series of forms connecting the anatomical structure of the Cordaiteae with that of the Lyginodendreae among Pteridosperms, but a still more important point is that the seeds of the Cordaiteae, which have long been known, are of the same Cycadean type as those of the Pteridosperms, so that it is not always possible, as yet, to discriminate between the seeds of the two groups. These facts indicate that the same fern-like stock which gave rise to the Cycadophyta and through them, as appears probable, to the Angiosperms, was also the source of the Cordaiteae, which in their turn show manifest affinity with some at least of the Coniferae. Unless the latter are an artificial group, a view which does not commend itself to the writer, it would appear probable that the Gymnosperms generally, as well as the Angiosperms, were derived from an ancient race of Cryptogams, most nearly related to the Ferns. (Some botanists, however, believe that the Coniferae, or some of them, are probably more nearly related to the Lycopods. See Seward and Ford, "The Araucarieae, Recent and Extinct", "Phil. Trans. Royal Soc." Vol. 198 B. 1906.) It may be mentioned here that the small gymnospermous group Gnetales (including the extraordinary West African plant Welwitschia) which were formerly regarded by some authorities as akin to the Equisetales, have recently been referred, on better grounds, to a common origin with the Angiosperms, from the Mesozoic Cycadophyta. The tendency, therefore, of modern work on the palaeontological record of the Seed-plants has been to exalt the importance of the Fern-phylum, which, on present evidence, appears to be that from which the great majority, possibly the whole, of the Spermophyta have been derived. One word of caution, however, is necessary. The Seed-plants are of enormous antiquity; both the Pteridosperms and the more highly organised family Cordaiteae, go back as far in geological history (namely to the Devonian) as the Ferns themselves or any other Vascular Cryptogams. It must therefore be understood that in speaking of the derivation of the Spermophyta from the Fern-phylum, we refer to that phylum at a very early stage, probably earlier than the most ancient period to which our record of land-plants extends. The affinity between the oldest Seed-plants and the Ferns, in the widest sense, seems established, but the common stock from which they actually arose is still unknown; though no doubt nearer to the Ferns than to any other group, it must have differed widely from the Ferns as we now know them, or perhaps even from any which the fossil record has yet revealed to us. iii. THE ORIGIN OF THE HIGHER CRYPTOGAMIA. The Sub-kingdom of the higher Spore-plants, the Cryptogamia possessing a vascular system, was more prominent in early geological periods than at present. It is true that the dominance of the Pteridophyta in Palaeozoic times has been much exaggerated owing to the assumption that everything which looked like a Fern really was a Fern. But, allowing for the fact, now established, that most of the Palaeozoic fern-like plants were already Spermophyta, there remains a vast mass of Cryptogamic forms of that period, and the familiar statement that they formed the main constituent of the Coal-forests still holds good. The three classes, Ferns (Filicales), Horsetails (Equisetales) and Club-mosses (Lycopodiales), under which we now group the Vascular Cryptogams, all extend back in geological history as far as we have any record of the flora of the land; in the Palaeozoic, however, a fourth class, the Sphenophyllales, was present. As regards the early history of the Ferns, which are of special interest from their relation to the Seed-plants, it is impossible to speak quite positively, owing to the difficulty of discriminating between true fossil Ferns and the Pteridosperms which so closely simulated them. The difficulty especially affects the question of the position of Marattiaceous Ferns in the Palaeozoic Floras. This family, now so restricted, was until recently believed to have been one of the most important groups of Palaeozoic plants, especially during later Carboniferous and Permian times. Evidence both from anatomy and from sporangial characters appeared to establish this conclusion. Of late, however, doubts have arisen, owing to the discovery that some supposed members of the Marattiaceae bore seeds, and that a form of fructification previously referred to that family (Crossotheca) was really the pollen-bearing apparatus of a Pteridosperm (Lyginodendron). The question presents much difficulty; though it seems certain that our ideas of the extent of the family in Palaeozoic times will have to be restricted, there is still a decided balance of evidence in favour of the view that a considerable body of Marattiaceous Ferns actually existed. The plants in question were of large size (often arborescent) and highly organised--they represent, in fact, one of the highest developments of the Fern-stock, rather than a primitive type of the class. There was, however, in the Palaeozoic period, a considerable group of comparatively simple Ferns (for which Arber has proposed the collective name Primofilices); the best known of these are referred to the family Botryopterideae, consisting of plants of small or moderate dimensions, with, on the whole, a simple anatomical structure, in certain cases actually simpler than that of any recent Ferns. On the other hand the sporangia of these plants were usually borne on special fertile fronds, a mark of rather high differentiation. This group goes back to the Devonian and includes some of the earliest types of Fern with which we are acquainted. It is probable that the Primofilices (though not the particular family Botryopterideae) represent the stock from which the various families of modern Ferns, already developed in the Mesozoic period, may have sprung. None of the early Ferns show any clear approach to other classes of Vascular Cryptogams; so far as the fossil record affords any evidence, Ferns have always been plants with relatively large and usually compound leaves. There is no indication of their derivation from a microphyllous ancestry, though, as we shall see, there is some slight evidence for the converse hypothesis. Whatever the origin of the Ferns may have been it is hidden in the older rocks. It has, however, been held that certain other Cryptogamic phyla had a common origin with the Ferns. The Equisetales are at present a well-defined group; even in the rich Palaeozoic floras the habit, anatomy and reproductive characters usually render the members of this class unmistakable, in spite of the great development and stature which they then attained. It is interesting, however, to find that in the oldest known representatives of the Equisetales the leaves were highly developed and dichotomously divided, thus differing greatly from the mere scale-leaves of the recent Horsetails, or even from the simple linear leaves of the later Calamites. The early members of the class, in their forked leaves, and in anatomical characters, show an approximation to the Sphenophyllales, which are chiefly represented by the large genus Sphenophyllum, ranging through the Palaeozoic from the Middle Devonian onwards. These were plants with rather slender, ribbed stems, bearing whorls of wedge-shaped or deeply forked leaves, six being the typical number in each whorl. From their weak habit it has been conjectured, with much probability, that they may have been climbing plants, like the scrambling Bedstraws of our hedgerows. The anatomy of the stem is simple and root-like; the cones are remarkable for the fact that each scale or sporophyll is a double structure, consisting of a lower, usually sterile lobe and one or more upper lobes bearing the sporangia; in one species both parts of the sporophyll were fertile. Sphenophyllum was evidently much specialised; the only other known genus is based on an isolated cone, Cheirostrobus, of Lower Carboniferous age, with an extraordinarily complex structure. In this genus especially, but also in the entire group, there is an evident relation to the Equisetales; hence it is of great interest that Nathorst has described, from the Devonian of Bear Island in the Arctic regions, a new genus Pseudobornia, consisting of large plants, remarkable for their highly compound leaves which, when found detached, were taken for the fronds of a Fern. The whorled arrangement of the leaves, and the habit of the plant, suggest affinities either with the Equisetales or the Sphenophyllales; Nathorst makes the genus the type of a new class, the Pseudoborniales. (A.G. Nathorst, "Zur Oberdevonischen Flora der Baren-Insel", "Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar" Bd. 36, No. 3, Stockholm, 1902.) The available data, though still very fragmentary, certainly suggest that both Equisetales and Sphenophyllales may have sprung from a common stock having certain fern-like characters. On the other hand the Sphenophylls, and especially the peculiar genus Cheirostrobus, have in their anatomy a good deal in common with the Lycopods, and of late years they have been regarded as the derivatives of a stock common to that class and the Equisetales. At any rate the characters of the Sphenophyllales and of the new group Pseudoborniales suggest the existence, at a very early period, of a synthetic race of plants, combining the characters of various phyla of the Vascular Cryptogams. It may further be mentioned that the Psilotaceae, an isolated epiphytic family hitherto referred to the Lycopods, have been regarded by several recent authors as the last survivors of the Sphenophyllales, which they resemble both in their anatomy and in the position of their sporangia. The Lycopods, so far as their early history is known, are remarkable rather for their high development in Palaeozoic times than for any indications of a more primitive ancestry. In the recent Flora, two of the four living genera (Excluding Psilotaceae.) (Selaginella and Isoetes) have spores of two kinds, while the other two (Lycopodium and Phylloglossum) are homosporous. Curiously enough, no certain instance of a homosporous Palaeozoic Lycopod has yet been discovered, though well-preserved fructifications are numerous. Wherever the facts have been definitely ascertained, we find two kinds of spore, differentiated quite as sharply as in any living members of the group. Some of the Palaeozoic Lycopods, in fact, went further, and produced bodies of the nature of seeds, some of which were actually regarded, for many years, as the seeds of Gymnosperms. This specially advanced form of fructification goes back at least as far as the Lower Carboniferous, while the oldest known genus of Lycopods, Bothrodendron, which is found in the Devonian, though not seed-bearing, was typically heterosporous, if we may judge from the Coal-measure species. No doubt homosporous Lycopods existed, but the great prevalence of the higher mode of reproduction in days which to us appear ancient, shows how long a course of evolution must have already been passed through before the oldest known members of the group came into being. The other characters of the Palaeozoic Lycopods tell the same tale; most of them attained the stature of trees, with a corresponding elaboration of anatomical structure, and even the herbaceous forms show no special simplicity. It appears from recent work that herbaceous Lycopods, indistinguishable from our recent Selaginellas, already existed in the time of the Coal-measures, while one herbaceous form (Miadesmia) is known to have borne seeds. The utmost that can be said for primitiveness of character in Palaeozoic Lycopods is that the anatomy of the stem, in its primary ground-plan, as distinguished from its secondary growth, was simpler than that of most Lycopodiums and Selaginellas at the present day. There are also some peculiarities in the underground organs (Stigmaria) which suggest the possibility of a somewhat imperfect differentiation between root and stem, but precisely parallel difficulties are met with in the case of the living Selaginellas, and in some degree in species of Lycopodium. In spite of their high development in past ages the Lycopods, recent and fossil, constitute, on the whole, a homogeneous group, and there is little at present to connect them with other phyla. Anatomically some relation to the Sphenophylls is indicated, and perhaps the recent Psilotaceae give some support to this connection, for while their nearest alliance appears to be with the Sphenophylls, they approach the Lycopods in anatomy, habit, and mode of branching. The typically microphyllous character of the Lycopods, and the simple relation between sporangium and sporophyll which obtains throughout the class, have led various botanists to regard them as the most primitive phylum of the Vascular Cryptogams. There is nothing in the fossil record to disprove this view, but neither is there anything to support it, for this class so far as we know is no more ancient than the megaphyllous Cryptogams, and its earliest representatives show no special simplicity. If the indications of affinity with Sphenophylls are of any value the Lycopods are open to suspicion of reduction from a megaphyllous ancestry, but there is no direct palaeontological evidence for such a history. The general conclusions to which we are led by a consideration of the fossil record of the Vascular Cryptogams are still very hypothetical, but may be provisionally stated as follows: The Ferns go back to the earliest known period. In Mesozoic times practically all the existing families had appeared; in the Palaeozoic the class was less extensive than formerly believed, a majority of the supposed Ferns of that age having proved to be seed-bearing plants. The oldest authentic representatives of the Ferns were megaphyllous plants, broadly speaking, of the same type as those of later epochs, though differing much in detail. As far back as the record extends they show no sign of becoming merged with other phyla in any synthetic group. The Equisetales likewise have a long history, and manifestly attained their greatest development in Palaeozoic times. Their oldest forms show an approach to the extinct class Sphenophyllales, which connects them to some extent, by anatomical characters, with the Lycopods. At the same time the oldest Equisetales show a somewhat megaphyllous character, which was more marked in the Devonian Pseudoborniales. Some remote affinity with the Ferns (which has also been upheld on other grounds) may thus be indicated. It is possible that in the Sphenophyllales we may have the much-modified representatives of a very ancient synthetic group. The Lycopods likewise attained their maximum in the Palaeozoic, and show, on the whole, a greater elaboration of structure in their early forms than at any later period, while at the same time maintaining a considerable degree of uniformity in morphological characters throughout their history. The Sphenophyllales are the only other class with which they show any relation; if such a connection existed, the common point of origin must lie exceedingly far back. The fossil record, as at present known, cannot, in the nature of things, throw any direct light on what is perhaps the most disputed question in the morphology of plants--the origin of the alternating generations of the higher Cryptogams and the Spermophyta. At the earliest period to which terrestrial plants have been traced back all the groups of Vascular Cryptogams were in a highly advanced stage of evolution, while innumerable Seed-plants--presumably the descendants of Cryptogamic ancestors--were already flourishing. On the other hand we know practically nothing of Palaeozoic Bryophyta, and the evidence even for their existence at that period cannot be termed conclusive. While there are thus no palaeontological grounds for the hypothesis that the Vascular plants came of a Bryophytic stock, the question of their actual origin remains unsolved. III. NATURAL SELECTION. Hitherto we have considered the palaeontological record of plants in relation to Evolution. The question remains, whether the record throws any light on the theory of which Darwin and Wallace were the authors--that of Natural Selection. The subject is clearly one which must be investigated by other methods than those of the palaeontologist; still there are certain important points involved, on which the palaeontological record appears to bear. One of these points is the supposed distinction between morphological and adaptive characters, on which Nageli, in particular, laid so much stress. The question is a difficult one; it was discussed by Darwin ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), pages 170-176.), who, while showing that the apparent distinction is in part to be explained by our imperfect knowledge of function, recognised the existence of important morphological characters which are not adaptations. The following passage expresses his conclusion. "Thus, as I am inclined to believe, morphological differences, which we consider as important--such as the arrangement of the leaves, the divisions of the flower or of the ovarium, the position of the ovules, etc.--first appeared in many cases as fluctuating variations, which sooner or later became constant through the nature of the organism and of the surrounding conditions, as well as through the inter-crossing of distinct individuals, but not through natural selection; for as these morphological characters do not affect the welfare of the species, any slight deviations in them could not have been governed or accumulated through this latter agency." (Ibid. page 176.) This is a sufficiently liberal concession; Nageli, however, went much further when he said: "I do not know among plants a morphological modification which can be explained on utilitarian principles." (See "More Letters", Vol. II. page 375 (footnote).) If this were true the field of Natural Selection would be so seriously restricted, as to leave the theory only a very limited importance. It can be shown, as the writer believes, that many typical "morphological characters," on which the distinction between great classes of plants is based, were adaptive in origin, and even that their constancy is due to their functional importance. Only one or two cases will be mentioned, where the fossil evidence affects the question. The pollen-tube is one of the most important morphological characters of the Spermophyta as now existing--in fact the name Siphonogama is used by Engler in his classification, as expressing a peculiarly constant character of the Seed-plants. Yet the pollen-tube is a manifest adaptation, following on the adoption of the seed-habit, and serving first to bring the spermatozoids with greater precision to their goal, and ultimately to relieve them of the necessity for independent movement. The pollen-tube is constant because it has proved to be indispensable. In the Palaeozoic Seed-plants there are a number of instances in which the pollen-grains, contained in the pollen-chamber of a seed, are so beautifully preserved that the presence of a group of cells within the grain can be demonstrated; sometimes we can even see how the cell-walls broke down to emit the sperms, and quite lately it is said that the sperms themselves have been recognised. (F.W. Oliver, "On Physostoma elegans, an archaic type of seed from the Palaeozoic Rocks", "Annals of Botany", January, 1909. See also the earlier papers there cited.) In no case, however, is there as yet any satisfactory evidence for the formation of a pollen-tube; it is probable that in these early Seed-plants the pollen-grains remained at about the evolutionary level of the microspores in Pilularia or Selaginella, and discharged their spermatozoids directly, leaving them to find their own way to the female cells. It thus appears that there were once Spermophyta without pollen-tubes. The pollen-tube method ultimately prevailed, becoming a constant "morphological character," for no other reason than because, under the new conditions, it provided a more perfect mechanism for the accomplishment of the act of fertilisation. We have still, in the Cycads and Ginkgo, the transitional case, where the tube remains short, serves mainly as an anchor and water-reservoir, but yet is able, by its slight growth, to give the spermatozoids a "lift" in the right direction. In other Seed-plants the sperms are mere passengers, carried all the way by the pollen-tube; this fact has alone rendered the Angiospermous method of fertilisation through a stigma possible. We may next take the seed itself--the very type of a morphological character. Our fossil record does not go far enough back to tell us the origin of the seed in the Cycadophyta and Pteridosperms (the main line of its development) but some interesting sidelights may be obtained from the Lycopod phylum. In two Palaeozoic genera, as we have seen, seed-like organs are known to have been developed, resembling true seeds in the presence of an integument and of a single functional embryo-sac, as well as in some other points. We will call these organs "seeds" for the sake of shortness. In one genus (Lepidocarpon) the seeds were borne on a cone indistinguishable from that of the ordinary cryptogamic Lepidodendreae, the typical Lycopods of the period, while the seed itself retained much of the detailed structure of the sporangium of that family. In the second genus, Miadesmia, the seed-bearing plant was herbaceous, and much like a recent Selaginella. (See Margaret Benson, "Miadesmia membranacea, a new Palaeozoic Lycopod with a seed-like structure", "Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. Vol." 199, B. 1908.) The seeds of the two genera are differently constructed, and evidently had an independent origin. Here, then, we have seeds arising casually, as it were, at different points among plants which otherwise retain all the characters of their cryptogamic fellows; the seed is not yet a morphological character of importance. To suppose that in these isolated cases the seed sprang into being in obedience to a Law of Advance ("Vervollkommungsprincip"), from which other contemporary Lycopods were exempt, involves us in unnecessary mysticism. On the other hand it is not difficult to see how these seeds may have arisen, as adaptive structures, under the influence of Natural Selection. The seed-like structure afforded protection to the prothallus, and may have enabled the embryo to be launched on the world in greater security. There was further, as we may suppose, a gain in certainty of fertilisation. As the writer has pointed out elsewhere, the chances against the necessary association of the small male with the large female spores must have been enormously great when the cones were borne high up on tall trees. The same difficulty may have existed in the case of the herbaceous Miadesmia, if, as Miss Benson conjectures, it was an epiphyte. One way of solving the problem was for pollination to take place while the megaspore was still on the parent plant, and this is just what the formation of an ovule or seed was likely to secure. The seeds of the Pteridosperms, unlike those of the Lycopod stock, have not yet been found in statu nascendi--in all known cases they were already highly developed organs and far removed from the cryptogamic sporangium. But in two respects we find that these seeds, or some of them, had not yet realised their possibilities. In the seed of Lyginodendron and other cases the micropyle, or orifice of the integument, was not the passage through which the pollen entered; the open neck of the pollen-chamber protruded through the micropyle and itself received the pollen. We have met with an analogous case, at a more advanced stage of evolution, in the Bennettiteae, where the wall of the gynaecium, though otherwise closed, did not provide a stigma to catch the pollen, but allowed the micropyles of the ovules to protrude and receive the pollen in the old gymnospermous fashion. The integument in the one case and the pistil in the other had not yet assumed all the functions to which the organ ultimately became adapted. Again, no Palaeozoic seed has yet been found to contain an embryo, though the preservation is often good enough for it to have been recognised if present. It is probable that the nursing of the embryo had not yet come to be one of the functions of the seed, and that the whole embryonic development was relegated to the germination stage. In these two points, the reception of the pollen by the micropyle and the nursing of the embryo, it appears that many Palaeozoic seeds were imperfect, as compared with the typical seeds of later times. As evolution went on, one function was superadded on another, and it appears impossible to resist the conclusion that the whole differentiation of the seed was a process of adaptation, and consequently governed by Natural Selection, just as much as the specialisation of the rostellum in an Orchid, or of the pappus in a Composite. Did space allow, other examples might be added. We may venture to maintain that the glimpses which the fossil record allows us into early stages in the evolution of organs now of high systematic importance, by no means justify the belief in any essential distinction between morphological and adaptive characters. Another point, closely connected with Darwin's theory, on which the fossil history of plants has been supposed to have some bearing, is the question of Mutation, as opposed to indefinite variation. Arber and Parkin, in their interesting memoir on the Origin of Angiosperms, have suggested calling in Mutation to explain the apparently sudden transition from the cycadean to the angiospermous type of foliage, in late Mesozoic times, though they express themselves with much caution, and point out "a distinct danger that Mutation may become the last resort of the phylogenetically destitute"! The distinguished French palaeobotanists, Grand'Eury (C. Grand'Eury, "Sur les mutations de quelques Plantes fossiles du Terrain houiller". "Comptes Rendus", CXLII. page 25, 1906.) and Zeiller (R. Zeiller "Les Vegetaux fossiles et leurs Enchainements", "Revue du Mois", III. February, 1907.), are of opinion, to quote the words of the latter writer, that the facts of fossil Botany are in agreement with the sudden appearance of new forms, differing by marked characters from those that have given them birth; he adds that these results give more amplitude to this idea of Mutation, extending it to groups of a higher order, and even revealing the existence of discontinuous series between the successive terms of which we yet recognise bonds of filiation. (Loc. cit. page 23.) If Zeiller's opinion should be confirmed, it would no doubt be a serious blow to the Darwinian theory. As Darwin said: "Under a scientific point of view, and as leading to further investigation, but little advantage is gained by believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth." ("Origin of Species", page 424.) It most however be pointed out, that such mutations as Zeiller, and to some extent Arber and Parkin, appear to have in view, bridging the gulf between different Orders and Classes, bear no relation to any mutations which have been actually observed, such as the comparatively small changes, of sub-specific value, described by De Vries in the type-case of Oenothera Lamarckiana. The results of palaeobotanical research have undoubtedly tended to fill up gaps in the Natural System of plants--that many such gaps still persist is not surprising; their presence may well serve as an incentive to further research but does not, as it seems to the writer, justify the assumption of changes in the past, wholly without analogy among living organisms. As regards the succession of species, there are no greater authorities than Grand'Eury and Zeiller, and great weight must be attached to their opinion that the evidence from continuous deposits favours a somewhat sudden change from one specific form to another. At the same time it will be well to bear in mind that the subject of the "absence of numerous intermediate varieties in any single formation" was fully discussed by Darwin. ("Origin of Species", pages 275-282, and page 312.); the explanation which he gave may go a long way to account for the facts which recent writers have regarded as favouring the theory of saltatory mutation. The rapid sketch given in the present essay can do no more than call attention to a few salient points, in which the palaeontological records of plants has an evident bearing on the Darwinian theory. At the present day the whole subject of palaeobotany is a study in evolution, and derives its chief inspiration from the ideas of Darwin and Wallace. In return it contributes something to the verification of their teaching; the recent progress of the subject, in spite of the immense difficulties which still remain, has added fresh force to Darwin's statement that "the great leading facts in palaeontology agree admirably with the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection." (Ibid. page 313.) XIII. THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON THE FORMS OF PLANTS. By Georg Klebs, PH.D. Professor of Botany in the University of Heidelberg. The dependence of plants on their environment became the object of scientific research when the phenomena of life were first investigated and physiology took its place as a special branch of science. This occurred in the course of the eighteenth century as the result of the pioneer work of Hales, Duhamel, Ingenhousz, Senebier and others. In the nineteenth century, particularly in the second half, physiology experienced an unprecedented development in that it began to concern itself with the experimental study of nutrition and growth, and with the phenomena associated with stimulus and movement; on the other hand, physiology neglected phenomena connected with the production of form, a department of knowledge which was the province of morphology, a purely descriptive science. It was in the middle of the last century that the growth of comparative morphology and the study of phases of development reached their highest point. The forms of plants appeared to be the expression of their inscrutable inner nature; the stages passed through in the development of the individual were regarded as the outcome of purely internal and hidden laws. The feasibility of experimental inquiry seemed therefore remote. Meanwhile, the recognition of the great importance of such a causal morphology emerged from the researches of the physiologists of that time, more especially from those of Hofmeister (Hofmeister, "Allgemeine Morphologie", Leipzig, 1868, page 579.), and afterwards from the work of Sachs. (Sachs, "Stoff und Form der Pflanzenorgane", Vol. I. 1880; Vol. II. 1882. "Gesammelte Abhandlungen uber Pflanzen-Physiologie", II. Leipzig, 1893.) Hofmeister, in speaking of this line of inquiry, described it as "the most pressing and immediate aim of the investigator to discover to what extent external forces acting on the organism are of importance in determining its form." This advance was the outcome of the influence of that potent force in biology which was created by Darwin's "Origin of Species" (1859). The significance of the splendid conception of the transformation of species was first recognised and discussed by Lamarck (1809); as an explanation of transformation he at once seized upon the idea--an intelligible view--that the external world is the determining factor. Lamarck (Lamarck, "Philosophie zoologique", pages 223-227. Paris, 1809.) endeavoured, more especially, to demonstrate from the behaviour of plants that changes in environment induce change in form which eventually leads to the production of new species. In the case of animals, Lamarck adopted the teleological view that alterations in the environment first lead to alterations in the needs of the organisms, which, as the result of a kind of conscious effort of will, induce useful modifications and even the development of new organs. His work has not exercised any influence on the progress of science: Darwin himself confessed in regard to Lamarck's work--"I got not a fact or idea from it." ("Life and Letters", Vol. II. page 215.) On a mass of incomparably richer and more essential data Darwin based his view of the descent of organisms and gained for it general acceptance; as an explanation of modification he elaborated the ingeniously conceived selection theory. The question of special interest in this connection, namely what is the importance of the influence of the environment, Darwin always answered with some hesitation and caution, indeed with a certain amount of indecision. The fundamental principle underlying his theory is that of general variability as a whole, the nature and extent of which, especially in cultivated organisms, are fully dealt with in his well-known book. (Darwin, "The variation of Animals and Plants under domestication", 2 vols., edition 1, 1868; edition 2, 1875; popular edition 1905.) In regard to the question as to the cause of variability Darwin adopts a consistently mechanical view. He says: "These several considerations alone render it probable that variability of every kind is directly or indirectly caused by changed conditions of life. Or, to put the case under another point of view, if it were possible to expose all the individuals of a species during many generations to absolutely uniform conditions of life, there would be no variability." ("The variation of Animals and Plants" (2nd edition), Vol. II. page 242.) Darwin did not draw further conclusions from this general principle. Variations produced in organisms by the environment are distinguished by Darwin as "the definite" and "the indefinite." (Ibid. II. page 260. See also "Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 6.) The first occur "when all or nearly all the offspring of an individual exposed to certain conditions during several generations are modified in the same manner." Indefinite variation is much more general and a more important factor in the production of new species; as a result of this, single individuals are distinguished from one another by "slight" differences, first in one then in another character. There may also occur, though this is very rare, more marked modifications, "variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 421.) The selection theory demands the further postulate that such changes, "whether extremely slight or strongly marked," are inherited. Darwin was no nearer to an experimental proof of this assumption than to the discovery of the actual cause of variability. It was not until the later years of his life that Darwin was occupied with the "perplexing problem... what causes almost every cultivated plant to vary" ("Life and Letters", Vol. III. page 342.): he began to make experiments on the influence of the soil, but these were soon given up. In the course of the violent controversy which was the outcome of Darwin's work the fundamental principles of his teaching were not advanced by any decisive observations. Among the supporters and opponents, Nageli (Nageli, "Theorie der Abstammungslehre", Munich, 1884; cf. Chapter III.) was one of the few who sought to obtain proofs by experimental methods. His extensive cultural experiments with alpine Hieracia led him to form the opinion that the changes which are induced by an alteration in the food-supply, in climate or in habitat, are not inherited and are therefore of no importance from the point of view of the production of species. And yet Nageli did attribute an important influence to the external world; he believed that adaptations of plants arise as reactions to continuous stimuli, which supply a need and are therefore useful. These opinions, which recall the teleological aspect of Lamarckism, are entirely unsupported by proof. While other far-reaching attempts at an explanation of the theory of descent were formulated both in Nageli's time and afterwards, some in support of, others in opposition to Darwin, the necessity of investigating, from different standpoints, the underlying causes, variability and heredity, was more and more realised. To this category belong the statistical investigations undertaken by Quetelet and Galton, the researches into hybridisation, to which an impetus was given by the re-discovery of the Mendelian law of segregation, as also by the culture experiments on mutating species following the work of de Vries, and lastly the consideration of the question how far variation and heredity are governed by external influences. These latter problems, which are concerned in general with the causes of form-production and form-modification, may be treated in a short summary which falls under two heads, one having reference to the conditions of form-production in single species, the other being concerned with the conditions governing the transformation of species. I. THE INFLUENCE OF EXTERNAL CONDITIONS ON FORM-PRODUCTION IN SINGLE SPECIES. The members of plants, which we express by the terms stem, leaf, flower, etc. are capable of modification within certain limits; since Lamarck's time this power of modification has been brought more or less into relation with the environment. We are concerned not only with the question of experimental demonstration of this relationship, but, more generally, with an examination of the origin of forms, the sequences of stages in development that are governed by recognisable causes. We have to consider the general problem; to study the conditions of all typical as well as of atypic forms, in other words, to found a physiology of form. If we survey the endless variety of plant-forms and consider the highly complex and still little known processes in the interior of cells, and if we remember that the whole of this branch of investigation came into existence only a few decades ago, we are able to grasp the fact that a satisfactory explanation of the factors determining form cannot be discovered all at once. The goal is still far away. We are not concerned now with the controversial question, whether, on the whole, the fundamental processes in the development of form can be recognised by physiological means. A belief in the possibility of this can in any case do no harm. What we may and must attempt is this--to discover points of attack on one side or another, which may enable us by means of experimental methods to come into closer touch with these elusive and difficult problems. While we are forced to admit that there is at present much that is insoluble there remains an inexhaustible supply of problems capable of solution. The object of our investigations is the species; but as regards the question, what is a species, science of to-day takes up a position different from that of Darwin. For him it was the Linnean species which illustrates variation: we now know, thanks to the work of Jordan, de Bary, and particularly to that of de Vries (de Vries, "Die Mutationstheorie", Leipzig, 1901, Vol. I. page 33.), that the Linnean species consists of a large or small number of entities, elementary species. In experimental investigation it is essential that observations be made on a pure species, or, as Johannsen (Johannsen, "Ueber Erblichkeit in Populationen und reinen Linien", Jena, 1903.) says, on a pure "line." What has long been recognised as necessary in the investigation of fungi, bacteria and algae must also be insisted on in the case of flowering plants; we must start with a single individual which is reproduced vegetatively or by strict self-fertilisation. In dioecious plants we must aim at the reproduction of brothers and sisters. We may at the outset take it for granted that a pure species remains the same under similar external conditions; it varies as these vary. IT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF A SPECIES THAT IT ALWAYS EXHIBITS A CONSTANT RELATION TO A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. In the case of two different species, e.g. the hay and anthrax bacilli or two varieties of Campanula with blue and white flowers respectively, a similar environment produces a constant difference. The cause of this is a mystery. According to the modern standpoint, the living cell is a complex chemico-physical system which is regarded as a dynamical system of equilibrium, a conception suggested by Herbert Spencer and which has acquired a constantly increasing importance in the light of modern developments in physical chemistry. The various chemical compounds, proteids, carbohydrates, fats, the whole series of different ferments, etc. occur in the cell in a definite physical arrangement. The two systems of two species must as a matter of fact possess a constant difference, which it is necessary to define by a special term. We say, therefore, that the SPECIFIC STRUCTURE is different. By way of illustrating this provisionally, we may assume that the proteids of the two species possess a constant chemical difference. This conception of specific structure is specially important in its bearing on a further treatment of the subject. In the original cell, eventually also in every cell of a plant, the characters which afterwards become apparent must exist somewhere; they are integral parts of the capabilities or potentialities of specific structure. Thus not only the characters which are exhibited under ordinary conditions in nature, but also many others which become apparent only under special conditions (In this connection I leave out of account, as before, the idea of material carriers of heredity which since the publication of Darwin's Pangenesis hypothesis has been frequently suggested. See my remarks in "Variationen der Bluten", "Pringsheim's Jahrb. Wiss. Bot." 1905, page 298; also Detto, "Biol. Centralbl." 1907, page 81, "Die Erklarbarkeit der Ontogenese durch materielle Anlagen".), are to be included as such potentialities in cells; the conception of specific structure includes the WHOLE OF THE POTENTIALITIES OF A SPECIES; specific structure comprises that which we must always assume without being able to explain it. A relatively simple substance, such as oxalate of lime, is known under a great number of different crystalline forms belonging to different systems (Compare Kohl's work on "Anatomisch-phys. Untersuchungen uber Kalksalze", etc. Marburg, 1889.); these may occur as single crystals, concretions or as concentric sphaerites. The power to assume this variety of form is in some way inherent in the molecular structure, though we cannot, even in this case, explain the necessary connection between structure and crystalline form. These potentialities can only become operative under the influence of external conditions; their stimulation into activity depends on the degree of concentration of the various solutions, on the nature of the particular calcium salt, on the acid or alkaline reactions. Broadly speaking, the plant cell behaves in a similar way. The manifestation of each form, which is inherent as a potentiality in the specific structure, is ultimately to be referred to external conditions. An insight into this connection is, however, rendered exceedingly difficult, often quite impossible, because the environment never directly calls into action the potentialities. Its influence is exerted on what we may call the inner world of the organism, the importance of which increases with the degree of differentiation. The production of form in every plant depends upon processes in the interior of the cells, and the nature of these determines which among the possible characters is to be brought to light. In no single case are we acquainted with the internal process responsible for the production of a particular form. All possible factors may play a part, such as osmotic pressure, permeability of the protoplasm, the degree of concentration of the various chemical substances, etc.; all these factors should be included in the category of INTERNAL CONDITIONS. This inner world appears the more hidden from our ken because it is always represented by a certain definite state, whether we are dealing with a single cell or with a small group of cells. These have been produced from pre-existing cells and they in turn from others; the problem is constantly pushed back through a succession of generations until it becomes identified with that of the origin of species. A way, however, is opened for investigation; experience teaches us that this inner world is not a constant factor: on the contrary, it appears to be very variable. The dependence of VARIABLE INTERNAL on VARIABLE EXTERNAL conditions gives us the key with which research may open the door. In the lower plants this dependence is at once apparent, each cell is directly subject to external influences. In the higher plants with their different organs, these influences were transmitted to cells in course of development along exceedingly complex lines. In the case of the growing-point of a bud, which is capable of producing a complete plant, direct influences play a much less important part than those exerted through other organs, particularly through the roots and leaves, which are essential in nutrition. These correlations, as we may call them, are of the greatest importance as aids to an understanding of form-production. When a bud is produced on a particular part of a plant, it undergoes definite internal modifications induced by the influence of other organs, the activity of which is governed by the environment, and as the result of this it develops along a certain direction; it may, for example, become a flower. The particular direction of development is determined before the rudiment is differentiated and is exerted so strongly that further development ensues without interruption, even though the external conditions vary considerably and exert a positively inimical influence: this produces the impression that development proceeds entirely independently of the outer world. The widespread belief that such independence exists is very premature and at all events unproven. The state of the young rudiment is the outcome of previous influences of the external world communicated through other organs. Experiments show that in certain cases, if the efficiency of roots and leaves as organs concerned with nutrition is interfered with, the production of flowers is affected, and their characters, which are normally very constant, undergo far-reaching modifications. To find the right moment at which to make the necessary alteration in the environment is indeed difficult and in many cases not yet possible. This is especially the case with fertilised eggs, which in a higher degree than buds have acquired, through parental influences, an apparently fixed internal organisation, and this seems to have pre-determined their development. It is, however, highly probable that it will be possible, by influencing the parents, to alter the internal organisation and to switch off development on to other lines. Having made these general observations I will now cite a few of the many facts at our disposal, in order to illustrate the methods and aim of the experimental methods of research. As a matter of convenience I will deal separately with modification of development and with modification of single organs. I. EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENT UPON THE COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT. Every plant, whether an alga or a flowering plant passes, under natural conditions, through a series of developmental stages characteristic of each species, and these consist in a regular sequence of definite forms. It is impossible to form an opinion from mere observation and description as to what inner changes are essential for the production of the several forms. We must endeavour to influence the inner factors by known external conditions in such a way that the individual stages in development are separately controlled and the order of their sequence determined at will by experimental treatment. Such control over the course of development may be gained with special certainty in the case of the lower organisms. With these it is practicable to control the principal conditions of cultivation and to vary them in various ways. By this means it has been demonstrated that each developmental stage depends upon special external conditions, and in cases where our knowledge is sufficient, a particular stage may be obtained at will. In the Green Algae (See Klebs, "Die Bedingung der Fortpflanzung... ", Jena, 1896; also "Jahrb. fur Wiss. Bot." 1898 and 1900; "Probleme der Entwickelung, III." "Biol. Centralbl." 1904, page 452.), as in the case of Fungi, we may classify the stages of development into purely vegetative growth (growth, cell-division, branching), asexual reproduction (formation of zoospores, conidia) and sexual processes (formation of male and female sexual organs). By modifying the external conditions it is possible to induce algae or fungi (Vaucheria, Saprolegnia) to grow continuously for several years or, in the course of a few days, to die after an enormous production of asexual or sexual cells. In some instances even an almost complete stoppage of growth may be caused, reproductive cells being scarcely formed before the organism is again compelled to resort to reproduction. Thus the sequence of the different stages in development can be modified as we may desire. The result of a more thorough investigation of the determining conditions appears to produce at first sight a confused impression of all sorts of possibilities. Even closely allied species exhibit differences in regard to the connection between their development and external conditions. It is especially noteworthy that the same form in development may be produced as the result of very different alterations in the environment. At the same time we can undoubtedly detect a certain unity in the multiplicity of the individual phenomena. If we compare the factors essential for the different stages in development, we see that the question always resolves itself into one of modification of similar conditions common to all life-processes. We should rather have inferred that there exist specific external stimuli for each developmental stage, for instance, certain chemical agencies. Experiments hitherto made support the conclusion that QUANTITATIVE alterations in the general conditions of life produce different types of development. An alga or a fungus grows so long as all the conditions of nutrition remain at a certain optimum for growth. In order to bring about asexual reproduction, e.g. the formation of zoospores, it is sometimes necessary to increase the degree of intensity of external factors; sometimes, on the other hand, these must be reduced in intensity. In the case of many algae a decrease in light-intensity or in the amount of salts in the culture solution, or in the temperature, induces asexual reproduction, while in others, on the contrary, an increase in regard to each of these factors is required to produce the same result. This holds good for the quantitative variations which induce sexual reproduction in algae. The controlling factor is found to be a reduction in the supply of nutritive salts and the exposure of the plants to prolonged illumination or, better still, an increase in the intensity of the light, the efficiency of illumination depending on the consequent formation of organic substances such as carbohydrates. The quantitative alterations of external conditions may be spoken of as releasing stimuli. They produce, in the complex equilibrium of the cell, quantitative modifications in the arrangement and distribution of mass, by means of which other chemical processes are at once set in motion, and finally a new condition of equilibrium is attained. But the commonly expressed view that the environment can as a rule act only as a releasing agent is incorrect, because it overlooks an essential point. The power of a cell to receive stimuli is only acquired as the result of previous nutrition, which has produced a definite condition of concentration of different substances. Quantities are in this case the determining factors. The distribution of quantities is especially important in the sexual reproduction of algae, for which a vigorous production of the materials formed during carbon-assimilation appears to be essential. In the Flowering plants, on the other hand, for reasons already mentioned, the whole problem is more complicated. Investigations on changes in the course of development of fertilised eggs have hitherto been unsuccessful; the difficulty of influencing egg-cells deeply immersed in tissue constitutes a serious obstacle. Other parts of plants are, however, convenient objects of experiment; e.g. the growing apices of buds which serve as cuttings for reproductive purposes, or buds on tubers, runners, rhizomes, etc. A growing apex consists of cells capable of division in which, as in egg-cells, a complete series of latent possibilities of development is embodied. Which of these possibilities becomes effective depends upon the action of the outer world transmitted by organs concerned with nutrition. Of the different stages which a flowering plant passes through in the course of its development we will deal only with one in order to show that, in spite of its great complexity, the problem is, in essentials, equally open to attack in the higher plants and in the simplest organisms. The most important stage in the life of a flowering plant is the transition from purely vegetative growth to sexual reproduction--that is, the production of flowers. In certain cases it can be demonstrated that there is no internal cause, dependent simply on the specific structure, which compels a plant to produce its flowers after a definite period of vegetative growth. (Klebs, "Willkurliche Entwickelungsanderungen", Jena 1903; see also "Probleme der Entwickelung", I. II. "Centralbl." 1904.) One extreme case, that of exceptionally early flowering, has been observed in nature and more often in cultivation. A number of plants under certain conditions are able to flower soon after germination. (Cf. numerous records of this kind by Diels, "Jugendformen und Bluten", Berlin, 1906.) This shortening of the period of development is exhibited in the most striking form in trees, as in the oak (Mobius, "Beitrage zur Lehre von der Fortpflanzung", Jena, 1897, page 89.), flowering seedlings of which have been observed from one to three years old, whereas normally the tree does not flower until it is sixty or eighty years old. Another extreme case is represented by prolonged vegetative growth leading to the complete suppression of flower-production. This result may be obtained with several plants, such as Glechoma, the sugar beet, Digitalis, and others, if they are kept during the winter in a warm, damp atmosphere, and in rich soil; in the following spring or summer they fail to flower. (Klebs, "Willkurliche Aenderungen", etc. Jena, 1903, page 130.) Theoretically, however, experiments are of greater importance in which the production of flowers is inhibited by very favourable conditions of nutrition (Klebs, "Ueber kunstliche Metamorphosen", Stuttgart, 1906, page 115) ("Abh. Naturf. Ges. Halle", XXV.) occurring at the normal flowering period. Even in the case of plants of Sempervivum several years old, which, as is shown by control experiments on precisely similar plants, are on the point of flowering, flowering is rendered impossible if they are forced to very vigorous growth by an abundant supply of water and salts in the spring. Flowering, however, occurs, if such plants are cultivated in relatively dry sandy soil and in the presence of strong light. Careful researches into the conditions of growth have led, in the cases Sempervivum, to the following results: (1) With a strong light and vigorous carbon-assimilation a considerably increased supply of water and nutritive salts produces active vegetative growth. (2) With a vigorous carbon-assimilation in strong light, and a decrease in the supply of water and salts active flower-production is induced. (3) If an average supply of water and salts is given both processes are possible; the intensity of carbon-assimilation determines which of the two is manifested. A diminution in the production of organic substances, particularly of carbohydrates, induces vegetative growth. This can be effected by culture in feeble light or in light deprived of the yellow-red rays: on the other hand, flower-production follows an increase in light-intensity. These results are essentially in agreement with well-known observations on cultivated plants, according to which, the application of much moisture, after a plentiful supply of manure composed of inorganic salts, hinders the flower-production of many vegetables, while a decrease in the supply of water and salts favours flowering. ii. INFLUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE FORM OF SINGLE ORGANS. (A considerable number of observations bearing on this question are given by Goebel in his "Experimentelle Morphologie der Pflanzen", Leipzig, 1908. It is not possible to deal here with the alteration in anatomical structure; cf. Kuster, "Pathologische Pflanzenanatomie", Jena, 1903.) If we look closely into the development of a flowering plant, we notice that in a given species differently formed organs occur in definite positions. In a potato plant colourless runners are formed from the base of the main stem which grow underground and produce tubers at their tips: from a higher level foliage shoots arise nearer the apex. External appearances suggest that both the place of origin and the form of these organs were predetermined in the egg-cell or in the tuber. But it was shown experimentally by the well-known investigator Knight (Knight, "Selection from the Physiological and Horticultural Papers", London, 1841.) that tubers may be developed on the aerial stem in place of foliage shoots. These observations were considerably extended by Vochting. (Vochting, "Ueber die Bildung der Knollen", Cassel, 1887; see also "Bot. Zeit." 1902, 87.) In one kind of potato, germinating tubers were induced to form foliage shoots under the influence of a higher temperature; at a lower temperature they formed tuber-bearing shoots. Many other examples of the conversion of foliage-shoots into runners and rhizomes, or vice versa, have been described by Goebel and others. As in the asexual reproduction of algae quantitative alteration in the amount of moisture, light, temperature, etc. determines whether this or that form of shoot is produced. If the primordia of these organs are exposed to altered conditions of nutrition at a sufficiently early stage a complete substitution of one organ for another is effected. If the rudiment has reached a certain stage in development before it is exposed to these influences, extraordinary intermediate forms are obtained, bearing the characters of both organs. The study of regeneration following injury is of greater importance as regards the problem of the development and place of origin of organs. (Reference may be made to the full summary of results given by Goebel in his "Experimentelle Morphologie", Leipzig and Berlin, 1908, Section IV.) Only in relatively very rare cases is there a complete re-formation of the injured organ itself, as e.g. in the growing-apex. Much more commonly injury leads to the development of complementary formations, it may be the rejuvenescence of a hitherto dormant rudiment, or it may be the formation of such ab initio. In all organs, stems, roots, leaves, as well as inflorescences, this kind of regeneration, which occurs in a great variety of ways according to the species, may be observed on detached pieces of the plant. Cases are also known, such, for example, as the leaves of many plants which readily form roots but not shoots, where a complete regeneration does not occur. The widely spread power of reacting to wounding affords a very valuable means of inducing a fresh development of buds and roots on places where they do not occur in normal circumstances. Injury creates special conditions, but little is known as yet in regard to alterations directly produced in this way. Where the injury consists in the separation of an organ from its normal connections, the factors concerned are more comprehensible. A detached leaf, e.g., is at once cut off from a supply of water and salts, and is deprived of the means of getting rid of organic substances which it produces; the result is a considerable alteration in the degree of concentration. No experimental investigation on these lines has yet been made. Our ignorance has often led to the view that we are dealing with a force whose specific quality is the restitution of the parts lost by operation; the proof, therefore, that in certain cases a similar production of new roots or buds may be induced without previous injury and simply by a change in external conditions assumes an importance. (Klebs, "Willkurliche Entwickelung", page 100; also, "Probleme der Entwickelung", "Biol. Centralbl." 1904, page 610.) A specially striking phenomenon of regeneration, exhibited also by uninjured plants, is afforded by polarity, which was discovered by Vochting. (See the classic work of Vochting, "Ueber Organbildung im Pflanzenreich", I. Bonn, 1888; also "Bot. Zeit." 1906, page 101; cf. Goebel, "Experimentelle Morphologie", Leipzig and Berlin, 1908, Section V, Polaritat.) It is found, for example, that roots are formed from the base of a detached piece of stem and shoots from the apex. Within the limits of this essay it is impossible to go into this difficult question; it is, however, important from the point of view of our general survey to emphasise the fact that the physiological distinctions between base and apex of pieces of stem are only of a quantitative kind, that is, they consist in the inhibition of certain phenomena or in favouring them. As a matter of fact roots may be produced from the apices of willows and cuttings of other plants; the distinction is thus obliterated under the influence of environment. The fixed polarity of cuttings from full grown stems cannot be destroyed; it is the expression of previous development. Vochting speaks of polarity as a fixed inherited character. This is an unconvincing conclusion, as nothing can be deduced from our present knowledge as to the causes which led up to polarity. We know that the fertilised egg, like the embryo, is fixed at one end by which it hangs freely in the embryo-sac and afterwards in the endosperm. From the first, therefore, the two ends have different natures, and these are revealed in the differentiation into root-apex and stem-apex. A definite direction in the flow of food-substances is correlated with this arrangement, and this eventually leads to a polarity in the tissues. This view requires experimental proof, which in the case of the egg-cells of flowering plants hardly appears possible; but it derives considerable support from the fact that in herbaceous plants, e.g. Sempervivum (Klebs, "Variationen der Bluten", "Jahrb. Wiss. Bot." 1905, page 260.), rosettes or flower-shoots are formed in response to external conditions at the base, in the middle, or at the apex of the stem, so that polarity as it occurs under normal conditions cannot be the result of unalterable hereditary factors. On the other hand, the lower plants should furnish decisive evidence on this question, and the experiments of Stahl, Winkler, Kniep, and others indicate the right method of attacking the problem. The relation of leaf-form to environment has often been investigated and is well known. The leaves of bog and water plants (Cf.Goebel, loc. cit. chapter II.; also Gluck, "Untersuchungen uber Wasser- und Sumpfgewachse", Jena, Vols. I.-II. 1905-06.) afford the most striking examples of modifications: according as they are grown in water, moist or dry air, the form of the species characteristic of the particular habitat is produced, since the stems are also modified. To the same group of phenomena belongs the modification of the forms of leaves and stems in plants on transplantation from the plains to the mountains (Bonnier, "Recherches sur l'Anatomie experimentale des Vegetaux", Corbeil, 1895.) or vice versa. Such variations are by no means isolated examples. All plants exhibit a definite alteration in form as the result of prolonged cultivation in moist or dry air, in strong or feeble light, or in darkness, or in salt solutions of different composition and strength. Every individual which is exposed to definite combinations of external factors exhibits eventually the same type of modification. This is the type of variation which Darwin termed "definite." It is easy to realise that indefinite or fluctuating variations belong essentially to the same class of phenomena; both are reactions to changes in environment. In the production of individual variations two different influences undoubtedly cooperate. One set of variations is caused by different external conditions, during the production, either of sexual cells or of vegetative primordia; another set is the result of varying external conditions during the development of the embryo into an adult plant. The two sets of influences cannot as yet be sharply differentiated. If, for purposes of vegetative reproduction, we select pieces of the same parent-plant of a pure species, the second type of variation predominates. Individual fluctuations depend essentially in such cases on small variations in environment during development. These relations must be borne in mind if we wish to understand the results of statistical methods. Since the work of Quetelet, Galton, and others the statistical examination of individual differences in animals and plants has become a special science, which is primarily based on the consideration that the application of the theory of probability renders possible mathematical statement and control of the results. The facts show that any character, size of leaf, length of stem, the number of members in a flower, etc. do not vary haphazard but in a very regular manner. In most cases it is found that there is a value which occurs most commonly, the average or medium value, from which the larger and smaller deviations, the so-called plus and minus variations fall away in a continuous series and end in a limiting value. In the simpler cases a falling off occurs equally on both sides of the curve; the curve constructed from such data agrees very closely with the Gaussian curve of error. In more complicated cases irregular curves of different kinds are obtained which may be calculated on certain suppositions. The regular fluctuations about a mean according to the rule of probability is often attributed to some law underlying variability. (de Vries, "Mutationstheorie", Vol. I. page 35, Leipzig, 1901.) But there is no such law which compels a plant to vary in a particular manner. Every experimental investigation shows, as we have already remarked, that the fluctuation of characters depends on fluctuation in the external factors. The applicability of the method of probability follows from the fact that the numerous individuals of a species are influenced by a limited number of variable conditions. (Klebs, "Willkurl. Ent." Jena, 1903, page 141.) As each of these conditions includes within certain limits all possible values and exhibits all possible combinations, it follows that, according to the rules of probability, there must be a mean value, about which the larger and smaller deviations are distributed. Any character will be found to have the mean value which corresponds with that combination of determining factors which occurs most frequently. Deviations towards plus and minus values will be correspondingly produced by rarer conditions. A conclusion of fundamental importance may be drawn from this conception, which is, to a certain extent, supported by experimental investigation. (Klebs, "Studien uber Variation", "Arch. fur Entw." 1907.) There is no normal curve for a particular CHARACTER, there is only a curve for the varying combinations of conditions occurring in nature or under cultivation. Under other conditions entirely different curves may be obtained with other variants as a mean value. If, for example, under ordinary conditions the number 10 is the most frequent variant for the stamens of Sedum spectabile, in special circumstances (red light) this is replaced by the number 5. The more accurately we know the conditions for a particular form or number, and are able to reproduce it by experiment, the nearer we are to achieving our aim of rendering a particular variation impossible or of making it dominant. In addition to the individual variations of a species, more pronounced fluctuations occur relatively rarely and sporadically which are spoken of as "single variations," or if specially striking as abnormalities or monstrosities. These forms have long attracted the attention of morphologists; a large number of observations of this kind are given in the handbooks of Masters (Masters, "Vegetable Teratology", London, 1869.) and Penzig (Penzig, "Pflanzen-Teratologie", Vols I. and II. Genua, 1890-94.) These variations, which used to be regarded as curiosities, have now assumed considerable importance in connection with the causes of form-development. They also possess special interest in relation to the question of heredity, a subject which does not at present concern us, as such deviations from normal development undoubtedly arise as individual variations induced by the influence of environment. Abnormal developments of all kinds in stems, leaves, and flowers, may be produced by parasites, insects, or fungi. They may also be induced by injury, as Blaringhem (Blaringhem, "Mutation et traumatismes", Paris, 1907.) has more particularly demonstrated, which, by cutting away the leading shoots of branches in an early stage of development, caused fasciation, torsion, anomalous flowers, etc. The experiments of Blaringhem point to the probability that disturbances in the conditions of food-supply consequent on injury are the cause of the production of monstrosities. This is certainly the case in my experiments with species of Sempervivum (Klebs, "Kunstliche Metamorphosen", Stuttgart, 1906.); individuals, which at first formed normal flowers, produced a great variety of abnormalities as the result of changes in nutrition, we may call to mind the fact that the formation of inflorescences occurs normally when a vigorous production of organic compounds, such as starch, sugar, etc. follows a diminution in the supply of mineral salts. On the other hand, the development of inflorescences is entirely suppressed if, at a suitable moment before the actual foundations have been laid, water and mineral salts are supplied to the roots. If, during the week when the inflorescence has just been laid down and is growing very slowly, the supply of water and salts is increased, the internal conditions of the cells are essentially changed. At a later stage, after the elongation of the inflorescence, rosettes of leaves are produced instead of flowers, and structures intermediate between the two kinds of organs; a number of peculiar plant-forms are thus obtained (Cf. Lotsy, "Vorlesungen uber Deszendenztheorien", Vol. II. pl. 3, Jena, 1908.) Abnormalities in the greatest variety are produced in flowers by varying the time at which the stimulus is applied, and by the cooperation of other factors such as temperature, darkness, etc. In number and arrangement the several floral members vary within wide limits; sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels are altered in form and colour, a transformation of stamens to carpels and from carpels to stamens occurs in varying degrees. The majority of the deviations observed had not previously been seen either under natural conditions or in cultivation; they were first brought to light through the influence of external factors. Such transformations of flowers become apparent at a time, which is separated by about two months from the period at which the particular cause began to act. There is, therefore, no close connection between the appearance of the modifications and the external conditions which prevail at the moment. When we are ignorant of the causes which are operative so long before the results are seen, we gain the impression that such variations as occur are spontaneous or autonomous expressions of the inner nature of the plant. It is much more likely that, as in Sempervivum, they were originally produced by an external stimulus which had previously reached the sexual cells or the young embryo. In any case abnormalities of this kind appear to be of a special type as compared with ordinary fluctuating variations. Darwin pointed out this difference; Bateson (Bateson, "Materials for the study of Variation", London, 1894, page 5.) has attempted to make the distinction sharper, at the same time emphasising its importance in heredity. Bateson applies the term CONTINUOUS to small variations connected with one another by transitional stages, while those which are more striking and characterised from the first by a certain completeness, he names DISCONTINUOUS. He drew attention to a great difficulty which stands in the way of Lamarck's hypothesis, as also of Darwin's view. "According to both theories, specific diversity of form is consequent upon diversity of environment, and diversity of environment is thus the ultimate measure of diversity of specific form. Here then we meet the difficulty that diverse environments often shade into each other insensibly and form a continuous series, whereas the Specific Forms of life which are subject to them on the whole form a Discontinuous Series." This difficulty is, however, not of fundamental importance as well authenticated facts have been adduced showing that by alteration of the environment discontinuous variations, such as alterations in the number and form of members of a flower, may be produced. We can as yet no more explain how this happens than we can explain the existence of continuous variations. We can only assert that both kinds of variation arise in response to quantitative alterations in external conditions. The question as to which kind of variation is produced depends on the greater or less degree of alteration; it is correlated with the state of the particular cells at the moment. In this short sketch it is only possible to deal superficially with a small part of the subject. It has been clearly shown that in view of the general dependence of development on the factors of the environment a number of problems are ready for experimental treatment. One must, however, not forget that the science of the physiology of form has not progressed beyond its initial stages. Just now our first duty is to demonstrate the dependence on external factors in as many forms of plants as possible, in order to obtain a more thorough control of all the different plant-forms. The problem is not only to produce at will (and independently of their normal mode of life) forms which occur in nature, but also to stimulate into operation potentialities which necessarily lie dormant under the conditions which prevail in nature. The constitution of a species is much richer in possibilities of development than would appear to be the case under normal conditions. It remains for man to stimulate into activity all the potentialities. But the control of plant-form is only a preliminary step--the foundation stones on which to erect a coherent scientific structure. We must discover what are the internal processes in the cell produced by external factors, which as a necessary consequence result in the appearance of a definite form. We are here brought into contact with the most obscure problem of life. Progress can only be made pari passu with progress in physics and chemistry, and with the growth of our knowledge of nutrition, growth, etc. Let us take one of the simplest cases--an alteration in form. A cylindrical cell of the alga Stigeoclonium assumes, as Livingstone (Livingstone, "On the nature of the stimulus which causes the change of form, etc." "Botanical Gazette", XXX. 1900; also XXXII. 1901.) has shown, a spherical form when the osmotic pressure of the culture fluid is increased; or a spore of Mucor, which, in a sugar solution grows into a branched filament, in the presence of a small quantity of acid (hydrogen ions) becomes a comparatively large sphere. (Ritter, "Ueber Kugelhefe, etc." "Ber. bot. Gesell." Berlin, XXV. page 255, 1907.) In both cases there has undoubtedly been an alteration in the osmotic pressure of the cell-sap, but this does not suffice to explain the alteration in form, since the unknown alterations, which are induced in the protoplasm, must in their turn influence the cell-membrane. In the case of the very much more complex alterations in form, such as we encounter in the course of development of plants, there do not appear to be any clues which lead us to a deeper insight into the phenomena. Nevertheless we continue the attempt, seeking with the help of any available hypothesis for points of attack, which may enable us to acquire a more complete mastery of physiological methods. To quote a single example; I may put the question, what internal changes produce a transition from vegetative growth to sexual reproduction? The facts, which are as clearly established from the lower as for the higher plants, teach us that quantitative alteration in the environment produces such a transition. This suggests the conclusion that quantitative internal changes in the cells, and with them disturbances in the degree of concentration, are induced, through which the chemical reactions are led in the direction of sexual reproduction. An increase in the production of organic substances in the presence of light, chiefly of the carbohydrates, with a simultaneous decrease in the amount of inorganic salts and water, are the cause of the disturbance and at the same time of the alteration in the direction of development. Possibly indeed mineral salts as such are not in question, but only in the form of other organic combinations, particularly proteid material, so that we are concerned with an alteration in the relation of the carbohydrates and proteids. The difficulties of such researches are very great because the methods are not yet sufficiently exact to demonstrate the frequently small quantitative differences in chemical composition. Questions relating to the enzymes, which are of the greatest importance in all these life-processes, are especially complicated. In any case it is the necessary result of such an hypothesis that we must employ chemical methods of investigation in dealing with problems connected with the physiology of form. II. INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF SPECIES. The study of the physiology of form-development in a pure species has already yielded results and makes slow but sure progress. The physiology of the possibility of the transformation of one species into another is based, as yet, rather on pious hope than on accomplished fact. From the first it appeared to be hopeless to investigate physiologically the origin of Linnean species and at the same time that of the natural system, an aim which Darwin had before him in his enduring work. The historical sequence of events, of which an organism is the expression, can only be treated hypothetically with the help of facts supplied by comparative morphology, the history of development, geographical distribution, and palaeontology. (See Lotsy, "Vorlesungen" (Jena, I. 1906, II. 1908), for summary of the facts.) A glance at the controversy which is going on today in regard to different hypotheses shows that the same material may lead different investigators to form entirely different opinions. Our ultimate aim is to find a solution of the problem as to the cause of the origin of species. Indeed such attempts are now being made: they are justified by the fact that under cultivation new and permanent strains are produced; the fundamental importance of this was first grasped by Darwin. New points of view in regard to these lines of inquiry have been adopted by H. de Vries who has succeeded in obtaining from Oenothera Lamarckiana a number of constant "elementary" species. Even if it is demonstrated that he was simply dealing with the complex splitting up of a hybrid (Bateson, "Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society", London, 1902; cf. also Lotsy, "Vorlesungen", Vol. I. page 234.), the facts adduced in no sense lose their very great value. We must look at the problem in its simplest form; we find it in every case where a new race differs essentially from the original type in a single character only; for example, in the colour of the flowers or in the petalody of the stamens (doubling of flowers). In this connection we must keep in view the fact that every visible character in a plant is the resultant of the cooperation of specific structure, with its various potentialities, and the influence of the environment. We know, that in a pure species all characters vary, that a blue-flowering Campanula or a red Sempervivum can be converted by experiment into white-flowering forms, that a transformation of stamens into petals may be caused by fungi or by the influence of changed conditions of nutrition, or that plants in dry and poor soil become dwarfed. But so far as the experiments justify a conclusion, it would appear that such alterations are not inherited by the offspring. Like all other variations they appear only so long as special conditions prevail in the surroundings. It has been shown that the case is quite different as regards the white-flowering, double or dwarf races, because these retain their characters when cultivated under practically identical conditions, and side by side with the blue, single-flowering or tall races. The problem may therefore be stated thus: how can a character, which appears in the one case only under the strictly limited conditions of the experiment, in other cases become apparent under the very much wider conditions of ordinary cultivation? If a character appears, in these circumstances, in the case of all individuals, we then speak of constant races. In such simple cases the essential point is not the creation of a new character but rather an ALTERATION OF THIS CHARACTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT. In the examples mentioned the modified character in the simple varieties (or a number of characters in elementary species) appears more or less suddenly and is constant in the above sense. The result is what de Vries has termed a Mutation. In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that no difference, recognisable externally, need exist between individual variation and mutation. Even the most minute quantitative difference between two plants may be of specific value if it is preserved under similar external conditions during many successive generations. We do not know how this happens. We may state the problem in other terms; by saying that the specific structure must be altered. It is possible, to some extent, to explain this sudden alteration, if we regard it as a chemical alteration of structure either in the specific qualities of the proteids or of the unknown carriers of life. In the case of many organic compounds their morphological characters (the physical condition, crystalline form, etc.) are at once changed by alteration of atomic relations or by incorporation of new radicals. (For instance ethylchloride (C2H5Cl) is a gas at 21 deg C., ethylenechloride (C2H4Cl2) a fluid boiling at 84 deg C., beta trichlorethane (C2H3Cl3) a fluid boiling at 113 deg C., perchlorethane (C2Cl6) a crystalline substance. Klebs, ("Willkurliche Entwickelungsanderungen" page 158.) Much more important, however, would be an answer to the question, whether an individual variation can be converted experimentally into an inherited character--a mutation in de Vries's sense. In all circumstances we may recognise as a guiding principle the assumption adopted by Lamarck, Darwin, and many others, that the inheritance of any one character, or in more general terms, the transformation of one species into another, is, in the last instance, to be referred to a change in the environment. From a causal-mechanical point of view it is not a priori conceivable that one species can ever become changed into another so long as external conditions remain constant. The inner structure of a species must be essentially altered by external influences. Two methods of experimental research may be adopted, the effect of crossing distinct species and, secondly, the effect of definite factors of the environment. The subject of hybridisation is dealt with in another part of this essay. It is enough to refer here to the most important fact, that as the result of combinations of characters of different species new and constant forms are produced. Further, Tschermack, Bateson and others have demonstrated the possibility that hitherto unknown inheritable characters may be produced by hybridisation. The other method of producing constant races by the influence of special external conditions has often been employed. The sporeless races of Bacteria and Yeasts (Cf. Detto, "Die Theorie der direkten Anpassung... ", pages 98 et seq., Jena, 1904; see also Lotsy, "Vorlesungen", II. pages 636 et seq., where other similar cases are described.) are well known, in which an internal alteration of the cells is induced by the influence of poison or higher temperature, so that the power of producing spores even under normal conditions appears to be lost. A similar state of things is found in some races which under certain definite conditions lose their colour or their virulence. Among the phanerogams the investigations of Schubler on cereals afford parallel cases, in which the influence of a northern climate produces individuals which ripen their seeds early; these seeds produce plants which seed early in southern countries. Analogous results were obtained by Cieslar in his experiments; seeds of conifers from the Alps when planted in the plains produced plants of slow growth and small diameter. All these observations are of considerable interest theoretically; they show that the action of environment certainly induces such internal changes, and that these are transmitted to the next generation. But as regards the main question, whether constant races may be obtained by this means, the experiments cannot as yet supply a definite answer. In phanerogams, the influence very soon dies out in succeeding generations; in the case of bacteria, in which it is only a question of the loss of a character it is relatively easy for this to reappear. It is not impossible, that in all such cases there is a material hanging-on of certain internal conditions, in consequence of which the modification of the character persists for a time in the descendants, although the original external conditions are no longer present. Thus a slow dying-out of the effect of a stimulus was seen in my experiments on Veronica chamaedrys. (Klebs, "Kunstliche Metamorphosen", Stuttgart, 1906, page 132.) During the cultivation of an artificially modified inflorescence I obtained a race showing modifications in different directions, among which twisting was especially conspicuous. This plant, however, does not behave as the twisted race of Dipsacus isolated by de Vries (de Vries, "Mutationstheorie", Vol. II. Leipzig, 1903, page 573.), which produced each year a definite percentage of twisted individuals. In the vegetative reproduction of this Veronica the torsion appeared in the first, also in the second and third year, but with diminishing intensity. In spite of good cultivation this character has apparently now disappeared; it disappeared still more quickly in seedlings. In another character of the same Veronica chamaedrys the influence of the environment was stronger. The transformation of the inflorescences to foliage-shoots formed the starting-point; it occurred only under narrowly defined conditions, namely on cultivation as a cutting in moist air and on removal of all other leaf-buds. In the majority (7/10) of the plants obtained from the transformed shoots, the modification appeared in the following year without any interference. Of the three plants which were under observation several years the first lost the character in a short time, while the two others still retain it, after vegetative propagation, in varying degrees. The same character occurs also in some of the seedlings; but anything approaching a constant race has not been produced. Another means of producing new races has been attempted by Blaringhem. (Blaringhem, "Mutation et Traumatisme", Paris, 1907.) On removing at an early stage the main shoots of different plants he observed various abnormalities in the newly formed basal shoots. From the seeds of such plants he obtained races, a large percentage of which exhibited these abnormalities. Starting from a male Maize plant with a fasciated inflorescence, on which a proportion of the flowers had become male, a new race was bred in which hermaphrodite flowers were frequently produced. In the same way Blaringhem obtained, among other similar results, a race of barley with branched ears. These races, however, behaved in essentials like those which have been demonstrated by de Vries to be inconstant, e.g. Trifolium pratense quinquefolium and others. The abnormality appears in a proportion of the individuals and only under very special conditions. It must be remembered too that Blaringhem worked with old cultivated plants, which from the first had been disposed to split into a great variety of races. It is possible, but difficult to prove, that injury contributed to this result. A third method has been adopted by MacDougal (MacDougal, "Heredity and Origin of species", "Monist", 1906; "Report of department of botanical research", "Fifth Year-book of the Carnegie Institution of Washington", page 119, 1907.) who injected strong (10 percent) sugar solution or weak solutions of calcium nitrate and zinc sulphate into young carpels of different plants. From the seeds of a plant of Raimannia odorata the carpels of which had been thus treated he obtained several plants distinguished from the parent-forms by the absence of hairs and by distinct forms of leaves. Further examination showed that he had here to do with a new elementary species. MacDougal also obtained a more or less distinct mutant of Oenothera biennis. We cannot as yet form an opinion as to how far the effect is due to the wound or to the injection of fluid as such, or to its chemical properties. This, however, is not so essential as to decide whether the mutant stands in any relation to the influence of external factors. It is at any rate very important that this kind of investigation should be carried further. If it could be shown that new and inherited races were obtained by MacDougal's method, it would be safe to conclude that the same end might be gained by altering the conditions of the food-stuff conducted to the sexual cells. New races or elementary species, however, arise without wounding or injection. This at once raises the much discussed question, how far garden-cultivation has led to the creation of new races? Contrary to the opinion expressed by Darwin and others, de Vries ("Mutationstheorie", Vol. I. pages 412 et seq.) tried to show that garden-races have been produced only from spontaneous types which occur in a wild state or from sub-races, which the breeder has accidentally discovered but not originated. In a small number of cases only has de Vries adduced definite proof. On the other side we have the work of Korschinsky (Korschinsky, "Heterogenesis und Evolution", "Flora", 1901.) which shows that whole series of garden-races have made their appearance only after years of cultivation. In the majority of races we are entirely ignorant of their origin. It is, however, a fact that if a plant is removed from natural conditions into cultivation, a well-marked variation occurs. The well-known plant-breeder L. de Vilmorin (L. de Vilmorin, "Notices sur l'amelioration des plantes", Paris, 1886, page 36.), speaking from his own experience, states that a plant is induced to "affoler," that is to exhibit all possible variations from which the breeder may make a further selection only after cultivation for several generations. The effect of cultivation was particularly striking in Veronica chamaedrys (Klebs, "Kunstliche Metamorphosen", Stuttgart, 1906, page 152.) which, in spite of its wide distribution in nature, varies very little. After a few years of cultivation this "good" and constant species becomes highly variable. The specimens on which the experiments were made were three modified inflorescence cuttings, the parent-plants of which certainly exhibited no striking abnormalities. In a short time many hitherto latent potentialities became apparent, so that characters, never previously observed, or at least very rarely, were exhibited, such as scattered leaf-arrangement, torsion, terminal or branched inflorescences, the conversion of the inflorescence into foliage-shoots, every conceivable alteration in the colour of flowers, the assumption of a green colour by parts of the flowers, the proliferation of flowers. All this points to some disturbance in the species resulting from methods of cultivation. It has, however, not yet been possible to produce constant races with any one of these modified characters. But variations appeared among the seedlings, some of which, e.g. yellow variegation, were not inheritable, while others have proved constant. This holds good, so far as we know at present, for a small rose-coloured form which is to be reckoned as a mutation. Thus the prospect of producing new races by cultivation appears to be full of promise. So long as the view is held that good nourishment, i.e. a plentiful supply of water and salts, constitutes the essential characteristic of garden-cultivation, we can hardly conceive that new mutations can be thus produced. But perhaps the view here put forward in regard to the production of form throws new light on this puzzling problem. Good manuring is in the highest degree favourable to vegetative growth, but is in no way equally favourable to the formation of flowers. The constantly repeated expression, good or favourable nourishment, is not only vague but misleading, because circumstances favourable to growth differ from those which promote reproduction; for the production of every form there are certain favourable conditions of nourishment, which may be defined for each species. Experience shows that, within definite and often very wide limits, it does not depend upon the ABSOLUTE AMOUNT of the various food substances, but upon their respective degrees of concentration. As we have already stated, the production of flowers follows a relative increase in the amount of carbohydrates formed in the presence of light, as compared with the inorganic salts on which the formation of albuminous substances depends. (Klebs, "Kunstliche Metamorphosen", page 117.) The various modifications of flowers are due to the fact that a relatively too strong solution of salts is supplied to the rudiments of these organs. As a general rule every plant form depends upon a certain relation between the different chemical substances in the cells and is modified by an alteration of that relation. During long cultivation under conditions which vary in very different degrees, such as moisture, the amount of salts, light intensity, temperature, oxygen, it is possible that sudden and special disturbances in the relations of the cell substances have a directive influence on the inner organisation of the sexual cells, so that not only inconstant but also constant varieties will be formed. Definite proof in support of this view has not yet been furnished, and we must admit that the question as to the cause of heredity remains, fundamentally, as far from solution as it was in Darwin's time. As the result of the work of many investigators, particularly de Vries, the problem is constantly becoming clearer and more definite. The penetration into this most difficult and therefore most interesting problem of life and the creation by experiment of new races or elementary species are no longer beyond the region of possibility. XIV. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON ANIMALS. By Jacques Loeb, M.D. Professor of Physiology in the University of California. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. What the biologist calls the natural environment of an animal is from a physical point of view a rather rigid combination of definite forces. It is obvious that by a purposeful and systematic variation of these and by the application of other forces in the laboratory, results must be obtainable which do not appear in the natural environment. This is the reasoning underlying the modern development of the study of the effects of environment upon animal life. It was perhaps not the least important of Darwin's services to science that the boldness of his conceptions gave to the experimental biologist courage to enter upon the attempt of controlling at will the life-phenomena of animals, and of bringing about effects which cannot be expected in Nature. The systematic physico-chemical analysis of the effect of outside forces upon the form and reactions of animals is also our only means of unravelling the mechanism of heredity beyond the scope of the Mendelian law. The manner in which a germ-cell can force upon the adult certain characters will not be understood until we succeed in varying and controlling hereditary characteristics; and this can only be accomplished on the basis of a systematic study of the effects of chemical and physical forces upon living matter. Owing to limitation of space this sketch is necessarily very incomplete, and it must not be inferred that studies which are not mentioned here were considered to be of minor importance. All the writer could hope to do was to bring together a few instances of the experimental analysis of the effect of environment, which indicate the nature and extent of our control over life-phenomena and which also have some relation to the work of Darwin. In the selection of these instances preference is given to those problems which are not too technical for the general reader. The forces, the influence of which we shall discuss, are in succession chemical agencies, temperature, light, and gravitation. We shall also treat separately the effect of these forces upon form and instinctive reactions. II. THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AGENCIES. (a) HETEROGENEOUS HYBRIDISATION. It was held until recently that hybridisation is not possible except between closely related species and that even among these a successful hybridisation cannot always be counted upon. This view was well supported by experience. It is, for instance, well known that the majority of marine animals lay their unfertilised eggs in the ocean and that the males shed their sperm also into the sea-water. The numerical excess of the spermatozoa over the ova in the sea-water is the only guarantee that the eggs are fertilised, for the spermatozoa are carried to the eggs by chance and are not attracted by the latter. This statement is the result of numerous experiments by various authors, and is contrary to common belief. As a rule all or the majority of individuals of a species in a given region spawn on the same day, and when this occurs the sea-water constitutes a veritable suspension of sperm. It has been shown by experiment that in fresh sea-water the sperm may live and retain its fertilising power for several days. It is thus unavoidable that at certain periods more than one kind of spermatozoon is suspended in the sea-water and it is a matter of surprise that the most heterogeneous hybridisations do not constantly occur. The reason for this becomes obvious if we bring together mature eggs and equally mature and active sperm of a different family. When this is done no egg is, as a rule, fertilised. The eggs of a sea-urchin can be fertilised by sperm of their own species, or, though in smaller numbers, by the sperm of other species of sea-urchins, but not by the sperm of other groups of echinoderms, e.g. starfish, brittle-stars, holothurians or crinoids, and still less by the sperm of more distant groups of animals. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that the spermatozoon must enter the egg through a narrow opening or canal, the so-called micropyle, and that the micropyle allowed only the spermatozoa of the same or of a closely related species to enter the egg. It seemed to the writer that the cause of this limitation of hybridisation might be of another kind and that by a change in the constitution of the sea-water it might be possible to bring about heterogenous hybridisations, which in normal sea-water are impossible. This assumption proved correct. Sea-water has a faintly alkaline reaction (in terms of the physical chemist its concentration of hydroxyl ions is about (10 to the power minus six)N at Pacific Grove, California, and about (10 to the power minus 5)N at Woods Hole, Massachusetts). If we slightly raise the alkalinity of the sea-water by adding to it a small but definite quantity of sodium hydroxide or some other alkali, the eggs of the sea-urchin can be fertilised with the sperm of widely different groups of animals, possibly with the sperm of any marine animal which sheds it into the ocean. In 1903 it was shown that if we add from about 0.5 to 0.8 cubic centimetre N/10 sodium hydroxide to 50 cubic centimetres of sea-water, the eggs of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus (a sea-urchin which is found on the coast of California) can be fertilised in large quantities by the sperm of various kinds of starfish, brittle-stars and holothurians; while in normal sea-water or with less sodium hydroxide not a single egg of the same female could be fertilised with the starfish sperm which proved effective in the hyper-alkaline sea-water. The sperm of the various forms of starfish was not equally effective for these hybridisations; the sperm of Asterias ochracea and A. capitata gave the best results, since it was possible to fertilise 50 per cent or more of the sea-urchin eggs, while the sperm of Pycnopodia and Asterina fertilised only 2 per cent of the same eggs. Godlewski used the same method for the hybridisation of the sea-urchin eggs with the sperm of a crinoid (Antedon rosacea). Kupelwieser afterwards obtained results which seemed to indicate the possibility of fertilising the eggs of Strongylocentrotus with the sperm of a mollusc (Mytilus.) Recently, the writer succeeded in fertilising the eggs of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus with the sperm of a mollusc--Chlorostoma. This result could only be obtained in sea-water the alkalinity of which had been increased (through the addition of 0.8 cubic centimetre N/10 sodium hydroxide to 50 cubic centimetres of sea-water). We thus see that by increasing the alkalinity of the sea-water it is possible to effect heterogeneous hybridisations which are at present impossible in the natural environment of these animals. It is, however, conceivable that in former periods of the earth's history such heterogeneous hybridisations were possible. It is known that in solutions like sea-water the degree of alkalinity must increase when the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is diminished. If it be true, as Arrhenius assumes, that the Ice age was caused or preceded by a diminution in the amount of carbon-dioxide in the air, such a diminution must also have resulted in an increase of the alkalinity of the sea-water, and one result of such an increase must have been to render possible heterogeneous hybridisations in the ocean which in the present state of alkalinity are practically excluded. But granted that such hybridisations were possible, would they have influenced the character of the fauna? In other words, are the hybrids between sea-urchin and starfish, or better still, between sea-urchin and mollusc, capable of development, and if so, what is their character? The first experiment made it appear doubtful whether these heterogeneous hybrids could live. The sea-urchin eggs which were fertilised in the laboratory by the spermatozoa of the starfish, as a rule, died earlier than those of the pure breeds. But more recent results indicate that this was due merely to deficiencies in the technique of the earlier experiments. The writer has recently obtained hybrid larvae between the sea-urchin egg and the sperm of a mollusc (Chlorostoma) which, in the laboratory, developed as well and lived as long as the pure breeds of the sea-urchin, and there was nothing to indicate any difference in the vitality of the two breeds. So far as the question of heredity is concerned, all the experiments on heterogeneous hybridisation of the egg of the sea-urchin with the sperm of starfish, brittle-stars, crinoids and molluscs, have led to the same result, namely, that the larvae have purely maternal characteristics and differ in no way from the pure breed of the form from which the egg is taken. By way of illustration it may be said that the larvae of the sea-urchin reach on the third day or earlier (according to species and temperature) the so-called pluteus stage, in which they possess a typical skeleton; while neither the larvae of the starfish nor those of the mollusc form a skeleton at the corresponding stage. It was, therefore, a matter of some interest to find out whether or not the larvae produced by the fertilisation of the sea-urchin egg with the sperm of starfish or mollusc would form the normal and typical pluteus skeleton. This was invariably the case in the experiments of Godlewski, Kupelwieser, Hagedoorn, and the writer. These hybrid larvae were exclusively maternal in character. It might be argued that in the case of heterogeneous hybridisation the sperm-nucleus does not fuse with the egg-nucleus, and that, therefore, the spermatozoon cannot transmit its hereditary substances to the larvae. But these objections are refuted by Godlewski's experiments, in which he showed definitely that if the egg of the sea-urchin is fertilised with the sperm of a crinoid the fusion of the egg-nucleus and sperm-nucleus takes place in the normal way. It remains for further experiments to decide what the character of the adult hybrids would be. (b). ARTIFICIAL PARTHENOGENESIS. Possibly in no other field of Biology has our ability to control life-phenomena by outside conditions been proved to such an extent as in the domain of fertilisation. The reader knows that the eggs of the overwhelming majority of animals cannot develop unless a spermatozoon enters them. In this case a living agency is the cause of development and the problem arises whether it is possible to accomplish the same result through the application of well-known physico-chemical agencies. This is, indeed, true, and during the last ten years living larvae have been produced by chemical agencies from the unfertilised eggs of sea-urchins, starfish, holothurians and a number of annelids and molluscs; in fact this holds true in regard to the eggs of practically all forms of animals with which such experiments have been tried long enough. In each form the method of procedure is somewhat different and a long series of experiments is often required before the successful method is found. The facts of Artificial Parthenogenesis, as the chemical fertilisation of the egg is called, have, perhaps, some bearing on the problem of evolution. If we wish to form a mental image of the process of evolution we have to reckon with the possibility that parthenogenetic propagation may have preceded sexual reproduction. This suggests also the possibility that at that period outside forces may have supplied the conditions for the development of the egg which at present the spermatozoon has to supply. For this, if for no other reason, a brief consideration of the means of artificial parthenogenesis may be of interest to the student of evolution. It seemed necessary in these experiments to imitate as completely as possible by chemical agencies the effects of the spermatozoon upon the egg. When a spermatozoon enters the egg of a sea-urchin or certain starfish or annelids, the immediate effect is a characteristic change of the surface of the egg, namely the formation of the so-called membrane of fertilisation. The writer found that we can produce this membrane in the unfertilised egg by certain acids, especially the monobasic acids of the fatty series, e.g. formic, acetic, propionic, butyric, etc. Carbon-dioxide is also very efficient in this direction. It was also found that the higher acids are more efficient than the lower ones, and it is possible that the spermatozoon induces membrane-formation by carrying into the egg a higher fatty acid, namely oleic acid or one of its salts or esters. The physico-chemical process which underlies the formation of the membrane seems to be the cause of the development of the egg. In all cases in which the unfertilised egg has been treated in such a way as to cause it to form a membrane it begins to develop. For the eggs of certain animals membrane-formation is all that is required to induce a complete development of the unfertilised egg, e.g. in the starfish and certain annelids. For the eggs of other animals a second treatment is necessary, presumably to overcome some of the injurious effects of acid treatment. Thus the unfertilised eggs of the sea-urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus of the Californian coast begin to develop when membrane-formation has been induced by treatment with a fatty acid, e.g. butyric acid; but the development soon ceases and the eggs perish in the early stages of segmentation, or after the first nuclear division. But if we treat the same eggs, after membrane-formation, for from 35 to 55 minutes (at 15 deg C.) with sea-water the concentration (osmotic pressure) of which has been raised through the addition of a definite amount of some salt or sugar, the eggs will segment and develop normally, when transferred back to normal sea-water. If care is taken, practically all the eggs can be caused to develop into plutei, the majority of which may be perfectly normal and may live as long as larvae produced from eggs fertilised with sperm. It is obvious that the sea-urchin egg is injured in the process of membrane-formation and that the subsequent treatment with a hypertonic solution only acts as a remedy. The nature of this injury became clear when it was discovered that all the agencies which cause haemolysis, i.e. the destruction of the red blood corpuscles, also cause membrane-formation in unfertilised eggs, e.g. fatty acids or ether, alcohols or chloroform, etc., or saponin, solanin, digitalin, bile salts and alkali. It thus happens that the phenomena of artificial parthenogenesis are linked together with the phenomena of haemolysis which at present play so important a role in the study of immunity. The difference between cytolysis (or haemolysis) and fertilisation seems to be this, that the latter is caused by a superficial or slight cytolysis of the egg, while if the cytolytic agencies have time to act on the whole egg the latter is completely destroyed. If we put unfertilised eggs of a sea-urchin into sea-water which contains a trace of saponin we notice that, after a few minutes, all the eggs form the typical membrane of fertilisation. If the eggs are then taken out of the saponin solution, freed from all traces of saponin by repeated washing in normal sea-water, and transferred to the hypertonic sea-water for from 35 to 55 minutes, they develop into larvae. If, however, they are left in the sea-water containing the saponin they undergo, a few minutes after membrane-formation, the disintegration known in pathology as CYTOLYSIS. Membrane-formation is, therefore, caused by a superficial or incomplete cytolysis. The writer believes that the subsequent treatment of the egg with hypertonic sea-water is needed only to overcome the destructive effects of this partial cytolysis. The full reasons for this belief cannot be given in a short essay. Many pathologists assume that haemolysis or cytolysis is due to a liquefaction of certain fatty or fat-like compounds, the so-called lipoids, in the cell. If this view is correct, it would be necessary to ascribe the fertilisation of the egg to the same process. The analogy between haemolysis and fertilisation throws, possibly, some light on a curious observation. It is well known that the blood corpuscles, as a rule, undergo cytolysis if injected into the blood of an animal which belongs to a different family. The writer found last year that the blood of mammals, e.g. the rabbit, pig, and cattle, causes the egg of Strongylocentrotus to form a typical fertilisation-membrane. If such eggs are afterwards treated for a short period with hypertonic sea-water they develop into normal larvae (plutei). Some substance contained in the blood causes, presumably, a superficial cytolysis of the egg and thus starts its development. We can also cause the development of the sea-urchin egg without membrane-formation. The early experiments of the writer were done in this way and many experimenters still use such methods. It is probable that in this case the mechanism of fertilisation is essentially the same as in the case where the membrane-formation is brought about, with this difference only, that the cytolytic effect is less when no fertilisation-membrane is formed. This inference is corroborated by observations on the fertilisation of the sea-urchin egg with ox blood. It very frequently happens that not all of the eggs form membranes in this process. Those eggs which form membranes begin to develop, but perish if they are not treated with hypertonic sea-water. Some of the other eggs, however, which do not form membranes, develop directly into normal larvae without any treatment with hypertonic sea-water, provided they are exposed to the blood for only a few minutes. Presumably some blood enters the eggs and causes the cytolytic effects in a less degree than is necessary for membrane-formation, but in a sufficient degree to cause their development. The slightness of the cytolytic effect allows the egg to develop without treatment with hypertonic sea-water. Since the entrance of the spermatozoon causes that degree of cytolysis which leads to membrane-formation, it is probable that, in addition to the cytolytic or membrane-forming substance (presumably a higher fatty acid), it carries another substance into the egg which counteracts the deleterious cytolytic effects underlying membrane-formation. The question may be raised whether the larvae produced by artificial parthenogenesis can reach the mature stage. This question may be answered in the affirmative, since Delage has succeeded in raising several parthenogenetic sea-urchin larvae beyond the metamorphosis into the adult stage and since in all the experiments made by the writer the parthenogenetic plutei lived as long as the plutei produced from fertilised eggs. (c). ON THE PRODUCTION OF TWINS FROM ONE EGG THROUGH A CHANGE IN THE CHEMICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SEA-WATER. The reader is probably familiar with the fact that there exist two different types of human twins. In the one type the twins differ as much as two children of the same parents born at different periods; they may or may not have the same sex. In the second type the twins have invariably the same sex and resemble each other most closely. Twins of the latter type are produced from the same egg, while twins of the former type are produced from two different eggs. The experiments of Driesch and others have taught us that twins originate from one egg in this manner, namely, that the first two cells into which the egg divides after fertilisation become separated from each other. This separation can be brought about by a change in the chemical constitution of the sea-water. Herbst observed that if the fertilised eggs of the sea-urchin are put into sea-water which is freed from calcium, the cells into which the egg divides have a tendency to fall apart. Driesch afterwards noticed that eggs of the sea-urchin treated with sea-water which is free from lime have a tendency to give rise to twins. The writer has recently found that twins can be produced not only by the absence of lime, but also through the absence of sodium or of potassium; in other words, through the absence of one or two of the three important metals in the sea-water. There is, however, a second condition, namely, that the solution used for the production of twins must have a neutral or at least not an alkaline reaction. The procedure for the production of twins in the sea-urchin egg consists simply in this:--the eggs are fertilised as usual in normal sea-water and then, after repeated washing in a neutral solution of sodium chloride (of the concentration of the sea-water), are placed in a neutral mixture of potassium chloride and calcium chloride, or of sodium chloride and potassium chloride, or of sodium chloride and calcium chloride, or of sodium chloride and magnesium chloride. The eggs must remain in this solution until half an hour or an hour after they have reached the two-cell stage. They are then transferred into normal sea-water and allowed to develop. From 50 to 90 per cent of the eggs of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus treated in this manner may develop into twins. These twins may remain separate or grow partially together and form double monsters, or heal together so completely that only slight or even no imperfections indicate that the individual started its career as a pair of twins. It is also possible to control the tendency of such twins to grow together by a change in the constitution of the sea-water. If we use as a twin-producing solution a mixture of sodium, magnesium and potassium chlorides (in the proportion in which these salts exist in the sea-water) the tendency of the twins to grow together is much more pronounced than if we use simply a mixture of sodium chloride and magnesium chloride. The mechanism of the origin of twins, as the result of altering the composition of the sea-water, is revealed by observation of the first segmentation of the egg in these solutions. This cell-division is modified in a way which leads to a separation of the first two cells. If the egg is afterwards transferred back into normal sea-water, each of these two cells develops into an independent embryo. Since normal sea-water contains all three metals, sodium, calcium, and potassium, and since it has besides an alkaline reaction, we perceive the reason why twins are not normally produced from one egg. These experiments suggest the possibility of a chemical cause for the origin of twins from one egg or of double monstrosities in mammals. If, for some reason, the liquids which surround the human egg a short time before and after the first cell-division are slightly acid, and at the same time lacking in one of the three important metals, the conditions for the separation of the first two cells and the formation of identical twins are provided. In conclusion it may be pointed out that the reverse result, namely, the fusion of normally double organs, can also be brought about experimentally through a change in the chemical constitution of the sea-water. Stockard succeeded in causing the eyes of fish embryos (Fundulus heteroclitus) to fuse into a single cyclopean eye through the addition of magnesium chloride to the sea-water. When he added about 6 grams of magnesium chloride to 100 cubic centimetres of sea-water and placed the fertilised eggs in the mixture, about 50 per cent of the eggs gave rise to one-eyed embryos. "When the embryos were studied the one-eyed condition was found to result from the union or fusion of the 'anlagen' of the two eyes. Cases were observed which showed various degrees in this fusion; it appeared as though the optic vessels were formed too far forward and ventral, so that their antero-ventro-median surfaces fused. This produces one large optic cup, which in all cases gives more or less evidence of its double nature." (Stockard, "Archiv f. Entwickelungsmechanik", Vol. 23, page 249, 1907.) We have confined ourselves to a discussion of rather simple effects of the change in the constitution of the sea-water upon development. It is a priori obvious, however, that an unlimited number of pathological variations might be produced by a variation in the concentration and constitution of the sea-water, and experience confirms this statement. As an example we may mention the abnormalities observed by Herbst in the development of sea-urchins through the addition of lithium to sea-water. It is, however, as yet impossible to connect in a rational way the effects produced in this and similar cases with the cause which produced them; and it is also impossible to define in a simple way the character of the change produced. III. THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE. (a) THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE UPON THE DENSITY OF PELAGIC ORGANISMS AND THE DURATION OF LIFE. It has often been noticed by explorers who have had a chance to compare the faunas in different climates that in polar seas such species as thrive at all in those regions occur, as a rule, in much greater density than they do in the moderate or warmer regions of the ocean. This refers to those members of the fauna which live at or near the surface, since they alone lend themselves to a statistical comparison. In his account of the Valdivia expedition, Chun (Chun, "Aus den Tiefen des Weltmeeres", page 225, Jena, 1903.) calls especial attention to this quantitative difference in the surface fauna and flora of different regions. "In the icy water of the Antarctic, the temperature of which is below 0 deg C., we find an astonishingly rich animal and plant life. The same condition with which we are familiar in the Arctic seas is repeated here, namely, that the quantity of plankton material exceeds that of the temperate and warm seas." And again, in regard to the pelagic fauna in the region of the Kerguelen Islands, he states: "The ocean is alive with transparent jelly fish, Ctenophores (Bolina and Callianira) and of Siphonophore colonies of the genus Agalma." The paradoxical character of this general observation lies in the fact that a low temperature retards development, and hence should be expected to have the opposite effect from that mentioned by Chun. Recent investigations have led to the result that life-phenomena are affected by temperature in the same sense as the velocity of chemical reactions. In the case of the latter van't Hoff had shown that a decrease in temperature by 10 degrees reduces their velocity to one half or less, and the same has been found for the influence of temperature on the velocity of physiological processes. Thus Snyder and T.B. Robertson found that the rate of heartbeat in the tortoise and in Daphnia is reduced to about one-half if the temperature is lowered 10 deg C., and Maxwell, Keith Lucas, and Snyder found the same influence of temperature for the rate with which an impulse travels in the nerve. Peter observed that the rate of development in a sea-urchin's egg is reduced to less than one-half if the temperature (within certain limits) is reduced by 10 degrees. The same effect of temperature upon the rate of development holds for the egg of the frog, as Cohen and Peter calculated from the experiments of O. Hertwig. The writer found the same temperature-coefficient for the rate of maturation of the egg of a mollusc (Lottia). All these facts prove that the velocity of development of animal life in Arctic regions, where the temperature is near the freezing point of water, must be from two to three times smaller than in regions where the temperature of the ocean is about 10 deg C. and from four to nine times smaller than in seas the temperature of which is about 20 deg C. It is, therefore, exactly the reverse of what we should expect when authors state that the density of organisms at or near the surface of the ocean in polar regions is greater than in more temperate regions. The writer believes that this paradox finds its explanation in experiments which he has recently made on the influence of temperature on the duration of life of cold-blooded marine animals. The experiments were made on the fertilised and unfertilised eggs of the sea-urchin, and yielded the result that for the lowering of temperature by 1 deg C. the duration of life was about doubled. Lowering the temperature by 10 degrees therefore prolongs the life of the organism 2 to the power 10, i.e. over a thousand times, and a lowering by 20 degrees prolongs it about one million times. Since this prolongation of life is far in excess of the retardation of development through a lowering of temperature, it is obvious that, in spite of the retardation of development in Arctic seas, animal life must be denser there than in temperate or tropical seas. The excessive increase of the duration of life at the poles will necessitate the simultaneous existence of more successive generations of the same species in these regions than in the temperate or tropical regions. The writer is inclined to believe that these results have some bearing upon a problem which plays an important role in theories of evolution, namely, the cause of natural death. It has been stated that the processes of differentiation and development lead also to the natural death of the individual. If we express this in chemical terms it means that the chemical processes which underlie development also determine natural death. Physical chemistry has taught us to identify two chemical processes even if only certain of their features are known. One of these means of identification is the temperature coefficient. When two chemical processes are identical, their velocity must be reduced by the same amount if the temperature is lowered to the same extent. The temperature coefficient for the duration of life of cold-blooded organisms seems, however, to differ enormously from the temperature coefficient for their rate of development. For a difference in temperature of 10 deg C. the duration of life is altered five hundred times as much as the rate of development; and, for a change of 20 deg C., it is altered more than a hundred thousand times as much. From this we may conclude that, at least for the sea-urchin eggs and embryo, the chemical processes which determine natural death are certainly not identical with the processes which underlie their development. T.B. Robertson has also arrived at the conclusion, for quite different reasons, that the process of senile decay is essentially different from that of growth and development. (b) CHANGES IN THE COLOUR OF BUTTERFLIES PRODUCED THROUGH THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE. The experiments of Dorfmeister, Weismann, Merrifield, Standfuss, and Fischer, on seasonal dimorphism and the aberration of colour in butterflies have so often been discussed in biological literature that a short reference to them will suffice. By seasonal dimorphism is meant the fact that species may appear at different seasons of the year in a somewhat different form or colour. Vanessa prorsa is the summer form, Vanessa levana the winter form of the same species. By keeping the pupae of Vanessa prorsa several weeks at a temperature of from 0 deg to 1 deg Weismann succeeded in obtaining from the summer chrysalids specimens which resembled the winter variety, Vanessa levana. If we wish to get a clear understanding of the causes of variation in the colour and pattern of butterflies, we must direct our attention to the experiments of Fischer, who worked with more extreme temperatures than his predecessors, and found that almost identical aberrations of colour could be produced by both extremely high and extremely low temperatures. This can be clearly seen from the following tabulated results of his observations. At the head of each column the reader finds the temperature to which Fischer submitted the pupae, and in the vertical column below are found the varieties that were produced. In the vertical column A are given the normal forms: (Temperatures in deg C.) 0 to -20 0 to +10 A. +35 to +37 +36 to +41 +42 to +46 (Normal forms) ichnusoides polaris urticae ichnusa polaris ichnusoides (nigrita) (nigrita) antigone fischeri io - fischeri antigone (iokaste) (iokaste) testudo dixeyi polychloros erythromelas dixeyi testudo hygiaea artemis antiopa epione artemis hygiaea elymi wiskotti cardui - wiskotti elymi klymene merrifieldi atalanta - merrifieldi klymene weismanni porima prorsa - porima weismanni The reader will notice that the aberrations produced at a very low temperature (from 0 to -20 deg C.) are absolutely identical with the aberrations produced by exposing the pupae to extremely high temperatures (42 to 46 deg C.). Moreover the aberrations produced by a moderately low temperature (from 0 to 10 deg C.) are identical with the aberrations produced by a moderately high temperature (36 to 41 deg C.) From these observations Fischer concludes that it is erroneous to speak of a specific effect of high and of low temperatures, but that there must be a common cause for the aberration found at the high as well as at the low temperature limits. This cause he seems to find in the inhibiting effects of extreme temperatures upon development. If we try to analyse such results as Fischer's from a physico-chemical point of view, we must realise that what we call life consists of a series of chemical reactions, which are connected in a catenary way; inasmuch as one reaction or group of reactions (a) (e.g. hydrolyses) causes or furnishes the material for a second reaction or group of reactions (b) (e.g. oxydations). We know that the temperature coefficient for physiological processes varies slightly at various parts of the scale; as a rule it is higher near 0 and lower near 30 deg. But we know also that the temperature coefficients do not vary equally from the various physiological processes. It is, therefore, to be expected that the temperature coefficients for the group of reactions of the type (a) will not be identical through the whole scale with the temperature coefficients for the reactions of the type (b). If therefore a certain substance is formed at the normal temperature of the animal in such quantities as are needed for the catenary reaction (b), it is not to be expected that this same perfect balance will be maintained for extremely high or extremely low temperatures; it is more probable that one group of reactions will exceed the other and thus produce aberrant chemical effects, which may underlie the colour aberrations observed by Fischer and other experimenters. It is important to notice that Fischer was also able to produce aberrations through the application of narcotics. Wolfgang Ostwald has produced experimentally, through variation of temperature, dimorphism of form in Daphnia. Lack of space precludes an account of these important experiments, as of so many others. IV. THE EFFECTS OF LIGHT. At the present day nobody seriously questions the statement that the action of light upon organisms is primarily one of a chemical character. While this chemical action is of the utmost importance for organisms, the nutrition of which depends upon the action of chlorophyll, it becomes of less importance for organisms devoid of chlorophyll. Nevertheless, we find animals in which the formation of organs by regeneration is not possible unless they are exposed to light. An observation made by the writer on the regeneration of polyps in a hydroid, Eudendrium racemosum, at Woods Hole, may be mentioned as an instance of this. If the stem of this hydroid, which is usually covered with polyps, is put into an aquarium the polyps soon fall off. If the stems are kept in an aquarium where light strikes them during the day, a regeneration of numerous polyps takes place in a few days. If, however, the stems of Eudendrium are kept permanently in the dark, no polyps are formed even after an interval of some weeks; but they are formed in a few days after the same stems have been transferred from the dark to the light. Diffused daylight suffices for this effect. Goldfarb, who repeated these experiments, states that an exposure of comparatively short duration is sufficient for this effect, it is possible that the light favours the formation of substances which are a prerequisite for the origin of polyps and their growth. Of much greater significance than this observation are the facts which show that a large number of animals assume, to some extent, the colour of the ground on which they are placed. Pouchet found through experiments upon crustaceans and fish that this influence of the ground on the colour of animals is produced through the medium of the eyes. If the eyes are removed or the animals made blind in another way these phenomena cease. The second general fact found by Pouchet was that the variation in the colour of the animal is brought about through an action of the nerves on the pigment-cells of the skin; the nerve-action being induced through the agency of the eye. The mechanism and the conditions for the change in colouration were made clear through the beautiful investigations of Keeble and Gamble, on the colour-change in crustaceans. According to these authors the pigment-cells can, as a rule, be considered as consisting of a central body from which a system of more or less complicated ramifications or processes spreads out in all directions. As a rule, the centre of the cell contains one or more different pigments which under the influence of nerves can spread out separately or together into the ramifications. These phenomena of spreading and retraction of the pigments into or from the ramifications of the pigment-cells form on the whole the basis for the colour changes under the influence of environment. Thus Keeble and Gamble observed that Macromysis flexuosa appears transparent and colourless or grey on sandy ground. On a dark ground their colour becomes darker. These animals have two pigments in their chromatophores, a brown pigment and a whitish or yellow pigment; the former is much more plentiful than the latter. When the animal appears transparent all the pigment is contained in the centre of the cells, while the ramifications are free from pigment. When the animal appears brown both pigments are spread out into the ramifications. In the condition of maximal spreading the animals appear black. This is a comparatively simple case. Much more complicated conditions were found by Keeble and Gamble in other crustaceans, e.g. in Hippolyte cranchii, but the influence of the surroundings upon the colouration of this form was also satisfactorily analysed by these authors. While many animals show transitory changes in colour under the influence of their surroundings, in a few cases permanent changes can be produced. The best examples of this are those which were observed by Poulton in the chrysalids of various butterflies, especially the small tortoise-shell. These experiments are so well known that a short reference to them will suffice. Poulton (Poulton, E.B., "Colours of Animals" (The International Scientific Series), London, 1890, page 121.) found that in gilt or white surroundings the pupae became light coloured and there was often an immense development of the golden spots, "so that in many cases the whole surface of the pupae glittered with an apparent metallic lustre. So remarkable was the appearance that a physicist to whom I showed the chrysalids, suggested that I had played a trick and had covered them with goldleaf." When black surroundings were used "the pupae were as a rule extremely dark, with only the smallest trace, and often no trace at all, of the golden spots which are so conspicuous in the lighter form." The susceptibility of the animal to this influence of its surroundings was found to be greatest during a definite period when the caterpillar undergoes the metamorphosis into the chrysalis stage. As far as the writer is aware, no physico-chemical explanation, except possibly Wiener's suggestion of colour-photography by mechanical colour adaptation, has ever been offered for the results of the type of those observed by Poulton. V. EFFECTS OF GRAVITATION. (a) EXPERIMENTS ON THE EGG OF THE FROG. Gravitation can only indirectly affect life-phenomena; namely, when we have in a cell two different non-miscible liquids (or a liquid and a solid) of different specific gravity, so that a change in the position of the cell or the organ may give results which can be traced to a change in the position of the two substances. This is very nicely illustrated by the frog's egg, which has two layers of very viscous protoplasm one of which is black and one white. The dark one occupies normally the upper position in the egg and may therefore be assumed to possess a smaller specific gravity than the white substance. When the egg is turned with the white pole upwards a tendency of the white protoplasm to flow down again manifests itself. It is, however, possible to prevent or retard this rotation of the highly viscous protoplasm, by compressing the eggs between horizontal glass plates. Such compression experiments may lead to rather interesting results, as O. Schultze first pointed out. Pflueger had already shown that the first plane of division in a fertilised frog's egg is vertical and Roux established the fact that the first plane of division is identical with the plane of symmetry of the later embryo. Schultze found that if the frog's egg is turned upside down at the time of its first division and kept in this abnormal position, through compression between two glass plates for about 20 hours, a small number of eggs may give rise to twins. It is possible, in this case, that the tendency of the black part of the egg to rotate upwards along the surface of the egg leads to a separation of its first cells, such a separation leading to the formation of twins. T.H. Morgan made an interesting additional observation. He destroyed one half of the egg after the first segmentation and found that the half which remained alive gave rise to only one half of an embryo, thus confirming an older observation of Roux. When, however, Morgan put the egg upside down after the destruction of one of the first two cells, and compressed the eggs between two glass plates, the surviving half of the egg gave rise to a perfect embryo of half size (and not to a half embryo of normal size as before.) Obviously in this case the tendency of the protoplasm to flow back to its normal position was partially successful and led to a partial or complete separation of the living from the dead half; whereby the former was enabled to form a whole embryo, which, of course, possessed only half the size of an embryo originating from a whole egg. (b) EXPERIMENTS ON HYDROIDS. A striking influence of gravitation can be observed in a hydroid, Antennularia antennina, from the bay of Naples. This hydroid consists of a long straight main stem which grows vertically upwards and which has at regular intervals very fine and short bristle-like lateral branches, on the upper side of which the polyps grow. The main stem is negatively geotropic, i.e. its apex continues to grow vertically upwards when we put it obliquely into the aquarium, while the roots grow vertically downwards. The writer observed that when the stem is put horizontally into the water the short lateral branches on the lower side give rise to an altogether different kind of organ, namely, to roots, and these roots grow indefinitely in length and attach themselves to solid bodies; while if the stem had remained in its normal position no further growth would have occurred in the lateral branches. From the upper side of the horizontal stem new stems grow out, mostly directly from the original stem, occasionally also from the short lateral branches. It is thus possible to force upon this hydroid an arrangement of organs which is altogether different from the hereditary arrangement. The writer had called the change in the hereditary arrangement of organs or the transformation of organs by external forces HETEROMORPHOSIS. We cannot now go any further into this subject, which should, however, prove of interest in relation to the problem of heredity. If it is correct to apply inferences drawn from the observation on the frog's egg to the behaviour of Antennularia, one might conclude that the cells of Antennularia also contain non-miscible substances of different specific gravity, and that wherever the specifically lighter substance comes in contact with the sea-water (or gets near the surface of the cell) the growth of a stem is favoured; while contact with the sea-water of the specifically heavier of the substances, will favour the formation of roots. VI. THE EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL OF ANIMAL INSTINCTS. (a) EXPERIMENTS ON THE MECHANISM OF HELIOTROPIC REACTIONS IN ANIMALS. Since the instinctive reactions of animals are as hereditary as their morphological character, a discussion of experiments on the physico-chemical character of the instinctive reactions of animals should not be entirely omitted from this sketch. It is obvious that such experiments must begin with the simplest type of instincts, if they are expected to lead to any results; and it is also obvious that only such animals must be selected for this purpose, the reactions of which are not complicated by associative memory, or, as it may preferably be termed, associative hysteresis. The simplest type of instincts is represented by the purposeful motions of animals to or from a source of energy, e.g. light; and it is with some of these that we intend to deal here. When we expose winged aphides (after they have flown away from the plant), or young caterpillars of Porthesia chrysorrhoea (when they are aroused from their winter sleep) or marine or freshwater copepods and many other animals, to diffused daylight falling in from a window, we notice a tendency among these animals to move towards the source of light. If the animals are naturally sensitive, or if they are rendered sensitive through the agencies which we shall mention later, and if the light is strong enough, they move towards the source of light in as straight a line as the imperfections and peculiarities of their locomotor apparatus will permit. It is also obvious that we are here dealing with a forced reaction in which the animals have no more choice in the direction of their motion than have the iron filings in their arrangement in a magnetic field. This can be proved very nicely in the case of starving caterpillars of Porthesia. The writer put such caterpillars into a glass tube the axis of which was at right angles to the plane of the window: the caterpillars went to the window side of the tube and remained there, even if leaves of their food-plant were put into the tube directly behind them. Under such conditions the animals actually died from starvation, the light preventing them from turning to the food, which they eagerly ate when the light allowed them to do so. One cannot say that these animals, which we call positively helioptropic, are attracted by the light, since it can be shown that they go towards the source of the light even if in so doing they move from places of a higher to places of a lower degree of illumination. The writer has advanced the following theory of these instinctive reactions. Animals of the type of those mentioned are automatically orientated by the light in such a way that symmetrical elements of their retina (or skin) are struck by the rays of light at the same angle. In this case the intensity of light is the same for both retinae or symmetrical parts of the skin. This automatic orientation is determined by two factors, first a peculiar photo-sensitiveness of the retina (or skin), and second a peculiar nervous connection between the retina and the muscular apparatus. In symmetrically built heliotropic animals in which the symmetrical muscles participate equally in locomotion, the symmetrical muscles work with equal energy as long as the photo-chemical processes in both eyes are identical. If, however, one eye is struck by stronger light than the other, the symmetrical muscles will work unequally and in positively heliotropic animals those muscles will work with greater energy which bring the plane of symmetry back into the direction of the rays of light and the head towards the source of light. As soon as both eyes are struck by the rays of light at the same angle, there is no more reason for the animal to deviate from this direction and it will move in a straight line. All this holds good on the supposition that the animals are exposed to only one source of light and are very sensitive to light. Additional proof for the correctness of this theory was furnished through the experiments of G.H. Parker and S.J. Holmes. The former worked on a butterfly, Vanessa antiope, the latter on other arthropods. All the animals were in a marked degree positively heliotropic. These authors found that if one cornea is blackened in such an animal, it moves continually in a circle when it is exposed to a source of light, and in these motions the eye which is not covered with paint is directed towards the centre of the circle. The animal behaves, therefore, as if the darkened eye were in the shade. (b) THE PRODUCTION OF POSITIVE HELIOTROPISM BY ACIDS AND OTHER MEANS AND THE PERIODIC DEPTH-MIGRATIONS OF PELAGIC ANIMALS. When we observe a dense mass of copepods collected from a freshwater pond, we notice that some have a tendency to go to the light while others go in the opposite direction and many, if not the majority, are indifferent to light. It is an easy matter to make the negatively heliotropic or the indifferent copepods almost instantly positively heliotropic by adding a small but definite amount of carbon-dioxide in the form of carbonated water to the water in which the animals are contained. If the animals are contained in 50 cubic centimetres of water it suffices to add from three to six cubic centimetres of carbonated water to make all the copepods energetically positively heliotropic. This heliotropism lasts about half an hour (probably until all the carbon-dioxide has again diffused into the air.) Similar results may be obtained with any other acid. The same experiments may be made with another freshwater crustacean, namely Daphnia, with this difference, however, that it is as a rule necessary to lower the temperature of the water also. If the water containing the Daphniae is cooled and at the same time carbon-dioxide added, the animals which were before indifferent to light now become most strikingly positively heliotropic. Marine copepods can be made positively heliotropic by the lowering of the temperature alone, or by a sudden increase in the concentration of the sea-water. These data have a bearing upon the depth-migrations of pelagic animals, as was pointed out years ago by Theo. T. Groom and the writer. It is well known that many animals living near the surface of the ocean or freshwater lakes, have a tendency to migrate upwards towards evening and downwards in the morning and during the day. These periodic motions are determined to a large extent, if not exclusively, by the heliotropism of these animals. Since the consumption of carbon-dioxide by the green plants ceases towards evening, the tension of this gas in the water must rise and this must have the effect of inducing positive heliotropism or increasing its intensity. At the same time the temperature of the water near the surface is lowered and this also increases the positive heliotropism in the organisms. The faint light from the sky is sufficient to cause animals which are in a high degree positively heliotropic to move vertically upwards towards the light, as experiments with such pelagic animals, e.g. copepods, have shown. When, in the morning, the absorption of carbon-dioxide by the green algae begins again and the temperature of the water rises, the animals lose their positive heliotropism, and slowly sink down or become negatively heliotropic and migrate actively downwards. These experiments have also a bearing upon the problem of the inheritance of instincts. The character which is transmitted in this case is not the tendency to migrate periodically upwards and downwards, but the positive heliotropism. The tendency to migrate is the outcome of the fact that periodically varying external conditions induce a periodic change in the sense and intensity of the heliotropism of these animals. It is of course immaterial for the result, whether the carbon-dioxide or any other acid diffuse into the animal from the outside or whether they are produced inside in the tissue cells of the animals. Davenport and Cannon found that Daphniae, which at the beginning of the experiment, react sluggishly to light react much more quickly after they have been made to go to the light a few times. The writer is inclined to attribute this result to the effect of acids, e.g. carbon-dioxide, produced in the animals themselves in consequence of their motion. A similar effect of the acids was shown by A.D. Waller in the case of the response of nerve to stimuli. The writer observed many years ago that winged male and female ants are positively helioptropic and that their heliotropic sensitiveness increases and reaches its maximum towards the period of nuptial flight. Since the workers show no heliotropism it looks as if an internal secretion from the sexual glands were the cause of their heliotropic sensitiveness. V. Kellogg has observed that bees also become intensely positively heliotropic at the period of their wedding flight, in fact so much so that by letting light fall into the observation hive from above, the bees are prevented from leaving the hive through the exit at the lower end. We notice also the reverse phenomenon, namely, that chemical changes produced in the animal destroy its heliotropism. The caterpillars of Porthesia chrysorrhoea are very strongly positively heliotropic when they are first aroused from their winter sleep. This heliotropic sensitiveness lasts only as long as they are not fed. If they are kept permanently without food they remain permanently positively heliotropic until they die from starvation. It is to be inferred that as soon as these animals take up food, a substance or substances are formed in their bodies which diminish or annihilate their heliotropic sensitiveness. The heliotropism of animals is identical with the heliotropism of plants. The writer has shown that the experiments on the effect of acids on the heliotropism of copepods can be repeated with the same result in Volvox. It is therefore erroneous to try to explain these heliotropic reactions of animals on the basis of peculiarities (e.g. vision) which are not found in plants. We may briefly discuss the question of the transmission through the sex cells of such instincts as are based upon heliotropism. This problem reduces itself simply to that of the method whereby the gametes transmit heliotropism to the larvae or to the adult. The writer has expressed the idea that all that is necessary for this transmission is the presence in the eyes (or in the skin) of the animal of a photo-sensitive substance. For the transmission of this the gametes need not contain anything more than a catalyser or ferment for the synthesis of the photo-sensitive substance in the body of the animal. What has been said in regard to animal heliotropism might, if space permitted, be extended, mutatis mutandis, to geotropism and stereotropism. (c) THE TROPIC REACTIONS OF CERTAIN TISSUE-CELLS AND THE MORPHOGENETIC EFFECTS OF THESE REACTIONS. Since plant-cells show heliotropic reactions identical with those of animals, it is not surprising that certain tissue-cells also show reactions which belong to the class of tropisms. These reactions of tissue-cells are of special interest by reason of their bearing upon the inheritance of morphological characters. An example of this is found in the tiger-like marking of the yolk-sac of the embryo of Fundulus and in the marking of the young fish itself. The writer found that the former is entirely, and the latter at least in part, due to the creeping of the chromatophores upon the blood-vessels. The chromatophores are at first scattered irregularly over the yolk-sac and show their characteristic ramifications. There is at that time no definite relation between blood-vessels and chromatophores. As soon as a ramification of a chromatophore comes in contact with a blood-vessel the whole mass of the chromatophore creeps gradually on the blood-vessel and forms a complete sheath around the vessel, until finally all the chromatophores form a sheath around the vessels and no more pigment cells are found in the meshes between the vessels. Nobody who has not actually watched the process of the creeping of the chromatophores upon the blood-vessels would anticipate that the tiger-like colouration of the yolk-sac in the later stages of the development was brought about in this way. Similar facts can be observed in regard to the first marking of the embryo itself. The writer is inclined to believe that we are here dealing with a case of chemotropism, and that the oxygen of the blood may be the cause of the spreading of the chromatophores around the blood-vessels. Certain observations seem to indicate the possibility that in the adult the chromatophores have, in some forms at least, a more rigid structure and are prevented from acting in the way indicated. It seems to the writer that such observations as those made on Fundulus might simplify the problem of the hereditary transmission of certain markings. Driesch has found that a tropism underlies the arrangement of the skeleton in the pluteus larvae of the sea-urchin. The position of this skeleton is predetermined by the arrangement of the mesenchyme cells, and Driesch has shown that these cells migrate actively to the place of their destination, possibly led there under the influence of certain chemical substances. When Driesch scattered these cells mechanically before their migration, they nevertheless reached their destination. In the developing eggs of insects the nuclei, together with some cytoplasm, migrate to the periphery of the egg. Herbst pointed out that this might be a case of chemotropism, caused by the oxygen surrounding the egg. The writer has expressed the opinion that the formation of the blastula may be caused generally by a tropic reaction of the blastomeres, the latter being forced by an outside influence to creep to the surface of the egg. These examples may suffice to indicate that the arrangement of definite groups of cells and the morphological effects resulting therefrom may be determined by forces lying outside the cells. Since these forces are ubiquitous and constant it appears as if we were dealing exclusively with the influence of a gamete; while in reality all that it is necessary for the gamete to transmit is a certain form of irritability. (d) FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE PLACE AND TIME FOR THE DEPOSITION OF EGGS. For the preservation of species the instinct of animals to lay their eggs in places in which the young larvae find their food and can develop is of paramount importance. A simple example of this instinct is the fact that the common fly lays its eggs on putrid material which serves as food for the young larvae. When a piece of meat and of fat of the same animal are placed side by side, the fly will deposit its eggs upon the meat on which the larvae can grow, and not upon the fat, on which they would starve. Here we are dealing with the effect of a volatile nitrogenous substance which reflexly causes the peristaltic motions for the laying of the egg in the female fly. Kammerer has investigated the conditions for the laying of eggs in two forms of salamanders, e.g. Salamandra atra and S. maculosa. In both forms the eggs are fertilised in the body and begin to develop in the uterus. Since there is room only for a few larvae in the uterus, a large number of eggs perish and this number is the greater the longer the period of gestation. It thus happens that when the animals retain their eggs a long time, very few young ones are born; and these are in a rather advanced stage of development, owing to the long time which elapsed since they were fertilised. When the animal lays its eggs comparatively soon after copulation, many eggs (from 12 to 72) are produced and the larvae are of course in an early stage of development. In the early stage the larvae possess gills and can therefore live in water, while in later stages they have no gills and breathe through their lungs. Kammerer showed that both forms of Salamandra can be induced to lay their eggs early or late, according to the physical conditions surrounding them. If they are kept in water or in proximity to water and in a moist atmosphere they have a tendency to lay their eggs earlier and a comparatively high temperature enhances the tendency to shorten the period of gestation. If the salamanders are kept in comparative dryness they show a tendency to lay their eggs rather late and a low temperature enhances this tendency. Since Salamandra atra is found in rather dry alpine regions with a relatively low temperature and Salamandra maculosa in lower regions with plenty of water and a higher temperature, the fact that S. atra bears young which are already developed and beyond the stage of aquatic life, while S. maculosa bears young ones in an earlier stage, has been termed adaptation. Kammerer's experiments, however, show that we are dealing with the direct effects of definite outside forces. While we may speak of adaptation when all or some of the variables which determine a reaction are unknown, it is obviously in the interest of further scientific progress to connect cause and effect directly whenever our knowledge allows us to do so. VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The discovery of De Vries, that new species may arise by mutation and the wide if not universal applicability of Mendel's Law to phenomena of heredity, as shown especially by Bateson and his pupils, must, for the time being, if not permanently, serve as a basis for theories of evolution. These discoveries place before the experimental biologist the definite task of producing mutations by physico-chemical means. It is true that certain authors claim to have succeeded in this, but the writer wishes to apologise to these authors for his inability to convince himself of the validity of their claims at the present moment. He thinks that only continued breeding of these apparent mutants through several generations can afford convincing evidence that we are here dealing with mutants rather than with merely pathological variations. What was said in regard to the production of new species by physico-chemical means may be repeated with still more justification in regard to the second problem of transformation, namely the making of living from inanimate matter. The purely morphological imitations of bacteria or cells which physicists have now and then proclaimed as artificially produced living beings; or the plays on words by which, e.g. the regeneration of broken crystals and the regeneration of lost limbs by a crustacean were declared identical, will not appeal to the biologist. We know that growth and development in animals and plants are determined by definite although complicated series of catenary chemical reactions, which result in the synthesis of a DEFINITE compound or group of compounds, namely, NUCLEINS. The nucleins have the peculiarity of acting as ferments or enzymes for their own synthesis. Thus a given type of nucleus will continue to synthesise other nuclein of its own kind. This determines the continuity of a species; since each species has, probably, its own specific nuclein or nuclear material. But it also shows us that whoever claims to have succeeded in making living matter from inanimate will have to prove that he has succeeded in producing nuclein material which acts as a ferment for its own synthesis and thus reproduces itself. Nobody has thus far succeeded in this, although nothing warrants us in taking it for granted that this task is beyond the power of science. XV. THE VALUE OF COLOUR IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. By E.B. Poulton. Hope Professor of Zoology in the University of Oxford. INTRODUCTION. The following pages have been written almost entirely from the historical stand-point. Their principal object has been to give some account of the impressions produced on the mind of Darwin and his great compeer Wallace by various difficult problems suggested by the colours of living nature. In order to render the brief summary of Darwin's thoughts and opinions on the subject in any way complete, it was found necessary to say again much that has often been said before. No attempt has been made to display as a whole the vast contribution of Wallace; but certain of its features are incidentally revealed in passages quoted from Darwin's letters. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the well-known theories of Protective Resemblance, Warning Colours, and Mimicry both Batesian and Mullerian. It would have been superfluous to explain these on the present occasion; for a far more detailed account than could have been attempted in these pages has recently appeared. (Poulton, "Essays on Evolution" Oxford, 1908, pages 293-382.) Among the older records I have made a point of bringing together the principal observations scattered through the note-books and collections of W.J. Burchell. These have never hitherto found a place in any memoir dealing with the significance of the colours of animals. INCIDENTAL COLOURS. Darwin fully recognised that the colours of living beings are not necessarily of value as colours, but that they may be an incidental result of chemical or physical structure. Thus he wrote to T. Meehan, Oct. 9, 1874: "I am glad that you are attending to the colours of dioecious flowers; but it is well to remember that their colours may be as unimportant to them as those of a gall, or, indeed, as the colour of an amethyst or ruby is to these gems." ("More Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. I. pages 354, 355. See also the admirable account of incidental colours in "Descent of Man" (2nd edition), 1874, pages 261, 262.) Incidental colours remain as available assets of the organism ready to be turned to account by natural selection. It is a probable speculation that all pigmentary colours were originally incidental; but now and for immense periods of time the visible tints of animals have been modified and arranged so as to assist in the struggle with other organisms or in courtship. The dominant colouring of plants, on the other hand, is an essential element in the paramount physiological activity of chlorophyll. In exceptional instances, however, the shapes and visible colours of plants may be modified in order to promote concealment. TELEOLOGY AND ADAPTATION. In the department of Biology which forms the subject of this essay, the adaptation of means to an end is probably more evident than in any other; and it is therefore of interest to compare, in a brief introductory section, the older with the newer teleological views. The distinctive feature of Natural Selection as contrasted with other attempts to explain the process of Evolution is the part played by the struggle for existence. All naturalists in all ages must have known something of the operations of "Nature red in tooth and claw"; but it was left for this great theory to suggest that vast extermination is a necessary condition of progress, and even of maintaining the ground already gained. Realising that fitness is the outcome of this fierce struggle, thus turned to account for the first time, we are sometimes led to associate the recognition of adaptation itself too exclusively with Natural Selection. Adaptation had been studied with the warmest enthusiasm nearly forty years before this great theory was given to the scientific world, and it is difficult now to realise the impetus which the works of Paley gave to the study of Natural History. That they did inspire the naturalists of the early part of the last century is clearly shown in the following passages. In the year 1824 the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford was intrusted to the care of J.S. Duncan of New College. He was succeeded in this office by his brother, P.B. Duncan, of the same College, author of a History of the Museum, which shows very clearly the influence of Paley upon the study of nature, and the dominant position given to his teachings: "Happily at this time (1824) a taste for the study of natural history had been excited in the University by Dr Paley's very interesting work on Natural Theology, and the very popular lectures of Dr Kidd on Comparative Anatomy, and Dr Buckland on Geology." In the arrangement of the contents of the Museum the illustration of Paley's work was given the foremost place by J.S. Duncan: "The first division proposes to familiarize the eye to those relations of all natural objects which form the basis of argument in Dr Paley's Natural Theology; to induce a mental habit of associating the view of natural phenomena with the conviction that they are the media of Divine manifestation; and by such association to give proper dignity to every branch of natural science." (From "History and Arrangement of the Ashmolean Museum" by P.B. Duncan: see pages vi, vii of "A Catalogue of the Ashmolean Museum", Oxford, 1836.) The great naturalist, W.J. Burchell, in his classical work shows the same recognition of adaptation in nature at a still earlier date. Upon the subject of collections he wrote ("Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa", London, Vol. I. 1822, page 505. The references to Burchell's observations in the present essay are adapted from the author's article in "Report of the British and South African Associations", 1905, Vol. III. pages 57-110.): "It must not be supposed that these charms (the pleasures of Nature) are produced by the mere discovery of new objects: it is the harmony with which they have been adapted by the Creator to each other, and to the situations in which they are found, which delights the observer in countries where Art has not yet introduced her discords." The remainder of the passage is so admirable that I venture to quote it: "To him who is satisfied with amassing collections of curious objects, simply for the pleasure of possessing them, such objects can afford, at best, but a childish gratification, faint and fleeting; while he who extends his view beyond the narrow field of nomenclature, beholds a boundless expanse, the exploring of which is worthy of the philosopher, and of the best talents of a reasonable being." On September 14, 1811, Burchell was at Zand Valley (Vlei), or Sand Pool, a few miles south-west of the site of Prieska, on the Orange River. Here he found a Mesembryanthemum (M. turbiniforme, now M. truncatum) and also a "Gryllus" (Acridian), closely resembling the pebbles with which their locality was strewn. He says of both of these, "The intention of Nature, in these instances, seems to have been the same as when she gave to the Chameleon the power of accommodating its color, in a certain degree, to that of the object nearest to it, in order to compensate for the deficiency of its locomotive powers. By their form and colour, this insect may pass unobserved by those birds, which otherwise would soon extirpate a species so little able to elude its pursuers, and this juicy little Mesembryanthemum may generally escape the notice of cattle and wild animals." (Loc. cit. pages 310, 311. See Sir William Thiselton-Dyer "Morphological Notes", XI.; "Protective Adaptations", I.; "Annals of Botany", Vol. XX. page 124. In plates VII., VIII. and IX. accompanying this article the author represents the species observed by Burchell, together with others in which analogous adaptations exist. He writes: "Burchell was clearly on the track on which Darwin reached the goal. But the time had not come for emancipation from the old teleology. This, however, in no respect detracts from the merit or value of his work. For, as Huxley has pointed out ("Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley", London, 1900, I. page 457), the facts of the old teleology are immediately transferable to Darwinism, which simply supplies them with a natural in place of a supernatural explanation.") Burchell here seems to miss, at least in part, the meaning of the relationship between the quiescence of the Acridian and its cryptic colouring. Quiescence is an essential element in the protective resemblance to a stone--probably even more indispensable than the details of the form and colouring. Although Burchell appears to overlook this point he fully recognised the community between protection by concealment and more aggressive modes of defence; for, in the passage of which a part is quoted above, he specially refers to some earlier remarks on page 226 of his Vol. I. We here find that even when the oxen were resting by the Juk rivier (Yoke river), on July 19, 1811, Burchell observed "Geranium spinosum, with a fleshy stem and large white flowers...; and a succulent species of Pelargonium... so defended by the old panicles, grown to hard woody thorns, that no cattle could browze upon it." He goes on to say, "In this arid country, where every juicy vegetable would soon be eaten up by the wild animals, the Great Creating Power, with all-provident wisdom, has given to such plants either an acrid or poisonous juice, or sharp thorns, to preserve the species from annihilation... " All these modes of defence, especially adapted to a desert environment, have since been generally recognised, and it is very interesting to place beside Burchell's statement the following passage from a letter written by Darwin, Aug. 7, 1868, to G.H. Lewes; "That Natural Selection would tend to produce the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every one who has observed the distribution in South America and Africa (vide Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the bushes grow isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even in England it has been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing plants are palatable to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed." ("More Letters", I. page 308.) ADAPTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION. I have preferred to show the influence of the older teleology upon Natural History by quotations from a single great and insufficiently appreciated naturalist. It might have been seen equally well in the pages of Kirby and Spence and those of many other writers. If the older naturalists who thought and spoke with Burchell of "the intention of Nature" and the adaptation of beings "to each other, and to the situations in which they are found," could have conceived the possibility of evolution, they must have been led, as Darwin was, by the same considerations to Natural Selection. This was impossible for them, because the philosophy which they followed contemplated the phenomena of adaptation as part of a static immutable system. Darwin, convinced that the system is dynamic and mutable, was prevented by these very phenomena from accepting anything short of the crowning interpretation offered by Natural Selection. ("I had always been much struck by such adaptations (e.g. woodpecker and tree-frog for climbing, seeds for dispersal), and until these could be explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have been modified." "Autobiography" in "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. I. page 82. The same thought is repeated again and again in Darwin's letters to his friends. It is forcibly urged in the Introduction to the "Origin" (1859), page 3.) And the birth of Darwin's unalterable conviction that adaptation is of dominant importance in the organic world,--a conviction confirmed and ever again confirmed by his experience as a naturalist--may probably be traced to the influence of the great theologian. Thus Darwin, speaking of his Undergraduate days, tells us in his "Autobiography" that the logic of Paley's "Evidences of Christianity" and "Moral Philosophy" gave him as much delight as did Euclid. "The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation." ("Life and Letters", I. page 47.) When Darwin came to write the "Origin" he quoted in relation to Natural Selection one of Paley's conclusions. "No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor." ("Origin of Species" (1st edition) 1859, page 201.) The study of adaptation always had for Darwin, as it has for many, a peculiar charm. His words, written Nov. 28, 1880, to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, are by no means inapplicable to-day: "Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of natural history." ("More Letters" II. page 428.) PROTECTIVE AND AGGRESSIVE RESEMBLANCE: PROCRYPTIC AND ANTICRYPTIC COLOURING. Colouring for the purpose of concealment is sometimes included under the head Mimicry, a classification adopted by H.W. Bates in his classical paper. Such an arrangement is inconvenient, and I have followed Wallace in keeping the two categories distinct. The visible colours of animals are far more commonly adapted for Protective Resemblance than for any other purpose. The concealment of animals by their colours, shapes and attitudes, must have been well known from the period at which human beings first began to take an intelligent interest in Nature. An interesting early record is that of Samuel Felton, who (Dec. 2, 1763) figured and gave some account of an Acridian (Phyllotettix) from Jamaica. Of this insect he says "THE THORAX is like a leaf that is raised perpendicularly from the body." ("Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc." Vol. LIV. Tab. VI. page 55.) Both Protective and Aggressive Resemblances were appreciated and clearly explained by Erasmus Darwin in 1794: "The colours of many animals seem adapted to their purposes of concealing themselves either to avoid danger, or to spring upon their prey." ("Zoonomia", Vol. I. page 509, London, 1794.) Protective Resemblance of a very marked and beautiful kind is found in certain plants, inhabitants of desert areas. Examples observed by Burchell almost exactly a hundred years ago have already been mentioned. In addition to the resemblance to stones Burchell observed, although he did not publish the fact, a South African plant concealed by its likeness to the dung of birds. (Sir William Thiselton-Dyer has suggested the same method of concealment ("Annals of Botany", Vol. XX. page 123). Referring to Anacampseros papyracea, figured on plate IX., the author says of its adaptive resemblance: "At the risk of suggesting one perhaps somewhat far-fetched, I must confess that the aspect of the plant always calls to my mind the dejecta of some bird, and the more so owing to the whitening of the branches towards the tips" (loc. cit. page 126). The student of insects, who is so familiar with this very form of protective resemblance in larvae, and even perfect insects, will not be inclined to consider the suggestion far-fetched.) The observation is recorded in one of the manuscript journals kept by the great explorer during his journey. I owe the opportunity of studying it to the kindness of Mr Francis A. Burchell of the Rhodes University College, Grahamstown. The following account is given under the date July 5, 1812, when Burchell was at the Makkwarin River, about half-way between the Kuruman River and Litakun the old capital of the Bachapins (Bechuanas): "I found a curious little Crassula (not in flower) so snow white, that I should never has (have) distinguished it from the white limestones... It was an inch high and a little branchy,... and was at first mistaken for the dung of birds of the passerine order. I have often had occasion to remark that in stony place(s) there grow many small succulent plants and abound insects (chiefly Grylli) which have exactly the same colour as the ground and must for ever escape observation unless a person sit on the ground and observe very attentively." The cryptic resemblances of animals impressed Darwin and Wallace in very different degrees, probably in part due to the fact that Wallace's tropical experiences were so largely derived from the insect world, in part to the importance assigned by Darwin to Sexual Selection "a subject which had always greatly interested me," as he says in his "Autobiography", ("Life and Letters", Vol. I. page 94.) There is no reference to Cryptic Resemblance in Darwin's section of the Joint Essay, although he gives an excellent short account of Sexual Selection (see page 295). Wallace's section on the other hand contains the following statement: "Even the peculiar colours of many animals, especially insects, so closely resembling the soil or the leaves or the trunks on which they habitually reside, are explained on the same principle; for though in the course of ages varieties of many tints may have occurred, YET THOSE RACES HAVING COLOURS BEST ADAPTED TO CONCEALMENT FROM THEIR ENEMIES WOULD INEVITABLY SURVIVE THE LONGEST." ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Vol. III. 1859, page 61. The italics are Wallace's.) It would occupy too much space to attempt any discussion of the difference between the views of these two naturalists, but it is clear that Darwin, although fully believing in the efficiency of protective resemblance and replying to St George Mivart's contention that Natural Selection was incompetent to produce it ("Origin" (6th edition) London, 1872, pages 181, 182; see also page 66.), never entirely agreed with Wallace's estimate of its importance. Thus the following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, May 21, 1868, refers to Wallace: "I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him) separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection; he is riding that hobby to death." ("More Letters", I. page 304.) It is clear from the account given in "The Descent of Man", (London, 1874, pages 452-458. See also "Life and Letters", III. pages 123-125, and "More Letters", II. pages 59-63, 72-74, 76-78, 84-90, 92, 93.), that the divergence was due to the fact that Darwin ascribed more importance to Sexual Selection than did Wallace, and Wallace more importance to Protective Resemblance than Darwin. Thus Darwin wrote to Wallace, Oct. 12 and 13, 1867: "By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger." ("More Letters", I. page 283.) Here too Darwin was preferring the explanation offered by Sexual Selection ("Descent of Man" (2nd edition) 1874, pages 545, 546.), a preference which, considering the relation of the colouring of the lion and tiger to their respective environments, few naturalists will be found to share. It is also shown that Darwin contemplated the possibility of cryptic colours such as those of Patagonian animals being due to sexual selection influenced by the aspect of surrounding nature. Nearly a year later Darwin in his letter of May 5, 1868?, expressed his agreement with Wallace's views: "Expect that I should put sexual selection as an equal, or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than Natural Selection for protection." ("More Letters", II. pages 77, 78.) The conclusion expressed in the above quoted passage is opposed by the extraordinary development of Protective Resemblance in the immature stages of animals, especially insects. It must not be supposed, however, that Darwin ascribed an unimportant role to Cryptic Resemblances, and as observations accumulated he came to recognise their efficiency in fresh groups of the animal kingdom. Thus he wrote to Wallace, May 5, 1867: "Haeckel has recently well shown that the transparency and absence of colour in the lower oceanic animals, belonging to the most different classes, may be well accounted for on the principle of protection." ("More Letters", II. page 62. See also "Descent of Man", page 261.) Darwin also admitted the justice of Professor E.S. Morse's contention that the shells of molluscs are often adaptively coloured. ("More Letters", II. page 95.) But he looked upon cryptic colouring and also mimicry as more especially Wallace's departments, and sent to him and to Professor Meldola observations and notes bearing upon these subjects. Thus the following letter given to me by Dr A.R. Wallace and now, by kind permission, published for the first time, accompanied a photograph of the chrysalis of Papilio sarpedon choredon, Feld., suspended from a leaf of its food-plant: July 9th, Down, Beckenham, Kent. My Dear Wallace, Dr G. Krefft has sent me the enclosed from Sydney. A nurseryman saw a caterpillar feeding on a plant and covered the whole up, but when he searched for the cocoon (pupa), was long before he could find it, so good was its imitation in colour and form to the leaf to which it was attached. I hope that the world goes well with you. Do not trouble yourself by acknowledging this. Ever yours Ch. Darwin. Another deeply interesting letter of Darwin's bearing upon protective resemblance, has only recently been shown to me by my friend Professor E.B. Wilson, the great American Cytologist. With his kind consent and that of Mr Francis Darwin, this letter, written four months before Darwin's death on April 19, 1882, is reproduced here (The letter is addressed: "Edmund B. Wilson, Esq., Assistant in Biology, John Hopkins University, Baltimore Md, U. States."): December 21, 1881. Dear Sir, I thank you much for having taken so much trouble in describing fully your interesting and curious case of mimickry. I am in the habit of looking through many scientific Journals, and though my memory is now not nearly so good as it was, I feel pretty sure that no such case as yours has been described (amongst the nudibranch) molluscs. You perhaps know the case of a fish allied to Hippocampus, (described some years ago by Dr Gunther in "Proc. Zoolog. Socy.") which clings by its tail to sea-weeds, and is covered with waving filaments so as itself to look like a piece of the same sea-weed. The parallelism between your and Dr Gunther's case makes both of them the more interesting; considering how far a fish and a mollusc stand apart. It would be difficult for anyone to explain such cases by the direct action of the environment.--I am glad that you intend to make further observations on this mollusc, and I hope that you will give a figure and if possible a coloured figure. With all good wishes from an old brother naturalist, I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin. Professor E.B. Wilson has kindly given the following account of the circumstances under which he had written to Darwin: "The case to which Darwin's letter refers is that of the nudibranch mollusc Scyllaea, which lives on the floating Sargassum and shows a really astonishing resemblance to the plant, having leaf-shaped processes very closely similar to the fronds of the sea-weed both in shape and in colour. The concealment of the animal may be judged from the fact that we found the animal quite by accident on a piece of Sargassum that had been in a glass jar in the laboratory for some time and had been closely examined in the search for hydroids and the like without disclosing the presence upon it of two large specimens of the Scyllaea (the animal, as I recall it, is about two inches long). It was first detected by its movements alone, by someone (I think a casual visitor to the laboratory) who was looking closely at the Sargassum and exclaimed 'Why, the sea-weed is moving its leaves'! We found the example in the summer of 1880 or 1881 at Beaufort, N.C., where the Johns Hopkins laboratory was located for the time being. It must have been seen by many others, before or since. "I wrote and sent to Darwin a short description of the case at the suggestion of Brooks, with whom I was at the time a student. I was, of course, entirely unknown to Darwin (or to anyone else) and to me the principal interest of Darwin's letter is the evidence that it gives of his extraordinary kindness and friendliness towards an obscure youngster who had of course absolutely no claim upon his time or attention. The little incident made an indelible impression upon my memory and taught me a lesson that was worth learning." VARIABLE PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. The wonderful power of rapid colour adjustment possessed by the cuttle-fish was observed by Darwin in 1832 at St Jago, Cape de Verd Islands, the first place visited during the voyage of the "Beagle". From Rio he wrote to Henslow, giving the following account of his observations, May 18, 1832: "I took several specimens of an Octopus which possessed a most marvellous power of changing its colours, equalling any chameleon, and evidently accommodating the changes to the colour of the ground which it passed over. Yellowish green, dark brown, and red, were the prevailing colours; this fact appears to be new, as far as I can find out." ("Life and Letters", I. pages 235, 236. See also Darwin's "Journal of Researches", 1876, pages 6-8, where a far more detailed account is given together with a reference to "Encycl. of Anat. and Physiol.") Darwin was well aware of the power of individual colour adjustment, now known to be possessed by large numbers of lepidopterous pupae and larvae. An excellent example was brought to his notice by C.V. Riley ("More Letters" II, pages 385, 386.), while the most striking of the early results obtained with the pupae of butterflies--those of Mrs M.E. Barber upon Papilio nireus--was communicated by him to the Entomological Society of London. ("Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1874, page 519. See also "More Letters", II. page 403.) It is also necessary to direct attention to C.W. Beebe's ("Zoologica: N.Y. Zool. Soc." Vol. I. No. 1, Sept. 25, 1907: "Geographic variation in birds with especial reference to the effects of humidity".) recent discovery that the pigmentation of the plumage of certain birds is increased by confinement in a superhumid atmosphere. In Scardafella inca, on which the most complete series of experiments was made, the changes took place only at the moults, whether normal and annual or artificially induced at shorter periods. There was a corresponding increase in the choroidal pigment of the eye. At a certain advanced stage of feather pigmentation a brilliant iridescent bronze or green tint made its appearance on those areas where iridescence most often occurs in allied genera. Thus in birds no less than in insects, characters previously regarded as of taxonomic value, can be evoked or withheld by the forces of the environment. WARNING OR APOSEMATIC COLOURS. From Darwin's description of the colours and habits it is evident that he observed, in 1833, an excellent example of warning colouring in a little South American toad (Phryniscus nigricans). He described it in a letter to Henslow, written from Monte Video, Nov. 24, 1832: "As for one little toad, I hope it may be new, that it may be christened 'diabolicus.' Milton must allude to this very individual when he talks of 'squat like a toad'; its colours are by Werner ("Nomenclature of Colours", 1821) ink black, vermilion red and buff orange." ("More Letters", I. page 12.) In the "Journal of Researches" (1876, page 97.) its colours are described as follows: "If we imagine, first, that it had been steeped in the blackest ink, and then, when dry, allowed to crawl over a board, freshly painted with the brightest vermilion, so as to colour the soles of its feet and parts of its stomach, a good idea of its appearance will be gained." "Instead of being nocturnal in its habits, as other toads are, and living in damp obscure recesses, it crawls during the heat of the day about the dry sand-hillocks and arid plains,... " The appearance and habits recall T. Belt's well-known description of the conspicuous little Nicaraguan frog which he found to be distasteful to a duck. ("The Naturalist in Nicaragua" (2nd edition) London, 1888, page 321.) The recognition of the Warning Colours of caterpillars is due in the first instance to Darwin, who, reflecting on Sexual Selection, was puzzled by the splendid colours of sexually immature organisms. He applied to Wallace "who has an innate genius for solving difficulties." ("Descent of Man", page 325. On this and the following page an excellent account of the discovery will be found, as well as in Wallace's "Natural Selection", London, 1875, pages 117-122.) Darwin's original letter exists ("Life and Letters", III. pages 93, 94.), and in it we are told that he had taken the advice given by Bates: "You had better ask Wallace." After some consideration Wallace replied that he believed the colours of conspicuous caterpillars and perfect insects were a warning of distastefulness and that such forms would be refused by birds. Darwin's reply ("Life and Letters", III. pages 94, 95.) is extremely interesting both for its enthusiasm at the brilliancy of the hypothesis and its caution in acceptance without full confirmation: "Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to in a difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than your suggestion, and I hope you may be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the white moths (A single white moth which was rejected by young turkeys, while other moths were greedily devoured: "Natural Selection", 1875, page 78.); it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus almost proved to be true." Two years later the hypothesis was proved to hold for caterpillars of many kinds by J. Jenner Weir and A.G. Butler, whose observations have since been abundantly confirmed by many naturalists. Darwin wrote to Weir, May 13, 1869: "Your verification of Wallace's suggestion seems to me to amount to quite a discovery." ("More Letters", II. page 71 (footnote).) RECOGNITION OR EPISEMATIC CHARACTERS. This principle does not appear to have been in any way foreseen by Darwin, although he draws special attention to several elements of pattern which would now be interpreted by many naturalists as epismes. He believed that the markings in question interfered with the cryptic effect, and came to the conclusion that, even when common to both sexes, they "are the result of sexual selection primarily applied to the male." ("Descent of Man", page 544.) The most familiar of all recognition characters was carefully explained by him, although here too explained as an ornamental feature now equally transmitted to both sexes: "The hare on her form is a familiar instance of concealment through colour; yet this principle partly fails in a closely-allied species, the rabbit, for when running to its burrow, it is made conspicuous to the sportsman, and no doubt to all beasts of prey, by its upturned white tail." ("Descent of Man", page 542.) The analogous episematic use of the bright colours of flowers to attract insects for effecting cross-fertilisation and of fruits to attract vertebrates for effecting dispersal is very clearly explained in the "Origin". (Edition 1872, page 161. For a good example of Darwin's caution in dealing with exceptions see the allusion to brightly coloured fruit in "More Letters", II. page 348.) It is not, at this point, necessary to treat sematic characters at any greater length. They will form the subject of a large part of the following section, where the models of Batesian (Pseudaposematic) mimicry are considered as well as the Mullerian (Synaposematic) combinations of Warning Colours. MIMICRY,--BATESIAN OR PSEUDAPOSEMATIC, MULLERIAN OR SYNAPOSEMATIC. The existence of superficial resemblances between animals of various degrees of affinity must have been observed for hundreds of years. Among the early examples, the best known to me have been found in the manuscript note-books and collections of W.J. Burchell, the great traveller in Africa (1810-15) and Brazil (1825-30). The most interesting of his records on this subject are brought together in the following paragraphs. Conspicuous among well-defended insects are the dark steely or iridescent greenish blue fossorial wasps or sand-wasps, Sphex and the allied genera. Many Longicorn beetles mimic these in colour, slender shape of body and limbs, rapid movements, and the readiness with which they take to flight. On Dec. 21, 1812, Burchell captured one such beetle (Promeces viridis) at Kosi Fountain on the journey from the source of the Kuruman River to Klaarwater. It is correctly placed among the Longicorns in his catalogue, but opposite to its number is the comment "Sphex! totus purpureus." In our own country the black-and-yellow colouring of many stinging insects, especially the ordinary wasps, affords perhaps the commonest model for mimicry. It is reproduced with more or less accuracy on moths, flies and beetles. Among the latter it is again a Longicorn which offers one of the best-known, although by no means one of the most perfect, examples. The appearance of the well-known "wasp-beetle" (Clytus arietis) in the living state is sufficiently suggestive to prevent the great majority of people from touching it. In Burchell's Brazilian collection there is a nearly allied species (Neoclytus curvatus) which appears to be somewhat less wasp-like than the British beetle. The specimen bears the number "1188," and the date March 27, 1827, when Burchell was collecting in the neighbourhood of San Paulo. Turning to the corresponding number in the Brazilian note-book we find this record: "It runs rapidly like an ichneumon or wasp, of which it has the appearance." The formidable, well-defended ants are as freely mimicked by other insects as the sand-wasps, ordinary wasps and bees. Thus on February 17, 1901, Guy A.K. Marshall captured, near Salisbury, Mashonaland, three similar species of ants (Hymenoptera) with a bug (Hemiptera) and a Locustid (Orthoptera), the two latter mimicking the former. All the insects, seven in number, were caught on a single plant, a small bushy vetch. ("Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1902, page 535, plate XIX. figs. 53-59.) This is an interesting recent example from South Africa, and large numbers of others might be added--the observations of many naturalists in many lands; but nearly all of them known since that general awakening of interest in the subject which was inspired by the great hypotheses of H.W. Bates and Fritz Muller. We find, however, that Burchell had more than once recorded the mimetic resemblance to ants. An extremely ant-like bug (the larva of a species of Alydus) in his Brazilian collection is labelled "1141," with the date December 8, 1826, when Burchell was at the Rio das Pedras, Cubatao, near Santos. In the note-book the record is as follows: "1141 Cimex. I collected this for a Formica." Some of the chief mimics of ants are the active little hunting spiders belonging to the family Attidae. Examples have been brought forward during many recent years, especially by my friends Dr and Mrs Peckham, of Milwaukee, the great authorities on this group of Araneae. Here too we find an observation of the mimetic resemblance recorded by Burchell, and one which adds in the most interesting manner to our knowledge of the subject. A fragment, all that is now left, of an Attid spider, captured on June 30, 1828, at Goyaz, Brazil, bears the following note, in this case on the specimen and not in the note-book: "Black... runs and seems like an ant with large extended jaws." My friend Mr R.I. Pocock, to whom I have submitted the specimen, tells me that it is not one of the group of species hitherto regarded as ant-like, and he adds, "It is most interesting that Burchell should have noticed the resemblance to an ant in its movements. This suggests that the perfect imitation in shape, as well as in movement, seen in many species was started in forms of an appropriate size and colour by the mimicry of movement alone." Up to the present time Burchell is the only naturalist who has observed an example which still exhibits this ancestral stage in the evolution of mimetic likeness. Following the teachings of his day, Burchell was driven to believe that it was part of the fixed and inexorable scheme of things that these strange superficial resemblances existed. Thus, when he found other examples of Hemipterous mimics, including one (Luteva macrophthalma) with "exactly the manners of a Mantis," he added the sentence, "In the genus Cimex (Linn.) are to be found the outward resemblances of insects of many other genera and orders" (February 15, 1829). Of another Brazilian bug, which is not to be found in his collection, and cannot therefore be precisely identified, he wrote: "Cimex... Nature seems to have intended it to imitate a Sphex, both in colour and the rapid palpitating and movement of the antennae" (November 15, 1826). At the same time it is impossible not to feel the conviction that Burchell felt the advantage of a likeness to stinging insects and to aggressive ants, just as he recognised the benefits conferred on desert plants by spines and by concealment. Such an interpretation of mimicry was perfectly consistent with the theological doctrines of his day. (See Kirby and Spence, "An Introduction to Entomology" (1st edition), London, Vol. II. 1817, page 223.) The last note I have selected from Burchell's manuscript refers to one of the chief mimics of the highly protected Lycid beetles. The whole assemblage of African insects with a Lycoid colouring forms a most important combination and one which has an interesting bearing upon the theories of Bates and Fritz Muller. This most wonderful set of mimetic forms, described in 1902 by Guy A.K. Marshall, is composed of flower-haunting beetles belonging to the family Lycidae, and the heterogeneous group of varied insects which mimic their conspicuous and simple scheme of colouring. The Lycid beetles, forming the centre or "models" of the whole company, are orange-brown in front for about two-thirds of the exposed surface, black behind for the remaining third. They are undoubtedly protected by qualities which make them excessively unpalatable to the bulk of insect-eating animals. Some experimental proof of this has been obtained by Mr Guy Marshall. What are the forms which surround them? According to the hypothesis of Bates they would be, at any rate mainly, palatable hard-pressed insects which only hold their own in the struggle for life by a fraudulent imitation of the trade-mark of the successful and powerful Lycidae. According to Fritz Muller's hypothesis we should expect that the mimickers would be highly protected, successful and abundant species, which (metaphorically speaking) have found it to their advantage to possess an advertisement, a danger-signal, in common with each other, and in common with the beetles in the centre of the group. How far does the constitution of this wonderful combination--the largest and most complicated as yet known in all the world--convey to us the idea of mimicry working along the lines supposed by Bates or those suggested by Muller? Figures 1 to 52 of Mr Marshall's coloured plate ("Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1902, plate XVIII. See also page 517, where the group is analysed.) represent a set of forty-two or forty-three species or forms of insects captured in Mashonaland, and all except two in the neighbourhood of Salisbury. The combination includes six species of Lycidae; nine beetles of five groups all specially protected by nauseous qualities, Telephoridae, Melyridae, Phytophaga, Lagriidae, Cantharidae; six Longicorn beetles; one Coprid beetle; eight stinging Hymenoptera; three or four parasitic Hymenoptera (Braconidae, a group much mimicked and shown by some experiments to be distasteful); five bugs (Hemiptera, a largely unpalatable group); three moths (Arctiidae and Zygaenidae, distasteful families); one fly. In fact the whole combination, except perhaps one Phytophagous, one Coprid and the Longicorn beetles, and the fly, fall under the hypothesis of Muller and not under that of Bates. And it is very doubtful whether these exceptions will be sustained: indeed the suspicion of unpalatability already besets the Longicorns and is always on the heels,--I should say the hind tarsi--of a Phytophagous beetle. This most remarkable group which illustrates so well the problem of mimicry and the alternative hypotheses proposed for its solution, was, as I have said, first described in 1902. Among the most perfect of the mimetic resemblances in it is that between the Longicorn beetle, Amphidesmus analis, and the Lycidae. It was with the utmost astonishment and pleasure that I found this very resemblance had almost certainly been observed by Burchell. A specimen of the Amphidesmus exists in his collection and it bears "651." Turning to the same number in the African Catalogue we find that the beetle is correctly placed among the Longicorns, that it was captured at Uitenhage on Nov. 18, 1813, and that it was found associated with Lycid beetles in flowers ("consocians cum Lycis 78-87 in floribus"). Looking up Nos. 78-87 in the collection and catalogue, three species of Lycidae are found, all captured on Nov. 18, 1813, at Uitenhage. Burchell recognised the wide difference in affinity, shown by the distance between the respective numbers; for his catalogue is arranged to represent relationships. He observed, what students of mimicry are only just beginning to note and record, the coincidence between model and mimic in time and space and in habits. We are justified in concluding that he observed the close superficial likeness although he does not in this case expressly allude to it. One of the most interesting among the early observations of superficial resemblance between forms remote in the scale of classification was made by Darwin himself, as described in the following passage from his letter to Henslow, written from Monte Video, Aug. 15, 1832: "Amongst the lower animals nothing has so much interested me as finding two species of elegantly coloured true Planaria inhabiting the dewy forest! The false relation they bear to snails is the most extraordinary thing of the kind I have ever seen." ("More Letters", I. page 9.) Many years later, in 1867, he wrote to Fritz Muller suggesting that the resemblance of a soberly coloured British Planarian to a slug might be due to mimicry. ("Life and Letters", III. page 71.) The most interesting copy of Bates's classical memoir on Mimicry ("Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley". "Trans. Linn. Soc." Vol. XXIII. 1862, page 495.), read before the Linnean Society in 1861, is that given by him to the man who has done most to support and extend the theory. My kind friend has given that copy to me; it bears the inscription: "Mr A.R. Wallace from his old travelling companion the Author." Only a year and a half after the publication of the "Origin", we find that Darwin wrote to Bates on the subject which was to provide such striking evidence of the truth of Natural Selection: "I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to 'mimetic' analogies--a most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have for a long time wished to know whether what Dr Collingwood asserts is true--that the most striking cases generally occur between insects inhabiting the same country." (The letter is dated April 4, 1861. "More Letters", I. page 183.) The next letter, written about six months later, reveals the remarkable fact that the illustrious naturalist who had anticipated Edward Forbes in the explanation of arctic forms on alpine heights ("I was forestalled in only one important point, which my vanity has always made me regret, namely, the explanation by means of the Glacial period of the presence of the same species of plants and of some few animals on distant mountain summits and in the arctic regions. This view pleased me so much that I wrote it out in extenso, and I believe that it was read by Hooker some years before E. Forbes published his celebrated memoir on the subject. In the very few points in which we differed, I still think that I was in the right. I have never, of course, alluded in print to my having independently worked out this view." "Autobiography, Life and Letters", I. page 88.), had also anticipated H.W. Bates in the theory of Mimicry: "What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will make quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a difficulty; and once, when corresponding with Dr Collingwood, I thought of your explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had not knowledge to judge one way or the other." (The letter is dated Sept. 25, 1861: "More Letters", I. page 197.) Bates read his paper before the Linnean Society, Nov. 21, 1861, and Darwin's impressions on hearing it were conveyed in a letter to the author dated Dec. 3: "Under a general point of view, I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley took the same view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature can solely be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects as you have done. Under a special point of view, I think you have solved one of the most perplexing problems which could be given to solve." ("Life and Letters", II. page 378.) The memoir appeared in the following year, and after reading it Darwin wrote as follows, Nov. 20, 1862: "... In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and admirable papers I ever read in my life... I am rejoiced that I passed over the whole subject in the "Origin", for I should have made a precious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved a wonderful problem... Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by the mob of naturalists without souls; but, rely on it, that it will have LASTING value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first great work. You will find, I should think, that Wallace will fully appreciate it." ("Life and Letters", II. pages 391-393.) Four days later, Nov. 24, Darwin wrote to Hooker on the same subject: "I have now finished his paper...' it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought forward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous observations." ("More Letters", I. page 214.) Darwin was here referring to the tendency of similar varieties of the same species to pair together, and on Nov. 25 he wrote to Bates asking for fuller information on this subject. ("More Letters", I. page 215. See also parts of Darwin's letter to Bates in "Life and Letters", II. page 392.) If Bates's opinion were well founded, sexual selection would bear a most important part in the establishment of such species. (See Poulton, "Essays on Evolution", 1908, pages 65, 85-88.) It must be admitted, however, that the evidence is as yet quite insufficient to establish this conclusion. It is interesting to observe how Darwin at once fixed on the part of Bates's memoir which seemed to bear upon sexual selection. A review of Bates's theory of Mimicry was contributed by Darwin to the "Natural History Review" (New Ser. Vol. III. 1863, page 219.) and an account of it is to be found in the "Origin" (Edition 1872, pages 375-378.) and in "The Descent of Man". (Edition 1874, pages 323-325.) Darwin continually writes of the value of hypothesis as the inspiration of inquiry. We find an example in his letter to Bates, Nov. 22, 1860: "I have an old belief that a good observer really means a good theorist, and I fully expect to find your observations most valuable." ("More Letters", I. page 176.) Darwin's letter refers to many problems upon which Bates had theorised and observed, but as regards Mimicry itself the hypothesis was thought out after the return of the letter from the Amazons, when he no longer had the opportunity of testing it by the observation of living Nature. It is by no means improbable that, had he been able to apply this test, Bates would have recognised that his division of butterfly resemblances into two classes,--one due to the theory of mimicry, the other to the influence of local conditions,--could not be sustained. Fritz Muller's contributions to the problem of Mimicry were all made in S.E. Brazil, and numbers of them were communicated, with other observations on natural history, to Darwin, and by him sent to Professor R. Meldola who published many of the facts. Darwin's letters to Meldola (Poulton, "Charles Darwin and the theory of Natural Selection", London, 1896, pages 199-218.) contain abundant proofs of his interest in Muller's work upon Mimicry. One deeply interesting letter (Loc. cit. pages 201, 202.) dated Jan. 23, 1872, proves that Fritz Muller before he originated the theory of Common Warning Colours (Synaposematic Resemblance or Mullerian Mimicry), which will ever be associated with his name, had conceived the idea of the production of mimetic likeness by sexual selection. Darwin's letter to Meldola shows that he was by no means inclined to dismiss the suggestion as worthless, although he considered it daring. "You will also see in this letter a strange speculation, which I should not dare to publish, about the appreciation of certain colours being developed in those species which frequently behold other forms similarly ornamented. I do not feel at all sure that this view is as incredible as it may at first appear. Similar ideas have passed through my mind when considering the dull colours of all the organisms which inhabit dull-coloured regions, such as Patagonia and the Galapagos Is." A little later, on April 5, he wrote to Professor August Weismann on the same subject: "It may be suspected that even the habit of viewing differently coloured surrounding objects would influence their taste, and Fritz Muller even goes so far as to believe that the sight of gaudy butterflies might influence the taste of distinct species." ("Life and Letters", III. page 157.) This remarkable suggestion affords interesting evidence that F. Muller was not satisfied with the sufficiency of Bates's theory. Nor is this surprising when we think of the numbers of abundant conspicuous butterflies which he saw exhibiting mimetic likenesses. The common instances in his locality, and indeed everywhere in tropical America, were anything but the hard-pressed struggling forms assumed by the theory of Bates. They belonged to the groups which were themselves mimicked by other butterflies. Fritz Muller's suggestion also shows that he did not accept Bates's alternative explanation of a superficial likeness between models themselves, based on some unknown influence of local physico-chemical forces. At the same time Muller's own suggestion was subject to this apparently fatal objection, that the sexual selection he invoked would tend to produce resemblances in the males rather than the females, while it is well known that when the sexes differ the females are almost invariably more perfectly mimetic than the males and in a high proportion of cases are mimetic while the males are non-mimetic. The difficulty was met several years later by Fritz Muller's well-known theory, published in 1879 ("Kosmos", May 1879, page 100.), and immediately translated by Meldola and brought before the Entomological Society. ("Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1879, page xx.) Darwin's letter to Meldola dated June 6, 1879, shows "that the first introduction of this new and most suggestive hypothesis into this country was due to the direct influence of Darwin himself, who brought it before the notice of the one man who was likely to appreciate it at its true value and to find the means for its presentation to English naturalists." ("Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection", page 214.) Of the hypothesis itself Darwin wrote "F. Muller's view of the mutual protection was quite new to me." (Ibid. page 213.) The hypothesis of Mullerian mimicry was at first strongly opposed. Bates himself could never make up his mind to accept it. As the Fellows were walking out of the meeting at which Professor Meldola explained the hypothesis, an eminent entomologist, now deceased, was heard to say to Bates: "It's a case of save me from my friends!" The new ideas encountered and still encounter to a great extent the difficulty that the theory of Bates had so completely penetrated the literature of natural history. The present writer has observed that naturalists who have not thoroughly absorbed the older hypothesis are usually far more impressed by the newer one than are those whose allegiance has already been rendered. The acceptance of Natural Selection itself was at first hindered by similar causes, as Darwin clearly recognised: "If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to me a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which seems to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man so extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a preoccupied mind." (To Sir J. Hooker, July 28, 1868, "More Letters", I. page 305. See also the letter to A.R. Wallace, April 30, 1868, in "More Letters" II. page 77, lines 6-8 from top.) There are many naturalists, especially students of insects, who appear to entertain an inveterate hostility to any theory of mimicry. Some of them are eager investigators in the fascinating field of geographical distribution, so essential for the study of Mimicry itself. The changes of pattern undergone by a species of Erebia as we follow it over different parts of the mountain ranges of Europe is indeed a most interesting inquiry, but not more so than the differences between e.g. the Acraea johnstoni of S.E. Rhodesia and of Kilimanjaro. A naturalist who is interested by the Erebia should be equally interested by the Acraea; and so he would be if the student of mimicry did not also record that the characteristics which distinguish the northern from the southern individuals of the African species correspond with the presence, in the north but not in the south, of certain entirely different butterflies. That this additional information should so greatly weaken, in certain minds, the appeal of a favourite study, is a psychological problem of no little interest. This curious antagonism is I believe confined to a few students of insects. Those naturalists who, standing rather farther off, are able to see the bearings of the subject more clearly, will usually admit the general support yielded by an ever-growing mass of observations to the theories of Mimicry propounded by H.W. Bates and Fritz Muller. In like manner natural selection itself was in the early days often best understood and most readily accepted by those who were not naturalists. Thus Darwin wrote to D.T. Ansted, Oct. 27, 1860: "I am often in despair in making the generality of NATURALISTS even comprehend me. Intelligent men who are not naturalists and have not a bigoted idea of the term species, show more clearness of mind." ("More Letters", I. page 175.) Even before the "Origin" appeared Darwin anticipated the first results upon the mind of naturalists. He wrote to Asa Gray, Dec. 21, 1859: "I have made up my mind to be well abused; but I think it of importance that my notions should be read by intelligent men, accustomed to scientific argument, though NOT naturalists. It may seem absurd, but I think such men will drag after them those naturalists who have too firmly fixed in their heads that a species is an entity." ("Life and Letters" II. page 245.) Mimicry was not only one of the first great departments of zoological knowledge to be studied under the inspiration of natural Selection, it is still and will always remain one of the most interesting and important of subjects in relation to this theory as well as to evolution. In mimicry we investigate the effect of environment in its simplest form: we trace the effects of the pattern of a single species upon that of another far removed from it in the scale of classification. When there is reason to believe that the model is an invader from another region and has only recently become an element in the environment of the species native to its second home, the problem gains a special interest and fascination. Although we are chiefly dealing with the fleeting and changeable element of colour we expect to find and we do find evidence of a comparatively rapid evolution. The invasion of a fresh model is for certain species an unusually sudden change in the forces of the environment and in some instances we have grounds for the belief that the mimetic response has not been long delayed. MIMICRY AND SEX. Ever since Wallace's classical memoir on mimicry in the Malayan Swallowtail butterflies, those naturalists who have written on the subject have followed his interpretation of the marked prevalence of mimetic resemblance in the female sex as compared with the male. They have believed with Wallace that the greater dangers of the female, with slower flight and often alighting for oviposition, have been in part met by the high development of this special mode of protection. The fact cannot be doubted. It is extremely common for a non-mimetic male to be accompanied by a beautifully mimetic female and often by two or three different forms of female, each mimicking a different model. The male of a polymorphic mimetic female is, in fact, usually non-mimetic (e.g. Papilio dardanus = merope), or if a mimic (e.g. the Nymphaline genus Euripus), resembles a very different model. On the other hand a non-mimetic female accompanied by a mimetic male is excessively rare. An example is afforded by the Oriental Nymphaline, Cethosia, in which the males of some species are rough mimics of the brown Danaines. In some of the orb-weaving spiders the males mimic ants, while the much larger females are non-mimetic. When both sexes mimic, it is very common in butterflies and is also known in moths, for the females to be better and often far better mimics than the males. Although still believing that Wallace's hypothesis in large part accounts for the facts briefly summarised above, the present writer has recently been led to doubt whether it offers a complete explanation. Mimicry in the male, even though less beneficial to the species than mimicry in the female, would still surely be advantageous. Why then is it so often entirely restricted to the female? While the attempt to find an answer to this question was haunting me, I re-read a letter written by Darwin to Wallace, April 15, 1868, containing the following sentences: "When female butterflies are more brilliant than their males you believe that they have in most cases, or in all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other species, and thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having been rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? Although it may be most for the welfare of the species that the female should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger. For my part, I should say that the female alone had happened to vary in the right manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted to the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals a strong probability) that variations leading to beauty must often have occurred in the males alone, and been transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the need of the protective principle." ("More Letters", II. pages 73, 74. On the same subject--"the gay-coloured females of Pieris" (Perrhybris (Mylothris) pyrrha of Brazil), Darwin wrote to Wallace, May 5, 1868, as follows: "I believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by selection." It should be noted that the male of this species does exhibit a mimetic pattern on the under surface. "More Letters" II. page 78.) The consideration of the facts of mimicry thus led Darwin to the conclusion that the female happens to vary in the right manner more commonly than the male, while the secondary sexual characters of males supported the conviction "that from some unknown cause such characters (viz. new characters arising in one sex and transmitted to it alone) apparently appear oftener in the male than in the female." (Letter from Darwin to Wallace, May 5, 1867, "More Letters", II. Page 61.) Comparing these conflicting arguments we are led to believe that the first is the stronger. Mimicry in the male would be no disadvantage but an advantage, and when it appears would be and is taken advantage of by selection. The secondary sexual characters of males would be no advantage but a disadvantage to females, and, as Wallace thinks, are withheld from this sex by selection. It is indeed possible that mimicry has been hindered and often prevented from passing to the males by sexual selection. We know that Darwin was much impressed ("Descent of Man", page 325.) by Thomas Belt's daring and brilliant suggestion that the white patches which exist, although ordinarily concealed, on the wings of mimetic males of certain Pierinae (Dismorphia), have been preserved by preferential mating. He supposed this result to have been brought about by the females exhibiting a deep-seated preference for males that displayed the chief ancestral colour, inherited from periods before any mimetic pattern had been evolved in the species. But it has always appeared to me that Belt's deeply interesting suggestion requires much solid evidence and repeated confirmation before it can be accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts. In the present state of our knowledge, at any rate of insects and especially of Lepidoptera, it is probable that the female is more apt to vary than the male and that an important element in the interpretation of prevalent female mimicry is provided by this fact. In order adequately to discuss the question of mimicry and sex it would be necessary to analyse the whole of the facts, so far as they are known in butterflies. On the present occasion it is only possible to state the inferences which have been drawn from general impressions,--inferences which it is believed will be sustained by future inquiry. (1) Mimicry may occasionally arise in one sex because the differences which distinguish it from the other sex happen to be such as to afford a starting-point for the resemblance. Here the male is at no disadvantage as compared with the female, and the rarity of mimicry in the male alone (e.g. Cethosia) is evidence that the great predominance of female mimicry is not to be thus explained. (2) The tendency of the female to dimorphism and polymorphism has been of great importance in determining this predominance. Thus if the female appear in two different forms and the male in only one it will be twice as probable that she will happen to possess a sufficient foundation for the evolution of mimicry. (3) The appearance of melanic or partially melanic forms in the female has been of very great service, providing as it does a change of ground-colour. Thus the mimicry of the black generally red-marked American "Aristolochia swallowtails" (Pharmacophagus) by the females of Papilio swallowtails was probably begun in this way. (4) It is probably incorrect to assume with Haase that mimicry always arose in the female and was later acquired by the male. Both sexes of the third section of swallowtails (Cosmodesmus) mimic Pharmacophagus in America, far more perfectly than do the females of Papilio. But this is not due to Cosmodesmus presenting us with a later stage of history begun in Papilio; for in Africa Cosmodesmus is still mimetic (of Danainae) in both sexes although the resemblances attained are imperfect, while many African species of Papilio have non-mimetic males with beautifully mimetic females. The explanation is probably to be sought in the fact that the females of Papilio are more variable and more often tend to become dimorphic than those of Cosmodesmus, while the latter group has more often happened to possess a sufficient foundation for the origin of the resemblance in patterns which, from the start, were common to male and female. (5) In very variable species with sexes alike, mimicry can be rapidly evolved in both sexes out of very small beginnings. Thus the reddish marks which are common in many individuals of Limenitis arthemis were almost certainly the starting-point for the evolution of the beautifully mimetic L. archippus. Nevertheless in such cases, although there is no reason to suspect any greater variability, the female is commonly a somewhat better mimic than the male and often a very much better mimic. Wallace's principle seems here to supply the obvious interpretation. (6) When the difference between the patterns of the model and presumed ancestor of the mimic is very great, the female is often alone mimetic; when the difference is comparatively small, both sexes are commonly mimetic. The Nymphaline genus Hypolimnas is a good example. In Hypolimnas itself the females mimic Danainae with patterns very different from those preserved by the non-mimetic males: in the sub-genus Euralia, both sexes resemble the black and white Ethiopian Danaines with patterns not very dissimilar from that which we infer to have existed in the non-mimetic ancestor. (7) Although a melanic form or other large variation may be of the utmost importance in facilitating the start of a mimetic likeness, it is impossible to explain the evolution of any detailed resemblance in this manner. And even the large colour variation itself may well be the expression of a minute and "continuous" change in the chemical and physical constitution of pigments. SEXUAL SELECTION (EPIGAMIC CHARACTERS). We do not know the date at which the idea of Sexual Selection arose in Darwin's mind, but it was probably not many years after the sudden flash of insight which, in October 1838, gave to him the theory of Natural Selection. An excellent account of Sexual Selection occupies the concluding paragraph of Part I. of Darwin's Section of the Joint Essay on Natural Selection, read July 1st, 1858, before the Linnean Society. ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Vol. III. 1859, page 50.) The principles are so clearly and sufficiently stated in these brief sentences that it is appropriate to quote the whole: "Besides this natural means of selection, by which those individuals are preserved, whether in their egg, or larval, or mature state, which are best adapted to the place they fill in nature, there is a second agency at work in most unisexual animals, tending to produce the same effect, namely, the struggle of the males for the females. These struggles are generally decided by the law of battle, but in the case of birds, apparently, by the charms of their song, by their beauty or their power of courtship, as in the dancing rock-thrush of Guiana. The most vigorous and healthy males, implying perfect adaptation, must generally gain the victory in their contests. This kind of selection, however, is less rigorous than the other; it does not require the death of the less successful, but gives to them fewer descendants. The struggle falls, moreover, at a time of year when food is generally abundant, and perhaps the effect chiefly produced would be the modification of the secondary sexual characters, which are not related to the power of obtaining food, or to defence from enemies, but to fighting with or rivalling other males. The result of this struggle amongst the males may be compared in some respects to that produced by those agriculturists who pay less attention to the careful selection of all their young animals, and more to the occasional use of a choice mate." A full exposition of Sexual Selection appeared in the "The Descent of Man" in 1871, and in the greatly augmented second edition, in 1874. It has been remarked that the two subjects, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex", seem to fuse somewhat imperfectly into the single work of which they form the title. The reason for their association is clearly shown in a letter to Wallace, dated May 28, 1864: "... I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the most powerful means of changing the races of man." ("More Letters", II. page 33.) Darwin, as we know from his Autobiography ("Life and Letters", I. page 94.), was always greatly interested in this hypothesis, and it has been shown in the preceding pages that he was inclined to look favourably upon it as an interpretation of many appearances usually explained by Natural Selection. Hence Sexual Selection, incidentally discussed in other sections of the present essay, need not be considered at any length, in the section specially allotted to it. Although so interested in the subject and notwithstanding his conviction that the hypothesis was sound, Darwin was quite aware that it was probably the most vulnerable part of the "Origin". Thus he wrote to H.W. Bates, April 4, 1861: "If I had to cut up myself in a review I would have (worried?) and quizzed sexual selection; therefore, though I am fully convinced that it is largely true, you may imagine how pleased I am at what you say on your belief." ("More Letters", I. page 183.) The existence of sound-producing organs in the males of insects was, Darwin considered, the strongest evidence in favour of the operation of sexual selection in this group. ("Life and Letters", III. pages 94, 138.) Such a conclusion has received strong support in recent years by the numerous careful observations of Dr F.A. Dixey ("Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1904, page lvi; 1905, pages xxxvii, liv; 1906, page ii.) and Dr G.B. Longstaff ("Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1905, page xxxv; "Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1905, page 136; 1908, page 607.) on the scents of male butterflies. The experience of these naturalists abundantly confirms and extends the account given by Fritz Muller ("Jen. Zeit." Vol. XI. 1877, page 99; "Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond." 1878, page 211.) of the scents of certain Brazilian butterflies. It is a remarkable fact that the apparently epigamic scents of male butterflies should be pleasing to man while the apparently aposematic scents in both sexes of species with warning colours should be displeasing to him. But the former is far more surprising than the latter. It is not perhaps astonishing that a scent which is ex hypothesi unpleasant to an insect-eating Vertebrate should be displeasing to the human sense; but it is certainly wonderful that an odour which is ex hypothesi agreeable to a female butterfly should also be agreeable to man. Entirely new light upon the seasonal appearance of epigamic characters is shed by the recent researches of C.W. Beebe ("The American Naturalist", Vol. XLII. No. 493, Jan. 1908, page 34.), who caused the scarlet tanager (Piranga erythromelas) and the bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) to retain their breeding plumage through the whole year by means of fattening food, dim illumination, and reduced activity. Gradual restoration to the light and the addition of meal-worms to the diet invariably brought back the spring song, even in the middle of winter. A sudden alteration of temperature, either higher or lower, caused the birds nearly to stop feeding, and one tanager lost weight rapidly and in two weeks moulted into the olive-green winter plumage. After a year, and at the beginning of the normal breeding season, "individual tanagers and bobolinks were gradually brought under normal conditions and activities," and in every case moulted from nuptial plumage to nuptial plumage. "The dull colours of the winter season had been skipped." The author justly claims to have established "that the sequence of plumage in these birds is not in any way predestined through inheritance..., but that it may be interrupted by certain factors in the environmental complex." XVI. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS. By Sir William Thiselton-Dyer, K.C.M.G., C.I.E. Sc.D., F.R.S. The publication of "The Origin of Species" placed the study of Botanical Geography on an entirely new basis. It is only necessary to study the monumental "Geographie Botanique raisonnee" of Alphonse De Candolle, published four years earlier (1855), to realise how profound and far-reaching was the change. After a masterly and exhaustive discussion of all available data De Candolle in his final conclusions could only arrive at a deadlock. It is sufficient to quote a few sentences:-- "L'opinion de Lamarck est aujourd'hui abandonee par tous les naturalistes qui ont etudie sagement les modifications possibles des etres organises... "Et si l'on s'ecarte des exagerations de Lamarck, si l'on suppose un premier type de chaque genre, de chaque famille tout au moins, on se trouve encore a l'egard de l'origine de ces types en presence de la grande question de la creation. "Le seul parti a prendre est donc d'envisager les etres organises comme existant depuis certaines epoques, avec leurs qualites particulieres." (Vol. II. page 1107.) Reviewing the position fourteen years afterwards, Bentham remarked:--"These views, generally received by the great majority of naturalists at the time De Candolle wrote, and still maintained by a few, must, if adhered to, check all further enquiry into any connection of facts with causes," and he added, "there is little doubt but that if De Candolle were to revise his work, he would follow the example of so many other eminent naturalists, and... insist that the present geographical distribution of plants was in most instances a derivative one, altered from a very different former distribution." ("Pres. Addr." (1869) "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1868-69, page lxviii.) Writing to Asa Gray in 1856, Darwin gave a brief preliminary account of his ideas as to the origin of species, and said that geographical distribution must be one of the tests of their validity. ("Life and Letters", II. page 78.) What is of supreme interest is that it was also their starting-point. He tells us:--"When I visited, during the voyage of H.M.S. "Beagle", the Galapagos Archipelago,... I fancied myself brought near to the very act of creation. I often asked myself how these many peculiar animals and plants had been produced: the simplest answer seemed to be that the inhabitants of the several islands had descended from each other, undergoing modification in the course of their descent." ("The Variation of Animals and Plants" (2nd edition), 1890, I. pages 9, 10.) We need not be surprised then, that in writing in 1845 to Sir Joseph Hooker, he speaks of "that grand subject, that almost keystone of the laws of creation, Geographical Distribution." ("Life and Letters", I. page 336.) Yet De Candolle was, as Bentham saw, unconsciously feeling his way, like Lyell, towards evolution, without being able to grasp it. They both strove to explain phenomena by means of agencies which they saw actually at work. If De Candolle gave up the ultimate problem as insoluble:--"La creation ou premiere formation des etres organises echappe, par sa nature et par son anciennete, a nos moyens d'observation" (Loc. cit. page 1106.), he steadily endeavoured to minimise its scope. At least half of his great work is devoted to the researches by which he extricated himself from a belief in species having had a multiple origin, the view which had been held by successive naturalists from Gmelin to Agassiz. To account for the obvious fact that species constantly occupy dissevered areas, De Candolle made a minute study of their means of transport. This was found to dispose of the vast majority of cases, and the remainder he accounted for by geographical change. (Loc. cit. page 1116.) But Darwin strenuously objected to invoking geographical change as a solution of every difficulty. He had apparently long satisfied himself as to the "permanence of continents and great oceans." Dana, he tells us "was, I believe, the first man who maintained" this ("Life and Letters", III. page 247. Dana says:--"The continents and oceans had their general outline or form defined in earliest time," "Manual of Geology", revised edition. Philadelphia, 1869, page 732. I have no access to an earlier edition.), but he had himself probably arrived at it independently. Modern physical research tends to confirm it. The earth's centre of gravity, as pointed out by Pratt from the existence of the Pacific Ocean, does not coincide with its centre of figure, and it has been conjectured that the Pacific Ocean dates its origin from the separation of the moon from the earth. The conjecture appears to be unnecessary. Love shows that "the force that keeps the Pacific Ocean on one side of the earth is gravity, directed more towards the centre of gravity than the centre of the figure." ("Report of the 77th Meeting of the British Association" (Leicester, 1907), London, 1908, page 431.) I can only summarise the conclusions of a technical but masterly discussion. "The broad general features of the distribution of continent and ocean can be regarded as the consequences of simple causes of a dynamical character," and finally, "As regards the contour of the great ocean basins, we seem to be justified in saying that the earth is approximately an oblate spheroid, but more nearly an ellipsoid with three unequal axes, having its surface furrowed according to the formula for a certain spherical harmonic of the third degree" (Ibid. page 436.), and he shows that this furrowed surface must be produced "if the density is greater in one hemispheroid than in the other, so that the position of the centre of gravity is eccentric." (Ibid. page 431.) Such a modelling of the earth's surface can only be referred to a primitive period of plasticity. If the furrows account for the great ocean basins, the disposition of the continents seems equally to follow. Sir George Darwin has pointed out that they necessarily "arise from a supposed primitive viscosity or plasticity of the earth's mass. For during this course of evolution the earth's mass must have suffered a screwing motion, so that the polar regions have travelled a little from west to east relatively to the equator. This affords a possible explanation of the north and south trend of our great continents." ("Encycl. Brit." (9th edition), Vol. XXIII. "Tides", page 379.) It would be trespassing on the province of the geologist to pursue the subject at any length. But as Wallace ("Island Life" (2nd edition), 1895, page 103.), who has admirably vindicated Darwin's position, points out, the "question of the permanence of our continents... lies at the root of all our inquiries into the great changes of the earth and its inhabitants." But he proceeds: "The very same evidence which has been adduced to prove the GENERAL stability and permanence of our continental areas also goes to prove that they have been subjected to wonderful and repeated changes in DETAIL." (Loc. cit. page 101.) Darwin of course would have admitted this, for with a happy expression he insisted to Lyell (1856) that "the skeletons, at least, of our continents are ancient." ("More Letters", II. page 135.) It is impossible not to admire the courage and tenacity with which he carried on the conflict single-handed. But he failed to convince Lyell. For we still find him maintaining in the last edition of the "Principles": "Continents therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages." (Lyell's "Principles of Geology" (11th edition), London, 1872, I. page 258.) Evidence, however, steadily accumulates in Darwin's support. His position still remains inexpugnable that it is not permissible to invoke geographical change to explain difficulties in distribution without valid geological and physical support. Writing to Mellard Reade, who in 1878 had said, "While believing that the ocean-depths are of enormous age, it is impossible to reject other evidences that they have once been land," he pointed out "the statement from the 'Challenger' that all sediment is deposited within one or two hundred miles from the shores." ("More Letters", II. page 146.) The following year Sir Archibald Geikie ("Geographical Evolution", "Proc. R. Geogr. Soc." 1879, page 427.) informed the Royal Geographical Society that "No part of the results obtained by the 'Challenger' expedition has a profounder interest for geologists and geographers than the proof which they furnish that the floor of the ocean basins has no real analogy among the sedimentary formations which form most of the framework of the land." Nor has Darwin's earlier argument ever been upset. "The fact which I pointed out many years ago, that all oceanic islands are volcanic (except St Paul's, and now that is viewed by some as the nucleus of an ancient volcano), seem to me a strong argument that no continent ever occupied the great oceans." ("More Letters", II. page 146.) Dr Guppy, who devoted several years to geological and botanical investigations in the Pacific, found himself forced to similar conclusions. "It may be at once observed," he says, "that my belief in the general principle that islands have always been islands has not been shaken," and he entirely rejects "the hypothesis of a Pacific continent." He comes back, in full view of the problems on the spot, to the position from which, as has been seen, Darwin started: "If the distribution of a particular group of plants or animals does not seem to accord with the present arrangement of the land, it is by far the safest plan, even after exhausting all likely modes of explanation, not to invoke the intervention of geographical changes; and I scarcely think that our knowledge of any one group of organisms is ever sufficiently precise to justify a recourse to hypothetical alterations in the present relations of land and sea." ("Observations of a Naturalist in the Pacific between 1896 and 1899", London, 1903, I. page 380.) Wallace clinches the matter when he finds "almost the whole of the vast areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans, without a solitary relic of the great islands or continents supposed to have sunk beneath their waves." ("Island Life", page 105.) Writing to Wallace (1876), Darwin warmly approves the former's "protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and (Andrew) Murray." ("Life and Letters", III. page 230.) The transport question thus became of enormously enhanced importance. We need not be surprised then at his writing to Lyell in 1856:--"I cannot avoid thinking that Forbes's 'Atlantis' was an ill-service to science, as checking a close study of means of dissemination" (Ibid. II. page 78.), and Darwin spared no pains to extend our knowledge of them. He implores Hooker, ten years later, to "admit how little is known on the subject," and summarises with some satisfaction what he had himself achieved:--"Remember how recently you and others thought that salt water would soon kill seeds... Remember that no one knew that seeds would remain for many hours in the crops of birds and retain their vitality; that fish eat seeds, and that when the fish are devoured by birds the seeds can germinate, etc. Remember that every year many birds are blown to Madeira and to the Bermudas. Remember that dust is blown 1000 miles across the Atlantic." ("More Letters", I. page 483.) It has always been the fashion to minimise Darwin's conclusions, and these have not escaped objection. The advocatus diaboli has a useful function in science. But in attacking Darwin his brief is generally found to be founded on a slender basis of facts. Thus Winge and Knud Andersen have examined many thousands of migratory birds and found "that their crops and stomachs were always empty. They never observed any seeds adhering to the feathers, beaks or feet of the birds." (R.F. Scharff, "European Animals", page 64, London, 1907.) The most considerable investigation of the problem of Plant Dispersal since Darwin is that of Guppy. He gives a striking illustration of how easily an observer may be led into error by relying on negative evidence. "When Ekstam published, in 1895, the results of his observations on the plants of Nova Zembla, he observed that he possessed no data to show whether swimming and wading birds fed on berries; and he attached all importance to dispersal by winds. On subsequently visiting Spitzbergen he must have been at first inclined, therefore, to the opinion of Nathorst, who, having found only a solitary species of bird (a snow-sparrow) in that region, naturally concluded that birds had been of no importance as agents in the plant-stocking. However, Ekstam's opportunities were greater, and he tells us that in the craws of six specimens of Lagopus hyperboreus shot in Spitzbergen in August he found represented almost 25 per cent. of the usual phanerogamic flora of that region in the form of fruits, seeds, bulbils, flower-buds, leaf-buds, etc... " "The result of Ekstam's observations in Spitzbergen was to lead him to attach a very considerable importance in plant dispersal to the agency of birds; and when in explanation of the Scandinavian elements in the Spitzbergen flora he had to choose between a former land connection and the agency of birds, he preferred the bird." (Guppy, op. cit. II. pages 511, 512.) Darwin objected to "continental extensions" on geological grounds, but he also objected to Lyell that they do not "account for all the phenomena of distribution on islands" ("Life and Letters", II. page 77.), such for example as the absence of Acacias and Banksias in New Zealand. He agreed with De Candolle that "it is poor work putting together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution." But he also agreed with him that they were the only practicable door of escape from multiple origins. If they would not work then "every one who believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions" (Ibid. II. page 82.), and that he regarded as a mere counsel of despair:--"to make continents, as easily as a cook does pancakes." (Ibid. II. page 74.) The question of multiple origins however presented itself in another shape where the solution was much more difficult. The problem, as stated by Darwin, is this:--"The identity of many plants and animals, on mountain-summits, separated from each other by hundreds of miles of lowlands... without the apparent possibility of their having migrated from one point to the other." He continues, "even as long ago as 1747, such facts led Gmelin to conclude that the same species must have been independently created at several distinct points; and we might have remained in this same belief, had not Agassiz and others called vivid attention to the Glacial period, which affords... a simple explanation of the facts." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition) page 330.) The "simple explanation" was substantially given by E. Forbes in 1846. It is scarcely too much to say that it belongs to the same class of fertile and far-reaching ideas as "natural selection" itself. It is an extraordinary instance, if one were wanted at all, of Darwin's magnanimity and intense modesty that though he had arrived at the theory himself, he acquiesced in Forbes receiving the well-merited credit. "I have never," he says, "of course alluded in print to my having independently worked out this view." But he would have been more than human if he had not added:--"I was forestalled in... one important point, which my vanity has always made me regret." ("Life and Letters", I. page 88.) Darwin, however, by applying the theory to trans-tropical migration, went far beyond Forbes. The first enunciation to this is apparently contained in a letter to Asa Gray in 1858. The whole is too long to quote, but the pith is contained in one paragraph. "There is a considerable body of geological evidence that during the Glacial epoch the whole world was colder; I inferred that,... from erratic boulder phenomena carefully observed by me on both the east and west coast of South America. Now I am so bold as to believe that at the height of the Glacial epoch, AND WHEN ALL TROPICAL PRODUCTIONS MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY DISTRESSED, several temperate forms slowly travelled into the heart of the Tropics, and even reached the southern hemisphere; and some few southern forms penetrated in a reverse direction northward." ("Life and Letters", II. page 136.) Here again it is clear that though he credits Agassiz with having called vivid attention to the Glacial period, he had himself much earlier grasped the idea of periods of refrigeration. Putting aside the fact, which has only been made known to us since Darwin's death, that he had anticipated Forbes, it is clear that he gave the theory a generality of which the latter had no conception. This is pointed out by Hooker in his classical paper "On the Distribution of Arctic Plants" (1860). "The theory of a southern migration of northern types being due to the cold epochs preceding and during the glacial, originated, I believe, with the late Edward Forbes; the extended one, of the trans-tropical migration, is Mr Darwin's." ("Linn. Trans." XXIII. page 253. The attempt appears to have been made to claim for Heer priority in what I may term for short the arctic-alpine theory (Scharff, "European Animals", page 128). I find no suggestion of his having hit upon it in his correspondence with Darwin or Hooker. Nor am I aware of any reference to his having done so in his later publications. I am indebted to his biographer, Professor Schroter, of Zurich, for an examination of his earlier papers with an equally negative result.) Assuming that local races have derived from a common ancestor, Hooker's great paper placed the fact of the migration on an impregnable basis. And, as he pointed out, Darwin has shown that "such an explanation meets the difficulty of accounting for the restriction of so many American and Asiatic arctic types to their own peculiar longitudinal zones, and for what is a far greater difficulty, the representation of the same arctic genera by most closely allied species in different longitudes." The facts of botanical geography were vital to Darwin's argument. He had to show that they admitted of explanation without assuming multiple origins for species, which would be fatal to the theory of Descent. He had therefore to strengthen and extend De Candolle's work as to means of transport. He refused to supplement them by hypothetical geographical changes for which there was no independent evidence: this was simply to attempt to explain ignotum per ignotius. He found a real and, as it has turned out, a far-reaching solution in climatic change due to cosmical causes which compelled the migration of species as a condition of their existence. The logical force of the argument consists in dispensing with any violent assumption, and in showing that the principle of descent is adequate to explain the ascertained facts. It does not, I think, detract from the merit of Darwin's conclusions that the tendency of modern research has been to show that the effects of the Glacial period were less simple, more localised and less general than he perhaps supposed. He admitted that "equatorial refrigeration... must have been small." ("More Letters", I. page 177.) It may prove possible to dispense with it altogether. One cannot but regret that as he wrote to Bates:--"the sketch in the 'Origin' gives a very meagre account of my fuller MS. essay on this subject." (Loc. cit.) Wallace fully accepted "the effect of the Glacial epoch in bringing about the present distribution of Alpine and Arctic plants in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE," but rejected "the lowering of the temperature of the tropical regions during the Glacial period" in order to account for their presence in the SOUTHERN hemisphere. ("More Letters", II. page 25 (footnote 1).) The divergence however does not lie very deep. Wallace attaches more importance to ordinary means of transport. "If plants can pass in considerable numbers and variety over wide seas and oceans, it must be yet more easy for them to traverse continuous areas of land, wherever mountain-chains offer suitable stations." ("Island Life" (2nd edition), London, 1895, page 512.) And he argues that such periodical changes of climate, of which the Glacial period may be taken as a type, would facilitate if not stimulate the process. (Loc. cit. page 518.) It is interesting to remark that Darwin drew from the facts of plant distribution one of his most ingenious arguments in support of this theory. (See "More Letters", I. page 424.) He tells us, "I was led to anticipate that the species of the larger genera in each country would oftener present varieties, than the species of the smaller genera." ("Origin", page 44.) He argues "where, if we may use the expression, the manufactory of species has been active, we ought generally to find the manufactory still in action." (Ibid. page 45.) This proved to be the case. But the labour imposed upon him in the study was immense. He tabulated local floras "belting the whole northern hemisphere" ("More Letters", I. page 107.), besides voluminous works such as De Candolle's "Prodromus". The results scarcely fill a couple of pages. This is a good illustration of the enormous pains which he took to base any statement on a secure foundation of evidence, and for this the world, till the publication of his letters, could not do him justice. He was a great admirer of Herbert Spencer, whose "prodigality of original thought" astonished him. "But," he says, "the reflection constantly recurred to me that each suggestion, to be of real value to service, would require years of work." (Ibid. II. page 235.) At last the ground was cleared and we are led to the final conclusion. "If the difficulties be not insuperable in admitting that in the long course of time all the individuals of the same species belonging to the same genus, have proceeded from some one source; then all the grand leading facts of geographical distribution are explicable on the theory of migration, together with subsequent modification and the multiplication of new forms." ("Origin", page 360.) In this single sentence Darwin has stated a theory which, as his son F. Darwin has said with justice, has "revolutionized botanical geography." ("The Botanical Work of Darwin", "Ann. Bot." 1899, page xi.) It explains how physical barriers separate and form botanical regions; how allied species become concentrated in the same areas; how, under similar physical conditions, plants may be essentially dissimilar, showing that descent and not the surroundings is the controlling factor; how insular floras have acquired their peculiarities; in short how the most various and apparently uncorrelated problems fall easily and inevitably into line. The argument from plant distribution was in fact irresistible. A proof, if one were wanted, was the immediate conversion of what Hooker called "the stern keen intellect" ("More Letters", I. page 134.) of Bentham, by general consent the leading botanical systematist at the time. It is a striking historical fact that a paper of his own had been set down for reading at the Linnean Society on the same day as Darwin's, but had to give way. In this he advocated the fixity of species. He withdrew it after hearing Darwin's. We can hardly realise now the momentous effect on the scientific thought of the day of the announcement of the new theory. Years afterwards (1882) Bentham, notwithstanding his habitual restraint, could not write of it without emotion. "I was forced, however reluctantly, to give up my long-cherished convictions, the results of much labour and study." The revelation came without preparation. Darwin, he wrote, "never made any communications to me in relation to his views and labours." But, he adds, "I... fully adopted his theories and conclusions, notwithstanding the severe pain and disappointment they at first occasioned me." ("Life and Letters", II. page 294.) Scientific history can have few incidents more worthy. I do not know what is most striking in the story, the pathos or the moral dignity of Bentham's attitude. Darwin necessarily restricted himself in the "Origin" to establishing the general principles which would account for the facts of distribution, as a part of his larger argument, without attempting to illustrate them in particular cases. This he appears to have contemplated doing in a separate work. But writing to Hooker in 1868 he said:--"I shall to the day of my death keep up my full interest in Geographical Distribution, but I doubt whether I shall ever have strength to come in any fuller detail than in the "Origin" to this grand subject." ("More Letters", II. page 7.) This must be always a matter for regret. But we may gather some indication of his later speculations from the letters, the careful publication of which by F. Darwin has rendered a service to science, the value of which it is difficult to exaggerate. They admit us to the workshop, where we see a great theory, as it were, in the making. The later ideas that they contain were not it is true public property at the time. But they were communicated to the leading biologists of the day and indirectly have had a large influence. If Darwin laid the foundation, the present fabric of Botanical Geography must be credited to Hooker. It was a happy partnership. The far-seeing, generalising power of the one was supplied with data and checked in conclusions by the vast detailed knowledge of the other. It may be permitted to quote Darwin's generous acknowledgment when writing the "Origin":--"I never did pick any one's pocket, but whilst writing my present chapter I keep on feeling (even when differing most from you) just as if I were stealing from you, so much do I owe to your writings and conversation, so much more than mere acknowledgements show." ("Life and Letters", II. page 148 (footnote).) Fourteen years before he had written to Hooker: "I know I shall live to see you the first authority in Europe on... Geographical Distribution." (Ibid. I. page 336.) We owe it to Hooker that no one now undertakes the flora of a country without indicating the range of the species it contains. Bentham tells us: "After De Candolle, independently of the great works of Darwin... the first important addition to the science of geographical botany was that made by Hooker in his "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania", which, though contemporaneous only with the "Origin of Species", was drawn up with a general knowledge of his friend's observations and views." (Pres. Addr. (1869), "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1868-69, page lxxiv.) It cannot be doubted that this and the great memoir on the "Distribution of Arctic Plants" were only less epoch-making than the "Origin" itself, and must have supplied a powerful support to the general theory of organic evolution. Darwin always asserted his "entire ignorance of Botany." ("More Letters", I. page 400.) But this was only part of his constant half-humorous self-depreciation. He had been a pupil of Henslow, and it is evident that he had a good working knowledge of systematic botany. He could find his way about in the literature and always cites the names of plants with scrupulous accuracy. It was because he felt the want of such a work for his own researches that he urged the preparation of the "Index Kewensis", and undertook to defray the expense. It has been thought singular that he should have been elected a "correspondant" of the Academie des Sciences in the section of Botany, but it is not surprising that his work in Geographical Botany made the botanists anxious to claim him. His heart went with them. "It has always pleased me," he tells us, "to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings." ("Life and Letters", I. page 98.) And he declares that he finds "any proposition more easily tested in botanical works (Ibid. II. page 99.) than in zoological." In the "Introductory Essay" Hooker dwelt on the "continuous current of vegetation from Scandinavia to Tasmania" ("Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania", London, 1859. Reprinted from the "Botany of the Antarctic Expedition", Part III., "Flora of Tasmania", Vol I. page ciii.), but finds little evidence of one in the reverse direction. "In the New World, Arctic, Scandinavian, and North American genera and species are continuously extended from the north to the south temperate and even Antarctic zones; but scarcely one Antarctic species, or even genus advances north beyond the Gulf of Mexico" (page civ.). Hooker considered that this negatived "the idea that the Southern and Northern Floras have had common origin within comparatively modern geological epochs." (Loc. cit.) This is no doubt a correct conclusion. But it is difficult to explain on Darwin's view alone, of alternating cold in the two hemispheres, the preponderant migration from the north to the south. He suggests, therefore, that it "is due to the greater extent of land in the north and to the northern forms... having... been advanced through natural selection and competition to a higher stage of perfection or dominating power." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 340; cf. also "Life and Letters", II. page 142.) The present state of the Flora of New Zealand affords a striking illustration of the correctness of this view. It is poor in species, numbering only some 1400, of which three-fourths are endemic. They seem however quite unable to resist the invasion of new comers and already 600 species of foreign origin have succeeded in establishing themselves. If we accept the general configuration of the earth's surface as permanent a continuous and progressive dispersal of species from the centre to the circumference, i.e. southwards, seems inevitable. If an observer were placed above a point in St George's Channel from which one half of the globe was visible he would see the greatest possible quantity of land spread out in a sort of stellate figure. The maritime supremacy of the English race has perhaps flowed from the central position of its home. That such a disposition would facilitate a centrifugal migration of land organisms is at any rate obvious, and fluctuating conditions of climate operating from the pole would supply an effective means of propulsion. As these became more rigorous animals at any rate would move southwards to escape them. It would be equally the case with plants if no insuperable obstacle interposed. This implies a mobility in plants, notwithstanding what we know of means of transport which is at first sight paradoxical. Bentham has stated this in a striking way: "Fixed and immovable as is the individual plant, there is no class in which the race is endowed with greater facilities for the widest dispersion... Plants cast away their offspring in a dormant state, ready to be carried to any distance by those external agencies which we may deem fortuitous, but without which many a race might perish from the exhaustion of the limited spot of soil in which it is rooted." (Pres. Addr.(1869), "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1868-69, pages lxvi, lxvii.) I have quoted this passage from Bentham because it emphasises a point which Darwin for his purpose did not find it necessary to dwell upon, though he no doubt assumed it. Dispersal to a distance is, so to speak, an accidental incident in the life of a species. Lepidium Draba, a native of South-eastern Europe, owes its prevalence in the Isle of Thanet to the disastrous Walcheren expedition; the straw-stuffing of the mattresses of the fever-stricken soldiers who were landed there was used by a farmer for manure. Sir Joseph Hooker ("Royal Institution Lecture", April 12, 1878.) tells us that landing on Lord Auckland's Island, which was uninhabited, "the first evidence I met with of its having been previously visited by man was the English chickweed; and this I traced to a mound that marked the grave of a British sailor, and that was covered with the plant, doubtless the offspring of seed that had adhered to the spade or mattock with which the grave had been dug." Some migration from the spot where the individuals of a species have germinated is an essential provision against extinction. Their descendants otherwise would be liable to suppression by more vigorous competitors. But they would eventually be extinguished inevitably, as pointed out by Bentham, by the exhaustion of at any rate some one necessary constituent of the soil. Gilbert showed by actual analysis that the production of a "fairy ring" is simply due to the using up by the fungi of the available nitrogen in the enclosed area which continually enlarges as they seek a fresh supply on the outside margin. Anyone who cultivates a garden can easily verify the fact that every plant has some adaptation for varying degrees of seed-dispersal. It cannot be doubted that slow but persistent terrestrial migration has played an enormous part in bringing about existing plant-distribution, or that climatic changes would intensify the effect because they would force the abandonment of a former area and the occupation of a new one. We are compelled to admit that as an incident of the Glacial period a whole flora may have moved down and up a mountain side, while only some of its constituent species would be able to take advantage of means of long-distance transport. I have dwelt on the importance of what I may call short-distance dispersal as a necessary condition of plant life, because I think it suggests the solution of a difficulty which leads Guppy to a conclusion with which I am unable to agree. But the work which he has done taken as a whole appears to me so admirable that I do so with the utmost respect. He points out, as Bentham had already done, that long-distance dispersal is fortuitous. And being so it cannot have been provided for by previous adaptation. He says (Guppy, op. cit. II. page 99.): "It is not conceivable that an organism can be adapted to conditions outside its environment." To this we must agree; but, it may be asked, do the general means of plant dispersal violate so obvious a principle? He proceeds: "The great variety of the modes of dispersal of seeds is in itself an indication that the dispersing agencies avail themselves in a hap-hazard fashion of characters and capacities that have been developed in other connections." (Loc. cit. page 102.) "Their utility in these respects is an accident in the plant's life." (Loc. cit. page 100.) He attributes this utility to a "determining agency," an influence which constantly reappears in various shapes in the literature of Evolution and is ultra-scientific in the sense that it bars the way to the search for material causes. He goes so far as to doubt whether fleshy fruits are an adaptation for the dispersal of their contained seeds. (Loc. cit. page 102.) Writing as I am from a hillside which is covered by hawthorn bushes sown by birds, I confess I can feel little doubt on the subject myself. The essential fact which Guppy brings out is that long-distance unlike short-distance dispersal is not universal and purposeful, but selective and in that sense accidental. But it is not difficult to see how under favouring conditions one must merge into the other. Guppy has raised one novel point which can only be briefly referred to but which is of extreme interest. There are grounds for thinking that flowers and insects have mutually reacted upon one another in their evolution. Guppy suggests that something of the same kind may be true of birds. I must content myself with the quotation of a single sentence. "With the secular drying of the globe and the consequent differentiation of climate is to be connected the suspension to a great extent of the agency of birds as plant dispersers in later ages, not only in the Pacific Islands but all over the tropics. The changes of climate, birds and plants have gone on together, the range of the bird being controlled by the climate, and the distribution of the plant being largely dependent on the bird." (Loc.cit. II. page 221.) Darwin was clearly prepared to go further than Hooker in accounting for the southern flora by dispersion from the north. Thus he says: "We must, I suppose, admit that every yard of land has been successively covered with a beech-forest between the Caucasus and Japan." ("More Letters", II. page 9.) Hooker accounted for the dissevered condition of the southern flora by geographical change, but this Darwin could not admit. He suggested to Hooker that the Australian and Cape floras might have had a point of connection through Abyssinia (Ibid. I. page 447.), an idea which was promptly snuffed out. Similarly he remarked to Bentham (1869): "I suppose you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae, etc., etc. once extended over the whole world, leaving fragments in the south." (Ibid. I. page 380.) Eventually he conjectured "that there must have been a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the southern extremities of our present continents." ("Life and Letters", III. page 231.) But characteristically he could not admit any land connections and trusted to "floating ice for transporting seed." ("More Letters", I. page 116.) I am far from saying that this theory is not deserving of serious attention, though there seems to be no positive evidence to support it, and it immediately raises the difficulty how did such a continent come to be stocked? We must, however, agree with Hooker that the common origin of the northern and southern floras must be referred to a remote past. That Darwin had this in his mind at the time of the publication of the "Origin" is clear from a letter to Hooker. "The view which I should have looked at as perhaps most probable (though it hardly differs from yours) is that the whole world during the Secondary ages was inhabited by marsupials, araucarias (Mem.--Fossil wood of this nature in South America), Banksia, etc.; and that these were supplanted and exterminated in the greater area of the north, but were left alive in the south." (Ibid. I. page 453.) Remembering that Araucaria, unlike Banksia, belongs to the earlier Jurassic not to the angiospermous flora, this view is a germinal idea of the widest generality. The extraordinary congestion in species of the peninsulas of the Old World points to the long-continued action of a migration southwards. Each is in fact a cul-de-sac into which they have poured and from which there is no escape. On the other hand the high degree of specialisation in the southern floras and the little power the species possess of holding their own in competition or in adaptation to new conditions point to long-continued isolation. "An island... will prevent free immigration and competition, hence a greater number of ancient forms will survive." (Ibid. I. page 481.) But variability is itself subject to variation. The nemesis of a high degree of protected specialisation is the loss of adaptability. (See Lyell, "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man", London, 1863, page 446.) It is probable that many elements of the southern flora are doomed: there is, for example, reason to think that the singular Stapelieae of S. Africa are a disappearing group. The tree Lobelias which linger in the mountains of Central Africa, in Tropical America and in the Sandwich Islands have the aspect of extreme antiquity. I may add a further striking illustration from Professor Seward: "The tall, graceful fronds of Matonia pectinata, forming miniature forests on the slopes of Mount Ophir and other districts in the Malay Peninsula in association with Dipteris conjugata and Dipteris lobbiana, represent a phase of Mesozoic life which survives 'Like a dim picture of the drowned past.'" ("Report of the 73rd Meeting of the British Assoc." (Southport, 1903), London, 1904, page 844.) The Matonineae are ferns with an unusually complex vascular system and were abundant "in the northern hemisphere during the earlier part of the Mesozoic era." It was fortunate for science that Wallace took up the task which his colleague had abandoned. Writing to him on the publication of his "Geographical Distribution of Animals" Darwin said: "I feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plants treated in strict relation to your views." ("More Letters", II. page 12.) This hope was fulfilled in "Island Life". I may quote a passage from it which admirably summarises the contrast between the northern and the southern floras. "Instead of the enormous northern area, in which highly organised and dominant groups of plants have been developed gifted with great colonising and aggressive powers, we have in the south three comparatively small and detached areas, in which rich floras have been developed with SPECIAL adaptations to soil, climate, and organic environment, but comparatively impotent and inferior beyond their own domain." (Wallace, "Island Life", pages 527, 528.) It will be noticed that in the summary I have attempted to give of the history of the subject, efforts have been concentrated on bringing into relation the temperate floras of the northern and southern hemispheres, but no account has been taken of the rich tropical vegetation which belts the world and little to account for the original starting-point of existing vegetation generally. It must be remembered on the one hand that our detailed knowledge of the floras of the tropics is still very incomplete and far inferior to that of temperate regions; on the other hand palaeontological discoveries have put the problem in an entirely new light. Well might Darwin, writing to Heer in 1875, say: "Many as have been the wonderful discoveries in Geology during the last half-century, I think none have exceeded in interest your results with respect to the plants which formerly existed in the arctic regions." ("More Letters", II. page 240.) As early as 1848 Debey had described from the Upper Cretaceous rocks of Aix-la-Chapelle Flowering plants of as high a degree of development as those now existing. The fact was commented upon by Hooker ("Introd. Essay to the Flora of Tasmania", page xx.), but its full significance seems to have been scarcely appreciated. For it implied not merely that their evolution must have taken place but the foundations of existing distribution must have been laid in a preceding age. We now know from the discoveries of the last fifty years that the remains of the Neocomian flora occur over an area extending through 30 deg of latitude. The conclusion is irresistible that within this was its centre of distribution and probably of origin. Darwin was immensely impressed with the outburst on the world of a fully fledged angiospermous vegetation. He warmly approved the brilliant theory of Saporta that this happened "as soon (as) flower-frequenting insects were developed and favoured intercrossing." ("More Letters", II. page 21.) Writing to him in 1877 he says: "Your idea that dicotyledonous plants were not developed in force until sucking insects had been evolved seems to me a splendid one. I am surprised that the idea never occurred to me, but this is always the case when one first hears a new and simple explanation of some mysterious phenomenon." ("Life and Letters", III. page 285. Substantially the same idea had occurred earlier to F.W.A. Miquel. Remarking that "sucking insects (Haustellata)... perform in nature the important duty of maintaining the existence of the vegetable kingdom, at least as far as the higher orders are concerned," he points our that "the appearance in great numbers of haustellate insects occurs at and after the Cretaceous epoch, when the plants with pollen and closed carpels (Angiosperms) are found, and acquire little by little the preponderance in the vegetable kingdom." "Archives Neerlandaises", III. (1868). English translation in "Journ. of Bot." 1869, page 101.) Even with this help the abruptness still remains an almost insoluble problem, though a forecast of floral structure is now recognised in some Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous plants. But the gap between this and the structural complexity and diversity of angiosperms is enormous. Darwin thought that the evolution might have been accomplished during a period of prolonged isolation. Writing to Hooker (1881) he says: "Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the APPARENTLY very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants. I have sometimes speculated whether there did not exist somewhere during long ages an extremely isolated continent, perhaps near the South Pole." ("Life and Letters", III. page 248.) The present trend of evidence is, however, all in favour of a northern origin for flowering plants, and we can only appeal to the imperfection of the geological record as a last resource to extricate us from the difficulty of tracing the process. But Darwin's instinct that at some time or other the southern hemisphere had played an important part in the evolution of the vegetable kingdom did not mislead him. Nothing probably would have given him greater satisfaction than the masterly summary in which Seward has brought together the evidence for the origin of the Glossopteris flora in Gondwana land. "A vast continental area, of which remnants are preserved in Australia, South Africa and South America... A tract of enormous extent occupying an area, part of which has since given place to a southern ocean, while detached masses persist as portions of more modern continents, which have enabled us to read in their fossil plants and ice-scratched boulders the records of a lost continent, in which the Mesozoic vegetation of the northern continent had its birth." ("Encycl. Brit." (10th edition 1902), Vol. XXXI. ("Palaeobotany; Mesozoic"), page 422.) Darwin would probably have demurred on physical grounds to the extent of the continent, and preferred to account for the transoceanic distribution of its flora by the same means which must have accomplished it on land. It must in fairness be added that Guppy's later views give some support to the conjectural existence of the "lost continent." "The distribution of the genus Dammara" (Agathis) led him to modify his earlier conclusions. He tells us:--"In my volume on the geology of Vanua Levu it was shown that the Tertiary period was an age of submergence in the Western Pacific, and a disbelief in any previous continental condition was expressed. My later view is more in accordance with that of Wichmann, who, on geological grounds, contended that the islands of the Western Pacific were in a continental condition during the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic periods, and that their submergence and subsequent emergence took place in Tertiary times." (Guppy, op. cit. II. page 304.) The weight of the geological evidence I am unable to scrutinise. But though I must admit the possibility of some unconscious bias in my own mind on the subject, I am impressed with the fact that the known distribution of the Glossopteris flora in the southern hemisphere is precisely paralleled by that of Proteaceae and Restiaceae in it at the present time. It is not unreasonable to suppose that both phenomena, so similar, may admit of the same explanation. I confess it would not surprise me if fresh discoveries in the distribution of the Glossopteris flora were to point to the possibility of its also having migrated southwards from a centre of origin in the northern hemisphere. Darwin, however, remained sceptical "about the travelling of plants from the north EXCEPT DURING THE TERTIARY PERIOD." But he added, "such speculations seem to me hardly scientific, seeing how little we know of the old floras." ("Life and Letters", III. page 247.) That in later geological times the south has been the grave of the weakened offspring of the aggressive north can hardly be doubted. But if we look to the Glossopteris flora for the ancestry of Angiosperms during the Secondary period, Darwin's prevision might be justified, though he has given us no clue as to how he arrived at it. It may be true that technically Darwin was not a botanist. But in two pages of the "Origin" he has given us a masterly explanation of "the relationship, with very little identity, between the productions of North America and Europe." (Pages 333, 334.) He showed that this could be accounted for by their migration southwards from a common area, and he told Wallace that he "doubted much whether the now called Palaearctic and Neartic regions ought to be separated." ("Life and Letters", III. page 230.) Catkin-bearing deciduous trees had long been seen to justify Darwin's doubt: oaks, chestnuts, beeches, hazels, hornbeams, birches, alders, willows and poplars are common both to the Old and New World. Newton found that the separate regions could not be sustained for birds, and he is now usually followed in uniting them as the Holartic. One feels inclined to say in reading the two pages, as Lord Kelvin did to a correspondent who asked for some further development of one of his papers, It is all there. We have only to apply the principle to previous geological ages to understand why the flora of the Southern United States preserves a Cretaceous facies. Applying it still further we can understand why, when the northern hemisphere gradually cooled through the Tertiary period, the plants of the Eocene "suggest a comparison of the climate and forests with those of the Malay Archipelago and Tropical America." (Clement Reid, "Encycl. Brit." (10th edition), Vol. XXXI. ("Palaeobotany; Tertiary"), page 435.) Writing to Asa Gray in 1856 with respect to the United States flora, Darwin said that "nothing has surprised me more than the greater generic and specific affinity with East Asia than with West America." ("More Letters", I. page 434.) The recent discoveries of a Tulip tree and a Sassafras in China afford fresh illustrations. A few years later Asa Gray found the explanation in both areas being centres of preservation of the Cretaceous flora from a common origin. It is interesting to note that the paper in which this was enunciated at once established his reputation. In Europe the latitudinal range of the great mountain chains gave the Miocene flora no chance of escape during the Glacial period, and the Mediterranean appears to have equally intercepted the flow of alpine plants to the Atlas. (John Ball in Appendix G, page 438, in "Journal of a Tour in Morocco and the Great Atlas", J.D. Hooker and J. Ball, London, 1878.) In Southern Europe the myrtle, the laurel, the fig and the dwarf-palm are the sole representatives of as many great tropical families. Another great tropical family, the Gesneraceae has left single representatives from the Pyrenees to the Balkans; and in the former a diminutive yam still lingers. These are only illustrations of the evidence which constantly accumulates and which finds no rational explanation except that which Darwin has given to it. The theory of southward migration is the key to the interpretation of the geographical distribution of plants. It derived enormous support from the researches of Heer and has now become an accepted commonplace. Saporta in 1888 described the vegetable kingdom as "emigrant pour suivre une direction determinee et marcher du nord au sud, a la recherche de regions et de stations plus favorables, mieux appropriees aux adaptations acquises, a meme que la temperature terrestre perd ses conditions premieres." ("Origine Paleontologique des arbres", Paris, 1888, page 28.) If, as is so often the case, the theory now seems to be a priori inevitable, the historian of science will not omit to record that the first germ sprang from the brain of Darwin. In attempting this sketch of Darwin's influence on Geographical Distribution, I have found it impossible to treat it from an external point of view. His interest in it was unflagging; all I could say became necessarily a record of that interest and could not be detached from it. He was in more or less intimate touch with everyone who was working at it. In reading the letters we move amongst great names. With an extraordinary charm of persuasive correspondence he was constantly suggesting, criticising and stimulating. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that from the quiet of his study at Down he was founding and directing a wide-world school. POSTSCRIPTUM. Since this essay was put in type Dr Ernst's striking account of the "New Flora of the Volcanic Island of Krakatau" (Cambridge, 1909.) has reached me. All botanists must feel a debt of gratitude to Prof. Seward for his admirable translation of a memoir which in its original form is practically unprocurable and to the liberality of the Cambridge University Press for its publication. In the preceding pages I have traced the laborious research by which the methods of Plant Dispersal were established by Darwin. In the island of Krakatau nature has supplied a crucial experiment which, if it had occurred earlier, would have at once secured conviction of their efficiency. A quarter of a century ago every trace of organic life in the island was "destroyed and buried under a thick covering of glowing stones." Now, it is "again covered with a mantle of green, the growth being in places so luxuriant that it is necessary to cut one's way laboriously through the vegetation." (Op. cit. page 4.) Ernst traces minutely how this has been brought about by the combined action of wind, birds and sea currents, as means of transport. The process will continue, and he concludes:--"At last after a long interval the vegetation on the desolated island will again acquire that wealth of variety and luxuriance which we see in the fullest development which Nature has reached in the primaeval forest in the tropics." (Op. cit. page 72.) The possibility of such a result revealed itself to the insight of Darwin with little encouragement or support from contemporary opinion. One of the most remarkable facts established by Ernst is that this has not been accomplished by the transport of seeds alone. "Tree stems and branches played an important part in the colonisation of Krakatau by plants and animals. Large piles of floating trees, stems, branches and bamboos are met with everywhere on the beach above high-water mark and often carried a considerable distance inland. Some of the animals on the island, such as the fat Iguana (Varanus salvator) which suns itself in the beds of streams, may have travelled on floating wood, possibly also the ancestors of the numerous ants, but certainly plants." (Op. cit. page 56.) Darwin actually had a prevision of this. Writing to Hooker he says:--"Would it not be a prodigy if an unstocked island did not in the course of ages receive colonists from coasts whence the currents flow, trees are drifted and birds are driven by gales?" ("More Letters", I. page 483.) And ten years earlier:--"I must believe in the... whole plant or branch being washed into the sea; with floods and slips and earthquakes; this must continually be happening." ("Life and Letters", II. pages 56, 57.) If we give to "continually" a cosmic measure, can the fact be doubted? All this, in the light of our present knowledge, is too obvious to us to admit of discussion. But it seems to me nothing less than pathetic to see how in the teeth of the obsession as to continental extension, Darwin fought single-handed for what we now know to be the truth. Guppy's heart failed him when he had to deal with the isolated case of Agathis which alone seemed inexplicable by known means of transport. But when we remember that it is a relic of the pre-Angiospermous flora, and is of Araucarian ancestry, it cannot be said that the impossibility, in so prolonged a history, of the bodily transference of cone-bearing branches or even of trees, compels us as a last resort to fall back on continental extension to account for its existing distribution. When Darwin was in the Galapagos Archipelago, he tells us that he fancied himself "brought near to the very act of creation." He saw how new species might arise from a common stock. Krakatau shows us an earlier stage and how by simple agencies, continually at work, that stock might be supplied. It also shows us how the mixed and casual elements of a new colony enter into competition for the ground and become mutually adjusted. The study of Plant Distribution from a Darwinian standpoint has opened up a new field of research in Ecology. The means of transport supply the materials for a flora, but their ultimate fate depends on their equipment for the "struggle for existence." The whole subject can no longer be regarded as a mere statistical inquiry which has seemed doubtless to many of somewhat arid interest. The fate of every element of the earth's vegetation has sooner or later depended on its ability to travel and to hold its own under new conditions. And the means by which it has secured success is an each case a biological problem which demands and will reward the most attentive study. This is the lesson which Darwin has bequeathed to us. It is summed up in the concluding paragraph of the "Origin" ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 429.):--"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us." XVII. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMALS. By Hans Gadow, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S. Strickland Curator and Lecturer on Zoology in the University of Cambridge. The first general ideas about geographical distribution may be found in some of the brilliant speculations contained in Buffon's "Histoire Naturelle". The first special treatise on the subject was however written in 1777 by E.A.W. Zimmermann, Professor of Natural Science at Brunswick, whose large volume, "Specimen Zoologiae Geographicae Quadrupedum"..., deals in a statistical way with the mammals; important features of the large accompanying map of the world are the ranges of mountains and the names of hundreds of genera indicating their geographical range. In a second work he laid special stress on domesticated animals with reference to the spreading of the various races of Mankind. In the following year appeared the "Philosophia Entomologica" by J.C. Fabricius, who was the first to divide the world into eight regions. In 1803 G.R. Treviranus ("Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur", Vol. II. Gottingen, 1803.) devoted a long chapter of his great work on "Biologie" to a philosophical and coherent treatment of the distribution of the whole animal kingdom. Remarkable progress was made in 1810 by F. Tiedemann ("Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Vogel". Heidelberg, 1810.) of Heidelberg. Few, if any, of the many subsequent Ornithologists seem to have appreciated, or known of, the ingenious way in which Tiedemann marshalled his statistics in order to arrive at general conclusions. There are, for instance, long lists of birds arranged in accordance with their occurrence in one or more continents: by correlating the distribution of the birds with their food he concludes "that the countries of the East Indian flora have no vegetable feeders in common with America," and "that it is probably due to the great peculiarity of the African flora that Africa has few phytophagous kinds in common with other countries, whilst zoophagous birds have a far more independent, often cosmopolitan, distribution." There are also remarkable chapters on the influence of environment, distribution, and migration, upon the structure of the Birds! In short, this anatomist dealt with some of the fundamental causes of distribution. Whilst Tiedemann restricted himself to Birds, A. Desmoulins in 1822 wrote a short but most suggestive paper on the Vertebrata, omitting the birds; he combated the view recently proposed by the entomologist Latreille that temperature was the main factor in distribution. Some of his ten main conclusions show a peculiar mixture of evolutionary ideas coupled with the conception of the stability of species: whilst each species must have started from but one creative centre, there may be several "analogous centres of creation" so far as genera and families are concerned. Countries with different faunas, but lying within the same climatic zones, are proof of the effective and permanent existence of barriers preventing an exchange between the original creative centres. The first book dealing with the "geography and classification" of the whole animal kingdom was written by W. Swainson ("A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals", Lardner's "Cabinet Cyclopaedia" London, 1835.) in 1835. He saw in the five races of Man the clue to the mapping of the world into as many "true zoological divisions," and he reconciled the five continents with his mystical quinary circles. Lyell's "Principles of Geology" should have marked a new epoch, since in his "Elements" he treats of the past history of the globe and the distribution of animals in time, and in his "Principles" of their distribution in space in connection with the actual changes undergone by the surface of the world. But as the sub-title of his great work "Modern changes of the Earth and its inhabitants" indicates, he restricted himself to comparatively minor changes, and, emphatically believing in the permanency of the great oceans, his numerous and careful interpretations of the effect of the geological changes upon the dispersal of animals did after all advance the problem but little. Hitherto the marine faunas had been neglected. This was remedied by E. Forbes, who established nine homozoic zones, based mainly on the study of the mollusca, the determining factors being to a great extent the isotherms of the sea, whilst the 25 provinces were given by the configuration of the land. He was followed by J.D. Dana, who, taking principally the Crustacea as a basis, and as leading factors the mean temperatures of the coldest and of the warmest months, established five latitudinal zones. By using these as divisors into an American, Afro-European, Oriental, Arctic and Antarctic realm, most of which were limited by an eastern and western land-boundary, he arrived at about threescore provinces. In 1853 appeared L.K. Schmarda's ("Die geographische Verbreitung der Thiere", Wien, 1853.) two volumes, embracing the whole subject. Various centres of creation being, according to him, still traceable, he formed the hypothesis that these centres were originally islands, which later became enlarged and joined together to form the great continents, so that the original faunas could overlap and mix whilst still remaining pure at their respective centres. After devoting many chapters to the possible physical causes and modes of dispersal, he divided the land into 21 realms which he shortly characterises, e.g. Australia as the only country inhabited by marsupials, monotremes and meliphagous birds. Ten main marine divisions were diagnosed in a similar way. Although some of these realms were not badly selected from the point of view of being applicable to more than one class of animals, they were obviously too numerous for general purposes, and this drawback was overcome, in 1857, by P.L. Sclater. ("On the general Geographical Distribution of the members of the class Aves", "Proc. Linn. Soc." (Zoology II. 1858, pages 130-145.)) Starting with the idea, that "each species must have been created within and over the geographical area, which it now occupies," he concluded "that the most natural primary ontological divisions of the Earth's surface" were those six regions, which since their adoption by Wallace in his epoch-making work, have become classical. Broadly speaking, these six regions are equivalent to the great masses of land; they are convenient terms for geographical facts, especially since the Palaearctic region expresses the unity of Europe with the bulk of Asia. Sclater further brigaded the regions of the Old World as Palaeogaea and the two Americas as Neogaea, a fundamental mistake, justifiable to a certain extent only since he based his regions mainly upon the present distribution of the Passerine birds. Unfortunately these six regions are not of equal value. The Indian countries and the Ethiopian region (Africa south of the Sahara) are obviously nothing but the tropical, southern continuations or appendages of one greater complex. Further, the great eastern mass of land is so intimately connected with North America that this continent has much more in common with Europe and Asia than with South America. Therefore, instead of dividing the world longitudinally as Sclater had done, Huxley, in 1868 ("On the classification and distribution of the Alectoromorphae and Heteromorphae", "Proc. Zool. Soc." 1868, page 294.), gave weighty reasons for dividing it transversely. Accordingly he established two primary divisions, Arctogaea or the North world in a wider sense, comprising Sclater's Indian, African, Palaearctic and Neartic regions; and Notogaea, the Southern world, which he divided into (1) Austro-Columbia (an unfortunate substitute for the neotropical region), (2) Australasia, and (3) New Zealand, the number of big regions thus being reduced to three but for the separation of New Zealand upon rather negative characters. Sclater was the first to accept these four great regions and showed, in 1874 ("The geographical distribution of Mammals", "Manchester Science Lectures", 1874.), that they were well borne out by the present distribution of the Mammals. Although applicable to various other groups of animals, for instance to the tailless Amphibia and to Birds (Huxley himself had been led to found his two fundamental divisions on the distribution of the Gallinaceous birds), the combination of South America with Australia was gradually found to be too sweeping a measure. The obvious and satisfactory solution was provided by W.T. Blanford (Anniversary address (Geological Society, 1889), "Proc. Geol. Soc." 1889-90, page 67; "Quart. Journ." XLVI 1890.), who in 1890 recognised three main divisions, namely Australian, South American, and the rest, for which the already existing terms (although used partly in a new sense, as proposed by an anonymous writer in "Natural Science", III. page 289) "Notogaea," "Neogaea" and "Arctogaea" have been gladly accepted by a number of English writers. After this historical survey of the search for larger and largest or fundamental centres of animal creation, which resulted in the mapping of the world into zoological regions and realms of after all doubtful value, we have to return to the year 1858. The eleventh and twelfth chapters of "The Origin of Species" (1859), dealing with "Geographical Distribution," are based upon a great amount of observation, experiment and reading. As Darwin's main problem was the origin of species, nature's way of making species by gradual changes from others previously existing, he had to dispose of the view, held universally, of the independent creation of each species and at the same time to insist upon a single centre of creation for each species; and in order to emphasise his main point, the theory of descent, he had to disallow convergent, or as they were then called, analogous forms. To appreciate the difficulty of his position we have to take the standpoint of fifty years ago, when the immutability of the species was an axiom and each was supposed to have been created within or over the geographical area which it now occupies. If he once admitted that a species could arise from many individuals instead of from one pair, there was no way of shutting the door against the possibility that these individuals may have been so numerous that they occupied a very large district, even so large that it had become as discontinuous as the distribution of many a species actually is. Such a concession would at once be taken as an admission of multiple, independent, origin instead of descent in Darwin's sense. For the so-called multiple, independently repeated creation of species as an explanation of their very wide and often quite discontinuous distribution, he substituted colonisation from the nearest and readiest source together with subsequent modification and better adaptation to their new home. He was the first seriously to call attention to the many accidental means, "which more properly should be called occasional means of distribution," especially to oceanic islands. His specific, even individual, centres of creation made migrations all the more necessary, but their extent was sadly baulked by the prevailing dogma of the permanency of the oceans. Any number of small changes ("many islands having existed as halting places, of which not a wreck now remains" ("The Origin of Species" (1st edition), page 396.).) were conceded freely, but few, if any, great enough to permit migration of truly terrestrial creatures. The only means of getting across the gaps was by the principle of the "flotsam and jetsam," a theory which Darwin took over from Lyell and further elaborated so as to make it applicable to many kinds of plants and animals, but sadly deficient, often grotesque, in the case of most terrestrial creatures. Another very fertile source was Darwin's strong insistence upon the great influence which the last glacial epoch must have had upon the distribution of animals and plants. Why was the migration of northern creatures southwards of far-reaching and most significant importance? More northerners have established themselves in southern lands than vice versa, because there is such a great mass of land in the north and greater continents imply greater intensity of selection. "The productions of real islands have everywhere largely yielded to continental forms." (Ibid. page 380.)... "The Alpine forms have almost everywhere largely yielded to the more dominant forms generated in the larger areas and more efficient workshops of the North." Let us now pass in rapid survey the influence of the publication of "The Origin of Species" upon the study of Geographical Distribution in its wider sense. Hitherto the following thought ran through the minds of most writers: Wherever we examine two or more widely separated countries their respective faunas are very different, but where two faunas can come into contact with each other, they intermingle. Consequently these faunas represent centres of creation, whence the component creatures have spread peripherally so far as existing boundaries allowed them to do so. This is of course the fundamental idea of "regions." There is not one of the numerous writers who considered the possibility that these intermediate belts might represent not a mixture of species but transitional forms, the result of changes undergone by the most peripheral migrants in adaptation to their new surroundings. The usual standpoint was also that of Pucheran ("Note sur l'equateur zoologique", "Rev. et Mag. de Zoologie", 1855; also several other papers, ibid. 1865, 1866, and 1867.) in 1855. But what a change within the next ten years! Pucheran explains the agreement in coloration between the desert and its fauna as "une harmonie post-etablie"; the Sahara, formerly a marine basin, was peopled by immigrants from the neighbouring countries, and these new animals adapted themselves to the new environment. He also discusses, among other similar questions, the Isthmus of Panama with regard to its having once been a strait. From the same author may be quoted the following passage as a strong proof of the new influence: "By the radiation of the contemporaneous faunas, each from one centre, whence as the various parts of the world successively were formed and became habitable, they spread and became modified according to the local physical conditions." The "multiple" origin of each species as advocated by Sclater and Murray, although giving the species a broader basis, suffered from the same difficulties. There was only one alternative to the old orthodox view of independent creation, namely the bold acceptance of land-connections to an extent for which geological and palaeontological science was not yet ripe. Those who shrank from either view, gave up the problem as mysterious and beyond the human intellect. This was the expressed opinion of men like Swainson, Lyell and Humboldt. Only Darwin had the courage to say that the problem was not insoluble. If we admit "that in the long course of time the individuals of the same species, and likewise of allied species, have proceeded from some one source; then I think all the grand leading facts of geographical distribution are explicable on the theory of migration... together with subsequent modification and the multiplication of new forms." We can thus understand how it is that in some countries the inhabitants "are linked to the extinct beings which formerly inhabited the same continent." We can see why two areas, having nearly the same physical conditions, should often be inhabited by very different forms of life,... and "we can see why in two areas, however distant from each other, there should be a correlation, in the presence of identical species... and of distinct but representative species." ("The Origin of Species" (1st edition), pages 408, 409.) Darwin's reluctance to assume great geological changes, such as a land-connection of Europe with North America, is easily explained by the fact that he restricted himself to the distribution of the present and comparatively recent species. "I do not believe that it will ever be proved that within the recent period continents which are now quite separate, have been continuously, or almost continuously, united with each other, and with the many existing oceanic islands." (Ibid. page 357.) Again, "believing... that our continents have long remained in nearly the same relative position, though subjected to large, but partial oscillations of level," that means to say within the period of existing species, or "within the recent period." (Ibid. page. 370.) The difficulty was to a great extent one of his own making. Whilst almost everybody else believed in the immutability of the species, which implies an enormous age, logically since the dawn of creation, to him the actually existing species as the latest results of evolution, were necessarily something very new, so young that only the very latest of the geological epochs could have affected them. It has since come to our knowledge that a great number of terrestrial "recent" species, even those of the higher classes of Vertebrates, date much farther back than had been thought possible. Many of them reach well into the Miocene, a time since which the world seems to have assumed the main outlines of the present continents. In the year 1866 appeared A. Murray's work on the "Geographical Distribution of Mammals", a book which has perhaps received less recognition than it deserves. His treatment of the general introductory questions marks a considerable advance of our problem, although, and partly because, he did not entirely agree with Darwin's views as laid down in the first edition of "The Origin of Species", which after all was the great impulse given to Murray's work. Like Forbes he did not shrink from assuming enormous changes in the configuration of the continents and oceans because the theory of descent, with its necessary postulate of great migrations, required them. He stated, for instance, "that a Miocene Atlantis sufficiently explains the common distribution of animals and plants in Europe and America up to the glacial epoch." And next he considers how, and by what changes, the rehabilitation and distribution of these lands themselves were effected subsequent to that period. Further, he deserves credit for having cleared up a misunderstanding of the idea of specific centres of creation. Whilst for instance Schmarda assumed without hesitation that the same species, if occurring at places separated by great distances, or apparently insurmountable barriers, had been there created independently (multiple centres), Lyell and Darwin held that each species had only one single centre, and with this view most of us agree, but their starting point was to them represented by one individual, or rather one single pair. According to Murray, on the other hand, this centre of a species is formed by all the individuals of a species, all of which equally undergo those changes which new conditions may impose upon them. In this respect a new species has a multiple origin, but this in a sense very different from that which was upheld by L. Agassiz. As Murray himself puts it: "To my multiple origin, communication and direct derivation is essential. The species is compounded of many influences brought together through many individuals, and distilled by Nature into one species; and, being once established it may roam and spread wherever it finds the conditions of life not materially different from those of its original centre." (Murray, "The Geographical Distribution of Mammals", page 14. London, 1866.) This declaration fairly agrees with more modern views, and it must be borne in mind that the application of the single-centre principle to the genera, families and larger groups in the search for descent inevitably leads to one creative centre for the whole animal kingdom, a condition as unwarrantable as the myth of Adam and Eve being the first representatives of Mankind. It looks as if it had required almost ten years for "The Origin of Species" to show its full effect, since the year 1868 marks the publication of Haeckel's "Naturliche Schoepfungsgeschichte" in addition to other great works. The terms "Oecology" (the relation of organisms to their environment) and "Chorology" (their distribution in space) had been given us in his "Generelle Morphologie" in 1866. The fourteenth chapter of the "History of Creation" is devoted to the distribution of organisms, their chorology, with the emphatic assertion that "not until Darwin can chorology be spoken of as a separate science, since he supplied the acting causes for the elucidation of the hitherto accumulated mass of facts." A map (a "hypothetical sketch") shows the monophyletic origin and the routes of distribution of Man. Natural Selection may be all-mighty, all-sufficient, but it requires time, so much that the countless aeons required for the evolution of the present fauna were soon felt to be one of the most serious drawbacks of the theory. Therefore every help to ease and shorten this process should have been welcomed. In 1868 M. Wagner (The first to formulate clearly the fundamental idea of a theory of migration and its importance in the origin of new species was L. von Buch, who in his "Physikalische Beschreibung der Canarischen Inseln", written in 1825, wrote as follows: "Upon the continents the individuals of the genera by spreading far, form, through differences of the locality, food and soil, varieties which finally become constant as new species, since owing to the distances they could never be crossed with other varieties and thus be brought back to the main type. Next they may again, perhaps upon different roads, return to the old home where they find the old type likewise changed, both having become so different that they can interbreed no longer. Not so upon islands, where the individuals shut up in narrow valleys or within narrow districts, can always meet one another and thereby destroy every new attempt towards the fixing of a new variety." Clearly von Buch explains here why island types remain fixed, and why these types themselves have become so different from their continental congeners.--Actually von Buch is aware of a most important point, the difference in the process of development which exists between a new species b, which is the result of an ancestral species a having itself changed into b and thereby vanished itself, and a new species c which arose through separation out of the same ancestral a, which itself persists as such unaltered. Von Buch's prophetic view seems to have escaped Lyell's and even Wagner's notice.) came to the rescue with his "Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrations-Gesetz der Organismen". (Leipzig, 1868.) He shows that migration, i.e. change of locality, implies new environmental conditions (never mind whether these be new stimuli to variation, or only acting as their selectors or censors), and moreover secures separation from the original stock and thus eliminates or lessens the reactionary dangers of panmixia. Darwin accepted Wagner's theory as "advantageous." Through the heated polemics of the more ardent selectionists Wagner's theory came to grow into an alternative instead of a help to the theory of selectional evolution. Separation is now rightly considered a most important factor by modern students of geographical distribution. For the same year, 1868, we have to mention Huxley, whose Arctogaea and Notogaea are nothing less than the reconstructed main masses of land of the Mesozoic period. Beyond doubt the configuration of land at that remote period has left recognisable traces in the present continents, but whether they can account for the distribution of such a much later group as the Gallinaceous birds is more than questionable. In any case he took for his text a large natural group of birds, cosmopolitan as a whole, but with a striking distribution. The Peristeropodes, or pigeon-footed division, are restricted to the Australian and Neotropical regions, in distinction to the Alectoropodes (with the hallux inserted at a level above the front toes) which inhabit the whole of the Arctogaea, only a few members having spread into the South World. Further, as Asia alone has its Pheasants and allies, so is Africa characterised by its Guinea-fowls and relations, America has the Turkey as an endemic genus, and the Grouse tribe in a wider sense has its centre in the holarctic region: a splendid object lesson of descent, world-wide spreading and subsequent differentiation. Huxley, by the way, was the first--at least in private talk--to state that it will be for the morphologist, the well-trained anatomist, to give the casting vote in questions of geographical distribution, since he alone can determine whether we have to deal with homologous, or analogous, convergent, representative forms. It seems late to introduce Wallace's name in 1876, the year of the publication of his standard work. ("The Geographical Distribution of Animals", 2 vols. London, 1876.) We cannot do better than quote the author's own words, expressing the hope that his "book should bear a similar relation to the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the "Origin of Species" as Darwin's "Animals and Plants under Domestication" does to the first chapter of that work," and to add that he has amply succeeded. Pleading for a few primary centres he accepts Sclater's six regions and does not follow Huxley's courageous changes which Sclater himself had accepted in 1874. Holding the view of the permanence of the oceans he accounts for the colonisation of outlying islands by further elaborating the views of Lyell and Darwin, especially in his fascinating "Island Life", with remarkable chapters on the Ice Age, Climate and Time and other fundamental factors. His method of arriving at the degree of relationship of the faunas of the various regions is eminently statistical. Long lists of genera determine by their numbers the affinity and hence the source of colonisation. In order to make sure of his material he performed the laborious task of evolving a new classification of the host of Passerine birds. This statistical method has been followed by many authors, who, relying more upon quantity than quality, have obscured the fact that the key to the present distribution lies in the past changes of the earth's surface. However, with Wallace begins the modern study of the geographical distribution of animals and the sudden interest taken in this subject by an ever widening circle of enthusiasts far beyond the professional brotherhood. A considerable literature has since grown up, almost bewildering in its range, diversity of aims and style of procedure. It is a chaos, with many paths leading into the maze, but as yet very few take us to a position commanding a view of the whole intricate terrain with its impenetrable tangle and pitfalls. One line of research, not initiated but greatly influenced by Wallace's works, became so prominent as to almost constitute a period which may be characterised as that of the search by specialists for either the justification or the amending of his regions. As class after class of animals was brought up to reveal the secret of the true regions, some authors saw in their different results nothing but the faultiness of previously established regions; others looked upon eventual agreements as their final corroboration, especially when for instance such diverse groups as mammals and scorpions could, with some ingenuity, be made to harmonise. But the obvious result of all these efforts was the growing knowledge that almost every class seemed to follow principles of its own. The regions tallied neither in extent nor in numbers, although most of them gravitated more and more towards three centres, namely Australia, South America and the rest of the world. Still zoologists persisted in the search, and the various modes and capabilities of dispersal of the respective groups were thought sufficient explanation of the divergent results in trying to bring the mapping of the world under one scheme. Contemporary literature is full of devices for the mechanical dispersal of animals. Marine currents, warm and cold, were favoured all the more since they showed the probable original homes of the creatures in question. If these could not stand sea-water, they floated upon logs or icebergs, or they were blown across by storms; fishes were lifted over barriers by waterspouts, and there is on record even an hypothetical land tortoise, full of eggs, which colonised an oceanic island after a perilous sea voyage upon a tree trunk. Accidents will happen, and beyond doubt many freaks of discontinuous distribution have to be accounted for by some such means. But whilst sufficient for the scanty settlers of true oceanic islands, they cannot be held seriously to account for the rich fauna of a large continent, over which palaeontology shows us that the immigrants have passed like waves. It should also be borne in mind that there is a great difference between flotsam and jetsam. A current is an extension of the same medium and the animals in it may suffer no change during even a long voyage, since they may be brought from one litoral to another where they will still be in the same or but slightly altered environment. But the jetsam is in the position of a passenger who has been carried off by the wrong train. Almost every year some American land birds arrive at our western coasts and none of them have gained a permanent footing although such visits must have taken place since prehistoric times. It was therefore argued that only those groups of animals should be used for locating and defining regions which were absolutely bound to the soil. This method likewise gave results not reconcilable with each other, even when the distribution of fossils was taken into account, but it pointed to the absolute necessity of searching for former land-connections regardless of their extent and the present depths to which they may have sunk. That the key to the present distribution lies in the past had been felt long ago, but at last it was appreciated that the various classes of animals and plants have appeared in successive geological epochs and also at many places remote from each other. The key to the distribution of any group lies in the configuration of land and water of that epoch in which it made its first appearance. Although this sounds like a platitude, it has frequently been ignored. If, for argument's sake, Amphibia were evolved somewhere upon the great southern land-mass of Carboniferous times (supposed by some to have stretched from South America across Africa to Australia), the distribution of this developing class must have proceeded upon lines altogether different from that of the mammals which dated perhaps from lower Triassic times, when the old south continental belt was already broken up. The broad lines of this distribution could never coincide with that of the other, older class, no matter whether the original mammalian centre was in the Afro-Indian, Australian, or Brazilian portion. If all the various groups of animals had come into existence at the same time and at the same place, then it would be possible, with sufficient geological data, to construct a map showing the generalised results applicable to the whole animal kingdom. But the premises are wrong. Whatever regions we may seek to establish applicable to all classes, we are necessarily mixing up several principles, namely geological, historical, i.e. evolutionary, with present day statistical facts. We might as well attempt one compound picture representing a chick's growth into an adult bird and a child's growth into manhood. In short there are no general regions, not even for each class separately, unless this class be one which is confined to a comparatively short geological period. Most of the great classes have far too long a history and have evolved many successive main groups. Let us take the mammals. Marsupials live now in Australia and in both Americas, because they already existed in Mesozoic times; Ungulata existed at one time or other all over the world except in Australia, because they are post-Cretaceous; Insectivores, although as old as any Placentalia, are cosmopolitan excepting South America and Australia; Stags and Bears, as examples of comparatively recent Arctogaeans, are found everywhere with the exception of Ethiopia and Australia. Each of these groups teaches a valuable historical lesson, but when these are combined into the establishment of a few mammalian "realms," they mean nothing but statistical majorities. If there is one at all, Australia is such a realm backed against the rest of the world, but as certainly it is not a mammalian creative centre! Well then, if the idea of generally applicable regions is a mare's nest, as was the search for the Holy Grail, what is the object of the study of geographical distribution? It is nothing less than the history of the evolution of life in space and time in the widest sense. The attempt to account for the present distribution of any group of organisms involves the aid of every branch of science. It bids fair to become a history of the world. It started in a mild, statistical way, restricting itself to the present fauna and flora and to the present configuration of land and water. Next came Oceanography concerned with the depths of the seas, their currents and temperatures; then enquiries into climatic changes, culminating in irreconcilable astronomical hypotheses as to glacial epochs; theories about changes of the level of the seas, mainly from the point of view of the physicist and astronomer. Then came more and more to the front the importance of the geological record, hand in hand with the palaeontological data and the search for the natural affinities, the genetic system of the organisms. Now and then it almost seems as if the biologists had done their share by supplying the problems and that the physicists and geologists would settle them, but in reality it is not so. The biologists not only set the problems, they alone can check the offered solutions. The mere fact of palms having flourished in Miocene Spitzbergen led to an hypothetical shifting of the axis of the world rather than to the assumption, by way of explanation, that the palms themselves might have changed their nature. One of the most valuable aids in geological research, often the only means for reconstructing the face of the earth in by-gone periods, is afforded by fossils, but only the morphologist can pronounce as to their trustworthiness as witnesses, because of the danger of mistaking analogous for homologous forms. This difficulty applies equally to living groups, and it is so important that a few instances may not be amiss. There is undeniable similarity between the faunas of Madagascar and South America. This was supported by the Centetidae and Dendrobatidae, two entire "families," as also by other facts. The value of the Insectivores, Solenodon in Cuba, Centetes in Madagascar, has been much lessened by their recognition as an extremely ancient group and as a case of convergence, but if they are no longer put into the same family, this amendment is really to a great extent due to their widely discontinuous distribution. The only systematic difference of the Dendrobatidae from the Ranidae is the absence of teeth, morphologically a very unimportant character, and it is now agreed, on the strength of their distribution, that these little arboreal, conspicuously coloured frogs, Dendrobates in South America, Mantella in Madagascar, do not form a natural group, although a third genus, Cardioglossa in West Africa, seems also to belong to them. If these creatures lived all on the same continent, we should unhesitatingly look upon them as forming a well-defined, natural little group. On the other hand the Aglossa, with their three very divergent genera, namely Pipa in South America, Xenopus and Hymenochirus in Africa, are so well characterised as one ancient group that we use their distribution unhesitatingly as a hint of a former connection between the two continents. We are indeed arguing in vicious circles. The Ratitae as such are absolutely worthless since they are a most heterogeneous assembly, and there are untold groups, of the artificiality of which many a zoo-geographer had not the slightest suspicion when he took his statistical material, the genera and families, from some systematic catalogues or similar lists. A lamentable instance is that of certain flightless Rails, recently extinct or sub-fossil, on the isalnds of Mauritius, Rodriguez and Chatham. Being flightless they have been used in support of a former huge Antarctic continent, instead of ruling them out of court as Rails which, each in its island, have lost the power of flight, a process which must have taken place so recently that it is difficult, upon morphological grounds, to justify their separation into Aphanapteryx in Mauritius, Erythromachus in Rodriguez and Diaphorapteryx on Chatham Island. Morphologically they may well form but one genus, since they have sprung from the same stock and have developed upon the same lines; they are therefore monogenetic: but since we know that they have become what they are independently of each other (now unlike any other Rails), they are polygenetic and therefore could not form one genus in the old Darwinian sense. Further, they are not a case of convergence, since their ancestry is not divergent but leads into the same stratum. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF SUCCESSIVE EPOCHS. A promising method is the study by the specialist of a large, widely distributed group of animals from an evolutionary point of view. Good examples of this method are afforded by A.E. Ortmann's ("The geographical distribution of Freshwater Decapods and its bearing upon ancient geography", "Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc." Vol. 41, 1902.) exhaustive paper and by A.W. Grabau's "Phylogeny of Fusus and its Allies" ("Smithsonian Misc. Coll." 44, 1904.) After many important groups of animals have been treated in this way--as yet sparingly attempted--the results as to hypothetical land-connections etc. are sure to be corrective and supplementary, and their problems will be solved, since they are not imaginary. The same problems are attacked, in the reverse way, by starting with the whole fauna of a country and thence, so to speak, letting the research radiate. Some groups will be considered as autochthonous, others as immigrants, and the directions followed by them will be inquired into; the search may lead far and in various directions, and by comparison of results, by making compound maps, certain routes will assume definite shape, and if they lead across straits and seas they are warrants to search for land-connections in the past. (A fair sample of this method is C.H. Eigenmann's "The Freshwater Fishes of South and Middle America", "Popular Science Monthly", Vol. 68, 1906.) There are now not a few maps purporting to show the outlines of land and water at various epochs. Many of these attempts do not tally with each other, owing to the lamentable deficiencies of geological and fossil data, but the bolder the hypothetical outlines are drawn, the better, and this is preferable to the insertion of bays and similar detail which give such maps a fallacious look of certainty where none exists. Moreover it must be borne in mind that, when we draw a broad continental belt across an ocean, this belt need never have existed in its entirety at any one time. The features of dispersal, intended to be explained by it, would be accomplished just as well by an unknown number of islands which have joined into larger complexes while elsewhere they subsided again: like pontoon-bridges which may be opened anywhere, or like a series of superimposed dissolving views of land and sea-scapes. Hence the reconstructed maps of Europe, the only continent tolerably known, show a considerable number of islands in puzzling changes, while elsewhere, e.g. in Asia, we have to be satisfied with sweeping generalisations. At present about half-a-dozen big connections are engaging our attention, leaving as comparatively settled the extent and the duration of such minor "bridges" as that between Africa and Madagascar, Tasmania and Australia, the Antilles and Central America, Europe and North Africa. (Not a few of those who are fascinated by, and satisfied with, the statistical aspect of distribution still have a strong dislike to the use of "bridges" if these lead over deep seas, and they get over present discontinuous occurrences by a former "universal or sub-universal distribution" of their groups.) This is indeed an easy method of cutting the knot, but in reality they shunt the question only a stage or two back, never troubling to explain how their groups managed to attain to that sub-universal range; or do they still suppose that the whole world was originally one paradise where everything lived side by side, until sin and strife and glacial epochs left nothing but scattered survivors? The permanence of the great ocean-basins had become a dogma since it was found that a universal elevation of the land to the extent of 100 fathoms would produce but little changes, and when it was shown that even the 1000 fathom-line followed the great masses of land rather closely, and still leaving the great basins (although transgression of the sea to the same extent would change the map of the world beyond recognition), by general consent one mile was allowed as the utmost speculative limit of subsidence. Naturally two or three miles, the average depth of the oceans, seems enormous, and yet such a difference in level is as nothing in comparison with the size of the Earth. On a clay model globe ten feet in diameter an ocean bed three miles deep would scarcely be detected, and the highest mountains would be smaller than the unavoidable grains in the glazed surface of our model. There are but few countries which have not be submerged at some time or other. CONNECTION OF SOUTH EASTERN ASIA WITH AUSTRALIA. Neumayr's Sino-Australian continent during mid-Mesozoic times was probably a much changing Archipelago, with final separations subsequent to the Cretaceous period. Henceforth Australasia was left to its own fate, but for a possible connection with the antarctic continent. AFRICA, MADAGASCAR, INDIA. The "Lemuria" of Sclater and Haeckel cannot have been more than a broad bridge in Jurassic times; whether it was ever available for the Lemurs themselves must depend upon the time of its duration, the more recent the better, but it is difficult to show that it lasted into the Miocene. AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA. Since the opposite coasts show an entire absence of marine fossils and deposits during the Mesozoic period, whilst further north and south such are known to exist and are mostly identical on either side, Neumayr suggested the existence of a great Afro-Son American mass of land during the Jurassic epoch. Such land is almost a necessity and is supported by many facts; it would easily explain the distribution of numerous groups of terrestrial creatures. Moreover to the north of this hypothetical land, somewhere across from the Antilles and Guiana to North Africa and South Western Europe, existed an almost identical fauna of Corals and Molluscs, indicating either a coast-line or a series of islands interrupted by shallow seas, just as one would expect if, and when, a Brazil-Ethiopian mass of land were breaking up. Lastly from Central America to the Mediterranean stretches one of the Tertiary tectonic lines of the geologists. Here also the great question is how long this continent lasted. Apparently the South Atlantic began to encroach from the south so that by the later Cretaceous epoch the land was reduced to a comparatively narrow Brazil-West Africa, remnants of which persisted certainly into the early Tertiary, until the South Atlantic joined across the equator with the Atlantic portion of the "Thetys," leaving what remained of South America isolated from the rest of the world. ANTARCTIC CONNECTIONS. Patagonia and Argentina seem to have joined Antartica during the Cretaceous epoch, and this South Georgian bridge had broken down again by mid-Tertiary times when South America became consolidated. The Antarctic continent, presuming that it existed, seems also to have been joined, by way of Tasmania, with Australia, also during the Cretaceous epoch, and it is assumed that the great Australia-Antarctic-Patagonian land was severed first to the south of Tasmania and then at the South Georgian bridge. No connection, and this is important, is indicated between Antarctica and either Africa or Madagascar. So far we have followed what may be called the vicissitudes of the great Permo-Carboniferous Gondwana land in its fullest imaginary extent, an enormous equatorial and south temperate belt from South America to Africa, South India and Australia, which seems to have provided the foundation of the present Southern continents, two of which temporarily joined Antarctica, of which however we know nothing except that it exists now. Let us next consider the Arctic and periarctic lands. Unfortunately very little is known about the region within the arctic circle. If it was all land, or more likely great changing archipelagoes, faunistic exchange between North America, Europe and Siberia would present no difficulties, but there is one connection which engages much attention, namely a land where now lies the North temperate and Northern part of the Atlantic ocean. How far south did it ever extend and what is the latest date of a direct practicable communication, say from North Western Europe to Greenland? Connections, perhaps often interrupted, e.g. between Greenland and Labrador, at another time between Greenland and Scandinavia, seem to have existed at least since the Permo-Carboniferous epoch. If they existed also in late Cretaceous and in Tertiary times, they would of course easily explain exchanges which we know to have repeatedly taken place between America and Europe, but they are not proved thereby, since most of these exchanges can almost as easily have occurred across the polar regions, and others still more easily by repeated junction of Siberia with Alaska. Let us now describe a hypothetical case based on the supposition of connecting bridges. Not to work in a circle, we select an important group which has not served as a basis for the reconstruction of bridges; and it must be a group which we feel justified in assuming to be old enough to have availed itself of ancient land-connections. The occurrence of one species of Peripatus in the whole of Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand (the latter being joined to Australia by way of New Britain in Cretaceous times but not later) puts the genus back into this epoch, no unsatisfactory assumption to the morphologist. The apparent absence of Peripatus in Madagascar indicates that it did not come from the east into Africa, that it was neither Afro-Indian, nor Afro-Australian; nor can it have started in South America. We therefore assume as its creative centre Australia or Malaya in the Cretaceous epoch, whence its occurrence in Sumatra, Malay Peninsula, New Britain, New Zealand and Australia is easily explained. Then extension across Antarctica to Patagonia and Chile, whence it could spread into the rest of South America as this became consolidated in early Tertiary times. For getting to the Antilles and into Mexico it would have to wait until the Miocene, but long before that time it could arrive in Africa, there surviving as a Congolese and a Cape species. This story is unsupported by a single fossil. Peripatus may have been "sub-universal" all over greater Gondwana land in Carboniferous times, and then its absence from Madagascar would be difficult to explain, but the migrations suggested above amount to little considering that the distance from Tasmania to South America could be covered in far less time than that represented by the whole of the Eocene epoch alone. There is yet another field, essentially the domain of geographical distribution, the cultivation of which promises fair to throw much light upon Nature's way of making species. This is the study of the organisms with regard to their environment. Instead of revealing pedigrees or of showing how and when the creatures got to a certain locality, it investigates how they behaved to meet the ever changing conditions of their habitats. There is a facies, characteristic of, and often peculiar to, the fauna of tropical moist forests, another of deserts, of high mountains, of underground life and so forth; these same facies are stamped upon whole associations of animals and plants, although these may be--and in widely separated countries generally are--drawn from totally different families of their respective orders. It does not go to the root of the matter to say that these facies have been brought about by the extermination of all the others which did not happen to fit into their particular environment. One might almost say that tropical moist forests must have arboreal frogs and that these are made out of whatever suitable material happened to be available; in Australia and South America Hylidae, in Africa Ranidae, since there Hylas are absent. The deserts must have lizards capable of standing the glare, the great changes of temperature, of running over or burrowing into the loose sand. When as in America Iguanids are available, some of these are thus modified, while in Africa and Asia the Agamids are drawn upon. Both in the Damara and in the Transcaspian deserts, a Gecko has been turned into a runner upon sand! We cannot assume that at various epochs deserts, and at others moist forests were continuous all over the world. The different facies and associations were developed at various times and places. Are we to suppose that, wherever tropical forests came into existence, amongst the stock of humivagous lizards were always some which presented those nascent variations which made them keep step with the similarly nascent forests, the overwhelming rest being eliminated? This principle would imply that the same stratum of lizards always had variations ready to fit any changed environment, forests and deserts, rocks and swamps. The study of Ecology indicates a different procedure, a great, almost boundless plasticity of the organism, not in the sense of an exuberant moulding force, but of a readiness to be moulded, and of this the "variations" are the visible outcome. In most cases identical facies are produced by heterogeneous convergences and these may seem to be but superficial, affecting only what some authors are pleased to call the physiological characters; but environment presumably affects first those parts by which the organism comes into contact with it most directly, and if the internal structures remain unchanged, it is not because these are less easily modified but because they are not directly affected. When they are affected, they too change deeply enough. That the plasticity should react so quickly--indeed this very quickness seems to have initiated our mistaking the variations called forth for something performed--and to the point, is itself the outcome of the long training which protoplasm has undergone since its creation. In Nature's workshop he does not succeed who has ready an arsenal of tools for every conceivable emergency, but he who can make a tool at the spur of the moment. The ordeal of the practical test is Charles Darwin's glorious conception of Natural Selection. XVIII. DARWIN AND GEOLOGY. By J.W. Judd, C.B., LL.D., F.R.S. (Mr Francis Darwin has related how his father occasionally came up from Down to spend a few days with his brother Erasmus in London, and, after his brother's death, with his daughter, Mrs Litchfield. On these occasions, it was his habit to arrange meetings with Huxley, to talk over zoological questions, with Hooker, to discuss botanical problems, and with Lyell to hold conversations on geology. After the death of Lyell, Darwin, knowing my close intimacy with his friend during his later years, used to ask me to meet him when he came to town, and "talk geology." The "talks" took place sometimes at Jermyn Street Museum, at other times in the Royal College of Science, South Kensington; but more frequently, after having lunch with him, at his brother's or his daughter's house. On several occasions, however, I had the pleasure of visiting him at Down. In the postscript of a letter (of April 15, 1880) arranging one of these visits, he writes: "Since poor, dear Lyell's death, I rarely have the pleasure of geological talk with anyone.") In one of the very interesting conversations which I had with Charles Darwin during the last seven years of his life, he asked me in a very pointed manner if I were able to recall the circumstances, accidental or otherwise, which had led me to devote myself to geological studies. He informed me that he was making similar inquiries of other friends, and I gathered from what he said that he contemplated at that time a study of the causes producing SCIENTIFIC BIAS in individual minds. I have no means of knowing how far this project ever assumed anything like concrete form, but certain it is that Darwin himself often indulged in the processes of mental introspection and analysis; and he has thus fortunately left us--in his fragments of autobiography and in his correspondence--the materials from which may be reconstructed a fairly complete history of his own mental development. There are two perfectly distinct inquiries which we have to undertake in connection with the development of Darwin's ideas on the subject of evolution: FIRST. How, when, and under what conditions was Darwin led to a conviction that species were not immutable, but were derived from pre-existing forms? SECONDLY. By what lines of reasoning and research was he brought to regard "natural selection" as a vera causa in the process of evolution? It is the first of these inquiries which specially interests the geologist; though geology undoubtedly played a part--and by no means an insignificant part--in respect to the second inquiry. When, indeed, the history comes to be written of that great revolution of thought in the nineteenth century, by which the doctrine of evolution, from being the dream of poets and visionaries, gradually grew to be the accepted creed of naturalists, the paramount influence exerted by the infant science of geology--and especially that resulting from the publication of Lyell's epoch-making work, the "Principles of Geology"--cannot fail to be regarded as one of the leading factors. Herbert Spencer in his "Autobiography" bears testimony to the effect produced on his mind by the recently published "Principles", when, at the age of twenty, he had already begun to speculate on the subject of evolution (Herbert Spencer's "Autobiography", London, 1904, Vol. I. pages 175-177.); and Alfred Russel Wallace is scarcely less emphatic concerning the part played by Lyell's teaching in his scientific education. (See "My Life; a record of Events and Opinions", London, 1905, Vol. I. page 355, etc. Also his review of Lyell's "Principles" in "Quarterly Review" (Vol. 126), 1869, pages 359-394. See also "The Darwin-Wallace Celebration by the Linnean Society" (1909), page 118.) Huxley wrote in 1887 "I owe more than I can tell to the careful study of the "Principles of Geology" in my young days." ("Science and Pseudo Science"; "Collected Essays", London, 1902, Vol. V. page 101.) As for Charles Darwin, he never tired--either in his published writings, his private correspondence or his most intimate conversations--of ascribing the awakening of his enthusiasm and the direction of his energies towards the elucidation of the problem of development to the "Principles of Geology" and the personal influence of its author. Huxley has well expressed what the author of the "Origin of Species" so constantly insisted upon, in the statements "Darwin's greatest work is the outcome of the unflinching application to Biology of the leading idea and the method applied in the "Principles" to Geology ("Proc. Roy. Soc." Vol. XLIV. (1888), page viii.; "Collected Essays" II. page 268, 1902.), and "Lyell, for others, as for myself, was the chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" II. page 190.) We propose therefore to consider, first, what Darwin owed to geology and its cultivators, and in the second place how he was able in the end so fully to pay a great debt which he never failed to acknowledge. Thanks to the invaluable materials contained in the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" (3 vols.) published by Mr Francis Darwin in 1887; and to "More Letters of Charles Darwin" (2 vols.) issued by the same author, in conjunction with Professor A.C. Seward, in 1903, we are permitted to follow the various movements in Darwin's mind, and are able to record the story almost entirely in his own words. (The first of these works is indicated in the following pages by the letters "L.L."; the second by "M.L.") From the point of view of the geologist, Darwin's life naturally divides itself into four periods. In the first, covering twenty-two years, various influences were at work militating, now for and now against, his adoption of a geological career; in the second period--the five memorable years of the voyage of the "Beagle"--the ardent sportsman with some natural-history tastes, gradually became the most enthusiastic and enlightened of geologists; in the third period, lasting ten years, the valuable geological recruit devoted nearly all his energies and time to geological study and discussion and to preparing for publication the numerous observations made by him during the voyage; the fourth period, which covers the latter half of his life, found Darwin gradually drawn more and more from geological to biological studies, though always retaining the deepest interest in the progress and fortunes of his "old love." But geologists gladly recognise the fact that Darwin immeasurably better served their science by this biological work, than he could possibly have done by confining himself to purely geological questions. From his earliest childhood, Darwin was a collector, though up to the time when, at eight years of age, he went to a preparatory school, seals, franks and similar trifles appear to have been the only objects of his quest. But a stone, which one of his schoolfellows at that time gave to him, seems to have attracted his attention and set him seeking for pebbles and minerals; as the result of this newly acquired taste, he says (writing in 1838) "I distinctly recollect the desire I had of being able to know something about every pebble in front of the hall door--it was my earliest and only geological aspiration at that time." ("M.L." I. page 3.) He further suspects that while at Mr Case's school "I do not remember any mental pursuits except those of collecting stones," etc... "I was born a naturalist." ("M.L." I. page 4.) The court-yard in front of the hall door at the Mount House, Darwin's birthplace and the home of his childhood, is surrounded by beds or rockeries on which lie a number of pebbles. Some of these pebbles (in quite recent times as I am informed) have been collected to form a "cobbled" space in front of the gate in the outer wall, which fronts the hall door; and a similar "cobbled area," there is reason to believe, may have existed in Darwin's childhood before the door itself. The pebbles, which were obtained from a neighbouring gravel-pit, being derived from the glacial drift, exhibit very striking differences in colour and form. It was probably this circumstance which awakened in the child his love of observation and speculation. It is certainly remarkable that "aspirations" of the kind should have arisen in the mind of a child of 9 or 10! When he went to Shrewsbury School, he relates "I continued collecting minerals with much zeal, but quite unscientifically,--all that I cared about was a new-NAMED mineral, and I hardly attempted to classify them." ("L.L." I. page 34.) There has stood from very early times in Darwin's native town of Shrewsbury, a very notable boulder which has probably marked a boundary and is known as the "Bell-stone"--giving its name to a house and street. Darwin tells us in his "Autobiography" that while he was at Shrewsbury School at the age of 13 or 14 "an old Mr Cotton in Shropshire, who knew a good deal about rocks" pointed out to me "... the 'bell-stone'; he told me that there was no rock of the same kind nearer than Cumberland or Scotland, and he solemnly assured me that the world would come to an end before anyone would be able to explain how this stone came where it now lay"! Darwin adds "This produced a deep impression on me, and I meditated over this wonderful stone." ("L.L." I. page 41.) The "bell-stone" has now, owing to the necessities of building, been removed a short distance from its original site, and is carefully preserved within the walls of a bank. It is a block of irregular shape 3 feet long and 2 feet wide, and about 1 foot thick, weighing probably not less than one-third of a ton. By the courtesy of the directors of the National Provincial Bank of England, I have been able to make a minute examination of it, and Professors Bonney and Watts, with Mr Harker and Mr Fearnsides have given me their valuable assistance. The rock is a much altered andesite and was probably derived from the Arenig district in North Wales, or possibly from a point nearer the Welsh Border. (I am greatly indebted to the Managers of the Bank at Shrewsbury for kind assistance in the examination of this interesting memorial: and Mr H.T. Beddoes, the Curator of the Shrewsbury Museum, has given me some archaeological information concerning the stone. Mr Richard Cotton was a good local naturalist, a Fellow both of the Geological and Linnean Societies; and to the officers of these societies I am indebted for information concerning him. He died in 1839, and although he does not appear to have published any scientific papers, he did far more for science by influencing the career of the school boy!) It was of course brought to where Shrewsbury now stands by the agency of a glacier--as Darwin afterwards learnt. We can well believe from the perusal of these reminiscences that, at this time, Darwin's mind was, as he himself says, "prepared for a philosophical treatment of the subject" of Geology. ("L.L." I. page 41.) When at the age of 16, however, he was entered as a medical student at Edinburgh University, he not only did not get any encouragement of his scientific tastes, but was positively repelled by the ordinary instruction given there. Dr Hope's lectures on Chemistry, it is true, interested the boy, who with his brother Erasmus had made a laboratory in the toolhouse, and was nicknamed "Gas" by his schoolfellows, while undergoing solemn and public reprimand from Dr Butler at Shrewsbury School for thus wasting his time. ("L.L." I. page 35.) But most of the other Edinburgh lectures were "intolerably dull," "as dull as the professors" themselves, "something fearful to remember." In after life the memory of these lectures was like a nightmare to him. He speaks in 1840 of Jameson's lectures as something "I... for my sins experienced!" ("L.L." I. page 340.) Darwin especially signalises these lectures on Geology and Zoology, which he attended in his second year, as being worst of all "incredibly dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the determination never so long as I lived to read a book on Geology, or in any way to study the science!" ("L.L." I. page 41.) The misfortune was that Edinburgh at that time had become the cockpit in which the barren conflict between "Neptunism" and "Plutonism" was being waged with blind fury and theological bitterness. Jameson and his pupils, on the one hand, and the friends and disciples of Hutton, on the other, went to the wildest extremes in opposing each other's peculiar tenets. Darwin tells us that he actually heard Jameson "in a field lecture at Salisbury Craigs, discoursing on a trap-dyke, with amygdaloidal margins and the strata indurated on each side, with volcanic rocks all around us, say that it was a fissure filled with sediment from above, adding with a sneer that there were men who maintained that it had been injected from beneath in a molten condition." ("L.L." I. pages 41-42.) "When I think of this lecture," added Darwin, "I do not wonder that I determined never to attend to Geology." (This was written in 1876 and Darwin had in the summer of 1839 revisited and carefully studied the locality ("L.L." I. page 290.) It is probable that most of Jameson's teaching was of the same controversial and unilluminating character as this field-lecture at Salisbury Craigs. There can be no doubt that, while at Edinburgh, Darwin must have become acquainted with the doctrines of the Huttonian School. Though so young, he mixed freely with the scientific society of the city, Macgillivray, Grant, Leonard Horner, Coldstream, Ainsworth and others being among his acquaintances, while he attended and even read papers at the local scientific societies. It is to be feared, however, that what Darwin would hear most of, as characteristic of the Huttonian teaching, would be assertions that chalk-flints were intrusions of molten silica, that fossil wood and other petrifactions had been impregnated with fused materials, that heat--but never water--was always the agent by which the induration and crystallisation of rock-materials (even siliceous conglomerate, limestone and rock-salt) had been effected! These extravagant "anti-Wernerian" views the young student might well regard as not one whit less absurd and repellant than the doctrine of the "aqueous precipitation" of basalt. There is no evidence that Darwin, even if he ever heard of them, was in any way impressed, in his early career, by the suggestive passages in Hutton and Playfair, to which Lyell afterwards called attention, and which foreshadowed the main principles of Uniformitarianism. As a matter of fact, I believe that the influence of Hutton and Playfair in the development of a philosophical theory of geology has been very greatly exaggerated by later writers on the subject. Just as Wells and Matthew anticipated the views of Darwin on Natural Selection, but without producing any real influence on the course of biological thought, so Hutton and Playfair adumbrated doctrines which only became the basis of vivifying theory in the hands of Lyell. Alfred Russel Wallace has very justly remarked that when Lyell wrote the "Principles of Geology", "the doctrines of Hutton and Playfair, so much in advance of their age, seemed to be utterly forgotten." ("Quarterly Review", Vol. CXXVI. (1869), page 363.) In proof of this it is only necessary to point to the works of the great masters of English geology, who preceded Lyell, in which the works of Hutton and his followers are scarcely ever mentioned. This is true even of the "Researches in Theoretical Geology" and the other works of the sagacious De la Beche. (Of the strength and persistence of the prejudice felt against Lyell's views by his contemporaries, I had a striking illustration some little time after Lyell's death. One of the old geologists who in the early years of the century had done really good work in connection with the Geological Society expressed a hope that I was not "one of those who had been carried away by poor Lyell's fads." My surprise was indeed great when further conversation showed me that the whole of the "Principles" were included in the "fads"!) Darwin himself possessed a copy of Playfair's "Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory", and occasionally quotes it; but I have met with only one reference to Hutton, and that a somewhat enigmatical one, in all Darwin's writings. In a letter to Lyell in 1841, when his mind was much exercised concerning glacial questions, he says "What a grand new feature all this ice work is in Geology! How old Hutton would have stared!" ("M.L." II. page 149.) As a consequence of the influences brought to bear on his mind during his two years' residence in Edinburgh, Darwin, who had entered that University with strong geological aspirations, left it and proceeded to Cambridge with a pronounced distaste for the whole subject. The result of this was that, during his career as an under-graduate, he neglected all the opportunities for geological study. During that important period of life, when he was between eighteen and twenty years of age, Darwin spent his time in riding, shooting and beetle-hunting, pursuits which were undoubtedly an admirable preparation for his future work as an explorer; but in none of his letters of this period does he even mention geology. He says, however, "I was so sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend Sedgwick's eloquent and interesting lectures." ("L.L." I. page 48.) It was only after passing his examination, and when he went up to spend two extra terms at Cambridge, that geology again began to attract his attention. The reading of Sir John Herschel's "Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy", and of Humboldt's "Personal Narrative", a copy of which last had been given to him by his good friend and mentor Henslow, roused his dormant enthusiasm for science, and awakened in his mind a passionate desire for travel. And it was from Henslow, whom he had accompanied in his excursions, but without imbibing any marked taste, at that time, for botany, that the advice came to think of and to "begin the study of geology." ("L.L." I. page 56.) This was in 1831, and in the summer vacation of that year we find him back again at Shrewsbury "working like a tiger" at geology and endeavouring to make a map and section of Shropshire--work which he says was not "as easy as I expected." ("L.L." I. page 189.) No better field for geological studies could possibly be found than Darwin's native county. Writing to Henslow at this time, and referring to a form of the instrument devised by his friend, Darwin says: "I am very glad to say I think the clinometer will answer admirably. I put all the tables in my bedroom at every conceivable angle and direction. I will venture to say that I have measured them as accurately as any geologist going could do." But he adds: "I have been working at so many things that I have not got on much with geology. I suspect the first expedition I take, clinometer and hammer in hand, will send me back very little wiser and a good deal more puzzled than when I started." ("L.L." I. page 189.) Valuable aid was, however, at hand, for at this time Sedgwick, to whom Darwin had been introduced by the ever-helpful Henslow, was making one of his expeditions into Wales, and consented to accept the young student as his companion during the geological tour. ("L.L." I. page 56.) We find Darwin looking forward to this privilege with the keenest interest. ("L.L." I. page 189.) When at the beginning of August (1831), Sedgwick arrived at his father's house in Shrewsbury, where he spent a night, Darwin began to receive his first and only instruction as a field-geologist. The journey they took together led them through Llangollen, Conway, Bangor, and Capel Curig, at which latter place they parted after spending many hours in examining the rocks at Cwm Idwal with extreme care, seeking for fossils but without success. Sedgwick's mode of instruction was admirable--he from time to time sent the pupil off on a line parallel to his own, "telling me to bring back specimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map." ("L.L." I. page 57.) On his return to Shrewsbury, Darwin wrote to Henslow, "My trip with Sedgwick answered most perfectly," ("L.L." I. page 195.), and in the following year he wrote again from South America to the same friend, "Tell Professor Sedgwick he does not know how much I am indebted to him for the Welsh expedition; it has given me an interest in Geology which I would not give up for any consideration. I do not think I ever spent a more delightful three weeks than pounding the north-west mountains." ("L.L." I. pages 237-8.) It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that at this time Darwin had acquired anything like the affection for geological study, which he afterwards developed. After parting with Sedgwick, he walked in a straight line by compass and map across the mountains to Barmouth to visit a reading party there, but taking care to return to Shropshire before September 1st, in order to be ready for the shooting. For as he candidly tells us, "I should have thought myself mad to give up the first days of partridge-shooting for geology or any other science!" ("L.L." I. page 58.) Any regret we may be disposed to feel that Darwin did not use his opportunities at Edinburgh and Cambridge to obtain systematic and practical instruction in mineralogy and geology, will be mitigated, however, when we reflect on the danger which he would run of being indoctrinated with the crude "catastrophic" views of geology, which were at that time prevalent in all the centres of learning. Writing to Henslow in the summer of 1831, Darwin says "As yet I have only indulged in hypotheses, but they are such powerful ones that I suppose, if they were put into action but for one day, the world would come to an end." ("L.L." I. page 189.) May we not read in this passage an indication that the self-taught geologist had, even at this early stage, begun to feel a distrust for the prevalent catastrophism, and that his mind was becoming a field in which the seeds which Lyell was afterwards to sow would "fall on good ground"? The second period of Darwin's geological career--the five years spent by him on board the "Beagle"--was the one in which by far the most important stage in his mental development was accomplished. He left England a healthy, vigorous and enthusiastic collector; he returned five years later with unique experiences, the germs of great ideas, and a knowledge which placed him at once in the foremost ranks of the geologists of that day. Huxley has well said that "Darwin found on board the "Beagle" that which neither the pedagogues of Shrewsbury, nor the professoriate of Edinburgh, nor the tutors of Cambridge had managed to give him." ("Proc. Roy. Soc." Vol. XLIV. (1888), page IX.) Darwin himself wrote, referring to the date at which the voyage was expected to begin: "My second life will then commence, and it shall be as a birthday for the rest of my life." ("L.L." I. page 214.); and looking back on the voyage after forty years, he wrote; "The voyage of the 'Beagle' has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career;... I have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training or education of my mind; I was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history, and thus my powers of observation were improved, though they were always fairly developed." ("L.L." I. page 61.) Referring to these general studies in natural history, however, Darwin adds a very significant remark: "The investigation of the geology of the places visited was far more important, as reasoning here comes into play. On first examining a new district nothing can appear more hopeless than the chaos of rocks; but by recording the stratification and nature of the rocks and fossils at many points, always reasoning and predicting what will be found elsewhere, light soon begins to dawn on the district, and the structure of the whole becomes more or less intelligible." ("L.L." I. page 62.) The famous voyage began amid doubts, discouragements and disappointments. Fearful of heart-disease, sad at parting from home and friends, depressed by sea-sickness, the young explorer, after being twice driven back by baffling winds, reached the great object of his ambition, the island of Teneriffe, only to find that, owing to quarantine regulations, landing was out of the question. But soon this inauspicious opening of the voyage was forgotten. Henslow had advised his pupil to take with him the first volume of Lyell's "Principles of Geology", then just published--but cautioned him (as nearly all the leaders in geological science at that day would certainly have done) "on no account to accept the views therein advocated." ("L.L." I. page 73.) It is probable that the days of waiting, discomfort and sea-sickness at the beginning of the voyage were relieved by the reading of this volume. For he says that when he landed, three weeks after setting sail from Plymouth, in St Jago, the largest of the Cape de Verde Islands, the volume had already been "studied attentively; and the book was of the highest service to me in many ways... " His first original geological work, he declares, "showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author, whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read." ("L.L." I. page 62.) At St Jago Darwin first experienced the joy of making new discoveries, and his delight was unbounded. Writing to his father he says, "Geologising in a volcanic country is most delightful; besides the interest attached to itself, it leads you into most beautiful and retired spots." ("L.L." I. page 228.) To Henslow he wrote of St Jago: "Here we spent three most delightful weeks... St Jago is singularly barren, and produces few plants or insects, so that my hammer was my usual companion, and in its company most delightful hours I spent." "The geology was pre-eminently interesting, and I believe quite new; there are some facts on a large scale of upraised coast (which is an excellent epoch for all the volcanic rocks to date from), that would interest Mr Lyell." ("L.L." I. page 235.) After more than forty years the memory of this, his first geological work, seems as fresh as ever, and he wrote in 1876, "The geology of St Jago is very striking, yet simple: a stream of lava formerly flowed over the bed of the sea, formed of triturated recent shells and corals, which it has baked into a hard white rock. Since then the whole island has been upheaved. But the line of white rock revealed to me a new and important fact, namely, that there had been afterwards subsidence round the craters, which had since been in action, and had poured forth lava." ("L.L." I. page 65.) It was at this time, probably, that Darwin made his first attempt at drawing a sketch-map and section to illustrate the observations he had made (see his "Volcanic Islands", pages 1 and 9). His first important geological discovery, that of the subsidence of strata around volcanic vents (which has since been confirmed by Mr Heaphy in New Zealand and other authors) awakened an intense enthusiasm, and he writes: "It then first dawned on me that I might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight. That was a memorable hour to me, and how distinctly I can call to mind the low cliff of lava beneath which I rested, with the sun glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and with living corals in the tidal pools at my feet." ("L.L." I. page 66.) But it was when the "Beagle", after touching at St Paul's rock and Tristan d'Acunha (for a sufficient time only to collect specimens), reached the shores of South America, that Darwin's real work began; and he was able, while the marine surveys were in progress, to make many extensive journeys on land. His letters at this time show that geology had become his chief delight, and such exclamations as "Geology carries the day," "I find in Geology a never failing interest," etc. abound in his correspondence. Darwin's time was divided between the study of the great deposits of red mud--the Pampean formation--with its interesting fossil bones and shells affording proofs of slow and constant movements of the land, and the underlying masses of metamorphic and plutonic rocks. Writing to Henslow in March, 1834, he says: "I am quite charmed with Geology, but, like the wise animal between two bundles of hay, I do not know which to like best; the old crystalline groups of rocks, or the softer and fossiliferous beds. When puzzling about stratification, etc., I feel inclined to cry 'a fig for your big oysters, and your bigger megatheriums.' But then when digging out some fine bones, I wonder how any man can tire his arms with hammering granite." ("L.L." I. page 249.) We are told by Darwin that he loved to reason about and attempt to predict the nature of the rocks in each new district before he arrived at it. This love of guessing as to the geology of a district he was about to visit is amusingly expressed by him in a letter (of May, 1832) to his cousin and old college-friend, Fox. After alluding to the beetles he had been collecting--a taste his friend had in common with himself--he writes of geology that "It is like the pleasure of gambling. Speculating on first arriving, what the rocks may be, I often mentally cry out 3 to 1 tertiary against primitive; but the latter have hitherto won all the bets." ("L.L." I. page 233.) Not the least important of the educational results of the voyage to Darwin was the acquirement by him of those habits of industry and method which enabled him in after life to accomplish so much--in spite of constant failures of health. From the outset, he daily undertook and resolutely accomplished, in spite of sea-sickness and other distractions, four important tasks. In the first place he regularly wrote up the pages of his Journal, in which, paying great attention to literary style and composition, he recorded only matters that would be of general interest, such as remarks on scenery and vegetation, on the peculiarities and habits of animals, and on the characters, avocations and political institutions of the various races of men with whom he was brought in contact. It was the freshness of these observations that gave his "Narrative" so much charm. Only in those cases in which his ideas had become fully crystallised, did he attempt to deal with scientific matters in this journal. His second task was to write in voluminous note-books facts concerning animals and plants, collected on sea or land, which could not be well made out from specimens preserved in spirit; but he tells us that, owing to want of skill in dissecting and drawing, much of the time spent in this work was entirely thrown away, "a great pile of MS. which I made during the voyage has proved almost useless." ("L.L." I. page 62.) Huxley confirmed this judgment on his biological work, declaring that "all his zeal and industry resulted, for the most part, in a vast accumulation of useless manuscript." ("Proc. Roy. Soc." Vol. XLIV. (1888), page IX.) Darwin's third task was of a very different character and of infinitely greater value. It consisted in writing notes of his journeys on land--the notes being devoted to the geology of the districts visited by him. These formed the basis, not only of a number of geological papers published on his return, but also of the three important volumes forming "The Geology of the voyage of the 'Beagle'". On July 24th, 1834, when little more than half of the voyage had been completed, Darwin wrote to Henslow, "My notes are becoming bulky. I have about 600 small quarto pages full; about half of this is Geology." ("M.L." I. page 14.) The last, and certainly not the least important of all his duties, consisted in numbering, cataloguing, and packing his specimens for despatch to Henslow, who had undertaken the care of them. In his letters he often expresses the greatest solicitude lest the value of these specimens should be impaired by the removal of the numbers corresponding to his manuscript lists. Science owes much to Henslow's patient care of the collections sent to him by Darwin. The latter wrote in Henslow's biography, "During the five years' voyage, he regularly corresponded with me and guided my efforts; he received, opened, and took care of all the specimens sent home in many large boxes." ("Life of Henslow", by L. Jenyns (Blomefield), London, 1862, page 53.) Darwin's geological specimens are now very appropriately lodged for the most part in the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, his original Catalogue with subsequent annotations being preserved with them. From an examination of these catalogues and specimens we are able to form a fair notion of the work done by Darwin in his little cabin in the "Beagle", in the intervals between his land journeys. Besides writing up his notes, it is evident that he was able to accomplish a considerable amount of study of his specimens, before they were packed up for despatch to Henslow. Besides hand-magnifiers and a microscope, Darwin had an equipment for blowpipe-analysis, a contact-goniometer and magnet; and these were in constant use by him. His small library of reference (now included in the Collection of books placed by Mr F. Darwin in the Botany School at Cambridge ("Catalogue of the Library of Charles Darwin now in the Botany School, Cambridge". Compiled by H.W. Rutherford; with an introduction by Francis Darwin. Cambridge, 1908.)) appears to have been admirably selected, and in all probability contained (in addition to a good many works relating to South America) a fair number of excellent books of reference. Among those relating to mineralogy, he possessed the manuals of Phillips, Alexander Brongniart, Beudant, von Kobell and Jameson: all the "Cristallographie" of Brochant de Villers and, for blowpipe work, Dr Children's translation of the book of Berzelius on the subject. In addition to these, he had Henry's "Experimental Chemistry" and Ure's "Dictionary" (of Chemistry). A work, he evidently often employed, was P. Syme's book on "Werner's Nomenclature of Colours"; while, for Petrology, he used Macculloch's "Geological Classification of Rocks". How diligently and well he employed his instruments and books is shown by the valuable observations recorded in the annotated Catalogues drawn up on board ship. These catalogues have on the right-hand pages numbers and descriptions of the specimens, and on the opposite pages notes on the specimens--the result of experiments made at the time and written in a very small hand. Of the subsequently made pencil notes, I shall have to speak later. (I am greatly indebted to my friend Mr A. Harker, F.R.S., for his assistance in examining these specimens and catalogues. He has also arranged the specimens in the Sedgwick Museum, so as to make reference to them easy. The specimens from Ascension and a few others are however in the Museum at Jermyn Street.) It is a question of great interest to determine the period and the occasion of Darwin's first awakening to the great problem of the transmutation of species. He tells us himself that his grandfather's "Zoonomia" had been read by him "but without producing any effect," and that his friend Grant's rhapsodies on Lamarck and his views on evolution only gave rise to "astonishment." ("L.L." I. page 38.) Huxley, who had probably never seen the privately printed volume of letters to Henslow, expressed the opinion that Darwin could not have perceived the important bearing of his discovery of bones in the Pampean Formation, until they had been studied in England, and their analogies pronounced upon by competent comparative anatomists. And this seemed to be confirmed by Darwin's own entry in his pocket-book for 1837, "In July opened first notebook on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils... " ("L.L." I. page 276.) The second volume of Lyell's "Principles of Geology" was published in January, 1832, and Darwin's copy (like that of the other two volumes, in a sadly dilapidated condition from constant use) has in it the inscription, "Charles Darwin, Monte Video. Nov. 1832." As everyone knows, Darwin in dedicating the second edition of his Journal of the Voyage to Lyell declared, "the chief part of whatever scientific merit this journal and the other works of the author may possess, has been derived from studying the well-known and admirable 'Principles of Geology'". In the first chapter of this second volume of the "Principles", Lyell insists on the importance of the species question to the geologist, but goes on to point out the difficulty of accepting the only serious attempt at a transmutation theory which had up to that time appeared--that of Lamarck. In subsequent chapters he discusses the questions of the modification and variability of species, of hybridity, and of the geographical distribution of plants and animals. He then gives vivid pictures of the struggle for existence, ever going on between various species, and of the causes which lead to their extinction--not by overwhelming catastrophes, but by the silent and almost unobserved action of natural causes. This leads him to consider theories with regard to the introduction of new species, and, rejecting the fanciful notions of "centres or foci of creation," he argues strongly in favour of the view, as most reconcileable with observed facts, that "each species may have had its origin in a single pair, or individual, where an individual was sufficient, and species may have been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed space on the globe." ("Principles of Geology", Vol. II. (1st edition 1832), page 124. We now know, as has been so well pointed out by Huxley, that Lyell, as early as 1827, was prepared to accept the doctrine of the transmutation of species. In that year he wrote to Mantell, "What changes species may really undergo! How impossible will it be to distinguish and lay down a line, beyond which some of the so-called extinct species may have never passed into recent ones" (Lyell's "Life and Letters" Vol. I. page 168). To Sir John Herschel in 1836, he wrote, "In regard to the origination of new species, I am very glad to find that you think it probable that it may be carried on through the intervention of intermediate causes. I left this rather to be inferred, not thinking it worth while to offend a certain class of persons by embodying in words what would only be a speculation" (Ibid. page 467). He expressed the same views to Whewell in 1837 (Ibid. Vol. II. page 5.), and to Sedgwick (Ibid. Vol. II. page 36) to whom he says, of "the theory, that the creation of new species is going on at the present day"--"I really entertain it," but "I have studiously avoided laying the doctrine down dogmatically as capable of proof" (see Huxley in "L.L." II. pages 190-195.)) After pointing out how impossible it would be for a naturalist to prove that a newly DISCOVERED species was really newly CREATED (Mr F. Darwin has pointed out that his father (like Lyell) often used the term "Creation" in speaking of the origin of new species ("L.L." II. chapter 1.)), Lyell argued that no satisfactory evidence OF THE WAY in which these new forms were created, had as yet been discovered, but that he entertained the hope of a possible solution of the problem being found in the study of the geological record. It is not difficult, in reading these chapters of Lyell's great work, to realise what an effect they would have on the mind of Darwin, as new facts were collected and fresh observations concerning extinct and recent forms were made in his travels. We are not surprised to find him writing home, "I am become a zealous disciple of Mr Lyell's views, as known in his admirable book. Geologising in South America, I am tempted to carry parts to a greater extent even than he does." ("L.L." I. page 263.) Lyell's anticipation that the study of the geological record might afford a clue to the discovery of how new species originate was remarkably fulfilled, within a few months, by Darwin's discovery of fossil bones in the red Pampean mud. It is very true that, as Huxley remarked, Darwin's knowledge of comparative anatomy must have been, at that time, slight; but that he recognised the remarkable resemblances between the extinct and existing mammals of South America is proved beyond all question by a passage in his letter to Henslow, written November 24th, 1832: "I have been very lucky with fossil bones; I have fragments of at least six distinct animals... I found a large surface of osseous polygonal plates... Immediately I saw them I thought they must belong to an enormous armadillo, living species of which genus are so abundant here," and he goes on to say that he has "the lower jaw of some large animal which, from the molar teeth, I should think belonged to the Edentata." ("M.L." I. pages 11, 12. See "Extracts of Letters addressed to Prof. Henslow by C. Darwin" (1835), page 7.) Having found this important clue, Darwin followed it up with characteristic perseverance. In his quest for more fossil bones he was indefatigable. Mr Francis Darwin tells us, "I have often heard him speak of the despair with which he had to break off the projecting extremity of a huge, partly excavated bone, when the boat waiting for him would wait no longer." ("L.L." I. page 276 (footnote).) Writing to Haeckel in 1864, Darwin says: "I shall never forget my astonishment when I dug out a gigantic piece of armour, like that of the living armadillo." (Haeckel, "History of Creation", Vol. I. page 134, London, 1876.) In a letter to Henslow in 1834 Darwin says: "I have just got scent of some fossil bones... what they may be I do not know, but if gold or galloping will get them they shall be mine." ("M.L." I. page 15.) Darwin also showed his sense of the importance of the discovery of these bones by his solicitude about their safe arrival and custody. From the Falkland Isles (March, 1834), he writes to Henslow: "I have been alarmed by your expression 'cleaning all the bones' as I am afraid the printed numbers will be lost: the reason I am so anxious they should not be, is, that a part were found in a gravel with recent shells, but others in a very different bed. Now with these latter there were bones of an Agouti, a genus of animals, I believe, peculiar to America, and it would be curious to prove that some one of the genus co-existed with the Megatherium: such and many other points depend on the numbers being carefully preserved." ("Extracts from Letters etc.", pages 13-14.) In the abstract of the notes read to the Geological Society in 1835, we read: "In the gravel of Patagonia he (Darwin) also found many bones of the Megatherium and of five or six other species of quadrupeds, among which he has detected the bones of a species of Agouti. He also met with several examples of the polygonal plates, etc." ("Proc. Geol. Soc." Vol. II. pages 211-212.) Darwin's own recollections entirely bear out the conclusion that he fully recognised, WHILE IN SOUTH AMERICA, the wonderful significance of the resemblances between the extinct and recent mammalian faunas. He wrote in his "Autobiography": "During the voyage of the 'Beagle' I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos." ("L.L." I. page 82.) The impression made on Darwin's mind by the discovery of these fossil bones, was doubtless deepened as, in his progress southward from Brazil to Patagonia, he found similar species of Edentate animals everywhere replacing one another among the living forms, while, whenever fossils occurred, they also were seen to belong to the same remarkable group of animals. (While Darwin was making these observations in South America, a similar generalisation to that at which he arrived was being reached, quite independently and almost simultaneously, with respect to the fossil and recent mammals of Australia. In the year 1831, Clift gave to Jameson a list of bones occurring in the caves and breccias of Australia, and in publishing this list the latter referred to the fact that the forms belonged to marsupials, similar to those of the existing Australian fauna. But he also stated that, as a skull had been identified (doubtless erroneously) as having belonged to a hippopotamus, other mammals than marsupials must have spread over the island in late Tertiary times. It is not necessary to point out that this paper was quite unknown to Darwin while in South America. Lyell first noticed it in the third edition of his "Principles", which was published in May, 1834 (see "Edinb. New Phil. Journ." Vol. X. (1831), pages 394-6, and Lyell's "Principles" (3rd edition), Vol. III. page 421). Darwin referred to this discovery in 1839 (see his "Journal", page 210.)) That the passage in Darwin's pocket-book for 1837 can only refer to an AWAKENING of Darwin's interest in the subject--probably resulting from a sight of the bones when they were being unpacked--I think there cannot be the smallest doubt; AND WE MAY THEREFORE CONFIDENTLY FIX UPON NOVEMBER, 1832, AS THE DATE AT WHICH DARWIN COMMENCED THAT LONG SERIES OF OBSERVATIONS AND REASONINGS WHICH EVENTUALLY CULMINATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE "ORIGIN OF SPECIES". Equally certain is it, that it was his geological work that led Darwin into those paths of research which in the end conducted him to his great discoveries. I quite agree with the view expressed by Mr F. Darwin and Professor Seward, that Darwin, like Lyell, "thought it 'almost useless' to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was discovered" ("M.L." I. page 38.), and that possibly he may at times have vacillated in his opinions, but I believe there is evidence that, from the date mentioned, the "species question" was always more or less present in Darwin's mind. (Although we admit with Huxley that Darwin's training in comparative anatomy was very small, yet it may be remembered that he was a medical student for two years, and, if he hated the lectures, he enjoyed the society of naturalists. He had with him in the little "Beagle" library a fair number of zoological books, including works on Osteology by Cuvier, Desmarest and Lesson, as well as two French Encyclopaedias of Natural History. As a sportsman, he would obtain specimens of recent mammals in South America, and would thus have opportunities of studying their teeth and general anatomy. Keen observer, as he undoubtedly was, we need not then be surprised that he was able to make out the resemblances between the recent and fossil forms.) It is clear that, as time went on, Darwin became more and more absorbed in his geological work. One very significant fact was that the once ardent sportsman, when he found that shooting the necessary game and zoological specimens interfered with his work with the hammer, gave up his gun to his servant. ("L.L." I. page 63.) There is clear evidence that Darwin gradually became aware how futile were his attempts to add to zoological knowledge by dissection and drawing, while he felt ever increasing satisfaction with his geological work. The voyage fortunately extended to a much longer period (five years) than the two originally intended, but after being absent nearly three years, Darwin wrote to his sister in November, 1834, "Hurrah! hurrah! it is fixed that the 'Beagle' shall not go one mile south of Cape Tres Montes (about 200 miles south of Chiloe), and from that point to Valparaiso will be finished in about five months. We shall examine the Chonos Archipelago, entirely unknown, and the curious inland sea behind Chiloe. For me it is glorious. Cape Tres Montes is the most southern point where there is much geological interest, as there the modern beds end. The Captain then talks of crossing the Pacific; but I think we shall persuade him to finish the coast of Peru, where the climate is delightful, the country hideously sterile, but abounding with the highest interest to the geologist... I have long been grieved and most sorry at the interminable length of the voyage (though I never would have quitted it)... I could not make up my mind to return. I could not give up all the geological castles in the air I had been building up for the last two years." ("L.L." I. pages 257-58.) In April, 1835, he wrote to another sister: "I returned a week ago from my excursion across the Andes to Mendoza. Since leaving England I have never made so successful a journey... how deeply I have enjoyed it; it was something more than enjoyment; I cannot express the delight which I felt at such a famous winding-up of all my geology in South America. I literally could hardly sleep at nights for thinking over my day's work. The scenery was so new, and so majestic; everything at an elevation of 12,000 feet bears so different an aspect from that in the lower country... To a geologist, also, there are such manifest proofs of excessive violence; the strata of the highest pinnacles are tossed about like the crust of a broken pie." ("L.L." I. pages 259-60.) Darwin anticipated with intense pleasure his visit to the Galapagos Islands. On July 12th, 1835, he wrote to Henslow: "In a few days' time the "Beagle" will sail for the Galapagos Islands. I look forward with joy and interest to this, both as being somewhat nearer to England and for the sake of having a good look at an active volcano. Although we have seen lava in abundance, I have never yet beheld the crater." ("M.L." I. page 26.) He could little anticipate, as he wrote these lines, the important aid in the solution of the "species question" that would ever after make his visit to the Galapagos Islands so memorable. In 1832, as we have seen, the great discovery of the relations of living to extinct mammals in the same area had dawned upon his mind; in 1835 he was to find a second key for opening up the great mystery, by recognising the variations of similar types in adjoining islands among the Galapagos. The final chapter in the second volume of the "Principles" had aroused in Darwin's mind a desire to study coral-reefs, which was gratified during his voyage across the Pacific and Indian Oceans. His theory on the subject was suggested about the end of 1834 or the beginning of 1835, as he himself tells us, before he had seen a coral-reef, and resulted from his work during two years in which he had "been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of South America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with denudation and the deposition of sediment." ("L.L." I. page 70.) On arriving at the Cape of Good Hope in July, 1836, Darwin was greatly gratified by hearing that Sedgwick had spoken to his father in high terms of praise concerning the work done by him in South America. Referring to the news from home, when he reached Bahia once more, on the return voyage (August, 1836), he says: "The desert, volcanic rocks, and wild sea of Ascension... suddenly wore a pleasing aspect, and I set to work with a good-will at my old work of Geology." ("L.L." I. page 265.) Writing fifty years later, he says: "I clambered over the mountains of Ascension with a bounding step and made the volcanic rocks resound under my geological hammer!" ("L.L." I. page 66.) That his determination was now fixed to devote his own labours to the task of working out the geological results of the voyage, and that he was prepared to leave to more practised hands the study of his biological collections, is clear from the letters he sent home at this time. From St Helena he wrote to Henslow asking that he would propose him as a Fellow of the Geological Society; and his Certificate, in Henslow's handwriting, is dated September 8th, 1836, being signed from personal knowledge by Henslow and Sedgwick. He was proposed on November 2nd and elected November 30th, being formally admitted to the Society by Lyell, who was then President, on January 4th, 1837, on which date he also read his first paper. Darwin did not become a Fellow of the Linnean Society till eighteen years later (in 1854). An estimate of the value and importance of Darwin's geological discoveries during the voyage of the "Beagle" can best be made when considering the various memoirs and books in which the author described them. He was too cautious to allow himself to write his first impressions in his Journal, and wisely waited till he could study his specimens under better conditions and with help from others on his return. The extracts published from his correspondence with Henslow and others, while he was still abroad, showed, nevertheless, how great was the mass of observation, how suggestive and pregnant with results were the reasonings of the young geologist. Two sets of these extracts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were printed while he was still abroad. The first of these was the series of "Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America, in the years 1832, 1833, 1834 and 1835, with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza". Professor Sedgwick, who read these notes to the Geological Society on November 18th, 1835, stated that "they were extracted from a series of letters (addressed to Professor Henslow), containing a great mass of information connected with almost every branch of natural history," and that he (Sedgwick) had made a selection of the remarks which he thought would be more especially interesting to the Geological Society. An abstract of three pages was published in the "Proceedings of the Geological Society" (Vol. II. pages 210-12.), but so unknown was the author at this time that he was described as F. Darwin, Esq., of St John's College, Cambridge! Almost simultaneously (on November 16th, 1835) a second set of extracts from these letters--this time of a general character--were read to the Philosophical Society at Cambridge, and these excited so much interest that they were privately printed in pamphlet form for circulation among the members. Many expeditions and "scientific missions" have been despatched to various parts of the world since the return of the "Beagle" in 1836, but it is doubtful whether any, even the most richly endowed of them, has brought back such stores of new information and fresh discoveries as did that little "ten-gun brig"--certainly no cabin or laboratory was the birth-place of ideas of such fruitful character as was that narrow end of a chart-room, where the solitary naturalist could climb into his hammock and indulge in meditation. The third and most active portion of Darwin's career as a geologist was the period which followed his return to England at the end of 1836. His immediate admission to the Geological Society, at the beginning of 1837, coincided with an important crisis in the history of geological science. The band of enthusiasts who nearly thirty years before had inaugurated the Geological Society--weary of the fruitless conflicts between "Neptunists" and "Plutonists"--had determined to eschew theory and confine their labours to the collection of facts, their publications to the careful record of observations. Greenough, the actual founder of the Society, was an ardent Wernerian, and nearly all his fellow-workers had come, more or less directly, under the Wernerian teaching. Macculloch alone gave valuable support to the Huttonian doctrines, so far as they related to the influence of igneous activity--but the most important portion of the now celebrated "Theory of the Earth"--that dealing with the competency of existing agencies to account for changes in past geological times--was ignored by all alike. Macculloch's influence on the development of geology, which might have had far-reaching effects, was to a great extent neutralised by his peculiarities of mind and temper; and, after a stormy and troublous career, he retired from the society in 1832. In all the writings of the great pioneers in English geology, Hutton and his splendid generalisation are scarcely ever referred to. The great doctrines of Uniformitarianism, which he had foreshadowed, were completely ignored, and only his extravagances of "anti-Wernerianism" seem to have been remembered. When between 1830 and 1832, Lyell, taking up the almost forgotten ideas of Hutton, von Hoff and Prevost, published that bold challenge to the Catastrophists--the "Principles of Geology"--he was met with the strongest opposition, not only from the outside world, which was amused by his "absurdities" and shocked by his "impiety"--but not less from his fellow-workers and friends in the Geological Society. For Lyell's numerous original observations, and his diligent collection of facts his contemporaries had nothing but admiration, and they cheerfully admitted him to the highest offices in the society, but they met his reasonings on geological theory with vehement opposition and his conclusions with coldness and contempt. There is, indeed, a very striking parallelism between the reception of the "Principles of Geology" by Lyell's contemporaries and the manner in which the "Origin of Species" was met a quarter of a century later, as is so vividly described by Huxley. ("L.L." II. pages 179-204.) Among Lyell's fellow-geologists, two only--G. Poulett Scrope and John Herschel (Both Lyell and Darwin fully realised the value of the support of these two friends. Scrope in his appreciative reviews of the "Principles" justly pointed out what was the weakest point, the inadequate recognition of sub-aerial as compared with marine denudation. Darwin also admitted that Scrope had to a great extent forestalled him in his theory of Foliation. Herschel from the first insisted that the leading idea of the "Principles" must be applied to organic as well as to inorganic nature and must explain the appearance of new species (see Lyell's "Life and Letters", Vol. I. page 467). Darwin tells us that Herschel's "Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy" with Humboldt's "Personal Narrative" "stirred up in me a burning zeal" in his undergraduate days. I once heard Lyell exclaim with fervour "If ever there was a heaven-born genius it was John Herschel!")--declared themselves from the first his strong supporters. Scrope in two luminous articles in the "Quarterly Review" did for Lyell what Huxley accomplished for Darwin in his famous review in the "Times"; but Scrope unfortunately was at that time immersed in the stormy sea of politics, and devoted his great powers of exposition to the preparation of fugitive pamphlets. Herschel, like Scrope, was unable to support Lyell at the Geological Society, owing to his absence on the important astronomical mission to the Cape. It thus came about that, in the frequent conflicts of opinion within the walls of the Geological Society, Lyell had to bear the brunt of battle for Uniformitarianism quite alone, and it is to be feared that he found himself sadly overmatched when opposed by the eloquence of Sedgwick, the sarcasm of Buckland, and the dead weight of incredulity on the part of Greenough, Conybeare, Murchison and other members of the band of pioneer workers. As time went on there is evidence that the opposition of De la Beche and Whewell somewhat relaxed; the brilliant "Paddy" Fitton (as his friends called him) was sometimes found in alliance with Lyell, but was characteristically apt to turn his weapon, as occasion served, on friend or foe alike; the amiable John Phillips "sat upon the fence." Only when a new generation arose--including Jukes, Ramsay, Forbes and Hooker--did Lyell find his teachings received with anything like favour. We can well understand, then, how Lyell would welcome such a recruit as young Darwin--a man who had declared himself more Lyellian than Lyell, and who brought to his support facts and observations gleaned from so wide a field. The first meeting of Lyell and Darwin was characteristic of the two men. Darwin at once explained to Lyell that, with respect to the origin of coral-reefs, he had arrived at views directly opposed to those published by "his master." To give up his own theory, cost Lyell, as he told Herschel, a "pang at first," but he was at once convinced of the immeasurable superiority of Darwin's theory. I have heard members of Lyell's family tell of the state of wild excitement and sustained enthusiasm, which lasted for days with Lyell after this interview, and his letters to Herschel, Whewell and others show his pleasure at the new light thrown upon the subject and his impatience to have the matter laid before the Geological Society. Writing forty years afterwards, Darwin, speaking of the time of the return of the "Beagle", says: "I saw a great deal of Lyell. One of his chief characteristics was his sympathy with the work of others, and I was as much astonished as delighted at the interest which he showed when, on my return to England, I explained to him my views on coral-reefs. This encouraged me greatly, and his advice and example had much influence on me." ("L.L." I. page 68.) Darwin further states that he saw more of Lyell at this time than of any other scientific man, and at his request sent his first communication to the Geological Society. ("L.L." I. page 67.) "Mr Lonsdale" (the able curator of the Geological Society), Darwin wrote to Henslow, "with whom I had much interesting conversation," "gave me a most cordial reception," and he adds, "If I was not much more inclined for geology than the other branches of Natural History, I am sure Mr Lyell's and Lonsdale's kindness ought to fix me. You cannot conceive anything more thoroughly good-natured than the heart-and-soul manner in which he put himself in my place and thought what would be best to do." ("L.L." I. page 275.) Within a few days of Darwin's arrival in London we find Lyell writing to Owen as follows: "Mrs Lyell and I expect a few friends here on Saturday next, 29th (October), to an early tea party at eight o'clock, and it will give us great pleasure if you can join it. Among others you will meet Mr Charles Darwin, whom I believe you have seen, just returned from South America, where he has laboured for zoologists as well as for hammer-bearers. I have also asked your friend Broderip." ("The Life of Richard Owen", London, 1894, Vol. I. page 102.) It would probably be on this occasion that the services of Owen were secured for the work on the fossil bones sent home by Darwin. On November 2nd, we find Lyell introducing Darwin as his guest at the Geological Society Club; on December 14th, Lyell and Stokes proposed Darwin as a member of the Club; between that date and May 3rd of the following year, when his election to the Club took place, he was several times dining as a guest. On January 4th, 1837, as we have already seen, Darwin was formally admitted to the Geological Society, and on the same evening he read his first paper (I have already pointed out that the notes read at the Geological Society on Nov. 18, 1835 were extracts made by Sedgwick from letters sent to Henslow, and not a paper sent home for publication by Darwin.) before the Society, "Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the Survey of H.M.S. "Beagle", commanded by Captain FitzRoy, R.N." By C. Darwin, F.G.S. This paper was preceded by one on the same subject by Mr A. Caldcleugh, and the reading of a letter and other communications from the Foreign Office also relating to the earthquakes in Chili. At the meeting of the Council of the Geological Society on February 1st, Darwin was nominated as a member of the new Council, and he was elected on February 17th. The meeting of the Geological Society on April 19th was devoted to the reading by Owen of his paper on Toxodon, perhaps the most remarkable of the fossil mammals found by Darwin in South America; and at the next meeting, on May 3rd, Darwin himself read "A Sketch of the Deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata". The next following meeting, on May 17th, was devoted to Darwin's Coral-reef paper, entitled "On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as deduced from the study of Coral Formations". Neither of these three early papers of Darwin were published in the Transactions of the Geological Society, but the minutes of the Council show that they were "withdrawn by the author by permission of the Council." Darwin's activity during this session led to some rather alarming effects upon his health, and he was induced to take a holiday in Staffordshire and the Isle of Wight. He was not idle, however, for a remark of his uncle, Mr Wedgwood, led him to make those interesting observations on the work done by earthworms, that resulted in his preparing a short memoir on the subject, and this paper, "On the Formation of Mould", was read at the Society on November 1st, 1837, being the first of Darwin's papers published in full; it appeared in Vol. V. of the "Geological Transactions", pages 505-510. During this session, Darwin attended nearly all the Council meetings, and took such an active part in the work of the Society that it is not surprising to find that he was now requested to accept the position of Secretary. After some hesitation, in which he urged his inexperience and want of knowledge of foreign languages, he consented to accept the appointment. ("L.L." I. page 285.) At the anniversary meeting on February 16th, 1838, the Wollaston Medal was given to Owen in recognition of his services in describing the fossil mammals sent home by Darwin. In his address, the President, Professor Whewell, dwelt at length on the great value of the papers which Darwin had laid before the Society during the preceding session. On March 7th, Darwin read before the Society the most important perhaps of all his geological papers, "On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena in South America, and on the Formation of Mountain-Chains and Volcanoes as the effect of Continental Elevations". In this paper he boldly attacked the tenets of the Catastrophists. It is evident that Darwin at this time, taking advantage of the temporary improvement in his health, was throwing himself into the breach of Uniformitarianism with the greatest ardour. Lyell wrote to Sedgwick on April 21st, 1837, "Darwin is a glorious addition to any society of geologists, and is working hard and making way, both in his book and in our discussions." ("The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick", Vol. I. page 484, Cambridge, 1890.) We have unfortunately few records of the animated debates which took place at this time between the old and new schools of geologists. I have often heard Lyell tell how Lockhart would bring down a party of friends from the Athenaeum Club to Somerset House on Geological nights, not, as he carefully explained, that "he cared for geology, but because he liked to while the fellows fight." But it fortunately happens that a few days after this last of Darwin's great field-days, at the Geological Society, Lyell, in a friendly letter to his father-in-law, Leonard Horner, wrote a very lively account of the proceedings while his impressions were still fresh; and this gives us an excellent idea of the character of these discussions. Neither Sedgwick nor Buckland were present on this occasion, but we can imagine how they would have chastised their two "erring pupils"--more in sorrow than in anger--had they been there. Greenough, too, was absent--possibly unwilling to countenance even by his presence such outrageous doctrines. Darwin, after describing the great earthquakes which he had experienced in South America, and the evidence of their connection with volcanic outbursts, proceeded to show that earthquakes originated in fractures, gradually formed in the earth's crust, and were accompanied by movements of the land on either side of the fracture. In conclusion he boldly advanced the view "that continental elevations, and the action of volcanoes, are phenomena now in progress, caused by some great but slow change in the interior of the earth; and, therefore, that it might be anticipated, that the formation of mountain chains is likewise in progress: and at a rate which may be judged of by either actions, but most clearly by the growth of volcanoes." ("Proc. Geol. Soc." Vol. II. pages 654-60.) Lyell's account ("Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart.", edited by his sister-in-law, Mrs Lyell, Vol. II. pages 40, 41 (Letter to Leonard Horner, 1838), 2 vols. London, 1881.) of the discussion was as follows: "In support of my heretical notions," Darwin "opened upon De la Beche, Phillips and others his whole battery of the earthquakes and volcanoes of the Andes, and argued that spaces at least a thousand miles long were simultaneously subject to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and that the elevation of the Pampas, Patagonia, etc., all depended on a common cause; also that the greater the contortions of strata in a mountain chain, the smaller must have been each separate and individual movement of that long series which was necessary to upheave the chain. Had they been more violent, he contended that the subterraneous fluid matter would have gushed out and overflowed, and the strata would have been blown up and annihilated. (It is interesting to compare this with what Darwin wrote to Henslow seven years earlier.) He therefore introduces a cooling of one small underground injection, and then the pumping in of other lava, or porphyry, or granite, into the previously consolidated and first-formed mass of igneous rock. (Ideas somewhat similar to this suggestion have recently been revived by Dr See ("Proc. Am. Phil. Soc." Vol. XLVII. 1908, page 262.).) When he had done his description of the reiterated strokes of his volcanic pump, De la Beche gave us a long oration about the impossibility of strata of the Alps, etc., remaining flexible for such a time as they must have done, if they were to be tilted, convoluted, or overturned by gradual small shoves. He never, however, explained his theory of original flexibility, and therefore I am as unable as ever to comprehend why flexiblility is a quality so limited in time. "Phillips then got up and pronounced a panegyric upon the "Principles of Geology", and although he still differed, thought the actual cause doctrine had been so well put, that it had advanced the science and formed a date or era, and that for centuries the two opposite doctrines would divide geologists, some contending for greater pristine forces, others satisfied, like Lyell and Darwin, with the same intensity as nature now employs. "Fitton quizzed Phillips a little for the warmth of his eulogy, saying that he (Fitton) and others, who had Mr Lyell always with them, were in the habit of admiring and quarrelling with him every day, as one might do with a sister or cousin, whom one would only kiss and embrace fervently after a long absence. This seemed to be Mr Phillips' case, coming up occasionally from the provinces. Fitton then finished this drollery by charging me with not having done justice to Hutton, who he said was for gradual elevation. "I replied, that most of the critics had attacked me for overrating Hutton, and that Playfair understood him as I did. "Whewell concluded by considering Hopkins' mathematical calculations, to which Darwin had often referred. He also said that we ought not to try and make out what Hutton would have taught and thought, if he had known the facts which we now know." It may be necessary to point out, in explanation of the above narrative, that while it was perfectly clear from Hutton's rather obscure and involved writings that he advocated slow and gradual change on the earth's surface, his frequent references to violent action and earthquakes led many--including Playfair, Lyell and Whewell--to believe that he held the changes going on in the earth's interior to be of a catastrophic nature. Fitton, however, maintained that Hutton was consistently uniformitarian. Before the idea of the actual "flowing" of solid bodies under intense pressure had been grasped by geologists, De la Beche, like Playfair before him, maintained that the bending and folding of rocks must have been effected before their complete consolidation. In concluding his account of this memorable discussion, Lyell adds: "I was much struck with the different tone in which my gradual causes was treated by all, even including De la Beche, from that which they experienced in the same room four years ago, when Buckland, De la Beche(?), Sedgwick, Whewell, and some others treated them with as much ridicule as was consistent with politeness in my presence." This important paper was, in spite of its theoretical character, published in full in the "Transactions of the Geological Society" (Ser. 2, Vol. V. pages 601-630). It did not however appear till 1840, and possibly some changes may have been made in it during the long interval between reading and printing. During the year 1839, Darwin continued his regular attendance at the Council meetings, but there is no record of any discussions in which he may have taken part, and he contributed no papers himself to the Society. At the beginning of 1840, he was re-elected for the third time as Secretary, but the results of failing health are indicated by the circumstance that, only at one meeting early in the session, was he able to attend the Council. At the beginning of the next session (Feb. 1841) Bunbury succeeded him as Secretary, Darwin still remaining on the Council. It may be regarded as a striking indication of the esteem in which he was held by his fellow geologists, that Darwin remained on the Council for 14 consecutive years down to 1849, though his attendances were in some years very few. In 1843 and 1844 he was a Vice-president, but after his retirement at the beginning of 1850, he never again accepted re-nomination. He continued, however, to contribute papers to the Society, as we shall see, down to the end of 1862. Although Darwin early became a member of the Geological Dining Club, it is to be feared that he scarcely found himself in a congenial atmosphere at those somewhat hilarious gatherings, where the hardy wielders of the hammer not only drank port--and plenty of it--but wound up their meal with a mixture of Scotch ale and soda water, a drink which, as reminiscent of the "field," was regarded as especially appropriate to geologists. Even after the meetings, which followed the dinners, they reassembled for suppers, at which geological dainties, like "pterodactyle pie" figured in the bill of fare, and fines of bumpers were inflicted on those who talked the "ologies." After being present at a fair number of meetings in 1837 and 1838, Darwin's attendances at the Club fell off to two in 1839, and by 1841 he had ceased to be a member. In a letter to Lyell on Dec. 2nd, 1841, Leonard Horner wrote that the day before "At the Council, I had the satisfaction of seeing Darwin again in his place and looking well. He tried the last evening meeting, but found it too much, but I hope before the end of the season he will find himself equal to that also. I hail Darwin's recovery as a vast gain to science." Darwin's probably last attendance, this time as a guest, was in 1851, when Horner again wrote to Lyell, "Charles Darwin was at the Geological Society's Club yesterday, where he had not been for ten years--remarkably well, and grown quite stout." ("Memoirs of Leonard Horner" (privately printed), Vol. II. pages 39 and 195.) It may be interesting to note that at the somewhat less lively dining Club--the Philosophical--in the founding of which his friends Lyell and Hooker had taken so active a part, Darwin found himself more at home, and he was a frequent attendant--in spite of his residence being at Down--from 1853 to 1864. He even made contributions on scientific questions after these dinners. In a letter to Hooker he states that he was deeply interested in the reforms of the Royal Society, which the Club was founded to promote. He says also that he had arranged to come to town every Club day "and then my head, I think, will allow me on an average to go to every other meeting. But it is grievous how often any change knocks me up." ("L.L." II. pages 42, 43.) Of the years 1837 and 1838 Darwin himself says they were "the most active ones which I ever spent, though I was occasionally unwell, and so lost some time... I also went a little into society." ("L.L." I. pages 67, 68.) But of the four years from 1839 to 1842 he has to confess sadly "I did less scientific work, though I worked as hard as I could, than during any other equal length of time in my life. This was owing to frequently recurring unwellness, and to one long and serious illness." ("L.L." I. page 69.) Darwin's work at the Geological Society did not by any means engage the whole of his energies, during the active years 1837 and 1838. In June of the latter year, leaving town in somewhat bad health, he found himself at Edinburgh again, and engaged in examining the Salisbury Craigs, in a very different spirit to that excited by Jameson's discourse. ("L.L." I. page 290.) Proceeding to the Highlands he then had eight days of hard work at the famous "Parallel Roads of Glen Roy", being favoured with glorious weather. He says of the writing of the paper on the subject--the only memoir contributed by Darwin to the Royal Society, to which he had been recently elected--that it was "one of the most difficult and instructive tasks I was ever engaged on." The paper extends to 40 quarto pages and is illustrated by two plates. Though it is full of the records of careful observation and acute reasoning, yet the theory of marine beaches which he propounded was, as he candidly admitted in after years ("M.L." II page 188.), altogether wrong. The alternative lake-theory he found himself unable to accept at the time, for he could not understand how barriers could be formed at successive levels across the valleys; and until the following year, when the existence of great glaciers in the district was proved by the researches of Agassiz, Buckland and others, the difficulty appeared to him an insuperable one. Although Darwin said of this paper in after years that it "was a great failure and I am ashamed of it"--yet he retained his interest in the question ever afterwards, and he says "my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion." ("M.L." II. pages 171-93.) Although Darwin had not realised in 1838 that large parts of the British Islands had been occupied by great glaciers, he had by no means failed while in South America to recognise the importance of ice-action. His observations, as recorded in his Journal, on glaciers coming down to the sea-level, on the west coast of South America, in a latitude corresponding to a much lower one than that of the British Islands, profoundly interested geologists; and the same work contains many valuable notes on the boulders and unstratified beds in South America in which they were included. But in 1840 Agassiz read his startling paper on the evidence of the former existence of glaciers in the British Islands, and this was followed by Buckland's memoir on the same subject. On April 14, 1841, Darwin contributed to the Geological Society his important paper "On the Distribution of Erratic Boulders and the Contemporaneous Unstratified Deposits of South America", a paper full of suggestiveness for those studying the glacial deposits of this country. It was published in the "Transactions" in 1842. The description of traces of glacial action in North Wales, by Buckland, appears to have greatly excited the interest of Darwin. With Sedgwick he had, in 1831, worked at the stratigraphy of that district, but neither of them had noticed the very interesting surface features. ("L.L." I. page 58.) Darwin was able to make a journey to North Wales in June, 1842 (alas! it was his last effort in field-geology) and as a result he published his most able and convincing paper on the subject in the September number of the "Philosophical Magazine" for 1842. Thus the mystery of the bell-stone was at last solved and Darwin, writing many years afterwards, said "I felt the keenest delight when I first read of the action of icebergs in transporting boulders, and I gloried in the progress of Geology." ("L.L." I. page 41.) To the "Geographical Journal" he had sent in 1839 a note "On a Rock seen on an Iceberg in 16 deg S. Latitude." For the subject of ice-action, indeed, Darwin retained the greatest interest to the end of his life. ("M.L." II. pages 148-71.) In 1846, Darwin read two papers to the Geological Society "On the dust which falls on vessels in the Atlantic, and On the Geology of the Falkland Islands"; in 1848 he contributed a note on the transport of boulders from lower to higher levels; and in 1862 another note on the thickness of the Pampean formation, as shown by recent borings at Buenos Ayres. An account of the "British Fossil Lepadidae" read in 1850, was withdrawn by him. At the end of 1836 Darwin had settled himself in lodgings in Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge, and devoted three months to the work of unpacking his specimens and studying his collection of rocks. The pencilled notes on the Manuscript Catalogue in the Sedgwick Museum enable us to realise his mode of work, and the diligence with which it was carried on. The letters M and H, indicate the assistance he received from time to time from Professor Miller, the crystallographer, and from his friend Henslow. Miller not only measured many of the crystals submitted to him, but evidently taught Darwin to use the reflecting goniometer himself with considerable success. The "book of measurements" in which the records were kept, appears to have been lost, but the pencilled notes in the catalogue show how thoroughly the work was done. The letter R attached to some of the numbers in the catalogue evidently refers to the fact that they were submitted to Mr Trenham Reeks (who analysed some of his specimens) at the Geological Survey quarters in Craig's Court. This was at a later date when Darwin was writing the "Volcanic Islands" and "South America". It was about the month of March, 1837, that Darwin completed this work upon his rocks, and also the unpacking and distribution of his fossil bones and other specimens. We have seen that November, 1832, must certainly be regarded as the date when he FIRST realised the important fact that the fossil mammals of the Pampean formation were all closely related to the existing forms in South America; while October, 1835, was, as undoubtedly, the date when the study of the birds and other forms of life in the several islands of the Galapagos Islands gave him his SECOND impulse towards abandoning the prevalent view of the immutability of species. When then in his pocket-book for 1837 Darwin wrote the often quoted passage: "In July opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter), origin of all my views" ("L.L." I. page 276.), it is clear that he must refer, not to his first inception of the idea of evolution, but to the flood of recollections, the reawakening of his interest in the subject, which could not fail to result from the sight of his specimens and the reference to his notes. Except during the summer vacation, when he was visiting his father and uncle, and with the latter making his first observations upon the work of earthworms, Darwin was busy with his arrangements for the publication of the five volumes of the "Zoology of the 'Beagle'" and in getting the necessary financial aid from the government for the preparation of the plates. He was at the same time preparing his "Journal" for publication. During the years 1837 to 1843, Darwin worked intermittently on the volumes of Zoology, all of which he edited, while he wrote introductions to those by Owen and Waterhouse and supplied notes to the others. Although Darwin says of his Journal that the preparation of the book "was not hard work, as my MS. Journal had been written with care." Yet from the time that he settled at 36, Great Marlborough Street in March, 1837, to the following November he was occupied with this book. He tells us that the account of his scientific observations was added at this time. The work was not published till March, 1839, when it appeared as the third volume of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M. Ships 'Adventure' and 'Beagle' between the years 1826 and 1836". The book was probably a long time in the press, for there are no less than 20 pages of addenda in small print. Even in this, its first form, the work is remarkable for its freshness and charm, and excited a great amount of attention and interest. In addition to matters treated of in greater detail in his other works, there are many geological notes of extreme value in this volume, such as his account of lightning tubes, of the organisms found in dust, and of the obsidian bombs of Australia. Having thus got out of hand a number of preliminary duties, Darwin was ready to set to work upon the three volumes which were designed by him to constitute "The Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle'". The first of these was to be on "The Structure and Distribution of Coral-reefs". He commenced the writing of the book on October 5, 1838, and the last proof was corrected on May 6, 1842. Allowing for the frequent interruptions through illness, Darwin estimated that it cost him twenty months of hard work. Darwin has related how his theory of Coral-reefs which was begun in a more "deductive spirit" than any of his other work, for in 1834 or 1835 it "was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral-reef." ("L.L." I. page 70.) The final chapter in Lyell's second volume of the "Principles" was devoted to the subject of Coral-reefs, and a theory was suggested to account for the peculiar phenomena of "atolls." Darwin at once saw the difficulty of accepting the view that the numerous and diverse atolls all represent submerged volcanic craters. His own work had for two years been devoted to the evidence of land movements over great areas in South America, and thus he was led to announce his theory of subsidence to account for barrier and encircling reefs as well as atolls. Fortunately, during his voyage across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, in his visit to Australia and his twelve days' hard work at Keeling Island, he had opportunities for putting his theory to the test of observation. On his return to England, Darwin appears to have been greatly surprised at the amount of interest that his new theory excited. Urged by Lyell, he read to the Geological Society a paper on the subject, as we have seen, with as little delay as possible, but this paper was "withdrawn by permission of the Council." An abstract of three pages however appeared in the "Proceedings of the Geological Society". (Vol. II. pages 552-554 (May 31, 1837).) A full account of the observations and the theory was given in the "Journal" (1839) in the 40 pages devoted to Keeling Island in particular and to Coral formations generally. ("Journal" (1st edition), pages 439-69.) It will be readily understood what an amount of labour the book on Coral reefs cost Darwin when we reflect on the number of charts, sailing directions, narratives of voyages and other works which, with the friendly assistance of the authorities at the Admiralty, he had to consult before he could draw up his sketch of the nature and distribution of the reefs, and this was necessary before the theory, in all its important bearings, could be clearly enunciated. Very pleasing is it to read how Darwin, although arriving at a different conclusion to Lyell, shows, by quoting a very suggestive passage in the "Principles" (1st edition Vol. II. page 296.), how the latter only just missed the true solution. This passage is cited, both in the "Journal" and the volume on Coral-reefs. Lyell, as we have seen, received the new theory not merely ungrudgingly, but with the utmost enthusiasm. In 1849 Darwin was gratified by receiving the support of Dana, after his prolonged investigation in connection with the U.S. Exploring Expedition ("M.L." II. pages 226-8.), and in 1874 he prepared a second edition of his book, in which some objections which had been raised to the theory were answered. A third edition, edited by Professor Bonney, appeared in 1880, and a fourth (a reprint of the first edition, with introduction by myself) in 1890. Although Professor Semper, in his account of the Pelew Islands, had suggested difficulties in the acceptance of Darwin's theory, it was not till after the return of the "Challenger" expedition in 1875 that a rival theory was propounded, and somewhat heated discussions were raised as to the respective merits of the two theories. While geologists have, nearly without exception, strongly supported Darwin's views, the notes of dissent have come almost entirely from zoologists. At the height of the controversy unfounded charges of unfairness were made against Darwin's supporters and the authorities of the Geological Society, but this unpleasant subject has been disposed of, once for all, by Huxley. ("Essays upon some Controverted Questions", London, 1892, pages 314-328 and 623-625.) Darwin's final and very characteristic utterance on the coral-reef controversy is found in a letter which he wrote to Professor Alexander Agassiz, May 5th, 1881: less than a year before his death: "If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long-continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet." ("L.L." III. page 184.) Though the "doubly rich millionaire" has not been forthcoming, the energy, in England, of Professor Sollas, and in New South Wales of Professor Anderson Stuart served to set on foot a project, which, aided at first by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and afterwards taken up jointly by the Royal Society, the New South Wales Government, and the Admiralty, has led to the most definite and conclusive results. The Committee appointed by the Royal Society to carry out the undertaking included representatives of all the views that had been put forward on the subject. The place for the experiment was, with the consent of every member of the Committee, selected by the late Admiral Sir W.J. Wharton--who was not himself an adherent of Darwin's views--and no one has ventured to suggest that his selection, the splendid atoll of Funafuti, was not a most judicious one. By the pluck and perseverance of Professor Sollas in the preliminary expedition, and of Professor T. Edgeworth David and his pupils, in subsequent investigations of the island, the rather difficult piece of work was brought to a highly satisfactory conclusion. The New South Wales Government lent boring apparatus and workmen, and the Admiralty carried the expedition to its destination in a surveying ship which, under Captain (now Admiral) A. Mostyn Field, made the most complete survey of the atoll and its surrounding seas that has ever been undertaken in the case of a coral formation. After some failures and many interruptions, the boring was carried to the depth of 1114 feet, and the cores obtained were sent to England. Here the examination of the materials was fortunately undertaken by a zoologist of the highest repute, Dr G.J. Hinde--who has a wide experience in the study of organisms by sections--and he was aided at all points by specialists in the British Museum of Natural History and by other naturalists. Nor were the chemical and other problems neglected. The verdict arrived at, after this most exhaustive study of a series of cores obtained from depths twice as great as that thought necessary by Darwin, was as follows:--"The whole of the cores are found to be built up of those organisms which are seen forming coral-reefs near the surface of the ocean--many of them evidently in situ; and not the slightest indication could be detected, by chemical or microscopic means, which suggested the proximity of non-calcareous rocks, even in the lowest portions brought up." But this was not all. Professor David succeeded in obtaining the aid of a very skilful engineer from Australia, while the Admiralty allowed Commander F.C.D. Sturdee to take a surveying ship into the lagoon for further investigations. By very ingenious methods, and with great perseverance, two borings were put down in the midst of the lagoon to the depth of nearly 200 feet. The bottom of the lagoon, at the depth of 101 1/2 feet from sea-level, was found to be covered with remains of the calcareous, green sea-weed Halimeda, mingled with many foraminifera; but at a depth of 163 feet from the surface of the lagoon the boring tools encountered great masses of coral, which were proved from the fragments brought up to belong to species that live within AT MOST 120 feet from the surface of the ocean, as admitted by all zoologists. ("The Atoll of Funafuti; Report of the Coral Reef Committee of the Royal Society", London, 1904.) Darwin's theory, as is well known, is based on the fact that the temperature of the ocean at any considerable depth does not permit of the existence and luxuriant growth of the organisms that form the reefs. He himself estimated this limit of depth to be from 120 to 130 feet; Dana, as an extreme, 150 feet; while the recent very prolonged and successful investigations of Professor Alexander Agassiz in the Pacific and Indian Oceans lead him also to assign a limiting depth of 150 feet; the EFFECTIVE, REEF-FORMING CORALS, however, flourishing at a much smaller depth. Mr Stanley Gardiner gives for the most important reef-forming corals depths between 30 and 90 feet, while a few are found as low as 120 feet or even 180 feet. It will thus be seen that the verdict of Funafuti is clearly and unmistakeably in favour of Darwin's theory. It is true that some zoologists find a difficulty in realising a slow sinking of parts of the ocean floor, and have suggested new and alternative explanations: but geologists generally, accepting the proofs of slow upheaval in some areas--as shown by the admirable researches of Alexander Agassiz--consider that it is absolutely necessary to admit that this elevation is balanced by subsidence in other areas. If atolls and barrier-reefs did not exist we should indeed be at a great loss to frame a theory to account for their absence. After finishing his book on Coral-reefs, Darwin made his summer excursion to North Wales, and prepared his important memoir on the glaciers of that district: but by October (1842) we find him fairly settled at work upon the second volume of his "Geology of the 'Beagle'--Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle'". The whole of the year 1843 was devoted to this work, but he tells his friend Fox that he could "manage only a couple of hours per day, and that not very regularly." ("L.L." I. page 321.) Darwin's work on the various volcanic islands examined by him had given him the most intense pleasure, but the work of writing the book by the aid of his notes and specimens he found "uphill work," especially as he feared the book would not be read, "even by geologists." (Loc. cit.) As a matter of fact the work is full of the most interesting observations and valuable suggestions, and the three editions (or reprints) which have appeared have proved a most valuable addition to geological literature. It is not necessary to refer to the novel and often very striking discoveries described in this well-known work. The subsidence beneath volcanic vents, the enormous denudation of volcanic cones reducing them to "basal wrecks," the effects of solfatarric action and the formation of various minerals in the cavities of rocks--all of these subjects find admirable illustration from his graphic descriptions. One of the most important discussions in this volume is that dealing with the "lamination" of lavas as especially well seen in the rocks of Ascension. Like Scrope, Darwin recognised the close analogy between the structure of these rocks and those of metamorphic origin--a subject which he followed out in the volume "Geological Observations on South America". Of course in these days, since the application of the microscope to the study of rocks in thin sections, Darwin's nomenclature and descriptions of the petrological characters of the lavas appear to us somewhat crude. But it happened that the "Challenger" visited most of the volcanic islands described by Darwin, and the specimens brought home were examined by the eminent petrologist Professor Renard. Renard was so struck with the work done by Darwin, under disadvantageous conditions, that he undertook a translation of Darwin's work into French, and I cannot better indicate the manner in which the book is regarded by geologists than by quoting a passage from Renard's preface. Referring to his own work in studying the rocks brought home by the "Challenger" (Renard's descriptions of these rocks are contained in the "Challenger Reports". Mr Harker is supplementing these descriptions by a series of petrological memoirs on Darwin's specimens, the first of which appeared in the "Geological Magazine" for March, 1907.), he says: "Je dus, en me livrant a ces recherches, suivre ligne par ligne les divers chapitres des "Observations geologiques" consacrees aux iles de l'Atlantique, oblige que j'etais de comparer d'une maniere suivie les resultats auxquels j'etais conduit avec ceux de Darwin, qui servaient de controle a mes constatations. Je ne tardai pas a eprouver une vive admiration pour ce chercheur qui, sans autre appareil que la loupe, sans autre reaction que quelques essais pyrognostiques, plus rarement quelques mesures au goniometre, parvenait a discerner la nature des agregats mineralogiques les plue complexes et les plus varies. Ce coup d'oeil qui savait embrasser de si vastes horizons, penetre ici profondement tous les details lithologiques. Avec quelle surete et quelle exactitude la structure et la composition des roches ne sont'elles pas determinees, l'origne de ces masses minerales deduite et confirmee par l'etude comparee des manifestations volcaniques d'autres regions; avec quelle science les relations entre les faits qu'il decouvre et ceux signales ailleurs par ses devanciers ne sont'elles pas etablies, et comme voici ebranlees les hypotheses regnantes, admises sans preuves, celles, par exemple, des crateres de soulevement et de la differenciation radicale des phenomenes plutoniques et volcaniques! Ce qui acheve de donner a ce livre un incomparable merite, ce sont les idees nouvelles qui s'y trouvent en germe et jetees la comme au hasard ainsi qu'un superflu d'abondance intellectuelle inepuisable." ("Observations Geologiques sur les Iles Volcaniques... ", Paris, 1902, pages vi., vii.) While engaged in his study of banded lavas, Darwin was struck with the analogy of their structure with that of glacier ice, and a note on the subject, in the form of a letter addressed to Professor J.D. Forbes, was published in the "Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh". (Vol. II. (1844-5), pages 17, 18.) From April, 1832, to September, 1835, Darwin had been occupied in examining the coast or making inland journeys in the interior of the South American continent. Thus while eighteen months were devoted, at the beginning and end of the voyage to the study of volcanic islands and coral-reefs, no less than three and a half years were given to South American geology. The heavy task of dealing with the notes and specimens accumulated during that long period was left by Darwin to the last. Finishing the "Volcanic Islands" on February 14th, 1844, he, in July of the same year, commenced the preparation of two important works which engaged him till near the end of the year 1846. The first was his "Geological Observations on South America", the second a recast of his "Journal", published under the short title of "A Naturalist's Voyage round the World". The first of these works contains an immense amount of information collected by the author under great difficulties and not unfrequently at considerable risk to life and health. No sooner had Darwin landed in South America than two sets of phenomena powerfully arrested his attention. The first of these was the occurrence of great masses of red mud containing bones and shells, which afforded striking evidence that the whole continent had shared in a series of slow and gradual but often interrupted movements. The second related to the great masses of crystalline rocks which, underlying the muds, cover so great a part of the continent. Darwin, almost as soon as he landed, was struck by the circumstance that the direction, as shown by his compass, of the prominent features of these great crystalline rock-masses--their cleavage, master-joints, foliation and pegmatite veins--was the same as the orientation described by Humboldt (whose works he had so carefully studied) on the west of the same great continent. The first five chapters of the book on South America were devoted to formations of recent date and to the evidence collected on the east and west coasts of the continent in regard to those grand earth-movements, some of which could be shown to have been accompanied by earthquake-shocks. The fossil bones, which had given him the first hint concerning the mutability of species, had by this time been studied and described by comparative anatomists, and Darwin was able to elaborate much more fully the important conclusion that the existing fauna of South America has a close analogy with that of the period immediately preceding our own. The remaining three chapters of the book dealt with the metamorphic and plutonic rocks, and in them Darwin announced his important conclusions concerning the relations of cleavage and foliation, and on the close analogy of the latter structure with the banding found in rock-masses of igneous origin. With respect to the first of these conclusions, he received the powerful support of Daniel Sharpe, who in the years 1852 and 1854 published two papers on the structure of the Scottish Highlands, supplying striking confirmation of the correctness of Darwin's views. Although Darwin's and Sharpe's conclusions were contested by Murchison and other geologists, they are now universally accepted. In his theory concerning the origin of foliation, Darwin had been to some extent anticipated by Scrope, but he supplied many facts and illustrations leading to the gradual acceptance of a doctrine which, when first enunciated, was treated with neglect, if not with contempt. The whole of this volume on South American geology is crowded with the records of patient observations and suggestions of the greatest value; but, as Darwin himself saw, it was a book for the working geologist and "caviare to the general." Its author, indeed, frequently expressed his sense of the "dryness" of the book; he even says "I long hesitated whether I would publish it or not," and he wrote to Leonard Horner "I am astonished that you should have had the courage to go right through my book." ("M.L." II. page 221.) Fortunately the second book, on which Darwin was engaged at this time, was of a very different character. His "Journal", almost as he had written it on board ship, with facts and observations fresh in his mind, had been published in 1839 and attracted much attention. In 1845, he says, "I took much pains in correcting a new edition," and the work which was commenced in April, 1845, was not finished till August of that year. The volume contains a history of the voyage with "a sketch of those observations in Natural History and Geology, which I think will possess some interest for the general reader." It is not necessary to speak of the merits of this scientific classic. It became a great favourite with the general public--having passed through many editions--it was, moreover, translated into a number of different languages. Darwin was much gratified by these evidences of popularity, and naively remarks in his "Autobiography", "The success of this my first literary child tickles my vanity more than that of any of my other books" ("L.L." I. page 80.)--and this was written after the "Origin of Species" had become famous! In Darwin's letters there are many evidences that his labours during these ten years devoted to the working out of the geological results of the voyage often made many demands on his patience and indomitable courage. Most geologists have experience of the contrast between the pleasures felt when wielding the hammer in the field, and the duller labour of plying the pen in the study. But in Darwin's case, innumerable interruptions from sickness and other causes, and the oft-deferred hope of reaching the end of his task were not the only causes operating to make the work irksome. The great project, which was destined to become the crowning achievement of his life, was now gradually assuming more definite shape, and absorbing more of his time and energies. Nevertheless, during all this period, Darwin so far regarded his geological pursuits as his PROPER "work," that attention to other matters was always spoken of by him as "indulging in idleness." If at the end of this period the world had sustained the great misfortune of losing Darwin by death before the age of forty--and several times that event seemed only too probable--he might have been remembered only as a very able geologist of most advanced views, and a traveller who had written a scientific narrative of more than ordinary excellence! The completion of the "Geology of the 'Beagle'" and the preparation of a revised narrative of the voyage mark the termination of that period of fifteen years of Darwin's life during which geological studies were his principal occupation. Henceforth, though his interest in geological questions remained ever keen, biological problems engaged more and more of his attention to the partial exclusion of geology. The eight years from October, 1846, to October, 1854, were mainly devoted to the preparation of his two important monographs on the recent and fossil Cirripedia. Apart from the value of his description of the fossil forms, this work of Darwin's had an important influence on the progress of geological science. Up to that time a practice had prevailed for the student of a particular geological formation to take up the description of the plant and animal remains in it--often without having anything more than a rudimentary knowledge of the living forms corresponding to them. Darwin in his monograph gave a very admirable illustration of the enormous advantage to be gained--alike for biology and geology--by undertaking the study of the living and fossil forms of a natural group of organisms in connection with one another. Of the advantage of these eight years of work to Darwin himself, in preparing for the great task lying before him, Huxley has expressed a very strong opinion indeed. ("L.L." II. pages 247-48.) But during these eight years of "species work," Darwin found opportunities for not a few excursions into the field of geology. He occasionally attended the Geological Society, and, as we have already seen, read several papers there during this period. His friend, Dr Hooker, then acting as botanist to the Geological Survey, was engaged in studying the Carboniferous flora, and many discussions on Palaezoic plants and on the origin of coal took place at this period. On this last subject he felt the deepest interest and told Hooker, "I shall never rest easy in Down churchyard without the problem be solved by some one before I die." ("M.L." I. pages 63, 64.) As at all times, conversations and letters with Lyell on every branch of geological science continued with unabated vigour, and in spite of the absorbing character of the work on the Cirripedes, time was found for all. In 1849 his friend Herschel induced him to supply a chapter of forty pages on Geology to the Admiralty "Manual of Scientific Inquiry" which he was editing. This is Darwin's single contribution to books of an "educational" kind. It is remarkable for its clearness and simplicity and attention to minute details. It may be read by the student of Darwin's life with much interest, for the directions he gives to an explorer are without doubt those which he, as a self-taught geologist, proved to be serviceable during his life on the "Beagle". On the completion of the Cirripede volumes, in 1854, Darwin was able to grapple with the immense pile of MS. notes which he had accumulated on the species question. The first sketch of 35 pages (1842), had been enlarged in 1844 into one of 230 pages ([The first draft of the "Origin" is being prepared for Press by Mr Francis Darwin and will be published by the Cambridge University Press this year (1909). A.C.S.]); but in 1856 was commenced the work (never to be completed) which was designed on a scale three or four times more extensive than that on which the "Origin of Species" was in the end written. In drawing up those two masterly chapters of the "Origin", "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record," and "On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings", Darwin had need of all the experience and knowledge he had been gathering during thirty years, the first half of which had been almost wholly devoted to geological study. The most enlightened geologists of the day found much that was new, and still more that was startling from the manner of its presentation, in these wonderful essays. Of Darwin's own sense of the importance of the geological evidence in any presentation of his theory a striking proof will be found in a passage of the touching letter to his wife, enjoining the publication of his sketch of 1844. "In case of my sudden death," he wrote, "... the editor must be a geologist as well as a naturalist." ("L.L." II. pages 16, 17.) In spite of the numerous and valuable palaeontological discoveries made since the publication of "The Origin of Species", the importance of the first of these two geological chapters is as great as ever. It still remains true that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will at once reject the theory"--as indeed they must reject any theory of evolution. The striking passage with which Darwin concludes this chapter--in which he compares the record of the rocks to the much mutilated volumes of a human history--remains as apt an illustration as it did when first written. And the second geological chapter, on the Succession of Organic Beings--though it has been strengthened in a thousand ways, by the discoveries concerning the pedigrees of the horse, the elephant and many other aberrant types, though new light has been thrown even on the origin of great groups like the mammals, and the gymnosperms, though not a few fresh links have been discovered in the chains of evidence, concerning the order of appearance of new forms of life--we would not wish to have re-written. Only the same line of argument could be adopted, though with innumerable fresh illustrations. Those who reject the reasonings of this chapter, neither would they be persuaded if a long and complete succession of "ancestral forms" could rise from the dead and pass in procession before them. Among the geological discussions, which so frequently occupied Darwin's attention during the later years of his life, there was one concerning which his attitude seemed somewhat remarkable--I allude to his views on "the permanence of Continents and Ocean-basins." In a letter to Mr Mellard Reade, written at the end of 1880, he wrote: "On the whole, I lean to the side that the continents have since Cambrian times occupied approximately their present positions. But, as I have said, the question seems a difficult one, and the more it is discussed the better." ("M.L." II. page 147.) Since this was written, the important contribution to the subject by the late Dr W.T. Blanford (himself, like Darwin, a naturalist and geologist) has appeared in an address to the Geological Society in 1890; and many discoveries, like that of Dr Woolnough in Fiji, have led to considerable qualifications of the generalisation that all the islands in the great ocean are wholly of volcanic or coral origin. I remember once expressing surprise to Darwin that, after the views which he had originated concerning the existence of areas of elevation and others of subsidence in the Pacific Ocean, and in face of the admitted difficulty of accounting for the distribution of certain terrestrial animals and plants, if the land and sea areas had been permanent in position, he still maintained that theory. Looking at me with a whimsical smile, he said: "I have seen many of my old friends make fools of themselves, by putting forward new theoretical views or revising old ones, AFTER THEY WERE SIXTY YEARS OF AGE; so, long ago, I determined that on reaching that age I would write nothing more of a speculative character." Though Darwin's letters and conversations on geology during these later years were the chief manifestations of the interest he preserved in his "old love," as he continued to call it, yet in the sunset of that active life a gleam of the old enthusiasm for geology broke forth once more. There can be no doubt that Darwin's inability to occupy himself with field-work proved an insuperable difficulty to any attempt on his part to resume active geological research. But, as is shown by the series of charming volumes on plant-life, Darwin had found compensation in making patient and persevering experiment take the place of enterprising and exact observation; and there was one direction in which he could indulge the "old love" by employment of the new faculty. We have seen that the earliest memoir written by Darwin, which was published in full, was a paper "On the Formation of Mould" which was read at the Geological Society on November 1st, 1837, but did not appear in the "Transactions" of the Society till 1840, where it occupied four and a half quarto pages, including some supplementary matter, obtained later, and a woodcut. This little paper was confined to observations made in his uncle's fields in Staffordshire, where burnt clay, cinders, and sand were found to be buried under a layer of black earth, evidently brought from below by earthworms, and to a recital of similar facts from Scotland obtained through the agency of Lyell. The subsequent history of Darwin's work on this question affords a striking example of the tenacity of purpose with which he continued his enquiries on any subject that interested him. In 1842, as soon as he was settled at Down, he began a series of observations on a foot-path and in his fields, that continued with intermissions during his whole life, and he extended his enquiries from time to time to the neighbouring parks of Knole and Holwood. In 1844 we find him making a communication to the "Gardener's Chronicle" on the subject. About 1870, his attention to the question was stimulated by the circumstance that his niece (Miss L. Wedgwood) undertook to collect and weigh the worm-casts thrown up, during a whole year, on measured squares selected for the purpose, at Leith Hill Place. He also obtained information from Professor Ramsay concerning observations made by him on a pavement near his house in 1871. Darwin at this time began to realise the great importance of the action of worms to the archaeologist. At an earlier date he appears to have obtained some information concerning articles found buried on the battle-field of Shrewsbury, and the old Roman town of Uriconium, near his early home; between 1871 and 1878 Mr (afterwards Lord) Farrer carried on a series of investigations at the Roman Villa discovered on his land at Abinger; Darwin's son William examined for his father the evidence at Beaulieu Abbey, Brading, Stonehenge and other localities in the neighbourhood of his home; his sons Francis and Horace were enlisted to make similar enquiries at Chideock and Silchester; while Francis Galton contributed facts noticed in his walks in Hyde Park. By correspondence with Fritz Muller and Dr Ernst, Darwin obtained information concerning the worm-casts found in South America; from Dr Kreft those of Australia; and from Mr Scott and Dr (afterwards Sir George) King, those of India; the last-named correspondent also supplied him with much valuable information obtained in the South of Europe. Help too was obtained from the memoirs on Earthworms published by Perrier in 1874 and van Hensen in 1877, while Professor Ray Lankester supplied important facts with regard to their anatomy. When therefore the series of interesting monographs on plant-life had been completed, Darwin set to work in bringing the information that he had gradually accumulated during forty-four years to bear on the subject of his early paper. He also utilised the skill and ingenuity he had acquired in botanical work to aid in the elucidation of many of the difficulties that presented themselves. I well remember a visit which I paid to Down at this period. At the side of the little study stood flower-pots containing earth with worms, and, without interrupting our conversation, Darwin would from time to time lift the glass plate covering a pot to watch what was going on. Occasionally, with a humorous smile, he would murmur something about a book in another room, and slip away; returning shortly, without the book but with unmistakeable signs of having visited the snuff-jar outside. After working about a year at the worms, he was able at the end of 1881 to publish the charming little book--"The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits". This was the last of his books, and its reception by reviewers and the public alike afforded the patient old worker no little gratification. Darwin's scientific career, which had begun with geological research, most appropriately ended with a return to it. It has been impossible to sketch the origin and influence of Darwin's geological work without, at almost every step, referring to the part played by Lyell and the "Principles of Geology". Haeckel, in the chapters on Lyell and Darwin in his "History of Creation", and Huxley in his striking essay "On the Reception of the Origin of Species" ("L.L." II. pages 179-204.) have both strongly insisted on the fact that the "Origin" of Darwin was a necessary corollary to the "Principles" of Lyell. It is true that, in an earlier essay, Huxley had spoken of the doctrine of Uniformitarianism as being, in a certain sense, opposed to that of Evolution (Huxley's Address to the Geological Society, 1869. "Collected Essays", Vol. VIII. page 305, London, 1896.); but in his later years he took up a very different and more logical position, and maintained that "Consistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the organic as in the inorganic world. The origin of a new species by other than ordinary agencies would be a vastly greater 'catastrophe' than any of those which Lyell success fully eliminated from sober geological speculation." ("L.L." II. page 190.) Huxley's admiration for the "Principles of Geology", and his conviction of the greatness of the revolution of thought brought about by Lyell, was almost as marked as in the case of Darwin himself. (See his Essay on "Science and Pseudo Science". "Collected Essays", Vol. V. page 90, London, 1902.) He felt, however, as many others have done, that in one respect the very success of Lyell's masterpiece has been the reason why its originality and influence have not been so fully recognised as they deserved to be. Written as the book was before its author had arrived at the age of thirty, no less than eleven editions of the "Principles" were called for in his lifetime. With the most scrupulous care, Lyell, devoting all his time and energies to the task of collecting and sifting all evidence bearing on the subjects of his work, revised and re-revised it; and as in each edition, eliminations, modifications, corrections, and additions were made, the book, while it increased in value as a storehouse of facts, lost much of its freshness, vigour and charm as a piece of connected reasoning. Darwin undoubtedly realised this when he wrote concerning the "Principles", "the first edition, my old true love, which I never deserted for the later editions." ("M.L." II. page 222.) Huxley once told me that when, in later life, he read the first edition, he was both surprised and delighted, feeling as if it were a new book to him. (I have before me a letter which illustrates this feeling on Huxley's part. He had lamented to me that he did not possess a copy of the first edition of the "Principles", when, shortly afterwards, I picked up a dilapidated copy on a bookstall; this I had bound and sent to my old teacher and colleague. His reply is characteristic: October 8, 1884. My Dear Judd, You could not have made me a more agreeable present than the copy of the first edition of Lyell, which I find on my table. I have never been able to meet with the book, and your copy is, as the old woman said of her Bible, "the best of books in the best of bindings." Ever yours sincerely, T.H. Huxley. (I cannot refrain from relating an incident which very strikingly exemplifies the affection for one another felt by Lyell and Huxley. In his last illness, when confined to his bed, Lyell heard that Huxley was to lecture at the Royal Institution on the "Results of the 'Challenger' expedition": he begged me to attend the lecture and bring him an account of it. Happening to mention this to Huxley, he at once undertook to go to Lyell in my place, and he did so on the morning following his lecture. I shall never forget the look of gratitude on the face of the invalid when he told me, shortly afterwards, how Huxley had sat by his bedside and "repeated the whole lecture to him.") Darwin's generous nature seems often to have made him experience a fear lest he should do less than justice to his "dear old master," and to the influence that the "Principles of Geology" had in moulding his mind. In 1845 he wrote to Lyell, "I have long wished, not so much for your sake, as for my own feelings of honesty, to acknowledge more plainly than by mere reference, how much I geologically owe you. Those authors, however, who like you, educate people's minds as well as teach them special facts, can never, I should think, have full justice done them except by posterity, for the mind thus insensibly improved can hardly perceive its own upward ascent." ("L.L." I. pages 337-8.) In another letter, to Leonard Horner, he says: "I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brain, and that I never acknowledge this sufficiently." ("M.L." II. page 117.) Darwin's own most favourite book, the "Narrative of the Voyage", was dedicated to Lyell in glowing terms; and in the "Origin of Species" he wrote of "Lyell's grand work on the "Principles of Geology", which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in Natural Science." "What glorious good that work has done" he fervently exclaims on another occasion. ("L.L." I. page 342.) To the very end of his life, as all who were in the habit of talking with Darwin can testify, this sense of his indebtedness to Lyell remained with him. In his "Autobiography", written in 1876, the year after Lyell's death, he spoke in the warmest terms of the value to him of the "Principles" while on the voyage and of the aid afforded to him by Lyell on his return to England. ("L.L." I. page 62.) But the year before his own death, Darwin felt constrained to return to the subject and to place on record a final appreciation--one as honourable to the writer as it is to his lost friend: "I saw more of Lyell than of any other man, both before and after my marriage. His mind was characterised, as it appeared to me, by clearness, caution, sound judgment, and a good deal of originality. When I made any remark to him on Geology, he never rested until he saw the whole case clearly, and often made me see it more clearly than I had done before. He would advance all possible objections to my suggestion, and even after these were exhausted would remain long dubious. A second characteristic was his hearty sympathy with the work of other scientific men... His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind. He was very kind-hearted... His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, though he had gained much fame by opposing Lamarck's views, and this after he had grown old." "THE SCIENCE OF GEOLOGY IS ENORMOUSLY INDEBTED TO LYELL--MORE SO, AS I BELIEVE, THAN TO ANY OTHER MAN WHO EVER LIVED." ("L.L." I. pages 71-2 (the italics are mine.)) Those who knew Lyell intimately will recognise the truth of the portrait drawn by his dearest friend, and I believe that posterity will endorse Darwin's deliberate verdict concerning the value of his labours. It was my own good fortune, to be brought into close contact with these two great men during the later years of their life, and I may perhaps be permitted to put on record the impressions made upon me during friendly intercourse with both. In some respects, there was an extraordinary resemblance in their modes and habits of thought, between Lyell and Darwin; and this likeness was also seen in their modesty, their deference to the opinion of younger men, their enthusiasm for science, their freedom from petty jealousies and their righteous indignation for what was mean and unworthy in others. But yet there was a difference. Both Lyell and Darwin were cautious, but perhaps Lyell carried his caution to the verge of timidity. I think Darwin possessed, and Lyell lacked, what I can only describe by the theological term, "faith--the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Both had been constrained to feel that the immutability of species could not be maintained. Both, too, recognised the fact that it would be useless to proclaim this conviction, unless prepared with a satisfactory alternative to what Huxley called "the Miltonic hypothesis." But Darwin's conviction was so far vital and operative that it sustained him while working unceasingly for twenty-two years in collecting evidence bearing on the question, till at last he was in the position of being able to justify that conviction to others. And yet Lyell's attitude--and that of Hooker, which was very similar--proved of inestimable service to science, as Darwin often acknowledged. One of the greatest merits of the "Origin of Species" is that so many difficulties and objections are anticipated and fairly met; and this was to a great extent the result of the persistent and very candid--if always friendly--criticism of Lyell and Hooker. I think the divergence of mental attitude in Lyell and Darwin must be attributed to a difference in temperament, the evidence of which sometimes appears in a very striking manner in their correspondence. Thus in 1838, while they were in the thick of the fight with the Catastrophists of the Geological Society, Lyell wrote characteristically: "I really find, when bringing up my Preliminary Essays in "Principles" to the science of the present day, so far as I know it, that the great outline, and even most of the details, stand so uninjured, and in many cases they are so much strengthened by new discoveries, especially by yours, that we may begin to hope that the great principles there insisted on will stand the test of new discoveries." (Lyell's "Life, Letters and Journals", Vol. II. page 44.) To which the more youthful and impetuous Darwin replies: "BEGIN TO HOPE: why the POSSIBILITY of a doubt has never crossed my mind for many a day. This may be very unphilosophical, but my geological salvation is staked on it... it makes me quite indignant that you should talk of HOPING." ("L.L." I. page 296.) It was not only Darwin's "geological salvation" that was at stake, when he surrendered himself to his enthusiasm for an idea. To his firm faith in the doctrine of continuity we owe the "Origin of Species"; and while Darwin became the "Paul" of evolution, Lyell long remained the "doubting Thomas." Many must have felt like H.C. Watson when he wrote: "How could Sir C. Lyell... for thirty years read, write, and think, on the subject of species AND THEIR SUCCESSION, and yet constantly look down the wrong road!" ("L.L." II. page 227.) Huxley attributed this hesitation of Lyell to his "profound antipathy" to the doctrine of the "pithecoid origin of man." ("L.L." II. page 193.) Without denying that this had considerable influence (and those who knew Lyell and his great devotion to his wife and her memory, are aware that he and she felt much stronger convictions concerning such subjects as the immortality of the soul than Darwin was able to confess to) yet I think Darwin had divined the real characteristics of his friend's mind, when he wrote: "He would advance all possible objections... AND EVEN AFTER THESE WERE EXHAUSTED, WOULD REMAIN LONG DUBIOUS." Very touching indeed was the friendship maintained to the end between these two leaders of thought--free as their intercourse was from any smallest trace of self-seeking or jealousy. When in 1874 I spent some time with Lyell in his Forfarshire home, a communication from Darwin was always an event which made a "red-letter day," as Lyell used to say; and he gave me many indications in his conversation of how strongly he relied upon the opinion of Darwin--more indeed than on the judgment of any other man--this confidence not being confined to questions of science, but extending to those of morals, politics, and religion. I have heard those who knew Lyell only slightly, speak of his manners as cold and reserved. His complete absorption in his scientific work, coupled with extreme short-sightedness, almost in the end amounting to blindness, may have permitted those having but a casual acquaintance with him to accept such a view. But those privileged to know him intimately recognised the nobleness of his character and can realise the justice and force of Hooker's words when he heard of his death: "My loved, my best friend, for well nigh forty years of my life. The most generous sharer of my own and my family's hopes, joys and sorrows, whose affection for me was truly that of a father and brother combined." But the strongest of all testimonies to the grandeur of Lyell's character is the lifelong devotion to him of such a man as Darwin. Before the two met, we find Darwin constantly writing of facts and observations that he thinks "will interest Mr Lyell"; and when they came together the mutual esteem rapidly ripened into the warmest affection. Both having the advantage of a moderate independence, permitting of an entire devotion of their lives to scientific research, they had much in common, and the elder man--who had already achieved both scientific and literary distinction--was able to give good advice and friendly help to the younger one. The warmth of their friendship comes out very strikingly in their correspondence. When Darwin first conceived the idea of writing a book on the "species question," soon after his return from the voyage, it was "by following the example of Lyell in Geology" that he hoped to succeed ("L.L." I. page 83.); when in 1844, Darwin had finished his first sketch of the work, and, fearing that his life might not be spared to complete his great undertaking, committed the care of it in a touching letter to his wife, it was his friend Lyell whom he named as her adviser and the possible editor of the book ("L.L." II. pages 17-18.); it was Lyell who, in 1856, induced Darwin to lay the foundations of a treatise ("L.L." I. page 84.) for which the author himself selected the "Principles" as his model; and when the dilemma arose from the receipt of Wallace's essay, it was to Lyell jointly with Hooker that Darwin turned, not in vain, for advice and help. During the later years of his life, I never heard Darwin allude to his lost friend--and he did so very often--without coupling his name with some term of affection. For a brief period, it is true, Lyell's excessive caution when the "Origin" was published, seemed to try even the patience of Darwin; but when "the master" was at last able to declare himself fully convinced, he was the occasion of more rejoicing on the part of Darwin, than any other convert to his views. The latter was never tired of talking of Lyell's "magnanimity" and asserted that, "To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel." ("L.L." II. pages 229-30.) Of Darwin himself, I can safely affirm that I never knew anyone who had met him, even for the briefest period, who was not charmed by his personality. Who could forget the hearty hand-grip at meeting, the gentle and lingering pressure of the palm at parting, and above all that winning smile which transformed his countenance--so as to make portraits, and even photographs, seem ever afterwards unsatisfying! Looking back, one is indeed tempted to forget the profoundness of the philosopher, in recollection of the loveableness of the man. XIX. DARWIN'S WORK ON THE MOVEMENTS OF PLANTS. By Francis Darwin, Honorary Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. My father's interest in plants was of two kinds, which may be roughly distinguished as EVOLUTIONARY and PHYSIOLOGICAL. Thus in his purely evolutionary work, for instance in "The Origin of Species" and in his book on "Variation under Domestication", plants as well as animals served as material for his generalisations. He was largely dependent on the work of others for the facts used in the evolutionary work, and despised himself for belonging to the "blessed gang" of compilers. And he correspondingly rejoiced in the employment of his wonderful power of observation in the physiological problems which occupied so much of his later life. But inasmuch as he felt evolution to be his life's work, he regarded himself as something of an idler in observing climbing plants, insectivorous plants, orchids, etc. In this physiological work he was to a large extent urged on by his passionate desire to understand the machinery of all living things. But though it is true that he worked at physiological problems in the naturalist's spirit of curiosity, yet there was always present to him the bearing of his facts on the problem of evolution. His interests, physiological and evolutionary, were indeed so interwoven that they cannot be sharply separated. Thus his original interest in the fertilisation of flowers was evolutionary. "I was led" ("Life and Letters", I. page 90.), he says, "to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant." In the same way the value of his experimental work on heterostyled plants crystalised out in his mind into the conclusion that the product of illegitimate unions are equivalent to hybrids--a conclusion of the greatest interest from an evolutionary point of view. And again his work "Cross and Self Fertilisation" may be condensed to a point of view of great importance in reference to the meaning and origin of sexual reproduction. (See Professor Goebel's article in the present volume.) The whole of his physiological work may be looked at as an illustration of the potency of his theory as an "instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge." (Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters." II. page 204.) His doctrine of natural selection gave, as is well known, an impulse to the investigation of the use of organs--and thus created the great school of what is known in Germany as Biology--a department of science for which no English word exists except the rather vague term Natural History. This was especially the case in floral biology, and it is interesting to see with what hesitation he at first expressed the value of his book on Orchids ("Life and Letters", III. page 254.), "It will perhaps serve to illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the belief of the modification of species" (1861). And in 1862 he speaks (Loc. cit.) more definitely of the relation of his work to natural selection: "I can show the meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges (and) horns; who will now venture to say that this or that structure is useless?" It is the fashion now to minimise the value of this class of work, and we even find it said by a modern writer that to inquire into the ends subserved by organs is not a scientific problem. Those who take this view surely forget that the structure of all living things is, as a whole, adaptive, and that a knowledge of how the present forms come to be what they are includes a knowledge of why they survived. They forget that the SUMMATION of variations on which divergence depends is under the rule of the environment considered as a selective force. They forget that the scientific study of the interdependence of organisms is only possible through a knowledge of the machinery of the units. And that, therefore, the investigation of such widely interesting subjects as extinction and distribution must include a knowledge of function. It is only those who follow this line of work who get to see the importance of minute points of structure and understand as my father did even in 1842, as shown in his sketch of the "Origin" (Now being prepared for publication.), that every grain of sand counts for something in the balance. Much that is confidently stated about the uselessness of different organs would never have been written if the naturalist spirit were commoner nowadays. This spirit is strikingly shown in my father's work on the movements of plants. The circumstance that botanists had not, as a class, realised the interest of the subject accounts for the fact that he was able to gather such a rich harvest of results from such a familiar object as a twining plant. The subject had been investigated by H. von Mohl, Palm, and Dutrochet, but they failed not only to master the problem but (which here concerns us) to give the absorbing interest of Darwin's book to what they discovered. His work on climbing plants was his first sustained piece of work on the physiology of movement, and he remarks in 1864: "This has been new sort of work for me." ("Life and Letters", III. page 315. He had, however, made a beginning on the movements of Drosera.) He goes on to remark with something of surprise, "I have been pleased to find what a capital guide for observations a full conviction of the change of species is." It was this point of view that enabled him to develop a broad conception of the power of climbing as an adaptation by means of which plants are enabled to reach the light. Instead of being compelled to construct a stem of sufficient strength to stand alone, they succeed in the struggle by making use of other plants as supports. He showed that the great class of tendril- and root-climbers which do not depend on twining round a pole, like a scarlet-runner, but on attaching themselves as they grow upwards, effect an economy. Thus a Phaseolus has to manufacture a stem three feet in length to reach a height of two feet above the ground, whereas a pea "which had ascended to the same height by the aid of its tendrils, was but little longer than the height reached." ("Climbing Plants" (2nd edition 1875), page 193.) Thus he was led on to the belief that TWINING is the more ancient form of climbing, and that tendril-climbers have been developed from twiners. In accordance with this view we find LEAF-CLIMBERS, which may be looked on as incipient tendril-bearers, occurring in the same genera with simple twiners. (Loc. cit. page 195.) He called attention to the case of Maurandia semperflorens in which the young flower-stalks revolve spontaneously and are sensitive to a touch, but neither of these qualities is of any perceptible value to the species. This forced him to believe that in other young plants the rudiments of the faculty needed for twining would be found--a prophecy which he made good in his "Power of Movement" many years later. In "Climbing Plants" he did little more than point out the remarkable fact that the habit of climbing is widely scattered through the vegetable kingdom. Thus climbers are to be found in 35 out of the 59 Phanerogamic Alliances of Lindley, so that "the conclusion is forced on our minds that the capacity of revolving (If a twining plant, e.g. a hop, is observed before it has begun to ascend a pole, it will be noticed that, owing to the curvature of the stem, the tip is not vertical but hangs over in a roughly horizontal position. If such a shoot is watched it will be found that if, for instance, it points to the north at a given hour, it will be found after a short interval pointing north-east, then east, and after about two hours it will once more be looking northward. The curvature of the stem depends on one side growing quicker than the opposite side, and the revolving movement, i.e. circumnutation, depends on the region of quickest growth creeping gradually round the stem from south through west to south again. Other plants, e.g. Phaseolus, revolve in the opposite direction.), on which most climbers depend, is inherent, though undeveloped, in almost every plant in the vegetable kingdom." ("Climbing Plants", page 205.) In the "Origin" (Edition I. page 427, Edition VI. page 374.) Darwin speaks of the "apparent paradox, that the very same characters are analogical when one class or order is compared with another, but give true affinities when the members of the same class or order are compared one with another." In this way we might perhaps say that the climbing of an ivy and a hop are analogical; the resemblance depending on the adaptive result rather than on community of blood; whereas the relation between a leaf-climber and a true tendril-bearer reveals descent. This particular resemblance was one in which my father took especial delight. He has described an interesting case occurring in the Fumariaceae. ("Climbing Plants", page 195.) "The terminal leaflets of the leaf-climbing Fumaria officinalis are not smaller than the other leaflets; those of the leaf-climbing Adlumia cirrhosa are greatly reduced; those of Corydalis claviculata (a plant which may be indifferently called a leaf-climber or a tendril-bearer) are either reduced to microscopical dimensions or have their blades wholly aborted, so that this plant is actually in a state of transition; and finally in the Dicentra the tendrils are perfectly characterized." It is a remarkable fact that the quality which, broadly speaking, forms the basis of the climbing habit (namely revolving nutation, otherwise known as circumnutation) subserves two distinct ends. One of these is the finding of a support, and this is common to twiners and tendrils. Here the value ends as far as tendril-climbers are concerned, but in twiners Darwin believed that the act of climbing round a support is a continuation of the revolving movement (circumnutation). If we imagine a man swinging a rope round his head and if we suppose the rope to strike a vertical post, the free end will twine round it. This may serve as a rough model of twining as explained in the "Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants". It is on these points--the nature of revolving nutation and the mechanism of twining--that modern physiologists differ from Darwin. (See the discussion in Pfeffer's "The Physiology of Plants" Eng. Tr. (Oxford, 1906), III. page 34, where the literature is given. Also Jost, "Vorlesungen uber Pflanzenphysiologie", page 562, Jena, 1904.) Their criticism originated in observations made on a revolving shoot which is removed from the action of gravity by keeping the plant slowly rotating about a horizontal axis by means of the instrument known as a klinostat. Under these conditions circumnutation becomes irregular or ceases altogether. When the same experiment is made with a plant which has twined spirally up a stick, the process of climbing is checked and the last few turns become loosened or actually untwisted. From this it has been argued that Darwin was wrong in his description of circumnutation as an automatic change in the region of quickest growth. When the free end of a revolving shoot points towards the north there is no doubt that the south side has been elongating more than the north; after a time it is plain from the shoot hanging over to the east that the west side of the plant has grown most, and so on. This rhythmic change of the position of the region of greatest growth Darwin ascribes to an unknown internal regulating power. Some modern physiologists, however, attempt to explain the revolving movement as due to a particular form of sensitiveness to gravitation which it is not necessary to discuss in detail in this place. It is sufficient for my purpose to point out that Darwin's explanation of circumnutation is not universally accepted. Personally I believe that circumnutation is automatic--is primarily due to internal stimuli. It is however in some way connected with gravitational sensitiveness, since the movement normally occurs round a vertical line. It is not unnatural that, when the plant has no external stimulus by which the vertical can be recognised, the revolving movement should be upset. Very much the same may be said of the act of twining, namely that most physiologists refuse to accept Darwin's view (above referred to) that twining is the direct result of circumnutation. Everyone must allow that the two phenomena are in some way connected, since a plant which circumnutates clockwise, i.e. with the sun, twines in the same direction, and vice versa. It must also be granted that geotropism has a bearing on the problem, since all plants twine upwards, and cannot twine along a horizontal support. But how these two factors are combined, and whether any (and if so what) other factors contribute, we cannot say. If we give up Darwin's explanation, we must at the same time say with Pfeffer that "the causes of twining are... unknown." ("The Physiology of Plants", Eng. Tr. (Oxford, 1906), III. page 37.) Let us leave this difficult question and consider some other points made out in the progress of the work on climbing plants. One result of what he called his "niggling" ("Life and Letters", III. page 312.) work on tendrils was the discovery of the delicacy of their sense of touch, and the rapidity of their movement. Thus in a passion-flower tendril, a bit of platinum wire weighing 1.2 mg. produced curvature ("Climbing Plants", page 171.), as did a loop of cotton weighing 2 mg. Pfeffer ("Untersuchungen a.d. Bot. Inst. z. Tubingen", Bd. I. 1881-85, page 506.), however, subsequently found much greater sensitiveness: thus the tendril of Sicyos angulatus reacted to 0.00025 mg., but this only occurred when the delicate rider of cottonwool fibre was disturbed by the wind. The same author expanded and explained in a most interesting way the meaning of Darwin's observation that tendrils are not stimulated to movement by drops of water resting on them. Pfeffer showed that DIRTY water containing minute particles of clay in suspension acts as a stimulus. He also showed that gelatine acts like pure water; if a smooth glass rod is coated with a 10 per cent solution of gelatine and is then applied to a tendril, no movement occurs in spite of the fact that the gelatine is solid when cold. Pfeffer ("Physiology", Eng. Tr. III. page 52. Pfeffer has pointed out the resemblance between the contact irritability of plants and the human sense of touch. Our skin is not sensitive to uniform pressure such as is produced when the finger is dipped into mercury (Tubingen "Untersuchungen", I. page 504.) generalises the result in the statement that the tendril has a special form of irritability and only reacts to "differences of pressure or variations of pressure in contiguous... regions." Darwin was especially interested in such cases of specialised irritability. For instance in May, 1864, he wrote to Asa Gray ("Life and Letters", III. page 314.) describing the tendrils of Bignonia capreolata, which "abhor a simple stick, do not much relish rough bark, but delight in wool or moss." He received, from Gray, information as to the natural habitat of the species, and finally concluded that the tendrils "are specially adapted to climb trees clothed with lichens, mosses, or other such productions." ("Climbing Plants", page 102.) Tendrils were not the only instance discovered by Darwin of delicacy of touch in plants. In 1860 he had already begun to observe Sundew (Drosera), and was full of astonishment at its behaviour. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker ("Life and Letters", III. page 319.): "I have been working like a madman at Drosera. Here is a fact for you which is certain as you stand where you are, though you won't believe it, that a bit of hair 1/78000 of one grain in weight placed on gland, will cause ONE of the gland-bearing hairs of Drosera to curve inwards." Here again Pfeffer (Pfeffer in "Untersuchungen a. d. Bot. Inst. z. Tubingen", I. page 491.) has, as in so many cases, added important facts to my father's observations. He showed that if the leaf of Drosera is entirely freed from such vibrations as would reach it if observed on an ordinary table, it does not react to small weights, so that in fact it was the vibration of the minute fragment of hair on the gland that produced movement. We may fancifully see an adaptation to the capture of insects--to the dancing of a gnat's foot on the sensitive surface. Darwin was fond of telling how when he demonstrated the sensitiveness of Drosera to Mr Huxley and (I think) to Sir John Burdon Sanderson, he could perceive (in spite of their courtesy) that they thought the whole thing a delusion. And the story ended with his triumph when Mr Huxley cried out, "It IS moving." Darwin's work on tendrils has led to some interesting investigations on the mechanisms by which plants perceive stimuli. Thus Pfeffer (Tubingen "Untersuchungen" I. page 524.) showed that certain epidermic cells occurring in tendrils are probably organs of touch. In these cells the protoplasm burrows as it were into cavities in the thickness of the external cell-walls and thus comes close to the surface, being separated from an object touching the tendril merely by a very thin layer of cell-wall substance. Haberlandt ("Physiologische Pflanzenanatomie", Edition III. Leipzig, 1904. "Sinnesorgane im Pflanzenreich", Leipzig, 1901, and other publications.) has greatly extended our knowledge of vegetable structure in relation to mechanical stimulation. He defines a sense-organ as a contrivance by which the DEFORMATION or forcible change of form in the protoplasm--on which mechanical stimulation depends--is rendered rapid and considerable in amplitude ("Sinnesorgane", page 10). He has shown that in certain papillose and bristle-like contrivances, plants possess such sense-organs; and moreover that these contrivances show a remarkable similarity to corresponding sense-organs in animals. Haberlandt and Nemec ("Ber. d. Deutschen bot. Gesellschaft", XVIII. 1900. See F. Darwin, Presidential Address to Section K, British Association, 1904.) published independently and simultaneously a theory of the mechanism by which plants are orientated in relation to gravitation. And here again we find an arrangement identical in principle with that by which certain animals recognise the vertical, namely the pressure of free particles on the irritable wall of a cavity. In the higher plants, Nemec and Haberlandt believe that special loose and freely movable starch-grains play the part of the otoliths or statoliths of the crustacea, while the protoplasm lining the cells in which they are contained corresponds to the sensitive membrane lining the otocyst of the animal. What is of special interest in our present connection is that according to this ingenious theory (The original conception was due to Noll ("Heterogene Induction", Leipzig, 1892), but his view differed in essential points from those here given.) the sense of verticality in a plant is a form of contact-irritability. The vertical position is distinguished from the horizontal by the fact that, in the latter case, the loose starch-grains rest on the lateral walls of the cells instead of on the terminal walls as occurs in the normal upright position. It should be added that the statolith theory is still sub judice; personally I cannot doubt that it is in the main a satisfactory explanation of the facts. With regard to the RAPIDITY of the reaction of tendrils, Darwin records ("Climbing Plants", page 155. Others have observed movement after about 6".) that a Passion-Flower tendril moved distinctly within 25 seconds of stimulation. It was this fact, more than any other, that made him doubt the current explanation, viz. that the movement is due to unequal growth on the two sides of the tendril. The interesting work of Fitting (Pringsheim's "Jahrb." XXXVIII. 1903, page 545.) has shown, however, that the primary cause is not (as Darwin supposed) contraction on the concave, but an astonishingly rapid increase in growth-rate on the convex side. On the last page of "Climbing Plants" Darwin wrote: "It has often been vaguely asserted that plants are distinguished from animals by not having the power of movement. It should rather be said that plants acquire and display this power only when it is of some advantage to them." He gradually came to realise the vividness and variety of vegetable life, and that a plant like an animal has capacities of behaving in different ways under different circumstances, in a manner that may be compared to the instinctive movements of animals. This point of view is expressed in well-known passages in the "Power of Movement". ("The Power of Movement in Plants", 1880, pages 571-3.) "It is impossible not to be struck with the resemblance between the... movements of plants and many of the actions performed unconsciously by the lower animals." And again, "It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle... having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements." The conception of a region of perception distinct from a region of movement is perhaps the most fruitful outcome of his work on the movements of plants. But many years before its publication, viz. in 1861, he had made out the wonderful fact that in the Orchid Catasetum ("Life and Letters", III. page 268.) the projecting organs or antennae are sensitive to a touch, and transmit an influence "for more than one inch INSTANTANEOUSLY," which leads to the explosion or violent ejection of the pollinia. And as we have already seen a similar transmission of a stimulus was discovered by him in Sundew in 1860, so that in 1862 he could write to Hooker ("Life and Letters", III. page 321.): "I cannot avoid the conclusion, that Drosera possesses matter at least in some degree analogous in constitution and function to nervous matter." I propose in what follows to give some account of the observations on the transmission of stimuli given in the "Power of Movement". It is impossible within the space at my command to give anything like a complete account of the matter, and I must necessarily omit all mention of much interesting work. One well-known experiment consisted in putting opaque caps on the tips of seedling grasses (e.g. oat and canary-grass) and then exposing them to light from one side. The difference, in the amount of curvature towards the light, between the blinded and unblinded specimens, was so great that it was concluded that the light-sensitiveness resided exclusively in the tip. The experiment undoubtedly proves that the sensitiveness is much greater in the tip than elsewhere, and that there is a transmission of stimulus from the tip to the region of curvature. But Rothert (Rothert, Cohn's "Beitrage", VII. 1894.) has conclusively proved that the basal part where the curvature occurs is also DIRECTLY sensitive to light. He has shown, however, that in other grasses (Setaria, Panicum) the cotyledon is the only part which is sensitive, while the hypocotyl, where the movement occurs, is not directly sensitive. It was however the question of the localisation of the gravitational sense in the tip of the seedling root or radicle that aroused most attention, and it was on this question that a controversy arose which has continued to the present day. The experiment on which Darwin's conclusion was based consisted simply in cutting off the tip, and then comparing the behaviour of roots so treated with that of normal specimens. An uninjured root when placed horizontally regains the vertical by means of a sharp downward curve; not so a decapitated root which continues to grow more or less horizontally. It was argued that this depends on the loss of an organ specialised for the perception of gravity, and residing in the tip of the root; and the experiment (together with certain important variants) was claimed as evidence of the existence of such an organ. It was at once objected that the amputation of the tip might check curvature by interfering with longitudinal growth, on the distribution of which curvature depends. This objection was met by showing that an injury, e.g. splitting the root longitudinally (See F. Darwin, "Linnean Soc. Journal (Bot)." XIX. 1882, page 218.), which does not remove the tip, but seriously checks growth, does not prevent geotropism. This was of some interest in another and more general way, in showing that curvature and longitudinal growth must be placed in different categories as regards the conditions on which they depend. Another objection of a much more serious kind was that the amputation of the tip acts as a shock. It was shown by Rothert (See his excellent summary of the subject in "Flora" 1894 (Erganzungsband), page 199.) that the removal of a small part of the cotyledon of Setaria prevents the plant curving towards the light, and here there is no question of removing the sense-organ since the greater part of the sensitive cotyledon is intact. In view of this result it was impossible to rely on the amputations performed on roots as above described. At this juncture a new and brilliant method originated in Pfeffer's laboratory. (See Pfeffer, "Annals of Botany", VIII. 1894, page 317, and Czapek, Pringsheim's "Jahrb." XXVII. 1895, page 243.) Pfeffer and Czapek showed that it is possible to bend the root of a lupine so that, for instance, the supposed sense-organ at the tip is vertical while the motile region is horizontal. If the motile region is directly sensitive to gravity the root ought to curve downwards, but this did not occur: on the contrary it continued to grow horizontally. This is precisely what should happen if Darwin's theory is the right one: for if the tip is kept vertical, the sense-organ is in its normal position and receives no stimulus from gravitation, and therefore can obviously transmit none to the region of curvature. Unfortunately this method did not convince the botanical world because some of those who repeated Czapek's experiment failed to get his results. Czapek ("Berichte d. Deutsch. bot. Ges." XV. 1897, page 516, and numerous subsequent papers. English readers should consult Czapek in the "Annals of Botany", XIX. 1905, page 75.) has devised another interesting method which throws light on the problem. He shows that roots, which have been placed in a horizontal position and have therefore been geotropically stimulated, can be distinguished by a chemical test from vertical, i.e. unstimulated roots. The chemical change in the root can be detected before any curvature has occurred and must therefore be a symptom of stimulation, not of movement. It is particularly interesting to find that the change in the root, on which Czapek's test depends, takes place in the tip, i.e. in the region which Darwin held to be the centre for gravitational sensitiveness. In 1899 I devised a method (F. Darwin, "Annals of Botany", XIII. 1899, page 567.) by which I sought to prove that the cotyledon of Setaria is not only the organ for light-perception, but also for gravitation. If a seedling is supported horizontally by pushing the apical part (cotyledon) into a horizontal tube, the cotyledon will, according to my supposition, be stimulated gravitationally and a stimulus will be transmitted to the basal part of the stem (hypocotyl) causing it to bend. But this curvature merely raises the basal end of the seedling, the sensitive cotyledon remains horizontal, imprisoned in its tube; it will therefore be continually stimulated and will continue to transmit influences to the bending region, which should therefore curl up into a helix or corkscrew-like form,--and this is precisely what occurred. I have referred to this work principally because the same method was applied to roots by Massart (Massart, "Mem. Couronnes Acad. R. Belg." LXII. 1902.) and myself (F. Darwin, "Linnean Soc. Journ." XXXV. 1902, page 266.) with a similar though less striking result. Although these researches confirmed Darwin's work on roots, much stress cannot be laid on them as there are several objections to them, and they are not easily repeated. The method which--as far as we can judge at present--seems likely to solve the problem of the root-tip is most ingenious and is due to Piccard. (Pringsheim's "Jahrb." XL. 1904, page 94.) Andrew Knight's celebrated experiment showed that roots react to centrifugal force precisely as they do to gravity. So that if a bean root is fixed to a wheel revolving rapidly on a horizontal axis, it tends to curve away from the centre in the line of a radius of the wheel. In ordinary demonstrations of Knight's experiment the seed is generally fixed so that the root is at right angles to a radius, and as far as convenient from the centre of rotation. Piccard's experiment is arranged differently. (A seed is depicted below a horizontal dotted line AA, projecting a root upwards.) The root is oblique to the axis of rotation, and the extreme tip projects beyond that axis. Line AA represents the axis of rotation, T is the tip of the root just above the line AA, and B is the region just below line AA in which curvature takes place. If the motile region B is directly sensitive to gravitation (and is the only part which is sensitive) the root will curve (down and away from the vertical) away from the axis of rotation, just as in Knight's experiment. But if the tip T is alone sensitive to gravitation the result will be exactly reversed, the stimulus originating in T and conveyed to B will produce curvature (up towards the vertical). We may think of the line AA as a plane dividing two worlds. In the lower one gravity is of the earthly type and is shown by bodies falling and roots curving downwards: in the upper world bodies fall upwards and roots curve in the same direction. The seedling is in the lower world, but its tip containing the supposed sense-organ is in the strange world where roots curve upwards. By observing whether the root bends up or down we can decide whether the impulse to bend originates in the tip or in the motile region. Piccard's results showed that both curvatures occurred and he concluded that the sensitive region is not confined to the tip. (Czapek (Pringsheim's "Jahrb." XXXV. 1900, page 362) had previously given reasons for believing that, in the root, there is no sharp line of separation between the regions of perception and movement.) Haberlandt (Pringsheim's "Jahrb." XLV. 1908, page 575.) has recently repeated the experiment with the advantage of better apparatus and more experience in dealing with plants, and has found as Piccard did that both the tip and the curving region are sensitive to gravity, but with the important addition that the sensitiveness of the tip is much greater than that of the motile region. The case is in fact similar to that of the oat and canary-grass. In both instances my father and I were wrong in assuming that the sensitiveness is confined to the tip, yet there is a concentration of irritability in that region and transmission of stimulus is as true for geotropism as it is for heliotropism. Thus after nearly thirty years the controversy of the root-tip has apparently ended somewhat after the fashion of the quarrels at the "Rainbow" in "Silas Marner"--"you're both right and you're both wrong." But the "brain-function" of the root-tip at which eminent people laughed in early days turns out to be an important part of the truth. (By using Piccard's method I have succeeded in showing that the gravitational sensitiveness of the cotyledon of Sorghum is certainly much greater than the sensitiveness of the hypocotyl--if indeed any such sensitiveness exists. See Wiesner's "Festschrift", Vienna, 1908.) Another observation of Darwin's has given rise to much controversy. ("Power of Movement", page 133.) If a minute piece of card is fixed obliquely to the tip of a root some influence is transmitted to the region of curvature and the root bends away from the side to which the card was attached. It was thought at the time that this proved the root-tip to be sensitive to contact, but this is not necessarily the case. It seems possible that the curvature is a reaction to the injury caused by the alcoholic solution of shellac with which the cards were cemented to the tip. This agrees with the fact given in the "Power of Movement" that injuring the root-tip on one side, by cutting or burning it, induced a similar curvature. On the other hand it was shown that curvature could be produced in roots by cementing cards, not to the naked surface of the root-tip, but to pieces of gold-beaters skin applied to the root; gold-beaters skin being by itself almost without effect. But it must be allowed that, as regards touch, it is not clear how the addition of shellac and card can increase the degree of contact. There is however some evidence that very close contact from a solid body, such as a curved fragment of glass, produces curvature: and this may conceivably be the explanation of the effect of gold-beaters skin covered with shellac. But on the whole it is perhaps safer to classify the shellac experiments with the results of undoubted injury rather than with those of contact. Another subject on which a good deal of labour was expended is the sleep of leaves, or as Darwin called it their NYCTITROPIC movement. He showed for the first time how widely spread this phenomenon is, and attempted to give an explanation of the use to the plant of the power of sleeping. His theory was that by becoming more or less vertical at night the leaves escape the chilling effect of radiation. Our method of testing this view was to fix some of the leaves of a sleeping plant so that they remained horizontal at night and therefore fully exposed to radiation, while their fellows were partly protected by assuming the nocturnal position. The experiments showed clearly that the horizontal leaves were more injured than the sleeping, i.e. more or less vertical, ones. It may be objected that the danger from cold is very slight in warm countries where sleeping plants abound. But it is quite possible that a lowering of the temperature which produces no visible injury may nevertheless be hurtful by checking the nutritive processes (e.g. translocation of carbohydrates), which go on at night. Stahl ("Bot. Zeitung", 1897, page 81.) however has ingeniously suggested that the exposure of the leaves to radiation is not DIRECTLY hurtful because it lowers the temperature of the leaf, but INDIRECTLY because it leads to the deposition of dew on the leaf-surface. He gives reasons for believing that dew-covered leaves are unable to transpire efficiently, and that the absorption of mineral food-material is correspondingly checked. Stahl's theory is in no way destructive of Darwin's, and it is possible that nyctitropic leaves are adapted to avoid the indirect as well as the direct results of cooling by radiation. In what has been said I have attempted to give an idea of some of the discoveries brought before the world in the "Power of Movement" (In 1881 Professor Wiesner published his "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen", a book devoted to the criticism of "The Power of Movement in Plants". A letter to Wiesner, published in "Life and Letters", III. page 336, shows Darwin's warm appreciation of his critic's work, and of the spirit in which it is written.) and of the subsequent history of the problems. We must now pass on to a consideration of the central thesis of the book,--the relation of circumnutation to the adaptive curvatures of plants. Darwin's view is plainly stated on pages 3-4 of the "Power of Movement". Speaking of circumnutation he says, "In this universally present movement we have the basis or groundwork for the acquirement, according to the requirements of the plant, of the most diversified movements." He then points out that curvatures such as those towards the light or towards the centre of the earth can be shown to be exaggerations of circumnutation in the given directions. He finally points out that the difficulty of conceiving how the capacities of bending in definite directions were acquired is diminished by his conception. "We know that there is always movement in progress, and its amplitude, or direction, or both, have only to be modified for the good of the plant in relation with internal or external stimuli." It may at once be allowed that the view here given has not been accepted by physiologists. The bare fact that circumnutation is a general property of plants (other than climbing species) is not generally rejected. But the botanical world is no nearer to believing in the theory of reaction built on it. If we compare the movements of plants with those of the lower animals we find a certain resemblance between the two. According to Jennings (H.S. Jennings, "The Behavior of the Lower Animals". Columbia U. Press, N.Y. 1906.) a Paramoecium constantly tends to swerve towards the aboral side of its body owing to certain peculiarities in the set and power of its cilia. But the tendency to swim in a circle, thus produced, is neutralised by the rotation of the creature about its longitudinal axis. Thus the direction of the swerves IN RELATION TO THE PATH of the organism is always changing, with the result that the creature moves in what approximates to a straight line, being however actually a spiral about the general line of progress. This method of motion is strikingly like the circumnutation of a plant, the apex of which also describes a spiral about the general line of growth. A rooted plant obviously cannot rotate on its axis, but the regular series of curvatures of which its growth consists correspond to the aberrations of Paramoecium distributed regularly about its course by means of rotation. (In my address to the Biological Section of the British Association at Cardiff (1891) I have attempted to show the connection between circumnutation and RECTIPETALITY, i.e. the innate capacity of growing in a straight line.) Just as a plant changes its direction of growth by an exaggeration of one of the curvature-elements of which circumnutation consists, so does a Paramoecium change its course by the accentuation of one of the deviations of which its path is built. Jennings has shown that the infusoria, etc., react to stimuli by what is known as the "method of trial." If an organism swims into a region where the temperature is too high or where an injurious substance is present, it changes its course. It then moves forward again, and if it is fortunate enough to escape the influence, it continues to swim in the given direction. If however its change of direction leads it further into the heated or poisonous region it repeats the movement until it emerges from its difficulties. Jennings finds in the movements of the lower organisms an analogue with what is known as pain in conscious organisms. There is certainly this much resemblance that a number of quite different sub-injurious agencies produce in the lower organisms a form of reaction by the help of which they, in a partly fortuitous way, escape from the threatening element in their environment. The higher animals are stimulated in a parallel manner to vague and originally purposeless movements, one of which removes the discomfort under which they suffer, and the organism finally learns to perform the appropriate movement without going through the tentative series of actions. I am tempted to recognise in circumnutation a similar groundwork of tentative movements out of which the adaptive ones were originally selected by a process rudely representative of learning by experience. It is, however, simpler to confine ourselves to the assumption that those plants have survived which have acquired through unknown causes the power of reacting in appropriate ways to the external stimuli of light, gravity, etc. It is quite possible to conceive this occurring in plants which have no power of circumnutating--and, as already pointed out, physiologists do as a fact neglect circumnutation as a factor in the evolution of movements. Whatever may be the fate of Darwin's theory of circumnutation there is no doubt that the research he carried out in support of, and by the light of, this hypothesis has had a powerful influence in guiding the modern theories of the behaviour of plants. Pfeffer ("The Physiology of Plants", Eng. Tr. III. page 11.), who more than any one man has impressed on the world a rational view of the reactions of plants, has acknowledged in generous words the great value of Darwin's work in the same direction. The older view was that, for instance, curvature towards the light is the direct mechanical result of the difference of illumination on the lighted and shaded surfaces of the plant. This has been proved to be an incorrect explanation of the fact, and Darwin by his work on the transmission of stimuli has greatly contributed to the current belief that stimuli act indirectly. Thus we now believe that in a root and a stem the mechanism for the perception of gravitation is identical, but the resulting movements are different because the motor-irritabilities are dissimilar in the two cases. We must come back, in fact, to Darwin's comparison of plants to animals. In both there is perceptive machinery by which they are made delicately alive to their environment, in both the existing survivors are those whose internal constitution has enabled them to respond in a beneficial way to the disturbance originating in their sense-organs. XX. THE BIOLOGY OF FLOWERS. By K. Goebel, Ph.D. Professor of Botany in the University of Munich. There is scarcely any subject to which Darwin devoted so much time and work as to his researches into the biology of flowers, or, in other words, to the consideration of the question to what extent the structural and physiological characters of flowers are correlated with their function of producing fruits and seeds. We know from his own words what fascination these studies possessed for him. We repeatedly find, for example, in his letters expressions such as this:--"Nothing in my life has ever interested me more than the fertilisation of such plants as Primula and Lythrum, or again Anacamptis or Listera." ("More Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. II. page 419.) Expressions of this kind coming from a man whose theories exerted an epoch-making influence, would be unintelligible if his researches into the biology of flowers had been concerned only with records of isolated facts, however interesting these might be. We may at once take it for granted that the investigations were undertaken with the view of following up important problems of general interest, problems which are briefly dealt with in this essay. Darwin published the results of his researches in several papers and in three larger works, (i) "On the various contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are fertilised by insects" (First edition, London, 1862; second edition, 1877; popular edition, 1904.) (ii) "The effects of Cross and Self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom" (First edition, 1876; second edition, 1878). (iii) "The different forms of Flowers on plants of the same species" (First edition, 1877; second edition, 1880). Although the influence of his work is considered later, we may here point out that it was almost without a parallel; not only does it include a mass of purely scientific observations, but it awakened interest in very wide circles, as is shown by the fact that we find the results of Darwin's investigations in floral biology universally quoted in school books; they are even willingly accepted by those who, as regards other questions, are opposed to Darwin's views. The works which we have mentioned are, however, not only of special interest because of the facts they contribute, but because of the MANNER in which the facts are expressed. A superficial reader seeking merely for catch-words will, for instance, probably find the book on cross and self-fertilisation rather dry because of the numerous details which it contains: it is, indeed, not easy to compress into a few words the general conclusions of this volume. But on closer examination, we cannot be sufficiently grateful to the author for the exactness and objectivity with which he enables us to participate in the scheme of his researches. He never tries to persuade us, but only to convince us that his conclusions are based on facts; he always gives prominence to such facts as appear to be in opposition to his opinions,--a feature of his work in accordance with a maxim which he laid down:--"It is a golden rule, which I try to follow, to put every fact which is opposed to one's preconceived opinion in the strongest light." ("More Letters", Vol. II. page 324.) The result of this method of presentation is that the works mentioned above represent a collection of most valuable documents even for those who feel impelled to draw from the data other conclusions than those of the author. Each investigation is the outcome of a definite question, a "preconceived opinion," which is either supported by the facts or must be abandoned. "How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!" (Ibid. Vol. I. page 195.) The points of view which Darwin had before him were principally the following. In the first place the proof that a large number of the peculiarities in the structure of flowers are not useless, but of the greatest significance in pollination must be of considerable importance for the interpretation of adaptations; "The use of each trifling detail of structure is far from a barren search to those who believe in natural selection." ("Fertilisation of Orchids" (1st edition), page 351; (2nd edition 1904) page 286.) Further, if these structural relations are shown to be useful, they may have been acquired because from the many variations which have occurred along different lines, those have been preserved by natural selection "which are beneficial to the organism under the complex and ever-varying conditions of life." (Ibid. page 351.) But in the case of flowers there is not only the question of adaptation to fertilisation to be considered. Darwin, indeed, soon formed the opinion which he has expressed in the following sentence,--"From my own observations on plants, guided to a certain extent by the experience of the breeders of animals, I became convinced many years ago that it is a general law of nature that flowers are adapted to be crossed, at least occasionally, by pollen from a distinct plant." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 6.) The experience of animal breeders pointed to the conclusion that continual in-breeding is injurious. If this is correct, it raises the question whether the same conclusion holds for plants. As most flowers are hermaphrodite, plants afford much more favourable material than animals for an experimental solution of the question, what results follow from the union of nearly related sexual cells as compared with those obtained by the introduction of new blood. The answer to this question must, moreover, possess the greatest significance for the correct understanding of sexual reproduction in general. We see, therefore, that the problems which Darwin had before him in his researches into the biology of flowers were of the greatest importance, and at the same time that the point of view from which he attacked the problems was essentially a teleological one. We may next inquire in what condition he found the biology of flowers at the time of his first researches, which were undertaken about the year 1838. In his autobiography he writes,--"During the summer of 1839, and, I believe, during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant." ("The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. I. page 90, London, 1888.) In 1841 he became acquainted with Sprengel's work: his researches into the biology of flowers were thus continued for about forty years. It is obvious that there could only be a biology of flowers after it had been demonstrated that the formation of seeds and fruit in the flower is dependent on pollination and subsequent fertilisation. This proof was supplied at the end of the seventeenth century by R.J. Camerarius (1665-1721). He showed that normally seeds and fruits are developed only when the pollen reaches the stigma. The manner in which this happens was first thoroughly investigated by J.G. Kolreuter (1733-1806 (Kolreuter, "Vorlaufige Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Planzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen", Leipzig, 1761; with three supplements, 1763-66. Also, "Mem. de l'acad. St Petersbourg", Vol. XV. 1809.)), the same observer to whom we owe the earliest experiments in hybridisation of real scientific interest. Kolreuter mentioned that pollen may be carried from one flower to another partly by wind and partly by insects. But he held the view, and that was, indeed, the natural assumption, that self-fertilisation usually occurs in a flower, in other words that the pollen of a flower reaches the stigma of the same flower. He demonstrated, however, certain cases in which cross-pollination occurs, that is in which the pollen of another flower of the same species is conveyed to the stigma. He was familiar with the phenomenon, exhibited by numerous flowers, to which Sprengel afterwards applied the term Dichogamy, expressing the fact that the anthers and stigmas of a flower often ripen at different times, a peculiarity which is now recognised as one of the commonest means of ensuring cross-pollination. With far greater thoroughness and with astonishing power of observation C.K. Sprengel (1750-1816) investigated the conditions of pollination of flowers. Darwin was introduced by that eminent botanist Robert Brown to Sprengel's then but little appreciated work,--"Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen" (Berlin, 1793); this is by no means the least service to Botany rendered by Robert Brown. Sprengel proceeded from a naive teleological point of view. He firmly believed "that the wise Author of nature had not created a single hair without a definite purpose." He succeeded in demonstrating a number of beautiful adaptations in flowers for ensuring pollination; but his work exercised but little influence on his contemporaries and indeed for a long time after his death. It was through Darwin that Sprengel's work first achieved a well deserved though belated fame. Even such botanists as concerned themselves with researches into the biology of flowers appear to have formerly attached much less value to Sprengel's work than it has received since Darwin's time. In illustration of this we may quote C.F. Gartner whose name is rightly held in the highest esteem as that of one of the most eminent hybridologists. In his work "Versuche und Beobachtungen uder die Befruchtungsorgane der vollkommeneren Gewachse und uber die naturliche und kunstliche Befruchtung durch den eigenen Pollen" he also deals with flower-pollination. He recognised the action of the wind, but he believed, in spite of the fact that he both knew and quoted Kolreuter and Sprengel, that while insects assist pollination, they do so only occasionally, and he held that insects are responsible for the conveyance of pollen; thorough investigations would show "that a very small proportion of the plants included in this category require this assistance in their native habitat." (Gartner, "Versucher und Beobachtungen... ", page 335, Stuttgart, 1844.) In the majority of plants self-pollination occurs. Seeing that even investigators who had worked for several decades at fertilisation-phenomena had not advanced the biology of flowers beyond the initial stage, we cannot be surprised that other botanists followed to even a less extent the lines laid down by Kolreuter and Sprengel. This was in part the result of Sprengel's supernatural teleology and in part due to the fact that his book appeared at a time when other lines of inquiry exerted a dominating influence. At the hands of Linnaeus systematic botany reached a vigorous development, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century the anatomy and physiology of plants grew from small beginnings to a flourishing branch of science. Those who concerned themselves with flowers endeavoured to investigate their development and structure or the most minute phenomena connected with fertilisation and the formation of the embryo. No room was left for the extension of the biology of flowers on the lines marked out by Kolreuter and Sprengel. Darwin was the first to give new life and a deeper significance to this subject, chiefly because he took as his starting-point the above-mentioned problems, the importance of which is at once admitted by all naturalists. The further development of floral biology by Darwin is in the first place closely connected with the book on the fertilisation of Orchids. It is noteworthy that the title includes the sentence,--"and on the good effects of intercrossing." The purpose of the book is clearly stated in the introduction:--"The object of the following work is to show that the contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised, are as varied and almost as perfect as any of the most beautiful adaptations in the animal kingdom; and, secondly, to show that these contrivances have for their main object the fertilisation of each flower by the pollen of another flower." ("Fertilisation of Orchids", page 1.) Orchids constituted a particularly suitable family for such researches. Their flowers exhibit a striking wealth of forms; the question, therefore, whether the great variety in floral structure bears any relation to fertilisation (In the older botanical literature the word fertilisation is usually employed in cases where POLLINATION is really in question: as Darwin used it in this sense it is so used here.) must in this case possess special interest. Darwin succeeded in showing that in most of the orchids examined self-fertilisation is either an impossibility, or, under natural conditions, occurs only exceptionally. On the other hand these plants present a series of extraordinarily beautiful and remarkable adaptations which ensure the transference of pollen by insects from one flower to another. It is impossible to describe adequately in a few words the wealth of facts contained in the Orchid book. A few examples may, however, be quoted in illustration of the delicacy of the observations and of the perspicuity employed in interpreting the facts. The majority of orchids differ from other seed plants (with the exception of the Asclepiads) in having no dust-like pollen. The pollen, or more correctly, the pollen-tetrads, remain fastened together as club-shaped pollinia usually borne on a slender pedicel. At the base of the pedicel is a small viscid disc by which the pollinium is attached to the head or proboscis of one of the insects which visit the flower. Darwin demonstrated that in Orchis and other flowers the pedicel of the pollinium, after its removal from the anther, undergoes a curving movement. If the pollinium was originally vertical, after a time it assumed a horizontal position. In the latter position, if the insect visited another flower, the pollinium would exactly hit the sticky stigmatic surface and thus effect fertilisation. The relation between the behaviour of the viscid disc and the secretion of nectar by the flower is especially remarkable. The flowers possess a spur which in some species (e.g. Gymnadenia conopsea, Platanthera bifolia, etc.) contains honey (nectar), which serves as an attractive bait for insects, but in others (e.g. our native species of Orchis) the spur is empty. Darwin held the opinion, confirmed by later investigations, that in the case of flowers without honey the insects must penetrate the wall of the nectarless spurs in order to obtain a nectar-like substance. The glands behave differently in the nectar-bearing and in the nectarless flowers. In the former they are so sticky that they at once adhere to the body of the insect; in the nectarless flowers firm adherence only occurs after the viscid disc has hardened. It is, therefore, adaptively of value that the insects should be detained longer in the nectarless flowers (by having to bore into the spur),--than in flowers in which the nectar is freely exposed. "If this relation, on the one hand, between the viscid matter requiring some little time to set hard, and the nectar being so lodged that moths are delayed in getting it; and, on the other hand, between the viscid matter being at first as viscid as ever it will become, and the nectar lying all ready for rapid suction, be accidental, it is a fortunate accident for the plant. If not accidental, and I cannot believe it to be accidental, what a singular case of adaptation!" ("Fertilisation of Orchids" (1st edition), page 53.) Among exotic orchids Catasetum is particularly remarkable. One and the same species bears different forms of flowers. The species known as Catasetum tridentatum has pollinia with very large viscid discs; on touching one of the two filaments (antennae) which occur on the gynostemium of the flower the pollinia are shot out to a fairly long distance (as far as 1 metre) and in such manner that they alight on the back of the insect, where they are held. The antennae have, moreover, acquired an importance, from the point of view of the physiology of stimulation, as stimulus-perceiving organs. Darwin had shown that it is only a touch on the antennae that causes the explosion, while contact, blows, wounding, etc. on other places produce no effect. This form of flower proved to be the male. The second form, formerly regarded as a distinct species and named Monachanthus viridis, is shown to be the female flower. The anthers have only rudimentary pollinia and do not open; there are no antennae, but on the other hand numerous seeds are produced. Another type of flower, known as Myanthus barbatus, was regarded by Darwin as a third form: this was afterwards recognised by Rolfe (Rolfe, R.A. "On the sexual forms of Catasetum with special reference to the researches of Darwin and others," "Journ. Linn. Soc." Vol. XXVII. (Botany), 1891, pages 206-225.) as the male flower of another species, Catasetum barbatum Link, an identification in accordance with the discovery made by Cruger in Trinidad that it always remains sterile. Darwin had noticed that the flowers of Catasetum do not secrete nectar, and he conjectured that in place of it the insects gnaw a tissue in the cavity of the labellum which has a "slightly sweet, pleasant and nutritious taste." This conjecture as well as other conclusions drawn by Darwin from Catasetum have been confirmed by Cruger--assuredly the best proof of the acumen with which the wonderful floral structure of this "most remarkable of the Orchids" was interpretated far from its native habitat. As is shown by what we have said about Catasetum, other problems in addition to those concerned with fertilisation are dealt with in the Orchid book. This is especially the case in regard to flower morphology. The scope of flower morphology cannot be more clearly and better expressed than by these words: "He will see how curiously a flower may be moulded out of many separate organs--how perfect the cohesion of primordially distinct parts may become,--how organs may be used for purposes widely different from their proper function,--how other organs may be entirely suppressed, or leave mere useless emblems of their former existence." ("Fertilisation of Orchids", page 289.) In attempting, from this point of view, to refer the floral structure of orchids to their original form, Darwin employed a much more thorough method than that of Robert Brown and others. The result of this was the production of a considerable literature, especially in France, along the lines suggested by Darwin's work. This is the so-called anatomical method, which seeks to draw conclusions as to the morphology of the flower from the course of the vascular bundles in the several parts. (He wrote in one of his letters, "... the destiny of the whole human race is as nothing to the course of vessels of orchids" ("More Letters", Vol. II. page 275.) Although the interpretation of the orchid flower given by Darwin has not proved satisfactory in one particular point--the composition of the labellum--the general results have received universal assent, namely "that all Orchids owe what they have in common to descent from some monocotyledonous plant, which, like so many other plants of the same division, possessed fifteen organs arranged alternately three within three in five whorls." ("Fertilisation of Orchids" (1st edition), page 307.) The alterations which their original form has undergone have persisted so far as they were found to be of use. We see also that the remarkable adaptations of which we have given some examples are directed towards cross-fertilisation. In only a few of the orchids investigated by Darwin--other similar cases have since been described--was self-fertilisation found to occur regularly or usually. The former is the case in the Bee Ophrys (Ophrys apifera), the mechanism of which greatly surprised Darwin. He once remarked to a friend that one of the things that made him wish to live a few thousand years was his desire to see the extinction of the Bee Ophrys, an end to which he believed its self-fertilising habit was leading. ("Life and Letters", Vol. III. page 276 (footnote).) But, he wrote, "the safest conclusion, as it seems to me, is, that under certain unknown circumstances, and perhaps at very long intervals of time, one individual of the Bee Ophrys is crossed by another." ("Fertilisation of Orchids" page 71.) If, on the one hand, we remember how much more sure self-fertilisation would be than cross-fertilisation, and, on the other hand, if we call to mind the numerous contrivances for cross-fertilisation, the conclusion is naturally reached that "it is an astonishing fact that self-fertilisation should not have been an habitual occurrence. It apparently demonstrates to us that there must be something injurious in the process. Nature thus tells us, in the most emphatic manner, that she abhors perpetual self-fertilisation... For may we not further infer as probable, in accordance with the belief of the vast majority of the breeders of our domestic productions, that marriage between near relations is likewise in some way injurious, that some unknown great good is derived from the union of individuals which have been kept distinct for many generations?" (Ibid., page 359.) This view was supported by observations on plants of other families, e.g. Papilionaceae; it could, however, in the absence of experimental proof, be regarded only as a "working hypothesis." All adaptations to cross-pollination might also be of use simply because they made pollination possible when for any reason self-pollination had become difficult or impossible. Cross-pollination would, therefore, be of use, not as such, but merely as a means of pollination in general; it would to some extent serve as a remedy for a method unsuitable in itself, such as a modification standing in the way of self-pollination, and on the other hand as a means of increasing the chance of pollination in the case of flowers in which self-pollination was possible, but which might, in accidental circumstances, be prevented. It was, therefore, very important to obtain experimental proof of the conclusion to which Darwin was led by the belief of the majority of breeders and by the evidence of the widespread occurrence of cross-pollination and of the remarkable adaptations thereto. This was supplied by the researches which are described in the two other works named above. The researches on which the conclusions rest had, in part at least, been previously published in separate papers: this is the case as regards the heterostyled plants. The discoveries which Darwin made in the course of his investigations of these plants belong to the most brilliant in biological science. The case of Primula is now well known. C.K. Sprengel and others were familiar with the remarkable fact that different individuals of the European species of Primula bear differently constructed flowers; some plants possess flowers in which the styles project beyond the stamens attached to the corolla-tube (long-styled form), while in others the stamens are inserted above the stigma which is borne on a short style (short-styled form). It has been shown by Breitenbach that both forms of flower may occur on the same plant, though this happens very rarely. An analogous case is occasionally met with in hybrids, which bear flowers of different colour on the same plant (e.g. Dianthus caryophyllus). Darwin showed that the external differences are correlated with others in the structure of the stigma and in the nature of the pollen. The long-styled flowers have a spherical stigma provided with large stigmatic papillae; the pollen grains are oblong and smaller than those of the short-styled flowers. The number of the seeds produced is smaller and the ovules larger, probably also fewer in number. The short-styled flowers have a smooth compressed stigma and a corolla of somewhat different form; they produce a greater number of seeds. These different forms of flowers were regarded as merely a case of variation, until Darwin showed "that these heterostyled plants are adapted for reciprocal fertilisation; so that the two or three forms, though all are hermaphrodites, are related to one another almost like the males and females of ordinary unisexual animals." ("Forms of Flowers" (1st edition), page 2.) We have here an example of hermaphrodite flowers which are sexually different. There are essential differences in the manner in which fertilisation occurs. This may be effected in four different ways; there are two legitimate and two illegitimate types of fertilisation. The fertilisation is legitimate if pollen from the long-styled flowers reaches the stigma of the short-styled form or if pollen of the short-styled flowers is brought to the stigma of the long-styled flower, that is the organs of the same length of the two different kinds of flower react on one another. Illegitimate fertilisation is represented by the two kinds of self-fertilisation, also by cross-fertilisation, in which the pollen of the long-styled form reaches the stigma of the same type of flower and, similarly, by cross-pollination in the case of the short-styled flowers. The applicability of the terms legitimate and illegitimate depends, on the one hand, upon the fact that insects which visit the different forms of flowers pollinate them in the manner suggested; the pollen of the short-styled flowers adhere to that part of the insect's body which touches the stigma of the long-styled flower and vice versa. On the other hand, it is based also on the fact that experiment shows that artificial pollination produces a very different result according as this is legitimate or illegitimate; only the legitimate union ensures complete fertility, the plants thus produced being stronger than those which are produced illegitimately. If we take 100 as the number of flowers which produce seeds as the result of legitimate fertilisation, we obtain the following numbers from illegitimate fertilisation: Primula officinalis (P. veris) (Cowslip)... 69 Primula elatior (Oxlip).................... 27 Primula acaulis (P. vulgaris) (Primrose)... 60 Further, the plants produced by the illegitimate method of fertilisation showed, e.g. in P. officinalis, a decrease in fertility in later generations, sterile pollen and in the open a feebler growth. (Under very favourable conditions (in a greenhouse) the fertility of the plants of the fourth generation increases--a point, which in view of various theoretical questions, deserves further investigation.) They behave in fact precisely in the same way as hybrids between species of different genera. This result is important, "for we thus learn that the difficulty in sexually uniting two organic forms and the sterility of their offspring, afford no sure criterion of so-called specific distinctness" ("Forms of Flowers", page 242): the relative or absolute sterility of the illegitimate unions and that of their illegitimate descendants depend exclusively on the nature of the sexual elements and on their inability to combine in a particular manner. This functional difference of sexual cells is characteristic of the behaviour of hybrids as of the illegitimate unions of heterostyled plants. The agreement becomes even closer if we regard the Primula plants bearing different forms of flowers not as belonging to a systematic entity or "species," but as including several elementary species. The legitimately produced plants are thus true hybrids (When Darwin wrote in reference to the different forms of heterostyled plants, "which all belong to the same species as certainly as do the two sexes of the same species" ("Cross and Self fertilisation", page 466), he adopted the term species in a comprehensive sense. The recent researches of Bateson and Gregory ("On the inheritance of Heterostylism in Primula"; "Proc. Roy. Soc." Ser. B, Vol. LXXVI. 1905, page 581) appear to me also to support the view that the results of illegitimate crossing of heterostyled Primulas correspond with those of hybridisation. The fact that legitimate pollen effects fertilisation, even if illegitimate pollen reaches the stigma a short time previously, also points to this conclusion. Self-pollination in the case of the short-styled form, for example, is not excluded. In spite of this, the numerical proportion of the two forms obtained in the open remains approximately the same as when the pollination was exclusively legitimate, presumably because legitimate pollen is prepotent.), with which their behaviour in other respects, as Darwin showed, presents so close an agreement. This view receives support also from the fact that descendants of a flower fertilised illegitimately by pollen from another plant with the same form of flower belong, with few exceptions, to the same type as that of their parents. The two forms of flower, however, behave differently in this respect. Among 162 seedlings of the long-styled illegitimately pollinated plants of Primula officinalis, including five generations, there were 156 long-styled and only six short-styled forms, while as the result of legitimate fertilisation nearly half of the offspring were long-styled and half short-styled. The short-styled illegitimately pollinated form gave five long-styled and nine short-styled; the cause of this difference requires further explanation. The significance of heterostyly, whether or not we now regard it as an arrangement for the normal production of hybrids, is comprehensively expressed by Darwin: "We may feel sure that plants have been rendered heterostyled to ensure cross-fertilisation, for we now know that a cross between the distinct individuals of the same species is highly important for the vigour and fertility of the offspring." ("Forms of Flowers", page 258.) If we remember how important the interpretation of heterostyly has become in all general problems as, for example, those connected with the conditions of the formation of hybrids, a fact which was formerly overlooked, we can appreciate how Darwin was able to say in his autobiography: "I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants." ("Life and Letters", Vol. I. page 91.) The remarkable conditions represented in plants with three kinds of flowers, such as Lythrum and Oxalis, agree in essentials with those in Primula. These cannot be considered in detail here; it need only be noted that the investigation of these cases was still more laborious. In order to establish the relative fertility of the different unions in Lythrum salicaria 223 different fertilisations were made, each flower being deprived of its male organs and then dusted with the appropriate pollen. In the book containing the account of heterostyled plants other species are dealt with which, in addition to flowers opening normally (chasmogamous), also possess flowers which remain closed but are capable of producing fruit. These cleistogamous flowers afford a striking example of habitual self-pollination, and H. von Mohl drew special attention to them as such shortly after the appearance of Darwin's Orchid book. If it were only a question of producing seed in the simplest way, cleistogamous flowers would be the most conveniently constructed. The corolla and frequently other parts of the flower are reduced; the development of the seed may, therefore, be accomplished with a smaller expenditure of building material than in chasmogamous flowers; there is also no loss of pollen, and thus a smaller amount suffices for fertilisation. Almost all these plants, as Darwin pointed out, have also chasmogamous flowers which render cross-fertilisation possible. His view that cleistogamous flowers are derived from originally chasmogamous flowers has been confirmed by more recent researches. Conditions of nutrition in the broader sense are the factors which determine whether chasmogamous or cleistogamous flowers are produced, assuming, of course, that the plants in question have the power of developing both forms of flower. The former may fail to appear for some time, but are eventually developed under favourable conditions of nourishment. The belief of many authors that there are plants with only cleistogamous flowers cannot therefore be accepted as authoritative without thorough experimental proof, as we are concerned with extra-european plants for which it is often difficult to provide appropriate conditions in cultivation. Darwin sees in cleistogamous flowers an adaptation to a good supply of seeds with a small expenditure of material, while chasmogamous flowers of the same species are usually cross-fertilised and "their offspring will thus be invigorated, as we may infer from a wide-spread analogy." ("Forms of Flowers" (1st edition), page 341.) Direct proof in support of this has hitherto been supplied in a few cases only; we shall often find that the example set by Darwin in solving such problems as these by laborious experiment has unfortunately been little imitated. Another chapter of this book treats of the distribution of the sexes in polygamous, dioecious, and gyno-dioecious plants (the last term, now in common use, we owe to Darwin). It contains a number of important facts and discussions and has inspired the experimental researches of Correns and others. The most important of Darwin's work on floral biology is, however, that on cross and self-fertilisation, chiefly because it states the results of experimental investigations extending over many years. Only such experiments, as we have pointed out, could determine whether cross-fertilisation is in itself beneficial, and self-fertilisation on the other hand injurious; a conclusion which a merely comparative examination of pollination-mechanisms renders in the highest degree probable. Later floral biologists have unfortunately almost entirely confined themselves to observations on floral mechanisms. But there is little more to be gained by this kind of work than an assumption long ago made by C.K. Sprengel that "very many flowers have the sexes separate and probably at least as many hermaphrodite flowers are dichogamous; it would thus appear that Nature was unwilling that any flower should be fertilised by its own pollen." It was an accidental observation which inspired Darwin's experiments on the effect of cross and self-fertilisation. Plants of Linaria vulgaris were grown in two adjacent beds; in the one were plants produced by cross-fertilisation, that is, from seeds obtained after fertilisation by pollen of another plant of the same species; in the other grew plants produced by self-fertilisation, that is from seed produced as the result of pollination of the same flower. The first were obviously superior to the latter. Darwin was surprised by this observation, as he had expected a prejudicial influence of self-fertilisation to manifest itself after a series of generations: "I always supposed until lately that no evil effects would be visible until after several generations of self-fertilisation, but now I see that one generation sometimes suffices and the existence of dimorphic plants and all the wonderful contrivances of orchids are quite intelligible to me." ("More Letters", Vol. II. page 373.) The observations on Linaria and the investigations of the results of legitimate and illegitimate fertilisation in heterostyled plants were apparently the beginning of a long series of experiments. These were concerned with plants of different families and led to results which are of fundamental importance for a true explanation of sexual reproduction. The experiments were so arranged that plants were shielded from insect-visits by a net. Some flowers were then pollinated with their own pollen, others with pollen from another plant of the same species. The seeds were germinated on moist sand; two seedlings of the same age, one from a cross and the other from a self-fertilised flower, were selected and planted on opposite sides of the same pot. They grew therefore under identical external conditions; it was thus possible to compare their peculiarities such as height, weight, fruiting capacity, etc. In other cases the seedlings were placed near to one another in the open and in this way their capacity of resisting unfavourable external conditions was tested. The experiments were in some cases continued to the tenth generation and the flowers were crossed in different ways. We see, therefore, that this book also represents an enormous amount of most careful and patient original work. The general result obtained is that plants produced as the result of cross-fertilisation are superior, in the majority of cases, to those produced as the result of self-fertilisation, in height, resistance to external injurious influences, and in seed-production. Ipomoea purpurea may be quoted as an example. If we express the result of cross-fertilisation by 100, we obtain the following numbers for the fertilised plants. Generation. Height. Number of seeds. 1 100: 76 100: 64 2 100: 79 - 3 100: 68 100: 94 4 100: 86 100: 94 5 100: 75 100: 89 6 100: 72 - 7 100: 81 - 8 100: 85 - 9 100: 79 100: 26 (Number of capsules) 10 100: 54 - Taking the average, the ratio as regards growth is 100:77. The considerable superiority of the crossed plants is apparent in the first generation and is not increased in the following generations; but there is some fluctuation about the average ratio. The numbers representing the fertility of crossed and self-fertilised plants are more difficult to compare with accuracy; the superiority of the crossed plants is chiefly explained by the fact that they produce a much larger number of capsules, not because there are on the average more seeds in each capsule. The ratio of the capsules was, e.g. in the third generation, 100:38, that of the seeds in the capsules 100:94. It is also especially noteworthy that in the self-fertilised plants the anthers were smaller and contained a smaller amount of pollen, and in the eighth generation the reduced fertility showed itself in a form which is often found in hybrids, that is the first flowers were sterile. (Complete sterility was not found in any of the plants investigated by Darwin. Others appear to be more sensitive; Cluer found Zea Mais "almost sterile" after three generations of self-fertilisation. (Cf. Fruwirth, "Die Zuchtung der Landwirtschaftlichen Kulturpflanzen", Berlin, 1904, II. page 6.)) The superiority of crossed individuals is not exhibited in the same way in all plants. For example in Eschscholzia californica the crossed seedlings do not exceed the self-fertilised in height and vigour, but the crossing considerably increases the plant's capacity for flower-production, and the seedlings from such a mother-plant are more fertile. The conception implied by the term crossing requires a closer analysis. As in the majority of plants, a large number of flowers are in bloom at the same time on one and the same plant, it follows that insects visiting the flowers often carry pollen from one flower to another of the same stock. Has this method, which is spoken of as Geitonogamy, the same influence as crossing with pollen from another plant? The results of Darwin's experiments with different plants (Ipomoea purpurea, Digitalis purpurea, Mimulus luteus, Pelargonium, Origanum) were not in complete agreement; but on the whole they pointed to the conclusion that Geitonogamy shows no superiority over self-fertilisation (Autogamy). (Similarly crossing in the case of flowers of Pelargonium zonale, which belong to plants raised from cuttings from the same parent, shows no superiority over self-fertilisation.) Darwin, however, considered it possible that this may sometimes be the case. "The sexual elements in the flowers on the same plant can rarely have been differentiated, though this is possible, as flower-buds are in one sense distinct individuals, sometimes varying and differing from one another in structure or constitution." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 444.) As regards the importance of this question from the point of view of the significance of cross-fertilisation in general, it may be noted that later observers have definitely discovered a difference between the results of autogamy and geitonogamy. Gilley and Fruwirth found that in Brassica Napus, the length and weight of the fruits as also the total weight of the seeds in a single fruit were less in the case of autogamy than in geitonogamy. With Sinapis alba a better crop of seeds was obtained after geitonogamy, and in the Sugar Beet the average weight of a fruit in the case of a self-fertilised plant was 0.009 gr., from geitonogamy 0.012 gr., and on cross-fertilisation 0.013 gr. On the whole, however, the results of geitonogamy show that the favourable effects of cross-fertilisation do not depend simply on the fact that the pollen of one flower is conveyed to the stigma of another. But the plants which are crossed must in some way be different. If plants of Ipomoea purpurea (and Mimulus luteus) which have been self-fertilised for seven generations and grown under the same conditions of cultivation are crossed together, the plants so crossed would not be superior to the self-fertilised; on the other hand crossing with a fresh stock at once proves very advantageous. The favourable effect of crossing is only apparent, therefore, if the parent plants are grown under different conditions or if they belong to different varieties. "It is really wonderful what an effect pollen from a distinct seedling plant, which has been exposed to different conditions of life, has on the offspring in comparison with pollen from the same flower or from a distinct individual, but which has been long subjected to the same conditions. The subject bears on the very principle of life, which seems almost to require changes in the conditions." ("More Letters", Vol. II. page 406.) The fertility--measured by the number or weight of the seeds produced by an equal number of plants--noticed under different conditions of fertilisation may be quoted in illustration. On crossing On crossing On self- with a fresh plants of the fertilisation stock same stock Mimuleus luteus (First and ninth generation) 100 4 3 Eschscholzia californica (second generation) 100 45 40 Dianthus caryophyllus (third and fourth generation) 100 45 33 Petunia violacea 100 54 46 Crossing under very similar conditions shows, therefore, that the difference between the sexual cells is smaller and thus the result of crossing is only slightly superior to that given by self-fertilisation. Is, then, the favourable result of crossing with a foreign stock to be attributed to the fact that this belongs to another systematic entity or to the fact that the plants, though belonging to the same entity were exposed to different conditions? This is a point on which further researches must be taken into account, especially since the analysis of the systematic entities has been much more thorough than formerly. (In the case of garden plants, as Darwin to a large extent claimed, it is not easy to say whether two individuals really belong to the same variety, as they are usually of hybrid origin. In some instances (Petunia, Iberis) the fresh stock employed by Darwin possessed flowers differing in colour from those of the plant crossed with it.) We know that most of Linneaus's species are compound species, frequently consisting of a very large number of smaller or elementary species formerly included under the comprehensive term varieties. Hybridisation has in most cases affected our garden and cultivated plants so that they do not represent pure species but a mixture of species. But this consideration has no essential bearing on Darwin's point of view, according to which the nature of the sexual cells is influenced by external conditions. Even individuals growing close to one another are only apparently exposed to identical conditions. Their sexual cells may therefore be differently influenced and thus give favourable results on crossing, as "the benefits which so generally follow from a cross between two plants apparently depend on the two differing somewhat in constitution or character." As a matter of fact we are familiar with a large number of cases in which the condition of the reproductive organs is influenced by external conditions. Darwin has himself demonstrated this for self-sterile plants, that is plants in which self-fertilisation produces no result. This self-sterility is affected by climatic conditions: thus in Brazil Eschscholzia californica is absolutely sterile to the pollen of its own flowers; the descendants of Brazilian plants in Darwin's cultures were partially self-fertile in one generation and in a second generation still more so. If one has any doubt in this case whether it is a question of the condition of the style and stigma, which possibly prevents the entrance of the pollen-tube or even its development, rather than that of the actual sexual cells, in other cases there is no doubt that an influence is exerted on the latter. Janczewski (Janczewski, "Sur les antheres steriles des Groseilliers", "Bull. de l'acad. des sciences de Cracovie", June, 1908.) has recently shown that species of Ribes cultivated under unnatural conditions frequently produce a mixed (i.e. partly useless) or completely sterile pollen, precisely as happens with hybrids. There are, therefore, substantial reasons for the conclusion that conditions of life exert an influence on the sexual cells. "Thus the proposition that the benefit from cross-fertilisation depends on the plants which are crossed having been subjected during previous generations to somewhat different conditions, or to their having varied from some unknown cause as if they had been thus subjected, is securely fortified on all sides." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 444.) We thus obtain an insight into the significance of sexuality. If an occasional and slight alteration in the conditions under which plants and animals live is beneficial (Reasons for this are given by Darwin in "Variation under Domestication" (2nd edition), Vol. II. page 127.), crossing between organisms which have been exposed to different conditions becomes still more advantageous. The entire constitution is in this way influenced from the beginning, at a time when the whole organisation is in a highly plastic state. The total life-energy, so to speak, is increased, a gain which is not produced by asexual reproduction or by the union of sexual cells of plants which have lived under the same or only slightly different conditions. All the wonderful arrangements for cross-fertilisation now appear to be useful adaptations. Darwin was, however, far from giving undue prominence to this point of view, though this has been to some extent done by others. He particularly emphasised the following consideration:--"But we should always keep in mind that two somewhat opposed ends have to be gained; the first and more important one being the production of seeds by any means, and the second, cross-fertilisation." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 371.) Just as in some orchids and cleistogamic flowers self-pollination regularly occurs, so it may also occur in other cases. Darwin showed that Pisum sativum and Lathyrus odoratus belong to plants in which self-pollination is regularly effected, and that this accounts for the constancy of certain sorts of these plants, while a variety of form is produced by crossing. Indeed among his culture plants were some which derived no benefit from crossing. Thus in the sixth self-fertilised generation of his Ipomoea cultures the "Hero" made its appearance, a form slightly exceeding its crossed companion in height; this was in the highest degree self-fertile and handed on its characteristics to both children and grandchildren. Similar forms were found in Mimulus luteus and Nicotiana (In Pisum sativum also the crossing of two individuals of the same variety produced no advantage; Darwin attributed this to the fact that the plants had for several generations been self-fertilised and in each generation cultivated under almost the same conditions. Tschermak ("Ueber kunstliche Kreuzung an Pisum sativum") afterwards recorded the same result; but he found on crossing different varieties that usually there was no superiority as regards height over the products of self-fertilisation, while Darwin found a greater height represented by the ratios 100:75 and 100:60.), types which, after self-fertilisation, have an enhanced power of seed-production and of attaining a greater height than the plants of the corresponding generation which are crossed together and self-fertilised and grown under the same conditions. "Some observations made on other plants lead me to suspect that self-fertilisation is in some respects beneficial; although the benefit thus derived is as a rule very small compared with that from a cross with a distinct plant." ("Cross and Self fertilisation", page 350.) We are as ignorant of the reason why plants behave differently when crossed and self-fertilised as we are in regard to the nature of the differentiation of the sexual cells, which determines whether a union of the sexual cells will prove favourable or unfavourable. It is impossible to discuss the different results of cross-fertilisation; one point must, however, be emphasised, because Darwin attached considerable importance to it. It is inevitable that pollen of different kinds must reach the stigma. It was known that pollen of the same "species" is dominant over the pollen of another species, that, in other words, it is prepotent. Even if the pollen of the same species reaches the stigma rather later than that of another species, the latter does not effect fertilisation. Darwin showed that the fertilising power of the pollen of another variety or of another individual is greater than that of the plant's own pollen. ("Cross and Self fertilisation", page 391.) This has been demonstrated in the case of Mimulus luteus (for the fixed white-flowering variety) and Iberis umbellata with pollen of another variety, and observations on cultivated plants, such as cabbage, horseradish, etc. gave similar results. It is, however, especially remarkable that pollen of another individual of the same variety may be prepotent over the plant's own pollen. This results from the superiority of plants crossed in this manner over self-fertilised plants. "Scarcely any result from my experiments has surprised me so much as this of the prepotency of pollen from a distinct individual over each plant's own pollen, as proved by the greater constitutional vigour of the crossed seedlings." (Ibid. page 397.) Similarly, in self-fertile plants the flowers of which have not been deprived of the male organs, pollen brought to the stigma by the wind or by insects from another plant effects fertilisation, even if the plant's own pollen has reached the stigma somewhat earlier. Have the results of his experimental investigations modified the point of view from which Darwin entered on his researches, or not? In the first place the question is, whether or not the opinion expressed in the Orchid book that there is "Something injurious" connected with self-fertilisation, has been confirmed. We can, at all events, affirm that Darwin adhered in essentials to his original position; but self-fertilisation afterwards assumed a greater importance than it formerly possessed. Darwin emphasised the fact that "the difference between the self-fertilised and crossed plants raised by me cannot be attributed to the superiority of the crossed, but to the inferiority of the self-fertilised seedlings, due to the injurious effects of self-fertilisation." (Ibid. page 437.) But he had no doubt that in favourable circumstances self-fertilised plants were able to persist for several generations without crossing. An occasional crossing appears to be useful but not indispensable in all cases; its sporadic occurrence in plants in which self-pollination habitually occurs is not excluded. Self-fertilisation is for the most part relatively and not absolutely injurious and always better than no fertilisation. "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation" (It is incorrect to say, as a writer has lately said, that the aphorism expressed by Darwin in 1859 and 1862, "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation," is not repeated in his later works. The sentence is repeated in "Cross and Self fertilisation" (page 8), with the addition, "If the word perpetual had been omitted, the aphorism would have been false. As it stands, I believe that it is true, though perhaps rather too strongly expressed.") is, however, a pregnant expression of the fact that cross-fertilisation is exceedingly widespread and has been shown in the majority of cases to be beneficial, and that in those plants in which we find self-pollination regularly occurring cross-pollination may occasionally take place. An attempt has been made to express in brief the main results of Darwin's work on the biology of flowers. We have seen that his object was to elucidate important general questions, particularly the question of the significance of sexual reproduction. It remains to consider what influence his work has had on botanical science. That this influence has been very considerable, is shown by a glance at the literature on the biology of flowers published since Darwin wrote. Before the book on orchids was published there was nothing but the old and almost forgotten works of Kolreuter and Sprengel with the exception of a few scattered references. Darwin's investigations gave the first stimulus to the development of an extensive literature on floral biology. In Knuth's "Handbuch der Blutenbiologie" ("Handbook of Flower Pollination", Oxford, 1906) as many as 3792 papers on this subject are enumerated as having been published before January 1, 1904. These describe not only the different mechanisms of flowers, but deal also with a series of remarkable adaptations in the pollinating insects. As a fertilising rain quickly calls into existence the most varied assortment of plants on a barren steppe, so activity now reigns in a field which men formerly left deserted. This development of the biology of flowers is of importance not only on theoretical grounds but also from a practical point of view. The rational breeding of plants is possible only if the flower-biology of the plants in question (i.e. the question of the possibility of self-pollination, self-sterility, etc.) is accurately known. And it is also essential for plant-breeders that they should have "the power of fixing each fleeting variety of colour, if they will fertilise the flowers of the desired kind with their own pollen for half-a-dozen generations, and grow the seedlings under the same conditions." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 460.) But the influence of Darwin on floral biology was not confined to the development of this branch of Botany. Darwin's activity in this domain has brought about (as Asa Gray correctly pointed out) the revival of teleology in Botany and Zoology. Attempts were now made to determine, not only in the case of flowers but also in vegetative organs, in what relation the form and function of organs stand to one another and to what extent their morphological characters exhibit adaptation to environment. A branch of Botany, which has since been called Ecology (not a very happy term) has been stimulated to vigorous growth by floral biology. While the influence of the work on the biology of flowers was extraordinarily great, it could not fail to elicit opinions at variance with Darwin's conclusions. The opposition was based partly on reasons valueless as counterarguments, partly on problems which have still to be solved; to some extent also on that tendency against teleological conceptions which has recently become current. This opposing trend of thought is due to the fact that many biologists are content with teleological explanations, unsupported by proof; it is also closely connected with the fact that many authors estimate the importance of natural selection less highly than Darwin did. We may describe the objections which are based on the widespread occurrence of self-fertilisation and geitonogamy as of little importance. Darwin did not deny the occurrence of self-fertilisation, even for a long series of generations; his law states only that "Nature abhors PERPETUAL self-fertilisation." (It is impossible (as has been attempted) to express Darwin's point of view in a single sentence, such as H. Muller's statement of the "Knight-Darwin law." The conditions of life in organisms are so various and complex that laws, such as are formulated in physics and chemistry, can hardly be conceived.) An exception to this rule would therefore occur only in the case of plants in which the possibility of cross-pollination is excluded. Some of the plants with cleistogamous flowers might afford examples of such cases. We have already seen, however, that such a case has not as yet been shown to occur. Burck believed that he had found an instance in certain tropical plants (Anonaceae, Myrmecodia) of the complete exclusion of cross-fertilisation. The flowers of these plants, in which, however,--in contrast to the cleistogamous flowers--the corolla is well developed, remain closed and fruit is produced. Loew (E. Loew, "Bemerkungen zu Burck... ", "Biolog. Centralbl." XXVI. (1906).) has shown that cases occur in which cross-fertilisation may be effected even in these "cleistopetalous" flowers: humming birds visit the permanently closed flowers of certain species of Nidularium and transport the pollen. The fact that the formation of hybrids may occur as the result of this shows that pollination may be accomplished. The existence of plants for which self-pollination is of greater importance than it is for others is by no means contradictory to Darwin's view. Self-fertilisation is, for example, of greater importance for annuals than for perennials as without it seeds might fail to be produced. Even in the case of annual plants with small inconspicuous flowers in which self-fertilisation usually occurs, such as Senecio vulgaris, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stellaria media, A. Bateson (Anna Bateson, "The effects of cross-fertilisation on inconspicuous flowers", "Annals of Botany", Vol. I. 1888, page 255.) found that cross-fertilisation gave a beneficial result, although only in a slight degree. If the favourable effects of sexual reproduction, according to Darwin's view, are correlated with change of environment, it is quite possible that this is of less importance in plants which die after ripening their seeds ("hapaxanthic") and which in any case constantly change their situation. Objections which are based on the proof of the prevalence of self-fertilisation are not, therefore, pertinent. At first sight another point of view, which has been more recently urged, appears to have more weight. W. Burck (Burck, "Darwin's Kreuzeungsgesetz... ", "Biol. Centralbl". XXVIII. 1908, page 177.) has expressed the opinion that the beneficial results of cross-fertilisation demonstrated by Darwin concern only hybrid plants. These alone become weaker by self-pollination; while pure species derive no advantage from crossing and no disadvantage from self-fertilisation. It is certain that some of the plants used by Darwin were of hybrid origin. (It is questionable if this was always the case.) This is evident from his statements, which are models of clearness and precision; he says that his Ipomoea plants "were probably the offspring of a cross." ("Cross and Self fertilisation" (1st edition), page 55.) The fixed forms of this plant, such as Hero, which was produced by self-fertilisation, and a form of Mimulus with white flowers spotted with red probably resulted from splitting of the hybrids. It is true that the phenomena observed in self-pollination, e.g. in Ipomoea, agree with those which are often noticed in hybrids; Darwin himself drew attention to this. Let us next call to mind some of the peculiarities connected with hybridisation. We know that hybrids are often characterized by their large size, rapidity of growth, earlier production of flowers, wealth of flower-production and a longer life; hybrids, if crossed with one of the two parent forms, are usually more fertile than when they are crossed together or with another hybrid. But the characters which hybrids exhibit on self-fertilisation are rather variable. The following instance may be quoted from Gartner: "There are many hybrids which retain the self-fertility of the first generation during the second and later generations, but very often in a less degree; a considerable number, however, become sterile." But the hybrid varieties may be more fertile in the second generation than in the first, and in some hybrids the fertility with their own pollen increases in the second, third, and following generations. (K.F. Gartner, "Versuche uber die Bastarderzeugung", Stuttgart, 1849, page 149.) As yet it is impossible to lay down rules of general application for the self-fertility of hybrids. That the beneficial influence of crossing with a fresh stock rests on the same ground--a union of sexual cells possessing somewhat different characters--as the fact that many hybrids are distinguished by greater luxuriance, wealth of flowers, etc. corresponds entirely with Darwin's conclusions. It seems to me to follow clearly from his investigations that there is no essential difference between cross-fertilisation and hybridisation. The heterostyled plants are normally dependent on a process corresponding to hybridisation. The view that specifically distinct species could at best produce sterile hybrids was always opposed by Darwin. But if the good results of crossing were EXCLUSIVELY dependent on the fact that we are concerned with hybrids, there must then be a demonstration of two distinct things. First, that crossing with a fresh stock belonging to the same systematic entity or to the same hybrid, but cultivated for a considerable time under different conditions, shows no superiority over self-fertilisation, and that in pure species crossing gives no better results than self-pollination. If this were the case, we should be better able to understand why in one plant crossing is advantageous while in others, such as Darwin's Hero and the forms of Mimulus and Nicotiana no advantage is gained; these would then be pure species. But such a proof has not been supplied; the inference drawn from cleistogamous and cleistopetalous plants is not supported by evidence, and the experiments on geitonogamy and on the advantage of cross-fertilisation in species which are usually self-fertilised are opposed to this view. There are still but few researches on this point; Darwin found that in Ononis minutissima, which produces cleistogamous as well as self-fertile chasmogamous flowers, the crossed and self-fertilised capsules produced seed in the proportion of 100:65 and that the average bore the proportion 100:86. Facts previously mentioned are also applicable to this case. Further, it is certain that the self-sterility exhibited by many plants has nothing to do with hybridisation. Between self-sterility and reduced fertility as the result of self-fertilisation there is probably no fundamental difference. It is certain that so difficult a problem as that of the significance of sexual reproduction requires much more investigation. Darwin was anything but dogmatic and always ready to alter an opinion when it was not based on definite proof: he wrote, "But the veil of secrecy is as yet far from lifted; nor will it be, until we can say why it is beneficial that the sexual elements should be differentiated to a certain extent, and why, if the differentiation be carried still further, injury follows." He has also shown us the way along which to follow up this problem; it is that of carefully planned and exact experimental research. It may be that eventually many things will be viewed in a different light, but Darwin's investigations will always form the foundation of Floral Biology on which the future may continue to build. XXI. MENTAL FACTORS IN EVOLUTION. By C. Lloyd Morgan, LL.D., F.R.S. In developing his conception of organic evolution Charles Darwin was of necessity brought into contact with some of the problems of mental evolution. In "The Origin of Species" he devoted a chapter to "the diversities of instinct and of the other mental faculties in animals of the same class." ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 205.) When he passed to the detailed consideration of "The Descent of Man", it was part of his object to show "that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties." ("Descent of Man" (2nd edition 1888), Vol. I. page 99; Popular edition page 99.) "If no organic being excepting man," he said, "had possessed any mental power, or if his powers had been of a wholly different nature from those of the lower animals, then we should never have been able to convince ourselves that our high faculties had been gradually developed." (Ibid. page 99.) In his discussion of "The Expression of the Emotions" it was important for his purpose "fully to recognise that actions readily become associated with other actions and with various states of the mind." ("The Expression of the Emotions" (2nd edition), page 32.) His hypothesis of sexual selection is largely dependent upon the exercise of choice on the part of the female and her preference for "not only the more attractive but at the same time the more vigorous and victorious males." ("Descent of Man", Vol. II. page 435.) Mental processes and physiological processes were for Darwin closely correlated; and he accepted the conclusion "that the nervous system not only regulates most of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced the progressive development of various bodily structures and of certain mental qualities." (Ibid. pages 437, 438.) Throughout his treatment, mental evolution was for Darwin incidental to and contributory to organic evolution. For specialised research in comparative and genetic psychology, as an independent field of investigation, he had neither the time nor the requisite training. None the less his writings and the spirit of his work have exercised a profound influence on this department of evolutionary thought. And, for those who follow Darwin's lead, mental evolution is still in a measure subservient to organic evolution. Mental processes are the accompaniments or concomitants of the functional activity of specially differentiated parts of the organism. They are in some way dependent on physiological and physical conditions. But though they are not physical in their nature, and though it is difficult or impossible to conceive that they are physical in their origin, they are, for Darwin and his followers, factors in the evolutionary process in its physical or organic aspect. By the physiologist within his special and well-defined universe of discourse they may be properly regarded as epiphenomena; but by the naturalist in his more catholic survey of nature they cannot be so regarded, and were not so regarded by Darwin. Intelligence has contributed to evolution of which it is in a sense a product. The facts of observation or of inference which Darwin accepted are these: Conscious experience accompanies some of the modes of animal behaviour; it is concomitant with certain physiological processes; these processes are the outcome of development in the individual and evolution in the race; the accompanying mental processes undergo a like development. Into the subtle philosophical questions which arise out of the naive acceptance of such a creed it was not Darwin's province to enter; "I have nothing to do," he said ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 205.), "with the origin of the mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself." He dealt with the natural history of organisms, including not only their structure but their modes of behaviour; with the natural history of the states of consciousness which accompany some of their actions; and with the relation of behaviour to experience. We will endeavour to follow Darwin in his modesty and candour in making no pretence to give ultimate explanations. But we must note one of the implications of this self-denying ordinance of science. Development and evolution imply continuity. For Darwin and his followers the continuity is organic through physical heredity. Apart from speculative hypothesis, legitimate enough in its proper place but here out of court, we know nothing of continuity of mental evolution as such: consciousness appears afresh in each succeeding generation. Hence it is that for those who follow Darwin's lead, mental evolution is and must ever be, within his universe of discourse, subservient to organic evolution. Only in so far as conscious experience, or its neural correlate, effects some changes in organic structure can it influence the course of heredity; and conversely only in so far as changes in organic structure are transmitted through heredity, is mental evolution rendered possible. Such is the logical outcome of Darwin's teaching. Those who abide by the cardinal results of this teaching are bound to regard all behaviour as the expression of the functional activities of the living tissues of the organism, and all conscious experience as correlated with such activities. For the purposes of scientific treatment, mental processes are one mode of expression of the same changes of which the physiological processes accompanying behaviour are another mode of expression. This is simply accepted as a fact which others may seek to explain. The behaviour itself is the adaptive application of the energies of the organism; it is called forth by some form of presentation or stimulation brought to bear on the organism by the environment. This presentation is always an individual or personal matter. But in order that the organism may be fitted to respond to the presentation of the environment it must have undergone in some way a suitable preparation. According to the theory of evolution this preparation is primarily racial and is transmitted through heredity. Darwin's main thesis was that the method of preparation is predominantly by natural selection. Subordinate to racial preparation, and always dependent thereon, is individual or personal preparation through some kind of acquisition; of which the guidance of behaviour through individually won experience is a typical example. We here introduce the mental factor because the facts seem to justify the inference. Thus there are some modes of behaviour which are wholly and solely dependent upon inherited racial preparation; there are other modes of behaviour which are also dependent, in part at least, on individual preparation. In the former case the behaviour is adaptive on the first occurrence of the appropriate presentation; in the latter case accommodation to circumstances is only reached after a greater or less amount of acquired organic modification of structure, often accompanied (as we assume) in the higher animals by acquired experience. Logically and biologically the two classes of behaviour are clearly distinguishable: but the analysis of complex cases of behaviour where the two factors cooperate, is difficult and requires careful and critical study of life-history. The foundations of the mental life are laid in the conscious experience that accompanies those modes of behaviour, dependent entirely on racial preparation, which may broadly be described as instinctive. In the eighth chapter of "The Origin of Species" Darwin says ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 205.), "I will not attempt any definition of instinct... Every one understands what is meant, when it is said that instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her eggs in other birds' nests. An action, which we ourselves require experience to enable us to perform, when performed by an animal, more especially by a very young one, without experience, and when performed by many individuals in the same way, without their knowing for what purpose it is performed, is usually said to be instinctive." And in the summary at the close of the chapter he says ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 233.), "I have endeavoured briefly to show that the mental qualities of our domestic animals vary, and that the variations are inherited. Still more briefly I have attempted to show that instincts vary slightly in a state of nature. No one will dispute that instincts are of the highest importance to each animal. Therefore there is no real difficulty, under changing conditions of life, in natural selection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct which are in any way useful. In many cases habit or use and disuse have probably come into play." Into the details of Darwin's treatment there is neither space nor need to enter. There are some ambiguous passages; but it may be said that for him, as for his followers to-day, instinctive behaviour is wholly the result of racial preparation transmitted through organic heredity. For the performance of the instinctive act no individual preparation under the guidance of personal experience is necessary. It is true that Darwin quotes with approval Huber's saying that "a little dose of judgment or reason often comes into play, even with animals low in the scale of nature." (Ibid. page 205.) But we may fairly interpret his meaning to be that in behaviour, which is commonly called instinctive, some element of intelligent guidance is often combined. If this be conceded the strictly instinctive performance (or part of the performance) is the outcome of heredity and due to the direct transmission of parental or ancestral aptitudes. Hence the instinctive response as such depends entirely on how the nervous mechanism has been built up through heredity; while intelligent behaviour, or the intelligent factor in behaviour, depends also on how the nervous mechanism has been modified and moulded by use during its development and concurrently with the growth of individual experience in the customary situations of daily life. Of course it is essential to the Darwinian thesis that what Sir E. Ray Lankester has termed "educability," not less than instinct, is hereditary. But it is also essential to the understanding of this thesis that the differentiae of the hereditary factors should be clearly grasped. For Darwin there were two modes of racial preparation, (1) natural selection, and (2) the establishment of individually acquired habit. He showed that instincts are subject to hereditary variation; he saw that instincts are also subject to modification through acquisition in the course of individual life. He believed that not only the variations but also, to some extent, the modifications are inherited. He therefore held that some instincts (the greater number) are due to natural selection but that others (less numerous) are due, or partly due, to the inheritance of acquired habits. The latter involve Lamarckian inheritance, which of late years has been the centre of so much controversy. It is noteworthy however that Darwin laid especial emphasis on the fact that many of the most typical and also the most complex instincts--those of neuter insects--do not admit of such an interpretation. "I am surprised," he says ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 233.), "that no one has hitherto advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of inherited habit, as advanced by Lamarck." None the less Darwin admitted this doctrine as supplementary to that which was more distinctively his own--for example in the case of the instincts of domesticated animals. Still, even in such cases, "it may be doubted," he says (Ibid. pages 210, 211.), "whether any one would have thought of training a dog to point, had not some one dog naturally shown a tendency in this line... so that habit and some degree of selection have probably concurred in civilising by inheritance our dogs." But in the interpretation of the instincts of domesticated animals, a more recently suggested hypothesis, that of organic selection (Independently suggested, on somewhat different lines, by Profs. J. Mark Baldwin, Henry F. Osborn and the writer.), may be helpful. According to this hypothesis any intelligent modification of behaviour which is subject to selection is probably coincident in direction with an inherited tendency to behave in this fashion. Hence in such behaviour there are two factors: (1) an incipient variation in the line of such behaviour, and (2) an acquired modification by which the behaviour is carried further along the same line. Under natural selection those organisms in which the two factors cooperate are likely to survive. Under artificial selection they are deliberately chosen out from among the rest. Organic selection has been termed a compromise between the more strictly Darwinian and the Lamarckian principles of interpretation. But it is not in any sense a compromise. The principle of interpretation of that which is instinctive and hereditary is wholly Darwinian. It is true that some of the facts of observation relied upon by Lamarckians are introduced. For Lamarckians however the modifications which are admittedly factors in survival, are regarded as the parents of inherited variations; for believers in organic selection they are only the foster parents or nurses. It is because organic selection is the direct outcome of and a natural extension of Darwin's cardinal thesis that some reference to it here is justifiable. The matter may be put with the utmost brevity as follows. (1) Variations (V) occur, some of which are in the direction of increased adaptation (+), others in the direction of decreased adaptation (-). (2) Acquired modifications (M) also occur. Some of these are in the direction of increased accommodation to circumstances (+), while others are in the direction of diminished accommodation (-). Four major combinations are (a) + V with + M, (b) + V with - M, (c) - V with + M, (d) - V with - M. Of these (d) must inevitably be eliminated while (a) are selected. The predominant survival of (a) entails the survival of the adaptive variations which are inherited. The contributory acquisitions (+M) are not inherited; but they are none the less factors in determining the survival of the coincident variations. It is surely abundantly clear that this is Darwinism and has no tincture of Lamarck's essential principle, the inheritance of acquired characters. Whether Darwin himself would have accepted this interpretation of some at least of the evidence put forward by Lamarckians is unfortunately a matter of conjecture. The fact remains that in his interpretation of instinct and in allied questions he accepted the inheritance of individually acquired modifications of behaviour and structure. Darwin was chiefly concerned with instinct from the biological rather than from the psychological point of view. Indeed it must be confessed that, from the latter standpoint, his conception of instinct as a "mental faculty" which "impels" an animal to the performance of certain actions, scarcely affords a satisfactory basis for genetic treatment. To carry out the spirit of Darwin's teaching it is necessary to link more closely biological and psychological evolution. The first step towards this is to interpret the phenomena of instinctive behaviour in terms of stimulation and response. It may be well to take a particular case. Swimming on the part of a duckling is, from the biological point of view, a typical example of instinctive behaviour. Gently lower a recently hatched bird into water: coordinated movements of the limbs follow in rhythmical sequence. The behaviour is new to the individual though it is no doubt closely related to that of walking, which is no less instinctive. There is a group of stimuli afforded by the "presentation" which results from partial immersion: upon this there follows as a complex response an application of the functional activities in swimming; the sequence of adaptive application on the appropriate presentation is determined by racial preparation. We know, it is true, but little of the physiological details of what takes place in the central nervous system; but in broad outline the nature of the organic mechanism and the manner of its functioning may at least be provisionally conjectured in the present state of physiological knowledge. Similarly in the case of the pecking of newly-hatched chicks; there is a visual presentation, there is probably a cooperating group of stimuli from the alimentary tract in need of food, there is an adaptive application of the activities in a definite mode of behaviour. Like data are afforded in a great number of cases of instinctive procedure, sometimes occurring very early in life, not infrequently deferred until the organism is more fully developed, but all of them dependent upon racial preparation. No doubt there is some range of variation in the behaviour, just such variation as the theory of natural selection demands. But there can be no question that the higher animals inherit a bodily organisation and a nervous system, the functional working of which gives rise to those inherited modes of behaviour which are termed instinctive. It is to be noted that the term "instinctive" is here employed in the adjectival form as a descriptive heading under which may be grouped many and various modes of behaviour due to racial preparation. We speak of these as inherited; but in strictness what is transmitted through heredity is the complex of anatomical and physiological conditions under which, in appropriate circumstances, the organism so behaves. So far the term "instinctive" has a restricted biological connotation in terms of behaviour. But the connecting link between biological evolution and psychological evolution is to be sought,--as Darwin fully realised,--in the phenomena of instinct, broadly considered. The term "instinctive" has also a psychological connotation. What is that connotation? Let us take the case of the swimming duckling or the pecking chick, and fix our attention on the first instinctive performance. Grant that just as there is, strictly speaking, no inherited behaviour, but only the conditions which render such behaviour under appropriate circumstances possible; so too there is no inherited experience, but only the conditions which render such experience possible; then the cerebral conditions in both cases are the same. The biological behaviour-complex, including the total stimulation and the total response with the intervening or resultant processes in the sensorium, is accompanied by an experience-complex including the initial stimulation-consciousness and resulting response-consciousness. In the experience-complex are comprised data which in psychological analysis are grouped under the headings of cognition, affective tone and conation. But the complex is probably experienced as an unanalysed whole. If then we use the term "instinctive" so as to comprise all congenital modes of behaviour which contribute to experience, we are in a position to grasp the view that the net result in consciousness constitutes what we may term the primary tissue of experience. To the development of this experience each instinctive act contributes. The nature and manner of organisation of this primary tissue of experience are dependent on inherited biological aptitudes; but they are from the outset onwards subject to secondary development dependent on acquired aptitudes. Biological values are supplemented by psychological values in terms of satisfaction or the reverse. In our study of instinct we have to select some particular phase of animal behaviour and isolate it so far as is possible from the life of which it is a part. But the animal is a going concern, restlessly active in many ways. Many instinctive performances, as Darwin pointed out ("Origin of Species" (6th edition), page 206.), are serial in their nature. But the whole of active life is a serial and coordinated business. The particular instinctive performance is only an episode in a life-history, and every mode of behaviour is more or less closely correlated with other modes. This coordination of behaviour is accompanied by a correlation of the modes of primary experience. We may classify the instinctive modes of behaviour and their accompanying modes of instinctive experience under as many heads as may be convenient for our purposes of interpretation, and label them instincts of self-preservation, of pugnacity, of acquisition, the reproductive instincts, the parental instincts, and so forth. An instinct, in this sense of the term (for example the parental instinct), may be described as a specialised part of the primary tissue of experience differentiated in relation to some definite biological end. Under such an instinct will fall a large number of particular and often well-defined modes of behaviour, each with its own peculiar mode of experience. It is no doubt exceedingly difficult as a matter of observation and of inference securely based thereon to distinguish what is primary from what is in part due to secondary acquisition--a fact which Darwin fully appreciated. Animals are educable in different degrees; but where they are educable they begin to profit by experience from the first. Only, therefore, on the occasion of the first instinctive act of a given type can the experience gained be weighed as WHOLLY primary; all subsequent performance is liable to be in some degree, sometimes more, sometimes less, modified by the acquired disposition which the initial behaviour engenders. But the early stages of acquisition are always along the lines predetermined by instinctive differentiation. It is the task of comparative psychology to distinguish the primary tissue of experience from its secondary and acquired modifications. We cannot follow up the matter in further detail. It must here suffice to suggest that this conception of instinct as a primary form of experience lends itself better to natural history treatment than Darwin's conception of an impelling force, and that it is in line with the main trend of Darwin's thought. In a characteristic work,--characteristic in wealth of detail, in closeness and fidelity of observation, in breadth of outlook, in candour and modesty,--Darwin dealt with "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". Sir Charles Bell in his "Anatomy of Expression" had contended that many of man's facial muscles had been specially created for the sole purpose of being instrumental in the expression of his emotions. Darwin claimed that a natural explanation, consistent with the doctrine of evolution, could in many cases be given and would in other cases be afforded by an extension of the principles he advocated. "No doubt," he said ("Expression of the Emotions", page 13. The passage is here somewhat condensed.), "as long as man and all other animals are viewed as independent creations, an effectual stop is put to our natural desire to investigate as far as possible the causes of Expression. By this doctrine, anything and everything can be equally well explained... With mankind, some expressions... can hardly be understood, except on the belief that man once existed in a much lower and animal-like condition. The community of certain expressions in distinct though allied species... is rendered somewhat more intelligible, if we believe in their descent from a common progenitor. He who admits on general grounds that the structure and habits of all animals have been gradually evolved, will look at the whole subject of Expression in a new and interesting light." Darwin relied on three principles of explanation. "The first of these principles is, that movements which are serviceable in gratifying some desire, or in relieving some sensation, if often repeated, become so habitual that they are performed, whether or not of any service, whenever the same desire or sensation is felt, even in a very weak degree." (Ibid. page 368.) The modes of expression which fall under this head have become instinctive through the hereditary transmission of acquired habit. "As far as we can judge, only a few expressive movements are learnt by each individual; that is, were consciously and voluntarily performed during the early years of life for some definite object, or in imitation of others, and then became habitual. The far greater number of the movements of expression, and all the more important ones, are innate or inherited; and such cannot be said to depend on the will of the individual. Nevertheless, all those included under our first principle were at first voluntarily performed for a definite object,--namely, to escape some danger, to relieve some distress, or to gratify some desire." (Ibid. pages 373, 374.) "Our second principle is that of antithesis. The habit of voluntarily performing opposite movements under opposite impulses has become firmly established in us by the practice of our whole lives. Hence, if certain actions have been regularly performed, in accordance with our first principle, under a certain frame of mind, there will be a strong and involuntary tendency to the performance of directly opposite actions, whether or not these are of any use, under the excitement of an opposite frame of mind." ("Expression of the Emotions", page 368.) This principle of antithesis has not been widely accepted. Nor is Darwin's own position easy to grasp. "Our third principle," he says (Ibid. page 369.), "is the direct action of the excited nervous system on the body, independently of the will, and independently, in large part, of habit. Experience shows that nerve-force is generated and set free whenever the cerebro-spinal system is excited. The direction which this nerve-force follows is necessarily determined by the lines of connection between the nerve-cells, with each other and with various parts of the body." Lack of space prevents our following up the details of Darwin's treatment of expression. Whether we accept or do not accept his three principles of explanation we must regard his work as a masterpiece of descriptive analysis, packed full of observations possessing lasting value. For a further development of the subject it is essential that the instinctive factors in expression should be more fully distinguished from those which are individually acquired--a difficult task--and that the instinctive factors should be rediscussed in the light of modern doctrines of heredity, with a view to determining whether Lamarckian inheritance, on which Darwin so largely relied, is necessary for an interpretation of the facts. The whole subject as Darwin realised is very complex. Even the term "expression" has a certain amount of ambiguity. When the emotion is in full flood the animal fights, flees, or faints. Is this full-tide effect to be regarded as expression; or are we to restrict the term to the premonitory or residual effects--the bared canine when the fighting mood is being roused, the ruffled fur when reminiscent representations of the object inducing anger cross the mind? Broadly considered both should be included. The activity of premonitory expression as a means of communication was recognised by Darwin; he might, perhaps, have emphasised it more strongly in dealing with the lower animals. Man so largely relies on a special means of communication, that of language, that he sometimes fails to realise that for animals with their keen powers of perception, and dependent as they are on such means of communication, the more strictly biological means of expression are full of subtle suggestiveness. Many modes of expression, otherwise useless, are signs of behaviour that may be anticipated,--signs which stimulate the appropriate attitude of response. This would not, however, serve to account for the utility of the organic accompaniments--heart-affection, respiratory changes, vaso-motor effects and so forth, together with heightened muscular tone,--on all of which Darwin lays stress ("Expression of the Emotions", pages 65 ff.) under his third principle. The biological value of all this is, however, of great importance, though Darwin was hardly in a position to take it fully into account. Having regard to the instinctive and hereditary factors of emotional expression we may ask whether Darwin's third principle does not alone suffice as an explanation. Whether we admit or reject Lamarckian inheritance it would appear that all hereditary expression must be due to pre-established connections within the central nervous system and to a transmitted provision for coordinated response under the appropriate stimulation. If this be so, Darwin's first and second principles are subordinate and ancillary to the third, an expression, so far as it is instinctive or hereditary, being "the direct result of the constitution of the nervous system." Darwin accepted the emotions themselves as hereditary or acquired states of mind and devoted his attention to their expression. But these emotions themselves are genetic products and as such dependent on organic conditions. It remained, therefore, for psychologists who accepted evolution and sought to build on biological foundations to trace the genesis of these modes of animal and human experience. The subject has been independently developed by Professors Lange and James (Cf. William James, "Principles of Psychology", Vol. II. Chap. XXV, London, 1890.); and some modification of their view is regarded by many evolutionists as affording the best explanation of the facts. We must fix our attention on the lower emotions, such as anger or fear, and on their first occurrence in the life of the individual organism. It is a matter of observation that if a group of young birds which have been hatched in an incubator are frightened by an appropriate presentation, auditory or visual, they instinctively respond in special ways. If we speak of this response as the expression, we find that there are many factors. There are certain visible modes of behaviour, crouching at once, scattering and then crouching, remaining motionless, the braced muscles sustaining an attitude of arrest, and so forth. There are also certain visceral or organic effects, such as affections of the heart and respiration. These can be readily observed by taking the young bird in the hand. Other effects cannot be readily observed; vaso-motor changes, affections of the alimentary canal, the skin and so forth. Now the essence of the James-Lange view, as applied to these congenital effects, is that though we are justified in speaking of them as effects of the stimulation, we are not justified, without further evidence, in speaking of them as effects of the emotional state. May it not rather be that the emotion as a primary mode of experience is the concomitant of the net result of the organic situation--the initial presentation, the instinctive mode of behaviour, the visceral disturbances? According to this interpretation the primary tissue of experience of the emotional order, felt as an unanalysed complex, is generated by the stimulation of the sensorium by afferent or incoming physiological impulses from the special senses, from the organs concerned in the responsive behaviour, from the viscera and vaso-motor system. Some psychologists, however, contend that the emotional experience is generated in the sensorium prior to, and not subsequent to, the behaviour-response and the visceral disturbances. It is a direct and not an indirect outcome of the presentation to the special senses. Be this as it may, there is a growing tendency to bring into the closest possible relation, or even to identify, instinct and emotion in their primary genesis. The central core of all such interpretations is that instinctive behaviour and experience, its emotional accompaniments, and its expression, are but different aspects of the outcome of the same organic occurrences. Such emotions are, therefore, only a distinguishable aspect of the primary tissue of experience and exhibit a like differentiation. Here again a biological foundation is laid for a psychological doctrine of the mental development of the individual. The intimate relation between emotion as a psychological mode of experience and expression as a group of organic conditions has an important bearing on biological interpretation. The emotion, as the psychological accompaniment of orderly disturbances in the central nervous system profoundly influences behaviour and often renders it more vigorous and more effective. The utility of the emotions in the struggle for existence can, therefore, scarcely be over-estimated. Just as keenness of perception has survival-value; just as it is obviously subject to variation; just as it must be enhanced under natural selection, whether individually acquired increments are inherited or not; and just as its value lies not only in this or that special perceptive act but in its importance for life as a whole; so the vigorous effectiveness of activity has survival-value; it is subject to variation; it must be enhanced under natural selection; and its importance lies not only in particular modes of behaviour but in its value for life as a whole. If emotion and its expression as a congenital endowment are but different aspects of the same biological occurrence; and if this is a powerful supplement to vigour effectiveness and persistency of behaviour, it must on Darwin's principles be subject to natural selection. If we include under the expression of the emotions not only the premonitory symptoms of the initial phases of the organic and mental state, not only the signs or conditions of half-tide emotion, but the full-tide manifestation of an emotion which dominates the situation, we are naturally led on to the consideration of many of the phenomena which are discussed under the head of sexual selection. The subject is difficult and complex, and it was treated by Darwin with all the strength he could summon to the task. It can only be dealt with here from a special point of view--that which may serve to illustrate the influence of certain mental factors on the course of evolution. From this point of view too much stress can scarcely be laid on the dominance of emotion during the period of courtship and pairing in the more highly organised animals. It is a period of maximum vigour, maximum activity, and, correlated with special modes of behaviour and special organic and visceral accompaniments, a period also of maximum emotional excitement. The combats of males, their dances and aerial evolutions, their elaborate behaviour and display, or the flood of song in birds, are emotional expressions which are at any rate coincident in time with sexual periodicity. From the combat of the males there follows on Darwin's principles the elimination of those which are deficient in bodily vigour, deficient in special structures, offensive or protective, which contribute to success, deficient in the emotional supplement of which persistent and whole-hearted fighting is the expression, and deficient in alertness and skill which are the outcome of the psychological development of the powers of perception. Few biologists question that we have here a mode of selection of much importance, though its influence on psychological evolution often fails to receive its due emphasis. Mr Wallace ("Darwinism", pages 282, 283, London, 1889.) regards it as "a form of natural selection"; "to it," he says, "we must impute the development of the exceptional strength, size, and activity of the male, together with the possession of special offensive and defensive weapons, and of all other characters which arise from the development of these or are correlated with them." So far there is little disagreement among the followers of Darwin--for Mr Wallace, with fine magnanimity, has always preferred to be ranked as such, notwithstanding his right, on which a smaller man would have constantly insisted, to the claim of independent originator of the doctrine of natural selection. So far with regard to sexual selection Darwin and Mr Wallace are agreed; so far and no farther. For Darwin, says Mr Wallace (Ibid. page 283.), "has extended the principle into a totally different field of action, which has none of that character of constancy and of inevitable result that attaches to natural selection, including male rivalry; for by far the larger portion of the phenomena, which he endeavours to explain by the direct action of sexual selection, can only be so explained on the hypothesis that the immediate agency is female choice or preference. It is to this that he imputes the origin of all secondary sexual characters other than weapons of offence and defence... In this extension of sexual selection to include the action of female choice or preference, and in the attempt to give to that choice such wide-reaching effects, I am unable to follow him more than a very little way." Into the details of Mr Wallace's criticisms it is impossible to enter here. We cannot discuss either the mode of origin of the variations in structure which have rendered secondary sexual characters possible or the modes of selection other than sexual which have rendered them, within narrow limits, specifically constant. Mendelism and mutation theories may have something to say on the subject when these theories have been more fully correlated with the basal principles of selection. It is noteworthy that Mr Wallace says ("Darwinism", pages 283, 284.): "Besides the acquisition of weapons by the male for the purpose of fighting with other males, there are some other sexual characters which may have been produced by natural selection. Such are the various sounds and odours which are peculiar to the male, and which serve as a call to the female or as an indication of his presence. These are evidently a valuable addition to the means of recognition of the two sexes, and are a further indication that the pairing season has arrived; and the production, intensification, and differentiation of these sounds and odours are clearly within the power of natural selection. The same remark will apply to the peculiar calls of birds, and even to the singing of the males." Why the same remark should not apply to their colours and adornments is not obvious. What is obvious is that "means of recognition" and "indication that the pairing season has arrived" are dependent on the perceptive powers of the female who recognises and for whom the indication has meaning. The hypothesis of female preference, stripped of the aesthetic surplusage which is psychologically both unnecessary and unproven, is really only different in degree from that which Mr Wallace admits in principle when he says that it is probable that the female is pleased or excited by the display. Let us for our present purpose leave on one side and regard as sub judice the question whether the specific details of secondary sexual characters are the outcome of female choice. For us the question is whether certain psychological accompaniments of the pairing situation have influenced the course of evolution and whether these psychological accompaniments are themselves the outcome of evolution. As a matter of observation, specially differentiated modes of behaviour, often very elaborate, frequently requiring highly developed skill, and apparently highly charged with emotional tone, are the precursors of pairing. They are generally confined to the males, whose fierce combats during the period of sexual activity are part of the emotional manifestation. It is inconceivable that they have no biological meaning; and it is difficult to conceive that they have any other biological end than to evoke in the generally more passive female the pairing impulse. They are based on instinctive foundations ingrained in the nervous constitution through natural (or may we not say sexual?) selection in virtue of their profound utility. They are called into play by a specialised presentation such as the sight or the scent of the female at, or a little in advance of, a critical period of the physiological rhythm. There is no necessity that the male should have any knowledge of the end to which his strenuous activity leads up. In presence of the female there is an elaborate application of all the energies of behaviour, just because ages of racial preparation have made him biologically and emotionally what he is--a functionally sexual male that must dance or sing or go through hereditary movements of display, when the appropriate stimulation comes. Of course after the first successful courtship his future behaviour will be in some degree modified by his previous experience. No doubt during his first courtship he is gaining the primary data of a peculiarly rich experience, instinctive and emotional. But the biological foundations of the behaviour of courtship are laid in the hereditary coordinations. It would seem that in some cases, not indeed in all, but perhaps especially in those cases in which secondary sexual behaviour is most highly evolved,--correlative with the ardour of the male is a certain amount of reluctance in the female. The pairing act on her part only takes place after prolonged stimulation, for affording which the behaviour of male courtship is the requisite presentation. The most vigorous, defiant and mettlesome male is preferred just because he alone affords a contributory stimulation adequate to evoke the pairing impulse with its attendant emotional tone. It is true that this places female preference or choice on a much lower psychological plane than Darwin in some passages seems to contemplate where, for example, he says that the female appreciates the display of the male and places to her credit a taste for the beautiful. But Darwin himself distinctly states ("Descent of Man" (2nd edition), Vol. II. pages 136, 137; (Popular edition), pages 642, 643.) that "it is not probable that she consciously deliberates; but she is most excited or attracted by the most beautiful, or melodious, or gallant males." The view here put forward, which has been developed by Prof. Groos ("The Play of Animals", page 244, London, 1898.), therefore seems to have Darwin's own sanction. The phenomena are not only biological; there are psychological elements as well. One can hardly suppose that the female is unconscious of the male's presence; the final yielding must surely be accompanied by heightened emotional tone. Whether we call it choice or not is merely a matter of definition of terms. The behaviour is in part determined by supplementary psychological values. Prof. Groos regards the coyness of females as "a most efficient means of preventing the too early and too frequent yielding to the sexual impulse." (Ibid. page 283.) Be that as it may, it is, in any case, if we grant the facts, a means through which male sexual behaviour with all its biological and psychological implications, is raised to a level otherwise perhaps unattainable by natural means, while in the female it affords opportunities for the development in the individual and evolution in the race of what we may follow Darwin in calling appreciation, if we empty this word of the aesthetic implications which have gathered round it in the mental life of man. Regarded from this standpoint sexual selection, broadly considered, has probably been of great importance. The psychological accompaniments of the pairing situation have profoundly influenced the course of biological evolution and are themselves the outcome of that evolution. Darwin makes only passing reference to those modes of behaviour in animals which go by the name of play. "Nothing," he says ("Descent of Man", Vol. II. page 60; (Popular edition), page 566.), "is more common than for animals to take pleasure in practising whatever instinct they follow at other times for some real good." This is one of the very numerous cases in which a hint of the master has served to stimulate research in his disciples. It was left to Prof. Groos to develop this subject on evolutionary lines and to elaborate in a masterly manner Darwin's suggestion. "The utility of play," he says ("The Play of Animals", page 76.), "is incalculable. This utility consists in the practice and exercise it affords for some of the more important duties of life,"--that is to say, for the performance of activities which will in adult life be essential to survival. He urges (Ibid. page 75.) that "the play of young animals has its origin in the fact that certain very important instincts appear at a time when the animal does not seriously need them." It is, however, questionable whether any instincts appear at a time when they are not needed. And it is questionable whether the instinctive and emotional attitude of the play-fight, to take one example, can be identified with those which accompany fighting in earnest, though no doubt they are closely related and have some common factors. It is probable that play, as preparatory behaviour, differs in biological detail (as it almost certainly does in emotional attributes) from the earnest of after-life and that it has been evolved through differentiation and integration of the primary tissue of experience, as a preparation through which certain essential modes of skill may be acquired--those animals in which the preparatory play-propensity was not inherited in due force and requisite amount being subsequently eliminated in the struggle for existence. In any case there is little question that Prof. Groos is right in basing the play-propensity on instinctive foundations. ("The Play of Animals" page 24.) None the less, as he contends, the essential biological value of play is that it is a means of training the educable nerve-tissue, of developing that part of the brain which is modified by experience and which thus acquires new characters, of elaborating the secondary tissue of experience on the predetermined lines of instinctive differentiation and thus furthering the psychological activities which are included under the comprehensive term "intelligent." In "The Descent of Man" Darwin dealt at some length with intelligence and the higher mental faculties. ("Descent of Man" (1st edition), Chapters II, III, V; (2nd edition), Chapters III, IV, V.) His object, he says, is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties; that these faculties are variable and the variations tend to be inherited; and that under natural selection beneficial variations of all kinds will have been preserved and injurious ones eliminated. Darwin was too good an observer and too honest a man to minimise the "enormous difference" between the level of mental attainment of civilised man and that reached by any animal. His contention was that the difference, great as it is, is one of degree and not of kind. He realised that, in the development of the mental faculties of man, new factors in evolution have supervened--factors which play but a subordinate and subsidiary part in animal intelligence. Intercommunication by means of language, approbation and blame, and all that arises out of reflective thought, are but foreshadowed in the mental life of animals. Still he contends that these may be explained on the doctrine of evolution. He urges (Ibid. Vol. I. pages 70, 71; (Popular edition), pages 70, 71.)" that man is variable in body and mind; and that the variations are induced, either directly or indirectly, by the same general causes, and obey the same general laws, as with the lower animals." He correlates mental development with the evolution of the brain. (Ibid. page 81.) "As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves, the brain would almost certainly become larger. No one, I presume, doubts that the large proportion which the size of man's brain bears to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers." "With respect to the lower animals," he says ("Descent of Man" (Popular edition), page 82.), "M.E. Lartet ("Comptes Rendus des Sciences", June 1, 1868.), by comparing the crania of tertiary and recent mammals belonging to the same groups, has come to the remarkable conclusion that the brain is generally larger and the convolutions are more complex in the more recent form." Sir E. Ray Lankester has sought to express in the simplest terms the implications of the increase in size of the cerebrum. "In what," he asks, "does the advantage of a larger cerebral mass consist?" "Man," he replies "is born with fewer ready-made tricks of the nerve-centres--these performances of an inherited nervous mechanism so often called by the ill-defined term 'instincts'--than are the monkeys or any other animal. Correlated with the absence of inherited ready-made mechanism, man has a greater capacity of developing in the course of his individual growth similar nervous mechanisms (similar to but not identical with those of 'instinct') than any other animal... The power of being educated--'educability' as we may term it--is what man possesses in excess as compared with the apes. I think we are justified in forming the hypothesis that it is this 'educability' which is the correlative of the increased size of the cerebrum." There has been natural selection of the more educable animals, for "the character which we describe as 'educability' can be transmitted, it is a congenital character. But the RESULTS of education can NOT be transmitted. In each generation they have to be acquired afresh, and with increased 'educability' they are more readily acquired and a larger variety of them... The fact is that there is no community between the mechanisms of instinct and the mechanisms of intelligence, and that the latter are later in the history of the evolution of the brain than the former and can only develop in proportion as the former become feeble and defective." ("Nature", Vol. LXI. pages 624, 625 (1900).) In this statement we have a good example of the further development of views which Darwin foreshadowed but did not thoroughly work out. It states the biological case clearly and tersely. Plasticity of behaviour in special accommodation to special circumstances is of survival value; it depends upon acquired characters; it is correlated with increase in size and complexity of the cerebrum; under natural selection therefore the larger and more complex cerebrum as the organ of plastic behaviour has been the outcome of natural selection. We have thus the biological foundations for a further development of genetic psychology. There are diversities of opinion, as Darwin showed, with regard to the range of instinct in man and the higher animals as contrasted with lower types. Darwin himself said ("Descent of Man", Vol. I. page 100.) that "Man, perhaps, has somewhat fewer instincts than those possessed by the animals which come next to him in the series." On the other hand, Prof. Wm. James says ("Principles of Psychology," Vol. II. page 289.) that man is probably the animal with most instincts. The true position is that man and the higher animals have fewer complete and self-sufficing instincts than those which stand lower in the scale of mental evolution, but that they have an equally large or perhaps larger mass of instinctive raw material which may furnish the stuff to be elaborated by intelligent processes. There is, perhaps, a greater abundance of the primary tissue of experience to be refashioned and integrated by secondary modification; there is probably the same differentiation in relation to the determining biological ends, but there is at the outset less differentiation of the particular and specific modes of behaviour. The specialised instinctive performances and their concomitant experience-complexes are at the outset more indefinite. Only through acquired connections, correlated with experience, do they become definitely organised. The full working-out of the delicate and subtle relationship of instinct and educability--that is, of the hereditary and the acquired factors in the mental life--is the task which lies before genetic and comparative psychology. They interact throughout the whole of life, and their interactions are very complex. No one can read the chapters of "The Descent of Man" which Darwin devotes to a consideration of the mental characters of man and animals without noticing, on the one hand, how sedulous he is in his search for hereditary foundations, and, on the other hand, how fully he realises the importance of acquired habits of mind. The fact that educability itself has innate tendencies--is in fact a partially differentiated educability--renders the unravelling of the factors of mental progress all the more difficult. In his comparison of the mental powers of men and animals it was essential that Darwin should lay stress on points of similarity rather than on points of difference. Seeking to establish a doctrine of evolution, with its basal concept of continuity of process and community of character, he was bound to render clear and to emphasise the contention that the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is one of degree and not of kind. To this end Darwin not only recorded a large number of valuable observations of his own, and collected a considerable body of information from reliable sources, he presented the whole subject in a new light and showed that a natural history of mind might be written and that this method of study offered a wide and rich field for investigation. Of course those who regarded the study of mind only as a branch of metaphysics smiled at the philosophical ineptitude of the mere man of science. But the investigation, on natural history lines, has been prosecuted with a large measure of success. Much indeed still remains to be done; for special training is required, and the workers are still few. Promise for the future is however afforded by the fact that investigation is prosecuted on experimental lines and that something like organised methods of research are taking form. There is now but little reliance on casual observations recorded by those who have not undergone the necessary discipline in these methods. There is also some change of emphasis in formulating conclusions. Now that the general evolutionary thesis is fully and freely accepted by those who carry on such researches, more stress is laid on the differentiation of the stages of evolutionary advance than on the fact of their underlying community of nature. The conceptual intelligence which is especially characteristic of the higher mental procedure of man is more firmly distinguished from the perceptual intelligence which he shares with the lower animals--distinguished now as a higher product of evolution, no longer as differing in origin or different in kind. Some progress has been made, on the one hand in rendering an account of intelligent profiting by experience under the guidance of pleasure and pain in the perceptual field, on lines predetermined by instinctive differentiation for biological ends, and on the other hand in elucidating the method of conceptual thought employed, for example, by the investigator himself in interpreting the perceptual experience of the lower animals. Thus there is a growing tendency to realise more fully that there are two orders of educability--first an educability of the perceptual intelligence based on the biological foundation of instinct, and secondly an educability of the conceptual intelligence which refashions and rearranges the data afforded by previous inheritance and acquisition. It is in relation to this second and higher order of educability that the cerebrum of man shows so large an increase of mass and a yet larger increase of effective surface through its rich convolutions. It is through educability of this order that the human child is brought intellectually and affectively into touch with the ideal constructions by means of which man has endeavoured, with more or less success, to reach an interpretation of nature, and to guide the course of the further evolution of his race--ideal constructions which form part of man's environment. It formed no part of Darwin's purpose to consider, save in broad outline, the methods, or to discuss in any fulness of detail the results of the process by which a differentiation of the mental faculties of man from those of the lower animals has been brought about--a differentiation the existence of which he again and again acknowledges. His purpose was rather to show that, notwithstanding this differentiation, there is basal community in kind. This must be remembered in considering his treatment of the biological foundations on which man's systems of ethics are built. He definitely stated that he approached the subject "exclusively from the side of natural history." ("Descent of Man", Vol. I. page 149.) His general conclusion is that the moral sense is fundamentally identical with the social instincts, which have been developed for the good of the community; and he suggests that the concept which thus enables us to interpret the biological ground-plan of morals also enables us to frame a rational ideal of the moral end. "As the social instincts," he says (Ibid. page 185.), "both of man and the lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be advisable, if found practicable, to use the same definition in both cases, and to take as the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness." But the kind of community for the good of which the social instincts of animals and primitive men were biologically developed may be different from that which is the product of civilisation, as Darwin no doubt realised. Darwin's contention was that conscience is a social instinct and has been evolved because it is useful to the tribe in the struggle for existence against other tribes. On the other hand, J.S. Mill urged that the moral feelings are not innate but acquired, and Bain held the same view, believing that the moral sense is acquired by each individual during his life-time. Darwin, who notes (Ibid. page 150 (footnote).) their opinion with his usual candour, adds that "on the general theory of evolution this is at least extremely improbable. It is impossible to enter into the question here: much turns on the exact connotation of the terms "conscience" and "moral sense," and on the meaning we attach to the statement that the moral sense is fundamentally identical with the social instincts." Presumably the majority of those who approach the subjects discussed in the third, fourth and fifth chapters of "The Descent of Man" in the full conviction that mental phenomena, not less than organic phenomena, have a natural genesis, would, without hesitation, admit that the intellectual and moral systems of civilised man are ideal constructions, the products of conceptual thought, and that as such they are, in their developed form, acquired. The moral sentiments are the emotional analogues of highly developed concepts. This does not however imply that they are outside the range of natural history treatment. Even though it may be desirable to differentiate the moral conduct of men from the social behaviour of animals (to which some such term as "pre-moral" or "quasi-moral" may be applied), still the fact remains that, as Darwin showed, there is abundant evidence of the occurrence of such social behaviour--social behaviour which, even granted that it is in large part intelligently acquired, and is itself so far a product of educability, is of survival value. It makes for that integration without which no social group could hold together and escape elimination. Furthermore, even if we grant that such behaviour is intelligently acquired, that is to say arises through the modification of hereditary instincts and emotions, the fact remains that only through these instinctive and emotional data is afforded the primary tissue of the experience which is susceptible of such modification. Darwin sought to show, and succeeded in showing, that for the intellectual and moral life there are instinctive foundations which a biological treatment alone can disclose. It is true that he did not in all cases analytically distinguish the foundations from the superstructure. Even to-day we are scarcely in a position to do so adequately. But his treatment was of great value in giving an impetus to further research. This value indeed can scarcely be overestimated. And when the natural history of the mental operations shall have been written, the cardinal fact will stand forth, that the instinctive and emotional foundations are the outcome of biological evolution and have been ingrained in the race through natural selection. We shall more clearly realise that educability itself is a product of natural selection, though the specific results acquired through cerebral modifications are not transmitted through heredity. It will, perhaps, also be realised that the instinctive foundations of social behaviour are, for us, somewhat out of date and have undergone but little change throughout the progress of civilisation, because natural selection has long since ceased to be the dominant factor in human progress. The history of human progress has been mainly the history of man's higher educability, the products of which he has projected on to his environment. This educability remains on the average what it was a dozen generations ago; but the thought-woven tapestry of his surroundings is refashioned and improved by each succeeding generation. Few men have in greater measure enriched the thought-environment with which it is the aim of education to bring educable human beings into vital contact, than has Charles Darwin. His special field of work was the wide province of biology; but he did much to help us realise that mental factors have contributed to organic evolution and that in man, the highest product of Evolution, they have reached a position of unquestioned supremacy. XXII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CONCEPTION OF EVOLUTION ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY. By H. Hoffding. Professor of Philosophy in the University of Copenhagen. I. It is difficult to draw a sharp line between philosophy and natural science. The naturalist who introduces a new principle, or demonstrates a fact which throws a new light on existence, not only renders an important service to philosophy but is himself a philosopher in the broader sense of the word. The aim of philosophy in the stricter sense is to attain points of view from which the fundamental phenomena and the principles of the special sciences can be seen in their relative importance and connection. But philosophy in this stricter sense has always been influenced by philosophy in the broader sense. Greek philosophy came under the influence of logic and mathematics, modern philosophy under the influence of natural science. The name of Charles Darwin stands with those of Galileo, Newton, and Robert Mayer--names which denote new problems and great alterations in our conception of the universe. First of all we must lay stress on Darwin's own personality. His deep love of truth, his indefatigable inquiry, his wide horizon, and his steady self-criticism make him a scientific model, even if his results and theories should eventually come to possess mainly an historical interest. In the intellectual domain the primary object is to reach high summits from which wide surveys are possible, to reach them toiling honestly upwards by way of experience, and then not to turn dizzy when a summit is gained. Darwinians have sometimes turned dizzy, but Darwin never. He saw from the first the great importance of his hypothesis, not only because of its solution of the old problem as to the value of the concept of species, not only because of the grand picture of natural evolution which it unrolls, but also because of the life and inspiration its method would impart to the study of comparative anatomy, of instinct and of heredity, and finally because of the influence it would exert on the whole conception of existence. He wrote in his note-book in the year 1837: "My theory would give zest to recent and fossil comparative anatomy; it would lead to the study of instinct, heredity, and mind-heredity, whole (of) metaphysics." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol. I. page 8.) We can distinguish four main points in which Darwin's investigations possess philosophical importance. The evolution hypothesis is much older than Darwin; it is, indeed, one of the oldest guessings of human thought. In the eighteenth century it was put forward by Diderot and Lamettrie and suggested by Kant (1786). As we shall see later, it was held also by several philosophers in the first half of the nineteenth century. In his preface to "The Origin of Species", Darwin mentions the naturalists who were his forerunners. But he has set forth the hypothesis of evolution in so energetic and thorough a manner that it perforce attracts the attention of all thoughtful men in a much higher degree than it did before the publication of the "Origin". And further, the importance of his teaching rests on the fact that he, much more than his predecessors, even than Lamarck, sought a foundation for his hypothesis in definite facts. Modern science began by demanding--with Kepler and Newton--evidence of verae causae; this demand Darwin industriously set himself to satisfy--hence the wealth of material which he collected by his observations and his experiments. He not only revived an old hypothesis, but he saw the necessity of verifying it by facts. Whether the special cause on which he founded the explanation of the origin of species--Natural Selection--is sufficient, is now a subject of discussion. He himself had some doubt in regard to this question, and the criticisms which are directed against his hypothesis hit Darwinism rather than Darwin. In his indefatigable search for empirical evidence he is a model even for his antagonists: he has compelled them to approach the problems of life along other lines than those which were formerly followed. Whether the special cause to which Darwin appealed is sufficient or not, at least to it is probably due the greater part of the influence which he has exerted on the general trend of thought. "Struggle for existence" and "natural selection" are principles which have been applied, more or less, in every department of thought. Recent research, it is true, has discovered greater empirical discontinuity--leaps, "mutations"--whereas Darwin believed in the importance of small variations slowly accumulated. It has also been shown by the experimental method, which in recent biological work has succeeded Darwin's more historical method, that types once constituted possess great permanence, the fluctuations being restricted within clearly defined boundaries. The problem has become more precise, both as to variation and as to heredity. The inner conditions of life have in both respects shown a greater independence than Darwin had supposed in his theory, though he always admitted that the cause of variation was to him a great enigma, "a most perplexing problem," and that the struggle for life could only occur where variation existed. But, at any rate, it was of the greatest importance that Darwin gave a living impression of the struggle for life which is everywhere going on, and to which even the highest forms of existence must be amenable. The philosophical importance of these ideas does not stand or fall with the answer to the question, whether natural selection is a sufficient explanation of the origin of species or not: it has an independent, positive value for everyone who will observe life and reality with an unbiassed mind. In accentuating the struggle for life Darwin stands as a characteristically English thinker: he continues a train of ideas which Hobbes and Malthus had already begun. Moreover in his critical views as to the conception of species he had English forerunners; in the middle ages Occam and Duns Scotus, in the eighteenth century Berkeley and Hume. In his moral philosophy, as we shall see later, he is an adherent of the school which is represented by Hutcheson, Hume and Adam Smith. Because he is no philosopher in the stricter sense of the term, it is of great interest to see that his attitude of mind is that of the great thinkers of his nation. In considering Darwin's influence on philosophy we will begin with an examination of the attitude of philosophy to the conception of evolution at the time when "The Origin of Species" appeared. We will then examine the effects which the theory of evolution, and especially the idea of the struggle for life, has had, and naturally must have, on the discussion of philosophical problems. II. When "The Origin of Species" appeared fifty years ago Romantic speculation, Schelling's and Hegel's philosophy, still reigned on the continent, while in England Positivism, the philosophy of Comte and Stuart Mill, represented the most important trend of thought. German speculation had much to say on evolution, it even pretended to be a philosophy of evolution. But then the word "evolution" was to be taken in an ideal, not in a real, sense. To speculative thought the forms and types of nature formed a system of ideas, within which any form could lead us by continuous transitions to any other. It was a classificatory system which was regarded as a divine world of thought or images, within which metamorphoses could go on--a condition comparable with that in the mind of the poet when one image follows another with imperceptible changes. Goethe's ideas of evolution, as expressed in his "Metamorphosen der Pflanzen und der Thiere", belong to this category; it is, therefore, incorrect to call him a forerunner of Darwin. Schelling and Hegel held the same idea; Hegel expressly rejected the conception of a real evolution in time as coarse and materialistic. "Nature," he says, "is to be considered as a SYSTEM OF STAGES, the one necessarily arising from the other, and being the nearest truth of that from which it proceeds; but not in such a way that the one is NATURALLY generated by the other; on the contrary (their connection lies) in the inner idea which is the ground of nature. The METAMORPHOSIS can be ascribed only to the notion as such, because it alone is evolution... It has been a clumsy idea in the older as well as in the newer philosophy of nature, to regard the transformation and the transition from one natural form and sphere to a higher as an outward and actual production." ("Encyclopaedie der philosophischen Wissenschaften" (4th edition), Berlin, 1845, paragraph 249.) The only one of the philosophers of Romanticism who believed in a real, historical evolution, a real production of new species, was Oken. ("Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie", Jena, 1809.) Danish philosophers, such as Treschow (1812) and Sibbern (1846), have also broached the idea of an historical evolution of all living beings from the lowest to the highest. Schopenhauer's philosophy has a more realistic character than that of Schelling's and Hegel's, his diametrical opposites, though he also belongs to the romantic school of thought. His philosophical and psychological views were greatly influenced by French naturalists and philosophers, especially by Cabanis and Lamarck. He praises the "ever memorable Lamarck," because he laid so much stress on the "will to live." But he repudiates as a "wonderful error" the idea that the organs of animals should have reached their present perfection through a development in time, during the course of innumerable generations. It was, he said, a consequence of the low standard of contemporary French philosophy, that Lamarck came to the idea of the construction of living beings in time through succession! ("Ueber den Willen in der Natur" (2nd edition), Frankfurt a. M., 1854, pages 41-43.) The positivistic stream of thought was not more in favour of a real evolution than was the Romantic school. Its aim was to adhere to positive facts: it looked with suspicion on far-reaching speculation. Comte laid great stress on the discontinuity found between the different kingdoms of nature, as well as within each single kingdom. As he regarded as unscientific every attempt to reduce the number of physical forces, so he rejected entirely the hypothesis of Lamarck concerning the evolution of species; the idea of species would in his eyes absolutely lose its importance if a transition from species to species under the influence of conditions of life were admitted. His disciples (Littre, Robin) continued to direct against Darwin the polemics which their master had employed against Lamarck. Stuart Mill, who, in the theory of knowledge, represented the empirical or positivistic movement in philosophy--like his English forerunners from Locke to Hume--founded his theory of knowledge and morals on the experience of the single individual. He sympathised with the theory of the original likeness of all individuals and derived their differences, on which he practically and theoretically laid much stress, from the influence both of experience and education, and, generally, of physical and social causes. He admitted an individual evolution, and, in the human species, an evolution based on social progress; but no physiological evolution of species. He was afraid that the hypothesis of heredity would carry us back to the old theory of "innate" ideas. Darwin was more empirical than Comte and Mill; experience disclosed to him a deeper continuity than they could find; closer than before the nature and fate of the single individual were shown to be interwoven in the great web binding the life of the species with nature as a whole. And the continuity which so many idealistic philosophers could find only in the world of thought, he showed to be present in the world of reality. III. Darwin's energetic renewal of the old idea of evolution had its chief importance in strengthening the conviction of this real continuity in the world, of continuity in the series of form and events. It was a great support for all those who were prepared to base their conception of life on scientific grounds. Together with the recently discovered law of the conservation of energy, it helped to produce the great realistic movement which characterises the last third of the nineteenth century. After the decline of the Romantic movement people wished to have firmer ground under their feet and reality now asserted itself in a more emphatic manner than in the period of Romanticism. It was easy for Hegel to proclaim that "the real" was "the rational," and that "the rational" was "the real": reality itself existed for him only in the interpretation of ideal reason, and if there was anything which could not be merged in the higher unity of thought, then it was only an example of the "impotence of nature to hold to the idea." But now concepts are to be founded on nature and not on any system of categories too confidently deduced a priori. The new devotion to nature had its recompense in itself, because the new points of view made us see that nature could indeed "hold to ideas," though perhaps not to those which we had cogitated beforehand. A most important question for philosophers to answer was whether the new views were compatible with an idealistic conception of life and existence. Some proclaimed that we have now no need of any philosophy beyond the principles of the conservation of matter and energy and the principle of natural evolution: existence should and could be definitely and completely explained by the laws of material nature. But abler thinkers saw that the thing was not so simple. They were prepared to give the new views their just place and to examine what alterations the old views must undergo in order to be brought into harmony with the new data. The realistic character of Darwin's theory was shown not only in the idea of natural continuity, but also, and not least, in the idea of the cause whereby organic life advances step by step. This idea--the idea of the struggle for life--implied that nothing could persist, if it had no power to maintain itself under the given conditions. Inner value alone does not decide. Idealism was here put to its hardest trial. In continuous evolution it could perhaps still find an analogy to the inner evolution of ideas in the mind; but in the demand for power in order to struggle with outward conditions Realism seemed to announce itself in its most brutal form. Every form of Idealism had to ask itself seriously how it was going to "struggle for life" with this new Realism. We will now give a short account of the position which leading thinkers in different countries have taken up in regard to this question. I. Herbert Spencer was the philosopher whose mind was best prepared by his own previous thinking to admit the theory of Darwin to a place in his conception of the world. His criticism of the arguments which had been put forward against the hypothesis of Lamarck, showed that Spencer, as a young man, was an adherent to the evolution idea. In his "Social Statics" (1850) he applied this idea to human life and moral civilisation. In 1852 he wrote an essay on "The Development Hypothesis", in which he definitely stated his belief that the differentiation of species, like the differentiation within a single organism, was the result of development. In the first edition of his "Psychology" (1855) he took a step which put him in opposition to the older English school (from Locke to Mill): he acknowledged "innate ideas" so far as to admit the tendency of acquired habits to be inherited in the course of generations, so that the nature and functions of the individual are only to be understood through its connection with the life of the species. In 1857, in his essay on "Progress", he propounded the law of differentiation as a general law of evolution, verified by examples from all regions of experience, the evolution of species being only one of these examples. On the effect which the appearance of "The Origin of Species" had on his mind he writes in his "Autobiography": "Up to that time... I held that the sole cause of organic evolution is the inheritance of functionally-produced modifications. The "Origin of Species" made it clear to me that I was wrong, and that the larger part of the facts cannot be due to any such cause... To have the theory of organic evolution justified was of course to get further support for that theory of evolution at large with which... all my conceptions were bound up." (Spencer, "Autobiography", Vol. II. page 50, London, 1904.) Instead of the metaphorical expression "natural selection," Spencer introduced the term "survival of the fittest," which found favour with Darwin as well as with Wallace. In working out his ideas of evolution, Spencer found that differentiation was not the only form of evolution. In its simplest form evolution is mainly a concentration, previously scattered elements being integrated and losing independent movement. Differentiation is only forthcoming when minor wholes arise within a greater whole. And the highest form of evolution is reached when there is a harmony between concentration and differentiation, a harmony which Spencer calls equilibration and which he defines as a moving equilibrium. At the same time this definition enables him to illustrate the expression "survival of the fittest." "Every living organism exhibits such a moving equilibrium--a balanced set of functions constituting its life; and the overthrow of this balanced set of functions or moving equilibrium is what we call death. Some individuals in a species are so constituted that their moving equilibria are less easily overthrown than those of other individuals; and these are the fittest which survive, or, in Mr Darwin's language, they are the select which nature preserves." (Ibid. page 100.) Not only in the domain of organic life, but in all domains, the summit of evolution is, according to Spencer, characterised by such a harmony--by a moving equilibrium. Spencer's analysis of the concept of evolution, based on a great variety of examples, has made this concept clearer and more definite than before. It contains the three elements; integration, differentiation and equilibration. It is true that a concept which is to be valid for all domains of experience must have an abstract character, and between the several domains there is, strictly speaking, only a relation of analogy. So there is only analogy between psychical and physical evolution. But this is no serious objection, because general concepts do not express more than analogies between the phenomena which they represent. Spencer takes his leading terms from the material world in defining evolution (in the simplest form) as integration of matter and dissipation of movement; but as he--not always quite consistently (Cf. my letter to him, 1876, now printed in Duncan's "Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer", page 178, London, 1908.)--assumed a correspondence of mind and matter, he could very well give these terms an indirect importance for psychical evolution. Spencer has always, in my opinion with full right, repudiated the ascription of materialism. He is no more a materialist than Spinoza. In his "Principles of Psychology" (paragraph 63) he expressed himself very clearly: "Though it seems easier to translate so-called matter into so-called spirit, than to translate so-called spirit into so-called matter--which latter is indeed wholly impossible--yet no translation can carry us beyond our symbols." These words lead us naturally to a group of thinkers whose starting-point was psychical evolution. But we have still one aspect of Spencer's philosophy to mention. Spencer founded his "laws of evolution" on an inductive basis, but he was convinced that they could be deduced from the law of the conservation of energy. Such a deduction is, perhaps, possible for the more elementary forms of evolution, integration and differentiation; but it is not possible for the highest form, the equilibration, which is a harmony of integration and differentiation. Spencer can no more deduce the necessity for the eventual appearance of "moving equilibria" of harmonious totalities than Hegel could guarantee the "higher unities" in which all contradictions should be reconciled. In Spencer's hands the theory of evolution acquired a more decidedly optimistic character than in Darwin's; but I shall deal later with the relation of Darwin's hypothesis to the opposition of optimism and pessimism. II. While the starting-point of Spencer was biological or cosmological, psychical evolution being conceived as in analogy with physical, a group of eminent thinkers--in Germany Wundt, in France Fouillee, in Italy Ardigo--took, each in his own manner, their starting-point in psychical evolution as an original fact and as a type of all evolution, the hypothesis of Darwin coming in as a corroboration and as a special example. They maintain the continuity of evolution; they find this character most prominent in psychical evolution, and this is for them a motive to demand a corresponding continuity in the material, especially in the organic domain. To Wundt and Fouillee the concept of will is prominent. They see the type of all evolution in the transformation of the life of will from blind impulse to conscious choice; the theories of Lamarck and Darwin are used to support the view that there is in nature a tendency to evolution in steady reciprocity with external conditions. The struggle for life is here only a secondary fact. Its apparent prominence is explained by the circumstance that the influence of external conditions is easily made out, while inner conditions can be verified only through their effects. For Ardigo the evolution of thought was the starting-point and the type: in the evolution of a scientific hypothesis we see a progress from the indefinite (indistinto) to the definite (distinto), and this is a characteristic of all evolution, as Ardigo has pointed out in a series of works. The opposition between indistinto and distinto corresponds to Spencer's opposition between homogeneity and heterogeneity. The hypothesis of the origin of differences of species from more simple forms is a special example of the general law of evolution. In the views of Wundt and Fouillee we find the fundamental idea of idealism: psychical phenomena as expressions of the innermost nature of existence. They differ from the older Idealism in the great stress which they lay on evolution as a real, historical process which is going on through steady conflict with external conditions. The Romantic dread of reality is broken. It is beyond doubt that Darwin's emphasis on the struggle for life as a necessary condition of evolution has been a very important factor in carrying philosophy back to reality from the heaven of pure ideas. The philosophy of Ardigo, on the other side, appears more as a continuation and deepening of positivism, though the Italian thinker arrived at his point of view independently of French-English positivism. The idea of continuous evolution is here maintained in opposition to Comte's and Mill's philosophy of discontinuity. From Wundt and Fouillee Ardigo differs in conceiving psychical evolution not as an immediate revelation of the innermost nature of existence, but only as a single, though the most accessible example, of evolution. III. To the French philosophers Boutroux and Bergson, evolution proper is continuous and qualitative, while outer experience and physical science give us fragments only, sporadic processes and mechanical combinations. To Bergson, in his recent work "L'Evolution Creatrice", evolution consists in an elan de vie which to our fragmentary observation and analytic reflexion appears as broken into a manifold of elements and processes. The concept of matter in its scientific form is the result of this breaking asunder, essential for all scientific reflexion. In these conceptions the strongest opposition between inner and outer conditions of evolution is expressed: in the domain of internal conditions spontaneous development of qualitative forms--in the domain of external conditions discontinuity and mechanical combination. We see, then, that the theory of evolution has influenced philosophy in a variety of forms. It has made idealistic thinkers revise their relation to the real world; it has led positivistic thinkers to find a closer connection between the facts on which they based their views; it has made us all open our eyes for new possibilities to arise through the prima facie inexplicable "spontaneous" variations which are the condition of all evolution. This last point is one of peculiar interest. Deeper than speculative philosophy and mechanical science saw in the days of their triumph, we catch sight of new streams, whose sources and laws we have still to discover. Most sharply does this appear in the theory of mutation, which is only a stronger accentuation of a main point in Darwinism. It is interesting to see that an analogous problem comes into the foreground in physics through the discovery of radioactive phenomena, and in psychology through the assumption of psychical new formations (as held by Boutroux, William James and Bergson). From this side, Darwin's ideas, as well as the analogous ideas in other domains, incite us to renewed examination of our first principles, their rationality and their value. On the other hand, his theory of the struggle for existence challenges us to examine the conditions and discuss the outlook as to the persistence of human life and society and of the values that belong to them. It is not enough to hope (or fear?) the rising of new forms; we have also to investigate the possibility of upholding the forms and ideals which have hitherto been the bases of human life. Darwin has here given his age the most earnest and most impressive lesson. This side of Darwin's theory is of peculiar interest to some special philosophical problems to which I now pass. IV. Among philosophical problems the problem of knowledge has in the last century occupied a foremost place. It is natural, then, to ask how Darwin and the hypothesis whose most eminent representative he is, stand to this problem. Darwin started an hypothesis. But every hypothesis is won by inference from certain presuppositions, and every inference is based on the general principles of human thought. The evolution hypothesis presupposes, then, human thought and its principles. And not only the abstract logical principles are thus presupposed. The evolution hypothesis purports to be not only a formal arrangement of phenomena, but to express also the law of a real process. It supposes, then, that the real data--all that in our knowledge which we do not produce ourselves, but which we in the main simply receive--are subjected to laws which are at least analogous to the logical relations of our thoughts; in other words, it assumes the validity of the principle of causality. If organic species could arise without cause there would be no use in framing hypotheses. Only if we assume the principle of causality, is there a problem to solve. Though Darwinism has had a great influence on philosophy considered as a striving after a scientific view of the world, yet here is a point of view--the epistemological--where philosophy is not only independent but reaches beyond any result of natural science. Perhaps it will be said: the powers and functions of organic beings only persist (perhaps also only arise) when they correspond sufficiently to the conditions under which the struggle of life is to go on. Human thought itself is, then, a variation (or a mutation) which has been able to persist and to survive. Is not, then, the problem of knowledge solved by the evolution hypothesis? Spencer had given an affirmative answer to this question before the appearance of "The Origin of Species". For the individual, he said, there is an a priori, original, basis (or Anlage) for all mental life; but in the species all powers have developed in reciprocity with external conditions. Knowledge is here considered from the practical point of view, as a weapon in the struggle for life, as an "organon" which has been continuously in use for generations. In recent years the economic or pragmatic epistemology, as developed by Avenarius and Mach in Germany, and by James in America, points in the same direction. Science, it is said, only maintains those principles and presuppositions which are necessary to the simplest and clearest orientation in the world of experience. All assumptions which cannot be applied to experience and to practical work, will successively be eliminated. In these views a striking and important application is made of the idea of struggle for life to the development of human thought. Thought must, as all other things in the world, struggle for life. But this whole consideration belongs to psychology, not to the theory of knowledge (epistemology), which is concerned only with the validity of knowledge, not with its historical origin. Every hypothesis to explain the origin of knowledge must submit to cross-examination by the theory of knowledge, because it works with the fundamental forms and principles of human thought. We cannot go further back than these forms and principles, which it is the aim of epistemology to ascertain and for which no further reason can be given. (The present writer, many years ago, in his "Psychology" (Copenhagen, 1882; English translation London, 1891), criticised the evolutionistic treatment of the problem of knowledge from the Kantian point of view.) But there is another side of the problem which is, perhaps, of more importance and which epistemology generally overlooks. If new variations can arise, not only in organic but perhaps also in inorganic nature, new tasks are placed before the human mind. The question is, then, if it has forms in which there is room for the new matter? We are here touching a possibility which the great master of epistemology did not bring to light. Kant supposed confidently that no other matter of knowledge could stream forth from the dark source which he called "the thing-in-itself," than such as could be synthesised in our existing forms of knowledge. He mentions the possibility of other forms than the human, and warns us against the dogmatic assumption that the human conception of existence should be absolutely adequate. But he seems to be quite sure that the thing-in-itself works constantly, and consequently always gives us only what our powers can master. This assumption was a consequence of Kant's rationalistic tendency, but one for which no warrant can be given. Evolutionism and systematism are opposing tendencies which can never be absolutely harmonised one with the other. Evolution may at any time break some form which the system-monger regards as finally established. Darwin himself felt a great difference in looking at variation as an evolutionist and as a systematist. When he was working at his evolution theory, he was very glad to find variations; but they were a hindrance to him when he worked as a systematist, in preparing his work on Cirripedia. He says in a letter: "I had thought the same parts of the same species more resemble (than they do anyhow in Cirripedia) objects cast in the same mould. Systematic work would be easy were it not for this confounded variation, which, however, is pleasant to me as a speculatist, though odious to me as a systematist." ("Life and Letters", Vol. II. page 37.) He could indeed be angry with variations even as an evolutionist; but then only because he could not explain them, not because he could not classify them. "If, as I must think, external conditions produce little DIRECT effect, what the devil determines each particular variation?" (Ibid. page 232.) What Darwin experienced in his particular domain holds good of all knowledge. All knowledge is systematic, in so far as it strives to put phenomena in quite definite relations, one to another. But the systematisation can never be complete. And here Darwin has contributed much to widen the world for us. He has shown us forces and tendencies in nature which make absolute systems impossible, at the same time that they give us new objects and problems. There is still a place for what Lessing called "the unceasing striving after truth," while "absolute truth" (in the sense of a closed system) is unattainable so long as life and experience are going on. There is here a special remark to be made. As we have seen above, recent research has shown that natural selection or struggle for life is no explanation of variations. Hugo de Vries distinguishes between partial and embryonal variations, or between variations and mutations, only the last-named being heritable, and therefore of importance for the origin of new species. But the existence of variations is not only of interest for the problem of the origin of species; it has also a more general interest. An individual does not lose its importance for knowledge, because its qualities are not heritable. On the contrary, in higher beings at least, individual peculiarities will become more and more independent objects of interest. Knowledge takes account of the biographies not only of species, but also of individuals: it seeks to find the law of development of the single individual. (The new science of Ecology occupies an intermediate position between the biography of species and the biography of individuals. Compare "Congress of Arts and Science", St Louis, Vol. V. 1906 (the Reports of Drude and Robinson) and the work of my colleague E. Warming.) As Leibniz said long ago, individuality consists in the law of the changes of a being. "La loi du changement fait l'individualite de chaque substance." Here is a world which is almost new for science, which till now has mainly occupied itself with general laws and forms. But these are ultimately only means to understand the individual phenomena, in whose nature and history a manifold of laws and forms always cooperate. The importance of this remark will appear in the sequel. V. To many people the Darwinian theory of natural selection or struggle for existence seemed to change the whole conception of life, and particularly all the conditions on which the validity of ethical ideas depends. If only that has persistence which can be adapted to a given condition, what will then be the fate of our ideals, of our standards of good and evil? Blind force seems to reign, and the only thing that counts seems to be the most heedless use of power. Darwinism, it was said, has proclaimed brutality. No other difference seems permanent save that between the sound, powerful and happy on the one side, the sick, feeble and unhappy on the other; and every attempt to alleviate this difference seems to lead to general enervation. Some of those who interpreted Darwinism in this manner felt an aesthetic delight in contemplating the heedlessness and energy of the great struggle for existence and anticipated the realisation of a higher human type as the outcome of it: so Nietzsche and his followers. Others recognising the same consequences in Darwinism regarded these as one of the strongest objections against it; so Duhring and Kropotkin (in his earlier works). This interpretation of Darwinism was frequent in the interval between the two main works of Darwin--"The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". But even during this interval it was evident to an attentive reader that Darwin himself did not found his standard of good and evil on the features of the life of nature he had emphasised so strongly. He did not justify the ways along which nature reached its ends; he only pointed them out. The "real" was not to him, as to Hegel, one with the "rational." Darwin has, indeed, by his whole conception of nature, rendered a great service to ethics in making the difference between the life of nature and the ethical life appear in so strong a light. The ethical problem could now be stated in a sharper form than before. But this was not the first time that the idea of the struggle for life was put in relation to the ethical problem. In the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes gave the first impulse to the whole modern discussion of ethical principles in his theory of bellum omnium contra omnes. Men, he taught, are in the state of nature enemies one of another, and they live either in fright or in the glory of power. But it was not the opinion of Hobbes that this made ethics impossible. On the contrary, he found a standard for virtue and vice in the fact that some qualities and actions have a tendency to bring us out of the state of war and to secure peace, while other qualities have a contrary tendency. In the eighteenth century even Immanuel Kant's ideal ethics had--so far as can be seen--a similar origin. Shortly before the foundation of his definitive ethics, Kant wrote his "Idee zu einer allgemeinen Weltgeschichte" (1784), where--in a way which reminds us of Hobbes, and is prophetic of Darwin--he describes the forward-driving power of struggle in the human world. It is here as with the struggle of the trees for light and air, through which they compete with one another in height. Anxiety about war can only be allayed by an ordinance which gives everyone his full liberty under acknowledgment of the equal liberty of others. And such ordinance and acknowledgment are also attributes of the content of the moral law, as Kant proclaimed it in the year after the publication of his essay (1785) (Cf. my "History of Modern Philosophy" (English translation London, 1900), I. pages 76-79.) Kant really came to his ethics by the way of evolution, though he afterwards disavowed it. Similarly the same line of thought may be traced in Hegel though it has been disguised in the form of speculative dialectics. ("Herrschaft und Knechtschaft", "Phanomenologie des Geistes", IV. A., Leiden, 1907.) And in Schopenhauer's theory of the blind will to live and its abrogation by the ethical feeling, which is founded on universal sympathy, we have a more individualistic form of the same idea. It was, then, not entirely a foreign point of view which Darwin introduced into ethical thought, even if we take no account of the poetical character of the word "struggle" and of the more direct adaptation, through the use and non-use of power, which Darwin also emphasised. In "The Descent of Man" he has devoted a special chapter ("The Descent of Man", Vol. I. Ch. iii.) to a discussion of the origin of the ethical consciousness. The characteristic expression of this consciousness he found, just as Kant did, in the idea of "ought"; it was the origin of this new idea which should be explained. His hypothesis was that the ethical "ought" has its origin in the social and parental instincts, which, as well as other instincts (e.g. the instinct of self-preservation), lie deeper than pleasure and pain. In many species, not least in the human species, these instincts are fostered by natural selection; and when the powers of memory and comparison are developed, so that single acts can be valued according to the claims of the deep social instinct, then consciousness of duty and remorse are possible. Blind instinct has developed to conscious ethical will. As already stated, Darwin, as a moral philosopher belongs to the school that was founded by Shaftesbury, and was afterwards represented by Hutcheson, Hume, Adam Smith, Comte and Spencer. His merit is, first, that he has given this tendency of thought a biological foundation, and that he has stamped on it a doughty character in showing that ethical ideas and sentiments, rightly conceived, are forces which are at work in the struggle for life. There are still many questions to solve. Not only does the ethical development within the human species contain features still unexplained (The works of Westermarck and Hobhouse throw new light on many of these features.); but we are confronted by the great problem whether after all a genetic historical theory can be of decisive importance here. To every consequent ethical consciousness there is a standard of value, a primordial value which determines the single ethical judgments as their last presupposition, and the "rightness" of this basis, the "value" of this value can as little be discussed as the "rationality" of our logical principles. There is here revealed a possibility of ethical scepticism which evolutionistic ethics (as well as intuitive or rationalistic ethics) has overlooked. No demonstration can show that the results of the ethical development are definitive and universal. We meet here again with the important opposition of systematisation and evolution. There will, I think, always be an open question here, though comparative ethics, of which we have so far only the first attempts, can do much to throw light on it. It would carry us too far to discuss all the philosophical works on ethics, which have been influenced directly or indirectly by evolutionism. I may, however, here refer to the book of C.M. Williams, "A Review of the Systems of Ethics founded on the Theory of Evolution" (New York and London, 1893.), in which, besides Darwin, the following authors are reviewed: Wallace, Haeckel, Spencer, Fiske, Rolph, Barratt, Stephen, Carneri, Hoffding, Gizycki, Alexander, Ree. As works which criticise evolutionistic ethics from an intuitive point of view and in an instructive way, may be cited: Guyau "La morale anglaise contemporaine" (Paris, 1879.), and Sorley, "Ethics of Naturalism". I will only mention some interesting contributions to ethical discussion which can be found in Darwinism besides the idea of struggle for life. The attention which Darwin has directed to variations has opened our eyes to the differences in human nature as well as in nature generally. There is here a fact of great importance for ethical thought, no matter from what ultimate premiss it starts. Only from a very abstract point of view can different individuals be treated in the same manner. The most eminent ethical thinkers, men such as Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who discussed ethical questions from very opposite standpoints, agreed in regarding all men as equal in respect of ethical endowment. In regard to Bentham, Leslie Stephen remarks: "He is determined to be thoroughly empirical, to take men as he found them. But his utilitarianism supposed that men's views of happiness and utility were uniform and clear, and that all that was wanted was to show them the means by which their ends could be reached." ("English literature and society in the eighteenth century", London, 1904, page 187.) And Kant supposed that every man would find the "categorical imperative" in his consciousness, when he came to sober reflexion, and that all would have the same qualifications to follow it. But if continual variations, great or small, are going on in human nature, it is the duty of ethics to make allowance for them, both in making claims, and in valuing what is done. A new set of ethical problems have their origin here. (Cf. my paper, "The law of relativity in Ethics," "International Journal of Ethics", Vol. I. 1891, pages 37-62.) It is an interesting fact that Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty" appeared in the same year as "The Origin of Species". Though Mill agreed with Bentham about the original equality of all men's endowments, he regarded individual differences as a necessary result of physical and social influences, and he claimed that free play shall be allowed to differences of character so far as is possible without injury to other men. It is a condition of individual and social progress that a man's mode of action should be determined by his own character and not by tradition and custom, nor by abstract rules. This view was to be corroborated by the theory of Darwin. But here we have reached a point of view from which the criticism, which in recent years has often been directed against Darwin--that small variations are of no importance in the struggle for life--is of no weight. From an ethical standpoint, and particularly from the ethical standpoint of Darwin himself, it is a duty to foster individual differences that can be valuable, even though they can neither be of service for physical preservation nor be physically inherited. The distinction between variation and mutation is here without importance. It is quite natural that biologists should be particularly interested in such variations as can be inherited and produce new species. But in the human world there is not only a physical, but also a mental and social heredity. When an ideal human character has taken form, then there is shaped a type, which through imitation and influence can become an important factor in subsequent development, even if it cannot form a species in the biological sense of the word. Spiritually strong men often succumb in the physical struggle for life; but they can nevertheless be victorious through the typical influence they exert, perhaps on very distant generations, if the remembrance of them is kept alive, be it in legendary or in historical form. Their very failure can show that a type has taken form which is maintained at all risks, a standard of life which is adhered to in spite of the strongest opposition. The question "to be or not to be" can be put from very different levels of being: it has too often been considered a consequence of Darwinism that this question is only to be put from the lowest level. When a stage is reached, where ideal (ethical, intellectual, aesthetic) interests are concerned, the struggle for life is a struggle for the preservation of this stage. The giving up of a higher standard of life is a sort of death; for there is not only a physical, there is also a spiritual, death. VI. The Socratic character of Darwin's mind appears in his wariness in drawing the last consequences of his doctrine, in contrast both with the audacious theories of so many of his followers and with the consequences which his antagonists were busy in drawing. Though he, as we have seen, saw from the beginning that his hypothesis would occasion "a whole of metaphysics," he was himself very reserved as to the ultimate questions, and his answers to such questions were extorted from him. As to the question of optimism and pessimism, Darwin held that though pain and suffering were very often the ways by which animals were led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the species, yet pleasurable feelings were the most habitual guides. "We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind, in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families." But there was to him so much suffering in the world that it was a strong argument against the existence of an intelligent First Cause. ("Life and Letters" Vol. I. page 310.) It seems to me that Darwin was not so clear on another question, that of the relation between improvement and adaptation. He wrote to Lyell: "When you contrast natural selection and 'improvement,' you seem always to overlook... that every step in the natural selection of each species implies improvement in that species IN RELATION TO ITS CONDITION OF LIFE... Improvement implies, I suppose, EACH FORM OBTAINING MANY PARTS OR ORGANS, all excellently adapted for their functions." "All this," he adds, "seems to me quite compatible with certain forms fitted for simple conditions, remaining unaltered, or being degraded." (Ibid. Vol. II. page 177.) But the great question is, if the conditions of life will in the long run favour "improvement" in the sense of differentiation (or harmony of differentiation and integration). Many beings are best adapted to their conditions of life if they have few organs and few necessities. Pessimism would not only be the consequence, if suffering outweighed happiness, but also if the most elementary forms of happiness were predominant, or if there were a tendency to reduce the standard of life to the simplest possible, the contentment of inertia or stable equilibrium. There are animals which are very highly differentiated and active in their young state, but later lose their complex organisation and concentrate themselves on the one function of nutrition. In the human world analogies to this sort of adaptation are not wanting. Young "idealists" very often end as old "Philistines." Adaptation and progress are not the same. Another question of great importance in respect to human evolution is, whether there will be always a possibility for the existence of an impulse to progress, an impulse to make great claims on life, to be active and to alter the conditions of life instead of adapting to them in a passive manner. Many people do not develop because they have too few necessities, and because they have no power to imagine other conditions of life than those under which they live. In his remarks on "the pleasure from exertion" Darwin has a point of contact with the practical idealism of former times--with the ideas of Lessing and Goethe, of Condorcet and Fichte. The continual striving which was the condition of salvation to Faust's soul, is also the condition of salvation to mankind. There is a holy fire which we ought to keep burning, if adaptation is really to be improvement. If, as I have tried to show in my "Philosophy of Religion", the innermost core of all religion is faith in the persistence of value in the world, and if the highest values express themselves in the cry "Excelsior!" then the capital point is, that this cry should always be heard and followed. We have here a corollary of the theory of evolution in its application to human life. Darwin declared himself an agnostic, not only because he could not harmonise the large amount of suffering in the world with the idea of a God as its first cause, but also because he "was aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose." ("Life and Letters", Vol. I. page 306.) He saw, as Kant had seen before him and expressed in his "Kritik der Urtheilskraft", that we cannot accept either of the only two possibilities which we are able to conceive: chance (or brute force) and design. Neither mechanism nor teleology can give an absolute answer to ultimate questions. The universe, and especially the organic life in it, can neither be explained as a mere combination of absolute elements nor as the effect of a constructing thought. Darwin concluded, as Kant, and before him Spinoza, that the oppositions and distinctions which our experience presents, cannot safely be regarded as valid for existence in itself. And, with Kant and Fichte, he found his stronghold in the conviction that man has something to do, even if he cannot solve all enigmas. "The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." (Ibid. page 307.) Is this the last word of human thought? Does not the possibility, that man can do his duty, suppose that the conditions of life allow of continuous ethical striving, so that there is a certain harmony between cosmic order and human ideals? Darwin himself has shown how the consciousness of duty can arise as a natural result of evolution. Moreover there are lines of evolution which have their end in ethical idealism, in a kingdom of values, which must struggle for life as all things in the world must do, but a kingdom which has its firm foundation in reality. XXIII. DARWINISM AND SOCIOLOGY. By C. Bougle. Professor of Social Philosophy in the University of Toulouse and Deputy-Professor at the Sorbonne, Paris. How has our conception of social phenomena, and of their history, been affected by Darwin's conception of Nature and the laws of its transformations? To what extent and in what particular respects have the discoveries and hypotheses of the author of "The Origin of Species" aided the efforts of those who have sought to construct a science of society? To such a question it is certainly not easy to give any brief or precise answer. We find traces of Darwinism almost everywhere. Sociological systems differing widely from each other have laid claim to its authority; while, on the other hand, its influence has often made itself felt only in combination with other influences. The Darwinian thread is worked into a hundred patterns along with other threads. To deal with the problem, we must, it seems, first of all distinguish the more general conclusions in regard to the evolution of living beings, which are the outcome of Darwinism, from the particular explanations it offers of the ways and means by which that evolution is effected. That is to say, we must, as far as possible, estimate separately the influence of Darwin as an evolutionist and Darwin as a selectionist. The nineteenth century, said Cournot, has witnessed a mighty effort to "reintegrer l'homme dans la nature." From divers quarters there has been a methodical reaction against the persistent dualism of the Cartesian tradition, which was itself the unconscious heir of the Christian tradition. Even the philosophy of the eighteenth century, materialistic as were for the most part the tendencies of its leaders, seemed to revere man as a being apart, concerning whom laws might be formulated a priori. To bring him down from his pedestal there was needed the marked predominance of positive researches wherein no account was taken of the "pride of man." There can be no doubt that Darwin has done much to familiarise us with this attitude. Take for instance the first part of "The Descent of Man": it is an accumulation of typical facts, all tending to diminish the distance between us and our brothers, the lower animals. One might say that the naturalist had here taken as his motto, "Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Homologous structures, the survival in man of certain organs of animals, the rudiments in the animal of certain human faculties, a multitude of facts of this sort, led Darwin to the conclusion that there is no ground for supposing that the "king of the universe" is exempt from universal laws. Thus belief in the imperium in imperio has been, as it were, whittled away by the progress of the naturalistic spirit, itself continually strengthened by the conquests of the natural sciences. The tendency may, indeed, drag the social sciences into overstrained analogies, such, for instance, as the assimilation of societies to organisms. But it will, at least, have had the merit of helping sociology to shake off the pre-conception that the groups formed by men are artificial, and that history is completely at the mercy of chance. Some years before the appearance of "The Origin of Species", Auguste Comte had pointed out the importance, as regards the unification of positive knowledge, of the conviction that the social world, the last refuge of spiritualism, is itself subject to determininism. It cannot be doubted that the movement of thought which Darwin's discoveries promoted contributed to the spread of this conviction, by breaking down the traditional barrier which cut man off from Nature. But Nature, according to modern naturalists, is no immutable thing: it is rather perpetual movement, continual progression. Their discoveries batter a breach directly into the Aristotelian notion of species; they refuse to see in the animal world a collection of immutable types, distinct from all eternity, and corresponding, as Cuvier said, to so many particular thoughts of the Creator. Darwin especially congratulated himself upon having been able to deal this doctrine the coup de grace: immutability is, he says, his chief enemy; and he is concerned to show--therein following up Lyell's work--that everything in the organic world, as in the inorganic, is explained by insensible but incessant transformations. "Nature makes no leaps"--"Nature knows no gaps": these two dicta form, as it were, the two landmarks between which Darwin's idea of transformation is worked out. That is to say, the development of Darwinism is calculated to further the application of the philosophy of Becoming to the study of human institutions. The progress of the natural sciences thus brings unexpected reinforcements to the revolution which the progress of historical discipline had begun. The first attempt to constitute an actual science of social phenomena--that, namely, of the economists--had resulted in laws which were called natural, and which were believed to be eternal and universal, valid for all times and all places. But this perpetuality, brother, as Knies said, of the immutability of the old zoology, did not long hold out against the ever swelling tide of the historical movement. Knowledge of the transformations that had taken place in language, of the early phases of the family, of religion, of property, had all favoured the revival of the Heraclitean view: panta rei. As to the categories of political economy, it was soon to be recognised, as by Lassalle, that they too are only historical. The philosophy of history, moreover, gave expression under various forms to the same tendency. Hegel declares that "all that is real is rational," but at the same time he shows that all that is real is ephemeral, and that for history there is nothing fixed beneath the sun. It is this sense of universal evolution that Darwin came with fresh authority to enlarge. It was in the name of biological facts themselves that he taught us to see only slow metamorphoses in the history of institutions, and to be always on the outlook for survivals side by side with rudimentary forms. Anyone who reads "Primitive Culture", by Tylor,--a writer closely connected with Darwin--will be able to estimate the services which these cardinal ideas were to render to the social sciences when the age of comparative research had succeeded to that of a priori construction. Let us note, moreover, that the philosophy of Becoming in passing through the Darwinian biology became, as it were, filtered: it got rid of those traces of finalism, which, under different forms, it had preserved through all the systems of German Romanticism. Even in Herbert Spencer, it has been plausibly argued, one can detect something of that sort of mystic confidence in forces spontaneously directing life, which forms the very essence of those systems. But Darwin's observations were precisely calculated to render such an hypothesis futile. At first people may have failed to see this; and we call to mind the ponderous sarcasms of Flourens when he objected to the theory of Natural Selection that it attributed to nature a power of free choice. "Nature endowed with will! That was the final error of last century; but the nineteenth no longer deals in personifications." (P. Flourens, "Examen du Livre de M. Darwin sur l'Origine des Especes", page 53, Paris, 1864. See also Huxley, "Criticisms on the 'Origin of Species'", "Collected Essays", Vol. II, page 102, London, 1902.) In fact Darwin himself put his readers on their guard against the metaphors he was obliged to use. The processes by which he explains the survival of the fittest are far from affording any indication of the design of some transcendent breeder. Nor, if we look closely, do they even imply immanent effort in the animal; the sorting out can be brought about mechanically, simply by the action of the environment. In this connection Huxley could with good reason maintain that Darwin's originality consisted in showing how harmonies which hitherto had been taken to imply the agency of intelligence and will could be explained without any such intervention. So, when later on, objective sociology declares that, even when social phenomena are in question, all finalist preconceptions must be distrusted if a science is to be constituted, it is to Darwin that its thanks are due; he had long been clearing paths for it which lay well away from the old familiar road trodden by so many theories of evolution. This anti-finalist doctrine, when fully worked out, was, moreover, calculated to aid in the needful dissociation of two notions: that of evolution and that of progress. In application to society these had long been confounded; and, as a consequence, the general idea seemed to be that only one type of evolution was here possible. Do we not detect such a view in Comte's sociology, and perhaps even in Herbert Spencer's? Whoever, indeed, assumes an end for evolution is naturally inclined to think that only one road leads to that end. But those whose minds the Darwinian theory has enlightened are aware that the transformations of living beings depend primarily upon their conditions, and that it is these conditions which are the agents of selection from among individual variations. Hence, it immediately follows that transformations are not necessarily improvements. Here, Darwin's thought hesitated. Logically his theory proves, as Ray Lankester pointed out, that the struggle for existence may have as its outcome degeneration as well as amelioration: evolution may be regressive as well as progressive. Then, too--and this is especially to be borne in mind--each species takes its good where it finds it, seeks its own path and survives as best it can. Apply this notion to society and you arrive at the theory of multilinear evolution. Divergencies will no longer surprise you. You will be forewarned not to apply to all civilisations the same measure of progress, and you will recognise that types of evolution may differ just as social species themselves differ. Have we not here one of the conceptions which mark off sociology proper from the old philosophy of history? But if we are to estimate the influence of Darwinism upon sociological conceptions, we must not dwell only upon the way in which Darwin impressed the general notion of evolution upon the minds of thinkers. We must go into details. We must consider the influence of the particular theories by which he explained the mechanism of this evolution. The name of the author of "The Origin of Species" has been especially attached, as everyone knows, to the doctrines of "natural selection" and of "struggle for existence," completed by the notion of "individual variation." These doctrines were turned to account by very different schools of social philosophy. Pessimistic and optimistic, aristocratic and democratic, individualistic and socialistic systems were to war with each other for years by casting scraps of Darwinism at each other's heads. It was the spectacle of human contrivance that suggested to Darwin his conception of natural selection. It was in studying the methods of pigeon breeders that he divined the processes by which nature, in the absence of design, obtains analogous results in the differentiation of types. As soon as the importance of artificial selection in the transformation of species of animals was understood, reflection naturally turned to the human species, and the question arose, How far do men observe, in connection with themselves, those laws of which they make practical application in the case of animals? Here we come upon one of the ideas which guided the researches of Galton, Darwin's cousin. The author of "Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development" ("Inquiries into Human Faculty", pages 1, 2, 3 sq., London, 1883.), has often expressed his surprise that, considering all the precautions taken, for example, in the breeding of horses, none whatever are taken in the breeding of the human species. It seems to be forgotten that the species suffers when the "fittest" are not able to perpetuate their type. Ritchie, in his "Darwinism and Politics" ("Darwinism and Politics" pages 9, 22, London, 1889.) reminds us of Darwin's remark that the institution of the peerage might be defended on the ground that peers, owing to the prestige they enjoy, are enabled to select as wives "the most beautiful and charming women out of the lower ranks." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", II. page 385.) But, says Galton, it is as often as not "heiresses" that they pick out, and birth statistics seem to show that these are either less robust or less fecund than others. The truth is that considerations continue to preside over marriage which are entirely foreign to the improvement of type, much as this is a condition of general progress. Hence the importance of completing Odin's and De Candolle's statistics which are designed to show how characters are incorporated in organisms, how they are transmitted, how lost, and according to what law eugenic elements depart from the mean or return to it. But thinkers do not always content themselves with undertaking merely the minute researches which the idea of Selection suggests. They are eager to defend this or that thesis. In the name of this idea certain social anthropologists have recast the conception of the process of civilisation, and have affirmed that Social Selection generally works against the trend of Natural Selection. Vacher de Lapouge--following up an observation by Broca on the point--enumerates the various institutions, or customs, such as the celibacy of priests and military conscription, which cause elimination or sterilisation of the bearers of certain superior qualities, intellectual or physical. In a more general way he attacks the democratic movement, a movement, as P. Bourget says, which is "anti-physical" and contrary to the natural laws of progress; though it has been inspired "by the dreams of that most visionary of all centuries, the eighteenth." (V. de Lapouge, "Les Selections sociales", page 259, Paris, 1896.) The "Equality" which levels down and mixes (justly condemned, he holds, by the Comte de Gobineau), prevents the aristocracy of the blond dolichocephales from holding the position and playing the part which, in the interests of all, should belong to them. Otto Ammon, in his "Natural Selection in Man", and in "The Social Order and its Natural Bases" ("Die naturliche Auslese beim Menschen", Jena, 1893; "Die Gesellschaftsordnung und ihre naturlichen Grundlagen". "Entwurf einer Sozialanthropologie", Jena, 1896.), defended analogous doctrines in Germany; setting the curve representing frequency of talent over against that of income, he attempted to show that all democratic measures which aim at promoting the rise in the social scale of the talented are useless, if not dangerous; that they only increase the panmixia, to the great detriment of the species and of society. Among the aristocratic theories which Darwinism has thus inspired we must reckon that of Nietzsche. It is well known that in order to complete his philosophy he added biological studies to his philological; and more than once in his remarks upon the "Wille zur Macht" he definitely alludes to Darwin; though it must be confessed that it is generally in order to proclaim the in sufficiency of the processes by which Darwin seeks to explain the genesis of species. Nevertheless, Nietzsche's mind is completely possessed by an ideal of Selection. He, too, has a horror of panmixia. The naturalists' conception of "the fittest" is joined by him to that of the "hero" of romance to furnish a basis for his doctrine of the Superman. Let us hasten to add, moreover, that at the very moment when support was being sought in the theory of Selection for the various forms of the aristocratic doctrine, those same forms were being battered down on another side by means of that very theory. Attention was drawn to the fact that by virtue of the laws which Darwin himself had discovered isolation leads to etiolation. There is a risk that the privilege which withdraws the privileged elements of Society from competition will cause them to degenerate. In fact, Jacoby in his "Studies in Selection, in connexion with Heredity in Man", ("Etudes sur la Selection dans ses rapports avec l'heredite chez l'homme", Paris, page 481, 1881.), concludes that "sterility, mental debility, premature death and, finally, the extinction of the stock were not specially and exclusively the fate of sovereign dynasties; all privileged classes, all families in exclusively elevated positions share the fate of reigning families, although in a minor degree and in direct proportion to the loftiness of their social standing. From the mass of human beings spring individuals, families, races, which tend to raise themselves above the common level; painfully they climb the rugged heights, attain the summits of power, of wealth, of intelligence, of talent, and then, no sooner are they there than they topple down and disappear in gulfs of mental and physical degeneracy." The demographical researches of Hansen ("Die drei Bevolkerungsstufen", Munich, 1889.) (following up and completing Dumont's) tended, indeed, to show that urban as well as feudal aristocracies, burgher classes as well as noble castes, were liable to become effete. Hence it might well be concluded that the democratic movement, operating as it does to break down class barriers, was promoting instead of impeding human selection. So we see that, according to the point of view, very different conclusions have been drawn from the application of the Darwinian idea of Selection to human society. Darwin's other central idea, closely bound up with this, that, namely, of the "struggle for existence" also has been diversely utilised. But discussion has chiefly centered upon its signification. And while some endeavour to extend its application to everything, we find others trying to limit its range. The conception of a "struggle for existence" has in the present day been taken up into the social sciences from natural science, and adopted. But originally it descended from social science to natural. Darwin's law is, as he himself said, only Malthus' law generalised and extended to the animal world: a growing disproportion between the supply of food and the number of the living is the fatal order whence arises the necessity of universal struggle, a struggle which, to the great advantage of the species, allows only the best equipped individuals to survive. Nature is regarded by Huxley as an immense arena where all living beings are gladiators. ("Evolution and Ethics", page 200; "Collected Essays", Vol. IX, London, 1894.) Such a generalisation was well adapted to feed the stream of pessimistic thought; and it furnished to the apologists of war, in particular, new arguments, weighted with all the authority which in these days attaches to scientific deliverances. If people no longer say, as Bonald did, and Moltke after him, that war is a providential fact, they yet lay stress on the point that it is a natural fact. To the peace party Dragomirov's objection is urged that its attempts are contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, and that no sea wall can hold against breakers that come with such gathered force. But in yet another quarter Darwinism was represented as opposed to philanthropic intervention. The defenders of the orthodox political economy found in it support for their tenets. Since in the organic world universal struggle is the condition of progress, it seemed obvious that free competition must be allowed to reign unchecked in the economic world. Attempts to curb it were in the highest degree imprudent. The spirit of Liberalism here seemed in conformity with the trend of nature: in this respect, at least, contemporary naturalism, offspring of the discoveries of the nineteenth century, brought reinforcements to the individualist doctrine, begotten of the speculations of the eighteenth: but only, it appeared, to turn mankind away for ever from humanitarian dreams. Would those whom such conclusions repelled be content to oppose to nature's imperatives only the protests of the heart? There were some who declared, like Brunetiere, that the laws in question, valid though they might be for the animal kingdom, were not applicable to the human. And so a return was made to the classic dualism. This indeed seems to be the line that Huxley took, when, for instance, he opposed to the cosmic process an ethical process which was its reverse. But the number of thinkers whom this antithesis does not satisfy grows daily. Although the pessimism which claims authorisation from Darwin's doctrines is repugnant to them, they still are unable to accept the dualism which leaves a gulf between man and nature. And their endeavour is to link the two by showing that while Darwin's laws obtain in both kingdoms, the conditions of their application are not the same: their forms, and, consequently, their results, vary with the varying mediums in which the struggle of living beings takes place, with the means these beings have at disposal, with the ends even which they propose to themselves. Here we have the explanation of the fact that among determined opponents of war partisans of the "struggle for existence" can be found: there are disciples of Darwin in the peace party. Novicow, for example, admits the "combat universel" of which Le Dantec ("Les Luttes entre Societies humaines et leurs phases successives", Paris, 1893,) speaks; but he remarks that at different stages of evolution, at different stages of life the same weapons are not necessarily employed. Struggles of brute force, armed hand to hand conflicts, may have been a necessity in the early phases of human societies. Nowadays, although competition may remain inevitable and indispensable, it can assume milder forms. Economic rivalries, struggles between intellectual influences, suffice to stimulate progress: the processes which these admit are, in the actual state of civilisation, the only ones which attain their end without waste, the only ones logical. From one end to the other of the ladder of life, struggle is the order of the day; but more and more as the higher rungs are reached, it takes on characters which are proportionately more "humane." Reflections of this kind permit the introduction into the economic order of limitations to the doctrine of "laisser faire, laisser passer." This appeals, it is said, to the example of nature where creatures, left to themselves, struggle without truce and without mercy; but the fact is forgotten that upon industrial battlefields the conditions are different. The competitors here are not left simply to their natural energies: they are variously handicapped. A rich store of artificial resources exists in which some participate and others do not. The sides then are unequal; and as a consequence the result of the struggle is falsified. "In the animal world," said De Laveleye ("Le socialisme contemporain", page 384 (6th edition), Paris, 1891.), criticising Spencer, "the fate of each creature is determined by its individual qualities; whereas in civilised societies a man may obtain the highest position and the most beautiful wife because he is rich and well-born, although he may be ugly, idle or improvident; and then it is he who will perpetuate the species. The wealthy man, ill constituted, incapable, sickly, enjoys his riches and establishes his stock under the protection of the laws." Haycraft in England and Jentsch in Germany have strongly emphasised these "anomalies," which nevertheless are the rule. That is to say that even from a Darwinian point of view all social reforms can readily be justified which aim at diminishing, as Wallace said, inequalities at the start. But we can go further still. Whence comes the idea that all measures inspired by the sentiment of solidarity are contrary to Nature's trend? Observe her carefully, and she will not give lessons only in individualism. Side by side with the struggle for existence do we not find in operation what Lanessan calls "association for existence." Long ago, Espinas had drawn attention to "societies of animals," temporary or permanent, and to the kind of morality that arose in them. Since then, naturalists have often insisted upon the importance of various forms of symbiosis. Kropotkin in "Mutual Aid" has chosen to enumerate many examples of altruism furnished by animals to mankind. Geddes and Thomson went so far as to maintain that "Each of the greater steps of progress is in fact associated with an increased measure of subordination of individual competition to reproductive or social ends, and of interspecific competition to co-operative association." (Geddes and Thomson, "The Evolution of Sex", page 311, London, 1889.) Experience shows, according to Geddes, that the types which are fittest to surmount great obstacles are not so much those who engage in the fiercest competitive struggle for existence, as those who contrive to temper it. From all these observations there resulted, along with a limitation of Darwinian pessimism, some encouragement for the aspirations of the collectivists. And Darwin himself would, doubtless, have subscribed to these rectifications. He never insisted, like his rival, Wallace, upon the necessity of the solitary struggle of creatures in a state of nature, each for himself and against all. On the contrary, in "The Descent of Man", he pointed out the serviceableness of the social instincts, and corroborated Bagehot's statements when the latter, applying laws of physics to politics, showed the great advantage societies derived from intercourse and communion. Again, the theory of sexual evolution which makes the evolution of types depend increasingly upon preferences, judgments, mental factors, surely offers something to qualify what seems hard and brutal in the theory of natural selection. But, as often happens with disciples, the Darwinians had out-Darwined Darwin. The extravagancies of social Darwinism provoked a useful reaction; and thus people were led to seek, even in the animal kingdom, for facts of solidarity which would serve to justify humane effort. On quite another line, however, an attempt has been made to connect socialist tendencies with Darwinian principles. Marx and Darwin have been confronted; and writers have undertaken to show that the work of the German philosopher fell readily into line with that of the English naturalist and was a development of it. Such has been the endeavour of Ferri in Italy and of Woltmann in Germany, not to mention others. The founders of "scientific socialism" had, moreover, themselves thought of this reconciliation. They make more than one allusion to Darwin in works which appeared after 1859. And sometimes they use his theory to define by contrast their own ideal. They remark that the capitalist system, by giving free course to individual competition, ends indeed in a bellum omnium contra omnes; and they make it clear that Darwinism, thus understood, is as repugnant to them as to Duhring. But it is at the scientific and not at the moral point of view that they place themselves when they connect their economic history with Darwin's work. Thanks to this unifying hypothesis, they claim to have constructed--as Marx does in his preface to "Das Kapital"--a veritable natural history of social evolution. Engels speaks in praise of his friend Marx as having discovered the true mainspring of history hidden under the veil of idealism and sentimentalism, and as having proclaimed in the primum vivere the inevitableness of the struggle for existence. Marx himself, in "Das Kapital", indicated another analogy when he dwelt upon the importance of a general technology for the explanation of this psychology:--a history of tools which would be to social organs what Darwinism is to the organs of animal species. And the very importance they attach to tools, to apparatus, to machines, abundantly proves that neither Marx nor Engels were likely to forget the special characters which mark off the human world from the animal. The former always remains to a great extent an artificial world. Inventions change the face of its institutions. New modes of production revolutionise not only modes of government, but modes even of collective thought. Therefore it is that the evolution of society is controlled by laws special to it, of which the spectacle of nature offers no suggestion. If, however, even in this special sphere, it can still be urged that the evolution of the material conditions of society is in accord with Darwin's theory, it is because the influence of the methods of production is itself to be explained by the incessant strife of the various classes with each other. So that in the end Marx, like Darwin, finds the source of all progress in struggle. Both are grandsons of Heraclitus:--polemos pater panton. It sometimes happens, in these days, that the doctrine of revolutionary socialism is contrasted as rude and healthy with what may seem to be the enervating tendency of "solidarist" philanthropy: the apologists of the doctrine then pride themselves above all upon their faithfulness to Darwinian principles. So far we have been mainly concerned to show the use that social philosophies have made of the Darwinian laws for practical purposes: in order to orientate society towards their ideals each school tries to show that the authority of natural science is on its side. But even in the most objective of theories, those which systematically make abstraction of all political tendencies in order to study the social reality in itself, traces of Darwinism are readily to be found. Let us take for example Durkheim's theory of Division of Labour ("De la Division du Travail social", Paris, 1893.) The conclusions he derives from it are that whenever professional specialisation causes multiplication of distinct branches of activity, we get organic solidarity--implying differences--substituted for mechanical solidarity, based upon likenesses. The umbilical cord, as Marx said, which connects the individual consciousness with the collective consciousness is cut. The personality becomes more and more emancipated. But on what does this phenomenon, so big with consequences, itself depend? The author goes to social morphology for the answer: it is, he says, the growing density of population which brings with it this increasing differentiation of activities. But, again, why? Because the greater density, in thrusting men up against each other, augments the intensity of their competition for the means of existence; and for the problems which society thus has to face differentiation of functions presents itself as the gentlest solution. Here one sees that the writer borrows directly from Darwin. Competition is at its maximum between similars, Darwin had declared; different species, not laying claim to the same food, could more easily coexist. Here lay the explanation of the fact that upon the same oak hundreds of different insects might be found. Other things being equal, the same applies to society. He who finds some unadopted speciality possesses a means of his own for getting a living. It is by this division of their manifold tasks that men contrive not to crush each other. Here we obviously have a Darwinian law serving as intermediary in the explanation of that progress of division of labour which itself explains so much in the social evolution. And we might take another example, at the other end of the series of sociological systems. G. Tarde is a sociologist with the most pronounced anti-naturalistic views. He has attempted to show that all application of the laws of natural science to society is misleading. In his "Opposition Universelle" he has directly combatted all forms of sociological Darwinism. According to him the idea that the evolution of society can be traced on the same plan as the evolution of species is chimerical. Social evolution is at the mercy of all kinds of inventions, which by virtue of the laws of imitation modify, through individual to individual, through neighbourhood to neighbourhood, the general state of those beliefs and desires which are the only "quantities" whose variation matters to the sociologist. But, it may be rejoined, that however psychical the forces may be, they are none the less subject to Darwinian laws. They compete with each other; they struggle for the mastery of minds. Between types of ideas, as between organic forms, selection operates. And though it may be that these types are ushered into the arena by unexpected discoveries, we yet recognise in the psychological accidents, which Tarde places at the base of everything, near relatives of those small accidental variations upon which Darwin builds. Thus, accepting Tarde's own representations, it is quite possible to express in Darwinian terms, with the necessary transpositions, one of the most idealistic sociologies that have ever been constructed. These few examples suffice. They enable us to estimate the extent of the field of influence of Darwinism. It affects sociology not only through the agency of its advocates but through that of its opponents. The questionings to which it has given rise have proved no less fruitful than the solutions it has suggested. In short, few doctrines, in the history of social philosophy, will have produced on their passage a finer outcrop of ideas. XXIV. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN UPON RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By P.N. Waggett, M.A., S.S.J.E. I. The object of this paper is first to point out certain elements of the Darwinian influence upon Religious thought, and then to show reason for the conclusion that it has been, from a Christian point of view, satisfactory. I shall not proceed further to urge that the Christian apologetic in relation to biology has been successful. A variety of opinions may be held on this question, without disturbing the conclusion that the movements of readjustment have been beneficial to those who remain Christians, and this by making them more Christian and not only more liberal. The theologians may sometimes have retreated, but there has been an advance of theology. I know that this account incurs the charge of optimism. It is not the worst that could be made. The influence has been limited in personal range, unequal, even divergent, in operation, and accompanied by the appearance of waste and mischievous products. The estimate which follows requires for due balance a full development of many qualifying considerations. For this I lack space, but I must at least distinguish my view from the popular one that our difficulties about religion and natural science have come to an end. Concerning the older questions about origins--the origin of the world, of species, of man, of reason, conscience, religion--a large measure of understanding has been reached by some thoughtful men. But meanwhile new questions have arisen, questions about conduct, regarding both the reality of morals and the rule of right action for individuals and societies. And these problems, still far from solution, may also be traced to the influence of Darwin. For they arise from the renewed attention to heredity, brought about by the search for the causes of variation, without which the study of the selection of variations has no sufficient basis. Even the existing understanding about origins is very far from universal. On these points there were always thoughtful men who denied the necessity of conflict, and there are still thoughtful men who deny the possibility of a truce. It must further be remembered that the earlier discussion now, as I hope to show, producing favourable results, created also for a time grave damage, not only in the disturbance of faith and the loss of men--a loss not repaired by a change in the currents of debate--but in what I believe to be a still more serious respect. I mean the introduction of a habit of facile and untested hypothesis in religious as in other departments of thought. Darwin is not responsible for this, but he is in part the cause of it. Great ideas are dangerous guests in narrow minds; and thus it has happened that Darwin--the most patient of scientific workers, in whom hypothesis waited upon research, or if it provisionally outstepped it did so only with the most scrupulously careful acknowledgment--has led smaller and less conscientious men in natural science, in history, and in theology to an over-eager confidence in probable conjecture and a loose grip upon the facts of experience. It is not too much to say that in many quarters the age of materialism was the least matter-of-fact age conceivable, and the age of science the age which showed least of the patient temper of inquiry. I have indicated, as shortly as I could, some losses and dangers which in a balanced account of Darwin's influence would be discussed at length. One other loss must be mentioned. It is a defect in our thought which, in some quarters, has by itself almost cancelled all the advantages secured. I mean the exaggerated emphasis on uniformity or continuity; the unwillingness to rest any part of faith or of our practical expectation upon anything that from any point of view can be called exceptional. The high degree of success reached by naturalists in tracing, or reasonably conjecturing, the small beginnings of great differences, has led the inconsiderate to believe that anything may in time become anything else. It is true that this exaggeration of the belief in uniformity has produced in turn its own perilous reaction. From refusing to believe whatever can be called exceptional, some have come to believe whatever can be called wonderful. But, on the whole, the discontinuous or highly various character of experience received for many years too little deliberate attention. The conception of uniformity which is a necessity of scientific description has been taken for the substance of history. We have accepted a postulate of scientific method as if it were a conclusion of scientific demonstration. In the name of a generalisation which, however just on the lines of a particular method, is the prize of a difficult exploit of reflexion, we have discarded the direct impressions of experience; or, perhaps it is more true to say, we have used for the criticism of alleged experiences a doctrine of uniformity which is only valid in the region of abstract science. For every science depends for its advance upon limitation of attention, upon the selection out of the whole content of consciousness of that part or aspect which is measurable by the method of the science. Accordingly there is a science of life which rightly displays the unity underlying all its manifestations. But there is another view of life, equally valid, and practically sometimes more important, which recognises the immediate and lasting effect of crisis, difference, and revolution. Our ardour for the demonstration of uniformity of process and of minute continuous change needs to be balanced by a recognition of the catastrophic element in experience, and also by a recognition of the exceptional significance for us of events which may be perfectly regular from an impersonal point of view. An exorbitant jealousy of miracle, revelation, and ultimate moral distinctions has been imported from evolutionary science into religious thought. And it has been a damaging influence, because it has taken men's attention from facts, and fixed them upon theories. II. With this acknowledgment of important drawbacks, requiring many words for their proper description, I proceed to indicate certain results of Darwin's doctrine which I believe to be in the long run wholly beneficial to Christian thought. These are: The encouragement in theology of that evolutionary method of observation and study, which has shaped all modern research: The recoil of Christian apologetics towards the ground of religious experience, a recoil produced by the pressure of scientific criticism upon other supports of faith: The restatement, or the recovery of ancient forms of statement, of the doctrines of Creation and of divine Design in Nature, consequent upon the discussion of evolution and of natural selection as its guiding factor. (1) The first of these is quite possibly the most important of all. It was well defined in a notable paper read by Dr Gore, now Bishop of Birmingham, to the Church Congress at Shrewsbury in 1896. We have learnt a new caution both in ascribing and in denying significance to items of evidence, in utterance or in event. There has been, as in art, a study of values, which secures perspective and solidity in our representation of facts. On the one hand, a given utterance or event cannot be drawn into evidence as if all items were of equal consequence, like sovereigns in a bag. The question whence and whither must be asked, and the particular thing measured as part of a series. Thus measured it is not less truly important, but it may be important in a lower degree. On the other hand, and for exactly the same reason, nothing that is real is unimportant. The "failures" are not mere mistakes. We see them, in St Augustine's words, as "scholar's faults which men praise in hope of fruit." We cannot safely trace the origin of the evolutionistic method to the influence of natural science. The view is tenable that theology led the way. Probably this is a case of alternate and reciprocal debt. Quite certainly the evolutionist method in theology, in Christian history, and in the estimate of scripture, has received vast reinforcement from biology, in which evolution has been the ever present and ever victorious conception. (2) The second effect named is the new willingness of Christian thinkers to take definite account of religious experience. This is related to Darwin through the general pressure upon religious faith of scientific criticism. The great advance of our knowledge of organisms has been an important element in the general advance of science. It has acted, by the varied requirements of the theory of organisms, upon all other branches of natural inquiry, and it held for a long time that leading place in public attention which is now occupied by speculative physics. Consequently it contributed largely to our present estimation of science as the supreme judge in all matters of inquiry (F.R. Tennant: "The Being of God in the light of Physical Science", in "Essays on some theological questions of the day". London, 1905.), to the supposed destruction of mystery and the disparagement of metaphysic which marked the last age, as well as to the just recommendation of scientific method in branches of learning where the direct acquisitions of natural science had no place. Besides this, the new application of the idea of law and mechanical regularity to the organic world seemed to rob faith of a kind of refuge. The romantics had, as Berthelot ("Evolutionisme et Platonisme", pages 45, 46, 47. Paris, 1908.) shows, appealed to life to redress the judgments drawn from mechanism. Now, in Spencer, evolution gave us a vitalist mechanic or mechanical vitalism, and the appeal seemed cut off. We may return to this point later when we consider evolution; at present I only endeavour to indicate that general pressure of scientific criticism which drove men of faith to seek the grounds of reassurance in a science of their own; in a method of experiment, of observation, of hypothesis checked by known facts. It is impossible for me to do more than glance across the threshold of this subject. But it is necessary to say that the method is in an elementary stage of revival. The imposing success that belongs to natural science is absent: we fall short of the unchallengeable unanimity of the Biologists on fundamentals. The experimental method with its sure repetitions cannot be applied to our subject-matter. But we have something like the observational method of palaeontology and geographical distribution; and in biology there are still men who think that the large examination of varieties by way of geography and the search of strata is as truly scientific, uses as genuinely the logical method of difference, and is as fruitful in sure conclusions as the quasi-chemical analysis of Mendelian laboratory work, of which last I desire to express my humble admiration. Religion also has its observational work in the larger and possibly more arduous manner. But the scientific work in religion makes its way through difficulties and dangers. We are far from having found the formula of its combination with the historical elements of our apologetic. It is exposed, therefore, to a damaging fire not only from unspiritualist psychology and pathology but also from the side of scholastic dogma. It is hard to admit on equal terms a partner to the old undivided rule of books and learning. With Charles Lamb, we cry in some distress, "must knowledge come to me, if it come at all, by some awkward experiment of intuition, and no longer by this familiar process of reading?" ("Essays of Elia", "New Year's Eve", page 41; Ainger's edition. London, 1899.) and we are answered that the old process has an imperishable value, only we have not yet made clear its connection with other contributions. And all the work is young, liable to be drawn into unprofitable excursions, side-tracked by self-deceit and pretence; and it fatally attracts, like the older mysticism, the curiosity and the expository powers of those least in sympathy with it, ready writers who, with all the air of extended research, have been content with narrow grounds for induction. There is a danger, besides, which accompanies even the most genuine work of this science and must be provided against by all its serious students. I mean the danger of unbalanced introspection both for individuals and for societies; of a preoccupation comparable to our modern social preoccupation with bodily health; of reflection upon mental states not accompanied by exercise and growth of the mental powers; the danger of contemplating will and neglecting work, of analysing conviction and not criticising evidence. Still, in spite of dangers and mistakes, the work remains full of hopeful indications, and, in the best examples (Such an example is given in Baron F. von Hugel's recently finished book, the result of thirty years' research: "The Mystical Element of Religion, as studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and her Friends". London, 1908.), it is truly scientific in its determination to know the very truth, to tell what we think, not what we think we ought to think. (G. Tyrrell, in "Mediaevalism", has a chapter which is full of the important MORAL element in a scientific attitude. "The only infallible guardian of truth is the spirit of truthfulness." "Mediaevalism" page 182, London, 1908.), truly scientific in its employment of hypothesis and verification, and in growing conviction of the reality of its subject-matter through the repeated victories of a mastery which advances, like science, in the Baconian road of obedience. It is reasonable to hope that progress in this respect will be more rapid and sure when religious study enlists more men affected by scientific desire and endowed with scientific capacity. The class of investigating minds is a small one, possibly even smaller than that of reflecting minds. Very few persons at any period are able to find out anything whatever. There are few observers, few discoverers, few who even wish to discover truth. In how many societies the problems of philology which face every person who speaks English are left unattempted! And if the inquiring or the successfully inquiring class of minds is small, much smaller, of course, is the class of those possessing the scientific aptitude in an eminent degree. During the last age this most distinguished class was to a very great extent absorbed in the study of phenomena, a study which had fallen into arrears. For we stood possessed, in rudiment, of means of observation, means for travelling and acquisition, qualifying men for a larger knowledge than had yet been attempted. These were now to be directed with new accuracy and ardour upon the fabric and behaviour of the world of sense. Our debt to the great masters in physical science who overtook and almost out-stripped the task cannot be measured; and, under the honourable leadership of Ruskin, we may all well do penance if we have failed "in the respect due to their great powers of thought, or in the admiration due to the far scope of their discovery." ("Queen of the Air", Preface, page vii. London, 1906.) With what miraculous mental energy and divine good fortune--as Romans said of their soldiers--did our men of curiosity face the apparently impenetrable mysteries of nature! And how natural it was that immense accessions of knowledge, unrelated to the spiritual facts of life, should discredit Christian faith, by the apparent superiority of the new work to the feeble and unprogressive knowledge of Christian believers! The day is coming when men of this mental character and rank, of this curiosity, this energy and this good fortune in investigation, will be employed in opening mysteries of a spiritual nature. They will silence with masterful witness the over-confident denials of naturalism. They will be in danger of the widespread recognition which thirty years ago accompanied every utterance of Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer. They will contribute, in spite of adulation, to the advance of sober religious and moral science. And this result will be due to Darwin, first because by raising the dignity of natural science, he encouraged the development of the scientific mind; secondly because he gave to religious students the example of patient and ardent investigation; and thirdly because by the pressure of naturalistic criticism the religious have been driven to ascertain the causes of their own convictions, a work in which they were not without the sympathy of men of science. (The scientific rank of its writer justifies the insertion of the following letter from the late Sir John Burdon-Sanderson to me. In the lecture referred to I had described the methods of Professor Moseley in teaching Biology as affording a suggestion of the scientific treatment of religion.) Oxford, April 30, 1902. Dear Sir, I feel that I must express to you my thanks for the discourse which I had the pleasure of listening to yesterday afternoon. I do not mean to say that I was able to follow all that you said as to the identity of Method in the two fields of Science and Religion, but I recognise that the "mysticism" of which you spoke gives us the only way by which the two fields can be brought into relation. Among much that was memorable, nothing interested me more than what you said of Moseley. No one, I am sure, knew better than you the value of his teaching and in what that value consisted. Yours faithfully J. Burdon-Sanderson. 31-2.) In leaving the subject of scientific religious inquiry, I will only add that I do not believe it receives any important help--and certainly it suffers incidentally much damaging interruption--from the study of abnormal manifestations or abnormal conditions of personality. (3) Both of the above effects seem to me of high, perhaps the very highest, importance to faith and to thought. But, under the third head, I name two which are more directly traceable to the personal work of Darwin, and more definitely characteristic of the age in which his influence was paramount: viz. the influence of the two conceptions of evolution and natural selection upon the doctrine of creation and of design respectively. It is impossible here, though it is necessary for a complete sketch of the matter, to distinguish the different elements and channels of this Darwinian influence; in Darwin's own writings, in the vigorous polemic of Huxley, and strangely enough, but very actually for popular thought, in the teaching of the definitely anti-Darwinian evolutionist Spencer. Under the head of the directly and purely Darwinian elements I should class as preeminent the work of Wallace and of Bates; for no two sets of facts have done more to fix in ordinary intelligent minds a belief in organic evolution and in natural selection as its guiding factor than the facts of geographical distribution and of protective colour and mimicry. The facts of geology were difficult to grasp and the public and theologians heard more often of the imperfection than of the extent of the geological record. The witness of embryology, depending to a great extent upon microscopic work, was and is beyond the appreciation of persons occupied in fields of work other than biology. III. From the influence in religion of scientific modes of thought we pass to the influence of particular biological conceptions. The former effect comes by way of analogy, example, encouragement and challenge; inspiring or provoking kindred or similar modes of thought in the field of theology; the latter by a collision of opinions upon matters of fact or conjecture which seem to concern both science and religion. In the case of Darwinism the story of this collision is familiar, and falls under the heads of evolution and natural selection, the doctrine of descent with modification, and the doctrine of its guidance or determination by the struggle for existence between related varieties. These doctrines, though associated and interdependent, and in popular thought not only combined but confused, must be considered separately. It is true that the ancient doctrine of Evolution, in spite of the ingenuity and ardour of Lamarck, remained a dream tantalising the intellectual ambition of naturalists, until the day when Darwin made it conceivable by suggesting the machinery of its guidance. And, further, the idea of natural selection has so effectively opened the door of research and stimulated observation in a score of principal directions that, even if the Darwinian explanation became one day much less convincing than, in spite of recent criticism, it now is, yet its passing, supposing it to pass, would leave the doctrine of Evolution immeasurably and permanently strengthened. For in the interests of the theory of selection, "Fur Darwin," as Muller wrote, facts have been collected which remain in any case evidence of the reality of descent with modification. But still, though thus united in the modern history of convictions, though united and confused in the collision of biological and traditional opinion, yet evolution and natural selection must be separated in theological no less than in biological estimation. Evolution seemed inconsistent with Creation; natural selection with Providence and Divine design. Discussion was maintained about these points for many years and with much dark heat. It ranged over many particular topics and engaged minds different in tone, in quality, and in accomplishment. There was at most times a degree of misconception. Some naturalists attributed to theologians in general a poverty of thought which belonged really to men of a particular temper or training. The "timid theism" discerned in Darwin by so cautious a theologian as Liddon (H.P. Liddon, "The Recovery of S. Thomas"; a sermon preached in St Paul's, London, on April 23rd, 1882 (the Sunday after Darwin's death).) was supposed by many biologists to be the necessary foundation of an honest Christianity. It was really more characteristic of devout NATURALISTS like Philip Henry Gosse, than of religious believers as such. (Dr Pusey ("Unscience not Science adverse to Faith" 1878) writes: "The questions as to 'species,' of what variations the animal world is capable, whether the species be more or fewer, whether accidental variations may become hereditary... and the like, naturally fall under the province of science. In all these questions Mr Darwin's careful observations gained for him a deserved approbation and confidence.") The study of theologians more considerable and even more typically conservative than Liddon does not confirm the description of religious intolerance given in good faith, but in serious ignorance, by a disputant so acute, so observant and so candid as Huxley. Something hid from each other's knowledge the devoted pilgrims in two great ways of thought. The truth may be, that naturalists took their view of what creation was from Christian men of science who naturally looked in their own special studies for the supports and illustrations of their religious belief. Of almost every laborious student it may be said "Hic ab arte sua non recessit." And both the believing and the denying naturalists, confining habitual attention to a part of experience, are apt to affirm and deny with trenchant vigour and something of a narrow clearness "Qui respiciunt ad pauca, de facili pronunciant." (Aristotle, in Bacon, quoted by Newman in his "Idea of a University", page 78. London, 1873.) Newman says of some secular teachers that "they persuade the world of what is false by urging upon it what is true." Of some early opponents of Darwin it might be said by a candid friend that, in all sincerity of devotion to truth, they tried to persuade the world of what is true by urging upon it what is false. If naturalists took their version of orthodoxy from amateurs in theology, some conservative Christians, instead of learning what evolution meant to its regular exponents, took their view of it from celebrated persons, not of the front rank in theology or in thought, but eager to take account of public movements and able to arrest public attention. Cleverness and eloquence on both sides certainly had their share in producing the very great and general disturbance of men's minds in the early days of Darwinian teaching. But by far the greater part of that disturbance was due to the practical novelty and the profound importance of the teaching itself, and to the fact that the controversy about evolution quickly became much more public than any controversy of equal seriousness had been for many generations. We must not think lightly of that great disturbance because it has, in some real sense, done its work, and because it is impossible in days of more coolness and light, to recover a full sense of its very real difficulties. Those who would know them better should add to the calm records of Darwin ("Life and Letters" and "More Letters of Charles Darwin".) and to the story of Huxley's impassioned championship, all that they can learn of George Romanes. ("Life and Letters", London, 1896. "Thoughts on Religion", London, 1895. "Candid Examination of Theism", London, 1878.) For his life was absorbed in this very struggle and reproduced its stages. It began in a certain assured simplicity of biblical interpretation; it went on, through the glories and adventures of a paladin in Darwin's train, to the darkness and dismay of a man who saw all his most cherished beliefs rendered, as he thought, incredible. ("Never in the history of man has so terrific a calamity befallen the race as that which all who look may now (viz. in consequence of the scientific victory of Darwin) behold advancing as a deluge, black with destruction, resistless in might, uprooting our most cherished hopes, engulphing our most precious creed, and burying our highest life in mindless destruction."--"A Candid Examination of Theism", page 51.) He lived to find the freer faith for which process and purpose are not irreconcilable, but necessary to one another. His development, scientific, intellectual and moral, was itself of high significance; and its record is of unique value to our own generation, so near the age of that doubt and yet so far from it; certainly still much in need of the caution and courage by which past endurance prepares men for new emergencies. We have little enough reason to be sure that in the discussions awaiting us we shall do as well as our predecessors in theirs. Remembering their endurance of mental pain, their ardour in mental labour, the heroic temper and the high sincerity of controversialists on either side, we may well speak of our fathers in such words of modesty and self-judgment as Drayton used when he sang the victors of Agincourt. The progress of biblical study, in the departments of Introduction and Exegesis, resulting in the recovery of a point of view anciently tolerated if not prevalent, has altered some of the conditions of that discussion. In the years near 1858, the witness of Scripture was adduced both by Christian advocates and their critics as if unmistakeably irreconcilable with Evolution. Huxley ("Science and Christian Tradition". London, 1904.) found the path of the blameless naturalist everywhere blocked by "Moses": the believer in revelation was generally held to be forced to a choice between revealed cosmogony and the scientific account of origins. It is not clear how far the change in Biblical interpretation is due to natural science, and how far to the vital movements of theological study which have been quite independent of the controversy about species. It belongs to a general renewal of Christian movement, the recovery of a heritage. "Special Creation"--really a biological rather than a theological conception,--seems in its rigid form to have been a recent element even in English biblical orthodoxy. The Middle Ages had no suspicion that religious faith forbad inquiry into the natural origination of the different forms of life. Bartholomaeus Anglicus, an English Franciscan of the thirteenth century, was a mutationist in his way, as Aristotle, "the Philosopher" of the Christian Schoolmen, had been in his. So late as the seventeenth century, as we learn not only from early proceedings of the Royal Society, but from a writer so homely and so regularly pious as Walton, the variation of species and "spontaneous" generations had no theological bearing, except as instances of that various wonder of the world which in devout minds is food for devotion. It was in the eighteenth century that the harder statement took shape. Something in the preciseness of that age, its exaltation of law, its cold passion for a stable and measured universe, its cold denial, its cold affirmation of the power of God, a God of ice, is the occasion of that rigidity of religious thought about the living world which Darwin by accident challenged, or rather by one of those movements of genius which, Goethe ("No productiveness of the highest kind... is in the power of anyone."--"Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret". London, 1850.) declares, are "elevated above all earthly control." If religious thought in the eighteenth century was aimed at a fixed and nearly finite world of spirit, it followed in all these respects the secular and critical lead. ("La philosophie reformatrice du XVIIIe siecle" (Berthelot, "Evolutionisme et Platonisme", Paris, 1908, page 45.) ramenait la nature et la societe a des mecanismes que la pensee reflechie peut concevoir et recomposer." In fact, religion in a mechanical age is condemned if it takes any but a mechanical tone. Butler's thought was too moving, too vital, too evolutionary, for the sceptics of his time. In a rationalist, encyclopaedic period, religion also must give hard outline to its facts, it must be able to display its secret to any sensible man in the language used by all sensible men. Milton's prophetic genius furnished the eighteenth century, out of the depth of the passionate age before it, with the theological tone it was to need. In spite of the austere magnificence of his devotion, he gives to smaller souls a dangerous lead. The rigidity of Scripture exegesis belonged to this stately but imperfectly sensitive mode of thought. It passed away with the influence of the older rationalists whose precise denials matched the precise and limited affirmations of the static orthodoxy. I shall, then, leave the specially biblical aspect of the debate--interesting as it is and even useful, as in Huxley's correspondence with the Duke of Argyll and others in 1892 ("Times", 1892, passim.)--in order to consider without complication the permanent elements of Christian thought brought into question by the teaching of evolution. Such permanent elements are the doctrine of God as Creator of the universe, and the doctrine of man as spiritual and unique. Upon both the doctrine of evolution seemed to fall with crushing force. With regard to Man I leave out, acknowledging a grave omission, the doctrine of the Fall and of Sin. And I do so because these have not yet, as I believe, been adequately treated: here the fruitful reaction to the stimulus of evolution is yet to come. The doctrine of sin, indeed, falls principally within the scope of that discussion which has followed or displaced the Darwinian; and without it the Fall cannot be usefully considered. For the question about the Fall is a question not merely of origins, but of the interpretation of moral facts whose moral reality must first be established. I confine myself therefore to Creation and the dignity of man. The meaning of evolution, in the most general terms, is that the differentiation of forms is not essentially separate from their behaviour and use; that if these are within the scope of study, that is also; that the world has taken the form we see by movements not unlike those we now see in progress; that what may be called proximate origins are continuous in the way of force and matter, continuous in the way of life, with actual occurrences and actual characteristics. All this has no revolutionary bearing upon the question of ultimate origins. The whole is a statement about process. It says nothing to metaphysicians about cause. It simply brings within the scope of observation or conjecture that series of changes which has given their special characters to the different parts of the world we see. In particular, evolutionary science aspires to the discovery of the process or order of the appearance of life itself: if it were to achieve its aim it could say nothing of the cause of this or indeed of the most familiar occurrences. We should have become spectators or convinced historians of an event which, in respect of its cause and ultimate meaning, would be still impenetrable. With regard to the origin of species, supposing life already established, biological science has the well founded hopes and the measure of success with which we are all familiar. All this has, it would seem, little chance of collision with a consistent theism, a doctrine which has its own difficulties unconnected with any particular view of order or process. But when it was stated that species had arisen by processes through which new species were still being made, evolutionism came into collision with a statement, traditionally religious, that species were formed and fixed once for all and long ago. What is the theological import of such a statement when it is regarded as essential to belief in God? Simply that God's activity, with respect to the formation of living creatures, ceased at some point in past time. "God rested" is made the touchstone of orthodoxy. And when, under the pressure of the evidences, we found ourselves obliged to acknowledge and assert the present and persistent power of God, in the maintenance and in the continued formation of "types," what happened was the abolition of a time-limit. We were forced only to a bolder claim, to a theistic language less halting, more consistent, more thorough in its own line, as well as better qualified to assimilate and modify such schemes as Von Hartmann's philosophy of the unconscious--a philosophy, by the way, quite intolerant of a merely mechanical evolution. (See Von Hartmann's "Wahrheit und Irrthum in Darwinismus". Berlin, 1875.) Here was not the retrenchment of an extravagant assertion, but the expansion of one which was faltering and inadequate. The traditional statement did not need paring down so as to pass the meshes of a new and exacting criticism. It was itself a net meant to surround and enclose experience; and we must increase its size and close its mesh to hold newly disclosed facts of life. The world, which had seemed a fixed picture or model, gained first perspective and then solidity and movement. We had a glimpse of organic HISTORY; and Christian thought became more living and more assured as it met the larger view of life. However unsatisfactory the new attitude might be to our critics, to Christians the reform was positive. What was discarded was a limitation, a negation. The movement was essentially conservative, even actually reconstructive. For the language disused was a language inconsistent with the definitions of orthodoxy; it set bounds to the infinite, and by implication withdrew from the creative rule all such processes as could be brought within the descriptions of research. It ascribed fixity and finality to that "creature" in which an apostle taught us to recognise the birth-struggles of an unexhausted progress. It tended to banish mystery from the world we see, and to confine it to a remote first age. In the reformed, the restored, language of religion, Creation became again not a link in a rational series to complete a circle of the sciences, but the mysterious and permanent relation between the infinite and the finite, between the moving changes we know in part, and the Power, after the fashion of that observation, unknown, which is itself "unmoved all motion's source." (Hymn of the Church-- Rerum Deus tenax vigor, Immotus in te permanens.) With regard to man it is hardly necessary, even were it possible, to illustrate the application of this bolder faith. When the record of his high extraction fell under dispute, we were driven to a contemplation of the whole of his life, rather than of a part and that part out of sight. We remembered again, out of Aristotle, that the result of a process interprets its beginnings. We were obliged to read the title of such dignity as we may claim, in results and still more in aspirations. Some men still measure the value of great present facts in life--reason and virtue and sacrifice--by what a self-disparaged reason can collect of the meaner rudiments of these noble gifts. Mr Balfour has admirably displayed the discrepancy, in this view, between the alleged origin and the alleged authority of reason. Such an argument ought to be used not to discredit the confident reason, but to illuminate and dignify its dark beginnings, and to show that at every step in the long course of growth a Power was at work which is not included in any term or in all the terms of the series. I submit that the more men know of actual Christian teaching, its fidelity to the past, and its sincerity in face of discovery, the more certainly they will judge that the stimulus of the doctrine of evolution has produced in the long run vigour as well as flexibility in the doctrine of Creation and of man. I pass from Evolution in general to Natural Selection. The character in religious language which I have for short called mechanical was not absent in the argument from design as stated before Darwin. It seemed to have reference to a world conceived as fixed. It pointed, not to the plastic capacity and energy of living matter, but to the fixed adaptation of this and that organ to an unchanging place or function. Mr Hobhouse has given us the valuable phrase "a niche of organic opportunity." Such a phrase would have borne a different sense in non-evolutionary thought. In that thought, the opportunity was an opportunity for the Creative Power, and Design appeared in the preparation of the organism to fit the niche. The idea of the niche and its occupant growing together from simpler to more complex mutual adjustment was unwelcome to this teleology. If the adaptation was traced to the influence, through competition, of the environment, the old teleology lost an illustration and a proof. For the cogency of the proof in every instance depended upon the absence of explanation. Where the process of adaptation was discerned, the evidence of Purpose or Design was weak. It was strong only when the natural antecedents were not discovered, strongest when they could be declared undiscoverable. Paley's favourite word is "Contrivance"; and for him contrivance is most certain where production is most obscure. He points out the physiological advantage of the valvulae conniventes to man, and the advantage for teleology of the fact that they cannot have been formed by "action and pressure." What is not due to pressure may be attributed to design, and when a "mechanical" process more subtle than pressure was suggested, the case for design was so far weakened. The cumulative proof from the multitude of instances began to disappear when, in selection, a natural sequence was suggested in which all the adaptations might be reached by the motive power of life, and especially when, as in Darwin's teaching, there was full recognition of the reactions of life to the stimulus of circumstance. "The organism fits the niche," said the teleologist, "because the Creator formed it so as to fit." "The organism fits the niche," said the naturalist, "because unless it fitted it could not exist." "It was fitted to survive," said the theologian. "It survives because it fits," said the selectionist. The two forms of statement are not incompatible; but the new statement, by provision of an ideally universal explanation of process, was hostile to a doctrine of purpose which relied upon evidences always exceptional however numerous. Science persistently presses on to find the universal machinery of adaptation in this planet; and whether this be found in selection, or in direct-effect, or in vital reactions resulting in large changes, or in a combination of these and other factors, it must always be opposed to the conception of a Divine Power here and there but not everywhere active. For science, the Divine must be constant, operative everywhere and in every quality and power, in environment and in organism, in stimulus and in reaction, in variation and in struggle, in hereditary equilibrium, and in "the unstable state of species"; equally present on both sides of every strain, in all pressures and in all resistances, in short in the general wonder of life and the world. And this is exactly what the Divine Power must be for religious faith. The point I wish once more to make is that the necessary readjustment of teleology, so as to make it depend upon the contemplation of the whole instead of a part, is advantageous quite as much to theology as to science. For the older view failed in courage. Here again our theism was not sufficiently theistic. Where results seemed inevitable, it dared not claim them as God-given. In the argument from Design it spoke not of God in the sense of theology, but of a Contriver, immensely, not infinitely wise and good, working within a world, the scene, rather than the ever dependent outcome, of His Wisdom; working in such emergencies and opportunities as occurred, by forces not altogether within His control, towards an end beyond Himself. It gave us, instead of the awful reverence due to the Cause of all substance and form, all love and wisdom, a dangerously detached appreciation of an ingenuity and benevolence meritorious in aim and often surprisingly successful in contrivance. The old teleology was more useful to science than to religion, and the design-naturalists ought to be gratefully remembered by Biologists. Their search for evidences led them to an eager study of adaptations and of minute forms, a study such as we have now an incentive to in the theory of Natural Selection. One hardly meets with the same ardour in microscopical research until we come to modern workers. But the argument from Design was never of great importance to faith. Still, to rid it of this character was worth all the stress and anxiety of the gallant old war. If Darwin had done nothing else for us, we are to-day deeply in his debt for this. The world is not less venerable to us now, not less eloquent of the causing mind, rather much more eloquent and sacred. But our wonder is not that "the underjaw of the swine works under the ground" or in any or all of those particular adaptations which Paley collected with so much skill, but that a purpose transcending, though resembling, our own purposes, is everywhere manifest; that what we live in is a whole, mutually sustaining, eventful and beautiful, where the "dead" forces feed the energies of life, and life sustains a stranger existence, able in some real measure to contemplate the whole, of which, mechanically considered, it is a minor product and a rare ingredient. Here, again, the change was altogether positive. It was not the escape of a vessel in a storm with loss of spars and rigging, not a shortening of sail to save the masts and make a port of refuge. It was rather the emergence from narrow channels to an open sea. We had propelled the great ship, finding purchase here and there for slow and uncertain movement. Now, in deep water, we spread large canvas to a favouring breeze. The scattered traces of design might be forgotten or obliterated. But the broad impression of Order became plainer when seen at due distance and in sufficient range of effect, and the evidence of love and wisdom in the universe could be trusted more securely for the loss of the particular calculation of their machinery. Many other topics of faith are affected by modern biology. In some of these we have learnt at present only a wise caution, a wise uncertainty. We stand before the newly unfolded spectacle of suffering, silenced; with faith not scientifically reassured but still holding fast certain other clues of conviction. In many important topics we are at a loss. But in others, and among them those I have mentioned, we have passed beyond this negative state and find faith positively strengthened and more fully expressed. We have gained also a language and a habit of thought more fit for the great and dark problems that remain, less liable to damaging conflicts, equipped for more rapid assimilation of knowledge. And by this change biology itself is a gainer. For, relieved of fruitless encounters with popular religion, it may advance with surer aim along the path of really scientific life-study which was reopened for modern men by the publication of "The Origin of Species". Charles Darwin regretted that, in following science, he had not done "more direct good" ("Life and Letters", Vol. III. page 359.) to his fellow-creatures. He has, in fact, rendered substantial service to interests bound up with the daily conduct and hopes of common men; for his work has led to improvements in the preaching of the Christian faith. XXV. THE INFLUENCE OF DARWINISM ON THE STUDY OF RELIGIONS. By Jane Ellen Harrison. Hon. D.Litt. (Durham), Hon. LL.D. (Aberdeen), Staff Lecturer and sometime Fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge. Corresponding member of the German Archaeological Institute. The title of my paper might well have been "the creation by Darwinism of the scientific study of Religions," but that I feared to mar my tribute to a great name by any shadow of exaggeration. Before the publication of "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man", even in the eighteenth century, isolated thinkers, notably Hume and Herder, had conjectured that the orthodox beliefs of their own day were developments from the cruder superstitions of the past. These were however only particular speculations of individual sceptics. Religion was not yet generally regarded as a proper subject for scientific study, with facts to be collected and theories to be deduced. A Congress of Religions such as that recently held at Oxford would have savoured of impiety. In the brief space allotted me I can attempt only two things; first, and very briefly, I shall try to indicate the normal attitude towards religion in the early part of the last century; second, and in more detail, I shall try to make clear what is the outlook of advanced thinkers to-day. (To be accurate I ought to add "in Europe." I advisedly omit from consideration the whole immense field of Oriental mysticism, because it has remained practically untouched by the influence of Darwinism.) From this second inquiry it will, I hope, be abundantly manifest that it is the doctrine of evolution that has made this outlook possible and even necessary. The ultimate and unchallenged presupposition of the old view was that religion was a DOCTRINE, a body of supposed truths. It was in fact what we should now call Theology, and what the ancients called Mythology. Ritual was scarcely considered at all, and, when considered, it was held to be a form in which beliefs, already defined and fixed as dogma, found a natural mode of expression. This, it will be later shown, is a profound error or rather a most misleading half-truth. Creeds, doctrines, theology and the like are only a part, and at first the least important part, of religion. Further, and the fact is important, this DOGMA, thus supposed to be the essential content of the "true" religion, was a teleological scheme complete and unalterable, which had been revealed to man once and for all by a highly anthropomorphic God, whose existence was assumed. The duty of man towards this revelation was to accept its doctrines and obey its precepts. The notion that this revelation had grown bit by bit out of man's consciousness and that his business was to better it would have seemed rank blasphemy. Religion, so conceived, left no place for development. "The Truth" might be learnt, but never critically examined; being thus avowedly complete and final, it was doomed to stagnation. The details of this supposed revelation seem almost too naive for enumeration. As Hume observed, "popular theology has a positive appetite for absurdity." It is sufficient to recall that "revelation" included such items as the Creation (It is interesting to note that the very word "Creator" has nowadays almost passed into the region of mythology. Instead we have "L'Evolution Creatrice".) of the world out of nothing in six days; the making of Eve from one of Adam's ribs; the Temptation by a talking snake; the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel; the doctrine of Original Sin; a scheme of salvation which demanded the Virgin Birth, Vicarious Atonement, and the Resurrection of the material body. The scheme was unfolded in an infallible Book, or, for one section of Christians, guarded by the tradition of an infallible Church, and on the acceptance or refusal of this scheme depended an eternity of weal or woe. There is not one of these doctrines that has not now been recast, softened down, mysticised, allegorised into something more conformable with modern thinking. It is hard for the present generation, unless their breeding has been singularly archaic, to realise that these amazing doctrines were literally held and believed to constitute the very essence of religion; to doubt them was a moral delinquency. It had not, however, escaped the notice of travellers and missionaries that savages carried on some sort of practices that seemed to be religious, and believed in some sort of spirits or demons. Hence, beyond the confines illuminated by revealed truth, a vague region was assigned to NATURAL Religion. The original revelation had been kept intact only by one chosen people, the Jews, by them to be handed on to Christianity. Outside the borders of this Goshen the world had sunk into the darkness of Egypt. Where analogies between savage cults and the Christian religions were observed, they were explained as degradations; the heathen had somehow wilfully "lost the light." Our business was not to study but, exclusively, to convert them, to root out superstition and carry the torch of revelation to "Souls in heathen darkness lying." To us nowadays it is a commonplace of anthropological research that we must seek for the beginnings of religion in the religions of primitive peoples, but in the last century the orthodox mind was convinced that it possessed a complete and luminous ready-made revelation; the study of what was held to be a mere degradation seemed idle and superfluous. But, it may be asked, if, to the orthodox, revealed religion was sacrosanct and savage religion a thing beneath consideration, why did not the sceptics show a more liberal spirit, and pursue to their logical issue the conjectures they had individually hazarded? The reason is simple and significant. The sceptics too had not worked free from the presupposition that the essence of religion is dogma. Their intellectualism, expressive of the whole eighteenth century, was probably in England strengthened by the Protestant doctrine of an infallible Book. Hume undoubtedly confused religion with dogmatic theology. The attention of orthodox and sceptics alike was focussed on the truth or falsity of certain propositions. Only a few minds of rare quality were able dimly to conceive that religion might be a necessary step in the evolution of human thought. It is not a little interesting to note that Darwin, who was leader and intellectual king of his generation, was also in this matter to some extent its child. His attitude towards religion is stated clearly, in Chapter VIII. of the "Life and Letters". (Vol. I. page 304. For Darwin's religious views see also "Descent of Man", 1871, Vol. I. page 65; 2nd edition. Vol. I. page 142.) On board the "Beagle" he was simply orthodox and was laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. By 1839 he had come to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. Next went the belief in miracles, and next Paley's "argument from design" broke down before the law of natural selection; the suffering so manifest in nature is seen to be compatible rather with Natural Selection than with the goodness and omnipotence of God. Darwin felt to the full all the ignorance that lay hidden under specious phrases like "the plan of creation" and "Unity of design." Finally, he tells us "the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." The word Agnostic is significant not only of the humility of the man himself but also of the attitude of his age. Religion, it is clear, is still conceived as something to be KNOWN, a matter of true or false OPINION. Orthodox religion was to Darwin a series of erroneous hypotheses to be bit by bit discarded when shown to be untenable. The ACTS of religion which may result from such convictions, i.e. devotion in all its forms, prayer, praise, sacraments, are left unmentioned. It is clear that they are not, as now to us, sociological survivals of great interest and importance, but rather matters too private, too personal, for discussion. Huxley, writing in the "Contemporary Review" (1871.), says, "In a dozen years "The Origin of Species" has worked as complete a revolution in biological science as the "Principia" did in astronomy." It has done so because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contained "an essentially new creative thought," that of the continuity of life, the absence of breaks. In the two most conservative subjects, Religion and Classics, this creative ferment was slow indeed to work. Darwin himself felt strongly "that a man should not publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought," and hence wrote little on religion and with manifest reluctance, though, as already seen, in answer to pertinacious inquiry he gave an outline of his own views. But none the less he foresaw that his doctrine must have, for the history of man's mental evolution, issues wider than those with which he was prepared personally to deal. He writes, in "The Origin of Species" (6th edition, page 428.), "In the future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation." Nowhere, it is true, does Darwin definitely say that he regarded religion as a set of phenomena, the development of which may be studied from the psychological standpoint. Rather we infer from his PIETY--in the beautiful Roman sense--towards tradition and association, that religion was to him in some way sacrosanct. But it is delightful to see how his heart went out towards the new method in religious study which he had himself, if half-unconsciously, inaugurated. Writing in 1871 to Dr Tylor, on the publication of his "Primitive Culture", he says ("Life and Letters", Vol. III. page 151.), "It is wonderful how you trace animism from the lower races up the religious belief of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at religion--a belief in the soul, etc.--from a new point of view." Psychology was henceforth to be based on "the necessary acquirement of each mental capacity by gradation." With these memorable words the door closes on the old and opens on the new horizon. The mental focus henceforth is not on the maintaining or refuting of an orthodoxy but on the genesis and evolution of a capacity, not on perfection but on process. Continuous evolution leaves no gap for revelation sudden and complete. We have henceforth to ask, not when was religion revealed or what was the revelation, but how did religious phenomena arise and develop. For an answer to this we turn with new and reverent eyes to study "the heathen in his blindness" and the child "born in sin." We still indeed send out missionaries to convert the heathen, but here at least in Cambridge before they start they attend lectures on anthropology and comparative religion. The "decadence" theory is dead and should be buried. The study of primitive religions then has been made possible and even inevitable by the theory of Evolution. We have now to ask what new facts and theories have resulted from that study. This brings us to our second point, the advanced outlook on religion to-day. The view I am about to state is no mere personal opinion of my own. To my present standpoint I have been led by the investigations of such masters as Drs Wundt, Lehmann, Preuss, Bergson, Beck and in our own country Drs Tylor and Frazer. (I can only name here the books that have specially influenced my own views. They are W. Wundt, "Volkerpsychologie", Leipzig, 1900, P. Beck, "Die Nachahmung", Leipzig, 1904, and "Erkenntnisstheorie des primitiven Denkens" in "Zeitschrift f. Philos. und Philos. Kritik", 1903, page 172, and 1904, page 9. Henri Bergson, "L'Evolution Creatrice" and "Matiere et Memoire", 1908, K. Th. Preuss, various articles published in the "Globus" (see page 507, note 1), and in the "Archiv. f. Religionswissenschaft", and for the subject of magic, MM. Hubert et Mauss, "Theorie generale de la Magie", in "L'Annee Sociologique", VII.) Religion always contains two factors. First, a theoretical factor, what a man THINKS about the unseen--his theology, or, if we prefer so to call it, his mythology. Second, what he DOES in relation to this unseen--his ritual. These factors rarely if ever occur in complete separation; they are blended in very varying proportions. Religion we have seen was in the last century regarded mainly in its theoretical aspect as a doctrine. Greek religion for example meant to most educated persons Greek mythology. Yet even a cursory examination shows that neither Greek nor Roman had any creed or dogma, any hard and fast formulation of belief. In the Greek Mysteries (See my "Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion", page 155, Cambridge, 1903.) only we find what we should call a Confiteor; and this is not a confession of faith, but an avowal of rites performed. When the religion of primitive peoples came to be examined it was speedily seen that though vague beliefs necessarily abound, definite creeds are practically non-existent. Ritual is dominant and imperative. This predominance and priority of ritual over definite creed was first forced upon our notice by the study of savages, but it promptly and happily joined hands with modern psychology. Popular belief says, I think, therefore I act; modern scientific psychology says, I act (or rather, REact to outside stimulus), and so I come to think. Thus there is set going a recurrent series: act and thought become in their turn stimuli to fresh acts and thoughts. In examining religion as envisaged to-day it would therefore be more correct to begin with the practice of religion, i.e. ritual, and then pass to its theory, theology or mythology. But it will be more convenient to adopt the reverse method. The theoretical content of religion is to those of us who are Protestants far more familiar and we shall thus proceed from the known to the comparatively unknown. I shall avoid all attempt at rigid definition. The problem before the modern investigator is, not to determine the essence and definition of religion but to inquire how religious phenomena, religious ideas and practices arose. Now the theoretical content of religion, the domain of theology or mythology, is broadly familiar to all. It is the world of the unseen, the supersensuous; it is the world of what we call the soul and the supposed objects of the soul's perception, sprites, demons, ghosts and gods. How did this world grow up? We turn to our savages. Intelligent missionaries of bygone days used to ply savages with questions such as these: Had they any belief in God? Did they believe in the immortality of the soul? Taking their own clear-cut conceptions, discriminated by a developed terminology, these missionaries tried to translate them into languages that had neither the words nor the thoughts, only a vague, inchoate, tangled substratum, out of which these thoughts and words later differentiated themselves. Let us examine this substratum. Nowadays we popularly distinguish between objective and subjective; and further, we regard the two worlds as in some sense opposed. To the objective world we commonly attribute some reality independent of consciousness, while we think of the subjective as dependent for its existence on the mind. The objective world consists of perceptible things, or of the ultimate constituents to which matter is reduced by physical speculation. The subjective world is the world of beliefs, hallucinations, dreams, abstract ideas, imaginations and the like. Psychology of course knows that the objective and subjective worlds are interdependent, inextricably intertwined, but for practical purposes the distinction is convenient. But primitive man has not yet drawn the distinction between objective and subjective. Nay, more, it is foreign to almost the whole of ancient philosophy. Plato's Ideas (I owe this psychological analysis of the elements of the primitive supersensuous world mainly to Dr Beck, "Erkenntnisstheorie des primitiven Denkens", see page 498, note 1.), his Goodness, Truth, Beauty, his class-names, horse, table, are it is true dematerialised as far as possible, but they have outside existence, apart from the mind of the thinker, they have in some shadowy way spatial extension. Yet ancient philosophies and primitive man alike needed and possessed for practical purposes a distinction which served as well as our subjective and objective. To the primitive savage all his thoughts, every object of which he was conscious, whether by perception or conception, had reality, that is, it had existence outside himself, but it might have reality of various kinds or different degrees. It is not hard to see how this would happen. A man's senses may mislead him. He sees the reflection of a bird in a pond. To his eyes it is a real bird. He touches it, HE PUTS IT TO THE TOUCH, and to his touch it is not a bird at all. It is real then, but surely not quite so real as a bird that you can touch. Again, he sees smoke. It is real to his eyes. He tries to grasp it, it vanishes. The wind touches him, but he cannot see it, which makes him feel uncanny. The most real thing is that which affects most senses and especially what affects the sense of touch. Apparently touch is the deepest down, most primitive, of senses. The rest are specialisations and complications. Primitive man has no formal rubric "optical delusion," but he learns practically to distinguish between things that affect only one sense and things that affect two or more--if he did not he would not survive. But both classes of things are real to him. Percipi est esse. So far, primitive man has made a real observation; there are things that appeal to one sense only. But very soon creeps in confusion fraught with disaster. He passes naturally enough, being economical of any mental effort, from what he really sees but cannot feel to what he thinks he sees, and gives to it the same secondary reality. He has dreams, visions, hallucinations, nightmares. He dreams that an enemy is beating him, and he wakes rubbing his head. Then further he remembers things; that is, for him, he sees them. A great chief died the other day and they buried him, but he sees him still in his mind, sees him in his war-paint, splendid, victorious. So the image of the past goes together with his dreams and visions to the making of this other less real, but still real world, his other-world of the supersensuous, the supernatural, a world, the outside existence of which, independent of himself, he never questions. And, naturally enough, the future joins the past in this supersensuous world. He can hope, he can imagine, he can prophesy. And again the images of his hope are real; he sees them with that mind's eye which as yet he has not distinguished from his bodily eye. And so the supersensuous world grows and grows big with the invisible present, and big also with the past and the future, crowded with the ghosts of the dead and shadowed with oracles and portents. It is this supersensuous, supernatural world which is the eternity, the other-world, of primitive religion, not an endlessness of time, but a state removed from full sensuous reality, a world in which anything and everything may happen, a world peopled by demonic ancestors and liable to a splendid vagueness, to a "once upon a time-ness" denied to the present. It not unfrequently happens that people who know that the world nowadays obeys fixed laws have no difficulty in believing that six thousand years ago man was made direct from a lump of clay, and woman was made from one of man's superfluous ribs. The fashioning of the supersensuous world comes out very clearly in primitive man's views about the soul and life after death. Herbert Spencer noted long ago the influence of dreams in forming a belief in immortality, but being very rational himself, he extended to primitive man a quite alien quality of rationality. Herbert Spencer argued that when a savage has a dream he seeks to account for it, and in so doing invents a spirit world. The mistake here lies in the "seeks to account for it." (Primitive man, as Dr Beck observes, is not impelled by an Erkenntnisstrieb. Dr Beck says he has counted upwards of 30 of these mythological Triebe (tendencies) with which primitive man has been endowed.) Man is at first too busy LIVING to have any time for disinterested THINKING. He dreams a dream and it is real for him. He does not seek to account for it any more than for his hands and feet. He cannot distinguish between a CONception and a PERception, that is all. He remembers his ancestors or they appear to him in a dream; therefore they are alive still, but only as a rule to about the third generation. Then he remembers them no more and they cease to be. Next as regards his own soul. He feels something within him, his life-power, his will to live, his power to act, his personality--whatever we like to call it. He cannot touch this thing that is himself, but it is real. His friend too is alive and one day he is dead; he cannot move, he cannot act. Well, something has gone that was his friend's self. He has stopped breathing. Was it his breath? or he is bleeding; is it his blood? This life-power IS something; does it live in his heart or his lungs or his midriff? He did not see it go; perhaps it is like wind, an anima, a Geist, a ghost. But again it comes back in a dream, only looking shadowy; it is not the man's life, it is a thin copy of the man; it is an "image" (eidolon). It is like that shifting distorted thing that dogs the living man's footsteps in the sunshine; it is a "shade" (skia). (The two conceptions of the soul, as a life-essence, inseparable from the body, and as a separable phantom seem to occur in most primitive systems. They are distinct conceptions but are inextricably blended in savage thought. The two notions Korperseele and Psyche have been very fully discussed in Wundt's "Volkerpsychologie" II. pages 1-142, Leipzig, 1900.) Ghosts and sprites, ancestor worship, the soul, oracles, prophecy; all these elements of the primitive supersensuous world we willingly admit to be the proper material of religion; but other elements are more surprising; such are class-names, abstract ideas, numbers, geometrical figures. We do not nowadays think of these as of religious content, but to primitive men they were all part of the furniture of his supernatural world. With respect to class-names, Dr Tylor ("Primitive Culture", Vol. II. page 245 (4th edition), 1903.) has shown how instructive are the first attempts of the savage to get at the idea of a class. Things in which similarity is observed, things indeed which can be related at all are to the savage KINDRED. A species is a family or a number of individuals with a common god to look after them. Such for example is the Finn doctrine of the haltia. Every object has its haltia, but the haltiat were not tied to the individual, they interested themselves in every member of the species. Each stone had its haltia, but that haltia was interested in other stones; the individuals disappeared, the haltia remained. Nor was it only class-names that belonged to the supersensuous world. A man's own proper-name is a sort of spiritual essence of him, a kind of soul to be carefully concealed. By pronouncing a name you bring the thing itself into being. When Elohim would create Day "he called out to the Light 'Day,' and to the Darkness he called out 'Night'"; the great magician pronounced the magic Names and the Things came into being. "In the beginning was the Word" is literally true, and this reflects the fact that our CONCEPTUAL world comes into being by the mental process of naming. (For a full discussion of this point see Beck, "Nachahmung" page 41, "Die Sprache".) In old times people went further; they thought that by naming events they could bring them to be, and custom even to-day keeps up the inveterate magical habit of wishing people "Good Morning" and a "Happy Christmas." Number, too, is part of the supersensuous world that is thoroughly religious. We can see and touch seven apples, but seven itself, that wonderful thing that shifts from object to object, giving it its SEVENness, that living thing, for it begets itself anew in multiplication--surely seven is a fit denizen of the upper-world. Originally all numbers dwelt there, and a certain supersensuous sanctity still clings to seven and three. We still say "Holy, Holy, Holy," and in some mystic way feel the holier. The soul and the supersensuous world get thinner and thinner, rarer and more rarified, but they always trail behind them clouds of smoke and vapour from the world of sense and space whence they have come. It is difficult for us even nowadays to use the word "soul" without lapsing into a sensuous mythology. The Cartesians' sharp distinction between res extensa non cogitans and res cogitans non extansa is remote. So far then man, through the processes of his thinking, has provided himself with a supersensuous world, the world of sense-delusion, of smoke and cloud, of dream and phantom, of imagination, of name and number and image. The natural course would now seem to be that this supersensuous world should develop into the religious world as we know it, that out of a vague animism with ghosts of ancestors, demons, and the like, there should develop in due order momentary gods (Augenblicks-Gotter), tribal gods, polytheism, and finally a pure monotheism. This course of development is usually assumed, but it is not I think quite what really happens. The supersensuous world as we have got it so far is too theoretic to be complete material of religion. It is indeed only one factor, or rather it is as it were a lifeless body that waits for a living spirit to possess and inform it. Had the theoretic factor remained uninformed it would eventually have separated off into its constituent elements of error and truth, the error dying down as a belated metaphysic, the truth developing into a correct and scientific psychology of the subjective. But man has ritual as well as mythology; that is, he feels and acts as well as thinks; nay more he probably feels and acts long before he definitely thinks. This contradicts all our preconceived notions of theology. Man, we imagine, believes in a god or gods and then worships. The real order seems to be that, in a sense presently to be explained, he worships, he feels and acts, and out of his feeling and action, projected into his confused thinking, he develops a god. We pass therefore to our second factor in religion:--ritual. The word "ritual" brings to our modern minds the notion of a church with a priesthood and organised services. Instinctively we think of a congregation meeting to confess sins, to receive absolution, to pray, to praise, to listen to sermons, and possibly to partake of sacraments. Were we to examine these fully developed phenomena we should hardly get further in the analysis of our religious conceptions than the notion of a highly anthropomorphic god approached by purely human methods of personal entreaty and adulation. Further, when we first come to the study of primitive religions we expect a priori to find the same elements, though in a ruder form. We expect to see "The heathen in his blindness bow down to wood and stone," but the facts that actually confront us are startlingly dissimilar. Bowing down to wood and stone is an occupation that exists mainly in the minds of hymn-writers. The real savage is more actively engaged. Instead of asking a god to do what he wants done, he does it or tries to do it himself; instead of prayers he utters spells. In a word he is busy practising magic, and above all he is strenuously engaged in dancing magical dances. When the savage wants rain or wind or sunshine, he does not go to church; he summons his tribe and they dance a rain-dance or wind-dance or sun-dance. When a savage goes to war we must not picture his wife on her knees at home praying for the absent; instead we must picture her dancing the whole night long; not for mere joy of heart or to pass the weary hours; she is dancing his war-dance to bring him victory. Magic is nowadays condemned alike by science and by religion; it is both useless and impious. It is obsolete, and only practised by malign sorcerers in obscure holes and corners. Undoubtedly magic is neither religion nor science, but in all probability it is the spiritual protoplasm from which religion and science ultimately differentiated. As such the doctrine of evolution bids us scan it closely. Magic may be malign and private; nowadays it is apt to be both. But in early days magic was as much for good as for evil; it was publicly practised for the common weal. The gist of magic comes out most clearly in magical dances. We think of dancing as a light form of recreation, practised by the young from sheer joie de vivre and unsuitable for the mature. But among the Tarahumares (Carl Lumholtz, "Unknown Mexico", page 330, London, 1903.) in Mexico the word for dancing, nolavoa, means "to work." Old men will reproach young men saying "Why do you not go to work?" meaning why do you not dance instead of only looking on. The chief religious sin of which the Tarahumare is conscious is that he has not danced enough and not made enough tesvino, his cereal intoxicant. Dancing then is to the savage WORKING, DOING, and the dance is in its origin an imitation or perhaps rather an intensification of processes of work. (Karl Bucher, "Arbeit und Rhythmus", Leipzig (3rd edition), 1902, passim.) Repetition, regular and frequent, constitutes rhythm and rhythm heightens the sense of will power in action. Rhythmical action may even, as seen in the dances of Dervishes, produce a condition of ecstasy. Ecstasy among primitive peoples is a condition much valued; it is often, though not always, enhanced by the use of intoxicants. Psychologically the savage starts from the sense of his own will power, he stimulates it by every means at his command. Feeling his will strongly and knowing nothing of natural law he recognises no limits to his own power; he feels himself a magician, a god; he does not pray, he WILLS. Moreover he wills collectively (The subject of collective hallucination as an element in magic has been fully worked out by MM. Hubert and Mauss. "Theorie generale de la Magie", In "L'Annee Sociologique", 1902--3, page 140.), reinforced by the will and action of his whole tribe. Truly of him it may be said "La vie deborde l'intelligence, l'intelligence c'est un retrecissement." (Henri Bergson, "L'Evolution Creatrice", page 50.) The magical extension and heightening of personality come out very clearly in what are rather unfortunately known as MIMETIC dances. Animal dances occur very frequently among primitive peoples. The dancers dress up as birds, beasts, or fishes, and reproduce the characteristic movements and habits of the animals impersonated. (So characteristic is this impersonation in magical dancing that among the Mexicans the word for magic, navali, means "disguise." K. Th. Preuss, "Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft", 1906, page 97.) A very common animal dance is the frog-dance. When it rains the frogs croak. If you desire rain you dress up like a frog and croak and jump. We think of such a performance as a conscious imitation. The man, we think, is more or less LIKE a frog. That is not how primitive man thinks; indeed, he scarcely thinks at all; what HE wants done the frog can do by croaking and jumping, so he croaks and jumps and, for all he can, BECOMES a frog. "L'intelligence animale JOUE sans doute les representations plutot qu'elle ne les pense." (Bergson, "L'Evolution Creatrice", page 205.) We shall best understand this primitive state of mind if we study the child "born in sin." If a child is "playing at lions" he does not IMITATE a lion, i.e. he does not consciously try to be a thing more or less like a lion, he BECOMES one. His reaction, his terror, is the same as if the real lion were there. It is this childlike power of utter impersonation, of BEING the thing we act or even see acted, this extension and intensification of our own personality that lives deep down in all of us and is the very seat and secret of our joy in the drama. A child's mind is indeed throughout the best clue to the understanding of savage magic. A young and vital child knows no limit to his own will, and it is the only reality to him. It is not that he wants at the outset to fight other wills, but that they simply do not exist for him. Like the artist he goes forth to the work of creation, gloriously alone. His attitude towards other recalcitrant wills is "they simply must." Let even a grown man be intoxicated, be in love, or subject to an intense excitement, the limitations of personality again fall away. Like the omnipotent child he is again a god, and to him all things are possible. Only when he is old and weary does he cease to command fate. The Iroquois (Hewitt, "American Anthropologist", IV. I. page 32, 1902, N.S.) of North America have a word, orenda, the meaning of which is easier to describe than to define, but it seems to express the very soul of magic. This orenda is your power to do things, your force, sometimes almost your personality. A man who hunts well has much and good orenda; the shy bird who escapes his snares has a fine orenda. The orenda of the rabbit controls the snow and fixes the depth to which it will fall. When a storm is brewing the magician is said to be making its orenda. When you yourself are in a rage, great is your orenda. The notes of birds are utterances of their orenda. When the maize is ripening, the Iroquois know it is the sun's heat that ripens it, but they know more; it is the cigala makes the sun to shine and he does it by chirping, by uttering his orenda. This orenda is sometimes very like the Greek thumos, your bodily life, your vigour, your passion, your power, the virtue that is in you to feel and do. This notion of orenda, a sort of pan-vitalism, is more fluid than animism, and probably precedes it. It is the projection of man's inner experience, vague and unanalysed, into the outer world. The mana of the Melanesians (Codrington, "The Melanesians", pages 118, 119, 192, Oxford, 1891.) is somewhat more specialised--all men do not possess mana--but substantially it is the same idea. Mana is not only a force, it is also an action, a quality, a state, at once a substantive, an adjective, and a verb. It is very closely neighboured by the idea of sanctity. Things that have mana are tabu. Like orenda it manifests itself in noises, but specially mysterious ones, it is mana that is rustling in the trees. Mana is highly contagious, it can pass from a holy stone to a man or even to his shadow if it cross the stone. "All Melanesian religion," Dr Codrington says, "consists in getting mana for oneself or getting it used for one's benefit." (Codrington, "The Melanesians", page 120, Oxford, 1891.) Specially instructive is a word in use among the Omaka (See Prof. Haddon, "Magic and Fetishism", page 60, London, 1906. Dr Vierkandt ("Globus", July, 1907, page 41) thinks that "Fernzauber" is a later development from Nahzauber.), wazhin-dhedhe, "directive energy, to send." This word means roughly what we should call telepathy, sending out your thought or will-power to influence another and affect his action. Here we seem to get light on what has always been a puzzle, the belief in magic exercised at a distance. For the savage will, distance is practically non-existent, his intense desire feels itself as non-spatial. (This notion of mana, orenda, wazhin-dhedhe and the like lives on among civilised peoples in such words as the Vedic brahman in the neuter, familiar to us in its masculine form Brahman. The neuter, brahman, means magic power of a rite, a rite itself, formula, charm, also first principle, essence of the universe. It is own cousin to the Greek dunamis and phusis. See MM. Hubert et Mauss, "Theorie generale de la Magie", page 117, in "L'Annee Sociologique", VII.) Through the examination of primitive ritual we have at last got at one tangible, substantial factor in religion, a real live experience, the sense, that is, of will, desire, power actually experienced in person by the individual, and by him projected, extended into the rest of the world. At this stage it may fairly be asked, though the question cannot with any certainty be answered, "at what point in the evolution of man does this religious experience come in?" So long as an organism reacts immediately to outside stimulus, with a certainty and conformity that is almost chemical, there is, it would seem, no place, no possibility for magical experience. But when the germ appears of an intellect that can foresee an end not immediately realised, or rather when a desire arises that we feel and recognise as not satisfied, then comes in the sense of will and the impulse magically to intensify that will. The animal it would seem is preserved by instinct from drawing into his horizon things which do not immediately subserve the conservation of his species. But the moment man's life-power began to make on the outside world demands not immediately and inevitably realised in action (I owe this observation to Dr K. Th. Preuss. He writes ("Archiv f. Relig." 1906, page 98), "Die Betonung des Willens in den Zauberakten ist der richtige Kern. In der Tat muss der Mensch den Willen haben, sich selbst und seiner Umgebung besondere Fahigkeiten zuzuschreiben, und den Willen hat er, sobald sein Verstand ihn befahigt, EINE UBER DEN INSTINKT HINAUSGEHEN DER FURSORGE fur sich zu zeigen. SO LANGE IHN DER INSTINKT ALLEIN LEITET, KONNEN ZAUBERHANDLUNGEN NICHT ENSTEHEN." For more detailed analysis of the origin of magic, see Dr Preuss "Ursprung der Religion und Kunst", "Globus", LXXXVI. and LXXXVII.), then a door was opened to magic, and in the train of magic followed errors innumerable, but also religion, philosophy, science and art. The world of mana, orenda, brahman is a world of feeling, desiring, willing, acting. What element of thinking there may be in it is not yet differentiated out. But we have already seen that a supersensuous world of thought grew up very early in answer to other needs, a world of sense-illusions, shadows, dreams, souls, ghosts, ancestors, names, numbers, images, a world only wanting as it were the impulse of mana to live as a religion. Which of the two worlds, the world of thinking or the world of doing, developed first it is probably idle to inquire. (If external stimuli leave on organisms a trace or record such as is known as an Engram, this physical basis of memory and hence of thought is almost coincident with reaction of the most elementary kind. See Mr Francis Darwin's Presidential Address to the British Association, Dublin, 1908, page 8, and again Bergson places memory at the very root of conscious existence, see "L'Evolution Creatrice", page 18, "le fond meme de notre existence consciente est memoire, c'est a dire prolongation du passee dans le present," and again "la duree mord dans le temps et y laisse l'enpreint de son dent," and again, "l'Evolution implique une continuation reelle du passee par le present.") It is more important to ask, Why do these two worlds join? Because, it would seem, mana, the egomaniac or megalomaniac element, cannot get satisfied with real things, and therefore goes eagerly out to a false world, the supersensuous other-world whose growth we have sketched. This junction of the two is fact, not fancy. Among all primitive peoples dead men, ghosts, spirits of all kinds, become the chosen vehicle of mana. Even to this day it is sometimes urged that religion, i.e. belief in the immortality of the soul, is true "because it satisfies the deepest craving of human nature." The two worlds, of mana and magic on the one hand, of ghosts and other-world on the other, combine so easily because they have the same laws, or rather the same comparative absence of law. As in the world of dreams and ghosts, so in the world of mana, space and time offer no obstacles; with magic all things are possible. In the one world what you imagine is real; in the other what you desire is ipso facto accomplished. Both worlds are egocentric, megalomaniac, filled to the full with unbridled human will and desire. We are all of us born in sin, in that sin which is to science "the seventh and deadliest," anthropomorphism, we are egocentric, ego-projective. Hence necessarily we make our gods in our own image. Anthropomorphism is often spoken of in books on religion and mythology as if it were a last climax, a splendid final achievement in religious thought. First, we are told, we have the lifeless object as god (fetichism), then the plant or animal (phytomorphism, theriomorphism), and last God is incarnate in the human form divine. This way of putting things is misleading. Anthropomorphism lies at the very beginning of our consciousness. Man's first achievement in thought is to realise that there is anything at all not himself, any object to his subject. When he has achieved however dimly this distinction, still for long, for very long he can only think of those other things in terms of himself; plants and animals are people with ways of their own, stronger or weaker than himself but to all intents and purposes human. Again the child helps us to understand our own primitive selves. To children animals are always people. You promise to take a child for a drive. The child comes up beaming with a furry bear in her arms. You say the bear cannot go. The child bursts into tears. You think it is because the child cannot endure to be separated from a toy. It is no such thing. It is the intolerable hurt done to the bear's human heart--a hurt not to be healed by any proffer of buns. He wanted to go, but he was a shy, proud bear, and he would not say so. The relation of magic to religion has been much disputed. According to one school religion develops out of magic, according to another, though they ultimately blend, they are at the outset diametrically opposed, magic being a sort of rudimentary and mistaken science (This view held by Dr Frazer is fully set forth in his "Golden Bough" (2nd edition), pages 73-79, London, 1900. It is criticised by Mr R.R. Marett in "From Spell to Prayer", "Folk-Lore" XI. 1900, page 132, also very fully by MM. Hubert and Mauss, "Theorie generale de la Magie", in "L'Annee Sociologique", VII. page 1, with Mr Marett's view and with that of MM. Hubert and Mauss I am in substantial agreement.), religion having to do from the outset with spirits. But, setting controversy aside, at the present stage of our inquiry their relation becomes, I think, fairly clear. Magic is, if my view (This view as explained above is, I believe, my own most serious contribution to the subject. In thinking it out I was much helped by Prof. Gilbert Murray.) be correct, the active element which informs a supersensuous world fashioned to meet other needs. This blend of theory and practice it is convenient to call religion. In practice the transition from magic to religion, from Spell to Prayer, has always been found easy. So long as mana remains impersonal you order it about; when it is personified and bulks to the shape of an overgrown man, you drop the imperative and cringe before it. "My will be done" is magic, "Thy Will be done" is the last word in religion. The moral discipline involved in the second is momentous, the intellectual advance not striking. I have spoken of magical ritual as though it were the informing life-spirit without which religion was left as an empty shell. Yet the word ritual does not, as normally used, convey to our minds this notion of intense vitalism. Rather we associate ritual with something cut and dried, a matter of prescribed form and monotonous repetition. The association is correct; ritual tends to become less and less informed by the life-impulse, more and more externalised. Dr Beck ("Die Nachahmung und ihre Bedeutung fur Psychologie und Volkerkunde", Leipzig, 1904.) in his brilliant monograph on "Imitation" has laid stress on the almost boundless influence of the imitation of one man by another in the evolution of civilisation. Imitation is one of the chief spurs to action. Imitation begets custom, custom begets sanctity. At first all custom is sacred. To the savage it is as much a religious duty to tattoo himself as to sacrifice to his gods. But certain customs naturally survive, because they are really useful; they actually have good effects, and so need no social sanction. Others are really useless; but man is too conservative and imitative to abandon them. These become ritual. Custom is cautious, but la vie est aleatoire. (Bergson, op. cit. page 143.) Dr Beck's remarks on ritual are I think profoundly true and suggestive, but with this reservation--they are true of ritual only when uninformed by personal experience. The very elements in ritual on which Dr Beck lays such stress, imitation, repetition, uniformity and social collectivity, have been found by the experience of all time to have a twofold influence--they inhibit the intellect, they stimulate and suggest emotion, ecstasy, trance. The Church of Rome knows what she is about when she prescribes the telling of the rosary. Mystery-cults and sacraments, the lineal descendants of magic, all contain rites charged with suggestion, with symbols, with gestures, with half-understood formularies, with all the apparatus of appeal to emotion and will--the more unintelligible they are the better they serve their purpose of inhibiting thought. Thus ritual deadens the intellect and stimulates will, desire, emotion. "Les operations magiques... sont le resultat d'une science et d'une habitude qui exaltent la volonte humaine au-dessus de ses limites habituelles." (Eliphas Levi, "Dogme et Rituel de la haute Magie", II. page 32, Paris, 1861, and "A defence of Magic", by Evelyn Underhill, "Fortnightly Review", 1907.) It is this personal EXPERIENCE, this exaltation, this sense of immediate, non-intellectual revelation, of mystical oneness with all things, that again and again rehabilitates a ritual otherwise moribund. To resume. The outcome of our examination of ORIGINES seems to be that religious phenomena result from two delusive processes--a delusion of the non-critical intellect, a delusion of the over-confident will. Is religion then entirely a delusion? I think not. (I am deeply conscious that what I say here is a merely personal opinion or sentiment, unsupported and perhaps unsupportable by reason, and very possibly quite worthless, but for fear of misunderstanding I prefer to state it.) Every dogma religion has hitherto produced is probably false, but for all that the religious or mystical spirit may be the only way of apprehending some things and these of enormous importance. It may also be that the contents of this mystical apprehension cannot be put into language without being falsified and misstated, that they have rather to be felt and lived than uttered and intellectually analysed, and thus do not properly fall under the category of true or false, in the sense in which these words are applied to propositions; yet they may be something for which "true" is our nearest existing word and are often, if not necessary at least highly advantageous to life. That is why man through a series of more or less grossly anthropomorphic mythologies and theologies with their concomitant rituals tries to restate them. Meantime we need not despair. Serious psychology is yet young and has only just joined hands with physiology. Religious students are still hampered by mediaevalisms such as Body and Soul, and by the perhaps scarcely less mythological segregations of Intellect, Emotion, Will. But new facts (See the "Proceedings" of the Society for Psychical Research, London, passim, and especially Vols. VII.-XV. For a valuable collection of the phenomena of mysticism, see William James, "Varieties of Religious Experience", Edinburgh, 1901-2.) are accumulating, facts about the formation and flux of personality, and the relations between the conscious and the sub-conscious. Any moment some great imagination may leap out into the dark, touch the secret places of life, lay bare the cardinal mystery of the marriage of the spatial with the non-spatial. It is, I venture to think, towards the apprehension of such mysteries, not by reason only, but by man's whole personality, that the religious spirit in the course of its evolution through ancient magic and modern mysticism is ever blindly yet persistently moving. Be this as it may, it is by thinking of religion in the light of evolution, not as a revelation given, not as a realite faite but as a process, and it is so only, I think, that we attain to a spirit of real patience and tolerance. We have ourselves perhaps learnt laboriously something of the working of natural law, something of the limitations of our human will, and we have therefore renounced the practice of magic. Yet we are bidden by those in high places to pray "Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin." Mystical in this connection spells magical, and we have no place for a god-magician: the prayer is to us unmeaning, irreverent. Or again, after much toil we have ceased, or hope we have ceased, to think anthropomorphically. Yet we are invited to offer formal thanks to God for a meal of flesh whose sanctity is the last survival of that sacrifice of bulls and goats he has renounced. Such a ritual confuses our intellect and fails to stir our emotion. But to others this ritual, magical or anthropomorphic as it is, is charged with emotional impulse, and others, a still larger number, think that they act by reason when really they are hypnotised by suggestion and tradition; their fathers did this or that and at all costs they must do it. It was good that primitive man in his youth should bear the yoke of conservative custom; from each man's neck that yoke will fall, when and because he has outgrown it. Science teaches us to await that moment with her own inward and abiding patience. Such a patience, such a gentleness we may well seek to practise in the spirit and in the memory of Darwin. XXVI. EVOLUTION AND THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. By P. Giles, M.A., LL.D. (Aberdeen), Reader in Comparative Philology in the University of Cambridge. In no study has the historical method had a more salutary influence than in the Science of Language. Even the earliest records show that the meaning of the names of persons, places, and common objects was then, as it has always been since, a matter of interest to mankind. And in every age the common man has regarded himself as competent without special training to explain by inspection (if one may use a mathematical phrase) the meaning of any words that attracted his attention. Out of this amateur etymologising has sprung a great amount of false history, a kind of historical mythology invented to explain familiar names. A single example will illustrate the tendency. According to the local legend the ancestor of the Earl of Erroll--a husbandman who stayed the flight of his countrymen in the battle of Luncarty and won the victory over the Danes by the help of the yoke of his oxen--exhausted with the fray uttered the exclamation "Hoch heigh!" The grateful king about to ennoble the victorious ploughman at once replied: "Hoch heigh! said ye And Hay shall ye be." The Norman origin of the name Hay is well-known, and the battle of Luncarty long preceded the appearance of Normans in Scotland, but the legend nevertheless persists. Though the earliest European treatise on philological questions which is now extant--the "Cratylus" of Plato,--as might be expected from its authorship, contains some acute thinking and some shrewd guesses, yet the work as a whole is infantine in its handling of language, and it has been doubted whether Plato was more than half serious in some of the suggestions which he puts forward. (For an account of the "Cratylus" with references to other literature see Sandys' "History of Classical Scholarship", I. page 92 ff., Cambridge, 1903.) In the hands of the Romans things were worse even than they had been in the hands of Plato and his Greek successors. The lack of success on the part of Varro and later Roman writers may have been partly due to the fact that, from the etymological point of view, Latin is a much more difficult language than Greek; it is by no means so closely connected with Greek as the ancients imagined, and they had no knowledge of the Celtic languages from which, on some sides at least, much greater light on the history of the Latin language might have been obtained. Roman civilisation was a late development compared with Greek, and its records dating earlier than 300 B.C.--a period when the best of Greek literature was already in existence--are very few and scanty. Varro it is true was much more of an antiquary than Plato, but his extant works seem to show that he was rather a "dungeon of learning" than an original thinker. A scientific knowledge of language can be obtained only by comparison of different languages of the same family and the contrasting of their characteristics with those of another family or other families. It never occurred to the Greeks that any foreign language was worthy of serious study. Herodotus and other travellers and antiquaries indeed picked up individual words from various languages, either as being necessary in communication with the inhabitants of the countries where they sojourned, or because of some point which interested them personally. Plato and others noticed the similarity of some Phrygian words to Greek, but no systematic comparison seems ever to have been instituted. In the Middle Ages the treatment of language was in a sense more historical. The Middle Ages started with the hypothesis, derived from the book of Genesis, that in the early world all men were of one language and of one speech. Though on the same authority they believed that the plain of Shinar has seen that confusion of tongues whence sprang all the languages upon earth, they seem to have considered that the words of each separate language were nevertheless derived from this original tongue. And as Hebrew was the language of the Chosen People, it was naturally assumed that this original tongue was Hebrew. Hence we find Dante declaring in his treatise on the Vulgar Tongue (Dante "de Vulgari Eloquio", I. 4.) that the first word man uttered in Paradise must have been "El," the Hebrew name of his Maker, while as a result of the fall of Adam, the first utterance of every child now born into this world of sin and misery is "heu," Alas! After the splendidly engraved bronze plates containing, as we now know, ritual regulations for certain cults, were discovered in 1444 at the town of Gubbio, in Umbria, they were declared, by some authorities, to be written in excellent Hebrew. The study of them has been the fascination and the despair of many a philologist. Thanks to the devoted labours of numerous scholars, mainly in the last sixty years, the general drift of these inscriptions is now known. They are the only important records of the ancient Umbrian language, which was related closely to that of the Samnites and, though not so closely, to that of the Romans on the other side of the Apennines. Yet less than twenty years ago a book was published in Germany, which boasts itself the home of Comparative Philology, wherein the German origin of the Umbrian language was no less solemnly demonstrated than had been its Celtic origin by Sir William Betham in 1842. It is good that the study of language should be historical, but the first requisite is that the history should be sound. How little had been learnt of the true history of language a century ago may be seen from a little book by Stephen Weston first published in 1802 and several times reprinted, where accidental assonance is considered sufficient to establish connection. Is there not a word "bad" in English and a word "bad" in Persian which mean the same thing? Clearly therefore Persian and English must be connected. The conclusion is true, but it is drawn from erroneous premises. As stated, this identity has no more value than the similar assonance between the English "cover" and the Hebrew "kophar", where the history of "cover" as coming through French from a Latin "co-operire" was even in 1802 well-known to many. To this day, in spite of recent elaborate attempts (Most recently in H. Moller's "Semitisch und Indogermanisch", Erster Teil, Kopenhagen, 1907.) to establish connection between the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic families of languages, there is no satisfactory evidence of such relation between these families. This is not to deny the possibility of such a connection at a very early period; it is merely to say that through the lapse of long ages all trustworthy record of such relationship, if it ever existed, has been, so far as present knowledge extends, obliterated. But while Stephen Weston was publishing, with much public approval, his collection of amusing similarities between languages--similarities which proved nothing--the key to the historical study of at least one family of languages had already been found by a learned Englishman in a distant land. In 1783 Sir William Jones had been sent out as a judge in the supreme court of judicature in Bengal. While still a young man at Oxford he was noted as a linguist; his reputation as a Persian scholar had preceded him to the East. In the intervals of his professional duties he made a careful study of the language which was held sacred by the natives of the country in which he was living. He was mainly instrumental in establishing a society for the investigation of language and related subjects. He was himself the first president of the society, and in the "third anniversary discourse" delivered on February 2, 1786, he made the following observations: "The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the GREEK, more copious than the LATIN, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this was the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia." ("Asiatic Researches", I. page 422, "Works of Sir W. Jones", I. page 26, London, 1799.) No such epoch-making discovery was probably ever announced with less flourish of trumpets. Though Sir William Jones lived for eight years more and delivered other anniversary discourses, he added nothing of importance to this utterance. He had neither the time nor the health that was needed for the prosecution of so arduous an undertaking. But the good seed did not fall upon stony ground. The news was speedily conveyed to Europe. By a happy chance, the sudden renewal of war between France and England in 1803 gave Friedrich Schlegel the opportunity of learning Sanscrit from Alexander Hamilton, an Englishman who, like many others, was confined in Paris during the long struggle with Napoleon. The influence of Schlegel was not altogether for good in the history of this research, but he was inspiring. Not upon him but upon Franz Bopp, a struggling German student who spent some time in Paris and London a dozen years later, fell the mantle of Sir William Jones. In Bopp's Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages which appeared in 1833, three-quarters of a century ago, the foundations of Comparative Philology were laid. Since that day the literature of the subject has grown till it is almost, if not altogether, beyond the power of any single man to cope with it. But long as the discourse may be, it is but the elaboration of the text that Sir William Jones supplied. With the publication of Bopp's Comparative Grammar the historical study of language was put upon a stable footing. Needless to say much remained to be done, much still remains to be done. More than once there has been danger of the study following erroneous paths. Its terminology and its point of view have in some degree changed. But nothing can shake the truth of the statement that the Indo-Germanic languages constitute in themselves a family sprung from the same source, marked by the same characteristics, and differentiated from all other languages by formation, by vocabulary, and by syntax. The historical method was applied to language long before it reached biology. Nearly a quarter of a century before Charles Darwin was born, Sir William Jones had made the first suggestion of a comparative study of languages. Bopp's Comparative Grammar began to be published nine years before the first draft of Darwin's treatise on the Origin of Species was put on paper in 1842. It is not therefore on the history of Comparative Philology in general that the ideas of Darwin have had most influence. Unfortunately, as Jowett has said in the introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic", most men live in a corner. The specialisation of knowledge has many advantages, but it has also disadvantages, none worse perhaps than that it tends to narrow the specialist's horizon and to make it more difficult for one worker to follow the advances that are being made by workers in other departments. No longer is it possible as in earlier days for an intellectual prophet to survey from a Pisgah height all the Promised Land. And the case of linguistic research has been specially hard. This study has, if the metaphor may be allowed, a very extended frontier. On one side it touches the domain of literature, on other sides it is conterminous with history, with ethnology and anthropology, with physiology in so far as language is the production of the brain and tissues of a living being, with physics in questions of pitch and stress accent, with mental science in so far as the principles of similarity, contrast, and contiguity affect the forms and the meanings of words through association of ideas. The territory of linguistic study is immense, and it has much to supply which might be useful to the neighbours who border on that territory. But they have not regarded her even with that interest which is called benevolent because it is not actively maleficent. As Horne Tooke remarked a century ago, Locke had found a whole philosophy in language. What have the philosophers done for language since? The disciples of Kant and of Wilhelm von Humboldt supplied her plentifully with the sour grapes of metaphysics; otherwise her neighbours have left her severely alone save for an occasional "Ausflug," on which it was clear they had sadly lost their bearings. Some articles in Psychological Journals, Wundt's great work on "Volkerpsychologie" (Erster Band: "Die Sprache", Leipzig, 1900. New edition, 1904. This work has been fertile in producing both opponents and supporters. Delbruck, "Grundfragen der Sprachforschung", Strassburg, 1901, with a rejoinder by Wundt, "Sprachgeschichte" and "Sprachpsychologie", Leipzig, 1901; L. Sutterlin, "Das Wesen der Sprachgebilde", Heidelberg, 1902; von Rozwadowski, "Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung", Heidelberg, 1904; O. Dittrich, "Grundzuge der Sprachpsychologie", Halle, 1904, Ch. A. Sechehaye, "Programme et methodes de la linguistique theorique", Paris, 1908.), and Mauthner's brilliantly written "Beitrage zu einer Kritik der Sprache" (In three parts: (i) "Sprache und Psychologie, (ii) "Zur Sprachwissenschaft", both Stuttgart 1901, (iii) "Zur Grammatic und Logik" (with index to all three volumes), Stuttgart and Berlin, 1902.) give some reason to hope that, on one side at least, the future may be better than the past. Where Charles Darwin's special studies came in contact with the Science of Language was over the problem of the origin and development of language. It is curious to observe that, where so many fields of linguistic research have still to be reclaimed--many as yet can hardly be said to be mapped out,--the least accessible field of all--that of the Origin of Language--has never wanted assiduous tillers. Unfortunately it is a field beyond most others where it may be said that "Wilding oats and luckless darnel grow." If Comparative Philology is to work to purpose here, it must be on results derived from careful study of individual languages and groups of languages. But as yet the group which Sir William Jones first mapped out and which Bopp organised is the only one where much has been achieved. Investigation of the Semitic group, in some respects of no less moment in the history of civilisation and religion, where perhaps the labour of comparison is not so difficult, as the languages differ less among themselves, has for some reason strangely lagged behind. Some years ago in the "American Journal of Philology" Paul Haupt pointed out that if advance was to be made, it must be made according to the principles which had guided the investigation of the Indo-Germanic languages to success, and at last a Comparative Grammar of an elaborate kind is in progress also for the Semitic languages. (Brockelmann, "Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen", Berlin, 1907 ff. Brockelmann and Zimmern had earlier produced two small hand-books. The only large work was William Wright's "Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages", Cambridge, 1890.) For the great group which includes Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish and many languages of northern Asia, a beginning, but only a beginning has been made. It may be presumed from the great discoveries which are in progress in Turkestan that presently much more will be achieved in this field. But for a certain utterance to be given by Comparative Philology on the question of the origin of language it is necessary that not merely for these languages but also for those in other quarters of the globe, the facts should be collected, sifted and tabulated. England rules an empire which contains a greater variety of languages by far than were ever held under one sway before. The Government of India is engaged in producing, under the editorship of Dr Grierson, a linguistic survey of India, a remarkable undertaking and, so far as it has gone, a remarkable achievement. Is it too much to ask that, with the support of the self-governing colonies, a similar survey should be undertaken for the whole of the British Empire? Notwithstanding the great number of books that have been written on the origin of language in the last three and twenty centuries, the results of the investigation which can be described as certain are very meagre. The question originally raised was whether language came into being thesei or phusei, by convention or by nature. The first alternative, in its baldest form at least, has passed from out the field of controversy. No one now claims that names were given to living things or objects or activities by formal agreement among the members of an early community, or that the first father of mankind passed in review every living thing and gave it its name. Even if the record of Adam's action were to be taken literally there would still remain the question, whence had he this power? Did he develop it himself or was it a miraculous gift with which he was endowed at his creation? If the latter, then as Wundt says ("Volkerpsychologie", I. 2, page 585.), "the miracle of language is subsumed in the miracle of creation." If Adam developed language of himself, we are carried over to the alternative origin of phusei. On this hypothesis we must assume that the natural growth which modern theories of development regard as the painful progress of multitudinous generations was contracted into the experience of a single individual. But even if the origin of language is admitted to be NATURAL there may still be much variety of signification attached to the word: NATURE, like most words which are used by philosophers, has accumulated many meanings, and as research into the natural world proceeds, is accumulating more. Forty years ago an animated controversy raged among the supporters of the theories which were named for short the bow-wow, the pooh-pooh and the ding-dong theories of the origin of language. The third, which was the least tenacious of life, was made known to the English-speaking world by the late Professor Max Muller who, however, when questioned, repudiated it as his own belief. ("Science of Thought", London, 1887, page 211.) It was taken by him from Heyse's lectures on language which were published posthumously by Steinthal. Put shortly the theory is that "everything which is struck, rings. Each substance has its peculiar ring. We can tell the more or less perfect structure of metals by their vibrations, by the answer which they give. Gold rings differently from tin, wood rings differently from stone; and different sounds are produced according to the nature of each percussion. It may be the same with man, the most highly organised of nature's work." (Max Muller as above, translating from Heyse.) Max Muller's repudiation of this theory was, however, not very whole-hearted for he proceeds later in the same argument: "Heyse's theory, which I neither adopted nor rejected, but which, as will be seen, is by no means incompatible with that which for many years has been gaining on me, and which of late has been so clearly formulated by Professor Noire, has been assailed with ridicule and torn to pieces, often by persons who did not even suspect how much truth was hidden behind its paradoxical appearance. We are still very far from being able to identify roots with nervous vibrations, but if it should appear hereafter that sensuous vibrations supply at least the raw material of roots, it is quite possible that the theory, proposed by Oken and Heyse, will retain its place in the history of the various attempts at solving the problem of the origin of language, when other theories, which in our own days were received with popular applause, will be completely forgotten." ("Science of Thought", page 212.) Like a good deal else that has been written on the origin of language, this statement perhaps is not likely to be altogether clear to the plain man, who may feel that even the "raw material of roots" is some distance removed from nervous vibrations, though obviously without the existence of afferent and efferent nerves articulate speech would be impossible. But Heyse's theory undoubtedly was that every thought or idea which occurred to the mind of man for the first time had its own special phonetic expression, and that this responsive faculty, when its object was thus fulfilled, became extinct. Apart from the philosophical question whether the mind acts without external stimulus, into which it is not necessary to enter here, it is clear that this theory can neither be proved nor disproved, because it postulates that this faculty existed only when language first began, and later altogether disappeared. As we have already seen, it is impossible for us to know what happened at the first beginnings of language, because we have no information from any period even approximately so remote; nor are we likely to attain it. Even in their earliest stages the great families of language which possess a history extending over many centuries--the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic--have very little in common. With the exception of Chinese, the languages which are apparently of a simpler or more primitive formation have either a history which, compared with that of the families mentioned, is very short, or, as in the case of the vast majority, have no history beyond the time extending only over a few years or, at most, a few centuries when they have been observed by competent scholars of European origin. But, if we may judge by the history of geology and other studies, it is well to be cautious in assuming for the first stages of development forces which do not operate in the later, unless we have direct evidence of their existence. It is unnecessary here to enter into a prolonged discussion of the other views christened by Max Muller, not without energetic protest from their supporters, the bow-wow and pooh-pooh theories of language. Suffice it to say that the former recognises as a source of language the imitation of the sounds made by animals, the fall of bodies into water or on to solid substances and the like, while the latter, also called the interjectional theory, looks to the natural ejaculations produced by particular forms of effort for the first beginnings of speech. It would be futile to deny that some words in most languages come from imitation, and that others, probably fewer in number, can be traced to ejaculations. But if either of these sources alone or both in combination gave rise to primitive speech, it clearly must have been a simple form of language and very limited in amount. There is no reason to think that it was otherwise. Presumably in its earliest stages language only indicated the most elementary ideas, demands for food or the gratification of other appetites, indications of danger, useful animals and plants. Some of these, such as animals or indications of danger, could often be easily represented by imitative sounds: the need for food and the like could be indicated by gesture and natural cries. Both sources are verae causae; to them Noire, supported by Max Muller, has added another which has sometimes been called the Yo-heave-ho theory. Noire contends that the real crux in the early stages of language is for primitive man to make other primitive men understand what he means. The vocal signs which commend themselves to one may not have occurred to another, and may therefore be unintelligible. It may be admitted that this difficulty exists, but it is not insuperable. The old story of the European in China who, sitting down to a meal and being doubtful what the meat in the dish might be, addressed an interrogative Quack-quack? to the waiter and was promptly answered by Bow-wow, illustrates a simple situation where mutual understanding was easy. But obviously many situations would be more complex than this, and to grapple with them Noire has introduced his theory of communal action. "It was common effort directed to a common object, it was the most primitive (uralteste) labour of our ancestors, from which sprang language and the life of reason." (Noire "Der Ursprung der Sprache", page 331, Mainz, 1877.) As illustrations of such common effort he cites battle cries, the rescue of a ship running on shore (a situation not likely to occur very early in the history of man), and others. Like Max Muller he holds that language is the utterance and the organ of thought for mankind, the one characteristic which separates man from the brute. "In common action the word was first produced; for long it was inseparably connected with action; through long-continued connection it gradually became the firm, intelligible symbol of action, and then in its development indicated also things of the external world in so far as the action affected them and finally the sound began to enter into a connexion with them also." (Op. cit. page 339.) In so far as this theory recognises language as a social institution it is undoubtedly correct. Darwin some years before Noire had pointed to the same social origin of language in the fourth chapter of his work on "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". "Naturalists have remarked, I believe with truth, that social animals, from habitually using their vocal organs as a means of intercommunication, use them on other occasions much more freely than other animals... The principle, also, of association, which is so widely extended in its power, has likewise played its part. Hence it allows that the voice, from having been employed as a serviceable aid under certain conditions, inducing pleasure, pain, rage, etc., is commonly used whenever the same sensations or emotions are excited, under quite different conditions, or in a lesser degree." ("The Expression of the Emotions", page 84 (Popular Edition, 1904). Darwin's own views on language which are set forth most fully in "The Descent of Man" (page 131 ff. (Popular Edition, 1906).) are characterised by great modesty and caution. He did not profess to be a philologist and the facts are naturally taken from the best known works of the day (1871). In the notes added to the second edition he remarks on Max Muller's denial of thought without words, "what a strange definition must here be given to the word thought!" (Op. cit. page 135, footnote 63.) He naturally finds the origin of language in "the imitation and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries aided by signs and gestures (op. cit. page 132.)... As the voice was used more and more, the vocal organs would have been strengthened and perfected through the principle of the inherited effects of use; and this would have reacted on the power of speech." (Op. cit. page 133.) On man's own instinctive cries, he has more to say in "The Expression of the Emotions". (Page 93 (Popular Edition, 1904) and elsewhere.) These remarks have been utilised by Prof. Jespersen of Copenhagen in propounding an ingenious theory of his own to the effect that speech develops out of singing. ("Progress in Language", page 361, London, 1894.) For many years and in many books Max Muller argued against Darwin's views on evolution on the one ground that thought is impossible without speech; consequently as speech is confined to the human race, there is a gulf which cannot be bridged between man and all other creatures. (Some interesting comments on the theory will be found in a lecture on "Thought and Language" in Samuel Butler's "Essays on Life, Art and Science", London, 1908.) On the title-page of his "Science of Thought" he put the two sentences "No Reason without Language: No Language without Reason." It may be readily admitted that the second dictum is true, that no language properly so-called can exist without reason. Various birds can learn to repeat words or sentences used by their masters or mistresses. In most cases probably the birds do not attach their proper meaning to the words they have learnt; they repeat them in season and out of season, sometimes apparently for their own amusement, generally in the expectation, raised by past experience, of being rewarded for their proficiency. But even here it is difficult to prove a universal negative, and most possessors of such pets would repudiate indignantly the statement that the bird did not understand what was said to it, and would also contend that in many cases the words which it used were employed in their ordinary meaning. The first dictum seems to be inconsistent with fact. The case of deaf mutes, such as Laura Bridgeman, who became well educated, or the still more extraordinary case of Helen Keller, deaf, dumb, and blind, who in spite of these disadvantages has learnt not only to reason but to reason better than the average of persons possessed of all their senses, goes to show that language and reason are not necessarily always in combination. Reason is but the conscious adaptation of means to ends, and so defined is a faculty which cannot be denied to many of the lower animals. In these days when so many books on Animal Intelligence are issued from the press, it seems unnecessary to labour the point. Yet none of these animals, except by parrot-imitation, makes use of speech, because man alone possesses in a sufficient degree of development the centres of nervous energy which are required for the working of articulation in speech. On this subject much investigation was carried on during the last years of Darwin's life and much more in the period since his death. As early as 1861 Broca, following up observations made by earlier French writers, located the centre of articulate speech in the third left frontal convolution of the brain. In 1876 he more definitely fixed the organ of speech in "the posterior two-fifths of the third frontal convolution" (Macnamara, "Human Speech", page 197, London, 1908.), both sides and not merely the left being concerned in speech production. Owing however to the greater use by most human beings of the right side of the body, the left side of the brain, which is the motor centre for the right side of the body, is more highly developed than its right side, which moves the left side of the body. The investigations of Professors Ferrier, Sherrington and Grunbaum have still more precisely defined the relations between brain areas and certain groups of muscles. One form of aphasia is the result of injury to or disease in the third frontal convolution because the motor centre is no longer equal to the task of setting the necessary muscles in motion. In the brain of idiots who are unable to speak, the centre for speech is not developed. (Op. cit. page 226.) In the anthropoid apes the brain is similarly defective, though it has been demonstrated by Professors Cunningham and Marchand "that there is a tendency, especially in the gorilla's brain, for the third frontal convolution to assume the human form... But if they possessed a centre for speech, those parts of the hemispheres of their brains which form the mechanism by which intelligence is elaborated are so ill-developed, as compared with the rest of their bodies, that we can not conceive, even with more perfect frontal convolutions, that these animals could formulate ideas expressible in intelligent speech." (Op. cit. page 223.) While Max Muller's theory is Shelley's "He gave man speech, and speech created thought, Which is the measure of the universe" ("Prometheus Unbound" II. 4.), it seems more probable that the development was just the opposite--that the development of new activities originated new thoughts which required new symbols to express them, symbols which may at first have been, even to a greater extent than with some of the lower races at present, sign language as much as articulation. When once the faculty of articulation was developed, which, though we cannot trace the process, was probably a very gradual growth, there is no reason to suppose that words developed in any other way then they do at present. An erroneous notion of the development of language has become widely spread through the adoption of the metaphorical term "roots" for the irreducible elements of human speech. Men never talked in roots; they talked in words. Many words of kindred meaning have a part in common, and a root is nothing but that common part stripped of all additions. In some cases it is obvious that one word is derived from another by the addition of a fresh element; in other cases it is impossible to say which of two kindred words is the more primitive. A root is merely a convenient term for an abstraction. The simplest word may be called a root, but it is nevertheless a word. How are new words added to a language in the present day? Some communities, like the Germans, prefer to construct new words for new ideas out of the old material existing in the language; others, like the English, prefer to go to the ancient languages of Greece and Rome for terms to express new ideas. The same chemical element is described in the two languages as sour stuff (Sauerstoff) and as oxygen. Both terms mean the same thing etymologically as well as in fact. On behalf of the German method, it may be contended that the new idea is more closely attached to already existing ideas, by being expressed in elements of the language which are intelligible even to the meanest capacity. For the English practice it may be argued that, if we coin a new word which means one thing, and one thing only, the idea which it expresses is more clearly defined than if it were expressed in popularly intelligible elements like "sour stuff." If the etymological value of words were always present in the minds of their users, "oxygen" would undoubtedly have an advantage over "sour stuff" as a technical term. But the tendency in language is to put two words of this kind which express but one idea under a single accent, and when this has taken place, no one but the student of language any longer observes what the elements really mean. When the ordinary man talks of a "blackbird" it is certainly not present to his consciousness that he is talking of a black bird, unless for some reason conversation has been dwelling upon the colour rather than other characteristics of the species. But, it may be said, words like "oxygen" are introduced by learned men, and do not represent the action of the man in the street, who, after all, is the author of most additions to the stock of human language. We may go back therefore some four centuries to a period, when scientific study was only in its infancy, and see what process was followed. With the discovery of America new products never seen before reached Europe, and these required names. Three of the most characteristic were tobacco, the potato, and the turkey. How did these come to be so named? The first people to import these products into Europe were naturally the Spanish discoverers. The first of these words--tobacco--appears in forms which differ only slightly in the languages of all civilised countries: Spanish tabaco, Italian tabacco, French tabac, Dutch and German tabak, Swedish tobak, etc. The word in the native dialect of Hayti is said to have been tabaco, but to have meant not the plant (According to William Barclay, "Nepenthes, or the Virtue of Tobacco", Edinburgh, 1614, "the countrey which God hath honoured and blessed with this happie and holy herbe doth call it in their native language 'Petum'.") but the pipe in which it was smoked. It thus illustrates a frequent feature of borrowing--that the word is not borrowed in its proper signification, but in some sense closely allied thereto, which a foreigner, understanding the language with difficulty, might readily mistake for the real meaning. Thus the Hindu practice of burning a wife upon the funeral pyre of her husband is called in English "suttee", this word being in fact but the phonetic spelling of the Sanskrit "sati", "a virtuous woman," and passing into its English meaning because formerly the practice of self-immolation by a wife was regarded as the highest virtue. The name of the potato exhibits greater variety. The English name was borrowed from the Spanish "patata", which was itself borrowed from a native word for the "yam" in the dialect of Hayti. The potato appeared early in Italy, for the mariners of Genoa actively followed the footsteps of their countryman Columbus in exploring America. In Italian generally the form "patata" has survived. The tubers, however, also suggested a resemblance to truffles, so that the Italian word "tartufolo", a diminutive of the Italian modification of the Latin "terrae tuber" was applied to them. In the language of the Rhaetian Alps this word appears as "tartufel". From there it seems to have passed into Germany where potatoes were not cultivated extensively till the eighteenth century, and "tartufel" has in later times through some popular etymology been metamorphosed into "Kartoffel". In France the shape of the tubers suggested the name of earth-apple (pomme de terre), a name also adopted in Dutch (aard-appel), while dialectically in German a form "Grumbire" appears, which is a corruption of "Grund-birne", "ground pear". (Kluge "Etymologisches Worterbuch der deutschen Sprache" (Strassburg), s.v. "Kartoffel".) Here half the languages have adopted the original American word for an allied plant, while others have adopted a name originating in some more or less fanciful resemblance discovered in the tubers; the Germans alone in Western Europe, failing to see any meaning in their borrowed name, have modified it almost beyond recognition. To this English supplies an exact parallel in "parsnep" which, though representing the Latin "pastinaca" through the Old French "pastenaque", was first assimilated in the last syllable to the "nep" of "turnep" ("pasneppe" in Elizabethan English), and later had an "r" introduced into the first syllable, apparently on the analogy of "parsley". The turkey on the other hand seems never to be found with its original American name. In England, as the name implies, the turkey cock was regarded as having come from the land of the Turks. The bird no doubt spread over Europe from the Italian seaports. The mistake, therefore, was not unnatural, seeing that these towns conducted a great trade with the Levant, while the fact that America when first discovered was identified with India helped to increase the confusion. Thus in French the "coq d'Inde" was abbreviated to "d'Inde" much as "turkey cock" was to "turkey"; the next stage was to identify "dinde" as a feminine word and create a new "dindon" on the analogy of "chapon" as the masculine. In Italian the name "gallo d'India" besides survives, while in German the name "Truthahn" seems to be derived onomatopoetically from the bird's cry, though a dialectic "Calecutischer Hahn" specifies erroneously an origin for the bird from the Indian Calicut. In the Spanish "pavo", on the other hand, there is a curious confusion with the peacock. Thus in these names for objects of common knowledge, the introduction of which into Europe can be dated with tolerable definiteness, we see evinced the methods by which in remoter ages objects were named. The words were borrowed from the community whence came the new object, or the real or fancied resemblance to some known object gave the name, or again popular etymology might convert the unknown term into something that at least approached in sound a well-known word. "The Origin of Species" had not long been published when the parallelism of development in natural species and in languages struck investigators. At the time, one of the foremost German philologists was August Schleicher, Professor at Jena. He was himself keenly interested in the natural sciences, and amongst his colleagues was Ernst Haeckel, the protagonist in Germany of the Darwinian theory. How the new ideas struck Schleicher may be seen from the following sentences by his colleague Haeckel. "Speech is a physiological function of the human organism, and has been developed simultaneously with its organs, the larynx and tongue, and with the functions of the brain. Hence it will be quite natural to find in the evolution and classification of languages the same features as in the evolution and classification of organic species. The various groups of languages that are distinguished in philology as primitive, fundamental, parent, and daughter languages, dialects, etc., correspond entirely in their development to the different categories which we classify in zoology and botany as stems, classes, orders, families, genera, species and varieties. The relation of these groups, partly coordinate and partly subordinate, in the general scheme is just the same in both cases; and the evolution follows the same lines in both." (Haeckel, "The Evolution of Man", page 485, London, 1905. This represents Schleicher's own words: Was die Naturforscher als Gattung bezeichnen wurden, heisst bei den Glottikern Sprachstamm, auch Sprachsippe; naher verwandte Gattungen bezeichnen sie wohl auch als Sprachfamilien einer Sippe oder eines Sprachstammes... Die Arten einer Gattung nennen wir Sprachen eines Stammes; die Unterarten einer Art sind bei uns die Dialekte oder Mundarten einer Sprache; den Varietaten und Spielarten entsprechen die Untermundarten oder Nebenmundarten und endlich den einzelnen Individuen die Sprechweise der einzelnen die Sprachen redenden Menschen. "Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft", Weimar, 1863, page 12 f. Darwin makes a more cautious statement about the classification of languages in "The Origin of Species", page 578, (Popular Edition, 1900).) These views were set forth in an open letter addressed to Haeckel in 1863 by Schleicher entitled, "The Darwinian theory and the science of language". Unfortunately Schleicher's views went a good deal farther than is indicated in the extract given above. He appended to the pamphlet a genealogical tree of the Indo-Germanic languages which, though to a large extent confirmed by later research, by the dichotomy of each branch into two other branches, led the unwary reader to suppose their phylogeny (to use Professor Haeckel's term) was more regular than our evidence warrants. Without qualification Schleicher declared languages to be "natural organisms which originated unconditioned by the human will, developed according to definite laws, grow old and die; they also are characterised by that series of phenomena which we designate by the term 'Life.' Consequently Glottic, the science of language, is a natural science; its method is in general the same as that of the other natural sciences." ("Die Darwinische Theorie", page 6 f.) In accordance with this view he declared (op. cit. page 23.) that the root in language might be compared with the simple cell in physiology, the linguistic simple cell or root being as yet not differentiated into special organs for the function of noun, verb, etc. In this probably all recent philologists admit that Schleicher went too far. One of the most fertile theories in the modern science of language originated with him, and was further developed by his pupil, August Leskien ("Die Declination im Slavisch-litanischen und Germanischen", Leipzig, 1876; Osthoff and Brugmann, "Morphologische Untersuchungen", I. (Introduction), 1878. The general principles of this school were formulated (1880) in a fuller form in H. Paul's "Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte", Halle (3rd edition, 1898). Paul and Wundt (in his "Volkerpsychologie") deal largely with the same matter, but begin their investigations from different points of view, Paul being a philologist with leanings to philosophy and Wundt a philosopher interested in language.), and by Leskien's colleagues and friends, Brugmann and Osthoff. This was the principle that phonetic laws have no exceptions. Under the influence of this generalisation much greater precision in etymology was insisted upon, and a new and remarkably active period in the study of language began. Stated broadly in the fashion given above the principle is not true. A more accurate statement would be that an original sound is represented in a given dialect at a given time and in a given environment only in one way; provided that the development of the original sound into its representation in the given dialect has not been influenced by the working of analogy. It is this proviso that is most important for the characterisation of the science of language. As I have said elsewhere, it is at this point that this science parts company with the natural sciences. "If the chemist compounds two pure simple elements, there can be but one result, and no power of the chemist can prevent it. But the minds of men do act upon the sounds which they produce. The result is that, when this happens, the phonetic law which would have acted in the case is stopped, and this particular form enters on the same course of development as other forms to which it does not belong." (P. Giles, "Short Manual of Comparative Philology", 2nd edition, page 57, London, 1901.) Schleicher was wrong in defining a language to be an organism in the sense in which a living being is an organism. Regarded physiologically, language is a function or potentiality of certain human organs; regarded from the point of view of the community it is of the nature of an institution. (This view of language is worked out at some length by Prof. W.D. Whitney in an article in the "Contemporary Review" for 1875, page 713 ff. This article forms part of a controversy with Max Muller, which is partly concerned with Darwin's views on language. He criticises Schleicher's views severely in his "Oriental and Linguistic Studies", page 298 ff., New York, 1873. In this volume will be found criticisms of various other views mentioned in this essay.) More than most influences it conduces to the binding together of the elements that form a state. That geographical or other causes may effectively counteract the influence of identity of language is obvious. One need only read the history of ancient Greece, or observe the existing political separation of Germany and Austria, of Great Britain and the United States of America. But however analogous to an organism, language is not an organism. In a less degree Schleicher, by defining languages as such, committed the same mistake which Bluntschli made regarding the State, and which led him to declare that the State is by nature masculine and the Church feminine. (Bluntschli, "Theory of the State", page 24, Second English Edition, Oxford, 1892.) The views of Schleicher were to some extent injurious to the proper methods of linguistic study. But this misfortune was much more than fully compensated by the inspiration which his ideas, collected and modified by his disciples, had upon the science. In spite of the difference which the psychological element represented by analogy makes between the science of language and the natural sciences, we are entitled to say of it as Schleicher said of Darwin's theory of the origin of species, "it depends upon observation, and is essentially an attempt at a history of development." Other questions there are in connection with language and evolution which require investigation--the survival of one amongst several competing words (e.g. why German keeps only as a high poetic word "ross", which is identical in origin with the English work-a-day "horse", and replaces it by "pferd", whose congener the English "palfrey" is almost confined to poetry and romance), the persistence of evolution till it becomes revolution in languages like English or Persian which have practically ceased to be inflectional languages, and many other problems. Into these Darwin did not enter, and they require a fuller investigation than is possible within the limits of the present paper. XXVII. DARWINISM AND HISTORY. By J.B. Bury, Litt.D., LL.D. Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. 1. Evolution, and the principles associated with the Darwinian theory, could not fail to exert a considerable influence on the studies connected with the history of civilised man. The speculations which are known as "philosophy of history," as well as the sciences of anthropology, ethnography, and sociology (sciences which though they stand on their own feet are for the historian auxiliary), have been deeply affected by these principles. Historiographers, indeed, have with few exceptions made little attempt to apply them; but the growth of historical study in the nineteenth century has been determined and characterised by the same general principle which has underlain the simultaneous developments of the study of nature, namely the GENETIC idea. The "historical" conception of nature, which has produced the history of the solar system, the story of the earth, the genealogies of telluric organisms, and has revolutionised natural science, belongs to the same order of thought as the conception of human history as a continuous, genetic, causal process--a conception which has revolutionised historical research and made it scientific. Before proceeding to consider the application of evolutional principles, it will be pertinent to notice the rise of this new view. 2. With the Greeks and Romans history had been either a descriptive record or had been written in practical interests. The most eminent of the ancient historians were pragmatical; that is, they regarded history as an instructress in statesmanship, or in the art of war, or in morals. Their records reached back such a short way, their experience was so brief, that they never attained to the conception of continuous process, or realised the significance of time; and they never viewed the history of human societies as a phenomenon to be investigated for its own sake. In the middle ages there was still less chance of the emergence of the ideas of progress and development. Such notions were excluded by the fundamental doctrines of the dominant religion which bounded and bound men's minds. As the course of history was held to be determined from hour to hour by the arbitrary will of an extra-cosmic person, there could be no self-contained causal development, only a dispensation imposed from without. And as it was believed that the world was within no great distance from the end of this dispensation, there was no motive to take much interest in understanding the temporal, which was to be only temporary. The intellectual movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries prepared the way for a new conception, but it did not emerge immediately. The historians of the Renaissance period simply reverted to the ancient pragmatical view. For Machiavelli, exactly as for Thucydides and Polybius, the use of studying history was instruction in the art of politics. The Renaissance itself was the appearance of a new culture, different from anything that had gone before; but at the time men were not conscious of this; they saw clearly that the traditions of classical antiquity had been lost for a long period, and they were seeking to revive them, but otherwise they did not perceive that the world had moved, and that their own spirit, culture, and conditions were entirely unlike those of the thirteenth century. It was hardly till the seventeenth century that the presence of a new age, as different from the middle ages as from the ages of Greece and Rome, was fully realised. It was then that the triple division of ancient, medieval, and modern was first applied to the history of western civilisation. Whatever objections may be urged against this division, which has now become almost a category of thought, it marks a most significant advance in man's view of his own past. He has become conscious of the immense changes in civilisation which have come about slowly in the course of time, and history confronts him with a new aspect. He has to explain how those changes have been produced, how the transformations were effected. The appearance of this problem was almost simultaneous with the rise of rationalism, and the great historians and thinkers of the eighteenth century, such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Gibbon, attempted to explain the movement of civilisation by purely natural causes. These brilliant writers prepared the way for the genetic history of the following century. But in the spirit of the Aufklarung, that eighteenth-century Enlightenment to which they belonged, they were concerned to judge all phenomena before the tribunal of reason; and the apotheosis of "reason" tended to foster a certain superior a priori attitude, which was not favourable to objective treatment and was incompatible with a "historical sense." Moreover the traditions of pragmatical historiography had by no means disappeared. 3. In the first quarter of the nineteenth century the meaning of genetic history was fully realised. "Genetic" perhaps is as good a word as can be found for the conception which in this century was applied to so many branches of knowledge in the spheres both of nature and of mind. It does not commit us to the doctrine proper of evolution, nor yet to any teleological hypothesis such as is implied in "progress." For history it meant that the present condition of the human race is simply and strictly the result of a causal series (or set of causal series)--a continuous succession of changes, where each state arises causally out of the preceding; and that the business of historians is to trace this genetic process, to explain each change, and ultimately to grasp the complete development of the life of humanity. Three influential writers, who appeared at this stage and helped to initiate a new period of research, may specially be mentioned. Ranke in 1824 definitely repudiated the pragmatical view which ascribes to history the duties of an instructress, and with no less decision renounced the function, assumed by the historians of the Aufklarung, to judge the past; it was his business, he said, merely to show how things really happened. Niebuhr was already working in the same spirit and did more than any other writer to establish the principle that historical transactions must be related to the ideas and conditions of their age. Savigny about the same time founded the "historical school" of law. He sought to show that law was not the creation of an enlightened will, but grew out of custom and was developed by a series of adaptations and rejections, thus applying the conception of evolution. He helped to diffuse the notion that all the institutions of a society or a notion are as closely interconnected as the parts of a living organism. 4. The conception of the history of man as a causal development meant the elevation of historical inquiry to the dignity of a science. Just as the study of bees cannot become scientific so long as the student's interest in them is only to procure honey or to derive moral lessons from the labours of "the little busy bee," so the history of human societies cannot become the object of pure scientific investigation so long as man estimates its value in pragmatical scales. Nor can it become a science until it is conceived as lying entirely within a sphere in which the law of cause and effect has unreserved and unrestricted dominion. On the other hand, once history is envisaged as a causal process, which contains within itself the explanation of the development of man from his primitive state to the point which he has reached, such a process necessarily becomes the object of scientific investigation and the interest in it is scientific curiosity. At the same time, the instruments were sharpened and refined. Here Wolf, a philologist with historical instinct, was a pioneer. His "Prolegomena" to Homer (1795) announced new modes of attack. Historical investigation was soon transformed by the elaboration of new methods. 5. "Progress" involves a judgment of value, which is not involved in the conception of history as a genetic process. It is also an idea distinct from that of evolution. Nevertheless it is closely related to the ideas which revolutionised history at the beginning of the last century; it swam into men's ken simultaneously; and it helped effectively to establish the notion of history as a continuous process and to emphasise the significance of time. Passing over earlier anticipations, I may point to a "Discours" of Turgot (1750), where history is presented as a process in which "the total mass of the human race" "marches continually though sometimes slowly to an ever increasing perfection." That is a clear statement of the conception which Turgot's friend Condorcet elaborated in the famous work, published in 1795, "Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humain". This work first treated with explicit fulness the idea to which a leading role was to fall in the ideology of the nineteenth century. Condorcet's book reflects the triumphs of the Tiers etat, whose growing importance had also inspired Turgot; it was the political changes in the eighteenth century which led to the doctrine, emphatically formulated by Condorcet, that the masses are the most important element in the historical process. I dwell on this because, though Condorcet had no idea of evolution, the pre-dominant importance of the masses was the assumption which made it possible to apply evolutional principles to history. And it enabled Condorcet himself to maintain that the history of civilisation, a progress still far from being complete, was a development conditioned by general laws. 6. The assimilation of society to an organism, which was a governing notion in the school of Savigny, and the conception of progress, combined to produce the idea of an organic development, in which the historian has to determine the central principle or leading character. This is illustrated by the apotheosis of democracy in Tocqueville's "Democratie en Amerique", where the theory is maintained that "the gradual and progressive development of equality is at once the past and the future of the history of men." The same two principles are combined in the doctrine of Spencer (who held that society is an organism, though he also contemplated its being what he calls a "super-organic aggregate") (A society presents suggestive analogies with an organism, but it certainly is not an organism, and sociologists who draw inferences from the assumption of its organic nature must fall into error. A vital organism and a society are radically distinguished by the fact that the individual components of the former, namely the cells, are morphologically as well as functionally differentiated, whereas the individuals which compose a society are morphologically homogeneous and only functionally differentiated. The resemblances and the differences are worked out in E. de Majewski's striking book "La Science de la Civilisation", Paris, 1908.), that social evolution is a progressive change from militarism to industrialism. 7. the idea of development assumed another form in the speculations of German idealism. Hegel conceived the successive periods of history as corresponding to the ascending phases or ideas in the self-evolution of his Absolute Being. His "Lectures on the Philosophy of History" were published in 1837 after his death. His philosophy had a considerable effect, direct and indirect, on the treatment of history by historians, and although he was superficial and unscientific himself in dealing with historical phenomena, he contributed much towards making the idea of historical development familiar. Ranke was influenced, if not by Hegel himself, at least by the Idealistic philosophies of which Hegel's was the greatest. He was inclined to conceive the stages in the process of history as marked by incarnations, as it were, of ideas, and sometimes speaks as if the ideas were independent forces, with hands and feet. But while Hegel determined his ideas by a priori logic, Ranke obtained his by induction--by a strict investigation of the phenomena; so that he was scientific in his method and work, and was influenced by Hegelian prepossessions only in the kind of significance which he was disposed to ascribe to his results. It is to be noted that the theory of Hegel implied a judgment of value; the movement was a progress towards perfection. 8. In France, Comte approached the subject from a different side, and exercised, outside Germany, a far wider influence than Hegel. The 4th volume of his "Cours de philosophie positive", which appeared in 1839, created sociology and treated history as a part of this new science, namely as "social dynamics." Comte sought the key for unfolding historical development, in what he called the social-psychological point of view, and he worked out the two ideas which had been enunciated by Condorcet: that the historian's attention should be directed not, as hitherto, principally to eminent individuals, but to the collective behaviour of the masses, as being the most important element in the process; and that, as in nature, so in history, there are general laws, necessary and constant, which condition the development. The two points are intimately connected, for it is only when the masses are moved into the foreground that regularity, uniformity, and law can be conceived as applicable. To determine the social-psychological laws which have controlled the development is, according to Comte, the task of sociologists and historians. 9. The hypothesis of general laws operative in history was carried further in a book which appeared in England twenty years later and exercised an influence in Europe far beyond its intrinsic merit, Buckle's "History of Civilisation in England" (1857-61). Buckle owed much to Comte, and followed him, or rather outdid him, in regarding intellect as the most important factor conditioning the upward development of man, so that progress, according to him, consisted in the victory of the intellectual over the moral laws. 10. The tendency of Comte and Buckle to assimilate history to the sciences of nature by reducing it to general "laws," derived stimulus and plausibility from the vista offered by the study of statistics, in which the Belgian Quetelet, whose book "Sur l'homme" appeared in 1835, discerned endless possibilities. The astonishing uniformities which statistical inquiry disclosed led to the belief that it was only a question of collecting a sufficient amount of statistical material, to enable us to predict how a given social group will act in a particular case. Bourdeau, a disciple of this school, looks forward to the time when historical science will become entirely quantitative. The actions of prominent individuals, which are generally considered to have altered or determined the course of things, are obviously not amenable to statistical computation or explicable by general laws. Thinkers like Buckle sought to minimise their importance or explain them away. 11. These indications may suffice to show that the new efforts to interpret history which marked the first half of the nineteenth century were governed by conceptions closely related to those which were current in the field of natural science and which resulted in the doctrine of evolution. The genetic principle, progressive development, general laws, the significance of time, the conception of society as an organic aggregate, the metaphysical theory of history as the self-evolution of spirit,--all these ideas show that historical inquiry had been advancing independently on somewhat parallel lines to the sciences of nature. It was necessary to bring this out in order to appreciate the influence of Darwinism. 12. In the course of the dozen years which elapsed between the appearances of "The Origin of Species" (observe that the first volume of Buckle's work was published just two years before) and of "The Descent of Man" (1871), the hypothesis of Lamarck that man is the co-descendant with other species of some lower extinct form was admitted to have been raised to the rank of an established fact by most thinkers whose brains were not working under the constraint of theological authority. One important effect of the discovery of this fact (I am not speaking now of the Darwinian explanation) was to assign to history a definite place in the coordinated whole of knowledge, and relate it more closely to other sciences. It had indeed a defined logical place in systems such as Hegel's and Comte's; but Darwinism certified its standing convincingly and without more ado. The prevailing doctrine that man was created ex abrupto had placed history in an isolated position, disconnected with the sciences of nature. Anthropology, which deals with the animal anthropos, now comes into line with zoology, and brings it into relation with history. (It is to be observed that history is not only different in scope but) not coextensive with anthropology IN TIME. For it deals only with the development of man in societies, whereas anthropology includes in its definition the proto-anthropic period when anthropos was still non-social, whether he lived in herds like the chimpanzee, or alone like the male ourang-outang. (It has been well shown by Majewski that congregations--herds, flocks, packs, etc.--of animals are not SOCIETIES; the characteristic of a society is differentiation of function. Bee hives, ant hills, may be called quasi-societies; but in their case the classes which perform distinct functions are morphologically different.) Man's condition at the present day is the result of a series of transformations, going back to the most primitive phase of society, which is the ideal (unattainable) beginning of history. But that beginning had emerged without any breach of continuity from a development which carries us back to a quadrimane ancestor, still further back (according to Darwin's conjecture) to a marine animal of the ascidian type, and then through remoter periods to the lowest form of organism. It is essential in this theory that though links have been lost there was no break in the gradual development; and this conception of a continuous progress in the evolution of life, resulting in the appearance of uncivilised Anthropos, helped to reinforce, and increase a belief in, the conception of the history of civilised Anthropos as itself also a continuous progressive development. 13. Thus the diffusion of the Darwinian theory of the origin of man, by emphasising the idea of continuity and breaking down the barriers between the human and animal kingdoms, has had an important effect in establishing the position of history among the sciences which deal with telluric development. The perspective of history is merged in a larger perspective of development. As one of the objects of biology is to find the exact steps in the genealogy of man from the lowest organic form, so the scope of history is to determine the stages in the unique causal series from the most rudimentary to the present state of human civilisation. It is to be observed that the interest in historical research implied by this conception need not be that of Comte. In the Positive Philosophy history is part of sociology; the interest in it is to discover the sociological laws. In the view of which I have just spoken, history is permitted to be an end in itself; the reconstruction of the genetic process is an independent interest. For the purpose of the reconstruction, sociology, as well as physical geography, biology, psychology, is necessary; the sociologist and the historian play into each other's hands; but the object of the former is to establish generalisations; the aim of the latter is to trace in detail a singular causal sequence. 14. The success of the evolutional theory helped to discredit the assumption or at least the invocation of transcendent causes. Philosophically of course it is compatible with theism, but historians have for the most part desisted from invoking the naive conception of a "god in history" to explain historical movements. A historian may be a theist; but, so far as his work is concerned, this particular belief is otiose. Otherwise indeed (as was remarked above) history could not be a science; for with a deus ex machina who can be brought on the stage to solve difficulties scientific treatment is a farce. The transcendent element had appeared in a more subtle form through the influence of German philosophy. I noticed how Ranke is prone to refer to ideas as if they were transcendent existences manifesting themselves in the successive movements of history. It is intelligible to speak of certain ideas as controlling, in a given period,--for instance, the idea of nationality; but from the scientific point of view, such ideas have no existence outside the minds of individuals and are purely psychical forces; and a historical "idea," if it does not exist in this form, is merely a way of expressing a synthesis of the historian himself. 15. From the more general influence of Darwinism on the place of history in the system of human knowledge, we may turn to the influence of the principles and methods by which Darwin explained development. It had been recognised even by ancient writers (such as Aristotle and Polybius) that physical circumstances (geography, climate) were factors conditioning the character and history of a race or society. In the sixteenth century Bodin emphasised these factors, and many subsequent writers took them into account. The investigations of Darwin, which brought them into the foreground, naturally promoted attempts to discover in them the chief key to the growth of civilisation. Comte had expressly denounced the notion that the biological methods of Lamarck could be applied to social man. Buckle had taken account of natural influences, but had relegated them to a secondary plane, compared with psychological factors. But the Darwinian theory made it tempting to explain the development of civilisation in terms of "adaptation to environment," "struggle for existence," "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," etc. (Recently O. Seeck has applied these principles to the decline of Graeco-Roman civilisation in his "Untergang der antiken Welt", 2 volumes, Berlin, 1895, 1901.) The operation of these principles cannot be denied. Man is still an animal, subject to zoological as well as mechanical laws. The dark influence of heredity continues to be effective; and psychical development had begun in lower organic forms,--perhaps with life itself. The organic and the social struggles for existence are manifestations of the same principle. Environment and climatic influence must be called in to explain not only the differentiation of the great racial sections of humanity, but also the varieties within these sub-species and, it may be, the assimilation of distinct varieties. Ritter's "Anthropogeography" has opened a useful line of research. But on the other hand, it is urged that, in explaining the course of history, these principles do not take us very far, and that it is chiefly for the primitive ultra-prehistoric period that they can account for human development. It may be said that, so far as concerns the actions and movements of men which are the subject of recorded history, physical environment has ceased to act mechanically, and in order to affect their actions must affect their wills first; and that this psychical character of the causal relations substantially alters the problem. The development of human societies, it may be argued, derives a completely new character from the dominance of the conscious psychical element, creating as it does new conditions (inventions, social institutions, etc.) which limit and counteract the operation of natural selection, and control and modify the influence of physical environment. Most thinkers agree now that the chief clews to the growth of civilisation must be sought in the psychological sphere. Imitation, for instance, is a principle which is probably more significant for the explanation of human development than natural selection. Darwin himself was conscious that his principles had only a very restricted application in this sphere, as is evident from his cautious and tentative remarks in the 5th chapter of his "Descent of Man". He applied natural selection to the growth of the intellectual faculties and of the fundamental social instincts, and also to the differentiation of the great races or "sub-species" (Caucasian, African, etc.) which differ in anthropological character. (Darwinian formulae may be suggestive by way of analogy. For instance, it is characteristic of social advance that a multitude of inventions, schemes and plans are framed which are never carried out, similar to, or designed for the same end as, an invention or plan which is actually adopted because it has chanced to suit better the particular conditions of the hour (just as the works accomplished by an individual statesman, artist or savant are usually only a residue of the numerous projects conceived by his brain). This process in which so much abortive production occurs is analogous to elimination by natural selection.) 16. But if it is admitted that the governing factors which concern the student of social development are of the psychical order, the preliminary success of natural science in explaining organic evolution by general principles encouraged sociologists to hope that social evolution could be explained on general principles also. The idea of Condorcet, Buckle, and others, that history could be assimilated to the natural sciences was powerfully reinforced, and the notion that the actual historical process, and every social movement involved in it, can be accounted for by sociological generalisations, so-called "laws," is still entertained by many, in one form or another. Dissentients from this view do not deny that the generalisations at which the sociologist arrives by the comparative method, by the analysis of social factors, and by psychological deduction may be an aid to the historian; but they deny that such uniformities are laws or contain an explanation of the phenomena. They can point to the element of chance coincidence. This element must have played a part in the events of organic evolution, but it has probably in a larger measure helped to determine events in social evolution. The collision of two unconnected sequences may be fraught with great results. The sudden death of a leader or a marriage without issue, to take simple cases, has again and again led to permanent political consequences. More emphasis is laid on the decisive actions of individuals, which cannot be reduced under generalisations and which deflect the course of events. If the significance of the individual will had been exaggerated to the neglect of the collective activity of the social aggregate before Condorcet, his doctrine tended to eliminate as unimportant the roles of prominent men, and by means of this elimination it was possible to found sociology. But it may be urged that it is patent on the face of history that its course has constantly been shaped and modified by the wills of individuals (We can ignore here the metaphysical question of freewill and determinism. For the character of the individual's brain depends in any case on ante-natal accidents and coincidences, and so it may be said that the role of individuals ultimately depends on chance,--the accidental coincidence of independent sequences.), which are by no means always the expression of the collective will; and that the appearance of such personalities at the given moments is not a necessary outcome of the conditions and cannot be deduced. Nor is there any proof that, if such and such an individual had not been born, some one else would have arisen to do what he did. In some cases there is no reason to think that what happened need ever have come to pass. In other cases, it seems evident that the actual change was inevitable, but in default of the man who initiated and guided it, it might have been postponed, and, postponed or not, might have borne a different cachet. I may illustrate by an instance which has just come under my notice. Modern painting was founded by Giotto, and the Italian expedition of Charles VIII, near the close of the sixteenth century, introduced into France the fashion of imitating Italian painters. But for Giotto and Charles VIII, French painting might have been very different. It may be said that "if Giotto had not appeared, some other great initiator would have played a role analogous to his, and that without Charles VIII there would have been the commerce with Italy, which in the long run would have sufficed to place France in relation with Italian artists. But the equivalent of Giotto might have been deferred for a century and probably would have been different; and commercial relations would have required ages to produce the rayonnement imitatif of Italian art in France, which the expedition of the royal adventurer provoked in a few years." (I have taken this example from G. Tarde's "La logique sociale" 2 (page 403), Paris, 1904, where it is used for quite a different purpose.) Instances furnished by political history are simply endless. Can we conjecture how events would have moved if the son of Philip of Macedon had been an incompetent? The aggressive action of Prussia which astonished Europe in 1740 determined the subsequent history of Germany; but that action was anything but inevitable; it depended entirely on the personality of Frederick the Great. Hence it may be argued that the action of individual wills is a determining and disturbing factor, too significant and effective to allow history to be grasped by sociological formulae. The types and general forms of development which the sociologist attempts to disengage can only assist the historian in understanding the actual course of events. It is in the special domains of economic history and Culturgeschichte which have come to the front in modern times that generalisation is most fruitful, but even in these it may be contended that it furnishes only partial explanations. 17. The truth is that Darwinism itself offers the best illustration of the insufficiency of general laws to account for historical development. The part played by coincidence, and the part played by individuals--limited by, and related to, general social conditions--render it impossible to deduce the course of the past history of man or to predict the future. But it is just the same with organic development. Darwin (or any other zoologist) could not deduce the actual course of evolution from general principles. Given an organism and its environment, he could not show that it must evolve into a more complex organism of a definite pre-determined type; knowing what it has evolved into, he could attempt to discover and assign the determining causes. General principles do not account for a particular sequence; they embody necessary conditions; but there is a chapter of accidents too. It is the same in the case of history. 18. Among the evolutional attempts to subsume the course of history under general syntheses, perhaps the most important is that of Lamprecht, whose "kulturhistorische Methode," which he has deduced from and applied to German history, exhibits the (indirect) influence of the Comtist school. It is based upon psychology, which, in his view, holds among the sciences of mind (Geisteswissenschaften) the same place (that of a Grundwissenschaft) which mechanics holds among the sciences of nature. History, by the same comparison, corresponds to biology, and, according to him, it can only become scientific if it is reduced to general concepts (Begriffe). Historical movements and events are of a psychical character, and Lamprecht conceives a given phase of civilisation as "a collective psychical condition (seelischer Gesamtzustand)" controlling the period, "a diapason which penetrates all psychical phenomena and thereby all historical events of the time." ("Die kulturhistorische Methode", Berlin, 1900, page 26.) He has worked out a series of such phases, "ages of changing psychical diapason," in his "Deutsche Geschichte" with the aim of showing that all the feelings and actions of each age can be explained by the diapason; and has attempted to prove that these diapasons are exhibited in other social developments, and are consequently not singular but typical. He maintains further that these ages succeed each other in a definite order; the principle being that the collective psychical development begins with the homogeneity of all the individual members of a society and, through heightened psychical activity, advances in the form of a continually increasing differentiation of the individuals (this is akin to the Spencerian formula). This process, evolving psychical freedom from psychical constraint, exhibits a series of psychical phenomena which define successive periods of civilisation. The process depends on two simple principles, that no idea can disappear without leaving behind it an effect or influence, and that all psychical life, whether in a person or a society, means change, the acquisition of new mental contents. It follows that the new have to come to terms with the old, and this leads to a synthesis which determines the character of a new age. Hence the ages of civilisation are defined as the "highest concepts for subsuming without exception all psychical phenomena of the development of human societies, that is, of all historical events." (Ibid. pages 28, 29.) Lamprecht deduces the idea of a special historical science, which might be called "historical ethnology," dealing with the ages of civilisation, and bearing the same relation to (descriptive or narrative) history as ethnology to ethnography. Such a science obviously corresponds to Comte's social dynamics, and the comparative method, on which Comte laid so much emphasis, is the principal instrument of Lamprecht. 19. I have dwelt on the fundamental ideas of Lamprecht, because they are not yet widely known in England, and because his system is the ablest product of the sociological school of historians. It carries the more weight as its author himself is a historical specialist, and his historical syntheses deserve the most careful consideration. But there is much in the process of development which on such assumptions is not explained, especially the initiative of individuals. Historical development does not proceed in a right line, without the choice of diverging. Again and again, several roads are open to it, of which it chooses one--why? On Lamprecht's method, we may be able to assign the conditions which limit the psychical activity of men at a particular stage of evolution, but within those limits the individual has so many options, such a wide room for moving, that the definition of those conditions, the "psychical diapasons," is only part of the explanation of the particular development. The heel of Achilles in all historical speculations of this class has been the role of the individual. The increasing prominence of economic history has tended to encourage the view that history can be explained in terms of general concepts or types. Marx and his school based their theory of human development on the conditions of production, by which, according to them, all social movements and historical changes are entirely controlled. The leading part which economic factors play in Lamprecht's system is significant, illustrating the fact that economic changes admit most readily this kind of treatment, because they have been less subject to direction or interference by individual pioneers. Perhaps it may be thought that the conception of SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT (essentially psychical), on which Lamprecht's "psychical diapasons" depend, is the most valuable and fertile conception that the historian owes to the suggestion of the science of biology--the conception of all particular historical actions and movements as (1) related to and conditioned by the social environment, and (2) gradually bringing about a transformation of that environment. But no given transformation can be proved to be necessary (pre-determined). And types of development do not represent laws; their meaning and value lie in the help they may give to the historian, in investigating a certain period of civilisation, to enable him to discover the interrelations among the diverse features which it presents. They are, as some one has said, an instrument of heuretic method. 20. The men engaged in special historical researches--which have been pursued unremittingly for a century past, according to scientific methods of investigating evidence (initiated by Wolf, Niebuhr, Ranke)--have for the most part worked on the assumptions of genetic history or at least followed in the footsteps of those who fully grasped the genetic point of view. But their aim has been to collect and sift evidence, and determine particular facts; comparatively few have given serious thought to the lines of research and the speculations which have been considered in this paper. They have been reasonably shy of compromising their work by applying theories which are still much debated and immature. But historiography cannot permanently evade the questions raised by these theories. One may venture to say that no historical change or transformation will be fully understood until it is explained how social environment acted on the individual components of the society (both immediately and by heredity), and how the individuals reacted upon their environment. The problem is psychical, but it is analogous to the main problem of the biologist. XXVIII. THE GENESIS OF DOUBLE STARS. By Sir George Darwin, K.C.B., F.R.S. Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy in the University of Cambridge. In ordinary speech a system of any sort is said to be stable when it cannot be upset easily, but the meaning attached to the word is usually somewhat vague. It is hardly surprising that this should be the case, when it is only within the last thirty years, and principally through the investigations of M. Poincare, that the conception of stability has, even for physicists, assumed a definiteness and clearness in which it was previously lacking. The laws which govern stability hold good in regions of the greatest diversity; they apply to the motion of planets round the sun, to the internal arrangement of those minute corpuscles of which each chemical atom is constructed, and to the forms of celestial bodies. In the present essay I shall attempt to consider the laws of stability as relating to the last case, and shall discuss the succession of shapes which may be assumed by celestial bodies in the course of their evolution. I believe further that homologous conceptions are applicable in the consideration of the transmutations of the various forms of animal and of vegetable life and in other regions of thought. Even if some of my readers should think that what I shall say on this head is fanciful, yet at least the exposition will serve to illustrate the meaning to be attached to the laws of stability in the physical universe. I propose, therefore, to begin this essay by a sketch of the principles of stability as they are now formulated by physicists. I. If a slight impulse be imparted to a system in equilibrium one of two consequences must ensue; either small oscillations of the system will be started, or the disturbance will increase without limit and the arrangement of the system will be completely changed. Thus a stick may be in equilibrium either when it hangs from a peg or when it is balanced on its point. If in the first case the stick is touched it will swing to and fro, but in the second case it will topple over. The first position is a stable one, the second is unstable. But this case is too simple to illustrate all that is implied by stability, and we must consider cases of stable and of unstable motion. Imagine a satellite and its planet, and consider each of them to be of indefinitely small size, in fact particles; then the satellite revolves round its planet in an ellipse. A small disturbance imparted to the satellite will only change the ellipse to a small amount, and so the motion is said to be stable. If, on the other hand, the disturbance were to make the satellite depart from its initial elliptic orbit in ever widening circuits, the motion would be unstable. This case affords an example of stable motion, but I have adduced it principally with the object of illustrating another point not immediately connected with stability, but important to a proper comprehension of the theory of stability. The motion of a satellite about its planet is one of revolution or rotation. When the satellite moves in an ellipse of any given degree of eccentricity, there is a certain amount of rotation in the system, technically called rotational momentum, and it is always the same at every part of the orbit. (Moment of momentum or rotational momentum is measured by the momentum of the satellite multiplied by the perpendicular from the planet on to the direction of the path of the satellite at any instant.) Now if we consider all the possible elliptic orbits of a satellite about its planet which have the same amount of "rotational momentum," we find that the major axis of the ellipse described will be different according to the amount of flattening (or the eccentricity) of the ellipse described. A figure titled "A 'family' of elliptic orbits with constant rotational momentum" (Fig. 1) illustrates for a given planet and satellite all such orbits with constant rotational momentum, and with all the major axes in the same direction. It will be observed that there is a continuous transformation from one orbit to the next, and that the whole forms a consecutive group, called by mathematicians "a family" of orbits. In this case the rotational momentum is constant and the position of any orbit in the family is determined by the length of the major axis of the ellipse; the classification is according to the major axis, but it might have been made according to anything else which would cause the orbit to be exactly determinate. I shall come later to the classification of all possible forms of ideal liquid stars, which have the same amount of rotational momentum, and the classification will then be made according to their densities, but the idea of orderly arrangement in a "family" is just the same. We thus arrive at the conception of a definite type of motion, with a constant amount of rotational momentum, and a classification of all members of the family, formed by all possible motions of that type, according to the value of some measurable quantity (this will hereafter be density) which determines the motion exactly. In the particular case of the elliptic motion used for illustration the motion was stable, but other cases of motion might be adduced in which the motion would be unstable, and it would be found that classification in a family and specification by some measurable quantity would be equally applicable. A complex mechanical system may be capable of motion in several distinct modes or types, and the motions corresponding to each such type may be arranged as before in families. For the sake of simplicity I will suppose that only two types are possible, so that there will only be two families; and the rotational momentum is to be constant. The two types of motion will have certain features in common which we denote in a sort of shorthand by the letter A. Similarly the two types may be described as A + a and A + b, so that a and b denote the specific differences which discriminate the families from one another. Now following in imagination the family of the type A + a, let us begin with the case where the specific difference a is well marked. As we cast our eyes along the series forming the family, we find the difference a becoming less conspicuous. It gradually dwindles until it disappears; beyond this point it either becomes reversed, or else the type has ceased to be a possible one. In our shorthand we have started with A + a, and have watched the characteristic a dwindling to zero. When it vanishes we have reached a type which may be specified as A; beyond this point the type would be A - a or would be impossible. Following the A + b type in the same way, b is at first well marked, it dwindles to zero, and finally may become negative. Hence in shorthand this second family may be described as A + b,... A,... A - b. In each family there is one single member which is indistinguishable from a member of the other family; it is called by Poincare a form of bifurcation. It is this conception of a form of bifurcation which forms the important consideration in problems dealing with the forms of liquid or gaseous bodies in rotation. But to return to the general question,--thus far the stability of these families has not been considered, and it is the stability which renders this way of looking at the matter so valuable. It may be proved that if before the point of bifurcation the type A + a was stable, then A + b must have been unstable. Further as a and b each diminish A + a becomes less pronouncedly stable, and A + b less unstable. On reaching the point of bifurcation A + a has just ceased to be stable, or what amounts to the same thing is just becoming unstable, and the converse is true of the A + b family. After passing the point of bifurcation A + a has become definitely unstable and A + b has become stable. Hence the point of bifurcation is also a point of "exchange of stabilities between the two types." (In order not to complicate unnecessarily this explanation of a general principle I have not stated fully all the cases that may occur. Thus: firstly, after bifurcation A + a may be an impossible type and A + a will then stop at this point; or secondly, A + b may have been an impossible type before bifurcation, and will only begin to be a real one after it; or thirdly, both A + a and A + b may be impossible after the point of bifurcation, in which case they coalesce and disappear. This last case shows that types arise and disappear in pairs, and that on appearance or before disappearance one must be stable and the other unstable.) In nature it is of course only the stable types of motion which can persist for more than a short time. Thus the task of the physical evolutionist is to determine the forms of bifurcation, at which he must, as it were, change carriages in the evolutionary journey so as always to follow the stable route. He must besides be able to indicate some natural process which shall correspond in effect to the ideal arrangement of the several types of motion in families with gradually changing specific differences. Although, as we shall see hereafter, it may frequently or even generally be impossible to specify with exactness the forms of bifurcation in the process of evolution, yet the conception is one of fundamental importance. The ideas involved in this sketch are no doubt somewhat recondite, but I hope to render them clearer to the non-mathematical reader by homologous considerations in other fields of thought (I considered this subject in my Presidential address to the British Association in 1905, "Report of the 75th Meeting of the British Assoc." (S. Africa, 1905), London, 1906, page 3. Some reviewers treated my speculations as fanciful, but as I believe that this was due generally to misapprehension, and as I hold that homologous considerations as to stability and instability are really applicable to evolution of all sorts, I have thought it well to return to the subject in the present paper.), and I shall pass on thence to illustrations which will teach us something of the evolution of stellar systems. States or governments are organised schemes of action amongst groups of men, and they belong to various types to which generic names, such as autocracy, aristocracy or democracy, are somewhat loosely applied. A definite type of government corresponds to one of our types of motion, and while retaining its type it undergoes a slow change as the civilisation and character of the people change, and as the relationship of the nation to other nations changes. In the language used before, the government belongs to a family, and as time advances we proceed through the successive members of the family. A government possesses a certain degree of stability--hardly measurable in numbers however--to resist disintegrating influences such as may arise from wars, famines, and internal dissensions. This stability gradually rises to a maximum and gradually declines. The degree of stability at any epoch will depend on the fitness of some leading feature of the government to suit the slowly altering circumstances, and that feature corresponds to the characteristic denoted by a in the physical problem. A time at length arrives when the stability vanishes, and the slightest shock will overturn the government. At this stage we have reached the crisis of a point of bifurcation, and there will then be some circumstance, apparently quite insignificant and almost unnoticed, which is such as to prevent the occurrence of anarchy. This circumstance or condition is what we typified as b. Insignificant although it may seem, it has started the government on a new career of stability by imparting to it a new type. It grows in importance, the form of government becomes obviously different, and its stability increases. Then in its turn this newly acquired stability declines, and we pass on to a new crisis or revolution. There is thus a series of "points of bifurcation" in history at which the continuity of political history is maintained by means of changes in the type of government. These ideas seem, to me at least, to give a true account of the history of states, and I contend that it is no mere fanciful analogy but a true homology, when in both realms of thought--the physical and the political--we perceive the existence of forms of bifurcation and of exchanges of stability. Further than this, I would ask whether the same train of ideas does not also apply to the evolution of animals? A species is well adapted to its environment when the individual can withstand the shocks of famine or the attacks and competition of other animals; it then possesses a high degree of stability. Most of the casual variations of individuals are indifferent, for they do not tell much either for or against success in life; they are small oscillations which leave the type unchanged. As circumstances change, the stability of the species may gradually dwindle through the insufficiency of some definite quality, on which in earlier times no such insistent demands were made. The individual animals will then tend to fail in the struggle for life, the numbers will dwindle and extinction may ensue. But it may be that some new variation, at first of insignificant importance, may just serve to turn the scale. A new type may be formed in which the variation in question is preserved and augmented; its stability may increase and in time a new species may be produced. At the risk of condemnation as a wanderer beyond my province into the region of biological evolution, I would say that this view accords with what I understand to be the views of some naturalists, who recognise the existence of critical periods in biological history at which extinction occurs or which form the starting-point for the formation of new species. Ought we not then to expect that long periods will elapse during which a type of animal will remain almost constant, followed by other periods, enormously long no doubt as measured in the life of man, of acute struggle for existence when the type will change more rapidly? This at least is the view suggested by the theory of stability in the physical universe. (I make no claim to extensive reading on this subject, but refer the reader for example to a paper by Professor A.A.W. Hubrecht on "De Vries's theory of Mutations", "Popular Science Monthly", July 1904, especially to page 213.) And now I propose to apply these ideas of stability to the theory of stellar evolution, and finally to illustrate them by certain recent observations of a very remarkable character. Stars and planets are formed of materials which yield to the enormous forces called into play by gravity and rotation. This is obviously true if they are gaseous or fluid, and even solid matter becomes plastic under sufficiently great stresses. Nothing approaching a complete study of the equilibrium of a heterogeneous star has yet been found possible, and we are driven to consider only bodies of simpler construction. I shall begin therefore by explaining what is known about the shapes which may be assumed by a mass of incompressible liquid of uniform density under the influences of gravity and of rotation. Such a liquid mass may be regarded as an ideal star, which resembles a real star in the fact that it is formed of gravitating and rotating matter, and because its shape results from the forces to which it is subject. It is unlike a star in that it possesses the attributes of incompressibility and of uniform density. The difference between the real and the ideal is doubtless great, yet the similarity is great enough to allow us to extend many of the conclusions as to ideal liquid stars to the conditions which must hold good in reality. Thus with the object of obtaining some insight into actuality, it is justifiable to discuss an avowedly ideal problem at some length. The attraction of gravity alone tends to make a mass of liquid assume the shape of a sphere, and the effects of rotation, summarised under the name of centrifugal force, are such that the liquid seeks to spread itself outwards from the axis of rotation. It is a singular fact that it is unnecessary to take any account of the size of the mass of liquid under consideration, because the shape assumed is exactly the same whether the mass be small or large, and this renders the statement of results much easier than would otherwise be the case. A mass of liquid at rest will obviously assume the shape of a sphere, under the influence of gravitation, and it is a stable form, because any oscillation of the liquid which might be started would gradually die away under the influence of friction, however small. If now we impart to the whole mass of liquid a small speed of rotation about some axis, which may be called the polar axis, in such a way that there are no internal currents and so that it spins in the same way as if it were solid, the shape will become slightly flattened like an orange. Although the earth and the other planets are not homogeneous they behave in the same way, and are flattened at the poles and protuberant at the equator. This shape may therefore conveniently be described as planetary. If the planetary body be slightly deformed the forces of restitution are slightly less than they were for the sphere; the shape is stable but somewhat less so than the sphere. We have then a planetary spheroid, rotating slowly, slightly flattened at the poles, with a high degree of stability, and possessing a certain amount of rotational momentum. Let us suppose this ideal liquid star to be somewhere in stellar space far removed from all other bodies; then it is subject to no external forces, and any change which ensues must come from inside. Now the amount of rotational momentum existing in a system in motion can neither be created nor destroyed by any internal causes, and therefore, whatever happens, the amount of rotational momentum possessed by the star must remain absolutely constant. A real star radiates heat, and as it cools it shrinks. Let us suppose then that our ideal star also radiates and shrinks, but let the process proceed so slowly that any internal currents generated in the liquid by the cooling are annulled so quickly by fluid friction as to be insignificant; further let the liquid always remain at any instant incompressible and homogeneous. All that we are concerned with is that, as time passes, the liquid star shrinks, rotates in one piece as if it were solid, and remains incompressible and homogeneous. The condition is of course artificial, but it represents the actual processes of nature as well as may be, consistently with the postulated incompressibility and homogeneity. (Mathematicians are accustomed to regard the density as constant and the rotational momentum as increasing. But the way of looking at the matter, which I have adopted, is easier of comprehension, and it comes to the same in the end.) The shrinkage of a constant mass of matter involves an increase of its density, and we have therefore to trace the changes which supervene as the star shrinks, and as the liquid of which it is composed increases in density. The shrinkage will, in ordinary parlance, bring the weights nearer to the axis of rotation. Hence in order to keep up the rotational momentum, which as we have seen must remain constant, the mass must rotate quicker. The greater speed of rotation augments the importance of centrifugal force compared with that of gravity, and as the flattening of the planetary spheroid was due to centrifugal force, that flattening is increased; in other words the ellipticity of the planetary spheroid increases. As the shrinkage and corresponding increase of density proceed, the planetary spheroid becomes more and more elliptic, and the succession of forms constitutes a family classified according to the density of the liquid. The specific mark of this family is the flattening or ellipticity. Now consider the stability of the system, we have seen that the spheroid with a slow rotation, which forms our starting-point, was slightly less stable than the sphere, and as we proceed through the family of ever flatter ellipsoids the stability continues to diminish. At length when it has assumed the shape shown in a figure titled "Planetary spheroid just becoming unstable" (Fig. 2.) where the equatorial and polar axes are proportional to the numbers 1000 and 583, the stability has just disappeared. According to the general principle explained above this is a form of bifurcation, and corresponds to the form denoted A. The specific difference a of this family must be regarded as the excess of the ellipticity of this figure above that of all the earlier ones, beginning with the slightly flattened planetary spheroid. Accordingly the specific difference a of the family has gradually diminished from the beginning and vanishes at this stage. According to Poincare's principle the vanishing of the stability serves us with notice that we have reached a figure of bifurcation, and it becomes necessary to inquire what is the nature of the specific difference of the new family of figures which must be coalescent with the old one at this stage. This difference is found to reside in the fact that the equator, which in the planetary family has hitherto been circular in section, tends to become elliptic. Hitherto the rotational momentum has been kept up to its constant value partly by greater speed of rotation and partly by a symmetrical bulging of the equator. But now while the speed of rotation still increases (The mathematician familiar with Jacobi's ellipsoid will find that this is correct, although in the usual mode of exposition, alluded to above in a footnote, the speed diminishes.), the equator tends to bulge outwards at two diametrically opposite points and to be flattened midway between these protuberances. The specific difference in the new family, denoted in the general sketch by b, is this ellipticity of the equator. If we had traced the planetary figures with circular equators beyond this stage A, we should have found them to have become unstable, and the stability has been shunted off along the A + b family of forms with elliptic equators. This new series of figures, generally named after the great mathematician Jacobi, is at first only just stable, but as the density increases the stability increases, reaches a maximum and then declines. As this goes on the equator of these Jacobian figures becomes more and more elliptic, so that the shape is considerably elongated in a direction at right angles to the axis of rotation. At length when the longest axis of the three has become about three times as long as the shortest (The three axes of the ellipsoid are then proportional to 1000, 432, 343.), the stability of this family of figures vanishes, and we have reached a new form of bifurcation and must look for a new type of figure along which the stable development will presumably extend. Two sections of this critical Jacobian figure, which is a figure of bifurcation, are shown by the dotted lines in a figure titled "The 'pear-shaped figure' and the Jocobian figure from which it is derived" (Fig. 3.) comprising two figures, one above the other: the upper figure is the equatorial section at right angles to the axis of rotation, the lower figure is a section through the axis. Now Poincare has proved that the new type of figure is to be derived from the figure of bifurcation by causing one of the ends to be prolonged into a snout and by bluntening the other end. The snout forms a sort of stalk, and between the stalk and the axis of rotation the surface is somewhat flattened. These are the characteristics of a pear, and the figure has therefore been called the "pear-shaped figure of equilibrium." The firm line shows this new type of figure, whilst, as already explained, the dotted line shows the form of bifurcation from which it is derived. The specific mark of this new family is the protrusion of the stalk together with the other corresponding smaller differences. If we denote this difference by c, while A + b denotes the Jacobian figure of bifurcation from which it is derived, the new family may be called A + b + c, and c is zero initially. According to my calculations this series of figures is stable (M. Liapounoff contends that for constant density the new series of figures, which M. Poincare discovered, has less rotational momentum than that of the figure of bifurcation. If he is correct, the figure of bifurcation is a limit of stable figures, and none can exist with stability for greater rotational momentum. My own work seems to indicate that the opposite is true, and, notwithstanding M. Liapounoff's deservedly great authority, I venture to state the conclusions in accordance with my own work.), but I do not know at what stage of its development it becomes unstable. Professor Jeans has solved a problem which is of interest as throwing light on the future development of the pear-shaped figure, although it is of a still more ideal character than the one which has been discussed. He imagines an INFINITELY long circular cylinder of liquid to be in rotation about its central axis. The existence is virtually postulated of a demon who is always occupied in keeping the axis of the cylinder straight, so that Jeans has only to concern himself with the stability of the form of the section of the cylinder, which as I have said is a circle with the axis of rotation at the centre. He then supposes the liquid forming the cylinder to shrink in diameter, just as we have done, and finds that the speed of rotation must increase so as to keep up the constancy of the rotational momentum. The circularity of section is at first stable, but as the shrinkage proceeds the stability diminishes and at length vanishes. This stage in the process is a form of bifurcation, and the stability passes over to a new series consisting of cylinders which are elliptic in section. The circular cylinders are exactly analogous with our planetary spheroids, and the elliptic ones with the Jacobian ellipsoids. With further shrinkage the elliptic cylinders become unstable, a new form of bifurcation is reached, and the stability passes over to a series of cylinders whose section is pear-shaped. Thus far the analogy is complete between our problem and Jeans's, and in consequence of the greater simplicity of the conditions, he is able to carry his investigation further. He finds that the stalk end of the pear-like section continues to protrude more and more, and the flattening between it and the axis of rotation becomes a constriction. Finally the neck breaks and a satellite cylinder is born. Jeans's figure for an advanced stage of development is shown in a figure titled "Section of a rotating cylinder of liquid" (Fig. 4.), but his calculations do not enable him actually to draw the state of affairs after the rupture of the neck. There are certain difficulties in admitting the exact parallelism between this problem and ours, and thus the final development of our pear-shaped figure and the end of its stability in a form of bifurcation remain hidden from our view, but the successive changes as far as they have been definitely traced are very suggestive in the study of stellar evolution. Attempts have been made to attack this problem from the other end. If we begin with a liquid satellite revolving about a liquid planet and proceed backwards in time, we must make the two masses expand so that their density will be diminished. Various figures have been drawn exhibiting the shapes of two masses until their surfaces approach close to one another and even until they just coalesce, but the discussion of their stability is not easy. At present it would seem to be impossible to reach coalescence by any series of stable transformations, and if this is so Professor Jeans's investigation has ceased to be truly analogous to our problem at some undetermined stage. However this may be this line of research throws an instructive light on what we may expect to find in the evolution of real stellar systems. In the second part of this paper I shall point out the bearing which this investigation of the evolution of an ideal liquid star may have on the genesis of double stars. II. There are in the heavens many stars which shine with a variable brilliancy. Amongst these there is a class which exhibits special peculiarities; the members of this class are generally known as Algol Variables, because the variability of the star Beta Persei or Algol was the first of such cases to attract the attention of astronomers, and because it is perhaps still the most remarkable of the whole class. But the circumstances which led to this discovery were so extraordinary that it seems worth while to pause a moment before entering on the subject. John Goodricke, a deaf-mute, was born in 1764; he was grandson and heir of Sir John Goodricke of Ribston Hall, Yorkshire. In November 1782, he noted that the brilliancy of Algol waxed and waned (It is said that Georg Palitzch, a farmer of Prohlis near Dresden, had about 1758 already noted the variability of Algol with the naked eye. "Journ. Brit. Astron. Assoc." Vol. XV. (1904-5), page 203.), and devoted himself to observing it on every fine night from the 28th December 1782 to the 12th May 1783. He communicated his observations to the Royal Society, and suggested that the variation in brilliancy was due to periodic eclipses by a dark companion star, a theory now universally accepted as correct. The Royal Society recognised the importance of the discovery by awarding to Goodricke, then only 19 years of age, their highest honour, the Copley medal. His later observations of Beta Lyrae and of Delta Cephei were almost as remarkable as those of Algol, but unfortunately a career of such extraordinary promise was cut short by death, only a fortnight after his election to the Royal Society. ("Dict. of National Biography"; article Goodricke (John). The article is by Miss Agnes Clerke. It is strange that she did not then seem to be aware that he was a deaf-mute, but she notes the fact in her "Problems of Astrophysics", page 337, London, 1903.) It was not until 1889 that Goodricke's theory was verified, when it was proved by Vogel that the star was moving in an orbit, and in such a manner that it was only possible to explain the rise and fall in the luminosity by the partial eclipse of a bright star by a dark companion. The whole mass of the system of Algol is found to be half as great again as that of our sun, yet the two bodies complete their orbit in the short period of 2d 20h 48m 55s. The light remains constant during each period, except for 9h 20m when it exhibits a considerable fall in brightness (Clerke, "Problems of Astrophysics" page 302 and chapter XVIII.); the curve which represents the variation in the light is shown in a figure titled "The light-curve and system of Beta Lyrae" (Fig. 7.). The spectroscope has enabled astronomers to prove that many stars, although apparently single, really consist of two stars circling around one another (If a source of light is approaching with a great velocity the waves of light are crowded together, and conversely they are spaced out when the source is receding. Thus motion in the line of sight virtually produces an infinitesimal change of colour. The position of certain dark lines in the spectrum affords an exceedingly accurate measurement of colour. Thus displacements of these spectral lines enables us to measure the velocity of the source of light towards or away from the observer.); they are known as spectroscopic binaries. Campbell of the Lick Observatory believes that about one star in six is a binary ("Astrophysical Journ." Vol. XIII. page 89, 1901. See also A. Roberts, "Nature", Sept. 12, 1901, page 468.); thus there must be many thousand such stars within the reach of our spectroscopes. The orientation of the planes of the orbits of binary stars appears to be quite arbitrary, and in general the star does not vary in brightness. Amongst all such orbits there must be some whose planes pass nearly through the sun, and in these cases the eclipse of one of the stars by the other becomes inevitable, and in each circuit there will occur two eclipses of unequal intensities. It is easy to see that in the majority of such cases the two components must move very close to one another. The coincidence between the spectroscopic and the photometric evidence permits us to feel complete confidence in the theory of eclipses. When then we find a star with a light-curve of perfect regularity and with a characteristics of that of Algol, we are justified in extending the theory of eclipses to it, although it may be too faint to permit of adequate spectroscopic examination. This extension of the theory secures a considerable multiplication of the examples available for observation, and some 30 have already been discovered. Dr Alexander Roberts, of Lovedale in Cape Colony, truly remarks that the study of Algol variables "brings us to the very threshold of the question of stellar evolution." ("Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh", XXIV. Part II. (1902), page 73.) It is on this account that I propose to explain in some detail the conclusion to which he and some other observers have been led. Although these variable stars are mere points of light, it has been proved by means of the spectroscope that the law of gravitation holds good in the remotest regions of stellar space, and further it seems now to have become possible even to examine the shapes of stars by indirect methods, and thus to begin the study of their evolution. The chain of reasoning which I shall explain must of necessity be open to criticism, yet the explanation of the facts by the theory is so perfect that it is not easy to resist the conviction that we are travelling along the path of truth. The brightness of a star is specified by what is called its "magnitude." The average brightness of all the stars which can just be seen with the naked eye defines the sixth magnitude. A star which only gives two-fifths as much light is said to be of the seventh magnitude; while one which gives 2 1/2 times as much light is of the fifth magnitude, and successive multiplications or divisions by 2 1/2 define the lower or higher magnitudes. Negative magnitudes have clearly to be contemplated; thus Sirius is of magnitude minus 1.4, and the sun is of magnitude minus 26. The definition of magnitude is also extended to fractions; for example, the lights given by two candles which are placed at 100 feet and 100 feet 6 inches from the observer differ in brightness by one-hundredth of a magnitude. A great deal of thought has been devoted to the measurement of the brightness of stars, but I will only describe one of the methods used, that of the great astronomer Argelander. In the neighbourhood of the star under observation some half dozen standard stars are selected of known invariable magnitudes, some being brighter and some fainter than the star to be measured; so that these stars afford a visible scale of brightness. Suppose we number them in order of increasing brightness from 1 to 6; then the observer estimates that on a given night his star falls between stars 2 and 3, on the next night, say between 3 and 4, and then again perhaps it may return to between 2 and 3, and so forth. With practice he learns to evaluate the brightness down to small fractions of a magnitude, even a hundredth part of a magnitude is not quite negligible. For example, in observing the star RR Centauri five stars were in general used for comparison by Dr Roberts, and in course of three months he secured thereby 300 complete observations. When the period of the cycle had been ascertained exactly, these 300 values were reduced to mean values which appertained to certain mean places in the cycle, and a mean light-curve was obtained in this way. Figures titled "Light curve of RR Centauri" (Fig. 5) and "The light-curve and system of Beta Lyrae" (Fig. 7) show examples of light curves. I shall now follow out the results of the observation of RR Centauri not only because it affords the easiest way of explaining these investigations, but also because it is one of the stars which furnishes the most striking results in connection with the object of this essay. (See "Monthly notices R.A.S." Vol. 63, 1903, page 527.) This star has a mean magnitude of about 7 1/2, and it is therefore invisible to the naked eye. Its period of variability is 14h 32m 10s.76, the last refinement of precision being of course only attained in the final stages of reduction. Twenty-nine mean values of the magnitude were determined, and they were nearly equally spaced over the whole cycle of changes. The black dots in Fig. 5 exhibit the mean values determined by Dr Roberts. The last three dots on the extreme right are merely the same as the first three on the extreme left, and are repeated to show how the next cycle would begin. The smooth dotted curve will be explained hereafter, but, by reference to the scale of magnitudes on the margins of the figure, it may be used to note that the dots might be brought into a perfectly smooth curve by shifting some few of the dots by about a hundredth of a magnitude. This light-curve presents those characteristics which are due to successive eclipses, but the exact form of the curve must depend on the nature of the two mutually eclipsing stars. If we are to interpret the curve with all possible completeness, it is necessary to make certain assumptions as to the stars. It is assumed then that the stars are equally bright all over their disks, and secondly that they are not surrounded by an extensive absorptive atmosphere. This last appears to me to be the most dangerous assumption involved in the whole theory. Making these assumptions, however, it is found that if each of the eclipsing stars were spherical it would not be possible to generate such a curve with the closest accuracy. The two stars are certainly close together, and it is obvious that in such a case the tidal forces exercised by each on the other must be such as to elongate the figure of each towards the other. Accordingly it is reasonable to adopt the hypothesis that the system consists of a pair of elongated ellipsoids, with their longest axes pointed towards one another. No supposition is adopted a priori as to the ratio of the two masses, or as to their relative size or brightness, and the orbit may have any degree of eccentricity. These last are all to be determined from the nature of the light-curve. In the case of RR Centauri, however, Dr Roberts finds the conditions are best satisfied by supposing the orbit to be circular, and the sizes and masses of the components to be equal, while their luminosities are to one another in the ratio of 4 to 3. As to their shapes he finds them to be so much elongated that they overlap, as exhibited in his figure titled "The shape of the star RR Centauri" (Fig. 6.). The dotted curve shows a form of equilibrium of rotating liquid as computed by me some years before, and it was added for the sake of comparison. On turning back to Fig. 5 the reader will see in the smooth dotted curve the light variation which would be exhibited by such a binary system as this. The curve is the result of computation and it is impossible not to be struck by the closeness of the coincidence with the series of black dots which denote the observations. It is virtually certain that RR Centauri is a case of an eclipsing binary system, and that the two stars are close together. It is not of course proved that the figures of the stars are ellipsoids, but gravitation must deform them into a pair of elongated bodies, and, on the assumptions that they are not enveloped in an absorptive atmosphere and that they are ellipsoidal, their shapes must be as shown in the figure. This light-curve gives an excellent illustration of what we have reason to believe to be a stage in the evolution of stars, when a single star is proceeding to separate into a binary one. As the star is faint, there is as yet no direct spectroscopic evidence of orbital motion. Let us turn therefore to the case of another star, namely V Puppis, in which such evidence does already exist. I give an account of it, because it presents a peculiarly interesting confirmation of the correctness of the theory. In 1895 Pickering announced in the "Harvard Circular" No. 14 that the spectroscopic observations at Arequipa proved V Puppis to be a double star with a period of 3d 2h 46m. Now when Roberts discussed its light-curve he found that the period was 1d 10h 54m 27s, and on account of this serious discrepancy he effected the reduction only on the simple assumption that the two stars were spherical, and thus obtained a fairly good representation of the light-curve. It appeared that the orbit was circular and that the two spheres were not quite in contact. Obviously if the stars had been assumed to be ellipsoids they would have been found to overlap, as was the case for RR Centauri. ("Astrophysical Journ." Vol. XIII. (1901), page 177.) The matter rested thus for some months until the spectroscopic evidence was re-examined by Miss Cannon on behalf of Professor Pickering, and we find in the notes on page 177 of Vol. XXVIII. of the "Annals of the Harvard Observatory" the following: "A.G.C. 10534. This star, which is the Algol variable V Puppis, has been found to be a spectroscopic binary. The period 1d.454 (i.e. 1d 10h 54m) satisfies the observations of the changes in light, and of the varying separation of the lines of the spectrum. The spectrum has been examined on 61 plates, on 23 of which the lines are double." Thus we have valuable evidence in confirmation of the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the light-curve. In the circumstances, however, I have not thought it worth while to reproduce Dr Roberts's provisional figure. I now turn to the conclusions drawn a few years previously by another observer, where we shall find the component stars not quite in contact. This is the star Beta Lyrae which was observed by Goodricke, Argelander, Belopolsky, Schur, Markwick and by many others. The spectroscopic method has been successfully applied in this case, and the component stars are proved to move in an orbit about one another. In 1897, Mr. G.W. Myers applied the theory of eclipses to the light-curve, on the hypothesis that the stars are elongated ellipsoids, and he obtained the interesting results exhibited in Fig. 7. ("Astrophysical Journ." Vol. VII. (1898), page 1.) The period of Beta Lyrae is relatively long, being 12d 21h 47m, the orbit is sensibly eccentric, and the two spheroids are not so much elongated as was the case with RR Centauri. The mass of the system is enormous, one of the two stars being 10 times and the other 21 times as heavy as our sun. Further illustrations of this subject might be given, but enough has been said to explain the nature of the conclusions which have been drawn from this class of observation. In my account of these remarkable systems the consideration of one very important conclusion has been purposely deferred. Since the light-curve is explicable by eclipses, it follows that the sizes of the two stars are determinable relatively to the distance between them. The period of their orbital motion is known, being identical with the complete period of the variability of their light, and an easy application of Kepler's law of periodic times enables us to compute the sum of the masses of the two stars divided by the cube of the distance between their centres. Now the sizes of the bodies being known, the mean density of the whole system may be calculated. In every case that density has been found to be much less than the sun's, and indeed the average of a number of mean densities which have been determined only amounts to one-eighth of that of the sun. In some cases the density is extremely small, and in no case is it quite so great as half the solar density. It would be absurd to suppose that these stars can be uniform in density throughout, and from all that is known of celestial bodies it is probable that they are gaseous in their external parts with great condensation towards their centres. This conclusion is confirmed by arguments drawn from the theory of rotating masses of liquid. (See J.H. Jeans, "On the density of Algol variables", "Astrophysical Journ." Vol. XXII. (1905), page 97.) Although, as already explained, a good deal is known about the shapes and the stability of figures consisting of homogeneous incompressible liquid in rotation, yet comparatively little has hitherto been discovered about the equilibrium of rotating gaseous stars. The figures calculated for homogeneous liquid can obviously only be taken to afford a general indication of the kind of figure which we might expect to find in the stellar universe. Thus the dotted curve in Fig. 5, which exhibits one of the figures which I calculated, has some interest when placed alongside the figures of the stars in RR Centauri, as computed from the observations, but it must not be accepted as the calculated form of such a system. I have moreover proved more recently that such a figure of homogeneous liquid is unstable. Notwithstanding this instability it does not necessarily follow that the analogous figure for compressible fluid is also unstable, as will be pointed out more fully hereafter. Professor Jeans has discussed in a paper of great ability the difficult problems offered by the conditions of equilibrium and of stability of a spherical nebula. ("Phil. Trans. R.S." Vol. CXCIX. A (1902), page 1. See also A. Roberts, "S. African Assoc. Adv. Sci." Vol. I. (1903), page 6.) In a later paper ("Astrophysical Journ." Vol. XXII. (1905), page 97.), in contrasting the conditions which must govern the fission of a star into two parts when the star is gaseous and compressible with the corresponding conditions in the case of incompressible liquid, he points out that for a gaseous star (the agency which effects the separation will no longer be rotation alone; gravitation also will tend towards separation... From numerical results obtained in the various papers of my own,... I have been led to the conclusion that a gravitational instability of the kind described must be regarded as the primary agent at work in the actual evolution of the universe, Laplace's rotation playing only the secondary part of separating the primary and satellite after the birth of the satellite.) It is desirable to add a word in explanation of the expression "gravitational instability" in this passage. It means that when the concentration of a gaseous nebula (without rotation) has proceeded to a certain stage, the arrangement in spherical layers of equal density becomes unstable, and a form of bifurcation has been reached. For further concentration concentric spherical layers become unstable, and the new stable form involves a concentration about two centres. The first sign of this change is that the spherical layers cease to be quite concentric and then the layers of equal density begin to assume a somewhat pear-shaped form analogous to that which we found to occur under rotation for an incompressible liquid. Accordingly it appears that while a sphere of liquid is stable a sphere of gas may become unstable. Thus the conditions of stability are different in these two simple cases, and it is likely that while certain forms of rotating liquid are unstable the analogous forms for gas may be stable. This furnishes a reason why it is worth while to consider the unstable forms of rotating liquid. There can I think be little doubt but that Jeans is right in looking to gravitational instability as the primary cause of fission, but when we consider that a binary system, with a mass larger than the sun's, is found to rotate in a few hours, there seems reason to look to rotation as a contributory cause scarcely less important than the primary one. With the present extent of our knowledge it is only possible to reconstruct the processes of the evolution of stars by means of inferences drawn from several sources. We have first to rely on the general principles of stability, according to which we are to look for a series of families of forms, each terminating in an unstable form, which itself becomes the starting-point of the next family of stable forms. Secondly we have as a guide the analogy of the successive changes in the evolution of ideal liquid stars; and thirdly we already possess some slender knowledge as to the equilibrium of gaseous stars. From these data it is possible to build up in outline the probable history of binary stars. Originally the star must have been single, it must have been widely diffused, and must have been endowed with a slow rotation. In this condition the strata of equal density must have been of the planetary form. As it cooled and contracted the symmetry round the axis of rotation must have become unstable, through the effects of gravitation, assisted perhaps by the increasing speed of rotation. (I learn from Professor Jeans that he now (December 1908) believes that he can prove that some small amount of rotation is necessary to induce instability in the symmetrical arrangement.) The strata of equal density must then become somewhat pear-shaped, and afterwards like an hour-glass, with the constriction more pronounced in the internal than in the external strata. The constrictions of the successive strata then begin to rupture from the inside progressively outwards, and when at length all are ruptured we have the twin stars portrayed by Roberts and by others. As we have seen, the study of the forms of equilibrium of rotating liquid is almost complete, and Jeans has made a good beginning in the investigation of the equilibrium of gaseous stars, but much more remains to be discovered. The field for the mathematician is a wide one, and in proportion as the very arduous exploration of that field is attained so will our knowledge of the processes of cosmical evolution increase. From the point of view of observation, improved methods in the use of the spectroscope and increase of accuracy in photometry will certainly lead to a great increase in our knowledge within the next few years. Probably the observational advance will be more rapid than that of theory, for we know how extraordinary has been the success attained within the last few years, and the theory is one of extreme difficulty; but the two ought to proceed together hand in hand. Human life is too short to permit us to watch the leisurely procedure of cosmical evolution, but the celestial museum contains so many exhibits that it may become possible, by the aid of theory, to piece together bit by bit the processes through which stars pass in the course of their evolution. In the sketch which I have endeavoured to give of this fascinating subject, I have led my reader to the very confines of our present knowledge. It is not much more than a quarter of a century since this class of observation has claimed the close attention of astronomers; something considerable has been discovered already and there seems scarcely a discernible limit to what will be known in this field a century from now. Some of the results which I have set forth may then be shown to be false, but it seems profoundly improbable that we are being led astray by a Will-of-the-Wisp. XXIX. THE EVOLUTION OF MATTER. By W.C.D. Whetham, M.A., F.R.S. Trinity College, Cambridge. The idea of evolution in the organic world, made intelligible by the work of Charles Darwin, has little in common with the recent conception of change in certain types of matter. The discovery that a process of disintegration may take place in some at least of the chemical atoms, previously believed to be indestructible and unalterable, has modified our view of the physical universe, even as Darwin's scheme of the mode of evolution changed the trend of thought concerning the organic world. Both conceptions have in common the idea of change throughout extended realms of space and time, and, therefore, it is perhaps not unfitting that some account of the most recent physical discoveries should be included in the present volume. The earliest conception of the evolution of matter is found in the speculation of the Greeks. Leucippus and Democritus imagined unchanging eternal atoms, Heracleitus held that all things were in a continual state of flux--Panta rei. But no one in the Ancient World--no one till quite modern times--could appreciate the strength of the position which the theory of the evolution of matter must carry before it wins the day. Vague speculation, even by the acute minds of philosophers, is of little use in physical science before experimental facts are available. The true problems at issue cannot even be formulated, much less solved, till the humble task of the observer and experimenter has given us a knowledge of the phenomena to be explained. It was only through the atomic theory, at first apparently diametrically opposed to it, that the conception of evolution in the physical world was to gain an established place. For a century the atomic theory, when put into a modern form by Dalton, led farther and farther away from the idea of change in matter. The chemical elements seemed quite unalterable, and the atoms, of which each element in modern view is composed, bore to Clerk Maxwell, writing about 1870, "the stamp of manufactured articles" exactly similar in kind, unchanging, eternal. Nevertheless throughout these years, on the whole so unfavourable to its existence, there persisted the idea of a common origin of the distinct kinds of matter known to chemists. Indeed, this idea of unity in substance in nature seems to accord with some innate desire or intimate structure of the human mind. As Mr Arthur Balfour well puts it, "There is no a priori reason that I know of for expecting that the material world should be a modification of a single medium, rather than a composite structure built out of sixty or seventy elementary substances, eternal and eternally different. Why then should we feel content with the first hypothesis and not with the second? Yet so it is. Men of science have always been restive under the multiplication of entities. They have eagerly watched for any sign that the different chemical elements own a common origin, and are all compounded out of some primordial substance. Nor, for my part, do I think that such instincts should be ignored... that they exist is certain; that they modify the indifferent impartiality of pure empiricism can hardly be denied." ("Report of the 74th Meeting of the British Association" (Presidential Address, Cambridge 1904), page 9, London, 1905.) When Dalton's atomic theory had been in existence some half century, it was noted that certain numerical relations held good between the atomic weights of elements chemically similar to one another. Thus the weight (88) of an atom of strontium compared with that of hydrogen as unity, is about the mean of those of calcium (40) and barium (137). Such relations, in this and other chemical groups, were illustrated by Beguyer de Chancourtois in 1862 by the construction of a spiral diagram in which the atomic weights are placed in order round a cylinder and elements chemically similar are found to fall on vertical lines. Newlands seems to have been the first to see the significance of such a diagram. In his "law of octaves," formulated in 1864, he advanced the hypothesis that, if arranged in order of rising atomic weight, the elements fell into groups, so that each eighth element was chemically similar. Stated thus, the law was too definite; no room was left for newly-discovered elements, and some dissimilar elements were perforce grouped together. But in 1869 Mendeleeff developed Newland's hypothesis in a form that attracted at once general attention. Placing the elements in order of rising atomic weight, but leaving a gap where necessary to bring similar elements into vertical columns, he obtained a periodic table with natural vacancies to be filled as new elements were discovered, and with a certain amount of flexibility at the ends of the horizontal lines. From the position of the vacancies, the general chemical and physical properties of undiscovered elements could be predicted, and the success of such predictions gave a striking proof of the usefulness of Mendeleeff's generalisation. When the chemical and physical properties of the elements were known to be periodic functions of their atomic weights, the idea of a common origin and common substance became much more credible. Differences in atomic weight and differences in properties alike might reasonably be explained by the differences in the amount of the primordial substance present in the various atoms; an atom of oxygen being supposed to be composed of sixteen times as much stuff as the atom of hydrogen, but to be made of the same ultimate material. Speculations about the mode of origin of the elements now began to appear, and put on a certain air of reality. Of these speculations perhaps the most detailed was that of Crookes, who imagined an initial chaos of a primordial medium he named protyle, and a process of periodic change in which the chemical elements successively were precipitated. From another side too, suggestions were put forward by Sir Norman Lockyer and others that the differences in spectra observed in different classes of stars, and produced by different conditions in the laboratory, were to be explained by changes in the structure of the vibrating atoms. The next step in advance gave a theoretical basis for the idea of a common structure of matter, and was taken in an unexpected direction. Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, accepted in England, was driven home to continental minds by the confirmatory experiments of Hertz, who in 1888 detected and measured the electromagnetic waves that Maxwell had described twenty years earlier. But, if light be an electromagnetic phenomenon, the light waves radiated by hot bodies must take their origin in the vibrations of electric systems. Hence within the atoms must exist electric charges capable of vibration. On these lines Lorentz and Larmor have developed an electronic theory of matter, which is imagined in its essence to be a conglomerate of electric charges, with electro-magnetic inertia to explain mechanical inertia. (Larmor, "Aether and Matter", Cambridge, 1900.) The movement of electric charges would be affected by a magnetic field, and hence the discovery by Zeeman that the spectral lines of sodium were doubled by a strong magnetic force gave confirmatory evidence to the theory of electrons. Then came J.J. Thomson's great discovery of minute particles, much smaller than any chemical atom, forming a common constituent of many different kinds of matter. (Thomson, "Conduction of Electricity through Gases" (2nd edition), Cambridge, 1906.) If an electric discharge be passed between metallic terminals through a glass vessel containing air at very low pressure, it is found that rectilinear rays, known as cathode rays, proceed from the surface of the cathode or negative terminal. Where these rays strike solid objects, they give rise to the Rontgen rays now so well known; but it is with the cathode rays themselves that we are concerned. When they strike an insulated conductor, they impart to it a negative charge, and Thomson found that they were deflected from their path both by magnetic and electric forces in the direction in which negatively electrified particles would be deflected. Cathode rays then were accepted as flights of negatively charged particles, moving with high velocities. The electric and magnetic deflections give two independent measurements which may be made on a cathode ray, and both the deflections involve theoretically three unknown quantities, the mass of the particles, their electric charge and their velocity. There is strong cumulative evidence that all such particles possess the same charge, which is identical with that associated with a univalent atom in electrolytic liquids. The number of unknown quantities was thus reduced to two--the mass and the velocity. The measurement of the magnetic and electric deflections gave two independent relations between the unknowns, which could therefore be determined. The velocities of the cathode ray particles were found to vary round a value about one-tenth that of light, but the mass was found always to be the same within the limits of error, whatever the nature of the terminals, of the residual gas in the vessel, and of the conditions of the experiment. The mass of a cathode ray particle, or corpuscle, as Thomson, adopting Newton's name, called it, is about the eight-hundredth part of the mass of a hydrogen atom. These corpuscles, found in so many different kinds of substance, are inevitably regarded as a common constituent of matter. They are associated each with a unit of negative electricity. Now electricity in motion possesses electromagnetic energy, and produces effects like those of mechanical inertia. In other words, an electric charge possesses mass, and there is evidence to show that the effective mass of a corpuscle increases as its velocity approaches that of light in the way it would do if all its mass were electromagnetic. We are led therefore to regard the corpuscle from one aspect as a disembodied charge of electricity, and to identify it with the electron of Lorentz and Larmor. Thus, on this theory, matter and electricity are identified; and a great simplification of our conception of the physical structure of Nature is reached. Moreover, from our present point of view, a common basis for matter suggests or implies a common origin, and a process of development possibly intelligible to our minds. The idea of the evolution of matter becomes much more probable. The question of the nature and physical meaning of a corpuscle or electron remains for consideration. On the hypothesis of a universal luminiferous aether, Larmor has suggested a centre of aethereal strain "a place where the continuity of the medium has been broken and cemented together again (to use a crude but effective image) without accurately fitting the parts, so that there is a residual strain all round the place." (Larmor, loc. cit.) Thus he explains in quasi-mechanical terms the properties of an electron. But whether we remain content for the time with our identification of matter and electricity, or attempt to express both of them in terms of hypothetical aether, we have made a great step in advance on the view that matter is made up of chemical atoms fundamentally distinct and eternally isolated. Such was the position when the phenomena of radio-activity threw a new light on the problem, and, for the first time in the history of science, gave definite experimental evidence of the transmutation of matter from one chemical element to another. In 1896 H. Becquerel discovered that compounds of the metal uranium continually emitted rays capable of penetrating opaque screens and affecting photographic plates. Like cathode and Rontgen rays, the rays from uranium make the air through which they pass a conductor of electricity, and this property gives the most convenient method of detecting the rays and of measuring their intensity. An electroscope may be made of a strip of gold-leaf attached to an insulated brass plate and confined in a brass vessel with glass windows. When the gold-leaf is electrified, it is repelled from the similarly electrified brass plate, and the angle at which it stands out measures the electrification. Such a system, if well insulated, holds its charge for hours, the leakage of electricity through the air being very slow. But, if radio-active radiation reach the air within, the gold-leaf falls, and the rate of its fall, as watched through a microscope with a scale in the eye-piece, measures the intensity of the radiation. With some form of this simple instrument, or with the more complicated quadrant electrometer, most radio-active measurements have been made. It was soon discovered that the activity of uranium compounds was proportional to the amount of uranium present in them. Thus radio-activity is an atomic property dependent on the amount of an element and independent of its state of chemical combination. In a search for radio-activity in different minerals, M. and Mme Curie found a greater effect in pitch-blende than its contents of uranium warranted, and, led by the radio-active property alone, they succeeded, by a long series of chemical separations, in isolating compounds of a new and intensely radio-active substance which they named radium. Radium resembles barium in its chemical properties, and is precipitated with barium in the ordinary course of chemical analysis. It is separated by a prolonged course of successive crystallisation, the chloride of radium being less soluble than that of barium, and therefore sooner separated from an evaporating solution. When isolated, radium chloride has a composition, which, on the assumption that one atom of metal combines with two of chlorine as in barium chloride, indicates that the relative weight of the atom of radium is about 225. As thus prepared, radium is a well-marked chemical element, forming a series of compounds analogous to those of barium and showing a characteristic line spectrum. But, unlike most other chemical elements, it is intensely radio-active, and produces effects some two million times greater than those of uranium. In 1899 E. Rutherford, then of Montreal, discovered that the radiation from uranium, thorium and radium was complex. (Rutherford, "Radio-activity" (2nd edition), Cambridge, 1905.) Three types of rays were soon distinguished. The first, named by Rutherford alpha-rays, are absorbed by thin metal foil or a few centimetres of air. When examined by measurements of the deflections caused by magnetic and electric fields, the alpha-rays are found to behave as would positively electrified particles of the magnitude of helium atoms possessing a double ionic charge and travelling with a velocity about one-tenth that of light. The second or beta type of radiation is much more penetrating. It will pass through a considerable thickness of metallic foil, or many centimetres of air, and still affect photographic plates or discharge electroscopes. Magnetic and electric forces deflect beta-rays much more than alpha-rays, indicating that, although the speed is greater, approaching in some cases within five per cent. that of light, the mass is very much less. The beta-rays must be streams of particles, identical with those of cathode rays, possessing the minute mass of J.J. Thomson's corpuscle, some eight-hundredth part of that of a hydrogen atom. A third or gamma type of radiation was also detected. More penetrating even than beta-rays, the gamma-rays have never been deflected by any magnetic or electric force yet applied. Like Rontgen rays, it is probable that gamma-rays are wave-pulses in the luminiferous aether, though the possibility of explaining them as flights of non-electrified particles is before the minds of some physicists. Still another kind of radiation has been discovered more recently by Thomson, who has found that in high vacua, rays become apparent which are absorbed at once by air at any ordinary pressure. The emission of all these different types of radiation involves a continual drain of energy from the radio-active body. When M. and Mme Curie had prepared as much as a gramme of radium chloride, the energy of the radiation became apparent as an evolution of heat. The radium salt itself, and the case containing it, absorbed the major part of the radiation, and were thus maintained at a temperature measurably higher than that of the surroundings. The rate of thermal evolution was such that it appeared that one gramme of pure radium must emit about 100 gramme-calories of heat in an hour. This observation, naturally as it follows from the phenomena previously discovered, first called attention to the question of the source of the energy which maintains indefinitely and without apparent diminution the wonderful stream of radiation proceeding from a radio-active substance. In the solution of this problem lies the point of the present essay. In order to appreciate the evidence which bears on the question we must now describe two other series of phenomena. It is a remarkable fact that the intensity of the radiation from a radio-active body is independent of the external conditions of temperature, pressure, etc. which modify so profoundly almost all other physical and chemical processes. Exposure to the extreme cold of liquid air, or to the great heat of a furnace, leaves the radio-activity of a substance unchanged, apparent exceptions to this statement having been traced to secondary causes. Then, it is found that radio-activity is always accompanied by some chemical change; a new substance always appears as the parent substance emits these radiations. Thus by chemical reactions it is possible to separate from uranium and thorium minute quantities of radio-active materials to which the names of uranium-X and thorium-X have been given. These bodies behave differently from their parents uranium and thorium, and show all the signs of distinct chemical individuality. They are strongly radio-active, while, after the separation, the parents uranium and thorium are found to have lost some of their radio-activity. If the X-substances be kept, their radio-activity decays, while that of the uranium or thorium from which they were obtained gradually rises to the initial value it had before the separation. At any moment, the sum of the radio-activity is constant, the activity lost by the product being equal to that gained by the parent substance. These phenomena are explained if we suppose that the X-product is slowly produced in the substance of the parent, and decays at a constant rate. Uranium, as usually seen, contains a certain amount of uranium-X, and its radio-activity consists of two parts--that of the uranium itself, and that of the X product. When the latter is separated by means of its chemical reactions, its radio-activity is separated also, and the rates of decay and recovery may be examined. Radium and thorium, but not uranium, give rise to radio-active gases which have been called emanations. Rutherford has shown that their radio-activity, like that of the X products, suffers decay, while the walls of the vessel in which the emanation is confined, become themselves radio-active. If washed with certain acids, however, the walls lose their activity, which is transferred to the acid, and can be deposited by evaporation from it on to a solid surface. Here again it is clear that the emanation gives rise to a radio-active substance which clings to the walls of the vessel, and is soluble in certain liquids, but not in others. We shall return to this point, and trace farther the history of the radio-active matter. At present we wish to emphasise the fact that, as in other cases, the radio-activity of the emanation is accompanied by the appearance of a new kind of substance with distinct chemical properties. We are now in a position to consider as a whole the evidence on the question of the source of radio-active energy. (1) Radio-activity is accompanied by the appearance of new chemical substances. The energy liberated is therefore probably due to the associated chemical change. (2) The activity of a series of compounds is found to accompany the presence of a radio-active element, the activity of each compound depends only on the contents of the element, and is independent of the nature of its combination. Thus radio-activity is a property of the element, and is not affected by its state of isolation or chemical combination. (3) The radio-activity of a simple transient product decays in a geometrical progression, the loss per second being proportional to the mass of substance still left at the moment, and independent of its state of concentration or dilution. This type of reaction is well known in chemistry to mark a mono-molecular change, where each molecule is dissociated or altered in structure independently. If two or more molecules were concerned simultaneously, the rate of reaction would depend on the nearness of the molecules to each other, that is, to the concentration of the material. (4) The amount of energy liberated by the change of a given mass of material far transcends the amount set free by any known ordinary chemical action. The activity of radium decays so slowly that it would not sink to half its initial value in less than some two thousand years, and yet one gramme of radium emits about 100 calories of heat during each hour of its existence. The energy of radio-activity is due to chemical change, but clearly to no chemical change hitherto familiar to science. It is an atomic property, characteristic of a given element, and the atoms undergo the change individually, not by means of interaction among each other. The conclusion is irresistible that we are dealing with a fundamental change in the structure of the individual atoms, which, one by one, are dissociating into simpler parts. We are watching the disintegration of the "atoms" of the chemist, hitherto believed indestructible and eternal, and measuring the liberation of some of the long-suspected store of internal atomic energy. We have stumbled on the transmutation dreamed by the alchemist, and discovered the process of a veritable evolution of matter. The transmutation theory of radio-activity was formulated by Rutherford (Rutherford, "Radio-activity" (2nd edition), Cambridge, 1905, page 307.) and Soddy in 1903. By its light, all recent work on the subject has been guided; it has stood the supreme test of a hypothesis, and shown power to suggest new investigations and to co-ordinate and explain them, when carried out. We have summarised the evidence which led to the conception of the theory; we have now to consider the progress which has been made in tracing the successive disintegration of radio-active atoms. Soon after the statement of the transmutation theory, a striking verification of one of its consequences appeared. The measurement of the magnetic and electric deflection of the alpha-rays suggested to Rutherford the idea that the stream of projectiles of which they consisted was a flight of helium atoms. Ramsay and Soddy, confining a minute bubble of radium emanation in a fine glass tube, were able to watch the development of the helium spectrum as, day by day, the emanation decayed. By isolating a very narrow pencil of alpha-rays, and watching through a microscope their impact on a fluorescent screen, Rutherford has lately counted the individual alpha-projectiles, and confirmed his original conclusion that their mass corresponded to that of helium atoms and their charge to double that on a univalent atom. ("Proc. Roy. Soc." A, page 141, 1908.) Still more recently, he has collected the alpha-particles shot through an extremely thin wall of glass, and demonstrated by direct spectroscopic evidence the presence of helium. ("Phil. Mag." February 1909.) But the most thorough investigation of a radio-active pedigree is found in Rutherford's classical researches on the successive disintegration products of radium, in order to follow the evidence on which his results are founded, we must describe more fully the process of decay of the activity of a simple radio-active substance. The decay of activity of the body known as uranium-X is shown in a falling curve (Fig. 1.). It will be seen that, in each successive 22 days, the activity falls to half the value it possessed at the beginning. This change in a geometrical progression is characteristic of simple radio-active processes, and can be expressed mathematically by a simple exponential formula. As we have said above, solid bodies exposed to the emanations of radium or thorium become coated with a radio-active deposit. The rate of decay of this activity depends on the time of exposure to the emanation, and does not always show the usual simple type of curve. Thus the activity of a rod exposed to radium emanation for 1 minute decays in accordance with a curve (Fig. 2) which represents the activity as measured by the alpha-rays. If the electroscope be screened from the alpha-rays, it is found that the activity of the rod in beta- an gamma-rays increases for some 35 minutes and then diminishes (Fig. 3.). These complicated relations have been explained satisfactorily and completely by Rutherford on the hypothesis of successive changes of the radio-active matter into one new body after another. (Rutherford, "Radio-activity" (2nd edition), Cambridge, 1905, page 379.) The experimental curve represents the resultant activity of all the matter present at a given moment, and the process of disentangling the component effects consists in finding a number of curves, which express the rise and fall of activity of each kind of matter as it is produced and decays, and, fitted together, give the curve of the experiments. Other methods of investigation also are open. They have enabled Rutherford to complete the life-history of radium and its products, and to clear up doubtful points left by the analysis of the curves. By the removal of the emanation, the activity of radium itself has been shown to consist solely of alpha-rays. This removal can be effected by passing air through the solution of a radium salt. The emanation comes away, and the activity of the deposit which it leaves behind decays rapidly to a small fraction of its initial value. Again, some of the active deposits of the emanation are more volatile than others, and can be separated from them by the agency of heat. From such evidence Rutherford has traced a long series of disintegration products of radium, all but the first of which exist in much too minute quantities to be detected otherwise than by their radio-activities. Moreover, two of these products are not themselves appreciably radio-active, though they are born from radio-active parents, and give rise to a series of radio-active descendants. Their presence is inferred from such evidence as the rise of beta and gamma radio-activity in the solid newly deposited by the emanation; this rise measuring the growth of the first radio-active offspring of one of the non-active bodies. Some of the radium products give out alpha-rays only, one beta- and gamma-rays, while one yields all three types of radiation. The pedigree of the radium family may be expressed in the following table, the time noted in the second column being the time required for a given quantity to be half transformed into its next derivative. Time of half Radio- Properties decay activity Radium About 2600 years alpha rays Element chemically analogous to barium. Emanation 3.8 days alpha rays Chemically inert gas; condenses at -150 deg C. Radium-A 3 minutes alpha rays Behaves as a solid deposited on surfaces; concentrated on a negative electrode. Radium-B 21 minutes no rays Soluble in strong acids; volatile at a white heat; more volatile than A or C. Radium-C 28 minutes alpha, beta, Soluble in strong acids; less gamma rays volatile than B. Radium-D about 40 years no rays Soluble in strong acids; volatile below 1000 deg C. Radium-E 6 days beta, gamma Non-volatile at 1000 deg C. rays Radium-F 143 days alpha rays Volatile at 1000 deg C. Deposited from solution on a bismuth plate. Of these products, A, B, and C constitute that part of the active deposit of the emanation which suffers rapid decay and nearly disappears in a few hours. Radium-D, continually producing its short-lived descendants E and F, remains for years on surfaces once exposed to the emanation, and makes delicate radio-active researches impossible in laboratories which have been contaminated by an escape of radium emanation. A somewhat similar pedigree has been made out in the case of thorium. Here thorium-X is interposed between thorium and its short-lived emanation, which decays to half its initial quantity in 54 seconds. Two active deposits, thorium A and B, arise successively from the emanation. In uranium, we have the one obvious derivative uranium-X, and the question remains whether this one descent can be connected with any other individual or family. Uranium is long-lived, and emits only alpha-rays. Uranium-X decays to half value in 22 days, giving out beta- and gamma-rays. Since our evidence goes to show that radio-activity is generally accompanied by the production of new elements, it is natural to search for the substance of uranium-X in other forms, and perhaps under other names, rather than to surrender immediately our belief in the conservation of matter. With this idea in mind we see at once the significance of the constitution of uranium minerals. Formed in the remote antiquity of past geological ages, these minerals must become store-houses of all the products of uranium except those which may have escaped as gases or possibly liquids. Even gases may be expected to some extent to be retained by occlusion. Among the contents of uranium minerals, then, we may look for the descendants of the parent uranium. If the descendants are permanent or more long-lived than uranium, they will accumulate continually. If they are short-lived, they will accumulate at a steady rate till enough is formed for the quantity disintegrating to be equal to the quantity developed. A state of mobile equilibrium will then be reached, and the amount of the product will remain constant. This constant amount of substance will depend only on the amount of uranium which is its source, and, for different minerals, if all the product is retained, the quantity of the product will be proportional to the quantity of uranium. In a series of analyses of uranium minerals, therefore, we ought to be able to pick out its more short-lived descendants by seeking for instances of such proportionality. Now radium itself is a constituent of uranium minerals, and two series of experiments by R.J. Strutt and B.B. Boltwood have shown that the content of radium, as measured by the radio-activity of the emanation, is directly proportional to the content of uranium. (Strutt, "Proc. Roy. Soc." A, February 1905; Boltwood, "Phil. Mag." April, 1905.) In Boltwood's investigation, some twenty minerals, with amounts of uranium varying from that in a specimen of uraninite with 74.65 per cent., to that in a monazite with 0.30 per cent., gave a ratio of uranium to radium, constant within about one part in ten. The conclusion is irresistible that radium is a descendant of uranium, though whether uranium is its parent or a more remote ancestor requires further investigation by the radio-active genealogist. On the hypothesis of direct parentage, it is easy to calculate that the amount of radium produced in a month by a kilogramme of a uranium salt would be enough to be detected easily by the radio-activity of its emanation. The investigation has been attempted by several observers, and the results, especially those of a careful experiment of Boltwood, show that from purified uranium salts the growth of radium, if appreciable at all, is much less than would be found if the radium was the first product of change of the uranium. It is necessary, therefore, to look for one or more intermediate substances. While working in 1899 with the uranium residues used by M. and Mme Curie for the preparation of radium, Debierne discovered and partially separated another radio-active element which he called actinium. It gives rise to an intermediate product actinium-X, which yields an emanation with the short half-life of 3.9 seconds. The emanation deposits two successive disintegration products actinium-A and actinium-B. Evidence gradually accumulated that the amounts of actinium in radio-active minerals were, roughly at any rate, proportional to the amounts of uranium. This result pointed to a lineal connection between them, and led Boltwood to undertake a direct attack on the problem. Separating a quantity of actinium from a kilogramme of ore, Boltwood observed a growth of 8.5 x (10 to the power -9) gramme of radium in 193 days, agreeing with that indicated by theory within the limits of experimental error. ("American Journal of Science", December, 1906.) We may therefore insert provisionally actinium and its series of derivatives between uranium and radium in the radio-active pedigree. Turning to the other end of the radium series we are led to ask what becomes of radium-F when in turn it disintegrates? What is the final non-active product of the series of changes we have traced from uranium through actinium and radium? One such product has been indicated above. The alpha-ray particles appear to possess the mass of helium atoms, and the growth of helium has been detected by its spectrum in a tube of radium emanation. Moreover, helium is found occluded in most if not all radio-active minerals in amount which approaches, but never exceeds, the quantity suggested by theory. We may safely regard such helium as formed by the accumulation of alpha-ray particles given out by successive radio-active changes. In considering the nature of the residue left after the expulsion of the five alpha-particles, and the consequent passage of radium to radium-F we are faced by the fact that lead is a general constituent of uranium minerals. Five alpha-particles, each of atomic weight 4, taken from the atomic weight (about 225) of radium gives 205--a number agreeing fairly well with the 207 of lead. Since lead is more permanent than uranium, it must steadily accumulate, no radio-active equilibrium will be reached, and the amount of lead will depend on the age of the mineral as well as on the quantity of uranium present in it. In primary minerals from the same locality, Boltwood has shown that the contents of lead are proportional to the amounts of uranium, while, accepting this theory, the age of minerals with a given content of uranium may be calculated from the amount of lead they contain. The results vary from 400 to 2000 million years. ("American Journal of Science", October, 1905, and February, 1907.) We can now exhibit in tabular form the amazing pedigree of radio-active change shown by this one family of elements. An immediate descent is indicated by >, while one which may either be immediate or involve an intermediate step is shown by.... No place is found in this pedigree for thorium and its derivatives. They seem to form a separate and independent radio-active family. Atomic Weight Time of half Radio-Activity decay Uranium 238.5 alpha Uranium-X ? 22 days beta, gamma ... Actinium ? ? no rays Actinium-X ? 10.2 days alpha (beta, gamma) Actinium Emanation ? 3.9 seconds alpha Actinium-A ? 35.7 minutes no rays Actinium-B ? 2.15 minutes alpha, beta, gamma ... Radium 225 about 2600 years alpha Radium Emanation ? 3.8 days alpha Radium-A ? 3 minutes alpha Radium-B ? 21 minutes no rays Radium-C ? 28 minutes alpha, beta, gamma Radium-D ? about 40 years no rays Radium-E ? 6 days beta (gamma) Radium-F ? 143 days alpha ... Lead 207 ? no rays As soon as the transmutation theory of radio-activity was accepted, it became natural to speculate about the intimate structure of the radio-active atoms, and the mode in which they broke up with the liberation of some of their store of internal energy. How could we imagine an atomic structure which would persist unchanged for long periods of time, and yet eventually spontaneously explode, as here an atom and there an atom reached a condition of instability? The atomic theory of corpuscles or electrons fortunately was ready to be applied to this new problem. Of the resulting speculations the most detailed and suggestive is that of J.J. Thomson. ("Phil. Mag." March, 1904.) Thomson regards the atom as composed of a number of mutually repelling negative corpuscles or electrons held together by some central attractive force which he represents by supposing them immersed in a uniform sphere of positive electricity. Under the action of the two forces, the electrons space themselves in symmetrical patterns, which depend on the number of electrons. Three place themselves at the corner of an equilateral triangle, four at those of a square, and five form a pentagon. With six, however, the single ring becomes unstable, one corpuscle moves to the middle and five lie round it. But if we imagine the system rapidly to rotate, the centrifugal force would enable the six corpuscles to remain in a single ring. Thus internal kinetic energy would maintain a configuration which would become unstable as the energy drained away. Now in a system of electrons, electromagnetic radiation would result in a loss of energy, and at one point of instability we might well have a sudden spontaneous redistribution of the constituents, taking place with an explosive violence, and accompanied by the ejection of a corpuscle as a beta-ray, or of a large fragment of the atom as an alpha-ray. The discovery of the new property of radio-activity in a small number of chemical elements led physicists to ask whether the property might not be found in other elements, though in a much less striking form. Are ordinary materials slightly radio-active? Does the feeble electric conductivity always observed in the air contained within the walls of an electroscope depend on ionizing radiations from the material of the walls themselves? The question is very difficult, owing to the wide distribution of slight traces of radium. Contact with radium emanation results in a deposit of the fatal radium-D, which in 40 years is but half removed. Is the "natural" leak of a brass electroscope due to an intrinsic radio-activity of brass, or to traces of a radio-active impurity on its surface? Long and laborious researches have succeeded in establishing the existence of slight intrinsic radio-activity in a few metals such as potassium, and have left the wider problem still unsolved. It should be noted, however, that, even if ordinary elements are not radio-active, they may still be undergoing spontaneous disintegration. The detection of ray-less changes by Rutherford, when those changes are interposed between two radio-active transformations which can be followed, show that spontaneous transmutation is possible without measureable radio-activity. And, indeed, any theory of disintegration, such as Thomson's corpuscular hypothesis, would suggest that atomic rearrangements are of much more general occurrence than would be apparent to one who could observe them only by the effect of the projectiles, which, in special cases, owing to some peculiarity of atomic configuration, happened to be shot out with the enormous velocity needed to ionize the surrounding gas. No evidence for such ray-less changes in ordinary elements is yet known, perhaps none may ever be obtained; but the possibility should not be forgotten. In the strict sense of the word, the process of atomic disintegration revealed to us by the new science of radio-activity can hardly be called evolution. In each case radio-active change involves the breaking up of a heavier, more complex atom into lighter and simpler fragments. Are we to regard this process as characteristic of the tendencies in accord with which the universe has reached its present state, and is passing to its unknown future? Or have we chanced upon an eddy in a backwater, opposed to the main stream of advance? In the chaos from which the present universe developed, was matter composed of large highly complex atoms, which have formed the simpler elements by radio-active or ray-less disintegration? Or did the primaeval substance consist of isolated electrons, which have slowly come together to form the elements, and yet have left here and there an anomaly such as that illustrated by the unstable family of uranium and radium, or by some such course are returning to their state of primaeval simplicity? INDEX. Abraxas grossulariata. Acquired characters, transmission of. Acraea johnstoni. Adaptation. Adloff. Adlumia cirrhosa. Agassiz, A. Agassiz, L. Alexander. Allen, C.A. Alternation of generations. Ameghino. Ammon, O., Works of. Ammonites, Descent of. Amphidesmus analis. Anaea divina. Andrews, C.W. Angiosperms, evolution of. Anglicus, Bartholomaeus. Ankyroderma. Anomma. Antedon rosacea. Antennularia antennina. Anthropops. Ants, modifications of. Arber, E.A.N.,--and J. Parkin, on the origin of Angiosperms. Archaeopteryx. Arctic regions, velocity of development of life in. Ardigo. Argelander. Argyll, Huxley and the Duke of. Aristotle. Arrhenius. Asterias, Loeb on hybridisation of. Autogamy. Avena fatua. Avenarius. Bacon, on mutability of species. Baehr, von, on Cytology. Baer, law of von. Bain. Baldwin, J.M. Balfour, A.J. Ball, J. Barber, Mrs M.E., on Papilio nireus. Barclay, W. Barratt. Bary, de. Bates, H.W., on Mimicry.--Letters from Darwin to.--elsewhere. Bateson, A. BATESON, W., on "Heredity and Variation in Modern lights".--on discontinuous evolution.--on hybridisation. Bateson, W. and R.P. Gregory. Bathmism. Beche, de la. Beck, P. Becquerel, H. Beebe, C.W., on the plumage of birds.--on sexual selection. Beguyer de Chancourtois. Bell's (Sir Charles) "Anatomy of Expression". Belopolsky. Belt, T., on Mimicry. Beneden, E. van. Benson, M. Bentham, G., on Darwin's species-theory.--on geographical distribution. Bentham, Jeremy. Bergson, H. Berkeley. Berthelot. Betham, Sir W. Bickford, E., experiments on degeneration by. Bignonia capreolata. Biophores. Birds, geological history of. Blanford, W.T. Blaringhem, on wounding. Blumenbach. Bodin. Boltwood, B.B. Bonald, on war. Bonnet. Bonney, T.G. Bonnier, G. Bopp, F., on language. BOUGLE C., on "Darwinism and Sociology". Bourdeau. Bourget, P. Boutroux. Boveri, T. Brachiopods, history of. Brassica, hybrids of. Brassica Napus. Broca. Brock, on Kant. Brown, Robert. Brugmann and Osthoff. Brugmann. Brunetiere. Bruno, on Evolution. Buch, von. Bucher, K. Buckland. Buckle. Buffon. Burchell, W.J. Burck, W. Burdon-Sanderson, J., letter from. BURY, J.B., on "Darwinism and History". Butler, A.G. Butler, Samuel. Butschli, O. Butterflies, mimicry in.--sexual characters in. Cabanis. Campbell. Camels, geological history of. Camerarius, R.J. Candolle, A. de. Cannon and Davenport, experiments on Daphniae by. Capsella bursapastoris. Carneri. Castnia linus. Catasetum barbatum. Catasetum tridentatum. Caterpillars, variation in. Celosia, variability of. Cereals, variability in. Cesnola, experiments on Mantis by. Chaerocampa, colouring of. Chambers, R., "The Vestiges of Creation" by. Chromosomes and Chromomeres. Chun. Cieslar, experiments by. Circumnutation, Darwin on. Claus. Cleistogamy. Clerke, Miss A. Clodd, E. Cluer. Clytus arietis. Coadaptation. Codrington. Cohen and Peter. Collingwood. Colobopsis truncata. Colour, E.B. Poulton on The Value in the Struggle for life of.--influence and temperature on changes in.--in relation to Sexual Selection. Colours, incidental.--warning. Comte, A. Condorcet. Cope. Coral reefs, Darwin's work on. Correlation of organisms, Darwin's idea of the. Correlation of parts. Corydalis claviculata. Cournot. Couteur, Col. Le. Crooks, Sir William. Cruger, on Orchids. Cunningham and Marchand, on the brain. Curie, M. and Mme. Cuvier. Cycadeoidea dacotensis. Cycads, geological history of. Cystidea, an ancient group. Cytology and heredity. Cytolysis and fertilisation. Czapek. Dalton's atomic theory. Dana, J.D., on marine faunas. Danaida chrysippus. Danaida genutia. Danaida plexippus. Dante. Dantec, Le, Darwin, Charles, as an Anthropologist.--on ants.--and the "Beagle" Voyage.--on the Biology of Flowers.--as a Botanist.--his influence on Botany.--and S. Butler.--at Cambridge.--on Cirripedia.--on climbing plants.--on colour.--on coral reefs.--on the Descent of Man.--his work on Drosera.--at Edinburgh.--his influence on Animal Embryology.--on Geographical Distribution.--his work on Earthworms.--evolutionist authors referred to in the "Origin" by.--and E. Forbes.--on the geological record.--and Geology.--his early love for geology.--his connection with the Geological Society of London.--and Haeckel.--and Henslow.--and History.--and Hooker.--and Huxley.--on ice-action.--on igneous rocks.--on Lamarck.--on Language.--his Scientific Library.--and the Linnean Society.--and Lyell.--and Malthus.--on Patrick Matthew.--on mental evolution.--on Mimicry.--a "Monistic Philosopher."--on the movements of plants.--on Natural Selection.--a "Naturalist for Naturalists."--on Paley. Darwin, Charles, his Pangenesis hypothesis.--on the permanence of continents.--his personality.--his influence on Philosophy.--predecessors of.--his views on religion, etc.--his influence on religious thought.--his influence on the study of religions.--his methods of research.--and Sedgwick.--on Sexual Selection.--the first germ of his species theory.--on H. Spencer.--causes of his success.--on Variation.--on the "Vestiges of Creation".--on volcanic islands.--and Wallace.--letter to Wallace from.--letter to E.B. Wilson from. Darwin, E., on the colour of animals.--Charles Darwin's reference to.--on evolution. DARWIN, F., on "Darwin's work on the Movements of Plants".--on Darwin as a botanist.--observations on Earthworms by.--on Lamarckism.--on Memory.--on Prichard's "Anticipations".--various. DARWIN, SIR G., on "The Genesis of Double Stars".--on the earth's mass. Darwin, H. Darwin, W. Darwinism, Sociology, Evolution and. Davenport and Cannon, experiments on Daphniae by. David, T.E., his work on Funafuti. Death, cause of natural. Debey, on Cretaceous plants. Debierne. Degeneration. Delage, experiments on parthenogenesis by. Delbruck. Democritus. Deniker. Descartes. Descent, history of doctrine of. "Descent of Man", G. Schwalbe on "The".--Darwin on Sexual Selection in "The".--rejection in Germany of "The". Desmatippus. Desmoulins, A., on Geographical Distribution. Detto. Development, effect of environment on. Dianthus caryophyllus. Diderot. Digitalis purpurea. Dimorphism, seasonal. Dismorphia astynome. Dismorphia orise. Distribution, H. Gadow on Geographical.--Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer on. Dittrick, O. Dixey, F.A., on the scent of Butterflies. Dolichonyx oryzivorus. Dorfmeister. Down, Darwin at. Draba verna. Dragomirov. Driesch, experiments by.--elsewhere. Drosera, Darwin's work on. Dryopithecus. Dubois, E., on Pithecanthropus. Duhring. Duhamel. Duncan, J.S. Duncan, P.B. Duns Scotus. Duret, C. Durkheim, on division of labour. Dutrochet. Echinoderms, ancestry of. Ecology. Eimer. Ekstam. Elephants, geological history of. Elymnias phegea. E. undularis. Embleton, A.L. Embryology, A. Sedgwick on the influence of Darwin on. Embryology, as a clue to Phylogeny.--the Origin of Species and. Empedocles. Engles. Environment, action of.--Klebs on the influence on plants of.--Loeb on experimental study in relation to. Eohippus. Epicurus, a poet of Evolution. Eristalis. Ernst. Ernst, A., on the Flora of Krakatau. Eschscholzia californica. Espinas. Eudendrium racemosum. Evolution, in relation to Astronomy.--and creation.--conception of.--discontinuous.--experimental.--factors of.--fossil plants as evidence of.--and language.--of matter, W.C.D. Whetham on.--mental.--Lloyd Morgan on mental factors in.--Darwinism and Social.--Saltatory.--Herbert Spencer on.--Uniformitarian.--Philosophers and modern methods of studying. Expression of the Emotions. Fabricius, J.C., on geographical distribution. Farmer, J.B. Farrer, Lord. Fearnsides, W.G. Felton, S., on protective resemblance. Ferri. Ferrier, his work on the brain. Fertilisation, experimental work on animal-. Fertilisation of Flowers. Fichte. Field, Admiral A.M. Fischer, experiments on Butterflies by. Fitting. Flemming, W. Flourens. Flowering plants, ancestry of. Flowers, K. Goebel on the Biology of. Flowers and Insects. Flowers, relation of external influences to the production of. Fol, H. Forbes, E.--and C. Darwin. Ford, S.O. and A.C. Seward, on the Araucarieae. Fossil Animals, W.B. Scott on their bearing on evolution. Fossil Plants, D.H. Scott on their bearing on evolution. Fouillee. Fraipont, on skulls from Spy. FRAZER, J.G., on "Some Primitive Theories of the Origin of Man".--various. Fruwirth. Fumaria officinalis. Funafuti, coral atoll of. Fundulus. F. heteroclitus. GADOW, H., on "Geographical Distribution of Animals".--elsewhere. Gartner, K.F. Gallus bankiva. Galton, F. Gamble, F.W. and F.W. Keeble. Gasca, La. Geddes, P. Geddes, P. and A.W. Thomson. Gegenbauer. Geikie, Sir A. Geitonogamy. Genetics. Geographical Distribution of Animals.--of Plants.--influence of "The Origin of Species" on.--Wallace's contribution to. Geography of former periods, reconstruction of. Geology, Darwin and. Geranium spinosum. Germ-plasm, continuity of.--Weismann on. Germinal Selection. Gibbon. Gilbert. GILES, P., on "Evolution and the Science of Language". Giuffrida-Ruggeri. Giotto. Gizycki. Glossopteris Flora. Gmelin. Godlewski, on hybridisation. GOEBEL, K., on "The Biology of Flowers".--his work on Morphology. Goethe and Evolution.--on the relation between Man and Mammals.--elsewhere. Goldfarb. Gondwana Land. Goodricke, J. Gore, Dr. Gorjanovic-Kramberger. Gosse, P.H. Grabau, A.W., on Fusus. Grand'Eury, F.C., on fossil plants. Grapta C. album. Gravitation, effect on life-phenomena of. Gray, Asa. Gregoire, V. Groom, T.T., on heliotropism. Groos. Grunbaum, on the brain. Guignard, L. Gulick. Guppy, on plant-distribution. Guyau. Gwynne-Vaughan, D.T., on Osmundaceae. Gymnadenia conopsea. Haberlandt, G. Haddon, A.C. HAECKEL, E., on "Charles Darwin as an Anthropologist".--on Colour.--and Darwin.--on the Descent of Man.--contributions to Evolution by. Haeckel, E., on Lamarck.--on Language.--a leader in the Darwinian controversy.--on Lyell's influence on Darwin.--various. Hacker. Hagedoorn, on hybridisation. Hales, S. Hansen. Harker, A. HARRISON, J.E., on "The Influence of Darwinism on the Study of Religions". Hartmann, von. Harvey. Haupt, P., on Language. Haycraft. Hays, W.M. Hegel. Heliconius narcaea. Heliotropism in animals. Henslow, Rev. J.S. and Darwin. Hensen, Van. Herbst, his experiments on sea urchins. Heracleitus. Herder. Heredity and Cytology.--Haeckel on.--and Variation.--various. Hering, E., on Memory. Herschel, J. Hertwig, R. Hertwig, O. Hertz. Heteromorphosis. Heterostylism. Heuser, E. Hewitt. Heyse's theory of language. Hinde, G.J., his work on Funafuti. Hipparion. Hippolyte cranchii. Hirase. History, Darwin and. Hobbes, T. Hobhouse. HOFFDING, H., on "The Influence of the Conception of Evolution on Modern Philosophy". Hofmeister, W. Holmes, S.J., on Arthropods. Holothurians, calcareous bodies in skin of. Homo heidelbergensis. Homo neandertalensis. Homo pampaeus. Homo primigenius. Homunculus. Hooker, Sir J.D., and Darwin.--on Distribution of Plants.--on Ferns.--Letter to the Editor from. Horner, L. Horse, Geological history of the. Huber. Hubert and Mauss. Hubrecht, A.R.W. Hugel, F. von. Humboldt, A. von. Humboldt, W. von. Hume. Hutcheson. Hutton. Huxley, T.H., and Darwin.--and the Duke of Argyll.--on Embryology.--on Geographical Distribution.--on Lamarck.--Letter to J.W. Judd from.--on Lyell.--on Man.--on "The Origin of Species".--on Selection.--on Teleology.--on transmission of acquired characters.--various. Hybridisation. Hybrids, Sterility of. Hyracodon. Iberis umbellata. Ikeno. Imperfection of the Geological Record. Ingenhousz, on plant physiology. Inheritance of acquired characters. Insects and Flowers. Instinct. Instincts, experimental control of animal. Ipomaea purpurea. Irish Elk, an example of co-adaptation. Jacobian figures. Jacoby, "Studies in Selection" by. James, W. Janczewski. Jeans, J.H. Jennings, H.S., on Paramoecium. Jentsch. Jespersen, Prof., Theory of. Johannsen, on Species. Jones, Sir William, on Language. Jordan. JUDD, J.W., on "Darwin and Geology". Kallima, protective colouring of. Kallima inachis. Kammerer's experiments on Salamanders. Kant, I. Keane, on the Primates. Keeble, F.W. and F.W. Gamble, on Colour-change. Keith, on Anthropoid Apes. Kellogg, V., on heliotropism. Kepler. Kerguelen Island. Kidd. Kidston, R., on fossil plants. Killmann, on origin of human races. King, Sir George. Klaatsch, on Ancestry of Man. Klaatsch and Hauser. KLEBS, G., on "The influence of Environment on the forms of plants". Kniep. Knies. Knight, A., experiments on plants by.--on Geotropism. Knight-Darwin law. Knuth. Kolliker, his views on Evolution. Kolreuter, J.G. Kohl. Korschinsky. Kowalevsky, on fossil horses. Krakatau, Ernst on the Flora of. Krause, E. Kreft, Dr. Kropotkin. Kupelwieser, on hybridisation. Lagopus hyperboreus. Lamarck, his division of the Animal Kingdom.--Darwin's opinion of.--on Evolution.--on Man.--various. Lamarckian principle. Lamb, C. Lamettrie. Lamprecht. Lanessan, J.L. de. Lang. Lange. Language, Darwin on.--Evolution and the Science of.--various. Lankester, Sir E. Ray, on degeneration.--on educability.--on the germ-plasm theory.--elsewhere. Lapouge, Vacher de. Larmor, J. Lartet, M.E. Lassalle. Lathyrus odoratus. Lavelaye, de. Lawrence, W. Lehmann. Lehmann-Nitsche. Leibnitz. Lepidium Draba. Lepidoptera, variation in. Leskien, A., on language. Lessing. Leucippus. Levi, E. Lewes, G.H. Lewin, Capt. Liapounoff. Liddon, H.P. Light, effect on organisms of. Limenitis archippus.--arthemis. Linnaeus. Livingstone, on plant-forms. Llamas, geological history of. Lockyer, Sir N. Locy, W.A. LOEB, J., on "The Experimental Study of the influence of environment on Animals. Loew, E. Longstaff, G.B., on the Scents of Butterflies. Lorentz. Lotsy, J.P. Love, A.E.W. Lovejoy. Lubbock. Lucas, K. Lucretius, a poet of Evolution. Lumholtz, C. Luteva macrophthalma. Lycorea halia. Lyell, Sir Charles, and Darwin.--the influence of.--on geographical distribution.--on "The Origin of Species".--on the permanence of Ocean-basins.--publication of the "Principles" by.--the uniformitarian teaching of. Lythrum salicaria. Macacus, ear of. MacDougal, on wounding. Mach, E. Macromytis flexuosa, colour-change in. Magic and religion. Mahoudeau. Maillet, de. Majewski. Malthus, his influence on Darwin.--various. Mammalia, history of. Man, Descent of.--J.G. Frazer on some primitive theories of the origin of.--mental and moral qualities of animals and.--pre-Darwinian views on the Descent of.--religious views of primitive.--Tertiary flints worked by. "Man", G. Schwalbe on Darwin's "Descent of". Manouvrier. Mantis religiosa, colour experiments on. Marett, R.R. Markwick. Marshall, G.A.K. Marx. Massart. Masters, M. Matonia pectinata. Matthew, P., and Natural Selection. Maupertuis. Maurandia semperflorens. Mauss and Herbert. Mauthner. Maxwell. Maxwell, Clerk. Mayer, R. Mechanitis lysimnia. Meehan, T. Meldola, R., Letters from Darwin to. Melinaea ethra. Mendel. Mendeleeff. Merrifield. Merz, J.T. Mesembryanthemum truncatum. Mesohippus. Mesopithecus. Metschnikoff. Mill, J.S. Mimicry.--H.W. Bates on.--F. Muller on. Mimulus luteus. Miquel, F.W.A. Mobius. Mohl, H. von. Moltke, on war. Monachanthus viridis. Monkeys, fossil. Montesquieu. Montgomery, T.H. Monstrosoties. Monticelli. Moore, J.E.S. MORGAN, C. LLOYD, on "Mental Factors in Evolution".--on Organic Selection. Morgan, T.H. Morse, E.S., on colour. Morselli. Mortillet. Moseley. Mottier, M. Muller, Fritz, "Fur Darwin" by.--on Mimicry. Muller, Fritz. Muller, J. Muller, Max, on language. Murray, A., on geographical distribution. Murray, G. Mutability. Mutation. Myanthus barbatus. Myers, G.W., on Eclipses. Nageli. Nathorst, A.G. Nathusius. Natural Selection, and adaptation.--Darwin's views on.--Darwin and Wallace on.--and design.--and educability.--Fossil plants in relation to.--and human development.--and Mimicry.--and Mutability.--various. Naudin. Neandertal skulls. Nemec. Neoclytus curvatus. Neodarwinism. Neumayr, M. Newton, A. Newton, I. Niebuhr. Nietzsche. Nilsson, on cereals. Nitsche. Noire. Noll. Novicow. Nuclear division. Nussbaum, M. Nuttall, G.H.F. Occam. Odin. Oecology, see Ecology. Oenothera biennis. Oenothera gigas. Oenothera Lamarckiana. Oenothera muricata. Oenothera nanella. Oestergren, on Holothurians. Oken, L. Oliver, F.W., on Palaeozoic Seeds. Ononis minutissima. Ophyrs apifera. Orchids, Darwin's work on the fertilisation of. Organic Selection. "Origin of Species", first draft of the.--geological chapter in the. Orthogenesis. Ortmann, A.E. Osborn, H.F.--"From the Greeks to Darwin" by. Osthoff and Brugmann. Ostwald, W. Ovibos moschatus. Owen, Sir Richard. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum at. Packard, A.S. Palaeontological Record, D.H. Scott on the.--W.B. Scott on the. Palaeopithecus. Paley. Palitzch, G. Palm. Pangenesis. Panmixia, Weismann's principle of. Papilio dardanus. Papilio meriones. Papilio merope. Papilio nireus. Paramoecium, Jennings on. Parker, G.H., on Butterflies. Parkin, J. and E.A.N. Arber, on the origin of Angiosperms. Parthenogenesis, artificial. Paul, H. and Wundt. Pearson, K. Peckham, Dr and Mrs, on the Attidae. Penck. Penzig. Peripatus, distribution of. Peridineae. Permanence of continents. Perrier, E. Perrhybris pyrrha. Perthes, B. de. Peter, on sea urchin's eggs. Petunia violacea. Pfeffer, W. Pfitzner, W. Pflueger. Phillips. Philosophy, influence of the conception of evolution on modern. Phryniscus nigricans. Phylogeny, embryology as a clue to.--Palaeontological evidence on. Physiology of plants, development of. Piccard, on Geotropism. Pickering, spectroscopic observations by. Piranga erythromelas. Pisum sativum. Pithecanthropus. Pitheculites. Planema epaea. Plants, Darwin's work on the movements of.--geographical distribution of.--Palaeontological record of fossil. Platanthera bifolia. Plate. Plato. Playfair. Pliopithecus. Pocock, R.I. Poincare. Polarity, Vochting on. Polymorphic species.--variability in cereals. Polypodium incanum. Porthesia chrysorrhoea. Potonie, R. Pouchet, G. POULTON, E.B., on "The Value of Colour in the Struggle for Life".--experiments on Butterflies by.--on J.C. Prichard.--on Mimicry.--various. Pratt. Pratz, du. Premutation. Preuss, K. Th. Prichard, J.C. Primula, heterostylism in. Primula acaulis. Primula elatior. Primula officinalis. Promeces viridis. Pronuba yuccasella. Protective resemblance. Protocetus. Protohippus. Psychology. Pteridophytes, history of. Pteridospermeae. Pucheran. Pusey. Quatrefages, A. de. Quetelet, statistical investigations by. Rabl, C. Radio-activity. Radiolarians. Raimannia odorata. Ramsay, Sir W. and Soddy. Ranke. Rau, A. Ray, J. Reade, Mellard. Recapitulation, the theory of. Reduction. Regeneration. Reid, C. Reinke. Religion, Darwin's attitude towards.--Darwin's influence on the study of.--and Magic. Religious thought, Darwin's influence on. Renard, on Darwin's work on volcanic islands. Reproduction, effect of environment on. Reptiles, history of. Reversion. Rhinoceros, the history of the. Ridley, H.N. Riley, C.V. Ritchie. Ritual. Roberts, A. Robertson, T.B. Robinet. Rolfe, R.A. Rolph. Romanes, G.J. Rothert. Roux. Rozwadowski, von. Ruskin. Rutherford, E. Rutot. Sachs, J. St Hilaire, E.G. de. Salamandra atra. Salamandra maculosa. Saltatory Evolution, (see also Mutations). Sanders, experiments on Vanessa by. Saporta, on the Evolution of Angiosperms. Sargant, Ethel, on the Evolution of Angiosperms. Savigny. Scardafella inca. Scent, in relation to Sexual Selection. Scharff, R.F. Schelling. Schlegel. Schleicher, A., on language. Schleiden and Schwann, Cell-theory of. Schmarda, L.K., on geographical distribution. Schoetensack, on Homo heidelbergensis. Schreiner, K.E. Schubler, on cereals. Schultze, O., experiments on Frogs. Schur. Schutt. SCHWALBE, G., on "The Descent of Man". Sclater, P.L., on geographical distribution. SCOTT, D.H., on "The Palaeontological Record (Plants)".--elsewhere. SCOTT, W.B., on "The Palaeontological Record (Animals)". Scrope. Scyllaea. Sechehaye, C.A. SEDGWICK, A., on "The Influence of Darwin on Animal Embryology". Sedgwick, A., Darwin's Geological Expedition with. Seeck, O. Seed-plants, origin of. Segregation. Selection, artificial.--germinal. Selection, natural (see Natural Selection).--organic.--sexual.--social and natural.--various. Selenka. Semnopithecus. Semon, R. Semper. Senebier. Senecio vulgaris. Sergi. Seward, A.C.--and S.O. Ford.--and J. Gowan. Sex, recent investigations on. Sharpe, D. Sherrington, C.S. Shirreff, P. Shrewsbury, Darwin's recollections of. Sibbern. Sinapis alba. Smerinthus ocellata. Smerinthus populi. Smerinthus tiliae. Smith, A. Smith, W. Snyder. Sociology, Darwinism and.--History and. Soddy. Sollas, W.J. Sorley, W.R. Species, Darwin's early work on transmutation of.--geographical distribution and origin of.--immutability of.--influence on environment on.--Lamarck on.--multiple origin of.--the nature of a.--polymorphic.--production by physico-chemical means of.--and varieties.--de Vries's work on. Spencer, H., on evolution.--on Lyell's "Principles".--on the nature of the living cell.--on primitive man.--on the theory of Selection.--on Sociology. Spencer, H., on the transmission of acquired characters.--on Weismann.--various. Sphingidae, variation in. Spinoza. Sports. Sprengel, C.K. Stability, principle of. Stahl. Standfuss. Stars, evolution of double. Stellaria media. Stephen, L. Sterility in hybrids. Sterne, C. Stockard, his experiments on fish embryos. STRASBURBER, E., on "The Minute Structure of Cells in relation to Heredity". Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Struggle for existence. Strutt, R.J. Stuart, A. Sturdee, F.C.D. Sutterlin, L. Sully. Sutton, A.W. Sutton, W.S. Svalof, agricultural station of. Swainson, W. Synapta, calcareous bodies in skin of. S. lappa. Syrphus. Tarde, G. Teleology and adaptation. Tennant, F.R. Teratology. Tetraprothomo. THISELTON-DYER, SIR WILLIAM, on "Geographical distribution of Plants".--on Burchell.--on protective resemblance.--elsewhere. THOMSON, J.A., on "Darwin's Predecessors.--elsewhere.--and P. Geddes. Thomson, Sir J.J. Theology, Darwin and. Tiedemann, F. Tooke, Horne. Totemism. Treschow. Treviranus. Trifolium pratense quinquefolium. Trigonias. Trilobites, phylogeny of. Tschermack. Turgot. Turner, Sir W. Twins, artificial production of. Tylor. Tyndall, W. Tyrrell, G. Uhlenhuth, on blood reactions. Underhill, E. Use and disuse. Vanessa. Vanessa antiope. Vanessa levana. Vanessa polychloros. Vanessa urticae. Van 't Hoff. Varanus Salvator. Variability, Darwin's attention directed to.--W. Bateson on.--and cultivation.--causes of.--polymorphic. Variation, continuous and discontinuous.--Darwin's views as an evolutionist, and as a systematist, on.--definite and indefinite.--environment and.--and heredity.--as seen in the life-history of an organism.--minute.--mutability and.--in relation to species.--H. de Vries on. Varigny, H. de. Varro, on language. Veronica chamaedrys. Verworn. "Vestiges of Creation", Darwin on "The". Vierkandt. Vilmorin, L. de. Virchow, his opposition to Darwin. Virchow, on the transmission of acquired characters. Vochting. Vogt, C. Voltaire. Volvox. VRIES, H. de, on "Variation"--the Mutation theory of. WAGGETT, REV. P.N., on "The Influence of Darwin upon religious thought". Wagner. Waldeyer, W. Wallace, A.R., on Malayan Butterflies.--on Colour.--and Darwin.--on the Descent of Man.--on distribution.--on Malthus.--on Natural Selection.--on the permanence of continents.--on social reforms.--on Sexual Selection. Waller, A.D. Walton. Watson, H.C. Watson, S. Watt, J., and Natural Selection. Watts, W.W. Wedgwood, L. Weir, J.J. WEISMANN, A., on "The Selection Theory".--on Amphimixis. Weismann, A., his germ-plasm theory.--on ontogeny.--and Prichard.--and Spencer.--on the transmission of acquired characters.--various. Wells, W.C., and Natural Selection. Weston, S., on language. WHETHAM, W.C.D., on "The Evolution of Matter". Whewell. White, G. Wichmann. Wieland, G.R., on fossil Cycads. Wiesner, on Darwin's work on plant movements. Williams, C.M. Williamson, W.C. Wilson, E.B., on cytology.--letter from Darwin to. Wolf. Wollaston's, T.V. "Variation of Species". Woltmann. Woolner. Wundt, on language. Xylina vetusta. Yucca, fertilisation of. Zeiller, R., on Fossil Plants. Zeller, E. Zimmermann, E.A.W. Zittel, on palaeontological research. "Zoonomia", Erasmus Darwin's.